Aquaculture Sustainability: Multidisciplinary Perspectives and Adaptable Models for Seafood Security
Saleem
Mustafa*, Abentin Estim, Sujjat Al-Azad,
Sitti Raehanah M Shaleh, Rossita Shapawi
Citation: Mustafa S, Estim A, Al-Azad S, Shaleh SRM, Shapawi R (2017) Aquaculture Sustainability: Multidisciplinary Perspectives and Adaptable Models for Seafood Security. J Fish Aqua Dev: JFAD-126. DOI:10.29011/JFAD-126/100026
1.
Abstract
1.
Introduction
Aquaculture is a cost-effective and efficient system of producing animal protein. When organized in responsible ways it can be the least ecologically impacting of all food production systems. It is evident from the sustainability indicators for animal protein production, namely Food Conversion Ratio (FCR) measured as kg feed/ kg edible weight, and Protein Efficiency (PE) measured in percentage unit. FCR values are 31.7, 4.2 and 2.3 for beef, chicken and fin fish, respectively whereas PE (%) is 5, 25 and 30 for beef, chicken and finfish in that order [4,5]. Other aquatic animals such as bivalve mollusks (mussels, oysters, clams) are non-fed extractor species that are filter feeders, picking plankton and particulate matter. They yield even better outcomes by producing food without human intervention in feeding them. Aquaculture uses space three-dimensionally which maximizes the use of resources while improving the yield per unit volume, unlike land-based food systems.
2. Aquaculture and Ocean Ecosystem-what is The Link?
·
Collection of brood stock from wild
population for captive breeding in hatcheries adversely affects the natural
population recruitment and thus reduces the population size in the sea.
·
Construction of culture ponds in mangrove forests
degrades or destroys the mangrove ecosystem.
·
Release of large quantities of nutrients
from some forms of aquaculture leads to eutrophication that impairs the quality
of marine environment for many species besides contributing to harmful algal
blooms.
·
Use of exotic species in aquaculture that
fetch high price in international market often leads to their escape into the sea
environment which results in stress on native populations through competition
and exposure to pathogens.
·
Release of hatchery-produced juveniles
that have narrow genetic base to natural environment leads to their inbreeding
with the native species, thereby weakening the genetic variability and resilience
of the wild populations in the sea.
Sustainable
aquaculture is and will remain a dynamic concept for the reasons that
sustainability of aquaculture systems will vary with species, method of culture,
state of knowledge, technology usage, societal perception, location and
possibly other factors. Knowledge is the most powerful among these factors. An
aquaculture system that we consider sustainable based on our current state of
knowledge may not measure up to the sustainability standards as we gain a
better understanding of the biological or ecological systems in which it
operates. Since knowledge has no frontiers, sustainable aquaculture should
logically be accepted as a journey, not a final destination. It is a work in
progress and requires that we continue to make efforts towards that goal to
address the new challenges as they arise, requiring course correction or adaptive
modifications. Key elements of sustainable aquaculture are shown in (Figure 1).
The
main factors considered in accepting whether or not an aquaculture practice meets
the above requirements are elaborated here.
Human
intervention leading to conservation and food security can be designed in
unique ways depending on ground realities. Linking aquaculture with what is
called the ‘Culture-based fisheries’ is an example of positive outcomes from academia-community
joint endeavours. Attempts by Kian et al. (2012) [11] to restore ecosystem of a
coastal river considered ‘Dead’ in terms fish catch through ranching of a
hatchery produced shrimp (Macro brachium rosenbergii) that feeds in lower trophic levels provide
a good example of working model. This species breeds in brackish water
where early larval development takes place before the post-larvae start ascending
the river even as they transition from free swimming life and planktivorous
diet to a predominantly benthic lifestyle and euryphagic feeding habitat. Their
diet comprises items that are easily
available (aquatic vegetation, juveniles of bottom-living invertebrates, insect
larvae and plankton). While the mass release of hatchery produced post-larvae
into the lower reaches of the Petagas River enabled the shrimp to utilize
whatever resources were available in the habitat, they themselves become part of
the food chain, thereby contributing to revival of ecosystem by restoration of
biodiversity and improving the catch. A water body used as a garbage dumping
ground can gain respect as a source of fishing for the indigenous community.
Unlike past practices where mangrove swamps were converted into shrimp ponds,
inflicting a serious loss to biodiversity, this culture-based fisheries model
helps in rebuilding the biodiversity whereas silvo-fishery model of aquaculture
tends to conserve the biodiversity. There is still a need for caution in
organizing aquaculture in healthy coastal-marine ecosystems. Any such attempt
should be backed by a comprehensive environmental monitoring program comprising
observations on water quality, marine biodiversity and functional links of the ecologically
sensitive habitats. Case studies in Malaysia and elsewhere in the world where
aquaculture has been carried out using ecosystem resources of coastal bays,
estuaries and lagoons provide a wealth of information for carefully planning ecological aquaculture (Figure
2).
Brummett
(2013) [5] has emphasized that ecosystem sustainability of aquaculture should
consider sustaining diversity and abundance of indigenous species at desirable
levels, and this requires a zoning program to designate areas over which monitoring programs should be
established to measure indicators of sustainability of aquaculture, water
quality, biodiversity and ecological carrying capacity. Institutionalizing this
effort that would bring educational institutions (Figure
3) on board with their accredited analytical facilities will ensure
success of these aquaculture projects.
Integrated
Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) presents yet another model of ecological
aquaculture that meets the sustainability criteria. Fundamentally, it mimics
the processes that operate in natural ecosystem and serves to demonstrate how a
responsible stewardship of an aquaculture system can ensure that the vital aquatic
production is ecologically compatible, economically feasible and beneficial to
the community. It benefits the growers as well as the consumers. Key components
of IMTA are recycling and integration of multiple species from different
trophic levels (Figure 4).
