Farmed Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)

(© Monterey Bay Aquarium)

China Ponds

6/1/2012 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 China received one red ranking—chemical use (the Data criterion does not contribute to the number of red criteria) and a moderate final score (5.34). Therefore, Chinese tilapia is ranked a Good Alternative overall. Tilapia O. niloticus, O. niloticus x O. aureus, Oreochromis spp.

China Ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 2.50 RED1 N/A C2 Effluent 6.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 4.82 YELLOW NO C4 Chemicals 0.00 RED NO C5 Feed 9.39 GREEN NO C6 Escapes 5.00 YELLOW NO C7 Disease 5.00 YELLOW 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 42.71 Final score 5.34

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 5.34 Initial Rank YELLOW Red Criteria 1 Interim Rank YELLOW

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank GOOD ALTERNATIVE

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

1 The data criterion does not contribute to the number of “Red” criteria in terms of determining the final rank.

3

Executive Summary

China is the world’s largest producer of farmed tilapia, harvesting 1.2 million tons in 2010, and supplying approximately 40% of global production. Nearly 40% of China’s production is exported to the United States, mainly as frozen fillets. Production is predominantly in ponds that usually discharge water only once per cycle (at harvest). Despite its size and high importance to the US market, robust environmental monitoring statistics from China are not available, and most information on tilapia production is dispersed, and only available in Chinese. Data availability is therefore considered poor. Although tilapia can be grown with minimal feed inputs or waste production in low intensity systems, production for export typically operates with a higher intensity of feed inputs and waste (effluent) outputs. The level of N wastes (29.44 kg N) produced per ton of harvested fish is considered relatively low, and only about a quarter of these wastes are directly released to the environment from the ponds. However, there are no specificities in China’s effluent regulations that relate to the cumulative impacts of multiple farms, and enforcement by local authorities appears almost nonexistent. The farms are considered to have moderate impacts on the habitat’s provision of ecosystem services and they are located in low-value environments, but regulations and enforcement regarding licensing and site selection are weak. Tilapia can be raised successfully on vegetable-based feeds, but production for export markets typically uses some fishmeal to increase growth rates. However, the low level of marine ingredients and the relatively high inclusion of crop ingredients in feed result in low values for both wild fish use and the feed footprint. Tilapia production results in a net protein gain as a result of the relatively low Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR~1.3) and protein level in the diet, and the inclusion of 28% of the protein from non-edible sources. The risk of escape is considered to be moderate-low in ponds with low water exchange and tilapia is a highly invasive species, but populations are already well established in the wild. In these circumstances, the potential impacts of escaping tilapia are considered to be relatively moderate. Although historically considered to be relatively resilient to disease, the increasing intensification of tilapia production means that disease-related mortalities are now frequent. Farms discharge water without relevant treatment implying a risk of disease transfer from the farms to wild fish, and banned or illegal chemicals such as antibiotics and fungal treatments (nitrofurans and malachite green) are still used in tilapia production in China. 100% of tilapia fingerlings in China are produced in hatcheries, so the industry is considered to be independent of wild fisheries with respect to supplying broodstook and fingerlings for production.

4

Overall, Chinese tilapia gets a moderate overall score of 5.34 out of ten. Tilapia as a species has the potential to be raised in sustainable ways, but the increasing intensification and industrialization has resulted in one “Red” score for the Chemical Use criterion. This means that the overall ranking is “Yellow”, and therefore the recommendation is “Good Alternative”.

5

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

Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 3 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Scoring guide .......................................................................................................................... 7 Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ............................................................................... 8 Criterion 2: Effluents ............................................................................................................ 10 Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 13 Criterion 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ................................................................ 15 Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 16 Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 18 Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 21 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 ....................................... 24

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 25 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 26 References .................................................................................................................................... 26 About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 33 Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 34 Data points and all scoring calculations........................................................................................ 36 Appendix I. Assessment of Elite Aquaculture Ltd Farmed Tilapia ................................................ 43 Appendix II. Aquaculture Evaluation of Elite Aquaculture Ltd Farmed Tilapia ............................ 61

6

Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report focuses on pond raised Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) from Mainland China. This report does not assess production from Taiwan. Farmed tilapias in China are Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), hybrids between O. niloticus females and blue tilapia (O. aureus) males, and red tilapia (O. spp.). Genetically improved Nile tilapia, such as the GIFT and the GST strains2, were imported and adopted by Chinese farmers due to its faster growth (Eknath et al. 2007, Fu et al. 2008). The hybrids produced by crossing Nile tilapia and Blue tilapia are preferred by some farmers because of its high male percentage and better survival at low temperatures. Red tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) is grown in brackish water environments due to their higher salinity tolerance (Thodesen et al. 2011, Zhao et al. 2011). In the statistics all production is reported as Nile tilapia (FAO 2009). Species overview Tilapia is a prolific fast-growing tropical species, native to Africa and the Middle East, 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). Therefore, tilapia can be grown on feeds with relatively lower protein and higher carbohydrate levels than carnivorous farmed species (El-Sayed 2006). Production and market overview Tilapia farming has expanded rapidly worldwide during the last decade, and is predicted to continue to grow in the future (Tveteras and Nystoyl 2011). Globally, tilapia is the second most important group of farmed fish after carp; in 2010, 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). With 1.2 million tons in 2010, China is the largest producer, supplying about 40% of total tilapia production in the world (FAO 2010). The major tilapia production area in China is located in the South (>90% of production) due to its warm climate. Tilapia is also cultured in North China in heated waters supplied by electricity power plants. Guandong, Hainan, and Guanxi provinces supply the majority of Chinese tilapia, where year-round farming is possible as tilapia could survive the winter naturally (Hanson et al. 2011, Liu 2012, Zhao et al. 2011).

2 GIFT (Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia) and GST (GenoMar Supreme Tilapia) strains were obtained by selective breeding methods that do not involve any genetic modification.

7

Tilapia production systems in China can be classified into two categories: integrated and specialized systems. Integrated tilapia production systems are small to medium size, and use on-farm wastes such as pig manure to fertilize fish ponds. These farms cannot obtain the Chinese Inspector Quarantine (CIQ) certification that would allow them to export. In contrast, export-oriented tilapia farms are specialized in aquaculture and they are subject to more rigorous controls (usually twice a year random inspections) due to the CIQ certification requirements (http://en.ciqcid.com/). Another production system is tilapia farming in reservoirs originally built for rice farms. These reservoirs are located both in Guangdong and Hainan (Guo et al. 2012). Production in reservoirs is included in this report. According to the US National Fisheries Institute (2011), tilapia is the fourth most consumed fish in the United States. During 2010, the average consumption of tilapia (1.5 pounds) increased 20% when compared to 2009. Additionally during that period, nearly 40% of Chinese tilapia production was exported to the US, mainly as frozen fillets. Other export markets are Mexico, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and the EU (Fitzsimmons et al. 2011). Tilapia is also known in the market as Saint Peter fish and Izumidai (Fitzsimmons 2006). The tilapia market can be divided into two product segments: fresh and frozen (Norman-López and Bjørndal 2009). In 2011, the United States imported more than 261,000,000 pounds of frozen tilapia fillets, valued at US$522 million. Chinese products dominated the frozen sector of the US import market, providing about 68% of the whole tilapia and 86% of the tilapia fillets in 2011 (USDA 2012). Frozen fillets are available in different forms such as skin-on, skin-off, and deep skinned (which removes the red/brown meat just under the skin to produce a white fillet). Latin American countries dominate the market of fresh products. In 2011, Honduras and Ecuador supplied 74% of imported fresh fillets to the US market (USDA 2012). By-products from tilapia are used for leather goods, gelatin, and medicines.

Analysis

Scoring guide Excluding 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.

8

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. Nor does it allow for informed choices for seafood purchasers, or 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 2.5 2.5 Effluent Yes 2.5 2.5 Locations/habitats Yes 0 0 Predators and wildlife Yes 2.5 2.5 Chemical use Yes 0 0 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 2.5 2.5 Disease Yes 5 5 Source of stock Yes 5 5 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No 0 n/a Total 22.5

C1 Data Final Score 2.50 RED Despite its importance to the US market, robust production and environmental monitoring statistics from China are not available, and most information on tilapia production is dispersed. Most research publications are in Chinese and published in local journals such as South China Fisheries Science (www.schinafish.cn). The publically available sources of information on any aspects of production or their associated potential environmental impacts are very scarce. The most updated available and reliable information in English can be found in reports produced by international organizations such as Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), or by government agencies from importing countries such as USDA or FDA. Data quality and availability is therefore considered poor. Justification of Ranking China is the largest tilapia producer in the world, but fish production volumes reported by the Chinese government often raise concerns about their reliability (Pauly 2009). Aquaculture production statistics provided by the Chinese government were revised and corrected in the

9

FAO (2010) State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Although aquaculture is very important in China, there is a lack of research on tilapia production on important issues related to production systems, management practices or to their associated potential environmental impacts. Information on fundamental issues such as feeds, effluent management, and escapes is very scarce or hard to access (Cao et al. 2007, Liu and Li 2010, NACA 2007). In some cases, such as the potential impacts on predator and wildlife mortalities, the lack of information impedes its full assessment as there are no records that can be used as evidence. Research or reports on tilapia production in China are almost nonexistent in English (except for some abstracts), and thus, it remains as a “black box” (Naylor 2011). In the same way, there are no data regarding farm sizes or locations that allow for the understanding of habitat change due to the establishment of tilapia operations, or information about chemical use. Evidence of this latter was reported by FDA’s shipment inspections (FDA 2011, 2012). The lack of farm level data records, independent monitoring data, and industry data limit the ability to make informed environmental assessments.

