Tilapia Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus),

Red hybrid tilapia (O. spp.) and Nile tilapia (O. niloticus)

(© Monterey Bay Aquarium)

Taiwan

Ponds

12/11/2012

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 Taiwan present a final moderate overall score of 4.68, and one red criteria

(Chemical Use), and therefore is ranked Good Alternative overall.

Tilapia

Oreochromis spp.

Taiwan

Ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 2.78 RED

C2 Effluent 4.00 YELLOW NO

C3 Habitat 3.43 YELLOW NO

C4 Chemicals 0.00 RED NO

C5 Feed 8.22 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 4.00 YELLOW NO

C7 Disease 5.00 YELLOW NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN

Total 37.44

Final score 4.68

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 4.68

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.

3

Executive Summary Tilapia production accounts for 20%–25% of total aquaculture production in Taiwan. In 2010, the annual production of tilapia in Taiwan was 74,896 tons valued at 117 million US dollars, and more than half of it was exported to the US. Tilapia is farmed in outdoor freshwater ponds, but some production is also harvested from brackish and seawater ponds. Available information on tilapia production in Taiwan is very scarce. Updated aquaculture production statistics are published yearly by the Taiwanese Fisheries Bureau. However, research on tilapia production and its impacts on the environment is scarce and generally available only in Chinese. Given the lack of published information, data quality and availability is considered to be poor. The balance between N inputs and outputs results in the production of 48 kg N waste per ton of harvested tilapia. However, in ponds with low water exchange rate, only 54% of these wastes are released into the environment. Therefore, it is estimated that 25.92 kg N wastes are released per ton of harvested fish. Nevertheless, regulations regarding effluent discharge from aquaculture in Taiwan are considered to be poor, determining a low score for the regulatory and management effectiveness factor. The combination of the waste discharge and the regulatory or management effectiveness determines a low-moderate overall score for the effluents criterion. Tilapia operations in Taiwan are located primarily in the south of the country, and occupy diverse habitats such as low-value agricultural lands and coastal ecosystems. These farms affect the provision of ecosystem services such as hazard regulation (e.g. storm protection, flooding control), and water provision. Groundwater overdraft represents the main concern in terms of habitat impact as it has led to land subsidence, reduced water storage capacity of aquifers, and soil salinity in coastal zones. However, these impacts are considered to be historical, and thus, the impact of tilapia operations on ecosystem function are considered to be moderate. Regulations that limit the expansion and cumulative impact of multiple farms on the provision of ecosystem services are considered to be weak in Taiwan. The combination of the moderate habitat conversion and function, and the low regulatory or management effectiveness results in a low-moderate overall score for the habitat criterion. In Taiwan, the concentration of cultured aquatic animals in tilapia ponds may attract predators or other wildlife such as seagulls and the Black-headed Ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus). However, there is no evidence of impact of aquaculture operations on predator and wildlife mortalities. There is evidence that Taiwanese tilapia may involve the use of illegal substances such as malachite green and gentian violet. In tilapia operations, these substances are used for disease treatment as parasiticides to control fungal attacks and protozoan infections. However, their use has been banned due to their reported toxic effects. The use of illegal chemicals in

4

Taiwanese tilapia production such as gentian violet and malachite green determines a ‘red’ score for the overall Chemical Use criterion. Tilapia diets present low inclusion level of marine ingredients (2% fishmeal, and 0% fish oil), and an average FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) of 2.0. These values determine a low FIFO (Fish In: Fish Out) value and a high overall score for the wild fish use factor. The low level of marine ingredients and the dominance of crop derived ingredients such as soybean meal, wheat products and rice bran, determine a low feed footprint (1.74 hectares), and a high score for the feed footprint factor. The balance between protein in inputs and the protein in the harvested fish results in the loss of 44.13% of protein in inputs. Therefore, the net protein gain: loss factor gets a moderate score. The combination of the three partial scores determines a high overall score for the feed criterion. The risk of escape is considered to be moderate in ponds with low water exchange rates (1%–3%). Tilapia is an exotic species in Taiwan, and was introduced in 1946. Currently, tilapia populations are fully established in the wild. The potential impacts of ongoing escapes on wild populations are considered to be moderate, being related to habitat alteration and resource competition. Therefore, the invasiveness of tilapia escapes is considered to be moderate. The combination of the risk of escape score, and the invasiveness score determines a low-moderate overall score for the escapes criterion. Taiwanese tilapia production is fully independent of wild seed as 100% of tilapia fingerlings are produced in hatcheries from domesticated broodstock. Furthermore, Taiwanese tilapia production is self-sufficient in terms of broodstock and fingerling production and does not involve any international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments. Taiwanese tilapia operations present infrequent on-farm infections. The most common diseases in tilapia production in Taiwan are Streptococcis, Franciscellosis, and Vibrio. Tilapia farms discharge water without treatment. However, there is no evidence of diseases transferred from farmed stocks to wild populations. Therefore, the risk of diseases is considered to be moderate. Overall, Taiwanese tilapia gets a moderate overall score of 4.68 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 criteria. 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

