Farmed Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)

(© Monterey Bay Aquarium)

United States Closed recirculating systems

5/23/2012 Ariel Zajdband, Seafood Watch

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

2

Final Seafood Recommendation

Tilapia from the US presents a final high overall score of 8.84, and therefore is ranked Best Choice overall.

Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus, O. mossambicus, O. aureus, O. spp. USA Closed recirculating systems

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 5.75 YELLOW N/A

C2 Effluent 9.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 7.87 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 8.10 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 10.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN N/A

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN N/A

Total 70.72

Final score 8.84

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 8.84

Initial rank GREEN

Red criteria 0

Interim rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank BEST CHOICE

Scoring note – scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.

3

Executive Summary U.S. Tilapia markets are dominated by imports as less than 5% of consumed tilapia is produced domestically. Tilapia production in the U.S. is mostly performed in the southern states, and more than 75% of the annual production is supplied by recirculating systems. Statistics on tilapia production in the US are often aggregated and not always updated. Even though research is performed by several institutions (e.g. US Department of Agriculture (USDA), universities) and results are published in peer-reviewed journals, information on current management practices and their associated impacts in tilapia production in the US are not always available. For instance, information on effluents, impacts on habitat, wildlife mortalities and feeds is scarce. Therefore, data quality and availability is considered to be moderate. The relative low wastes produced by US tilapia farms per ton of harvested fish (38.4 kg N) are treated in the same facility, disposed in external treatment plants or used to irrigate agricultural crops. The combination of appropriate effluent treatments, which determine that wastes are not directly released to a receiving water body, and strong regulations controlling waste discharge at regional levels results in the highest score for the effluent criterion. Most of US tilapia production is performed in recirculating systems located in the arid west and in the Northeast, involving minor risks in terms of ecosystem services. Regulations and enforcement controlling farm siting and licensing are considered to be moderate as an Environmental Impact Assessment is only required in a few states. The combination of the high score for habitat conversion and function, and the moderate score for regulatory or management effectiveness results in a relative high overall score for the habitat criterion. Although aquaculture operations can directly or indirectly cause the death of predators or other wildlife, most tilapia farms in the US are indoor facilities or ponds covered by greenhouse roofs, and isolated from wildlife and predators. In the case of outdoor ponds, non-lethal methods are used to frighten wild animals such as waterbirds. Therefore, it is considered that tilapia farms present no negative impacts in terms of wildlife and predators mortalities. Tilapia production in the US does not involve a frequent use of chemicals. Only eight drugs are fully approved for use in US aquaculture, and these are mostly used to treat or prevent diseases. Other chemicals, such as methyltestosterone used for sex reversal, can only be used with a special permit in hatcheries, which are closed systems. The low chemical use in tilapia production in the US determines a high score for this criterion. Tilapia feeds have a low inclusion level of marine ingredients (fishmeal and fish oil), moderate protein levels (around 30%), and are dominated by crop-derived ingredients. Furthermore, the Feed Conversion Ratio is around 1.4, (i.e. 1.4 pounds of feed are required to get a pound of fish). These characteristics determine a low Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) ratio (0.42), a negative balance of protein as a result of tilapia production (35.8% of protein in inputs is lost), and a low

4

feed footprint (1.08 hectares). The combination of these partial factors results in a high score for the feed criterion. Tilapia is a highly successful invasive species in temperate and subtropical aquatic environments. It was introduced during the 1960s to the US and there are some established populations in the wild. However, the risk of escape in US tilapia farms is very low. Tilapia production in the US is fully independent from international live animal shipments and from wild sources of stock as well. One hundred percent of tilapia stock is produced in 28 hatcheries across the US. US tilapia farms are characterized by high stocking densities and water reuse. These might lead to high stress level in fish that favors the amplification of pathogens and parasites. Bacterial diseases such as Streptococcus or Vibrio have been reported in tilapia operations. However, tilapia operations are closed facilities. As tilapia farms are not connected to wild populations, it is considered that they do not involve any risk of retransmission of pathogens or parasites to wild populations. Tilapia from the US presents a final high overall score of 8.84, and therefore is ranked Green or “Best Choice” overall.

5

Table of Contents Final Seafood Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ............................................................ 6

Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Scoring guide .......................................................................................................................... 8

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ............................................................................... 9

Criterion 2: Effluents ............................................................................................................ 11

Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 14

Criterion 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ................................................................ 16

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 17

Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 18

Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 20

Criterion 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species ............................................. 22

Criterion 7. Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ................................................... 23

Criterion 8. Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ....................................... 25

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 26

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 27

References .................................................................................................................................... 27

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 34

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 35

Data points and all scoring calculations........................................................................................ 37

6

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation - Species: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Blue tilapia (O. aureus), Mozambique tilapia (O.mossambicus), and hybrid tilapia (O. spp.). - Geographic coverage: USA - Production Methods: Closed recirculating systems

Species Overview Tilapia is a prolific fast-growing tropical species, native to Africa, but introduced elsewhere as a valuable food fish. Tilapia is a common name applied to three genera: Oreochromis (maternal mouthbrooders), Sarotherodon (paternal mouthbrooders), and tilapia (substrate spawners). Most species are unable to survive at temperatures below 50°F. Tilapia can live in either fresh or salt water. They are omnivores, feeding mainly on algae, aquatic macrophytes, detritus, and associated bacterial films (Fitzsimmons and Watanabe 2010). Globally, tilapia is the second most important group of farmed fish after carp. In 2010, global farmed tilapia production exceeded 3.2 million metric tons. Tilapia is produced in more than 100 nations, surpassing any other farmed fish (Fitzsimmons et al. 2011). According to the National Fisheries Institute (2011), tilapia is the fourth most consumed seafood in the United States after shrimp, tuna and salmon. During 2010, the average consumption of tilapia (1.5 pounds) increased 20% when compared to 2009. Tilapia is also known in the market as Saint Peter fish and Izumidai (Fitzsimmons 2006). US tilapia markets are dominated by imports. It is estimated that 95.5% of tilapia consumed in the US was imported, and only 4.5% was produced in the US. This latter figure represents a domestic production of around 20 million pounds (Fitzsimmons 2010). Figure 1 shows the growing importance of imports in the US tilapia market, which can be divided into two segments: the frozen products and the fresh products (Norman-López and Bjørndal 2009). Chinese products dominated the frozen sector of the US market, providing about 68% of whole tilapia and 86% of the tilapia fillets (USDA 2012). Latin American countries dominate the market of fresh products. In 2011, Honduras and Ecuador supplied 74% of imported fresh fillets to the US market.