10

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 of fish (kg N ton-1) 29.44 F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 25 F2 .1 Waste discharge score (0-10) 9 F2.2a Content of regulations (0-5) 1 F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0-5) 0.75 F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0-10) 0.3 C2 Effluent Final Score 6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO The values of protein level in feeds (28%) and the feed conversion ratio (1.3) determine a relatively low level of waste production (29.44 kg N) per ton of harvested fish. Although tilapia is always the dominant species in the pond, they are cultured with silver and bighead carp. This practice is known as polyculture, and helps to reduce the N load in the water as ~9% of the N wastes are taken by the carp. In ponds that discharge once per production cycle, about a third of these wastes are directly released to the environment resulting in a waste discharge score of 9 (out of ten). However the lack of specificities in the environmental regulations and weak enforcement give low confidence that the cumulative effluent impacts of China’s many farms are considered. This reduces the final effluent score to 6 and a “Yellow” ranking for this criterion. Justification of Ranking The Seafood Watch Criteria uses nitrogen (N) as the most data rich proxy for assessing biological waste production from aquaculture. The amount of waste discharged as N 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. Regarding N inputs, the protein level in feeds used for tilapia

11

during the grow-out phase are around 28%. Normally, during the juvenile stage the protein level in feeds is higher; however, the amount of feed used in this stage is low when compared to the feed used along the overall production cycle. The feed used during the grow-out phase usually has the lowest protein level, but it represents the bigger portion of the feed used for tilapia production and thus, 28% is selected in the calculations. In the case of the FCR, registered values are between 1.1 and 1.5, and 1.3 is used. In a conservative estimation, no N input as fertilizer was considered, even when relatively high values were reported by some farming operations (~400 kg N/ton fish produced). Fertilizers can heavily contribute to the N inputs in pond production (Hargreaves 1998), but as fertilization is not a widespread management practice in tilapia farming according to the consulted farm managers, it is not accounted in the N balance. Therefore, the nitrogen input per ton of production is 58.24 kg N. Regarding the nitrogen outputs, the harvested fish have a protein content of 18%, equating to 28.8 kg N per ton of fish produced. Hence, the net nitrogenous waste produced per ton of fish is 29.44 kg N. In China, silver carps are stocked in tilapia ponds, and their presence results in the reduction of the N in wastewater (Xiao et al. 2010). Silver carps are filter-feeder fish that are more efficient feeding on larger phytoplankton when compared to tilapia. The complementarity among cultured species results in a more efficient N intake as more green algae and cyanobacteria are removed from the water column (Turker et al. 2003). Bighead carp feed mainly on zooplankton, being able to exploit another food niche in the pond (Yan et al. 2009). Carp production represents 10% of total production in ponds, and thus, if 5% is taken for conservative calculations, it is estimated that ~105 kg of carps is harvested per ton of tilapia. The protein content of silver and bighead carps is around 15% (Chen et al. 1983), and thus, it is estimated that 2.52 kg N are harvested as carp tissue. This value represents 9% of the N wastes produced by tilapia that are discounted in the waste discharge score calculation. Chinese tilapia ponds typically exchange water once per cycle, discharging only at harvest, given the scarcity of freshwater in the production regions. Therefore, the discharge factor is 0.34 or 34% in the criteria (i.e. approximately two-thirds (66%) of the waste is broken down within the ponds) (Boyd et al. 2007, Sonnenholzer 2008). The 9% of N that is harvested with carps is subtracted from this value, resulting in the discharge of 25% of the N wastes produced by tilapia. The net output of nitrogen wastes (7.36 kg N per ton of produced tilapia) is considered low and generates a score of 9 (out of 10). An effective effluent regulation should address and control the risks associated with effluents that are beyond the farm level such as the carrying capacity of the receiving waters, the total farm size, and the number and concentration of other farms discharging into the water body. During the last decade, China has changed the regulations regarding aquaculture effluents. New regulations include the Standard SC/T9101-2007 for freshwater or SC/T9103-2007 for seawater. However, there is a need to develop more specific regulations regarding aquaculture effluents (Cao et al. 2007). Water quality requirements are also established in other aquaculture related

12

laws and regulations (Chen et al. 2011, Hanson et al. 2011). Besides the national regulations, wastewater discharge is regulated and enforced by local governments. Provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities may establish their own local standards for items that are not specified in national standards (NALO 2012). Although local environmental authorities should control effluents by unscheduled inspections, effective monitoring is absent. Therefore, most companies have not taken significant measures to reduce waste discharge (Chen et al. 2011). The content of the regulations therefore generates a low value 1 (out of 5), and the enforcement of the regulations only 0.75 (out of 5), giving an overall score for the regulatory management effectiveness of 0.3 (out of 10). The high score of 9 for waste discharge, when combined with the weak regulations and enforcement is reduced to a final score of 6 (out of ten) for the effluent criterion.

13

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 7.00 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 1.50 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 0.75 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 0.45 C3 Habitat Final Score 4.82 YELLOW

Critical? NO Chinese tilapia operations are primary located in the southern provinces, occupying low-value environments and, thus, it is estimated that they have moderate impacts on the provision of ecosystem services. Although the impacts of tilapia operations on habitat change are considered to be moderate, weak regulations and enforcement regarding licensing and site selection result in an intermediate overall score (4.82). Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function Habitat conversion for aquaculture purposes is measured through the effect on the provision of ecosystem services (ES). There is no evidence that tilapia farming has changed ES supply. However, a significant portion of fishponds in South China were built in former croplands during the early 1990s (Li and Yeh 2004), and there is evidence of habitat fragmentation as a consequence of pond construction (Ke et al. 2011, Lang et al. 2009). Habitat fragmentation affects species composition and ecosystem functioning, and thus, it may have an impact on ES supply such as pollination, seed dispersal, and carbon sequestration (Diaz et al. 2005). Conversely, according to Yang et al. (2009a) pond aquaculture in the Yangtze basin has a positive contribution to carbon sequestration. Other operations are located in high-value environments such as wetlands (Zhang et al. 2011) or mangroves (Xu et al. 2011), but they provide a lower share of tilapia production in China. Tilapia production in ponds presents moderate impacts on the provision of ES (e.g. no irreversible impacts on ecosystems), and thus the score for this factor is 7 (out of 10).

14

Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) Strong regulations and their enforcement must control the cumulative impact of habitat conversion. An appropriate aquaculture siting management requires a regional, ecosystem-based approach focused on the assimilative capacity determined by baseline conditions, and it has to be consistent, transparent, and objective (King and Puschak 2008, Primavera 2006). In China, the Ministry of Agriculture delivers licenses for aquaculture operations. However, it has been difficult for the government to license thousands of small-scale aquaculture facilities (USDA 2011). The proportion of unlicensed farms is unknown, and thus regulations are not applied in these facilities (Broughton and Walker 2010). Moreover, site selection for aquaculture in China has no specific legislation (Chen et al. 2011). The use of the aquatic and terrestrial environment is regulated in different laws such as the Fisheries Law (2004), the Regulation Law for Sea Area Usage (2001), and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law (2002). Land and water areas are all state owned, and its use has to meet the local functional zoning scheme as required by the Land Administration Law, when available, as in Guangdong, Shanxi, Fujian, and Sichuan provinces. Function zones include conservation areas, industry, aquaculture, etc. (Chen et al. 2011, NALO 2012). China’s Land Management Law has indicated that occupation of basic farmland for aquaculture is prohibited (Hanson et al. 2011). EIA is required in different environmental laws, but there are no specific references to aquaculture, and the ex-ante EIA for new aquaculture farms is lacking (Chen et al. 2011). According to the Environmental Protection Law (1989), the competent departments of environmental protection administration of the people’s governments at or above the county level should make an assessment on the environmental situation within the areas under their jurisdiction (NALO 2012). However, enforcement is often weak as aquaculture is favored by the government, which considers it an important economic activity. Furthermore, laws and regulations lack practical punitive measures (Chen et al. 2011). The lack of regulations regarding farm siting and licensing and its weak enforcement result in a low score for this factor (0.45 out of 10).

15

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. Wild animals such as water birds are closely associated to aquaculture ponds (Ma et al. 2004, 2009) in China, however there is no information regarding the control methods taken by farmers against predators. Although there is a shortage of research on this issue, there is no evidence of direct or accidental mortality of wildlife or predators in tilapia farms in China, and it is considered that ponds involve relatively low risk to predators.

16

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 of their use.

Criterion 4 Summary

Chemical Use Parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 0.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 0.00 RED

Critical? NO

There is evidence that banned or illegal chemicals such as antibiotics, malachite green and methyl testosterone hormones are still used in tilapia production in China, therefore the chemical use score is zero, and ranked red. Justification of Ranking Nitrofurans and malachite green are still used in some tilapia operations in China. The use of these chemicals has been prohibited by Chinese authorities since 2002. However, according to Broughton and Walker (2010) “There are several indications that regulations pertaining to antibiotic use are not being followed.” FDA found evidence that some Chinese tilapia imported into the US may contain these illegal substances. Therefore, tilapia from the identified operations is subjected to “detention without physical examination” (DWPE or “Import Alert” status) (FDA 2011, 2012). This means that tilapia from these operations cannot enter to the US, “unless or until the importer or foreign producer demonstrates compliance” (Horton 2009). The presence of nitrofurans was also detected in Chinese tilapia fillets entering into UK and Germany in 2007 and 2008, respectively (Vass et al. 2008). The drug furazolidone, which belongs to the group of nitrofuran bacterial agents, is used for the treatment of fish diseases caused by bacteria. Furazolidone has been prohibited worldwide for its carcinogenicity and mutagenicity (Xu et al. 2006a). Malachite green has been used in aquaculture as a parasiticide to control fungal attacks and protozoan infections. However, its use has been banned due to its reported toxic effects (Srivastava et al. 2004, Li et al. 2008).

17

The male hormone 17-alpha-methyltestosterone is also used in tilapia production, even though it is considered illegal in China. This hormone is included in larvae feeds for sex reversal to produce all male stocks of fish (Hanson et al. 2011). All-male (monosex) production is preferred in tilapia production in order to avoid unwanted fry production (i.e. overpopulation), and because of the male’s faster growth. The administration of an androgen (17-alpha-methyltestosterone) does not alter the genotype of the fish, but directs the expression of the phenotype (Phelps 2006).

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) 0.23 9.42 F5.1b Source Fishery Sustainability Score -6.00 F5.1: Wild Fish Use 9.28 F5.2a Protein IN 19.55 F5.2b Protein OUT 18.00 F5.2: Net Protein Gain (%) 7.91 10 F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 1.87 9 C5 Feed Final Score 9.39 GREEN

Critical? NO

Tilapia can be grown without any marine ingredients (fishmeal or fish oil) (e.g. El-Sayed 1998, Zhao et al. 2010), but despite their use to increase growth rates, the low level of marine ingredients (4%) and the relatively high inclusion of crop ingredients currently used in feeds still results in good scores for both wild fish use and feed footprint. Similarly, tilapia production in China results in a positive net production of protein (7.91%). Tilapia has a low fillet yield (around 35% depending on the skinning technique), but post-harvest by-products are utilized for other uses. Overall, the combination of the three scores (wild fish use, net protein gain or loss, and feed footprint) determines a high final score (9.39 out of 10) for the feed criterion.