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

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

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

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

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

Criterion 2: Effluents ............................................................................................................ 10

Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 12

Criterion 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ................................................................ 14

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 15

Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 17

Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 19

Criterion 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species ............................................. 21

Criterion 7. Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ................................................... 22

Criterion 8. Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ....................................... 23

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 24

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 25

References .................................................................................................................................... 25

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 29

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 30

Data points and all scoring calculations........................................................................................ 32

6

Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

- Species: Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus), Red hybrid tilapia (O. spp.) and Nile tilapia (O. niloticus) are the most important cultured species; however eight tilapia species are being cultured in Taiwan. Other species are Blue tilapia (O. aureus), Wami tilapia (O. urolepis hornorum) and Sabaki tilapia (O. spilurus spilurus). - Geographic coverage: Taiwan - Production Methods: Ponds Species Overview Tilapia is a prolific fast-growing tropical species, native to Africa, but introduced elsewhere as a valuable food fish. Tilapia is a common name applied to three genera: Oreochromis (maternal mouthbrooders), Sarotherodon (paternal mouthbrooders), and tilapia (substrate spawners). Most species are unable to survive at temperatures below 50°F. Tilapia can live in either fresh or salt water. They are omnivores, feeding mainly on algae, aquatic macrophytes, detritus, and associated bacterial films (Fitzsimmons and Watanabe 2010). 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). According to the National Fisheries Institute (2011), tilapia is the fourth most consumed fish in the United States after shrimp, tuna and salmon. During 2010, the average consumption of tilapia (1.5 pounds) increased 20% when compared to 2009. Tilapia is also known in the market as Saint Peter fish and Izumidai (Fitzsimmons 2006). Tilapia market can be divided into two segments: the frozen and the fresh products (Norman-López and Bjørndal 2009). Chinese products dominated the frozen sector of the U.S. market, providing about 68% of the whole tilapia and 86% of the tilapia fillets (USDA 2012). Latin American countries dominate the market of fresh products. In 2011, Honduras and Ecuador supplied 74% of imported fresh fillets to the US market. During 2011, the United States imported more than 30.68 million pounds of tilapia, valued at US$36.89 million from Taiwan, from which more than 87% were in the form of whole frozen (USDA 2012). By-products from tilapia are used for leather goods, gelatin, and medicines. Tilapia production in Taiwan is export oriented, mostly to the US. In 2010, the annual production of tilapia in Taiwan was 74,896 tons valued at 117 million US dollars (Taiwan Fisheries Yearbook 2011). More than half of it (39,194 tons; 74 million US dollars) was exported to the US (GIO 2011). Taiwanese tilapia is also exported to the European Union, Korea, Japan and the Middle East (Globefish 2011, INFOFISH 2010). Tilapia accounts for 20%–25% of total aquaculture production in Taiwan (Grabacki 2011). Tainan County, located in the south, produces almost a third of Taiwanese tilapia in 2,260

7

hectares of pond. Other counties that contribute to aquaculture production in Taiwan are Chiayi, Yulin, Kaohsiung, and Pintung. The largest exporter of tilapia in Taiwan is the Kouhu Fisheries Cooperative, composed by more than 200 fish farmers (+2,300 hectares) located in southern Taiwan counties. Tilapia in Taiwan is mostly farmed in outdoor freshwater ponds (>80%), but some production is also harvested from brackish and seawater ponds (Chen et al. 2006, Zhu et al. 2009). Pond yields increased from 20,091 kg to 25,309 kg per hectare between 2003 and 2007 (Zhu et al. 2009).

8

Analysis

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

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

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

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

9

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

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

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

available to relevant stakeholders. Criterion 1 Summary

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

Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5

Effluent Yes 0 0

Locations/habitats Yes 5 5

Predators and wildlife Yes 0 0

Chemical use Yes 2.5 2.5

Feed Yes 2.5 2.5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 0 0

Disease Yes 2.5 2.5

Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not relevant n/a

Total 25

C1 Data Final Score 2.78 RED

Available information on tilapia production in Taiwan is very scarce. Tilapia statistics are published yearly by the Taiwanese Fisheries Bureau. This information is updated and disaggregated at the county level. Statistics and most of the information on tilapia production in Taiwan are published in Chinese. Unfortunately, research on tilapia production and tilapia impacts on the environment is scarce, and also generally available only in Chinese. There are few papers published on international peer-reviewed journals treating aspects of Taiwanese tilapia production. Most of the research is published in the Fisheries Research Institute’s Journal of Taiwan Fisheries Research. Given the lack of published information, data quality and availability is considered to be poor. Therefore, the final score for the data quality and availability is 2.78 (out of 10).