7

Figure 1. US Consumption of tilapia from domestic and imported sources in metric tons (Fitzsimmons 2010)

While mostly performed in the southern states, farms in Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, and South Carolina contribute to a relatively large proportion of the tilapia produced in the US. Here, tilapia is raised mostly in intensive outdoor ponds or tanks, sometimes by using geothermal water or under greenhouse roofs (Treece 2011). Tilapia is also raised in the northern states of Virginia, where the largest indoor tilapia facility is located (http://www.blueridgeaquaculture.com), Massachusetts (Murphy et al. 2010), Maryland (Webster et al. 2010), New Jersey (Flimlin and Myers 2010), New York (Rivara and Timmons 2010), Pennsylvania (Faulds and Conklin 2010), and Rhode Island (Rice and Leavitt 2010). In these farms tilapia is grown in indoor facilities. Tilapia is harvested at 1-2 pounds each and generally sold in the live fish market, where they get a premium price (Buttner et al. 2008, DeLong et al. 2009, McIntosh and Ewart 2010, Treece 2011). The stability of live tilapia demand across the year determines the need to have production systems that allow for frequent harvests (Fitzsimmons and Watanabe 2010). It is estimated that more than 75% of the annual United States tilapia production is grown in recirculating systems (Summerfelt and Vinci 2008). Recirculating systems are also used in the hatchery and larval-rearing stages (Tucker et al. 2008). In Arizona, tilapia production is integrated with agricultural crops such as grapes, wheat, barley, cotton, and peppers (Fitzsimmons 2011). Tilapia is also produced in small-scale facilities integrated with hydroponic systems (e.g. lettuce, pepper, tomato). These systems are known as aquaponics, and are widespread in Hawaii (Rakocy et al. 2006), and urban areas such as Buffalo, NY (Metcalf and Widener 2011) and Milwaukee, WI (Goodman 2011).

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

Til

ap

ia (000's

of

kg

of

live w

eig

ht)

Domestic Imports

8

Analysis

Scoring guide With the exclusion of the exceptional criteria (3.3x and 6.2x), all scores result in a zero to

ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional criteria result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero indicates no negative impact.

The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available here.

The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Annex 1.

9

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the

impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts.

Sustainability unit: The ability to make a robust sustainability assessment. Principle: Robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts is

available to relevant stakeholders. Criterion 1 Summary

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5

Effluent Yes 5 5

Locations/habitats Yes 5 5

Predators and wildlife Yes 2.5 2.5

Chemical use Yes 7.5 7.5

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 7.5 7.5

Disease Yes 7.5 7.5

Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5

Other – (e.g. energy use, GHG emissions) Yes 5 5

Total 57.5

C1 Data Final Score 5.75 YELLOW

Industry statistics and information on production practices are mainly published by the Regional Aquaculture Centers. These centers are funded by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA 2009). Information on tilapia production can also be found in peer-reviewed journals, reports from international agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and in producers associations and state agencies websites. However, statistics on tilapia production in the US are often aggregated and not always updated. Information on management practices is available in peer-reviewed journals, and environmental regulations are published in the federal and state agencies websites, but detailed information is not always available and updated, and thus, the overall score for data quality and availability is ‘yellow’ (5.75 out of 10). Justification of Ranking The Data Criterion rewards those responsible companies or industries that make data on their activities and impacts available, or those that are well researched. In the case of US tilapia production, industry statistics are aggregated, and often not updated, therefore information on tilapia is not always as detailed as needed. State-level information can be obtained from state agencies or farmers’ associations (especially American Tilapia Association); however, in most

10

cases data are not updated or aggregated. For instance, detailed aquaculture information in California is very hard to get (Treece 2011). Research on tilapia production is performed by USDA and US universities (e.g. University of Arizona, Mississippi State University, Texas A&M University, Auburn University, University of Rhode Island). Research results are published in international peer-reviewed journals, presented at meetings such as the ISTA (International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture), and dissertations are available online. However, research is mostly oriented towards experimental trials. Therefore, information on current management practices and their associated impacts in tilapia production in the US are not available in these publications. For instance, information on effluent quality, impacts on habitat, wildlife mortalities and feed formulation is very scarce. The moderate quality and availability of data on tilapia production in the US constrains the ability to make environmental assessments of the industry.

11

Criterion 2: Effluents Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the

amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads.

Sustainability unit: The carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect.

Principle: Aquaculture operations minimize or avoid the production and discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm.

Criterion 2 Summary

Effluent Full Assessment

Effluent Parameters Value Score

F2.1a Biological waste (nitrogen) production per ton of fish (kg N ton-1) 38.4

F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 0

F2 .1 Waste discharge score (0-10) 10

F2.2a Content of regulations (0-5) 4.75

F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0-5) 4.75

F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0-10) 9

C2 Effluent Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

The relative low levels of protein in feeds and Feed Conversion Ratio (1.4) (i.e. the amount of feed required per ton of fish produced) determine the production of 38.4 kg of nitrogen wastes per ton of harvested fish. However, none of these wastes are directly discharged to the environment in recirculating systems. Effluents from tilapia operations in the US are treated in the same facility, disposed in treatment plants or used to irrigate agricultural crops. The appropriate treatment of the effluents determines the highest score for the waste discharge score (10 out of 10). Regulations and enforcement controlling effluent discharge are moderate (9 out of 10), the treatment of waste prior to its discharge to a receiving water body results in the highest overall score for the effluent criterion (10 out of 10). Justification of Ranking The effluent criterion is based on a combination of risk factors to assess the potential for aquaculture operations to exceed the carrying capacity of the receiving waters. The amount of waste discharged per ton of production is combined with the effectiveness of the management or regulatory structure to control the total farm discharge and the cumulative impact of multiple farms impacting the same receiving water body.