Justification of Ranking C5.1. Wild Fish Use The relatively low feed conversion ratio (FCR) (1.3), the low fishmeal inclusion level (4%) and the absence of fish oil in tilapia diets result in a very low FIFO ratio (0.23). Information regarding the inclusion level of marine ingredients in tilapia feeds in China is very scarce (Naylor

19

2011). Tacon and Metian (2008) reported levels of 2%–5% and 0%–1%, of fishmeal and fish oil inclusion, respectively; while Deustch et al. (2007) registered a 6% of fishmeal level in commercial feeds for tilapia. The correction of the FIFO score by the score for the source of the fishmeal does not affect the overall wild fish score, even when the source is unknown in most cases (-6), due to the low level of fishmeal in feed. China is the world’s largest fishmeal user, and different sources of fishmeal are available, but their use depends on such diverse factors as price and availability. In the case of domestic fishmeal production, manufacturers often experience supply instability (Jin 2007). Most of fishmeal used in China is imported (Nordahl 2011), and Peru is the largest fishmeal supplier for China (USDA 2010). During 2010, 66% of the total Peruvian exports were sent to China (IFFO 2011). However, it is not possible to know precisely the source of fishmeal used in commercial feeds for tilapia in China. Therefore, the high overall score for wild fish (9.42) is driven by the low level of marine ingredients, even though the source of these ingredients is mostly unknown. C5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss Tilapia production in China results in a positive balance of edible protein. This value results from the balance between the edible proteins included in feed and the edible protein harvested in the fillet or used for other purposes, but not wasted. Commercial feeds for tilapia in China mostly use plant proteins as the major protein source (Lin et al. 2010). The edible protein accounts for the 72% of the total protein in feeds. The edible protein in feed is mainly composed by crop ingredients such as soybean meal, which usually constitutes ~50% of the diet, and fishmeal (Weimin and Mengqing 2007). The non-edible sources of protein are rendered animal products such as poultry by-product meal, blood meal, meat and bone meal, and hydrolyzed feather meal (included at ~6%), and crop by-products such as wheat middlings (included at ~30%). The recovered edible protein in the harvested fish results from its protein content and the portion of the fish that is used. The protein content (18%) and the fillet yield (37%) of tilapia are low when compared to other species, but the whole use of the by-products after processing such as heads, tails, skin, and scales determines a raise in the overall balance. By-products are fully used as an input for other products. For example, high-collagen tilapia skin (Ye et al. 2008) is processed and used as an ingredient in cosmetic products (Hanson et al. 2011). The positive balance of edible protein during tilapia production results in the highest score (10 out of 10) for the Net Protein Gain or Loss factor. C5.3. Feed Footprint The feed footprint factor takes account of all the feed inputs, on the basis of the area of primary productivity appropriated to produce them, and it is estimated through the aquatic and terrestrial area needed to produce the ingredients used for aquaculture feeds. The low inclusion level of marine ingredients (4% of fishmeal) and the high proportion of crop ingredients (87%) in commercial tilapia feeds in China result in a low feed footprint value (1.87 hectares), and thus a high score for this factor (9 out of 10). Marine ingredients present the highest footprint followed by the land animal ingredients, and the crop ingredients. During the last decade the inclusion level of marine ingredients was reduced due to their higher costs (Jin 2007). The inclusion of land animal-derived ingredients allows the reduction in the level of

20

marine ingredients in tilapia feeds. This replacement follows the same trend registered in aquaculture for other species (Tacon 2010).

21

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 6 F6.1 Recapture and Mortality (%) 0 F6.1b Invasiveness 5 C6 Escape Final Score 5.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO Tilapia is recognized as a highly invasive species (Diana 2009). It has been widely introduced to China for fishing and aquaculture and is now considered established in the wild (De Silva et al. 2004). The escape score results from the combination of the escape risk (6.1) and the invasiveness (6.1b) scores. The risk of escape is considered to be moderate-low (6) as the tilapia is stocked in ponds with low water exchange rates, and the invasiveness score is moderate as tilapia populations are already established in the wild. The potential impacts of ongoing escapes of tilapia in the environment are considered to be relatively moderate, and the escapes criterion is therefore a low-moderate but Yellow rank.

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape risk Although tilapia is considered to have a high invasive potential, evidence or reports on the amount of tilapia escapes (and its recapture) from aquaculture operations in China is unavailable (Cao et al. 2007). The escape risk is directly related to its degree of connection to the natural ecosystem (Hill 2008). In ponds with low daily exchange rates (<3%), the risk of escape is considered to be moderate-low. Animals may escape or be released from ponds during the production cycle and during natural disasters such as floods (Tucker et al. 2008). Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness Tilapia is recognized as a highly invasive species (Diana 2009), and it is listed on the IUCN’s Global Invasive Species Database3. In China, tilapia populations are already established in the

3 http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/

22

southern region, where winter water temperatures allow them to survive. Tilapia cannot exist in the wild in regions where water temperature is lower than 50 °F (Sifa et al. 2002). Xu et al. (2006b) register the existence of a natural population of Nile tilapia in Yunnan and Guanxi. These animals are adapted to the natural environment, being capable of breeding in the wild. However, there is little evidence of impacts caused by escaped tilapia (De Silva et al. 2004). Tilapia tends to fill a vacant niche in degraded environments as a result of anthropogenic activities or in modified water bodies, such as reservoirs or irrigation systems. Potential ecological impacts of tilapia in the wild are associated to competition with natural populations for feed and breeding sites (Canonico et al. 2005, Martin et al. 2010).

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” criterion 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-water body Live Animal Shipments (%) 0.00 F6.2Xb Biosecurity of Source/Destination 10.00 C6 Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Tilapia production in China is self sufficient in terms of broodstock and fingerling production and does not involve any international or trans-water body live animal shipments. Therefore the risk of unintentionally introducing non-native species is low.

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 water body. 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 5.00 C7 Disease; Pathogen and Parasite Final Score 5.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

The increasing intensity of tilapia production for the export market means that disease-related mortalities are now frequent. Farms are not biosecure, and their discharge water is without relevant treatment. Although there is no evidence of impacts on wild species outside of the farms, the disease risk is considered moderate. Justification of Ranking Although tilapia is considered to be highly resistant to diseases, environmental or physiological stressing conditions reduce its defense mechanisms against infections (Fitzsimmons and Watanabe 2010). Therefore, the maintenance of a high quality farming environment and the reduction of handling stress are important in avoiding diseases. Since 2009, extreme high temperatures in summer trigger disease outbreaks in southern China, affecting tilapia production. For instance, in 2009 more than 50% of tilapia farms in Hainan were affected (Liu et al. 2012). The degradation of the water quality, the use of low quality inputs such as feed and fingerlings, and the overuse of antibiotics may have contributed to the spread of the disease (USDA 2011). Young tilapias (100-200 g) were mostly affected, and mortalities up to 90% were registered in some farms. Streptococcus agalactiae was identified as the main pathogen in Hainan and Guandong (Ye et al. 2011, Zhao et al. 2011), followed by the hepatobiliary syndrome (Liu et al. 2012). In winter, low temperatures often result in adult fish mortalities, including tilapia breeders. Other diseases have been reported in tilapia production in China as the tail-rot disease in juvenile tilapia by Aeromonas sobria, which has developed resistance to antimicrobial drugs (Li and Cai 2011), and fulminant hemorrhagic disease in hybrid tilapia in Hainan (Yang et al. 2009b). Limited research has been undertaken on the transfer of diseases to wild fish populations, and thus there is no evidence of pathogens exchange between farmed and wild fish. The low level of pond water exchange and the low levels of farm biosecurity determine that disease risk is considered moderate.

24

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

C8 Source of Stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

100% of stocked tilapia fingerlings are derived from hatcheries and domesticated broodstocks, therefore the farms are considered to be independent of, and having no impact on wild fisheries. Justification of Ranking Tilapia production is fully independent from wild stocks, and there is no capture of wild fish for either broodstock or fingerlings. However, the number of hatcheries in China is unknown. While Honglang (2007) states that there are 499 hatcheries for tilapia, Liu et al. (2011) report the existence of more than 150 hatcheries in China: Guangdong (>100), Hainan (~40) and Guangxi (~10), and the production of more than 30.7 billion of tilapia fingerlings in 2009. Liu et al. (2012) report the existence of seed quality problems related to the effect of extreme weather events in the last years.

25

Overall Recommendation The overall recommendation is as follows: 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: – 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.

Tilapia O. niloticus, O. niloticus x O. aureus, Oreochromis spp.

China

Ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 2.50 RED4 N/A C2 Effluent 6.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 4.82 YELLOW NO C4 Chemicals 0.00 RED NO C5 Feed 9.39 GREEN NO C6 Escapes 5.00 YELLOW NO C7 Disease 5.00 YELLOW 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 42.71 Final score 5.34

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 5.34 Initial Rank YELLOW Red Criteria 1 Interim Rank YELLOW

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank GOOD ALTERNATIVE

4 The data criterion does not contribute to the number of “Red” criteria in terms of determining the final rank.

26

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. Broughton, E.I. and D.G. Walker (2010) Policies and practices for aquaculture food safety in China. Food Policy 35: 471-478. 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. Cao L., W. Wang, Y. Yang, C. Yang, Z. Yuan, S. Xiong and J.S. Diana (2007) Environmental Impact of Aquaculture and Countermeasures to Aquaculture Pollution in China. Environmental Science Pollution Research 14 (7): 452–462. Chen, S., C. Hu and Y. Hua (1983) Analysis of biochemical composition of muscle in Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and Aristichthys nobilis. Acta Hydrobiologica Sinica 8: 125-132. Chen L., C. Zhu and S. Dong (2011) Aquaculture site selection and carrying capacity management in China. Guandong Agricultural Sciences 21: 1-7. De Silva, S.S., R.P. Subasinghe, D.M. Bartley and A. Lowther (2004) Tilapias as alien aquatics in Asia and the Pacific: a review. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 453. FAO, Rome. Deustch, L., S. Graslund, C. Folke, M. Troell, M. Huitric, N. Kautsky and L. Lebel (2007) Feeding aquaculture growth through globalization: Exploitation of marine ecosystems for fishmeal. Global Environmental Change 17: 238–249. Diana, J.S. (2009) Aquaculture Production and Biodiversity Conservation. Bioscience 59(1): 27-38.

27

Diaz, S., D. Tilman, J. Fargione, F.S. Chapin III, R. Dirzo, T. Jitzberger, B. Gemmill, M. Zobel, M. Vila, C. Mitchell, A. Wilby, G.C. Daily, M. Galetti, W.F. Laurance, J. Pretty, R. Naylor, A. Power and D. Harvell (2005). Biodiversity Regulation of Ecosystem Services. In: MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends. Island Press, Washington, pp. 297-329. Eknath A.E., H.B. Bentsen, R.W. Ponzoni, M. Rye, N.H. Nguyen, J. Thodesen and B. Gjerde (2007) Genetic improvement of farmed tilapias: Composition and genetic parameters of a synthetic base population of Oreochromis niloticus for selective breeding. Aquaculture 273:1-14. El-Sayed, A-F.M. (1998) Total replacement of fish meal with animal protein sources in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), feeds. Aquaculture Research 29(4): 275-280. El-Sayed, A-F.M. (2006) Tilapia culture. CABI Publishing, Cambridge. FAO (2009) FishStat Plus version 2.32. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Fisheries Information, Data and Statistics Unit, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en FAO (2010) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e00.htm FDA (2011) Detention Without Physical Examination of Aquacultured Catfish, Basa, Shrimp, Dace, and Eel from China- Presence of New Animal Drugs and/or Unsafe Food Additives. Import Alert #16-131. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_33.html FDA (2012) Detention Without Physical Examination Of Aquaculture Seafood Products Due To Unapproved Drugs. Import Alert # 16-124. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_27.html 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., 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 of the 9th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture. Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China, April 22-25, 2011. Fu, Y., J. Zhong, X. Xie, W. Ye, B. Lin, H. Chen and H. Zhang (2008) Genetic diversity and specific AFLP bands in three cultured tilapia strains. South China Fisheries Science 4(6): 50-55.