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) 48

F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 54

F2 .1 Waste discharge score (0-10) 7

F2.2a Content of regulations (0-5) 1.5

F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0-5) 1

F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0-10) 0.6

C2 Effluent Final Score 4.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

The effluent criterion is divided into two factors: the first estimates the amount of N wastes discharged per ton of harvested fish, and the second addresses the cumulative impact of multiple farms through the evaluation of the regulatory structure and its enforcement regarding effluent discharge. Effluent discharge is estimated through N wastes released per ton of harvested tilapia. N wastes that reach the environment are the result of the balance between N inputs and N outputs, multiplied by the proportion of them that is released from the production facility. The balance between N inputs and outputs results in the production of 48 kg of N waste per ton of harvested tilapia. However, in ponds with a low water exchange rate, only 54% of these wastes are released into the environment (Sonnenholzer 2008). Therefore, it is estimated that 25.92 kg N wastes are released per ton of harvested fish, determining a score of 7 (out of 10) for the waste discharge factor. Regulations regarding effluent discharge from aquaculture in Taiwan are considered to be poor (Liao and Chao 2007). For instance, the Fisheries Law (COA 2008), which also governs the aquaculture activity, does not require the treatment of wastewater from ponds. This determines a low score for the regulatory and management effectiveness factor (0.6 out of 10). The combination of the waste discharge score (7) and the regulatory or management effectiveness score (0.6), determines a low-moderate overall score for the effluents criterion (4 out of 10).

11

Justification of Ranking In the effluents criterion, nitrogen is used as a proxy to assess biological waste production from aquaculture operations. In the case of Taiwanese tilapia, the balance between N inputs and outputs is given by the amount of N in feeds and the N harvested in tilapia tissues. The N in feed inputs is calculated through the multiplication of the protein level of the feed used in the grow-out state (24% as reported by feed companies), the amount of N in the protein (fixed value, 16%) and the FCR (2.0). The FCR value is the average for tilapia production in Taiwan reported by Tacon and Metian (2008). These authors also report minimum and maximum FCR values of 1.6 and 2.3, respectively. The N in outputs is estimated through the protein content in tilapia tissues (~18%). The balance results in the production of 48 kg N wastes per ton of harvested tilapia. However, in ponds with low water exchange rate, only 54% of these wastes are released to the environment (Sonnenholzer 2008). Therefore, only 25.92 kg of N wastes are released from tilapia ponds per ton of harvested fish, leading to a relatively high score (7 out of 10) for the waste discharge factor. 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. The regulatory structure regarding effluent discharge from tilapia farms in Taiwan is considered to be poor. According to Liao and Chao (2007), “laws and regulations regarding aquaculture production are inappropriate.” The major law governing aquaculture in Taiwan, i.e. the Fisheries Law (COA 2008), does not require the treatment of wastewater from ponds. Additionally, water quality standards for aquaculture farm effluents do not consider N or P concentrations among the monitored parameters (Lin et al. 2010). The lack of appropriate regulations to control the cumulative impact of multiple farm effluents on receiving water body, results in a low score for the regulatory or management effectiveness factor (0.6 out of 10).

12

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 5.00

F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 0.75

F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 1.00

F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 0.30

C3 Habitat Final Score 3.43 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Tilapia operations are primarily located in the south of the country, occupying diverse habitats such as low-value agricultural lands and coastal ecosystems. Once established, aquaculture farms are completely covered by earthen ponds (Lin et al. 2010). Tilapia farms affect the provision of ecosystem services such as hazard regulation (e.g. storm protection, flooding control), and water provision. Groundwater overdraft represents the main concern in terms of habitat impact as it has led to land subsidence, reduced water storage capacity of aquifers, and soil salinity in coastal zones (Ferng 2007). These impacts are considered to be historical (>10 years), as total pond surface in Taiwan has been steadily decreasing during the last decade (Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of China 2011). Therefore, the impacts of tilapia operations on ecosystem function are considered to be moderate (5 out of 10). The impact at the farm level is combined with the existence and enforcement of management and regulations that limits the expansion and cumulative impact of multiple farms on the provision of ecosystem services. These regulations are considered to be weak in Taiwan. The lack of aquaculture planning and regulation has resulted in the massive proliferation of earthen ponds, and the over-pumping of groundwater (Liao and Chao 2007). Most aquaculture farms in Taiwan are not regulated, and they are still illegally pumping groundwater. According to Ferng (2007), Taiwanese government policies aiming to control these impacts had been ineffective. The combination of the moderate habitat conversion and function score (4) and the low regulatory or management effectiveness score (0.3) results in a low (‘red’) overall score for the habitat criterion (2.77 out of 10).

