Content uploaded by David C Little
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David C Little on Mar 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Aquaculture: are the criticisms justified? II - Aquaculture’s
environmental impact and use of resources, with special
reference to farming Atlantic salmon
C J Shepherd BVSc, MSc, PhD, MRCVS and D C Little BSc, MSc, PhD,
FSB*
Address for correspondence: Prof D C Little,* Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling
FK9 4LA, UK. Email: dcl1@stir.ac.uk
Summary
Salmon farming is the most highly developed form of large scale intensive aquaculture owing
to its productivity growth and technological change. The fundamental questions are how
farmed salmon compares to other food production systems and prospects for its improved
sustainability. This paper reviews the criticisms of Atlantic salmon farming, in particular
those relating to its ecological and environmental record. Compared with terrestrial
livestock, fish are better suited for farming, being cold-blooded with neutral buoyancy in
water, which enhances production efficiency, and farmed fish are more productive than wild
fish as they use less energy and lack predators.
Some of the criticisms of salmon farming are entirely erroneous (e.g. that hormones or
growth promoters are used). Others are unfounded today due to the rapid advances made
since the industry started in the 1970s (e.g. that antibiotics are overused; that health risks
exist from eating salmon due to the presence of contaminants; that using fishmeal and fish oil
is unsustainable and threatens wild fisheries; that salmon farm effluent threatens the coastal
ecosystem). It is concluded that infestation of salmon by sealice and the risk of salmon
escaping from farms remain valid concerns. Sealice numbers can readily build up in salmon
farms and, even if satisfactorily controlled in the cages, infectious stages of the parasite may
leave the cage and potentially infect adjacent wild salmon populations. Escaping farmed
salmon may contribute to this, but can potentially breed with wild salmon and affect the
native salmon gene pool. But there is no convincing evidence that the salmon farming
industry is responsible for the widespread decline in wild salmon and sea trout populations,
which began to decline before salmon farming was established.
Life cycle analysis suggests salmon farming and cod fishing are comparable. However,
catching cod prey species (e.g. capelin) to use as salmon feed ingredients is a far more
efficient way of supplying nutrients for human consumption than leaving such prey in the sea
and harvesting the resulting cod. Recent detailed studies of the salmon farming industry in
Norway have shown that it is a more efficient way of producing nutrients for human
consumption than either pig or chicken farming, as demonstrated by its climate impact, area
of land occupation, and use of non-renewable phosporus resources. Farmed salmon retain
2
nutrients more efficiently and are better converters of feed nutrients to nutrients for human
consumption than the most efficient land animal production.
There is no evidence that the progressive replacement of marine protein and oil by plant
protein and oil is more sustainable than salmon farming based on wild-caught fish (or their
by-products). At the same time it causes the farmed salmon content of long-chain
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (especially Eicosapentaenoic acid or EPA and
Docosahexaenoic acid or DHA) to fall with negative implications for consumers (pending
availability and consumer acceptance of of cost-effective alternative PUFAs), unless they
compensate by consuming more oil-rich fish or take PUFA supplements.
The salmon farming industry continues to innovate and prioritise to improve its
sustainability, to improve seawater survival and to find cost-effective alternatives to the
limited supply of fish oil, which is currently the only practical source of EPA and DHA. A
subsequent paper will consider the extent to which the improved environmental track record
and resource efficiency of Atlantic salmon farming is duplicated by other aquaculture
species. Although it has been shown that much of the criticism of salmon farming is false or
exaggerated, the industry is small in a global aquaculture context. Do these (or other
criticisms) hold true, for example, with the farming of warmwater shrimp or carp? Such
questions are relevant when considering aquaculture’s global role in food security and how
best to guide its sustainable development.
Keywords: aquaculture; eco-efficiency; environmental impact; life cycle analysis;
productivity; salmon farming; supply chain; sustainability.
Abbreviations
FAO = Food and Agriculture Organisation; FCR = Food conversion rate; FIFO = Fish-in,
Fish-out ratio; GM = Genetic modification; PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyls; PPR =
Primary Productivity Requirement; EPA = Eicosapentaenoic acid; DHA = Docosahexaenoic
acid; DNA = Deoxyribonucleic Acid; PUFA = Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid; HACCP =
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point; EFSA = European Food Safety Authority; HCH =
Hexachlorocyclohexane; LCA = Life Cycle Analysis.
Glossary
A coproduct is a product produced jointly with another product; an epizootic is a disease
that appears as new cases in animals at a substantially elevated incidence rate and is an
analogous term to ‘epidemic’ applied to human populations; eutrophication is the ecosystem
response to the addition of artificial or natural substances (e.g. nitrates and phosphates
through fertilizers or sewage) to an aquatic system; feed conversion rate = (kg feed fed)/(kg
bodyweight gain); fish-in fish-out ratio (when used about aquaculture) refers to the input of
fish materials (usually fishmeal and fish oil) as feed ingredients compared to the resulting
output of farmed fish; fishmeal trap is a term denoting the concern that increased demand
for feed by aquaculture will increase fishing pressure on wild stocks and hence threaten the
sustainability of the associated capture fisheries; a gadoid is a soft-finned marine fish which
Formatted: Highlight
3
is a member of the family Gadidae including cod; a genome is the complete set of DNA
within a single cell of an organism and genomics is the genetic discipline that sequences,
assembles, and analyzes the function and structure of genomes; genetic modification (GM)
(e.g. of a fish or a plant) results in a genetically modified organism (GMO), which possesses
a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology;
life cycle analysis is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the
stages of a product's life from start to finish; a poikilotherm is an organism with an internal
temperature which varies, usually in response to changing environmental temperature and is
sometimes known as an ‘ectotherm’ or ‘cold-blooded’; a reduction fishery is a fishery that
‘reduces’ its catch to fishmeal and fish oil and is also known as a ‘feed’ fishery or a ‘forage’
fishery; salmonids are fish which are members of the Salmonidae, or salmon and trout
family, which belong to the order Salmoniformes; a smolt is a juvenile salmon in freshwater
or estuarine conditions which has become silvery in colour and is ready to go to sea; triploid
fish have three sets of chromosomes instead of the normal two (‘diploid’), usually because
the egg is physically shocked shortly after fertilisation occurs, resulting in sterile fish.
1. Introduction
Aquaculture is a more varied activity than land animal farming, encompassing a range of
systems for rearing finfish, molluscs, crustaceans, and aquatic plants, in freshwater or
seawater. From 1980 to 2010 world food fish production by aquaculture has expanded almost
12 fold at an average annual rate of 8.8% although slowing to an average annual rate of only
6.3% over the last decade to reach 63.6 million tonnes in 2011 (excluding aquatic plants).1
The contribution of global aquaculture to world seafood production for human consumption
has risen from 9% in 1980 to 47% in 2010.
The hunting of fish and the problem of static or declining fish stocks represent an uncertain
and erratic way to meet demand consistently on a long-term basis. The high price and
seasonal supply of wild salmon helped to encourage pioneering investment in farming of
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the late 1960s and the industry took off in Norway and the
UK in the 1980s, followed by North America and then Chile, as retailers and food service
companies found they were able to place contracts for year-round supply of consistent
product. The development of salmon farming has been characterised by progressive
industrialisation and commoditisation. However, aquaculture, especially the farming of
carnivorous fish like salmon, has attracted intense and often misinformed criticism. This has
been linked mainly to the use of diets containing fishmeal and fish oil or minced wet fish, -
the subject of a previous paper2 in World Agriculture. At the same time improvements in diet
formulation and feeding systems have resulted in feed conversion rates (FCR) improving
from almost 3.0 in 1980 to just over 1.17 in 2012,3,4 meaning that the quantity of feed needed
per unit liveweight gain has reduced by approximately 60% over the period.