12

The amount of waste discharged from farms per ton of production is estimated through the nitrogen (N) balance between inputs and outputs. N inputs are calculated by multiplying the FCR (1.4), the protein level in feeds (30%), and the proportion of N in proteins (16%). This results in the need of 67.2 kg N per ton of harvested fish as inputs. N outputs are represented by the N in fish tissues, and this value is estimated through the multiplication of the amount of protein in the harvested tilapia (18%) and the proportion of N in protein (16%), resulting in 28.8 kg N as N outputs. The balance between inputs and outputs results in the production of 38.4 kg N waste, but none of these wastes are directly discharged to the environment. It is estimated that in recirculating systems only 34% of the wastes remain in the system and must be discharged (Boyd et al. 2007), however, in the US these remaining wastes are generally treated in the same facility. Recirculating aquaculture systems treat and reuse a large proportion of the water. By minimizing water use, wastes are concentrated in a relatively small effluent volume which reduces the cost of its treatment (Martins et al. 2010). Concentrated wastes are treated within the facility by different methods such as constructed wetlands, traditional physical/chemical (e.g. settling ponds, filters) and fixed film biological treatment processes (e.g. flocculants) (Yanong 2012), or used on farm-irrigation or aquaponics as in Arizona, California, Florida, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Carolinas (Summerfelt and Vinci 2008). The concentration of the waste facilitates its direct discharge into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), which are sewage treatment plants owned, and generally operated, by a government agency. The non-existence of waste discharge to open water bodies results in the highest score for the waste discharge score (10 out of 10). Effluent regulations and their enforcement are considered to be strong in the US. Although this statement is true for the entire US territory, wastewater discharge is controlled at both the federal and the state level, and thus, effluent regulations differ in each state, and even from site to site “depending on the use classification of the receiving body of water” (EPA 2012). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA]) prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into the waters of the United States without a permit. At the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or any authorized state agency is in charge of the control and enforcement of the National Effluent Guidelines (2004). These are standards for wastewater discharges to surface waters and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) (municipal sewage treatment plants). The guidelines seek to reduce discharges of conventional pollutants (primarily total suspended solids), and reduce non-conventional pollutants such as nutrients. EPA grants discharge permits to aquaculture operators through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Under the US regulatory structure, large scale operations (more than ~100,000 pounds/year) are classified as concentrated aquatic animal production (CAAP) facilities, and must obtain a NPDES permit before discharging. These operations are encouraged to use effluents for crop irrigation or to treat them on site, avoiding offsite discharge for more than 30 days per year (DeLong et al. 2009). The permit certifies that

13

the discharge is in compliance with specified federal standards, and does not last more than five years. The NPDES permit is contingent upon development of a facility-specific Best Management Practices (BMP) plan that specifies how the petitioner will reduce discharge of potential pollutants. Beyond federal rules, states are allowed to determine conditions that must be met before requiring a permit (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes). Therefore, water quality standards may vary from state to state and site to site, depending on the use classification of the receiving water body. The lack of waste discharge to a receiving water body determines the highest overall score for the effluent criterion (10), even though regulations and enforcement controlling the cumulative impact of farms are considered to be modest.

14

Criterion 3: Habitat Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat

types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide.

Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the habitat type.

Principle: Aquaculture operations are located at sites, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.

Criterion 3 Summary

Habitat Parameters Value Score

F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 9.00

F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 4.00

F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 3.50

F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 5.60

C3 Habitat Final Score 7.87 GREEN

Critical? NO

Most of the US tilapia production is performed in closed recirculating systems located in the arid west and in the Northeast (Summerfelt and Vinci 2008, Timmons and Ebeling 2010, Treece 2011). These operations involve minor risks in terms of ecosystem services. Regulations and enforcement controlling farm siting and licensing are considered to be modest. For instance, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required in only a few states such as California. The combination of the high score of habitat conversion and function (9 out of 10), and the moderate score for regulatory or management effectiveness score (5.6 out of 10) results in a relatively high overall score for the habitat criterion (7.87 out of 10). Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function Tilapia farms in the US have minimal impacts on ecosystem functionality. These operations are concentrated in the arid west (Figure 2) and in the Northeast (Summerfelt and Vinci 2008, Timmons and Ebeling 2010, Treece 2011). In the arid west, tilapia farms are located in low-value environments, being established 15-20 years ago and replacing agricultural fields. These farms are mostly integrated to irrigated fields, being the source of water for agricultural crops. In the Northeast, indoor recirculating systems occupy a very limited area, not involving any significant risk to the ecosystem services supply.

15

Figure 2. Arid and Semi-Arid Regions (http://www.pima.gov/wwm/wqrp/bg/region.htm)

Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) Aquaculture siting in the US is regulated at various levels of government, with state and local levels issuing permits and dealing with zoning. At a federal level, environmental regulations do not specifically require that aquaculture operations must conduct an EIA, and in most US states an EIA is not required, but it is required in California. However, in order to get the permit, detailed information on management practices must be submitted (Telfer et al. 2009). Each state has its own regulatory requirement, and each is very different. For instance, outdoor tilapia farming is not permitted in Florida, but in Alabama and Georgia pond-based farming is allowed (Rumley 2010). In the Northeast region, several states require aquaculture operations to conduct pre-permit environmental assessments and to conduct continuous monitoring once a permit is issued. Although EIA is not required for freshwater operations in the US, the permit procedure is considered to be relatively robust as site-specific monitoring was identified (Telfer et al. 2009).

16

Criterion 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities A measure of the effects of deliberate or accidental mortality on the populations of affected species of predators or other wildlife. This is an “exceptional” criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact. Criterion 3.3X Summary

Wildlife and Predator mortality Parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Aquaculture operations can directly or indirectly cause the death of predators or other wildlife that are attracted by the concentration of cultured aquatic animals. Tilapia operations in the US are indoor facilities or ponds covered by greenhouses, and thus they are isolated from wildlife and predators. Birds that are attracted to aquaculture facilities are classified as migratory and are protected by federal and state laws. In the West, some water fowl are attracted by constructed wetlands or outdoor ponds, but no mortalities were registered (Fitzsimmons pers. comm.). In the case of outdoor ponds, non-lethal methods are often used to frighten waterbirds. As tilapia farms have no impact on wildlife and predator mortalities, the overall score for this exceptional criterion is zero.

17

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non-target organisms and leads to

production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical-resistant organisms.

Sustainability unit: Non-target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments.

Principle: Aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid the discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively control the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health.

Criterion 4 Summary

Chemical Use Parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Tilapia production in the US does not involve a frequent use of chemicals. In addition, as tilapia is grown in closed systems and effluents are treated before discharge, the risk of chemical use to wild fish populations is considered to be nonexistent, and thus, the overall score for the chemical use criterion is the highest (10 out of 10). Justification of Ranking Relatively few drugs are approved for aquaculture in the US. The FDA (2012) has approved only 8 drugs for use in aquaculture, but it also authorizes the use of other drugs under certain conditions (Johnson and Bosworth 2012). Most chemicals are used to treat or prevent diseases and parasites, but drugs are also used to control reproduction and to reduce stress during transport. Methyltestosterone (MT) is used for sex reversal in some tilapia hatcheries, but its use requires a special permit from the Federal government (USFWS 2011). The inclusion of this hormone in the feed induces tilapia females to develop as males. All male tilapia populations are preferred in aquaculture in order to avoid reproduction and overpopulation, and because of the male’s faster growth (DeLong et al. 2009, Phelps 2006). Green and Teichert-Coddington (2000) showed that the use of MT in tilapia hatcheries presents no significant effects on the environment due to its low concentration in effluents, its sensitivity to photo-degradation, and the its expected rapid bacterial degradation. In addition, tilapia operations in the US are closed and do not directly discharge active chemicals or by-products into the environment, and there is no evidence of impacts of chemical use on non-target organisms or resistance to treatments. Therefore, the overall score for chemical use is 10 (out of 10).