13

Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function Most tilapia farms were established during 1980s replacing a wide range of different land use such as agricultural areas and coastal ecosystems. During the last decade the area devoted to aquaculture in Taiwan has decreased from 47,882 ha in 2000, to 40,206 in 2010. Therefore, the impacts of land use change are considered to be historical (>10 years). As surface water is polluted and not suitable for its use in aquaculture, tilapia ponds are mostly (>95%) filled with groundwater. This water is generally illegally pumped, and has resulted in groundwater overdraft, which in turn has led to the compression of aquifer layers. Beyond reducing the water storage capacity of the aquifers, groundwater overdraft has caused land subsidence, and soil salinity in coastal zones due to saltwater intrusion (Ferng 2007). Subsided land area in Taiwan is estimated to be around 2,000 km2, representing 20% of the total plains area. Southwest coastal areas of Taiwan are the most affected by groundwater withdrawal, and now these areas are less resilient to flooding after heavy rainfalls. However, according to the Taiwan Fisheries Statistical Yearbook, during the last decade (2001–2011) the area of inland fish farms and ground water use have decreased 23.8% and 64%, respectively, showing improvements regarding habitat impacts. The reduction in the provision of ecosystem services such as hazard regulation (e.g. storm protection, flooding control), and water provision due to historical land use change results in a moderate score (5 out of 10) for the habitat conversion and function factor. Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) Individual farms contribute incrementally to effects at the landscape level. The cumulative impact of aquaculture on habitat function is assessed through the existence and enforcement of regulations that control and/or limit aquaculture industry size and concentration. In Taiwan, the Council of Agriculture administrates, plans, and manages the aquaculture activity (Liao 2007). The proliferation of aquaculture ponds in Taiwan was not regulated, indicating the lack of a siting planning and regulatory structure (Liao and Chao 2007). Although the Fisheries Act (2008) establishes that local competent authorities should prescribe rules for registration and management of inland aquaculture, currently most aquaculture farms are not regulated. According to Ferng (2007), “the most important challenge for the aquaculture industry in Taiwan is the formulation and strict implementation of appropriate laws and regulations.” In Taiwan, the central government has decided most policies related to aquaculture development. These policies have been oriented towards the expansion of aquaculture, and environmental impact mitigation has been overlooked in the formulation of laws and regulation (Liao 2007). Taiwanese government policies have been ineffective in controlling the cumulative impacts of aquaculture on the environment, such as those caused by water overdraft (Ferng 2007). The lack of an appropriate regulatory structure determines a low regulatory or management effectiveness score (0.3 out of 10).

14

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” criteria 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

In Taiwan, the concentration of cultured aquatic animals in tilapia ponds may attract predators or other wildlife such as seagulls and the Black-headed Ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus). However, there is no evidence of impact of aquaculture operations on predator and wildlife mortalities. Therefore, the overall score for this exceptional criterion is 0 (out of 10).

15

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

A wide range of chemicals are used in aquaculture systems for a variety of purposes, but most importantly they are applied for disease treatment and pest management. The potential effects of chemical use on natural ecosystems and human health have raised growing awareness about the need for responsible practices (Cole et al. 2008). There is evidence that Taiwanese tilapia may contain illegal substances such as malachite green and gentian violet (FDA 2012). In tilapia operations, these substances are used for disease treatment as parasiticides to control fungal attacks and protozoan infections. However, their use has been banned due to their reported toxic effects (Srivastava et al. 2004, Li et al. 2008). Another chemical used in tilapia production in Taiwan is the male hormone 17-alpha-methyltestosterone. This hormone is included in feeds for fries in order to obtain 100% male tilapia populations (Phelps 2006), but there are no reported negative effects generated by this practice. The use of illegal chemicals in Taiwanese tilapia production such as gentian violet and malachite green determines a low and “red” score for the overall Chemical Use criterion (0 out of 10). Justification of Ranking According to Cao and Chao (2007) most farmers in Taiwan abuse aquaculture pharmaceuticals. FDA (2012) has alerted the presence of gentian violet and triphenylmethane in Taiwanese tilapia entering the US, and the Taiwanese Department of Health (DOH) has also found malachite green in fish sold in domestic markets (CTT 2011). Tilapia from the identified operations in Taiwan is subjected to “Detention without physical examination” (DWPE or “Import Alert” status). This means that tilapia from these operations cannot enter to the US “unless or until the importer or foreign producer demonstrates compliance” (Horton 2009).

