|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. 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 shellfish—has yet to demonstrate long-term economic viability.
9
OCR for page 10
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 demand—per 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 11
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 12
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 13
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 14
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 15
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 16
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 17
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 18
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 19
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
capita seafood