18

Criterion 5: Feed Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or

losses vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of conversion can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability.

Sustainability unit: The amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation.

Principle: Aquaculture operations source only sustainable feed ingredients, convert them efficiently and responsibly, and minimize and utilize the non-edible portion of farmed fish.

Criterion 5 Summary

Feed Parameters Value Score

F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 0.42 8.95

F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00

F5.1: Wild Fish Use 8.70

F5.2a Protein IN 28.04

F5.2b Protein OUT 18.00

F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -35.80 6

F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 1.08 9

C5 Feed Final Score 8.10 GREEN

Critical? NO

In the US, tilapia is reared under intensive systems where its growth depends on compound feeds. Although tilapia are an herbivorous species, and do not require animal protein to meet dietary amino acid requirements, feeds often include a small amount of marine ingredients in order to enhance growth. The low level of fishmeal use (1.5%) and the relatively low FCR result in a low “Fish in: Fish out” (FI: FO) ratio of 0.42 (i.e. it takes 0.42 lb. of wild fish to produce one pound of farmed tilapia), and thus a high wild fish use score (8.70 out of 10). Tilapia production results in the net loss of 35.8% of the edible protein provided in feed inputs, generating a moderate net protein gain or loss score (6 out of 10). The dominance of terrestrial crop-derived ingredients in tilapia feeds drives a low feed footprint value (1.08 hectares), and thus, a high score (9 out of 10). The combination of the three feed partial scores results in a high overall score for the feed criterion (8.10 out of 10). Justification of Ranking C5.1. Wild Fish Use Different feeds are used in tilapia production in the US. However, the majority of them share a low level of marine ingredients. Davis et al. (2009) reported a standard tilapia feed formulation

19

with no fishmeal and 1.5% of fish oil. These values result in a FI:FO value of 0.42 when 1.4 is used as the eFCR, and 5% as the fish oil yield (Tacon and Metian 2008). The FCR value of 1.4 was found as the most frequent, as they range from 1.1 to almost 2 (DeLong et al. 2009; Fitzsimmons pers. comm., Timmons and Ebeling 2010, Treece 2011). The FIFO values of 0.42 results in a high FIFO score (8.95). The fish oil is generally obtained from anchovy, but in many cases the source is unknown, and thus, the Source fishery sustainability score is -6. This score is multiplied by the FIFO value, resulting in a small penalization (-0.25) that is discounted from the FIFO score. Therefore, the wild fish use factor score is still high (8.70). C5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss The protein balance during tilapia production is negative as 35.8% of the protein inputs is lost. Protein inputs are estimated through the protein level in feeds, and the amount of feed required to produce a pound of fish. The protein content of the feed considered for

calculations is 30% as it is the most frequent value (within a range of 28%–36%), and the eFCR is 1.4. In the diet used as a model for this calculation, approximately 93.5% of the protein is sourced from edible crop ingredients such as soybean meal (50% inclusion, 46% protein), wheat flour (13.2% inclusion, 25% protein), and corn gluten meal (60.7% inclusion, 3% protein). The rest is sourced from non-edible sources such as distiller’s dried grains with solubles (28.5% inclusion, 14% protein) and blood meal (1.5% inclusion, 90% protein). Other non-edible ingredients that are often included in tilapia feeds are poultry by-product meal and feather meal. The protein in harvested fish is a result of multiplying the level of protein in tilapia tissues (18%) and the amount of fish used (100% in this case as tilapia is sold live or whole). Fillet yield of most tilapias is 30 to 35 % of the whole body weight, so 65 to 70 % of the processed fish is discarded if it is not sold as a live or whole product (DeLong et al. 2009). In the calculations, it is considered that tilapia is marketed as a whole product as commercial tilapia producers in the USA primarily rear fish for the live markets (Fitzsimmons and Watanabe 2010). The negative balance between edible protein inputs and protein outputs results in a moderate score for the protein gain: loss factor (6 out of 10). C5.3. Feed Footprint The feed footprint factor takes into account all the feed inputs on the basis of the area of primary productivity appropriated to produce them. The feed footprint is estimated through the multiplication of marine and terrestrial animal, and the crop ingredient level in fish feed by average footprint values. In the case of tilapia feeds, the high content of crop-derived ingredients (~97%), and the low inclusion level of marine and terrestrial animal ingredients (only 3% determine a low feed footprint (1.08 hectares), result in a high feed footprint score (9 out of 10).

The overall feed score results from the combination of the wild fish use (8.70), the net protein gain or loss (6), and the feed footprint scores (9). This combination is the result of a weighted average (50% wild fish use, 25% protein gain or loss, and 25% feed footprint), that determines an overall feed score of 8.10 (out of 10).

20

Criterion 6: Escapes Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage, spawning disruption, and

other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non-native and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations.

Sustainability unit: Affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations. Principle: Aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Criterion 6 Summary

Escape Parameters Value Score

F6.1 Escape Risk 10.00

F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0

F6.1b Invasiveness 5.5

C6 Escape Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Tilapias have been used worldwide as an aquaculture crop and have escaped in many regions where they are cultured (Peterson et al. 2005), or were introduced for other purposes. Tolerance and adaptability to changing environmental parameters have made tilapia attractive for aquaculture, but these traits have also enabled this fish to become a highly successful invasive species in temperate and subtropical aquatic environments (Diana 2009). Mozambique tilapia was introduced during the 1960s to the US and there are some established populations in the wild. However, the risk of escape is considered to be very low or nonexistent in recirculating systems, and thus, the escape overall score is the highest (10). Factor 6.1a. Escape risk The risk of escape in closed recirculating systems is considered to be very low (Leung and Dudgeon 2008). In closed facilities, fish are kept in a unit separated from the outside environment. Beyond the high level of isolation of tilapia operations, fish escape may still occur, especially at the fry stage. Therefore, in tilapia operations in the US, control measures are taken to reduce the probability of escapes such as the use of intake and outtake screening, and the catchment area screening and monitoring (Egna personal communication). The low risk of escape results in the highest score for this factor (10). Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness Tilapia are non-native species in the US, but populations are already established in the wild. In the 1960s, O. mossambicus and O. aureus were stocked for weed control in reservoirs in Arizona and California (McIntosh et al. 2003). According to Nico and Fuller (2012), different tilapia species are established, or possibly established, in ten states: Arizona, California, Florida,