The
water used in the system is recycled for reuse even as it serves as a vehicle
for nutrient cascading. The system comprises fed species which are supplied
feed from outside. The uneaten feed and metabolic waste from the fed species
flow into holding space for organic extractive species that include filter
feeders (e.g., mussel, sea urchin) and deposit feeders (Polychaete worm) which
pick up organic particulate matter (uneaten feed and faeces) for nourishment.
The water flow continues into a chamber or open area containing plants or
seaweeds that extract dissolved inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus produced by fed species as well as organic extractive species. The
water so filtered and cleared by the extractive species is available to fed
species for their use. This is how wastes are assimilated into biomass and
energy rather than being drained into natural environment as pollutants. The
living biological filters (extractive species) are marketable biomass that
brings additional income to farmers. These complementary species in IMTA work
the same way in a natural ecosystem that they share albeit in a more
diversified form.
5. Priority Topics for Problem-Solving Research
· Management of knowledge- by using traditional and
modern tools of information and communication technology to ensure knowledge
flow to researchers, helping them shape their efforts and to the industry to
find solutions to the problems.
Generally,
aquaculture research moves fast enough in examining the evolving scenarios but
probably more efforts should be invested in presenting information in a form
that can motivate the informed decision-making. Policy-making agencies and
managers act within their budgetary controls and mandates to fulfil the
aspirations of the society, so for them the basis of action is not limited to
scientific inputs alone. Through interdisciplinary efforts the scientific
information can be packaged with social science, economics and monetary
policies which would be easily appreciated and may even expedite decisions to
support sustainable aquaculture. The fact that situations evolve over time, the
management system for aquaculture industry will have to be adaptable to be able
to respond to changes and maintain the growth trajectory.
7. Acknowledgement
This study was supported by the Ministry of Education through Niche Research Grant Scheme (code NRGS0001).
Figure 1: Essential
requirements for Ecological Aquaculture
Figure 2: Feasibility
Studies Being Carried Out in The Sea.
Figure 3: Fish
Hatchery with Modern Facilities at Borneo Marine Research Institute.
Figure 4: Integration
of Three Types of Trophic Level Species.
Key issues |
IMTA principles of operation |
Indicators |
Aquaculture waste of fed species |
Used up by extractor species, not released outside the system |
No discharge (Indicator 1). |
Renewal of large volumes of freshwater |
Uses water recirculation technique |
No wastage of precious water (Indicator 2). |
Genetic implications for wild population by escape of fish |
Uses indigenous species. Even if hatchery-produced stock is used, it is held in captivity and entire stock is harvested. There could be a possibility of escape in sea-based modules. |
No genetic impact on wild populations (Indicator 3a). Work in progress to secure fed species stock in sea-based modules (Indicator 3b). |
Disease transmission risk |
Health of the stock held in land-based facilities is regularly monitored. Fish showing signs of sickness are removed. |
Disease transmission risk in controlled in the case of land-based IMTA (Indicator 4). There are no documented cases on such problem in sea-based IMTA modules. |
Prey fish supply |
Most of the species used in IMTA are not provided with prey fish. However, pellet feed provided to captive stocks may contain fish meal and oil. |
Prey fish substitutes in pellet (Indicator 5a). For pellets where there is still large proportion of prey fish ingredients, sustainability is a work in progress (Indicator 5b). |
Ecological footprint of species integrated with fed species |
Organic extractive and inorganic extractive species are not supplied food from outside. They depend on waste from fed species. Furthermore, both these stocks are low in trophic level. |
Non-fed species at the bottom of trophic levels produce no significant carbon footprint (Indicator 6). |
Supply of wild brood stock |
IMTA does not include captive breeding that requires sourcing of brood stock from the wild for seed production in the hatcheries. It is a grow-out system to raise young fish to harvestable size. |
No direct effect on brood stock in the natural population (Indicator 7). |
Stocking of juveniles of fed species |
Generally, stocking of fed species depends on supply from hatchery, rather than natural populations. This is considered dependable, more practical in terms of size selection, and a measure of biosecurity. |
No pressure on juveniles produced in the wild for population recruitment (Indicator 8). |
Environmental resilience |
IMTA is implemented under certain controlled conditions that boost the resilience of captive stocks and reduce vulnerability to environmental variables. |
More adaptable to changing climate (Indicator 9). |
Ecological compatibility |
IMTA mimics processes that nature uses to produce food. Land-based modules are not located in ecologically sensitive habitats, so they have no adverse implications for ecosystem. Modules that are in close proximity to natural habitats use ecosystem resources which are viewed as supporting the production. |
No threat to marine biodiversity or natural processes in the sea (Indicator 10). |
Table 1: Sustainability Indicators of IMTA.
8. FAO (2014) The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2014. Rome Italy.
9.
Pothering J (2017) Financing fish. Impact Alpha, San Francisco USA.
10.
Velings M (2017) The case for fish
farming. Aqua Spark. Utrecht, The Netherlands.
11.
Kian AYS, Mochizuki H, Shapawi R
(2012) Fisheries stock enhancement for the benefit of local community, Sabah.
Technical Report IPMB/UMS, Kota Kinabalu.
13. Estim
A, Mustafa S (2011) Bio filtration in recirculating system of a marine fish
hatchery. International Journal of Recirculating Aquaculture 11: 19-33.
21.
World Fish (2015)
Research Programs: Sustainable Aquaculture, Penang.