28

Guo, Z., Z. Li, J. Liu, F. Zu and H.A.C.C. Perera (2012) Status of Reservoir Fisheries in China and Their Effect on Environment. In: B.-P. Han and Z. Liu (Eds.) Tropical and Sub-Tropical Reservoir Limnology in China. Springer, Dordretch, pp. 259-276. Hanson, A., H. Cui, L. Zou, S. Clarke, G. Muldoon, J. Potts and H. Zhang (2011) Greening China’s Fish and Fish Products Market Supply Chains. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2011/greening_china_fish_en.pdf Hargreaves, J.A. (1998) Nitrogen biogeochemistry of aquaculture ponds. Aquaculture 166(3-4): 181-212. Hill, J.E. (2008) Non-Native Species in Aquaculture: Terminology, Potential Impacts, and the Invasion Process. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication 4303. https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/209/ Honglang, H (2007) Freshwater fish seed resources in China. pp. 185–199. In: M.G. Bondad-Reantaso (ed.). Assessment of freshwater fish seed resources for sustainable aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 501. FAO, Rome. Horton, L. (2009) US FDA Authority over Imports. RAJ Pharma (May): 293-294. IFFO (2011) Weekly Report—Week 25. http://www.iffo.net/downloads/WR%20Producer/WR25-2011AM.pdf Jin, W. (2007) China Fishmeal Market Update (Technical Committee). IFFO Conference, May 8, 2007, Miami. http://www.iffo.net/downloads/Miami%202007/China%20Update%20-%20Wenpu%20Jin.pdf Ke, C-Q., D. Zhang, F-Q. Wang, S-X. Chen, C. Scmullios, W-M. Boerner and H. Wang (2011) Analyzing coastal wetland change in the Yancheng National Nature Reserve, China. Regional Environmental Change 11:161–173. King, S.C. and R. Pushchak (2008) Incorporating cumulative effects into environmental assessments of mariculture: Limitations and failures of current siting methods. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 572–586. Lang, X., C. Xiaoxiang, L. Xiaolan and H. Zhijian (2009) Changes in landscape pattern of wetlands in the Pearl Rivers Estuary in the past two decades. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Geoinformatics, 12-14 August 2009, Fairfax, VA, pp. 1-5. Li, X. and A.G-O. Yeh (2004) Analyzing spatial restructuring of land use patterns in a fast growing region using remote sensing and GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 335–354.

29

Li, Y., T. Yang, X. Qi, Y. Qiao and A. Deng (2008) Development of a group selective molecularly imprinted polymers based solid phase extraction of malachite green from fish water and fish feed samples. Analytica Chimica Acta 624(2): 317–325. Li, Y. and S.-H. Cai (2011) Identification and Pathogenicity of Aeromonas sobria on Tail-rot Disease in Juvenile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus. Current Microbiology 62: 623–627. Lin, S., K. Mai, B. Tan and W. Liu (2010) Effects of Four Vegetable Protein Supplementation on Growth, Digestive Enzyme Activities, and Liver Functions of Juvenile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus×Oreochromis aureus. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 41(4): 583–593. Liu, L., W. Zhang, F. Murry and D. Little (2011) Status and sustainability analysis of the tilapia aquaculture in China. 9th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China, April 22-25, 2011. http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/ISTA9/PDF's/ZhangLipingtilapia.pdf Liu, J. and Z. Li (2010) The Role of Exotics in Chinese Inland Aquaculture. In: S.S. De Silva and F.B. Davy (Eds.) Success Stories in Asian Aquaculture. Springer, Dordretch, pp. 173-186. Liu, L., Z. Zhang, W. Zhang, F. Murray and D. Little (2012) Tilapia Aquaculture in China: Low Market Prices, Other Issues Challenge As Sector Seeks Sustainability. Global Aquaculture Advocate (March/April): 20-21. http://pdf.gaalliance.org/pdf/GAA-Liu-Mar12.pdf Ma, Z., B. Zhao, K. Jing, S. Tang and J. Chen (2004) Are artificial wetlands good alternatives to natural wetlands for waterbirds? – A case study on Chongming Island, China. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 333–350. Ma, Z., Y. Wang, X. Gan, B. Li, Y. Cai and J. Chen (2009) Waterbird Population Changes in the Wetlands at Chongming Dongtan in the Yangtze River Estuary, China. Environmental Management 43: 1187–1200. Martin, C.W., M.M. Valentine and J.F. Valentine (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 NACA (2007) Report on the workshop on Research Needs in Sustaining the Aquaculture Sector in Asia-Pacific to Year 2025 and Beyond. June, 4-7 2007 Rayong, Thailand. http://library.enaca.org/NACA-Publications/idrc-research-needs-07.pdf NALO (2012) National Aquaculture Legislation Overview—China. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_china/en National Fisheries Institute (2011) Top 10 consumed seafood.

30

http://www.aboutseafood.com/about/about-seafood/top-10-consumed-seafoods Naylor, R. (2011) Aquaculture and Feed Use in China. Presentation at the Seafood Summit, February 1, 2011, Vancouver. http://www.seafoodchoices.org/seafoodsummit/documents/Naylor,Roz.pdf Nordahl, P.G. (2011) An examination of the fishmeal-soybean meal relationship and research initiatives aimed at reducing the fishmeal inclusion level in fish feeds. MSc thesis, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen. 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 Pauly, D. (2009) Beyond duplicity and ignorance in global fisheries. Scientia Marina 73(2): 215-224. Phelps, R.P. (2006) Hormone Manipulation of Sex. In: C. Lim and C.D. Webster (Eds.) Tilapia: Biology, Culture, and Nutrition. The Haworth Press, Binghamton, pp. 211-252. Primavera, J.H. (2006) Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the coastal zone. Ocean & Coastal Management 49: 531–545 Sifa, L., L. Chenhong, M. Dey, F. Galac and R. Dunham (2002) Cold tolerance of three strains of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, in China. Aquaculture 213 (1-4): 123–129. Srivastava, S., R. Sinha and D. Roya (2004) Toxicological effects of malachite green. Aquatic Toxicology 66(3): 319–329. Sonnenholzer, S. (2008) Effluent impact assessment: water quality monitoring vs nutrient budget. WWF Shrimp Aquaculture Dialogue, Guayaquil, Ecuador. http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/WWFBinaryitem10352.pdf 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. Tacon, A.G.J. (2010) Aquaculture feeds: addressing the long term sustainable of the sector. Global Conference on Aquaculture 2010, Farming the waters for People and Food, 22-25 September 2010, Phuket, Thailand. Thodesen, J., M. Rye, Y.-X. Wang, K.-S. Yang, H.B. Bentsen and T. Gjedrem (2011) Genetic improvement of tilapias in China: Genetic parameters and selection responses in growth of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) after six generations of multi-trait selection for growth and fillet yield. Aquaculture 322-3: 51-64.

31

Tucker, C.S., J.A. Hargreaves and C.E. Boyd (2008) Better Management Practices for Freshwater Pond Aquaculture. In: C.S. Tuker and J.A. Hargreaves (Eds.) Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 151-226. Turker, H., A.G. Eversole and D.E. Brune. 2003. Comparative Nile tilapia and silver carp filtration rates of Partitioned Aquaculture System phytoplankton. Aquaculture 220(1–4): 449–457. 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 (2011) Fishery Products Annual—People’s Republic of China. Global Agricultural Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. USDA (2012) Aquaculture Data. Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/Aquaculture/ Vass, M., K. Hruska and M. Franek (2008) Nitrofuran antibiotics: a review on the application, prohibition and residual analysis. Veterinarni Medicina 53 (9): 469–500. Weimin, M. and L. Mengqing (2007) Analysis of feeds and fertilizers for sustainable aquaculture development in China. In M.R. Hasan, T. Hecht, S.S. De Silva and A.G.J. Tacon (eds). Study and analysis of feeds and fertilizers for sustainable aquaculture development. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 497. Rome, FAO. pp. 141–190. Xiao, L., O. Hao, H. Li, M. Chen, Q. Lin and B-P. Han (2010) Enclosure Study on Phytoplankton Response to Stocking of Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in a Eutrophic Tropical Reservoir in South China. International Review of Hydrobiology 95 (4-5): 428-439. Xu, W., X. Zhu, X. Wang, L. Deng and G. Zhang (2006a) Residues of enrofloxacin, furazolidone and their metabolites in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture 254: 1-8. Xu, H., S. Qiang, Z. Han, J. Guo, Z. Huang, H. Sun, S. He, H. Ding, H. Wu and F. Wan (2006b) The status and causes of alien species invasion in China. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 2893–2904. Xu, S., Z. Chen, C. Li, X. Huang and S. Li (2011) Assessing the carrying capacity of tilapia in an intertidal mangrove-based polyculture system of Pearl River Delta, China. Ecological Modelling 222: 846–856. Yan, L-I., G. Zhang, Q. Liu and J-I. Li (2009). Optimization of culturing the freshwater pearl mussels, Hyriopsis cumingii with filter feeding Chinese carps (bigheadcarp and silver carp) by orthogonal array design. Aquaculture 292(1-2): 60-66.

32

Yang, H-Y., C. Wang, Z. Guo and Z. Yang (2009a) Study on the value of gas regulation service of pond aquaculture ecosystem. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin 18 (5) 432-467. Yang, N., Z. Xie, J. Huang and Y. Zhou (2009b) Isolation and Identification of Bacterial Pathogen of Fulminant Haemorrhagic Disease in Hybrid Tilapia(T.niloticus♂×T.aureus♀) in Hainan. Natural Science Journal of Hainan University 1: 43-47. Ye, X., S. Zeng, W. Yu, W. Wu, X. Zeng and L. Huang (2008) Study on nutrient components and the extracting condition of the skin gelatin of tilapia. South China Fisheries Science 4(5): 55-60. Ye, X., J. Li, M. Lu, G. Deng, X. Jiang, Y. Tian, Y. Quan and Q. Jian (2011) Identification and molecular typing of Streptococcus agalactiae isolated from pond-cultured tilapia in China. Fisheries Science 77: 623–632. Zhang, Q., F. Wang and R. Wang (2011) Research Progress of Ecological Restoration for Wetlands in Coal Mine Areas. Procedia Environmental Sciences 10: 1933-1938. Zhao, H., R. Jiang, M. Xue, S. Xie, X. Wu and L. Guo (2010) Fishmeal can be completely replaced by soy protein concentrate by increasing feeding frequency in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus GIFT strain) less than 2 g. Aquaculture Nutrition 16: 648–653. Zhao, J. (2011) Tilapia Germplasm in China: Chance and Challenge. 9th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China, April 22-25, 2011. http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/ISTA9/PDF's/ZhaoGermplasm.pdf

33

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.

34

Guiding Principles Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished5 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

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

35

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 has 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.