21

Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Catches have also been reported from Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas. Tilapia also dominates fish communities in coastal wetlands in Hawaii (MacKenzie and Bruland 2012), and Fitzsimmons (2001) reported that in some areas of the Colorado River, O. aureus accounts for 90% of the fish biomass. Even though the presence of tilapia was registered in these states, the establishment of wild tilapia populations requires their survival to environmental conditions. In Alabama and Georgia, tilapia populations have rarely survived winters (Fuller et al. 1999), and long-term survival probabilities are estimated to be low, as survival is likely to occur once every three years (Wilson 2008). In contrast, the establishment of Nile tilapia in Mississippi was confirmed by the presence of individuals who reached ages up to 4 years (Grammer et al. 2012). Ecological impacts of tilapia in the wild are difficult to predict, but potential risks may be identified through experimentation (Figueredo and Giani 2005, Martin et al. 2010). Tilapia is a very good competitor for resources, but some tilapia species are more opportunistic than others. For instance, blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) can adjust feeding preferences as a response to prey availability (Gu et al. 1997), and Nile and Mozambique tilapia (O. niloticus and O. mossambicus) can adapt to changes in environmental conditions such as salinity levels and oxygen availability (Canonico et al. 2005). Tilapias belonging to the genus Oreochromis are also competitive due to their reproductive strategy involving parental care, early sexual maturation and year-round reproduction (Peterson et al. 2004). Tilapias have been indicated as affecting the structure and function of native aquatic ecosystems across the US, such as the reduction in the recruitment of largemouth bass (Zale 1987) and some endangered species such as woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) and Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda) (USFWS 2005). The decline in the number of these species has been correlated with the presence of tilapia, and it is believed that they are affected primarily by food and habitat competition. Although tilapia is considered a competitor with native species for spawning areas, food, and space (D'Amato et al. 2007, MacDonald et al. 2007, Nico and Fuller 2012, Peterson et al. 2006), frequently tilapia invasion is facilitated by the existence of vacant niches created by the perturbation of the native environment. In this context, tilapia can be considered as opportunistic species filling newly available niches. Beyond the relatively high potential invasiveness of tilapia, the low risk of escape in tilapia operations in the US results in a high score for the overall escape criterion.

22

Criterion 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principle farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments. This is an “exceptional criteria that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. Criterion 6.2X Summary

Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

C6 Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

US tilapia production is considered to be self-sufficient in terms of broodstock and fingerling production (Olin et al. 2011), and thus it does not involve any international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments. Therefore, there is no risk of unintentionally introducing non-native species as a result of tilapia production in the US.

23

Criterion 7. Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their

retransmission to local wild species that share the same waterbody. Sustainability unit: Wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and

parasites. Principle: Aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites. Criterion 7 Summary

Pathogen and Parasite Parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 10.00

C7 Disease; Pathogen and Parasite Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

US tilapia farms are characterized by high stocking densities and water reuse. These might lead to high stress levels in fish that favor the amplification of pathogens and parasites. Bacterial diseases such as Streptococcus iniae or Vibrio have been reported in tilapia operations. However, tilapia operations are closed and not connected to wild populations. Therefore, tilapia farms do not involve any risk of retransmission of pathogens or parasites to wild populations, and they get the highest score for the disease criterion (10). Justification of Ranking Intensive tilapia farming may amplify naturally occurring pathogens and parasites and their associated clinical outbreaks of disease. Depending on the nature of the production system, these elevated levels of pathogens and parasites can represent a risk to wild species in the surrounding ecosystem. The impacts of these diseases on wild fish are generally poorly understood or underestimated, and direct evidence of transmission from farmed fish to wild populations is scarce. Criterion 7 assesses the risk of disease transmission from farmed to wild fish populations through the amplification and potential retransmission of pathogens or parasites. Tilapia operations in the US amplify naturally occurring diseases and parasites due to high stocking densities and water reuse that lead to elevated stress levels in fish, and favor fish-to-fish transmission on the farm (Shoemaker et al. 2006). Bacterial diseases (Streptococcus, columnaris) in tilapia are the main problem where poor water quality is a contributing factor (Choi et al. 2007, Shoemaker et al. 2000). Other reported diseases are Vibrio, Franciscella and mycobacteria (Soto et al. 2011, Yanong 2012, Yanong and Erlacher-Reid 2012). Beyond the presence of diseases, tilapia recirculating systems are considered to be highly biosecure as these operations have no connections to wild populations (Lorenzen et al. 2012). Furthermore, there is no evidence of disease transfer from farmed tilapia to wild populations. Therefore,

24

tilapia production in the US gets an overall high score (10 out of 10) for the diseases criterion, as it presents no risk of pathogen or parasite impacts on wild fish.

25

Criterion 8. Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: The removal of fish from wild populations for on-growing to harvest size in farms. Sustainability unit: Wild fish populations. Principle: Aquaculture operations use eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm-

raised broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture. Criterion 8 Summary

Source of Stock Parameters Score % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement

100

C8 Source of Stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

100% of tilapia stock is obtained from hatchery-raised broodstock. Olin et al. (2011) report the existence of 28 tilapia hatcheries across US that provide fry and fingerlings to the industry. As tilapia production in the US is considered to be fully independent from wild fisheries, the overall score for the source of stock criterion is 10 (out of 10).

26

Overall Recommendation The overall final score is the average of the individual criterion scores (after the two exceptional scores have been deducted from the total). The overall ranking is decided according to the final score, the number of red criteria, and the number of critical criteria as follows:

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 5.75 YELLOW N/A

C2 Effluent 9.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 7.87 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 8.10 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 10.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN N/A

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN N/A

Total 70.72

Final score 8.84

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 8.84

Initial rank GREEN

Red criteria 0

Interim rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank BEST CHOICE

– Best Choice = Final score ≥6.6 AND no individual criteria are Red (i.e. <3.3) – Good Alternative = Final score ≥3.3 AND <6.6, OR Final score ≥ 6.6 and there is one

individual “Red” criterion. – Red = Final score <3.3, OR there is more than one individual Red criterion, OR there is one

or more Critical criteria.