16

Malachite green and gentian violet are used in aquaculture for fungal diseases and parasites control. Their use has been banned due to reported carcinogenic effects (Li et al. 2008, Nyambok 2011, Srivastava et al. 2004). Both malachite green and gentian violet are persistent in the environment and are toxic to a wide range of animals. Malachite green is prohibited in several countries including the US, Canada, and the European Union, but it still used in some regions due to its effectiveness and inexpensiveness as a therapeutic agent (FDA 2008). The androgen, 17-alpha-methyltestosterone, is also used in tilapia production in Taiwan. All-male (monosex) production is preferred in tilapia production in order to avoid unwanted fry production (i.e. overpopulation), and because of male’s faster growth. The administration of this androgen does not alter the genotype of the fish, but directs the expression of the phenotype (Phelps 2006).

17

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) 0.18 9.56

F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00

F5.1: Wild Fish Use 9.45

F5.2a Protein IN 32.22

F5.2b Protein OUT 18.00

F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -44.13 5

F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 1.74 9

C5 Feed Final Score 8.22 GREEN

Critical? NO

The feed criterion is composed by three factors: wild fish use, protein net gain: loss, and feed footprint. The wild fish use factor use the FIFO (Fish In: Fish Out) ratio to calculate the amount of wild fish required per ton of harvested tilapia. Tilapia diets present low inclusion level of marine ingredients (2% fishmeal, and 0% fish oil), and an average FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) of 2.0 (Tacon and Metian 2008). These values determine a low FIFO (0.18), and a high FIFO score (9.56). This latter is penalized due to the use of an unknown source of marine ingredients (-6), leading to a high overall score for the wild fish use factor (9.45 out of 10). The low level of marine ingredients and the dominance of crop derived ingredients such as soybean meal, wheat products and rice bran determine a low feed footprint (1.74 hectares), and a high score for the feed footprint factor (9 out of 10). The balance between protein in inputs (i.e. feed, 24% protein) and the protein in the harvested fish results in the loss of 44.13% of protein in inputs. Therefore, the net protein gain: loss factor gets a moderate score (5 out of 10). The combination of the three partial scores determines a high overall score for the feed criterion (8.22 out of 10).

18

Justification of Ranking C5.1. Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1 score is the result of an equation that involves the estimation of the amount of wild fish needed to obtain a ton of farmed fish known as the “Fish In: Fish Out” ratio (FIFO) and a penalization factor due to the use of non-sustainable sources of wild fish. The inclusion levels of marine ingredients in tilapia feeds in Taiwan are 2% fishmeal and 0% fish oil as reported by Tacon and Metian (2008). The same authors also report an average FCR of 2.0 for tilapia production in Taiwan. The combination of the FCR and the low levels of marine ingredients, determines a FIFO value of 0.18, which means that 0.18 pounds of wild fish is needed to obtain a pound of tilapia. The low FIFO value leads to a high FIFO score (9.56), which is penalized by the sustainability of the fishery source factor. The use of an unknown source of marine ingredients results in a small penalization, determining a high score for the wild fish use factor (9.56 out of 10). C5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss This factor considers the efficiency and net benefit of the conversion of all feed ingredients into farmed seafood by estimating the net protein gained or lost during the fish farming process. The balance between protein inputs and outputs is estimated through the difference between the protein in feed and the protein in the harvested fish, respectively. Tilapia feeds in Taiwan present 24% of protein level (Everone 2012), from which 85% is protein derived from edible crop ingredients such as soybean meal, wheat flour and rice bran, 10% is derived from non-edible sources such as wheat middlings, and 5% comes from fishmeal. The protein in inputs is estimated to be 32.22 kg per ton of harvested tilapia. The protein level in the harvested tilapia is 18%. Even though the fillet yield in Taiwan is ~38%, tilapia fillet wastes are fully utilized. These wastes are used for gelatin elaboration, and collagen products. The balance between protein inputs and outputs results in the loss of 44.1% of the protein in inputs during the tilapia production cycle in Taiwan, leading to a moderate final score for the protein net gain: loss factor (5 out of 10).

C5.3. Feed Footprint The feed footprint factor is estimated through the aquatic and terrestrial area needed to produce the ingredients used for aquaculture feeds. It uses averages values for marine, terrestrial animal and crop-derived ingredients. The low inclusion level of marine ingredients (2% fishmeal = 1.04 hectares), and the high inclusion level of crop-derived ingredients (92% = 0.7 hectares), determine a total feed footprint of 1.74 hectares. This value results in a high final score for the feed footprint factor (9 out of 10).

