Click for next page ( 10


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 9
1 Introduction Aquaculture, the husbandry of aquatic animals and plants, has been prac- ticed since the earliest records of human history and is a rapidly growing industry in many parts of the world. In Norway and Japan, for example, the marine aquaculture industries comprise a significant economic sector in the national economies. Freshwater culture of fish and crustaceans (primarily catfish and crayfish) represents the fastest growing agricultural industry in the United States (DeVoe and Mount, 1989; Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, 19904. The National Aquaculture Act (P.L. 96-362), signed into law in 1980, states that national policy is "to encourage the development of aquaculture in the United States." This initiative was primarily a response to (1) a growing concern that natural harvests of fisheries would shortly reach their maximum sustainable yields and (2) the steadily increasing negative annual trade deficits in fish and fish products. Despite this legislation, a review of the nation's aquaculture industry in 1983 under the auspices of the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) (National Aquaculture Development Plan, 1983) noted that many impediments to the expansion of aquaculture that had been identified in an earlier National Research Council (NRC) report (NAS, 1978) still persisted. In the nearly 15 years that now have elapsed since publication of the NRC report, progress toward the establish- ment of a successful industry remains slow. In general, the U.S. aquaculture industry has failed to capture a signifi- cant share of the potential domestic or global market. In particular, the U.S. marine aquaculture industry the farming or ranching of marine fin- fish and shellfishhas yet to demonstrate long-term economic viability. 9

OCR for page 9
10 MARINE AQUACULTURE The following chapters are the products of an investigation to ascertain the present state of practice of marine aquaculture technology; to identify and appraise technical, social, environmental, and institutional issues con- straining the advance of this industry; and to recommend technological and policy strategies that might lead to improved prospects in the future. WORLD/U.S. AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION Although farming of aquatic animals and plants is a practice equally as old as farming on land, as a modern industry, aquaculture is still a relatively minor source of food and other products compared to agriculture and tradi- tional capture fisheries. Total world fish production in 1988 was reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) at 98 million metric tons (mmt), of which 14 mmt were from aquaculture. The economic value of the 1988 world aquaculture crop of 14 mmt is estimated to be $22.5 billion, an increase of 19 percent from the $18.8 billion value of the 1987 crop (FAO, 19901. Of the roughly 300,000 metric tons of aquatic life grown for food in the United States in 1988, three-quarters or more were freshwater organisms. U.S. marine aquaculture production in 1988 was about 75,000 metric tons, of which approximately 80 percent were oysters. All of the marine species, except oysters, are in the early stages of commercial development in the United States, and most projects have yet to achieve sustained economic viability. U.S. marine aquaculture has not expanded in accordance with the growth of the world industry during recent history. In fact, in some areas the U.S. market share has declined (e.g., cultured salmon and oyster production). THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN MARINE AQUACULTURE During the 1980s, per capita consumption of seafood increased steadily until 1987 then stabilized (Figure 1-1 and Table 1-1~. However, when considering a more significant indication of demandper capita expendi- ture on seafood (Figure 1-2) one finds a steadily upward trend throughout the decade (except for 1988~. Although the growth rate of seafood expendi- ture has slowed, U.S. consumers are still spending more for seafood despite the recession, recent highly publicized seafood safety issues, and the fact that prices are increasing faster than general consumer prices (Table 1-1~. Many observers expect that seafood expenditures will continue to grow. At the same time that marine aquaculture has lagged, consumer demand for seafood has increased concomitantly with population growth and on a per capita basis as well. Concerns about improved nutrition and lowered cholesterol intake have stimulated changing dietary habits that include in-

OCR for page 9
INTROD UCTION Pounds of Edible Meat 20 15 10 o ' 1 1 197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990 11 / Year FIGURE 1-1 U.S. per capita consumption of seafood 1979-1990. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce (1990).

OCR for page 9
2 MARINE AQUACULTURE TABLE 1-1 U.S. Consumption of Seafood 1979-1990: Per Capita Seafood Consumption, Seafood Prices, and Derived Per Capita Seafood Expenditures Year U.S. Per Capita U.S. Per Capita U.S. Consumer Derived U.S. Per U.S. Consumer Seafood Con- Seafood Con- Price Index, Capita Seafood Price Index, gumption gumption Index Fish Expenditure Index All Food (lbs edible (1982-1984= (1982-1984= (1982-1984= meat)a 1 oo)b 1 00)C 1 oo)d 100)C 1979 13.0 97.2 80.1 77.9 79.9 1980 12.5 93.5 87.5 81.8 86.8 1981 12.7 95.0 94.8 90.0 93.6 1982 12.5 93.5 98.2 91.8 97.4 1983 13.4 100.2 99.3 99.5 99.4 1984 14.2 106.2 102.5 108.9 103.2 1985 15.1 112.9 107.5 121.4 105.6 1986 15.5 115.9 117.4 136.1 109.0 1987 16.2 121.2 129.9 157.4 113.5 1988 15.2 113.7 137.4 156.2 118.2 1989 15.6 116.7 143.6 167.6 125.1 1990 15.5 115.9 146.7 170.i 132.4 Change 1980- +24% +67.7% +107.9% +52.5% 1 990 aU.S. Department of Commerce (1990). bCalculated from U.S. per capita seafood consumption reported by U.S. Department of Commerce (1990). CPutnam and Allshouse (1991). dU.S. Department of Commerce (1990); Putnam and Allshouse (1991). Derived U.S. per capita seafood expenditure index calculated as (U.S. per capita seafood consumption index x U.S. consumer price index for fish)/100. creased consumption of seafood. In addition, immigration of large numbers of cultural groups from East and Southeast Asia has created a growing consumer market for seafood. The increased consumer demand comes at a time when yields from capture fishing are beginning to peak, an opinion reinforced by the consensus that virtually all of the established major world fisheries and most of the recently discovered and exploited resources are already fished at, if not beyond, their limit of sustainable yield (Royce, 1989~. At any rate, U.S. capture fisheries have not been able to provide for increased consumer demand. In 1988 the importation of seafood into the United States exceeded 25 percent of the value of all food and live animals imported seafood importation was a little more than all other animals and meat products ($5.3 billion versus $5.2 billion, respectively) and a little less than all fruits, vegetables, and nuts ($5.4 billion) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 19881.