Global production of farmed Atlantic salmon reached 2.0 million t (whole round, bled
weight) in 20125 which is small (ca. 3%) in relation to estimated total global aquaculture
production.1 Fig. 1 shows global production of Atlantic salmon has increased from 2002 to
2013 (estimated) by main production regions, whereas Fig. 2 shows a stagnating wild fish
4
catch compared with aquaculture supply since 2000, with a forecast to 2020. Atlantic salmon
farming is recognised as the most highly developed form of intensive fish cultivation.
Accurate information is also available enabling detailed analysis of its efficiency, especially
for the Norwegian salmon farming industry, which dominates global salmon production and
is the technical model for intensive cage-based aquaculture.
This paper surveys the main criticisms of aquaculture, with special reference to Atlantic
salmon. When assessing the validity of such criticisms, the fundamental question with respect
to salmon aquaculture is how farmed salmon compares to other food items and production
systems and if developments in the salmon industry will lead to improved sustainability. The
answers to such questions have implications for other forms of aquaculture and may help
assess the potential role for global aquaculture in future food production and food security.6,7
2. Suitability of fish for farming
Compared with warm-blooded animals, cold-blooded ‘poikilotherms,’ such as fish, are more
efficient converters of feed energy to bodyweight, especially under farming conditions.
Firstly they have lower maintenance and respiratory costs.8Their protein metabolism uses less
energy since they excrete ammonia directly into the environment instead of excreting urea or
uric acid. Also their neutral buoyancy in water saves energy by avoiding the need for a heavy
skeleton to counteract gravity. In general this means a greater proportion of the fish carcase is
edible compared with land animals; this is especially the case for carnivorous fish which have
a shorter digestive tract compared with fish species more adapted for a vegetarian diet.
Compared with fish in natural environments, farmed fish show improved growth and nutrient
retention because they are protected from predators and utilise less energy in accessing food.9
Compared with intensively housed land animals, it is difficult to maintain a controlled
environment within a fish farm and maintain biosecurity. This is especially the case in
seawater cages and will be considered further, together with the prospects for mitigation.
Most aquatic animals have far greater reproductive capacity than terrestrial livestock, but also
allocate less resource to reproduction. Although many fish have microscopic larval stages, the
cost of producing salmon fry is low as they produce relatively large eggs (with attached yolk
sacs), which in turn develop into larvae capable of feeding readily on inert hatchery diets
once the yolk sac contents are fully consumed.
3. Salmon productivity growth and technological change
Fig 3 shows the development of Norwegian farmed salmon production over the period from
1985 to 2011, the average cost of production and the average export price. Production has
increased from 31 177 to 1 005 600 t while the production costs and sales prices have fallen
steeply. Thus in 1986 the average production cost was 76.1 NOK/kg but it had fallen to 15.5
NOK/kg in 2005 (1 NOK or Norwegian krone equals 0.16 US dollar as of Dec. 2013), since
when costs have slightly risen and prices have fluctuated but the industry has remained
profitable. The price reduction has enabled the industry to continue expanding into new
markets. This could not have taken place without lower costs due to increased productivity
5
and technological change.10 This is because farmers have become more efficient (i.e. growing
larger salmon more quickly with fewer losses) while at the same time they have benefited
from improved inputs (including improved stock, better feed and rearing systems) and have
gained economies of scale from establishing larger farms.
Thus improvements in diet and feeding systems, as well as better fish health, have improved
FCRs for Norwegian salmon from almost 3.0 kg feed/kg salmon body weight gain in 1980 to
just over 1.17 kg/kg in 2012. This is partly due to a marked change in the ratio of protein to
oil used in feeds related to the development of vacuum coating of lipids. Crude protein levels
of 45% and fat of 18% in the 1980s have changed to 36% and 38% respectively in the
2000s.11The salmon farming industry has been criticised for its supposed reliance on dietary
marine ingredients. However, the quantity of wild fish used to produce the fish meal and oil
needed to rear 1 kg of farmed salmon (i.e. the Fish-in, Fish-out ratio or FIFO) has decreased
from 4.4 and 7.2 in 1990 to 1.4 and 2.3 respectively in 2010; when corrected to take account
of the use of processing by-products of capture fishing, the values in 2010 were 1.1 and 1.8
respectively.12 The limited and fluctuating supply and cost of marine ingredients have
encouraged the Norwegian salmon farming industry progressively to substitute plant
ingredients for marine ingredients, and there has been a further change since 2010, so current
FIFO ratios are probably below 1.0 for fishmeal and close to 1.0 for fish oil. These
developments have progressively challenged the criticism that aquaculture of ‘carnivorous
species’ (e.g. salmonids) is unsustainable (see 4(i) below). For increasing use of plant
ingredients and other challenges, see section 8(viii).
4. The criticisms related to ecological impact and environmental
pollution
(i) Introduction
Any production process interacting with the natural environment can potentially compromise
the environment. For instance it has been claimed that the use of dietary marine ingredients in
fish farming causes unsustainable damage to wild fish stocks being harvested for fishmeal
and fish oil, and that reduction fisheries will therefore inevitably become overfished.13 This
so-called ‘fishmeal trap’ has not occurred, however, due to dietary innovation, increased use
of fish process trimmings, and to the increasingly responsible management of reduction
fisheries.10,14 Therefore the criticism is no longer valid except in the case of ‘trash fish’
feeding in South East Asia.2 However, there is a range of local environmental issues which
are claimed to have detrimental effects on the local and regional environment. Salmon is
normally farmed in floating cages, hence by definition takes place in ‘open’ systems in which
water exchange occurs continuously with the wider environment and economic performance
of the fish in such systems demands that water quality remains at an optimum. The
implications for salmon farming are considered below, together with the allied risks of
disease transmission to the wild, farmed salmon escapement, contamination from treatment
chemicals, and effluent discharge/organic waste.
(ii) Effluent discharge/Organic waste
6
Organic waste beneath salmon farms comprises fish faeces and unconsumed feed, which can
accumulate on the seabed. This may impact on local seabed fauna and increase the risk of
eutrophication with consequent negative effects on productivity.10 During the 1980s many
salmon farms were located in sheltered sites close to shore to reduce potential storm damage.
As a consequence, so called ‘dead areas’ developed on the seabed under the cages. Since then
salmon farming systems have evolved to use more exposed locations with stronger currents
and deeper water beneath more robust cage groups (which are regularly rotated between farm
sites to enable fallowing), ensuring waste materials are flushed to sea and salmon have
optimal water quality. Additionally improvements in FCR have reduced the feed requirement
per tonne of salmon produced by around 60% since the 1980s. The regulatory framework has
also become more sophisticated, e.g. in Scotland regulation of benthic impact is exercised
through rigorously applied discharge controls, the use of particle tracking models, which
predict the seabed footprint, and the ‘steady state’ and ‘limiting factor’ principles.15 A recent
detailed NOAA report concludes that marine cage culture has ‘minimal’ impacts to the
environment where farms are appropriately sited and properly managed.16
(iii) Antibiotics, chemicals, and hormones, etc.
Although the use of antimicrobial growth promoters is widespread in intensive production of
poultry and pigs, it should be noted that they are not used in salmon farming at all. Nor are
hormones used in salmon farming despite frequent media comments suggesting otherwise.