19

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 4.00

F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0

F6.1b Invasiveness 5.5

C6 Escape Final Score 4.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

The escapes criterion is divided into two factors: the risk of escape, and the invasiveness of the escapees. The risk of escape is considered to be moderate-low (4 out of 10) in ponds with low water exchange rates (1%–3%). Tilapia is often considered as a highly invasive species (Diana 2009), and is an exotic species in Taiwan. Different tilapia species were introduced to Taiwan since 1946, when Mozambique tilapia was brought from Singapore (Taiwan Panorama 2004). Currently, tilapia populations are fully established in the wild (Meng et al. 2009, Sun and Tsai 2009). The potential impacts of ongoing escapes on wild populations are considered to be moderate, being related to habitat alteration and resource competition (Canonico et al. 2005, Martin et al. 2010). Therefore, the invasiveness of tilapia escapees is considered to be moderate (5.5 out of 10). The combination of the risk of escape, and the invasiveness scores determine a low-moderate overall score for the escapes criterion (4 out of 10). Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape risk Aquaculture production systems have an intrinsic risk of escape based on their degree of openness. For instance, systems such as cages or ponds with high water exchange have a direct connection to natural ecosystems and present higher escape risk than more closed systems such as recirculating systems where more robust barriers can be effectively installed and managed. In the case of Taiwanese tilapia, fish is farmed in ponds with low daily water exchange rates (1%–3%). These systems present a low-moderate risk of escape, resulting in a score of 4 (out of 10) for the escape risk factor.

20

Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness Invasiveness is defined as “…the degree to which an organism is able to spread from site of primary introduction, to establish a viable population in the ecosystem, to negatively affect biodiversity on the individual, community, or ecosystem level and cause adverse socioeconomic consequence” (Panov et al. 2008). According to its definition, invasiveness considers the phases of the invasion process that follow the escape itself: establishment and ecological impacts. Tilapia is a non-native species in Taiwan. The risk of establishment of non-native species is related to the presence and potential of establishment of non-native populations in the wild. Tilapia populations are fully established in natural water bodies in Taiwan such as rivers and streams (Meng et al. 2009, Sun and Tsai 2009). Although there is no direct evidence of direct effects of tilapia escapees on wild populations, results from experimental trials can be used within a precautionary approach. Tilapia presents many traits that favor its invasion such as a broad environmental tolerance, and rapid growth (Diana 2009). The negative impacts of their escape are related to habitat alteration and resource competition (Canonico et al. 2005, Martin et al. 2010).

21

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

Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Parameters Score

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

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

C6 Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Taiwanese tilapia production is self-sufficient in terms of broodstock and fingerling production and does not involve any international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments. Therefore, the risk of unintentionally introducing non-native species is low.

22

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

Taiwanese tilapia operations present infrequent on-farm infections. The most common diseases in tilapia production in Taiwan are Streptococcis (Sun et al. 2007), Franciscellosis (Hsieh et al. 2006), and Vibrio (Chen et al. 2006). Tilapia farms discharge water without treatment. However, there is no evidence of diseases transferred from farmed stocks to wild populations. Therefore, the risk of diseases is considered to be moderate, and the overall score for the disease criterion is 5 (out of 10). Justification of Ranking Tilapia is often considered to be highly resistant to diseases, but environmental or physiological stressing conditions in intensive systems reduce its defense mechanisms against infections (Fitzsimmons and Watanabe 2010). Vibrio and Franciscellosis infections appear to be the most common diseases in Taiwanese tilapia operations. Chen et al. (2006) report the first isolation of Vibrio vulnificus in southern Taiwan from hybrid tilapia. However, the infection was only found in fish in ponds where the salinity was less than 10 ppt, and tilapia raised in water of higher salinities in the same region were not affected. Franciscellosis is a widespread disease in tilapia production in Taiwan, which is commonly found in freshwater, brackishwater, and seawater ponds. This disease has caused mortalities up to 95% in some farms (Hsieh et al. 2006). Tilapia farms in Taiwan are considered not to be biosecure, and they discharge water without relevant treatment. Although there is no evidence of impacts on wild species outside of the farms, the disease risk is considered moderate.

23

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

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

Source of Stock Parameters Score

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

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Taiwanese tilapia production is fully independent of wild seed. One hundred percent of tilapia fingerlings are produced in hatcheries from domesticated broodstock (Chien and Yu 2008). Therefore, the final score for the source of stock criterion is the highest (10 out of 10). Justification of Ranking Taiwanese tilapia farms are supplied with fingerlings produced in hatcheries. Therefore, tilapia production in Taiwan is fully independent from wild stocks for seed supply. Most of tilapia fingerlings stocked in Taiwan are produced in certified GlobalGAP farms. These hatcheries are located near Tainan City (Yu et al. 2011). Some hatcheries use YY technology to obtain 100% male populations. This practice avoids the use of the androgenic male hormone in fry feed.

24

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

– 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

Oreochromis spp.