OCR for page 9
INTRODUCTION 13 The opportunity, therefore, exists for U.~. aquaculture to develop the capability to supply this growing demand, and marine aquaculture repre- sents a significant part of this opportunity. A vital marine aquaculture industry could also contribute to the nation's welfare in other ways. For example, in coastal regions where traditional fishery jobs are in decline, marine aquaculture provides employment opportunities that maintain links to traditional life-styles. Marine aquaculture provides the basis for rejuve- nating the seafood processing industry in some areas, including the produc- tion, manufacture, and processing of nonfood products from marine culture, such as pharmaceuticals and ornamental fish. The advantages of marine aquaculture over traditional fisheries for local economies include year-round industries and the development of a technically skilled work force (for further discussion of the social and cultural aspects of marine aquaculture on local economies, see Appendix D). Seafood Expenditure Index (1982-84=100) 200 100 50 o - - 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Year FIGURE 1-2 Derived U.S. per capita seafood expenditure index 1979-1990. Note: Derived U.S. per capita seafood expenditure index calculated as (U.S. per capita seafood consumption index x U.S. consumer price index for fish)/100. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce (1990); Putnam and Allshouse (1991).

OCR for page 9
4 MARINE AQUACULTURE e Hi__ Shrimp (Penaeus vannaemi) harvested from an intensive culture pond in South Carolina. For the nation, marine aquaculture has the potential to contribute signifi- cantly to the enhancement of fisheries stocks that are in decline or in danger of extinction. This role could be instrumental in augmenting species for recreational purposes, for commercial fisheries, or for wild species preser- vation. The emergence of fish farming, in concert with wild fisheries that are managed to maintain healthy levels of productivity, could alleviate the conflicts between the need for fish as food and the view of fish as a rec- reational or aesthetic resource. As a complex scientific and engineering field, marine aquaculture systems and technology can contribute to the development of marine biotechnology, which in turn has the potential to contribute to a number of medical and scientific advances. The sector of the U.S. marine aquaculture industry that is focused on designing and engineering operating systems is experiencing a growth in demand for export of systems and expertise to other countries seeking to establish technology-based marine aquaculture operations. PROBLEMS AND CONSTRAINTS Given the existence of growing consumer demand for the product and tll~ capability of U.S. science and engineering to design and operate advanced

OCR for page 9
INTRODUCTION 15 Harvesting red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). of_ ~ ~- systems, why has U.S. marine aquaculture lagged behind other countries in productivity and profitability? This subject was addressed by the NRC nearly 15 years ago in a study by the Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources on the broader topic of aquaculture (NAS, 19781. A major conclusion from this investigation was that "constraints on orderly development of aquaculture tend to be political and administrative, rather than scientific and technological." Among those identified were multiple-use conflicts, legal constraints, and difficulty in locating capital for entrepreneurial investment. This report examines the widespread view that despite progress in the area of national policy for aquaculture passage of the National Aquacul- ture Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-362), assignment of a lead role in encouraging the

OCR for page 9
16 MARINE AQUACULTURE _-~ A .. i: .~ ~ ~ 5~ Culture of ornamental reef fish pygmy angels in spawning tank. __ Net cage culture of Atlantic salmon in Norway.