Fig 4 illustrates the rise and fall of antibiotic use in Norwegian salmon farming over the
period 1980 – 2011. It can be seen that, after reaching a peak in the 1980’s, use of antibiotics
fell quickly to very low levels despite a rapid and continuing increase in salmon production.
This was almost entirely due to the successful introduction of oil-adjuvanted vaccines in
controlling bacterial diseases. Antibiotics are only allowed on veterinary prescription and the
amount used per kilo of meat from terrestrial livestock in Norway is 20 times the amount
used for farmed salmon.7 There has been a similar reduction in the use of medicines to
control sealice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestation (e.g. azamethiphos; cypermethrin), and
in the use of antifoulants to reduce build-up of algae on cages (e.g. using copper-based
paints). In the case of sealice, an integrated pest management approach has increasingly
become the norm, resulting in much diminished severity of infection in recent years despite
the declining effectiveness of individual drugs. Treatment of affected fish has been by means
of either in-feed antiparasitic drugs (emamectin benzoate; teflubenzuron) or by adding
medicinal products applied as baths (e.g. peroxide) to the water in the cage. Treatment of
affected fish by means of in-feed or bath treatments in some instances is only partially
successful due to the emergence of resistance. There is also increasing use of biological
control by the introduction to salmon cages of wrasse of various species (e.g. Labrus
bergylta) or lumpsucker fish (e.g. Cyclopterus spp.), which feed directly on the lice attached
to salmon skin; this approach has obvious environmental attractions and is now stimulating
an interest in cultivation of these so-called ‘cleaner’ fish to supply to the salmon farming
industry. A key issue is the cost-effective production of disease-free juvenile cleaner fish and
their management in commercial systems based on fish being stocked and harvested on ‘all-
in, all-out’ principles.
7
Use of antibiotics can never be eliminated entirely for reasons of animal welfare and the
possibility of emerging bacterial diseases. However, there are continuing problems in
controlling sealice infestation and it is estimated that during 2012 around 45% of Norwegian
salmon farming sites were treated for sealice, with each being treated on average 2.5 times
over the production cycle. There is increased recognition of the importance of husbandry
measures, such as zonal management among neighbouring salmon farm units (taking account
of industry codes of good practice), and selective breeding for increased resistance. The more
recently established Chilean salmon farming industry continues to struggle with disease
problems and lags behind the effective control achieved in Norway, Scotland and North
America without large scale use of medicinal products.
(iv) Transmission of disease agents to and from wild stocks
The early growth of salmon farming was severely challenged by epizootics of infectious
disease, in particular bacterial septicaemias, such as furunculosis (due to Aeromonas spp.)
and vibriosis (due to Vibrio spp.). Routine vaccination of smolts by injection prior to
seawater transfer was found to be highly effective. An exception is Salmon Rickettsial
Syndrome in Chile due to Piscirickettsia salmonis for which a satisfactory control method is
so far lacking although vaccines are under trial. An increasing range of viral diseases has
been found to affect farmed salmon and can cause severe losses, although viral vaccines
against Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis and Pancreas Disease are now in routine use. The
sources of such infections are not always clear but there is increasing evidence that most if
not all the causative organisms have been present in wild fish populations since before the
start of salmon farming. The presumption is that they rarely cause disease in wild
populations, but can be transmitted to adjacent farmed stocks in hatcheries or cage farms
where clinical disease can spread quickly in unprotected salmon under conditions of high
stocking density.
Whereas bacterial and viral disease epizootics in farmed salmon may cause shedding of
pathogens into the environment, there is little evidence that this causes clinical disease in
adjacent wild fish, apart from occasional mortalities seen in wild gadoid fish, e.g. saithe
(Pollachius virens), which have gained access to the salmon cage. However, parasitic
infestations of wild Baltic strains of Atlantic salmon with the skin fluke Gyrodactylus salaris
caused severe losses in susceptible Atlantic salmon populations when infected fish were
transplanted to Norway and released into the wild. In the same way there is concern that
sealice infestation in farmed salmon (in Europe due mainly to L. salmonis and in Chile due
mainly to Caligus rogercresseyi) potentially threatens wild salmon populations. Sealice occur
naturally in the wild and, long before salmon farming started, sealice epizootics caused
mortalities of wild Atlantic salmon in Canada17 while the presence of a few sealice on wild
salmon has traditionally been accepted as a positive indication of freshly sea-run fish.
However, under farming conditions these crustacean skin parasites can multiply rapidly and
infectious stages swim actively to find a suitable host elsewhere within the cage, or
potentially leave the cage and may infest migrating wild salmon in the vicinity. For this
reason, treatment aims to prevent the development of sexually mature breeding lice, in order
8
to reduce infection pressure for both farmed and wild salmonid populations, rather than just
for farmed fish welfare.
Salmon farming does not appear to prejudice wild salmon populations with the possible
exception of the effects of sealice. However, new problems will emerge and continuing
vigilance is needed to control fish movements and hence limit the spread of fish disease
organisms.
(v) The effect of salmon farming on wild stocks
The number of Norwegian farmed salmon reported as escaping each year is relatively low
and fairly stable (Fig. 5) when compared with the increasing production, although it remains
a continuing problem. Escaped fish are likely to compete with wild salmon and may breed
with them, hence affecting the gene pool (so-called ‘genetic pollution’). Although the
outcome of escapee-wild fish interactions varies with environmental and genetic factors,
modelling suggests they may be negative for wild salmon18 and that gene flow from escaped
farm fish to native wild fish may lead to genetic and behavioural changes in wild populations
in the direction of domesticated salmon. It’s also possible that wild populations may suffer
depressed productivity caused by ecological interactions with escaped farm salmon and their
offspring.19 At the same time a concern is that escaping farmed salmon could transmit disease
organisms to wild populations, especially sealice (see 4(iv) above). Compulsory tagging of
smolts prior to their being stocked in salmon cages is being considered by the Norwegian
authorities for greater traceability of farmed salmon should they subsequently escape, in
order to aid policing and the ability to penalise offending farms. Other than adopting
genetically modified (GM) technology (should approval be granted), the use of triploid
salmon is the only way to rear sterile salmon in order to avoid any risk of genetic pollution
from escaped fish (see 8(iv)), whereas the cost of on-shore tank production is likely to remain
prohibitive in most cases.