27

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

References

Boyd, C.E., C. Tucker, A. McNevin, K. Bostick and J. Clay (2007) Indicators of Resource Use Efficiency and Environmental Performance in Fish and Crustacean Aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15: 327–360. Buttner, J., G. Flimlin and D. Webster (2008) Freshwater Aquaculture Species for the Northeast. NRAC Publication No. 102-2008. http://www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/102-Freshwater%20species.pdf Canonico, G.C., A. Arthington, J.K. McCrary and M.L. Thieme (2005) The effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity. Aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems 15: 463–483. Choi, K., W. Lehmann, C.A. Harms and J.M. Law (2007) Acute Hypoxia–Reperfusion Triggers Immunocompromise in Nile Tilapia. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 19: 128–140. Costa-Pierce, B.A. and R. Doyle (1997) Genetic identification and status of tilapia regional strains in southern California. In: B.A. Costa-Pierce and J. Rakocy (Eds.) Tilapia Aquaculture in the Americas, Volume 1. ), World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, pp. 1–21. Costa-Pierce, B.A. (2003) Rapid evolution of an established feral tilapia (Oreochromis spp.): the need to incorporate invasion science into regulatory structures. Biological Invasions 5: 71-84. D’Amato, M.E., M.M. Esterhuyse, B.C.W. van der Waal, D. Brink and F.A.M. Volckaert (2007) Hybridization and phylogeography of the Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus in southern Africa evidenced by mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA genotyping. Conservation Genetics 8(2): 475-488. Davis, D.A., T.N. Nguyen, M.H. Li, D.M. Gatilin III and T. O’Keefe (2009) Advances in aquaculture nutrition: in catfish, tilapia and carp. In: G. Burnell and G. Allan (Eds.) New Technologies in Aquaculture. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, pp. 440-548.

28

DeLong, D.P., T.M. Losordo and J.E. Rackocy (2009) Tank Culture of Tilapia. SRAC Publication No. 282. https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/52/ Diana, J.S. (2009) Aquaculture Production and Biodiversity Conservation. Bioscience 59 (1): 27-38. EPA (2012) Effluent Guidelines: Aquatic Animal Production Industry. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/aquaculture/index.cfm Faulds, A. and C. Conklin (2010) Aquaculture Situation and Outlook Report 2009: Pennsylvania. NRAC Publication No. 109-2009. http://www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/NRAC1092009_PA.pdf FDA (2012) Approved Drugs for Use in Aquaculture. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/AnimalHealthLiteracy/UCM109808.pdf Figueredo, C.C. and A. Giani (2005) Ecological interactions between Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, L) and the phytoplanktonic community of the Furnas Reservoir (Brazil). Freshwater Biology 50: 1391–1403. Fitzsimmons, K. (2001) Environmental and conservation issues in tilapia aquaculture. In: R. Subasinghe and T. Singh (Eds.), Tilapia: Production, Marketing, and Technological Developments. FAO Infofish, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 128-131. http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/Malaysia/Environmental_impacts.doc Fitzsimmons, K. (2006) Prospect and potential for global production: Chapter 2. In: C. Lim and C.D. Webster (Eds.) Tilapia: Biology, Culture and Nutrition. Food Product Press, New York, pp. 51-72. Fitzsimmons, K. and W.O. Watanabe (2010) Tilapia (Family: Cichlidae). In: N.R. Le Francois, M. Jobling, C. Carter and P.U. Blier (Eds.) Finfish Aquaculture Diversification. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp. 374-396. Fitzsimmons, K. (2010) Potential to Increase Global Tilapia Production. Presented at the Global Outlook for Aquaculture Leadership 2010, Kuala Lumpur. http://www.gaalliance.org/update/GOAL10/Fitzsimmons.pdf Fitzsimmons, K. (2011) Tilapia 2011 - Swimming Against the Tide: Increased Consumption in a Down Market. Presented at the WAS meeting 2011, New Orleans. https://www.was.org/documents/MeetingPresentations/AA2011/AA2011_0246.pdf Fitzsimmons, K., R. Martinez-Garcia and Pablo Gonzalez-Alanis (2011) Why Tilapia is becoming the most Important Food Fish on the Planet. In: L. Liping and K. Fitzsimmons (Eds.) Proceedings

29

of the 9th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture. Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China, April 22-25, 2011. Fuller, P.L., L.G. Nico and J.D. Williams (1999) Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 27, pp. 435-441. Goodman, E.R. (2011) Aquaponics : community and economic development. MSc thesis, MIT. Grammer, G.L., W.T. Slack, M.S. Peterson and M.A. Dugo (2012) Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) establishment in temperate Mississippi, USA: multi-year survival confirmed by otolith ages. Aquatic Invasions 7 (in press). http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2012/ACCEPTED/AI_accepted_Grammer_etal_correctedproof.pdf Green, B.W. and D.R. Teichert-Coddington (2000) Human Food Safety and Environmental Assessment of the Use of 17α-Methyltestosterone to Produce Male Tilapia in the United States. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 31(3): 337–357. Gu, B., C.L. Schelske and M.V. Hoyer (1997) Intrapopulation feeding diversity in blue tilapia: Evidence from stable-isotope analyses. Ecology 78 (7):2263-2266. Johnson, B. and B. Bosworth (2012) Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) Exemptions and the National INAD Program (NIP). SRAC Publication No. 4709. https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/242/ Kümmerer, K. (2009) Antibiotics in the aquatic environment – A review – Part I. Chemosphere 75: 417–434. Leung, K.M.Y. and D. Dudgeon (2008) Ecological risk assessment and management of exotic organisms associated with aquaculture activities. In: M.G. Bondad-Reantaso, J.R. Arthur and R.P. Subasinghe (Eds). Understanding and applying risk analysis in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 519. Rome, FAO. pp. 67–100. Lorenzen, K., M.C.M. Beveridge and M. Mangel (2012) Cultured fish: integrative biology and management of domestication and interactions with wild fish. Biological Reviews. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00215.x MacDonald, J.L., M.S. Peterson and W.T. Slack (2007) Morphology, Density, and Spatial Patterning of Reproductive Bowers in an Established Alien Population of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 22(3): 461-468. MacKenzie, R.A. and G.L. Bruland (2012) Nekton Communities in Hawaiian Coastal Wetlands: The Distribution and Abundance of Introduced Fish Species. Estuaries and Coasts 35(1): 212-226.