OCR for page 9
INTRODUCTION 77 1, industry to the Department of Agriculture (USDA), establishment of an interagency Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA), and the preparation of a National Aquaculture Development Plan (NADP) in 1983 a number of problems continue to prevent the successful growth of this fledgling industry in the United States. As noted in previous studies, many of the problems tend to be in the in- stitutional and legal realm and need to be addressed through federal agency leadership. For example, a number of local, state, and federal agencies are involved in granting permits and licenses for marine aquaculture activities. The process could be streamlined through the establishment of federal model guidelines and procedures. Prohibitions on interstate transport of aquacul- ture products and other interstate issues may have to be reexamined at the federal level based on current scientific understanding of actual risks. From the viewpoint of many experts on coastal resources policy, marine aquacul- ture needs to be included in a national framework for managing coastal resources that balances competing uses and values in the national interest in order to provide a level of predictability necessary for planning commercial aquaculture ventures. At the state and local levels, the issue of property rights for the marine aquaculture industry, including the leasing of submerged lands and/or the water column, remains unaddressed in most states and is a major disincen- tive to would-be entrepreneurs who have no legal means of protecting the products of their endeavors. The states are also involved in the resolution of conflicts among competing users of coastal areas, such as capture fisheries and recreational interests as well as marine aquaculture operations. Land and water use conflicts are major constraints to the development of the marine aquaculture industry. They arise from multiple-use conflicts with commercial and recreational fishing and also from environmental con- cerns about pollution. Of particular public concern is water pollution from the wastes produced in aquaculture systems, from excess feed that may contain the antibiotics and pesticides used to prevent disease and predation, or from hormones used to stimulate growth. Other environmental and aesthetic issues also are a serious impediment to the development of marine aquaculture. There is growing controversy about the privatization of public resources (public waters) that occurs in many aquaculture operations such as with salmon net pens, as well as aesthetic objections to these installations. Escapement or release of cul- tured animals, either accidentally from cages or purposefully, as in ocean ranching, raises fears of genetic dilution of native stocks that might lead to their extinction, the spread of disease from cultured animals to native stocks, or the release of exotic species with possible adverse ecological consequences. Within the national institutional framework of competing organizations,

OCR for page 9
18 MARINE AQUACULTURE marine aquaculture is hampered by its relative lack of organizational and political power when compared to the traditional capture fisheries indus- tries, in terms of both a structured marketing network and an effective organizational base from which to promote its interests. The public sup- port system for research and technology development through university research and extension services that accompanied the success of U.S. agriculture also is lacking for marine aquaculture. Economic factors hamper the success of marine aquaculture, too. For U.S. products to become competitive in the world market, technology and engineering systems will need to be developed to compensate for the rela- tively high costs of labor and coastal land relative to these costs in other countries where marine aquaculture is more successful. For example, one possible route to improved competitiveness is to develop new species for culture, such as halibut, red drum, red snapper, striped bass, or scallops. These endeavors will depend on extensive research and the development of new and complex engineering systems that, in turn, require a strong science and technology base and a highly skilled work force. Existing tech- nical and university programs do not provide adequate education, train- ing, or research and technology development essential to stimulate the growth of this high-technology industry in the United States. Nor do present extension services provided through federal agencies (e.g., USDA and the National Sea Grant College Program) offer the necessary support in training and technology transfer that are required by a newly emerging technology-based industry. Subsequent chapters of this report indicate that whether marine aquacul- ture becomes a successful industry in the United States will depend on the extent to which the following three major problem areas are addressed: 1. the establishment of a policy framework for resolving coastal use conflicts and related institutional obstacles (e.g., management of living marine resources, competition of various users in the coastal zone, delinea- tion of appropriate state and federal government roles); 2. the development and application of new technologies to diminish or mitigate harmful environmental impacts and to establish economic feasibil- ity for aquaculture operations; and 3. the development of dependable and predictable domestic and export markets for marine aquaculture products. Although all of these issues have policy and regulatory dimensions need- ing resolution, scientific and technological advances can, in many cases, mitigate some of the problems associated with them. This point is particu- larly true in the case of concerns about harmful environmental impacts from aquaculture operations and conflicts related to competing uses of coastal

OCR for page 9
INTRODUCTION 19 land and waters. Solutions to these issues, in turn, would improve the profitability of marine aquaculture operations by decreasing costs of com- pliance with regulations, increasing profit margins due to more efficient operating systems, and possibly, expanding potential markets based on de- velopment of new and improved products. The prognosis for marine aquaculture is uncertain. The potential for successful growth depends on whether a number of problems and constraints are addressed. Advances in science and technology, although crucial to the economic success of U.S. marine aquaculture, cannot by themselves ensure improved prospects for this industry. Policy initiatives at the state and federal levels will also be necessary. REFERENCES DeVoe, M.R., and A.S. Mount. 1989. An analysis of ten state aquaculture leasing systems: Issues and strategies. Journal of Shellfish Research 8(1):233-239. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1990. FIDI/C: 815 Revision 2, as reported in Fish Farming Internal. 17(8):12-13. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1990. Summary of aquaculture programs by state. A report to the Technical Coordinating Committee. March 14. Orange Beach, Ala. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1978. Aquaculture in the United States: Constraints and Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Aquaculture Development Plan, Vol. I. 1983. The Joint Subcommittee on Aquacul- ture of the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Putnam, J.J., and J.E. Allshouse. 1991. Food consumption, prices, and expenditures 1968-1989. Statistical Bulletin No. 825. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C. Royce, W.F. 1989. A history of marine fishery management. Aquatic Sci. 1:27-44. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1988. Unpublished data. Microfiche Series, Foreign Trade Divi- sion, EM575 and IM-175. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1990. Fisheries of the United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.