36

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 2.5 2.5 Effluent Yes 2.5 2.5 Locations/habitats Yes 0 0 Predators and wildlife Yes 2.5 2.5 Chemical use Yes 0 0 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 2.5 2.5 Disease Yes 5 5 Source of stock Yes 5 5 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No 0 n/a Total 22.5

C1 Data Final Score 2.5 RED

Criterion 2: Effluents

Factor 2.1a - Biological waste production score

Protein content of feed (%) 28 eFCR 1.3 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) 58.24 N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 28.8 Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 29.44

Factor 2.1b - Production System discharge score

Basic production system score 0.34

Adjustment 1 (if applicable) -0.09 Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0

37

Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0

Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0.25

25 % of the waste produced by the fish is discharged from the farm

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? Partly 0.25

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?

Partly 0.25

3 - Do the control measures address or relate to the cumulative impacts of multiple farms? No 0

4 - Are the limits considered scientifically robust and set according to the ecological status of the receiving water body? Partly 0.25

5 - Do the control measures cover or prescribe including peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning etc? Partly 0.25

1

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? Partly 0.25

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

Moderately 0.5

3 - Does enforcement cover the entire production cycle (i.e. are peak discharges such as peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning included)? No 0

4 - Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits? No 0

5 - Is there evidence of robust penalties for infringements? No 0

0.75

F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 0.3 C2 Effluent Final Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

38

Criterion 3: Habitat 3.1. Habitat conversion and function F3.1 Score 7 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?

Partly 0.25

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

Partly 0.25

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

Moderately 0.5

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)

Moderately 0.5

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

No 0

1.5

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?

No 0

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

Moderately 0.5

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

Partly 0.25

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

No 0

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

No 0

0.75

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 0.45 C3 Habitat Final Score 4.82 YELLOW Critical? NO

39

Exceptional Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities Wildlife and Predator Mortality Parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and Predator Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use Parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score 0.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 0.00 RED

Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1. Wild Fish Use

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

Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 4 Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0 % FM 4 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 0 Fish oil from by-products (%) 0 % FO 0 Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5 Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 1.3

FIFO fishmeal 0.23 FIFO fish oil 0.00 Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 0.23

FIFO Score 9.42

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

SSWF -6

SSWF Factor -0.14

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 9.28

40

5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 28 eFCR 1.3 Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 28

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 64

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 19.55

Protein OUT 18

Net protein gain or loss (%) -7.91

Critical? NO

F5.2 Net protein Score 10.00 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 (%) 4 eFCR 1.3 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) 1.35 5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 87 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 6 Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 1.3

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

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.51

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 1.87

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 9.00

41

C5 Feed Final Score 9.39 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 6

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 6 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)? Yes

Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? No

2.5

F 6.1b Score 5 Final C6 Score 5.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

42

Exceptional Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species

Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Parameters

Score F6.2Xa International or trans-water body live animal shipments (%) 0.00 F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00 C6 Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and Parasite Parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 5.00 C7 Disease; Pathogen and Parasite Final Score 5.00 YELLOW

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

43

Appendices Appendix I. Assessment of Elite Aquaculture Ltd Farmed Tilapia

Elite Aquaculture Ltd Farmed Tilapia

Oreochromis niloticus

Guangxi Province, China

December 23, 2009

Peter Bridson Aquaculture Research Manager

44

Executive Summary In contrast to the overall Seafood Watch farmed tilapia report, which covers China on a country-wide basis, this appendix provides a farm-specific report on Elite Aquaculture Co Ltd (Elite) in southeast China, compiled as part of a pilot project for Seafood Watch’s Major Buyer partnership program. During the past several years, Seafood Watch has built partnerships with two of the largest companies in the contract foodservice business. By focusing on collaborating with and supporting these companies, the Monterey Bay Aquarium can leverage their partners’ vendor relationships to help create change further down the seafood supply chain and effectively expand the reach and impact of their work significantly. This pilot project at Elite was conducted after a request from one of these partners for the purpose of testing the ability to work with their specific supply chain to identify and procure more sustainable sources of seafood at the farm (rather than country) level. Elite is a large vertically integrated tilapia farm producing 6,000 tons and 3,000 tons respectively from cage and pond production sites each year. The focus of this report is the cage-farming site certified to the standards of the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practice (BAP) and located in the Xiaojiang Reservoir in Guangxi province. The reservoir is man-made and therefore is not considered an area of high conservation concern. Due to the intensity of the farming operation, the tilapia (when grown at low stocking densities) are dependent on formulated feed. The feed conversion ratio (1.6–1.8:1) is relatively high for tilapia, but due to a low level (7.5%) of Peruvian anchovy fishmeal in the feed, the wild-fish-in to farmed-fish-out conversion ratio is approximately 0.6, which is a ‘Low concern’ according to Seafood Watch criteria and the same as the countrywide ranking. The 6,000 cages are of basic construction and susceptible to both significant-event and trickle losses (escapes) of fish. Free-living tilapia were not present in the reservoir before the farming operation began but can now be found, and the potential exists for feral populations to become established in upstream or downstream water courses. In line with broader concerns for the production of non-native tilapia in specific water courses in China, Elite receives the same ‘High concern’ ranking as the overall Seafood Watch tilapia report. Tilapia are relatively resistant to disease and parasite outbreaks. Although there is no evidence of disease or parasite amplification or retransmission to date at Elite, and the man-made nature of the reservoir blurs the definition of ‘wild-stock’, cage culture carries a high potential risk for pathogen and parasite transfer from farmed to wild stocks. Therefore Elite’s farm must be ranked a ‘Moderate concern’ according to Seafood Watch criteria. The large scale and intensity of production at Elite combined with the open nature of the cage farming system results in substantial nutrient loss from the farm, which would be expected to

45

have a significant impact on the reservoir’s nutrient status. Certification to the BAP level requires significant water quality monitoring and compliance with set standards. The man-made nature of the reservoir and the lack of diverse habitats indicate that the risk of habitat damage or other negative impacts from pollution is probably low. However, the farm still represents a significant source of untreated and un-utilized effluent, and according to Seafood Watch criteria, this open farming system results in a ‘Moderate concern’ for risk of pollution and habitat effects. The overall Seafood Watch tilapia report expresses serious concerns regarding the robustness and enforcement of Chinese environmental and aquaculture regulations. Despite speaking with government officials in China during the visit to Elite, the effectiveness of the regulatory structure governing aquaculture production in China and its enforcement (particularly the resources available for enforcement of the Ministry of Agriculture’s environmental regulations) are still unclear. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that aquaculture operations in China have effective management unless they have been individually assessed. Elite is focused on meeting the rigors of the export market and is increasingly vertically integrated (with a hatchery planned for 2010). In addition to the observed general farming operations, Elite maintains the sampling and other documentary records necessary for BAP certification. With the benefit of Seafood Watch’s farm-level visit, Elite appears to be a very well managed operation on a day-to-day basis. However, farm management is not effective at preventing escapes or at utilizing nutrients lost to the environment in the farm’s effluent—two key impact categories. Therefore, Elite’s management effectiveness ranks overall as a ‘Moderate concern’ according to Seafood Watch criteria. In comparison to the overall Seafood Watch tilapia report, Elite receives the same rankings as general Chinese production for all but one of the Seafood Watch criteria—Management Effectiveness. Due to concerns about enforcement and the robustness of Chinese aquaculture and environmental regulations, China overall receives a ‘High concern’ ranking for management effectiveness. The farm-level visit to Elite confirmed that the farm is generally well managed and worthy of the improved ‘Moderate concern’ management effectiveness ranking. Therefore, with only one red ‘High concern’ ranking (compared to two for China on a country-wide basis), tilapia produced at Elite’s cage site is ranked as a ‘Good Alternative’ overall according to Seafood Watch criteria. Although certification to the Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices standards (GAA BAP) is not a factor in this Seafood Watch recommendation, the product identified within this report can be distinguished in the marketplace by the 2-star BAP certification. As farming practices and data change, Seafood Watch reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to review, revise, or amend the contents of this report and associated recommendations at any time to reflect this new information.

46

Table of Sustainability Ranks

Conservation Concern

Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical

Use of Marine Resources √ Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks √ Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks √ Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects √ Management Effectiveness √ About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: A species receives a recommendation of “Best Choice” if: 1) It has three or more green criteria and the remaining criteria are not red. A species receives a recommendation of “Good Alternative” if: 1) Criteria “average” to yellow 2) There are four green criteria and one red criterion. A species receives a recommendation of “Avoid” if: 1) It has a total of two or more red criteria 2) It has one or more Critical Conservation Concerns.

Overall Seafood Recommendation: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

47

Introduction Elite is an integrated aquaculture company operating: A tilapia farm (cage and pond production sites), A feed mill, and A processing/packing facility. A hatchery is planned to be operational in 2010. The focus of this report is on the cage production facility at Xiaojiang Reservoir in Guangxi Province, southeast China. The Xiaojiang site produces 6,000 tons of whole fish per year. With approximately 80% of China’s tilapia production coming from ponds, cage production sites such as this are in the minority. The tilapia produced is a hybrid of Oreochromis niloticus strains. The site—Xiaojiang Reservoir Xiaojiang Reservoir is approximately a 2.5-hour drive inland from Behai in the Hepu County of Guangxi province. The reservoir is man-made and was constructed in the 1950s for hydro-electricity. Approximately 23 miles long, its total area is approximately 10,000 acres. The farm occupies approximately 2% of the reservoir surface area. The surrounding hills and islands are planted with commercial forests. Elite has an exclusive contract with the reservoir administration, meaning that no other companies are allowed to conduct aquaculture in the reservoir.

Figure 1 – Harvested cages next to the dam The site—production Elite operates 6,000 small tilapia cages in the reservoir. The cages are of basic construction—a welded metal frame with simple flotation supporting suspended nets whose tops are

48

approximately 30 cm above the water surface. Cage size is approximately 4–5 m x 4 m x 3 m deep. Each cage produces about 1,000 kg of tilapia per year. The cages are moored together in rafts of about 40. Many cage-rafts have a floating feed store attached to one end.

Figure 2 – Cages connected together in rafts.

Figure 3 – Feed storage barge attached to cages.

49

Fry (all male) are stocked into cages from an independent hatchery at a size of 5 g and fed on eel powder until they are large enough to eat pelletized feeds. Elite plans to start supplying its own fry in 2010. Ongoing feeds are produced at Elite’s feed mill in Behai and transported by truck to the reservoir. Feed is hand-distributed by workers on each cage block.

Figure 4 –Feeding. Other cage units can be seen in the background At harvest, the cages are towed down the reservoir to the dam. The nets are lifted and the fish hoisted by bucket into live-transport containers (Figures 5 and 6) and driven by truck (at high densities) to the processing factory (4-5 hours away).

50

Figure 5 – Harvesting presents a high risk of escape for individual fish or larger numbers.