30

Martin, C.W., M.M. Valentine and J.F. Valentine JF (2010) Competitive Interactions between Invasive Nile Tilapia and Native Fish: The Potential for Altered Trophic Exchange and Modification of Food Webs. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14395. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014395 Martins, C.I.M., E.H. Ending, M.C.J. Verdegem, L.T.N. Heinsbroek, O. Schneider, J.P. Blancheton, E. Roque d’Orbcastel and J.A.J. Verreth (2010) New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental sustainability. Aquacultural Engineering 43(3): 83-93. McIntosh, D., C. King and K. Fitzsimmons (2003) Tilapia for Biological Control of Giant Salvinia. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41: 28-31. McIntosh, D. and J. Ewart (2010) Aquaculture situation and outlook report 2009: Delaware. NRAC Publication No. 102-2009. http://www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/NRAC1022009_DE.pdf Metcalf, S.S. and M.J. Widener (2011) Growing Buffalo’s capacity for local food: A systems framework for sustainable agriculture. Applied Geography 31(4): 1242-1251. Murphy, D.C., W. Burt, J.K. Buttner, C. Goudey and C. Hollingsworth (2010) Aquaculture Situation and Outlook Report 2009: Massachusetts. NRAC Publication No. 103-2009. http://www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/NRAC1032009_MA.pdf National Fisheries Institute (2011) Top 10 consumed seafood. http://www.aboutseafood.com/about/about-seafood/top-10-consumed-seafoods Naylor, R.L., S.L. Williams and D.R. Stron (2001) Aquaculture—A Gateway for Exotic Species. Science 294: 1655-1656. Naylor, R.L., R.W. Hardy, D.P. Bureau, A. Chiu, M. Elliott, A.P. Farrell, I. Forster, D.M. Gatlin, R.J. Goldburg, K. Hua and P.D. Nichols (2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. PNAS 106 (36): 15103-15110. Nico, L. and P. Fuller (2012) Oreochromis aureus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=463 Norman-López, A. and T. Bjørndal (2009) Is tilapia the same product worldwide or are markets segmented? Aquaculture Economics & Management 13(2). DOI:10.1080/13657300902885360 Olin, P., J. Smith and R. Nabi (2011) Regional Review on Status and Trends in Aquaculture Development in North America – 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular 1061/2. FAO, Rome.

31

Peterson, M.S., W.T. Slack, N.J. Brown-Peterson and J.L. McDonald (2004) Reproduction in Nonnative Environments: Establishment of Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, in Coastal Mississippi Watersheds. Copeia 2004 (4): 842-849. Peterson, M.S., W.T. Slack and C.M. Woodley (2005) The Occurrence of Non-Indigenous Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus) in Coastal Mississippi, USA: Ties to Aquaculture and Thermal Effluent. Wetlands 25(1): 112-121. Peterson, M.S., W.T. Slack, G.L. Waggy, J. Finley, C.M. Woodley and M.L. Partyk (2006) Foraging in non-native environments: comparison of Nile Tilapia and three co-occurring native centrarchids in invaded coastal Mississippi watersheds. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76: 283–301. Phelps, R.P. (2006) Hormone Manipulation of Sex. In: C. Lim and C.D. Webster (Eds.) Tilapia- Biology, Culture, and Nutrition. Food Product Press, New York, pp. 211-252. Rakocy, J.E., M.P. Masser and T.M. Losordo (2006) Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems: Aquaponics—Integrating Fish and Plant Culture. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication #454. Rice, M. and D. Leavitt (2010) Aquaculture Situation and Outlook Report 2009: Rhode Island. NRAC Publication No. 110-2009. http://www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/NRAC1102009_RI.pdf Rivara, G. and M. Timmons (2010) Aquaculture Situation And Outlook Report 2009: New York. NRAC Publication No. 108-2009. http://www.nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/NRAC1082009_NY.pdf Rumley, E.R. (2010) Aquaculture and the Lacey Act. School of Law, University of Arkansas. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/articles/springsteen_lacey.pdf Shoemaker C.A., J.J. Evans J.J. and P.H. Klesius (2000) Density and dose: factors affecting mortality of Streptococcus iniae infected tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture 188: 229-235. Shoemaker, C.A., D-H. Xu, J.J. Evans and P.H. Klesius (2006) Parasites and diseases. In: C.E. Lim and C.D. Webster (Eds.) Tilapia: Biology, Culture and Nutrition. Food Product Press, New York, pp. 561-582 Simberloff, D. (2005) Non-native species do threaten the natural environment! Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (6): 595-607.

32

Soto, E., W. Baumgartner, J. Wiles and J.P. Hawke (2011) Francisella asiatica as the causative agent of piscine francisellosis in cultured tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) in the United States. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 23(4) 821–825. Summerfelt, S. and B. Vinci (2008) Better Management Practices for Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Better Management Practices for Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. In: C.S. Tucker and J.A. Hargreaves (Eds.) Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, p. 389-426. Tacon, A.G.J. and M. Metian (2008) Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285: 146–158. Telfer, T.C., H. Atkin and R.A. Corner (2009) Review of environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture in Europe and North America. In: FAO. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. FAO, Rome, pp. 285–394. Timmons, M.B. and J.M. Ebeling (2010) Recirculating Aquaculture 2nd Edition. Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca. Treece, G. (2011) An overview on desert aquaculture in the United States of America. In: V. Crespi and A. Lovatelli (Eds.) Aquaculture in desert and arid lands: development constraints and opportunities. FAO Technical Workshop. 6–9 July 2010, Hermosillo, Mexico. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 20. FAO, Rome, pp. 159–185. Tucker, C.S., J.A. Hargreaves and C.E. Boyd (2008) Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. In: C.S. Tucker and J.A. Hargreaves (Eds.) Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, pp. 3-54. Tveteras, R. and R. Nystoyl (2011) Fish Production Estimates & Trends 2011-2012. Global Outlook for Aquaculture Leadership Conference, November 6-9 2011 Santiago, Chile. http://www.gaalliance.org/update/GOAL11/Tveteras_Nystoyl.pdf USDA (2009) Regional Aquaculture Centers (RACs). http://www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/animals/part/aquaculture_part_regional.html USDA (2012) Aquaculture Data— U.S. tilapia imports, volume by selected sources (1,000 pounds). http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/aquaculture/TilapiaImportsVolume.htm USFWS (2005) Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Tilapia Removal Program on the Virgin River, Clark County, Nevada, and Mohave County, Arizona. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/020299_R1_TilapiaRemoval_VirginR.pdf