Notwithstanding the above concerns, there is little scientific evidence to support the claim
that salmon farming has caused the widespread decline in wild salmon fisheries in Europe
and North America. Mismanaged capture fisheries, habitat destruction, and excessive
mortality from fishing have resulted in wide-scale extirpations, depletions and loss of
biodiversity in both Atlantic and Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.); this occurred long
before commercial salmon farming started in the 1970s.20,21For Norway there seems to be no
measurable impact at the national level of salmon farming on the wild salmon stocks in
Norwegian rivers7. In Scotland anglers continue to blame salmon farming for the collapse of
the west coast populations of Atlantic salmon and sea trout (Salmo trutta) in the 1980s. Thus
sea trout anglers blame salmon farming for the demise of the Loch Maree sea trout fishery22
and claim that by 1980 the fishery was in decline, although the scientific evidence for this
stock status in 1980 is not clear cut.23 There seems no doubt that the fishery was collapsing in
the late 1980s by which time salmon farming was established in the area. It therefore remains
a possibility that the effect of neighbouring salmon farms (e.g. due to sealice) exacerbated the
decline of a fishery that was already under stress due to environmental factors, such as the
effect of freshwater acidification. A more likely explanation for this timetable of events at
9
Loch Maree22 is the introduction of legislation in 1984 (Inshore Fisheries Act), which opened
up the zero to 3 mile coastal area to all mobile fishing gear. The fact that farmed salmon has
brought down the price and largely replaced wild capture salmon in the market, is probably
contributing to the rebound of some salmon stocks for both Atlantic and Pacific salmon.6
(vi) Contaminants from marine feed ingredients entering the food chain
The use of fishmeal and fish oil will tend to concentrate contaminants present at low levels in
forage fish and hence result in potentially elevated levels in farmed fish. This has raised
concern about the human health risks from consumption of farmed salmon and particular
prominence was given to a report24 highlighting the presence of low levels of dioxins and
PCBs in farmed salmon. However, subsequent studies have shown the risks were greatly
exaggerated (if they existed at all) and that any possible risks are in any event greatly
outweighed by the resulting health benefits.25 More recent data showed that farmed salmon
and trout contained on average lower levels of dioxins and PCBs than wild caught salmon
and trout, at least for Europe.26 This may reflect the requirement since 2005/2006 for
fishmeal and fish oil in the EU to be routinely tested for contaminants prior to manufacture.27
It is of interest that fish oil manufactured within the EU from forage fish caught in the Baltic
is normally above the required maximum levels for certain contaminants and can only be
sold after further purification steps under EU control; whereas wild-caught Baltic salmon
may be legally offered for sale without any such control. The permitted maximum levels of
contaminants set by the EU for those contaminants perceived as undesirable in feeds and
foodstuffs are laid out in Directive 2002/32/EC (undesirable substances in animal feed) and
in Regulation EC No 466/2001 (maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs);
these regulations cover dioxins, PCBs and heavy metals (e.g. mercury, cadmium, lead,
arsenic), as well as pesticides (e.g. toxaphene, HCH isomers, endrin, endosulfan, aldrin and
dieldrin). In any event it seems clear that the progressive reduction in levels of dietary marine
ingredients due to substitution by vegetable ingredients has also served to reduce the content
of certain contaminants in raw marine feed materials, and hence trace levels of any such
substances that may be present in the salmon product.
5. Comparison with conventional fishing
In 2011 global capture fish volume was 93.5 million tonnes of which 67.2 million tonnes was
of food fish, as compared with 63.6 million tonnes of world aquaculture production of food
fish.28 It seems probable that by 2015, or earlier, world food fish production for human
consumption by aquaculture will for the first time exceed food fish production for human
consumption from capture fisheries.29 Capture fishing shows an overall global pattern of
static or declining catch with increasing marginal costs. The problems of overfishing, by-
catch, discards and habitat destruction are well known. The World Bank estimated that global
fisheries currently run a net economic loss of about US$5 billion per year30 and they take in
as much as US$32 billion per year in subsidies;31 the resulting artificial inflation of profits
encourages increased effort regardless of the condition of the fishery and discourages
conservation.32
10
In addition to the use of fish process trimmings, the marine ingredients used in salmon diets
rely on capture of small pelagic species usually occurring in tight shoals which are caught
using purse seines without impacting the seabed and with very low by-catch levels. Also it is
recognised that most of the assessed forage fisheries operate within the limits that would be
considered consistent with current good industry practice in the context of single species
management regimes.14
Comparisons of aquaculture with capture fishing are not straightforward as the energy
transfer between different trophic levels is not well documented, but farmed fish are
inherently more efficient due to their being protected from predators and not needing to
forage for food (section 2). Accepted theories on energy and matter flow between trophic
levels indicate that farmed salmon (and carnivorous marine finfish culture generally)
appropriate less ocean primary production than commercial capture fishing.33 Assuming a
10% energy flow between trophic levels, producing 1 unit of predatory fish (such as wild
salmon) requires 10 units of food (largely small pelagic fish), or more if by-catch values are
taken into account.34 Even when compared with the 2 – 5 units of pelagic fish formerly
needed to produce one unit of farmed fish,35 there was a clear ecological advantage in favour
of farmed salmon. Today, the comparison is even more in favour of farming due to the
dominance of plant ingredients in salmon feed.
The evidence clearly indicates that aquaculture can be a more efficient use of living marine
resources than commercial fishing33 if sustainably produced marine ingredients are used. This
has been well documented in the case of farmed Norwegian salmon as compared with capture
fishing of wild cod (Gadus morhua). It was shown that harvesting fish higher in the marine
food chain, such as cod, is far less efficient in providing marine nutrients for human
consumption compared to harvesting capelin (Mallotus villosus) to manufacture fishmeal and
oil used in salmon production. Capelin is an important food source for cod, but using the
capelin resource to produce salmon gave nearly 10 times more marine protein, 15 times more
energy and 6 times more EPA and DHA for human consumption (including the cod liver oil),
when compared with harvesting the cod resource.12 Whereas farmed salmon and wild-caught
cod are comparable when subjected to life cycle analysis (LCA) in order to compare their
environmental impacts, it is of interest that the nutritional output of marine protein and
essential fatty acids for human consumption from these two alternative ways of using the
capelin resource is very different.36,37
6. Comparing salmon farming with land animal farming
Estimated 2011 global production of beef, pork, chicken, and fish (capture fisheries and
aquaculture) is given in Fig. 6 (note FAO production data for land animal meat and for fish
are not readily comparable being expressed in two different product forms: meat in carcass
weight and aquaculture/capture in live weight equivalent; FAOSTAT data38 on production of
land animals is given in tonnes as carcass weight but there is no comparable figure for live
weight equivalent). It is likely that by 2012 annual global aquaculture production will have
exceeded global beef production.
11
Table 1 compares harvest yield, edible yield, energy retention, protein retention and energy
retention in the edible parts of Atlantic salmon, pig, chicken, and lamb, as well as FCR.39 It
can be seen that the processing yield of Atlantic salmon is high compared with domesticated
land animals, reflecting a relatively low skeletal weight.40 Comparing the amount of protein
in edible parts to the amount of protein fed to the animal, salmon retain the most protein
(31%) relative to pig, chicken and lamb; salmon also retain the most energy (23%) in the
edible parts39. The FCR data show that the most efficient converter is farmed salmon
compared with land animals. Although not included in the table, among the least efficient is
wild salmon with an FCR of ca.10.4
The willingness of the Norwegian salmon industry to divulge accurate and comprehensive
data has enabled rigorous analysis by the Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and
Aquaculture Research (NOFIMA) and SINTEF of its resource utilisation and eco-efficiency
for the year 2010. Thus Fig. 7 charts the carbon footprint and land occupation by Norwegian
farmed salmon and how it compares with Swedish pig and chicken production (when
comparing the surface area of the net pen and land use of the salmon feed inputs with the
surface area of the land use for the land animal feeds, but excluding the sea primary
production area associated with the origin of the marine ingredients).41 Fig. 8 is an overview
of nutrient flows and energy use for Norwegian salmon in 2010.12 Key findings were as
follows:
The carbon footprint of Norwegian salmon was 2.6 CO2e/kg edible product compared
with values of 3.4 and 3.9 for Swedish chicken and pig respectively.
The land occupation per kg of edible product for Norwegian salmon was 3.32 m2/kg
compared with values of 6.95 and 8.35 for Swedish chicken and pig respectively.