Taiwan

Ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 2.78 RED

C2 Effluent 4.00 YELLOW NO

C3 Habitat 3.43 YELLOW NO

C4 Chemicals 0.00 RED NO

C5 Feed 8.22 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 4.00 YELLOW NO

C7 Disease 5.00 YELLOW NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN

Total 37.44

Final score 4.68

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 4.68

Initial rank YELLOW

Red criteria 1

Interim rank YELLOW

Critical Criteria? NO

Final rank GOOD ALTERNATIVE

25

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

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. Chen, C-Y., C-B. Chao and P.R. Bowser (2006) Infection of Tilapia Oreochromis sp. by Vibrio vulnificus in Freshwater and Low-salinity Environments. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 37(1): 82-88. Chien, Y-H. and N-H. Yu (2008) The status of the hatchery industry in Taiwan. World Aquaculture Society Meeting, Busan, Korea. Cole, D.W., R. Cole, S.J. Gaydos, J. Gray, G. Hyland, M.L. Jacques, N Powell-Dunford, C. Sawhney, WW Au (2008) Aquaculture: Environmental, toxicological, and health issues. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 212 (4): 369-377. CTT (2011) Taiwan Sampling Inspection on Aquatic Showed Malachite Green in 40% fish. Consumers Techniques Technology. http://www.cttlab.com/en/news_show.php?serial=252 Diana, J.S. (2009) Aquaculture Production and Biodiversity Conservation. Bioscience 59 (1): 27-38. Everone (2012) Taiwan Tilapia Feed. http://everone-hu.ezcity.com.tw/homeweb_en/catalog_detail.php?infoscatid=6&ifid=10 FDA (2008) Enhanced Aquaculture and Seafood Inspection - Report to Congress. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, Public Law 110-85. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/Seafood/SeafoodRegulatoryProgram/ucm150954.htm

26

FDA (2012) Detention Without Physical Examination Of Aquaculture Seafood Products Due To Unapproved Drugs. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_27.html Ferng, J-J. (2007) Biophysical assessments in evaluating industrial development: An experience from Taiwan freshwater aquaculture. Ecological Economics 63 (2-3): 427-434. Chang (2004) Taiwan Tilapia Production Zone Exclusive for Exporting. In: R.B. Bolivar, G.C. Mair, and K. Fitzsimmons (Eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture Philippine International Convention Center Roxas Boulevard, Manila, Philippines, September 12-16, 2004. COA (2008) Fisheries Act. http://www.coa.gov.tw/view.php?catid=8985&print=1 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. GIO (2011) The Republic of China Yearbook 2011. http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/docs/ch10.pdf Globefish (2011) Tilapia Global Market Report (August 25, 2011). http://www.globefish.org/tilapia-february-2011.html Grabacki, S.T. (2011) Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch. In: E.G. Daczkowska-Kozon and B. Sun-pan (Eds.) Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability and Qualities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 39-56 pp. Horton, L. (2009) US FDA Authority over Imports. RAJ Pharma (May): 293-294. Hsieh, C.Y., M.C. Tung, C. Tu, C.D. Chang and S.S. Tsai (2006) Enzootics of visceral granulomas associated with Francisella-like organism infection in tilapia (Oreochromis spp.). Aquaculture 254: 129–138. INFOFISH (2010) INFOSA Newsletter 2010.

27

http://www.infosa.org.na/dloads/Services/ITN%2011-%20June%202010.pdf 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. Liao, D.S. (2007) Public Policies for Sustainable Development of Shrimp Aquaculture in Taiwan. In: P. Leung, C-S. Lee and P.J. O’Bryen (Eds.) Species & System Selection: For Sustainable Aquaculture, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 243-253. Liao, I.C. and N-H. Chao (2007) Taiwanese Aquaculture at the Crossroads. In: P. Leung, C-S. Lee and J. O’Bryen (Eds.) Species & System Selection: For Sustainable Aquaculture. Blackwell, pp. 161-178. Lin, Y-F., S-R. Jing, D-Y. Lee, Y-F. Chang and H-Y. Sui (2010) Constructed Wetlands for Water Pollution Management of Aquaculture Farms Conducting Earthen Pond Culture. Water Environmental Research 82: 759-768. 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 Meng, P-J., J. Lin and L-L. Liu (2009) Aquatic organotin pollution in Taiwan-- Implications of organotins in marine environment and their prohibition. Journal of Environmental Management 90(1): S8-S15. National Fisheries Institute (2011) Top 10 consumed seafood. http://www.aboutseafood.com/about/about-seafood/top-10-consumed-seafoods 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 Nyambok, E.O. (2011) Chemical Contaminants in Chinese Aquaculture Imports, U.S. Import Security, and Exposure Assessment amongst Vulnerable Sub-Populations. PhD dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. Panov, V.E., B. Alexandrov, K. Arbaciauskas, R. Binimelis, F. Lucy, R.S.E.W. Leuven, S. Nehring, M. Paunovic, V. Semenchenko and M.O. Son (2008) Assessing the Risks of Aquatic Species Invasions via European Inland Waterways: From Concepts to Environmental Indicators. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5 (1): 110–126. Phelps, R.P. (2006) Hormone Manipulation of Sex. In: C. Lim and C.D. Webster (Eds.) Tilapia- Biology, Culture, and Nutrition. Food Product Press, New York, pp. 211-252.