Figure 6 – Transferring fish to live-transport containers on truck. Scope of the analysis and the ensuing recommendation: On a country-wide basis, China has a ‘Red – Avoid’ Seafood Watch ranking for farmed tilapia, and this report represents efforts by Seafood Watch ‘Major Buyer’ partners to identify better ‘Good Alternative’ producers within the country. This is a farm-specific report and is based on a

51

visit to Elite Tilapia’s BAP-certified (Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best Aquaculture Practices standard) cage-production site at Xiaojiang Reservoir in June 2009. Analysis of Seafood Watch® Sustainability Criteria for Farm-Raised Species Criterion 1: Use of Marine Resources At low intensities, tilapia can be produced in fertilized ponds with low or even zero use of compound feeds. Intensive cage production does not take advantage of this ability. While a very small amount of natural feed may originate from within the reservoir, the fish rely overwhelmingly on pelletized feeds from Elite’s feed plant in Behai, which produces about 16,000 tons of feed per year. The fishmeal (FM) content of the feed varies throughout the production cycle. For small sizes, FM content is 12%, which then drops to 9% and 6% in the intermediate and final growout feeds. Fish oil is not used in Elite’s feeds; the fishmeal is from Peruvian anchovy. According to the farm’s data, the feed conversion ratio (FCR) is 1.6–1.8. A rough calculation of 16,000 tons of feed divided by 9,000 tons of whole tilapia produced confirms this range with an economic FCR (eFCR) value of 1.78 Wild fish in to farmed fish out ratio (WI:FO) Fishmeal inclusion rates vary though the production cycle, but the majority of feed is used for the larger growout sizes. Using the FM content values above, an estimated FM inclusion rate of 7.5% is representative of the entire production cycle. When fishmeal yield from Peruvian anchovy is taken to be 4.5 (in line with SFW reports) and an eFCR value of 1.78 is used, then WI:FO = 4.5 x 0.075 x 1.78 = 0.6 As a sensitivity check on the FM inclusion rate, if the estimated average fishmeal content were as high as 12%, the WI:FO value for the whole cycle would still be less than 1.1 and therefore in the ‘low’ range. While this WI:FO value (0.6) is in the low range (0-1.1), tilapia have a relatively low fillet yield ranging from 33% to 29% depending on the depth of the skinning technique (deep or super-deep skinning removes the red/brown muscle under the skin and provides a pure white meat fillet). Therefore, the real WI:FO value is a little lower compared to fish with higher fillet yields (e.g., salmon at 45–50%). Using an alternate calculation, the estimated average FM inclusion value of 7.5% for 16,000 tons of feed means (assuming a 4.5% conversion rate for Peruvian anchovy) that Elite uses the

52

equivalent of approximately 5,400 tons of Peruvian Anchovy to produce 9,000 tons of tilapia (cage and pond production combined), which confirms a WI:FO value of 0.6. Hatchery All fingerlings are supplied by hatcheries and there is no impact to marine (or freshwater) resources for fingerlings or broodstock. Synthesis Despite the relatively high FCR at Elite, the low fishmeal inclusion rates and the use of hatcheries results in a ‘Low’ use of marine resources. This is the same ranking as the overall Seafood Watch Farmed Tilapia report for all countries. Use of Marine Resources Rank: Low Moderate High Criterion 2: Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks Free-living tilapia were not present in Xiaojiang Reservoir before Elite began farming but can now be found, almost certainly due to escapes from the farm. The cage farming system is susceptible to both catastrophic losses and ongoing ‘trickle’ losses during routine farm operations. The risk of escaping fry from breeding within the farm (a common problem in pond-based tilapia farms) is not considered a significant risk here since the tilapia have no access to the reservoir substrate in which to dig a nest. Due to the size of the reservoir, the cages are at risk of damage from severe weather. In one storm, 200 cages were damaged resulting in the loss of a large quantity of fish. Trickle losses are likely during several routine operations such as net changing and harvest. Individual fish were observed to escape during the visit while the fish were being harvested and transferred to live-transport containers. Although a non-native species in China, tilapia have become established in many natural water bodies. According to Qiuming and Yi (2004): The first tilapia species introduced to mainland China is Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) from Vietnam in 1957. Since then, several tilapia species such as blue tilapia (O. aureus) and different strains of Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) have been introduced to China from different places. Tilapia culture in China started in the early 1960s, but was not popular until the early 1980s. Since then, tilapia culture has been expanded rapidly in response to the introduction of new strains.

53

The potential for further ecological damage from new introductions or ongoing escapes remains. For example, according to Senanan and Bart (2009): New introductions of tilapias for aquaculture and enhanced fisheries into areas with no captive or free-living tilapias need careful consideration, and new introductions of tilapias for aquaculture and enhanced fisheries should not be made into areas with high conservation value; or into areas with no existing free-living populations of tilapias. Despite several decades of discussion among ecologists, tilapia that escape from farms and aquaculture research and development establishments remain a concern to suppliers and consumers as well as to environmentalists (Senanan and Bart, 2009). The risk of fish escape from a particular farming system depends on farm location, the engineering design and construction of the farm, and maintenance and farm management by the farm operators. The number of possible escaped fish may also depend on the intensity of production, ranging from low intensity (integrated aquaculture, extensive) to high intensity (large commercial monoculture) production systems (Senanan and Bart, 2009). Therefore, Elite’s intensive cage site in a large reservoir using basic cages carries a high risk of escapes. Escaped tilapia that become established as feral populations can cause adverse ecological impacts through competition with wild fish for territory, especially for feeding and breeding sites, and can alter habitats by grazing vegetation, releasing nutrients in excreta and building nests. The cultured tilapia at Elite are all male due to a methyl-testosterone hormone treatment at the hatchery. This process is not 100% effective and some females do exist in the population. Although the dominance of male fish would reduce the rate of establishment in the wild, the presence of some females means that it is technically possible for self-sustaining populations to establish rapidly in suitable locations. The impacts of escape that may be most pertinent for tilapia include competition for food and space for breeding, spread of pathogens, and changes in the physical or chemical properties of the water bodies (Senanan and Bart, 2009). However, in Xiaojiang Reservoir these impacts are likely to be small. After construction, the lake was stocked with fish that now support a small fishery by local villagers; escaped tilapia are more likely to enhance this fishery than reduce it. Tilapia are not predatory, so an adverse ecological impact due to tilapia predation on other biota is unlikely. Since the reservoir is man-made, it is unlikely to be considered an area of high conservation value, yet the potential for escaped tilapia to enter upstream or downstream watercourses exists (although downstream survival through the hydro-electric station or via other routes is unknown). The potential for a negative impact (on the basis of the potential impacts described above) beyond the reservoir must be considered, but positive impacts are also possible (Senanan and Bart, 2009). Potential positive impacts include increases in species diversity and productivity,

54

although these are considered mainly in areas of the Asia-Pacific region where native species with similar characteristics to tilapia are limited. Considering the above information, assessing the conservation risk of Elite’s operation is not straightforward. A risk characterization matrix between the probability of an escape event occurring and the severity of the resulting impact shows a high probability of escape from Elite’s operation but most likely a low impact severity. The default position is that escapes are considered a serious concern unless there are studies or evidence that prove otherwise. According to Seafood Watch criteria (see Annex 1), if a species escapes ‘Regularly and often in open systems’ and is ‘Non-native and not yet fully established’ this criteria ranks as ‘Red’. Since tilapia were not present in Xiaojiang Reservoir before Elite began farming, a strict assessment makes ‘Red’ the appropriate ranking. However, it could be argued that the impacts on wild stocks in the man-made reservoir are low and tilapia are now widely established in China; therefore, rather than ‘Non-native and not yet fully established’, this factor could be ranked ‘Non-native but historically widely established’, resulting in a ‘Yellow’ ranking for this criterion. This view does not, however, consider the potential for negative impacts beyond the reservoir, and these must also be taken into account.

Synthesis Considering the lack of free-living tilapia in Xiaojiang Reservoir and the surrounding area before Elite began operations, tilapia are considered to be ‘Non-native and not yet fully established’ according to Seafood Watch criteria. When combined with the high risk of escapes from the cage-culture system, the unknown impacts on upstream and downstream habitats in the water catchment area and the lack of proof of no negative impacts, these criteria rank as a high concern by Seafood Watch guidelines and match that of China as a whole.

Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks Rank: Low Moderate High Critical Criterion 3: Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks According to Senanan and Bart (2009), escaped tilapia can introduce and spread a wide range of pathogens and parasites to wild fish and other farmed fish. Although disease outbreaks have been reported for tilapia in other farming areas outside of China (Jack Morales, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, pers. comm.), tilapia are relatively resistant to disease in comparison to most aquaculture species. With the cage production method, there is clearly an opportunity for any disease on the farm to be transferred to any surrounding fish populations, and therefore the risk is high. At Elite, however, there is little if any evidence of disease or parasite problems in the cultured stock. As a result, or due to the difficulty of demonstrating it, there appears to

55

be little risk of disease or parasite amplification or retransmission beyond the farm, or of introducing or translocating novel diseases or parasites. Based on the difficulty of demonstrating disease or parasite transfer, these factors are ranked ‘Unknown’ as a precaution. In addition, the man-made nature of the reservoir and the vague definition of ‘wild stocks’ in this context combined with the unknown potential for transmission to water bodies beyond the reservoir make a clear assessment challenging. The introduction of disease or parasites to the reservoir by way of infected fry from an external hatchery is possible, but with little evidence of disease during growout production, this risk seems low. Synthesis Although there is no evidence of disease or parasite amplification and retransmission to date at Elite, and the man-made nature of the reservoir blurs the definition of ‘wild stocks’, cage culture carries an inherently high potential risk of pathogen or parasite transfer from farmed to wild stocks, and therefore Elite’s farm must be ranked a ‘Moderate’ risk to wild stocks according to Seafood Watch criteria. This is the same ranking as the overall Seafood Watch Farmed Tilapia Report for all countries except the US where tilapia are grown in closed production systems. Risk of Disease Transfer to Wild Stocks Rank: Low Moderate High Critical Criterion 4: Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects First impressions of Elite’s reservoir farm site are of large-scale intensive production with rafts of cages spread over a large area. In reality, the cages occupy only 2% of the reservoir surface area, and while it would be expected that they have an impact on the immediate local area, sampling data shows that despite elevated nutrient (and chlorophyll) levels near the cages, the effects are minimal in areas of the reservoir distant from the cages (500 m required sampling for BAP certification). The open nature of the cage farming system means that there is no treatment of the farm’s soluble and particulate effluent wastes from fish feces and uneaten feed. The farm relies on the carrying capacity of the reservoir to maintain adequate water quality for the farming operation.