Changing the diet composition from 85% plant ingredients to 88% marine ingredients
resulted in almost the same carbon footprint, while excluding marine ingredients from
South America and the Mexican Gulf from the 2010 diet increased the carbon
footprint by 7%
Cumulative energy demand for the Norwegian 2010 salmon was 25.3 MJe/kg , edible
product; the ratio of industrial energy input/energy output in salmon product was
3.6/kg live-weight and 6.2/kg edible product respectively. It should be noted that
‘edible product’ here excludes salmon heads, frames etc., which can be used to
produce other forms of edible product or eaten directly by some Asian communities.
Producing 1 kg of edible chicken and pork requires 2-3 times more phosphorus (as
fertilizer) compared with salmon, which retain around twice as much dietary
phosphorus.
Retention of EPA and DHA was 58% in the whole salmon and 26% in fillet, whereas
overall retention of protein and energy was 26% and 21% respectively in the edible
part of Norwegian salmon in 2010 (net of losses in feed and salmon production).
The NOFIMA study shows clearly that salmon farming in Norway is a more efficient
way of producing nutrients for human consumption than chicken and pork production.
Farmed salmon retain nutrients more efficiently and are more efficient converters of
feed nutrients to human food than pigs and chicken.
12
At the same time it should be noted that LCA of global salmon farming systems showed
impacts in most categories were lowest for Norwegian production and that the most critical
factor was least-environmental cost feed sourcing.42 In this connection it appears that the
origin of feed ingredients affects the LCA results and environmental impacts are highly
dependent on the reduction fish species used and the energy needed to catch them.43
Of particular interest was NOFIMA’s finding that substitution of marine ingredients by plant
ingredients had virtually no effect on carbon footprint. The strong trend towards substitution
in salmon feeds is occurring in other aquaculture feeds and has more to do with spreading the
supply risk and being less reliant on limited supplies of marine ingredients showing marked
volatility in costs. There is no evidence that terrestrial agricultural animal and plant feed
resources are more sustainable than those from wild-caught marine resources. However, the
environmental movement is dominated by marine conservation organisations which pressure
fish supply chains to lower the use of marine ingredients for aquaculture diets without
considering sustainability issues in regard to alternative ingredients (e.g. rain forest impacts
of increased soya cultivation). In addition to the factors considered in the NOFIMA study,
plant production requires freshwater, unlike salmon farming (apart from hatchery smolt
production), and contributes to depletion of the soil. Most plant ingredients can also be used
for human consumption, and the benefit of substituting marine ingredients produced from
well managed fisheries supplying fish species for which there is little or no demand for
human consumption is not obvious.44 These results are reinforced by the conclusion of Welch
et al.33 that farming salmon increased production of animal protein at generally lower land,
water, nitrogen and agricultural chemical costs than terrestrial livestock.
7. Farmed and wild salmon: supply chain issues, human
nutritional issues, and coproducts
In 2012 global supply of farmed salmon (dominated by Atlantic salmon) was 2.1 million
tonnes (head-on; gutted) compared with approx. 824 000 tonnes of wild salmon, mainly
comprising different species of Pacific salmon.5 Salmon consumption worldwide is over three
times higher than it was in 1980 and what was once a luxury food is now among the most
popular fish species in the U.S., Europe and Japan. Salmon aquaculture is the fastest growing
food production system in the world. To commercial supply chains salmon is a highly
versatile raw material in terms of value adding options and product forms (e.g. smoked), as
well as having a healthy image in common with other oily fish species linked to its long chain
omega-3 fatty acid content. When compared with the quality aspects of meat products from
land animals, salmon was rated as being superior in healthiness by European consumers.45
These attributes are common to both farmed and wild salmon, but does the farmed product
have advantages or disadvantages in the market place compared with wild salmon? Farmed
Atlantic salmon products have proved highly attractive to both food service and retail
distribution channels. For example in the UK, farmed salmon currently represents the most
commonly stocked fish species on supermarket shelves, although smaller volumes of wild
Pacific salmon are now becoming available in the UK, albeit at a price premium to the
consumer. This reflects the comparative advantage of aquaculture’s control over production
compared with wild fish. In particular wild fish suppliers are unable to match the year-round
13
availability of fresh, frozen and processed salmon with consistent quality from supply chains
willing and able to enter into forward contracts for agreed price and quantities. Subjective
evidence from blind taste panels suggests that farmed salmon is often preferred to wild
salmon; this may, of course, be linked to farmed salmon containing over 30% more fat than
wild counterparts and the likelihood that panellists are more acquainted with, and possibly
conditioned to, the organoleptic properties of farmed salmon, which is more commonly
consumed worldwide.
Commercially successful salmon farming (like broiler chicken farming) is all about
management of the supply chain to provide continuity of supply. The key steps include raw
material procurement, farm management, processing and distribution, while at the same time
other supply chain issues include quality assurance and verification that procedures are being
followed, including audited verification of Good Manufacturing Practice and HACCP.
However, due to consumer concerns about overfishing, a supply chain requirement of
growing importance for both farmed and wild salmon is independent third party certification
of sustainable sourcing.
In the case of wild salmon, certain retailers and food service channels insist the source fishery
demonstrates it is being sustainably managed, either by assessment and certification with the
Marine Stewardship Council,46 or with the FAO-based Responsible Fisheries Management
scheme, which has been adopted by Alaska Fisheries.47 In the case of farmed salmon, various
organisations offer independent verification of responsible practice, e.g. Best Aquaculture
Practice,48 and more recently the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.49 In addition the supply
of fishmeal and fish oil is addressed by the Responsible Supply standard of the International
Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation.50
The salmon farming industry in each of the major producer countries has established
representative organisations, not only as a political voice, but also in an effort to improve the
quality and sustainability of the industry. This has close parallels with the various
organisations representing terrestrial livestock industries. Thus in Scotland the Salmon
Producers’ Organisation51 is committed to maintaining standards in the industry via the
independently audited Code of Good Practice for Scottish finfish aquaculture (covering food
safety and consumer assurance; fish health and biosecurity; managing and protecting the
environment; fish welfare and care; and feed and feeding).52 Retailers focusing on welfare
may also demand other certifications and it is of interest that approx. 70% of Scottish farmed
salmon is now certified by Freedom Food53 as achieving high fish welfare standards; this has
in turn resulted in higher overall standards of farm practice, while aligning closely with
consumer demands for farming systems which strive to care for the animal’s well-being for
both terrestrial and aquatic farming systems. Unlike broiler chicken farming, for example, it
should be noted that salmon cage systems are open to the environment, hence inherently less
bio-secure. This in turn aligns with the perception of ‘working with nature’ to resolve
problems like sealice control, while at the same time supply chains can claim to be
responding to consumer demand for more ‘natural’ food.