33

USFWS (2011) Fact Sheet: 17α-methyltestosterone INAD 11-236. Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership. http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/aadap/alpha.htm Wilson, J.C. (2008) A Geographic Assessment of Establishment Risk For Tilapia, A Group of Potentially Invasive Aquatic Species. MSc thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. Yanong, R.P.E. (2012) Biosecurity in Aquaculture, Part 2: Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. SRAC Publication No. 4708. https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/238/ Yanong, R.P.E. and C. Erlacher-Reid (2012) Biosecurity in Aquaculture, Part 1: An Overview. SRAC Publication No. 4707. https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/235/ Yuan, D., Y. Yi, A. Yakupitiyage, K. Fitzsimmons and J.S. Diana (2010) Effects of addition of red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) at different densities and sizes on production, water quality and nutrient recovery of intensive culture of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) in cement tanks. Aquaculture 298 (3-4): 226-238. Zale, A.V. (1987) Periodicity of habitation of a stenothermal spring run in north-central Florida by blue tilapia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:575-579. Zambrano, L., E. Martínez-Meyer, N. Menezes and A. Townsend Peterson (2006) Invasive potential of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in American freshwater systems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 1903–1910

34

About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990. Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

35

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program: Seafood Watch will:

Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make

information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant

stakeholders.

Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the

farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control

the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the

immediate vicinity of the farm.

Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively

maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing

historic habitat damage.

Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use

and discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency,

risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.

Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative

indicators to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of

conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

fish or shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression,

hybridization, spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated

with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

Promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated

broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.

Recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a

major impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

36

practices for some criteria may lead to more energy intensive production systems (e.g.

promoting more energy intensive closed recirculation systems).

Once a score and rank have been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide: Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways. Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

37

Data points and all scoring calculations

This is a condensed version of the criteria and scoring sheet to provide access to all data points and calculations. See the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for a full explanation of the criteria, calculations and scores. Yellow cells represent data entry points.

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5

Effluent Yes 5 5

Locations/habitats Yes 5 5

Predators and wildlife Yes 2.5 2.5

Chemical use Yes 7.5 7.5

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 7.5 7.5

Disease Yes 7.5 7.5

Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) Yes 5 5

Total 57.5

C1 Data Final Score 5.75 YELLOW

Criterion 2: Effluents

Factor 2.1a - Biological waste production score

Protein content of feed (%) 30

eFCR 1.4

Fertilizer N input (kg N/ton fish) 0

Protein content of harvested fish (%) 18

N content factor (fixed) 0.16

N input per ton of fish produced (kg) 67.2

N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 28.8

Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 38.4

38

Factor 2.1b - Production System discharge score

Basic production system score 0

Adjustment 1 (if applicable) 0

Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0

Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0

Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0

2.2 – Management of farm level and cumulative impacts and appropriateness to the scale of the industry

Factor 2.2a - Regulatory or management effectiveness Question Scoring Score

1 - Are effluent regulations or control measures present that are designed for, or are applicable to aquaculture?

Yes 1

2 - Are the control measures applied according to site-specific conditions and/or do they lead to site-specific effluent, biomass or other discharge limits?

Yes 1

3 - Do the control measures address or relate to the cumulative impacts of multiple farms? Yes 1

4 - Are the limits considered scientifically robust and set according to the ecological status of the receiving water body?

Yes 1

5 - Do the control measures cover or prescribe including peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning etc?

Mostly 0.75

4.75

Factor 2.2b - Enforcement level of effluent regulations or management

Question Scoring Score

1 - Are the enforcement organizations and/or resources identifiable and contactable, and appropriate to the scale of the industry?

Yes 1

2 - Does monitoring data or other available information demonstrate active enforcement of the control measures?

Yes 1

3 - Does enforcement cover the entire production cycle (i.e. are peak discharges such as peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning included)?

Mostly 0.75

4 - Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits? Yes 1

5 - Is there evidence of robust penalties for infringements? Yes 1

4.75

F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 9.025

C2 Effluent Final Score 9.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

39

Criterion 3: Habitat 3.1. Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 9

3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry)

Factor 3.2a - Regulatory or management effectiveness

Question Scoring Score

1 - Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological principles, including an EIAs requirement for new sites?

Mostly 0.75

2 - Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts and the maintenance of ecosystem function?

Mostly 0.75

3 - Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services?

Mostly 0.75

4 - Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e. avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty)

Yes 1

5 - Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or critical habitats or ecosystem services?

Mostly 0.75

4

Factor 3.2b - Siting regulatory or management enforcement

Question Scoring Score

1 - Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, and are they appropriate to the scale of the industry?

Yes 1

2 - Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning or other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control measures?

Mostly 0.75

3 - Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and their cumulative impacts?

Mostly 0.75

4 - Is the enforcement process transparent - e.g. public availability of farm locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc?

Moderately 0.5

5 - Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control measures are being achieved?

Moderately 0.5

3.5

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 5.60

C3 Habitat Final Score 7.87 GREEN

Critical? NO

40

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use Parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1. Wild Fish Use

Factor 5.1a - Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO)

Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 0

Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0

% FM 0

Fish oil inclusion level (%) 1.5

Fish oil from by-products (%) 0

% FO 1.5

Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5

Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 1.4

FIFO fishmeal 0.00

FIFO fish oil 0.42

Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 0.42

FIFO Score 8.95

Factor 5.1b - Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF)

SSWF -6

SSWF Factor -0.252

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 8.70

5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 30

eFCR 1.4

Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 6.5

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 93.5

41

Protein OUTPUTS

Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 18

Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 37

Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 100

Protein IN 28.04

Protein OUT 18

Net protein gain or loss (%) -35.80

Critical? NO

F5.2 Net protein Score 6.00

5.3. Feed Footprint

5.3a Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood

Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 1.5

eFCR 1.4

Average Primary Productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7

Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68

Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 0.55

5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 97

Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 1.5

Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 1.4

Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.54

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 1.08

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 9.00

42

C5 Feed Final Score 8.10 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 10

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS)

Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the 0

escape site

Recapture & Mortality Score 0

Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 10

6.1b. Invasiveness

Part A – Native species

Score 0

Part B – Non-Native species

Score 2.5

Part C – Native and Non-native species

Question Score

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? Yes

Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations?

No

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb breeding behavior of the same or other species?

To some extent

Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g. by feeding, foraging, settlement or other)?

To some extent

Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats?

No

3

F 6.1b Score 5.5

Final C6 Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

43

Exceptional Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

F6.2X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 10.00

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of stock parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement 100

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10 GREEN