56

Since the nutrients are originally sourced from distant locations and transported by truck to the reservoir in the form of pellet feed, this loss of nutrients from the farm is inefficient. Water quality on the farm is checked by workers regularly (typically daily) and every three months by the local Fishery Bureau as part of the fishery license. Samples are only taken at the surface since deep-water sampling is more complex. Benthic impacts are not assessed due to the complexities of sampling. The man-made nature of the reservoir is also a factor here and clearly dictates the habitats present in the area. Although the reservoir is roughly fifty years old, there appears to be relatively little wildlife in the area at risk of impact. There are stocks of fish in the reservoir that support a small local fishery, but these are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the farm and may even benefit from the increased nutrient input and primary productivity. According to the BAP certification, the hydraulic retention time of the reservoir is low with approximately 80% of the water volume of the reservoir being exchanged each year. The water downstream of the reservoir is used for irrigation (but not exclusively). Synthesis Due to the large scale of production, the intensity of the site and the open nature of the cage farming system, there is substantial nutrient loss from the farm, which would be expected to have a significant impact on the reservoir’s nutrient status. However, the farm meets the water quality requirements of the BAP certification (available at www.aquaculturecertification.org), and the man-made nature of the reservoir and lack of diverse habitats indicate that the risk of habitat damage or other negative impacts from pollution is probably low. In addition, the reservoir is used for irrigation, and any elevated nutrient levels would be used to fertilize crops downstream. According to Seafood Watch criteria, the lack of effluent treatment in this open farming system results in a ‘Moderate’ risk for pollution and habitat effects. This is the same ranking as China as a whole. Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects Rank: Low Moderate High

57

Criterion 5: Effectiveness of the Management Regime Despite many conversations with farmers, processors and fishery officials in China, the regulatory structure and mechanisms for its enforcement are still unclear. Federal, state and local laws do apply, but anecdotal evidence suggests their effectiveness and level of enforcement are unknown. The regulatory structure is housed within China’s Ministry of Agriculture. The China Inspection and Quarantine (CIQ) bureau is the department responsible (comparable to the US Food and Drug Administration), which closely regulates the producers exporting tilapia to protect the international market and operates in accordance with the Certification and Accreditation Administration of China (CNCA). Much of CIQ’s governance relates to food safety requirements. Enforcement of environmental regulations by the Ministry of Agriculture appears to be considerably under-staffed and is therefore considered to be ineffective. For example, in common with the majority of tilapia farms in China (and elsewhere), Elite purchases all-male fry from a hatchery that uses the banned hormone methyl-testosterone (MT). Fishery Bureau officials report that this practice does not take place in China, but the use of MT is clearly widespread. This casts further doubt on enforcement by the Chinese authorities. Concerns over the effectiveness and enforcement of regulations in China resulted in a ‘High concern’ ranking in the overall Seafood Watch report for China’s management effectiveness. With the benefit of a farm-level visit to Elite and the ability to interview the managers and inspect documentary records, the farm and its daily operations appear well managed. The farm has detailed production records available, partly resulting from the requirements of certification to Best Aquaculture Practice standards (although records are also available from prior to BAP certification), in addition to documentary evidence of compliance with siting and water quality regulations. Elite has documents demonstrating their sole right to use Xiaojiang Reservoir and their water quality data demonstrate that the farm operation, although appearing relatively large and intense, is only moderately affecting the nutrient dynamics of the reservoir. The monitoring of the food safety aspects of export-focused farms by CIQ does appear robust and is considered to be effective in preventing the use of antibiotics and other banned therapeutics, a conclusion supported by Seafood Watch’s on-farm observations. Despite the apparent effectiveness of Elite’s management, neither the farm’s management nor the requirements of the Best Aquaculture Practices standards prevent (or require a precautionary approach to) the significant potential for escapes from the cage production system or account for the significant amount of nutrient wastes lost to the environment. Better management practices (BMPs) are in place to prevent escapes (both at the farm level and incorporated into the Best Aquaculture Practices standards), but BMPs are not generally sufficient to prevent escapes, and their effectiveness at Elite is clearly in doubt.

58

The use of a precautionary principle to control expansion of the industry is difficult to assess at the farm level but is considered to be partly addressed in Elite’s case by their sole control over production in Xiaojiang Reservoir and their effective management in controlling production volumes according to the maintenance of satisfactory water quality. Synthesis Elite appears to be a very well managed farm. It is focuses on producing for the rigorous export market, is increasingly vertically integrated (with a hatchery planned for 2010) and maintains the detailed sampling and other documentary records of effective farm management necessary for BAP certification. In these respects, the management regime at Elite is considered to be good, yet the management is not effective at preventing escapes or in utilizing nutrients lost to the environment in the farm’s effluent—two key impact categories among the Seafood Watch criteria. Due to the concerns expressed above and in the Seafood Watch Farmed Tilapia report, China as a whole receives a ‘High Concern’ ranking for management effectiveness. The farm-level visit to Elite enabled direct observation of their more effective management. As a result, Elite’s management effectiveness is ranked as ‘Moderate’. Effectiveness of Management Rank: Low Moderate High

59

Overall Evaluation and Seafood Ranking Table of Sustainability Ranks

Conservation Concern

Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical

Use of Marine Resources √ Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks √ Risk of Disease and Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks √ Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects √ Management Effectiveness √ About the Overall Seafood Recommendation: A species receives a recommendation of “Best Choice” if: 1) It has three or more green criteria and the remaining criteria are not red. A species receives a recommendation of “Good Alternative” if: 1) Criteria “average” to yellow 2) There are four green criteria and one red criterion A species receives a recommendation of “Avoid” if: 1) It has a total of two or more red criteria 2) It has one or more Critical Conservation Concerns.

Overall Seafood Recommendation: Best Choice Good Alternative Avoid

60

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 the management and staff of Elite Aquaculture for opening their farm and records to inspection as well as Jack Morales (Sustainable Fisheries Partnership) and Irene Tetreault Miranda (author of Seafood Wacth Farmed Tilapia report) for reviewing this report. References Senanan, W., Bart, A. 2009. The Potential Risks from Farm Escaped Tilapias. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. http://media.sustainablefish.org/Tilapia_escapes_WP.pdf Qiuming, L.,Yang, Y. 2004. Tilapia Culture in Mainland China. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, 12–16 September 2004. Philippine International Convention Center, Manila, Philippines.

61

Appendix II. Aquaculture Evaluation of Elite Aquaculture Ltd Farmed Tilapia

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as from sources, whether fished or farmed, that can

maintain or increase production into the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of

affected ecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture operations must possess to be

considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program. Sustainable aquaculture:

uses less wild caught fish (in the form of fish meal and fish oil) than it produces in the form of

edible marine fish protein, and thus provides net protein gains for society;

does not pose a substantial risk of deleterious effects on wild fish stocks through the escape of

farmed fish6;

does not pose a substantial risk of deleterious effects on wild fish stocks through the

amplification, retransmission or introduction of disease or parasites;

employs methods to treat and reduce the discharge of organic waste and other potential

contaminants so that the resulting discharge does not adversely affect the surrounding ecosystem;

and

implements and enforces all local, national and international laws and customs and utilizes a

precautionary approach (which favors conservation of the environment in the face of irreversible

environmental risks) for daily operations and industry expansion.

Seafood Watch has developed a set of five sustainability criteria, corresponding to these guiding

principles, to evaluate aquaculture operations for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation

for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

1. Use of marine resources

2. Risk of escapes to wild stocks

3. Risk of disease and parasite transfer to wild stocks

4. Risk of pollution and habitat effects

5. Effectiveness of the management regime

Each criterion includes:

Primary factors to evaluate and rank

Secondary factors to evaluate and rank

Evaluation guidelines7 to synthesize these factors

A resulting rank for that criterion

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

7 Evaluation Guidelines throughout this document reflect common combinations of primary and secondary factors

that result in a given level of conservation concern. Not all possible combinations are shown – other combinations

should be matched as closely as possible to the existing guidelines.

Species: Tilapia Region: Elite - China

Analyst: Peter Bridson Date: June 2009

62

Once a rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation for the type of

aquaculture in question is developed based on additional evaluation guidelines. The ranks for each

criterion, and the resulting overall seafood recommendation, are summarized in a table.

Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the

Seafood Watch pocket guide:

Best Choices/Green: Consumers are strongly encouraged to purchase seafood in this category. The

aquaculture source is sustainable as defined by Seafood Watch.

Good Alternatives/Yellow: Consumers are encouraged to purchase seafood in this category, as they are

better choices than seafood from the Avoid category. However, there are some concerns with how this

species is farmed and thus it does not demonstrate all of the qualities of sustainable aquaculture as defined

by Seafood Watch.

Avoid/Red: Consumers are encouraged to avoid seafood from this category, at least for now. Species in

this category do not demonstrate enough qualities to be defined as sustainable by Seafood Watch.

63

CRITERION 1: USE OF MARINE RESOURCES

Guiding Principle: To conserve ocean resources and provide net protein gains for society, aquaculture

operations should use less wild-caught fish (in the form of fish meal and fish oil) than they produce in the

form of edible marine fish protein.

Feed Use Components to Evaluate

A) Yield Rate: Amount of wild-caught fish (excluding fishery by-products) used to create fish meal and

fish oil (ton/ton):

Wild Fish: Fish Meal; Enter ratio = 4.5 [i.e. value = 4.5:1 from Tyedmers (2000)8]

Wild Fish: Fish Oil; Enter ratio: n/a [i.e. value = 8.3:1 from Tyedmers (2000)]

B) Inclusion rate of fish meal, fish oil, and other marine resources in feed (%):

Fish Meal; Enter % = 7.5%

Fish Oil; Enter % = n/a

C) Efficiency of Feed Use: Known or estimated average economic Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR = dry

feed:wet fish) in grow-out operations:

Enter FCR here = 1.78

Wild Input:Farmed Output Ratio (WI:FO)

Calculate and enter the larger of two resultant values:

Meal: [Yield Rate]meal x [Inclusion rate]meal x [FCR] = 0.6

Oil: [Yield Rate]oil x [Inclusion rate]oil x [FCR] = n/a

WI:FO = 0.6

Primary Factor (WI:FO)

Estimated wild fish used to produce farmed fish (ton/ton, from above):

Low Use of Marine Resources (WI:FO = 0 - 1.1) OR supplemental

feed not used

Moderate Use of Marine Resources (WI:FO = 1.1 - 2.0)

Extensive Use of Marine Resources (WI:FO > 2.0)

8 Tyedmers (2000): Salmon and sustainability: The biophysical cost of producing salmon through the commercial

salmon fishery and the intensive salmon culture industry. PhD Thesis. The University of British Columbia. 272

pages.

64

Secondary Factors

Stock status of the reduction fishery used for feed for the farmed species:

At or above BMSY (> 100%)

Moderately below BMSY (50 - 100%) OR Unknown

Substantially below BMSY (e.g. < 50%) OR Overfished OR

Overfishing is occurring OR fishery is unregulated

Not applicable because supplemental feed not used

Source of stock for the farmed species:

Stock from closed life cycle hatchery OR wild caught and intensity of

collection clearly does not result in depletion of brood stock, wild

juveniles or associated non-target organisms

Wild caught and collection has the potential to impact brood stock, wild

juveniles or associated non-target organisms

Wild caught and intensity of collection clearly results in depletion of

brood stock, wild juveniles, or associated non-target organisms

65

Evaluation Guidelines

Use of marine resources is “Low” when WI:FO is between 0.0 and 1.1.

Use of marine resources is “Moderate” when WI:FO is between 1.1 and 2.0.