The emphasis on environmental certifications must not obscure the fundamental objective of
producing wholesome and nutritious food in a cost-efficient and safe manner. Salmon is an
14
important source of the nutritionally important PUFAs, for which there is strong demand
from the human nutritional sector as well as aquaculture. Man has a limited ability to
elongate and desaturate alpha-linolenic acid (e.g. from oil seeds) and it is generally
recognised that the lack of long chain omega-3 fats in the meat of land animals and the
presence instead of more saturated fats, especially of the omega-6 series, can predispose to
human health problems (e.g. obesity and cardiovascular disease) if there is inadequate
balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats54. Traditional poultry and eggs were one of the few
land-based sources of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, especially DHA, which is synthesized from
its parent precursor, but the evidence is that this has now changed with chickens in the UK
market providing several times the fat energy compared with protein and much reduced
PUFA levels, hence potentially negative consequences for animal welfare and human
nutrition.71
This nutritional health benefit of salmon is shared by other high oil fish, hence adding further
value to salmon as a product and a competitive advantage as against land animals. The trend
towards high energy salmon diets and the sole use of fish oil as a dietary fat source meant that
formerly farmed Atlantic salmon, having a higher fat content than wild salmon, also had a
higher content of PUFA than wild salmon, especially when oil-rich fish such as anchovy
(Engraulis spp.), herring (Clupea harengus), or sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) were used. Since
the progressive introduction of vegetable oils as a partial dietary substitute for fish oil from
around the year 2000, and influenced by the growing competition for PUFA-rich fish oils by
the human nutrition industry, the content of PUFA in farmed salmon has reduced to only a
third of what it was before the year 2000.55 This may undermine the basis of dietary
recommendations for human consumption of oily fish; for example, EFSA56 recommends a
minimum of 250 mg/day of combined EPA + DHA, whereas the UK (Scientific Advisory
Committee on Nutrition)57 recommends a minimum of 450 mg/day of combined EPA + DHA
and consuming fish twice a week, including one meal of oily fish. Although different farmed
salmon are being reared on different combinations of fish and vegetable oil, it is possible that
some wild salmon will now contain more PUFA per gram than some farmed salmon.
However, it is clear that product differentiation is now occurring with some supply chains
demanding their salmon is supplied with a greater concentration of EPA and DHA than other
supply chains. For example, certain UK retailers have focused on maintaining higher PUFA
levels in salmon fillets and Scottish producers have contracted to supply this market segment;
it is likely that this segmentation will become increasingly apparent to consumers in terms of
product labelling and premium pricing.55 Given the worldwide scarcity of PUFA-rich fish oil,
this situation is likely to pertain until such time as new cost-effective PUFA sources emerge
from current research and development using algal production and genetic modification of
oilseeds (see 8 (vi)).
Not all salmon is eaten directly and salmon coproducts typically represent around 40% of
total ungutted carcase weight; such coproducts include aquaculture meals and oils for
livestock feeds (which cannot be recycled back into salmon feed to avoid potential health
problems), but also a variety of value-added products for use in the human nutritional and
pharmaceutical sectors.58 In general the protein quality of fish meat is higher than land animal
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New
Roman, 12 pt
Formatted: Superscript
15
meat, for example it is higher in lysine and methionine as a proportion of total amino acids.
Table 2 compares the amino acid content in salmon meal and hydrolysate with the
requirements of chickens and humans (adults and schoolchildren).59Tryptophan seems to be
the only limiting amino acid for all diets although this may be linked to analytical problems.
Arginine for poultry seems to be the only true limiting amino acid in salmon meal, but not in
the hydrolysate where threonine appears marginally limiting. Farmed and wild salmon
contain calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium,
sodium and zinc. Other micronutrients present include Vitamins A and D and a range of B
vitamins, with farmed salmon being much higher than wild salmon in thiamine and folic acid.
Clearly the nutritional composition of wild and farmed salmon reflects their feed intake,
which reflects the source of their feed. In the case of Norwegian farmed salmon, the marine
feed ingredients may include fishmeal and oil from locally available fish (e.g. capelin) and
process trimmings from fish for human consumption, as well as imported fishmeal and oil
derived from species such as Peruvian anchovy (Engraulis ringens). The majority of salmon
dietary ingredients are now of vegetable origin, such as soya protein concentrate and rapeseed
oil, and likely to be imported into the main salmon producing countries. The efficiency with
which salmon convert these feed nutrients to nutrients for human consumption and the
superior quality of the output relative to terrestrial livestock have implications for future food
security, especially given the static nature of capture fishing.
8. Overcoming technical constraints
(i) Off-shore production
A possible alternative to the problems of siting salmon cage farms at inshore locations is
moving the production units offshore to deeper and less sheltered waters, where ocean
currents are stronger. This avoids the risk that heavily used inshore sites can become
progressively unusable despite adopting site rotation and fallowing. At the same time off-
shore locations avoid many of the conflicts that occur with other marine resource users in the
more crowded inshore waters, although user conflicts exist offshore too. This requires
sophisticated, capital-intensive cage rearing and feeding systems capable of withstanding
open ocean gales; such offshore systems are now being introduced for marine fish and
shellfish farming, but are at an early testing phase for commercial salmon farming.
(ii) Recirculation and land-based systems
Recirculation technology is showing potential for intensive aquaculture with minimal water
consumption60 and is enabling salmon smolt production to take place under environmentally
controlled conditions at optimal water temperatures with minimal bleed-in of freshwater.
Marine finfish species are also now being reared intensively in closed circuit, land-based,
recirculation units away from the coast, hence potentially avoiding the problems of
escapement and biosecurity described in relation to salmon cages, but the key issue is the cost
of energy for such systems which may therefore be difficult to scale up commercially.
(iii) Genetic improvement
16
The relatively long generation time of salmon compared with warmwater farmed fish (e.g.
Tilapia spp.) means that selective breeding takes longer. However, during the last 40 years
genetic progress with Atlantic salmon has markedly improved key production traits. For
instance, a near doubling in growth rate has resulted in a reduction in the length of the
production cycle to 1.5 – 2 years;10the onset of sexual maturation has been delayed; FCR has
dramatically reduced; higher survival rates have been achieved (including increased
resistance to specific pathogens); and fillet quality has been enhanced in terms of fat and
colour. The application to salmon aquaculture of molecular biology techniques (looking at
single genes), as well as genomics (looking at DNA sequencing), is set to offer a fundamental
approach to solving specific problems. The first Atlantic salmon genome is about to be fully
sequenced due to international collaboration61 and early project objectives are to identify the
genes for sexual maturation, those that code for sealice resistance, and for preferred meat
texture.
(iv) Triploids
The use of sterile salmon by farmers would overcome the risk of escaped fish affecting wild
populations and two possible routes are being considered: triploidy and genetic modification.
Triploid induction (by shocking the egg shortly after fertilisation) was tested in the 1990s to
prevent salmon maturation prior to harvest, but also resulted in poor performance, reduced
disease resistance, and deformities and was therefore abandoned in favour of photoperiod
control of maturation. It is now recognised that growth and survival of triploid salmon is
strongly affected by family. By means of correct selection, triploids were found to
outperform their diploid siblings with minimal deformity rates62 and the feasibility of using
triploid salmon is again being studied in Norway and Scotland.
(v) GM salmon
The use of GM salmon is promoted as a sustainable alternative to conventional salmon
farming. Thus trademarked ‘AquAdvantage’ salmon are Atlantic salmon with a gene from
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) reducing the time to market by 50%. The
owners, AquaBounty,63intend to grow the fish as sterile, all-female fish in land-based
facilities. The US Food and Drug Administration is currently considering their application to
approve GM salmon for human consumption. If granted this would be the first genetically
modified animal allowed to be sold to consumers. Consumers in Europe are unlikely to
accept the product. The largest global salmon farming company (Marine Harvest) has
recently issued a statement saying that it does not support the introduction of GM salmon and
asking for it to be specifically labelled as such in the event that it is approved for
consumption. The European salmon farming industry even avoids the use of (authorised) GM
ingredients in the feed.