28

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 Srivastava, S., R. Sinha and D. Roya (2004) Toxicological effects of malachite green. Aquatic Toxicology 66(3): 319–329. Sun, S.S., J-C. Yan, C-Y. Yeh, S-Y. Lee and J-J. Lu (2007) Invasive infection with Streptococcus iniae in Taiwan. Journal of Medical Microbiology 56: 1246–1249. Sun, S.S. and P.L. Tsai (2009) Intersex Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) from a Contaminated River in Taiwan: A Case Study. Toxins 1: 14-24. 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. Taiwan Panorama (2004) Taiwan Tilapia – The Fish that Became a National Treasure. http://www.taiwan-panorama.com/en/show_issue.php?id=200469306068E.TXT&table=3&cur_page=1&distype=text USDA (2012) Aquaculture Data. USDA Economic Research Center. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/aquaculture/TilapiaImportsValue.htm Yu, C-H., C-J. Huang, C-J. Kao, J-L. Haung, C-H. Sung and T-H. Chen (2011) Taiwan Tilapia Production History, Traceability in Seafood Supply, and Transfer Pricing in the Global Market. Presented at the 19th Annual Conference on Pacific Basin Finance, Economics, Accounting, and Management, Taipei, Taiwan. Zhu, H. W.T. Chen and C.X. Chen (2009) Taiwan tilapia industry state and trend. SEIGI agriculture quarterly 19: 16-23 (in Chinese).

29

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.

30

Guiding Principles

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

Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make

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

stakeholders.

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

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

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

immediate vicinity of the farm.

Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively

maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing

historic habitat damage.

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

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

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

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

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

conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood.

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

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

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

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

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

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

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

broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.

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

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

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

31

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.

32

Data points and all scoring calculations

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

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality

Score (0-10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5

Effluent Yes 0 0

Locations/habitats Yes 5 5

Predators and wildlife Yes 0 0

Chemical use Yes 2.5 2.5

Feed Yes 2.5 2.5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 0 0

Disease Yes 2.5 2.5

Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not

relevant n/a

Total 25

C1 Data Final Score 2.78 RED

Criterion 2: Effluents

Factor 2.1a - Biological waste production score

Protein content of feed (%) 24

eFCR 2

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) 76.8

N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 28.8

Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 48

33

Factor 2.1b - Production System discharge score

Basic production system score 0.54

Adjustment 1 (if applicable) 0

Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0

Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0

Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0.54

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?

Moderately 0.5

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?

Moderately 0.5

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

Partly 0.25

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

No 0

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

Partly 0.25

1.5

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?

No 0

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

Moderately 0.5

4 - Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits? Partly 0.25

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

1

F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 0.6

C2 Effluent Final Score 4.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

34

Criterion 3: Habitat

3.1. Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 5

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?

No 0

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

No 0

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)

Partly 0.25

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

Partly 0.25

0.75

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?

Partly 0.25

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

Partly 0.25

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

No 0

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

Partly 0.25

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

Partly 0.25

1

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 0.30

C3 Habitat Final Score 3.43 YELLOW

Critical? NO

35

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 (%) 2

Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0

% FM 2

Fish oil inclusion level (%) 0

Fish oil from by-products (%) 0

% FO 0

Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5

Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 2

FIFO fishmeal 0.18

FIFO fish oil 0.00

Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 0.18

FIFO Score 9.56

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

SSWF -6

SSWF Factor -0.106666667

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 9.45

36

5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 24

eFCR 2

Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 10

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP sources (%) 80

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 32.22

Protein OUT 18

Net protein gain or loss (%) -44.1299

Critical? NO

F5.2 Net protein Score 5.00

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 (%) 2

eFCR 2

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) 1.04

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

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 92

Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0

Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 2

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

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.70

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 1.74

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 9.00

37

C5 Feed Final Score 8.22 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 4

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 4

6.1b. Invasiveness

Part A – Native species

Score 0

Part B – Non-Native species

Score 2.5

Part C – Native and Non-native species

Question Score

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

Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations? No

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

To some extent

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

To some extent

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

3

F 6.1b Score 5.5

Final C6 Score 4.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

38

Exceptional Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters

Score

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

0.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

F6.2X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score

0.00 GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and Parasite Parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 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