Use of marine resources is “Extensive” when:

1. WI:FO is greater than 2.0

2. Source of stock for the farmed species is ranked red

3. Stock status of the reduction fishery is ranked red

Use of marine resources is deemed to be a Critical Conservation Concern and a species is ranked

Avoid, regardless of other criteria, if:

1. WI:FO is greater than 2.0 AND the source of seed stock is ranked red.

2. WI:FO is greater than 2.0 AND the stock status of the reduction fishery is ranked red

Conservation Concern: Use of Marine Resources

Low (Low Use of Marine Resources)

Moderate (Moderate Use of Marine Resources)

High (Extensive Use of Marine Resources)

Critical Use of Marine Resources

66

CRITERION 2: RISK OF ESCAPED FISH TO WILD STOCKS

Guiding Principle: Sustainable aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to

wild fish stocks through the escape of farmed fish.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Evidence that farmed fish regularly escape to the surrounding environment

Rarely if system is open OR never because system is closed

Infrequently if system is open OR Unknown

Regularly and often in open systems

Status of escaping farmed fish to the surrounding environment

Native and genetically and ecologically similar to wild stocks OR survival and/or reproductive

capability of escaping farmed species is known to be naturally

zero or is zero because of sterility, polyploidy or similar technologies

Non-native but historically widely established OR Unknown

Non-native (including genetically modified organisms) and not yet fully

established OR native and genetically or ecologically distinct from wild stocks

Secondary Factors to evaluate

Where escaping fish is non-native – Evidence of the establishment of

self-sustaining feral stocks

Studies show no evidence of establishment to date

Establishment is probable on theoretical grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of establishment

Where escaping fish is native – Evidence of genetic introgression through

successful crossbreeding

Studies show no evidence of introgression to date

Introgression is likely on theoretical grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of introgression

Evidence of spawning disruption of wild fish

Studies show no evidence of spawning disruption to date

Spawning disruption is likely on theoretical grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of spawning disruption

67

Evidence of competition with wild fish for limiting resources or habitats

Studies show no evidence of competition to date

Competition is likely on theoretical grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of competition

Stock status of affected wild fish

At or above (> 100%) BMSY OR no affected wild fish

Moderately below (50 – 100%) BMSY OR Unknown

Substantially below BMSY (< 50%) OR Overfished OR

“endangered”, “threatened” or “protected” under state, federal or

international law

Evaluation Guidelines

A “Minor Risk” occurs when a species:

1) Never escapes because system is closed

2) Rarely escapes AND is native and genetically/ecologically similar.

3) Infrequently escapes AND survival is known to be nil.

A “Moderate Risk” occurs when the species:

1) Infrequently escapes AND is non-native and not yet fully established AND there is no

evidence to date of negative interactions.

2) Regularly escapes AND native and genetically and ecologically similar to wild stocks or

survival is known to be nil.

3) Is non-native but historically widely established.

A “Severe Risk” occurs when:

1) The two primary factors rank red AND one or more additional factor ranks red.

Risk of escapes is deemed to be a Critical Conservation Concern and a species is ranked Avoid,

regardless of other criteria, when:

1) Escapes rank a “severe risk” AND the status of the affected wild fish also ranks red.

Conservation Concern: Risk of Escaped Fish to Wild Stocks

Low (Minor Risk)

Moderate (Moderate Risk)

High (Severe Risk)

Critical Risk

68

CRITERION 3: RISK OF DISEASE AND PARASITE TRANSFER TO WILD STOCKS

Guiding Principle: Sustainable aquaculture operations pose little risk of deleterious effects to wild fish

stocks through the amplification, retransmission or introduction of disease or parasites.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Risk of amplification and retransmission of disease or parasites to wild stocks

Studies show no evidence of amplification or retransmission to date

Likely risk of amplification or transmission on theoretical

grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of amplification or retransmission

Risk of species introductions or translocations of novel disease/parasites to wild

stocks

Studies show no evidence of introductions or translocations to date

Likely risk of introductions or translocations on theoretical

grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of introductions or translocations

Secondary Factors to evaluate

Bio-safety risks inherent in operations

Low risk: Closed systems with controls on effluent release

Moderate risk: Infrequently discharged ponds or raceways OR Unknown

High risk: Frequent water exchange OR open systems with water

exchange to outside environment (e.g. nets, pens or cages)

Stock status of potentially affected wild fish

At or above (> 100%) BMSY OR no affected wild fish

Moderately below (50 – 100%) BMSY OR Unknown

Substantially below BMSY (< 50%) OR Overfished OR “endangered”,

“threatened” or “protected” under state, federal or international law

69

Evaluation Guidelines

Risk of disease transfer is deemed “Minor” if:

1) Neither primary factor ranks red AND both secondary factors rank green.

2) Both primary factors rank green AND neither secondary factor ranks red

Risk of disease transfer is deemed to be “Moderate” if the ranks of the primary and secondary factors

“average” to yellow.

Risk of disease transfer is deemed to be “Severe” if:

1) Either primary factor ranks red AND bio-safety risks are low or moderate.

2) Both primary factors rank yellow AND bio-safety risks are high AND stock status of the wild

fish does not rank green.

Risk of disease transfer is deemed to be a Critical Conservation Concern and a species is ranked

Avoid regardless of other criteria, if either primary factor ranks red AND stock status of the wild fish

also ranks red.

Conservation Concern: Risk of Disease Transfer to Wild Stocks

Low (Minor Risk)

Moderate (Moderate Risk)

High (Severe Risk)

Critical Risk

70

CRITERION 4: RISK OF POLLUTION AND HABITAT EFFECTS

Guiding Principle: Sustainable aquaculture operations employ methods to treat and reduce the discharge

of organic effluent and other potential contaminants so that the resulting discharge and other habitat

impacts do not adversely affect the integrity and function of the surrounding ecosystem.

Primary Factors to evaluate

PART A: Effluent Effects

Effluent water treatment

Effluent water substantially treated before discharge (e.g. recirculating system,

settling ponds, or reconstructed wetlands) OR polyculture and integrated

aquaculture used to recycle nutrients in open systems OR treatment not

necessary because supplemental feed is not used

Effluent water partially treated before discharge

(e.g. infrequently flushed ponds)

Effluent water not treated before discharge (e.g. open nets, pens or cages)

Evidence of substantial local (within 2 x the diameter of the site) effluent effects

(including altered benthic communities, presence of signature species, modified redox

potential, etc)

Studies show no evidence of negative effects to date

Likely risk of negative effects on theoretical grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of local effluent effects

Evidence of regional effluent effects (including harmful algal blooms, altered nutrient

budgets, etc)

Studies show no evidence of negative effects to date

Likely risk of negative effects on theoretical grounds OR Unknown

Empirical evidence of regional effluent effects

Extent of local or regional effluent effects

Effects are in compliance with set standards

Effects infrequently exceed set standards

Effects regularly exceed set standards

PART B: Habitat Effects

Potential to impact habitats: Location

71

Operations in areas of low ecological sensitivity (e.g. land that is less

susceptible to degradation, such as formerly used agriculture land or

land previously developed)

Operations in areas of moderate sensitivity (e.g. coastal and near-shore waters,

rocky intertidal or subtidal zones, river or stream shorelines, offshore waters)

Operations in areas of high ecological sensitivity (e.g. coastal wetlands,

mangroves)

Potential to impact habitats: Extent of Operations

Low density of fish/site or sites/area relative to flushing rate and

carrying capacity in open systems OR closed systems

Moderate densities of fish/site or sites/area relative to flushing rate and

carrying capacity for open systems

High density of fish/site or sites/area relative to flushing rate and

carrying capacity for open systems

Evaluation Guidelines

Risk of pollution/habitat effects is “Low” if three or more factors rank green and none of the other

factors are red.

Risk of pollution/habitat effects is “Moderate” if factors “average” to yellow.

Risk of pollution/habitat effects is “High” if three or more factors rank red.

No combination of ranks can result in a Critical Conservation Concern for Pollution and Habitat

Effects.

Conservation Concern: Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects

Low (Low Risk)

Moderate (Moderate Risk)

High (High Risk)

72

CRITERION 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT REGIME

Guiding Principle: The management regime of sustainable aquaculture operations respects all local,

national and international laws and utilizes a precautionary approach, which favors the conservation of

the environment, for daily operations and industry expansion.

Primary Factors to evaluate

Demonstrated application of existing federal, state and local laws to current aquaculture operations

Yes, federal, state and local laws are applied

Yes but concerns exist about effectiveness of laws or their application

Laws not applied OR laws applied but clearly not effective

Use of licensing to control the location (siting), number, size and stocking density of

farms

Yes and deemed effective

Yes but concerns exist about effectiveness

No licensing OR licensing used but clearly not effective

Existence and effectiveness of “better management practices” for aquaculture

operations, especially to reduce escaped fish

Exist and deemed effective

Exist but effectiveness is under debate OR Unknown

Do not exist OR exist but clearly not effective

Existence and effectiveness of measures to prevent disease and to treat those outbreaks

that do occur (e.g. vaccine program, pest management practices, fallowing of pens,

retaining diseased water, etc.)

Exist and deemed effective

Exist but effectiveness is under debate OR Unknown

Do not exist OR exist but clearly not effective

Existence of regulations for therapeutants, including their release into the environment,

such as antibiotics, biocides, and herbicides

Exist and deemed effective OR no therapeutants used

Exist but effectiveness is under debate, or Unknown

Not regulated OR poorly regulated and/or enforced

Use and effect of predator controls (e.g. for birds and marine mammals) in farming

73

operations

Predator controls are not used OR predator deterrents are used but are

benign

Predator controls used with limited mortality or displacement effects

Predator controls used with high mortality or displacement effects

Existence and effectiveness of policies and incentives, utilizing a precautionary

approach (including ecosystem studies of potential cumulative impacts) against

irreversible risks, to guide expansion of the aquaculture industry

Exist and are deemed effective

Exist but effectiveness is under debate

Do not exist OR exist but are clearly ineffective

Evaluation Guidelines

Management is “Highly Effective” if four or more factors rank green and none of the other factors

rank red.

Management is “Moderately Effective” if the factors “average” to yellow.

Management is deemed to be “Ineffective” if three or more factors rank red.

No combination of factors can result in a Critical Conservation Concern for Effectiveness of

Management.

Conservation Concern: Effectiveness of the Management Regime

Low (Highly Effective)

Moderate (Moderately Effective)

High (Ineffective)

74

Overall Seafood Recommendation

Overall Guiding Principle: Sustainable farm-raised seafood is grown and harvested in ways can maintain

or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected

ecosystems.

Evaluation Guidelines

A species receives a recommendation of “Best Choice” if:

1) It has three or more green criteria and the remaining criteria are not red.

A species receives a recommendation of “Good Alternative” if:

1) Criteria “average” to yellow

2) There are four green criteria and one red criteria

A species receives a recommendation of “Avoid” if:

1) It has a total of two or more red criteria

2) It has one or more Critical Conservation Concerns.

Summary of Criteria Ranks Conservation Concern

Sustainability Criteria Low Moderate High Critical

Use of Marine Resources

Risk of Escapes to Wild Stocks

Risk of Disease/Parasite Transfer to Wild Stocks

Risk of Pollution and Habitat Effects

Effectiveness of Management

Overall Seafood Recommendation

Best Choice

Good Alternative

Avoid