(vi) GM feed ingredients
The increased scarcity and cost of fish oil has spurred research into manufacture of long
chain PUFAs, especially EPA and DHA, by means of algal production (e.g. by fermentation)
and by genetic modification of oilseeds, such as soyabean, rapeseed, and Camelina sativa
17
Limited quantities of these fatty acids are already commercially available from algal
production, while GM material has only been produced experimentally and is some way from
commercialisation assuming consumer concerns and regulatory hurdles are overcome. As
regards GM soya, canola, and other vegetable protein feed ingredients, these are now being
used widely by the aquaculture industry, except in Europe for salmon due to continuing
consumer concerns.
(vii) Stock losses
Currently in Norway one out of five smolts stocked in a cage will not reach the market due to
diseases, escapes, and production disorders; reducing these losses would improve animal
welfare and also reduce the use of resources.7 The situation in second-placed Chile is
substantially worse, due mainly to health problems, and the authorities are now taking steps
to reduce the density of farms in a given area and to open up new ‘clean’ sites. Therefore
disease prevention and control continues to be of major importance in salmon farming and
the intense research focus on priorities, such as sealice, helped by new techniques becoming
available, is likely to bring forward solutions.
(viii) Feeds
The main challenges to extending substitution of marine ingredients by further dietary
inclusion of plant protein and oils is linked to their lower protein and unsaturated omega-3
fatty acid contents and higher starch and fibre contents, unfavourable amino acid profiles, and
the presence of anti-nutritional factors.64 Plant protein and lipid inclusions had reached 40%
by 20107 and are now exceeding 50% especially in the case of lipid sources.55 Given the level
of research focus by nutritionists and feed formulators, there is little doubt that inclusion
levels of plant materials will increase and that marine ingredients will be used more
strategically, especially at critical parts of the life cycle, such as in first feeding and smolt
transfer diets.65,66 The limiting marine-based nutrients of most concern for salmon
performance are certain amino acids (e.g. lysine and methionine) and long-chain omega-3
fatty acids; the latter reflecting the increasing scarcity of suitable fish oil until alternative
sources become available (see 8 (vi) above). Although the long-chain omega-3 requirement
of salmon is low and likely to be covered in practice by the dietary fishmeal, even in the
absence of added fish oil,67the concern is more about the consumer impact of low levels of
EPA and DHA in the resulting end-product. Consumer concerns are also linked to the
continued resistance within Europe to using land animal by-products in salmon diets despite
the European Commission recently authorising the reintroduction of processed animal
proteins from non-ruminant farm animals as feed ingredients (c.f. also resistance to GM
materials). However, increased use of plant materials raises its own sustainability issues,
since calculations of the hypothetical area required for supplying 100% of all the macro-
nutrients from plant sources indicate that Norwegian salmon production would need around
1.1 million hectares (45% of the total agricultural area of Denmark) in order to produce 270
000 tonnes of wheat, 1.56 million tonnes of soya, and 950 000 tonnes of rapeseed7. Much of
the soya would presumably come from Brazil and further expansion threatens the southern
18
Amazon basin. Already the soybean trade between Brazil and Europe is creating
environmental, social, and economical concerns that have yet to be fully resolved.68
9. Conclusions
Whereas fishing and land animal production have developed over millennia, large scale
intensive aquaculture has only developed over the past 30 – 40 years. Over this same period,
issues such as the use of antibiotics, biodiversity, pollution, and animal welfare, have come to
the fore in regard to land animal production, especially in developed economies. Salmon
farming is the most developed form of intensive aquaculture but from the start it has been
subjected to constant critical scrutiny on these issues. That it has not only survived, but
grown to be a highly efficient global industry, is mainly due to innovation and rapid
technological change enabling increased productivity, cost reduction, and close control of the
production process. These factors have enabled the industry to resolve most of its problems,
improve its productivity, and succeed commercially on a global scale, while becoming
increasingly sustainable.
The criticism that salmon farming relies on the unsustainable use of dietary ingredients of
marine origin was reviewed in an earlier paper, which explained why the continuing
substitution of marine ingredients by vegetable proteins and oils in salmon feed, together with
the evidence that reduction fisheries are not being over-exploited to produce more and more
fishmeal and fish oil, make this criticism increasingly untenable.
This review has covered other environmental criticisms of salmon farming, including the
impact of its effluent discharge, the use of antibiotics and chemicals, the transmission of
disease agents into the marine ecosystem, and the threat to wild salmon populations arising
from escaped farmed fish (due either to interbreeding or to disease transmission). During its
rapid industrialisation, the industry has had to learn how to address these environmental
effects and to evolve codes of good practice in order to avoid reduced productivity, hence
reduced profitability, and to comply with government regulations. Improved husbandry
knowledge and operating practices, as well as tighter regulatory frameworks, have largely
helped the industry to internalise and mitigate these problems in Europe and North
America,69,70with the Chilean industry somewhat lagging behind. Sealice infections and
salmon escapes are probably the most serious environmental challenges in salmon farming, at
least for the dominant Norwegian industry. Intensive research continues to achieve more
effective sealice control, including vaccination and the use of live cleaner fish to browse on
lice attached to salmon skin. The long term prevention of salmon escapees breeding with wild
salmon depends on consumers accepting a switch to farming sterile salmon. Fears that farmed
salmon may concentrate environmental contaminants in the flesh and hence pose a human
health risk are false. Nor is there evidence to support the view that salmon farming has been
responsible for the widespread decline in wild salmon populations in Europe or North
America.
When compared with wild-caught fish, farmed salmon has a clear ecological advantage.
Norwegian studies by NOFIMA have shown that, if the objective is to provide marine
19
nutrients for human consumption, it is far more efficient to harvest pelagic fish for fishmeal
and fish oil to rear salmon than to leave them in the sea as prey for cod and instead harvest
the cod resource. Using capelin to produce salmon gave nearly 10 times more marine protein
and 6 times more long-chain omega-3 fatty acids compared with harvesting the cod, despite
farmed salmon and wild cod having comparable LCAs. Overall salmon farming is a more
efficient use of resources than commercial fishing, especially when taking account of fishing
externalities. In fact the oceans provide an under-utilised source of nutrients for human
consumption and salmon farming offers an efficient mechanism for transforming these
resources into high quality food that can be distributed worldwide and available all the year
round.
The NOFIMA study shows that salmon farming in Norway is a more efficient way of
producing nutrients for human consumption than chicken and pork production, as indicated
by its climatic impact, area of land occupation, and use of non-renewable phosphorus
resources. Farmed salmon also retain nutrients more efficiently compared with pigs and
chicken, but there is no evidence that terrestrial agricultural animal and plant feed resources
are more sustainable for farming salmon than using feed ingredients based on wild-caught
marine resources.
Although still young, the salmon farming industry has greatly increased the availability and
reduced the cost of supplying salmon to world seafood markets. It has also brought
sustainable employment to many remote rural locations. The main challenge going forward
will be to continue to grow sustainably in step with market and environmental considerations.
A major priority is the reduction in losses over the production cycle of around 20% of fish
stocked into a cage. Also sealice infestation and escaped salmon must be better controlled. A
potential limiting factor is the availability of PUFAs due to growing competition for fish oil
from the human nutrition industry. It will be necessary to increase further the proportion of
plant oil (mainly rapeseed oil) in salmon feed, hence reducing the EPA and DHA levels in the
fillet, which might adversely impact consumer demand; but in due course this will be solved
when cost-effective material becomes available either from algal manufactured oils or from
genetically-modified plants.
It will be of interest to consider whether valid comparisons can be made between salmon
farming and other types of aquaculture, including less intensive systems, especially as regards
environmental impact and resource use. The answers to such questions may help us to draw
conclusions on the potential role of global aquaculture for future food production and food
security.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the advice and assistance of Petter Arnesen, Frank
Asche, Ragnar Nystøyl, Randoph Richards, and John Webster. Special thanks are due to
Torbjørn Åsgård and Trine Ytrestøyl (NOFIMA) and to Erik Skontorp Hognes (SINTEF),
and their respective colleagues, whose work on the Norwegian salmon industry features
extensively in this review.
20
Reference list
1. FAO (2012) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture – 2012. FAO Fisheries and
aquaculture department, the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome
2012. ISBN 978-92-5-107225-7
2. Shepherd, C J (2012) Are the criticisms of aquaculture justified? Feeding fish to fish.
World Agriculture, Vol. 3 (2): 11-18
3. Austreng, E (1994) Fôrutnytting hos laks samanlikna med kylling, gris og sau. Norsk
fiskeoppdrett 2A, p 2-3 (in Norwegian)
4. Marine Harvest (2012) Salmon farming industry handbook 2012, Oslo, Norway, 72 pp.
http://www.marineharvest.com/PageFiles/1296/2012%20Salmon%20Handbook%2018.juli_h
%C3%B8y%20tl.pdf
5. Kontali Analyse (2013) Kristiansund NO-6517, Norway. New analysis; salmon world
http://www.kontali.com/?div_id=156&pag_id=244&art_id=1109 NO-6517
6. Diana, J S (2009) Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 59:
27-38
7. Torrissen, O, Olsen, R E, Toresen, R, Hemre, G I, Tacon, A G J, Ashe, F, Hardy, R W,
Lall, S (2011) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): The “Super-Chicken” of the Sea? Rev.Fish Sci.
19, 257-278. DOI: 10.1080/10641262.2011.597890.
8. Smith, R L (1992) Elements of ecology, third edition, Harper Collins Publishers Inc. 617
pp. ISBN 0-06-046328-7.
9. Bergheim, A and Åsgård, T (1996) Waste production from aquaculture. In: Baird, D J,
Beveridge, M C M, Kelly, L A, and Muir, J F (Eds.): Aquaculture and water resource
management. Oxford, Blackwell Science, p 50-80. ISBN 0-632-03926-4.
10. Asche, F and Bjørndal, T (2011) The economics of salmon aquaculture. Second Edition,
Wiley-Blackwell, 237 pp. ISBN 978-0-8523-8289-9
11. Skretting (2012) Delivering sustainable feed solutions for aquaculture. 33 p
http://www.skretting.co.uk/Internet/SkrettingUkIreland/webInternet.nsf/wprid/4715B3C551A
C199580257442004DDCAA/$file/SEA.pdf
12. Ytrestøyl, T, Aas, T S, Berge, G M, Hatlen, B, Sorensen, M, Ruyter, B, Thomassen, M,
Skontorp Hognes, E, Ziegler, F, Sund, V, and Åsgård, T (2011) Resource utilisation and eco-
efficiency of Norwegian salmon farming in 2010. NOFIMA report no. 53/2011. The
Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Research, Tromsø, Norway ISBN:
978-82-7251-945-1. 65pp.
13. Naylor, R L, Hardy, R W, Bureau, D P, Chiu, A, Elliott, M, Farrell, A P, Forster, I,
Gatlin, D M, Goldburg, R J, Hua K and Nichols, PD (2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of
finite resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(36):15103–15110.
21
14. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (2013) Sustainability Overview of Fisheries Used for
Fishmeal and Fish Oil (2013) http://www.sustainablefish.org/news/articles/2013/05/27/2013-
sustainability-overview-of-fisheries-used-for-fishmeal-and-fish-oil
15. Webster, J (2013) Pers. Comm.
16. Price, C S and Morris, J A (2013) Marine cage culture and the Environment: Twenty-first
century science informing a sustainable industry. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
NCCOS 164. 158 pp.
17. White, H. C. (1940) Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus) and the death of salmon. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 5(2): 172-175.
18. Thorstad, E B, Fleming, I A, McGinnity, P, Soto, D, Wennevik, V and Whoriskey, F
(2008) Incidence and impacts of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in nature. Norwegian
Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Special Report 36.110 pp
19. Hindar, K, Fleming, I A, McGinnity, P and Diserud, A (2006) Genetic and ecological
effects of salmon farming on wild salmon: Modelling from experimental results. ICES
J.Marine Sci. 63: 1234-1247
20. Gross, M R (1998) One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the
wild and in aquaculture. Can. J. Fisheries Aquatic Sci., 55(suppl.1), 131-144
21. Tidwell, J H and Allan, G L (2001) Fish as food: aquaculture's contribution. Ecological
and economic impacts and contributions of fish farming and capture fisheries. World
Aquaculture, 33, 44-48.
22. Gibb, J (2014) Empty net syndrome. Scottish Field, Jan. 2014 p119
23. Butler, J R A and Walker, A F (2006) Characteristics of the sea trout (Salmo trutta) stock
collapse in the River Ewe (Wester Ross, Scotland) in 1988-2001. In: G Harris and N Milner
(eds.) Sea Trout: Biology, Conservation and Management. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-
4051-2991-6. 520 p
24. Hites, RA, Foran, J A, Carpenter, D O, Hamilton, M C, Knuth, B A and Schwager, S J
(2004) Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 303:226-229
25. Mozaffarian, D and Rimm, E B (2006) Fish intake, contaminants, and human health –
evaluating the risks and the benefits. Journal of the American Medical Association 296
(15):1885-1895
26. European Food Safety Authority (2012) Update of the monitoring of levels of dioxin and
PCBs in food and feed. Scientific Report of EFSA. EFSA Journal 2012; 10(7):2832
27. Van den Berg, M, Birnbaum, L S, Denison, M, De Vito, M, Farland, W, Feeley, M,
Fiedler, H, Hakansson, H, Hanberg, A, Haws, L, Rose, M, Safe, S, Schrenk, D, Tohyama, C,
Tritscher, A, Tuomisto, J, Tysklind, M, Walker, N, and R E Peterson (2006) The 2005 World
Health Organisation Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for
Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds. Toxicological Sciences 93(2), 223-241
28. FAO (2012) World review of fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and aquaculture
department, the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf
22
29. OECD/FAO (2012) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012-2021, OECD Publishing and
FAO. http://dx.doi.org/10.18787/agr_outlook-2012-en
30. World Bank and FAO (2008) The sunken billions. The economic justification for fisheries
reform. Agriculture and Rural Development Department. The World Bank, Washington D.C.,
67 pp.
31. Khan, A, Sumaila, U R, Watson, R, Munro, G and Pauly, D (2006) The nature and
magnitude of global non-fuel fisheries subsidies. In: Catching more bait: a bottom-up re-
estimation of global fisheries subsidies (2nd Version, 2006) (Sumaila, U R and D Pauly, Eds.).
Fisheries Centre Res. Rep. 14: 5-37. Vancouver, Canada: Fisheries Centre, the University of
British Columbia.
32. Cox, A (2004) Subsidies and deep-sea fisheries management: Policy issues and
challenges. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/27/24320313.pdf
33. Welch, A, Hoenig, R, Steiglitz, J, Benetti, D, Tacon, A, Sims, N and O’Hanlon, B (2010)
From fishing to the sustainable farming of carnivorous marine finfish, Reviews in Fisheries
Science 18 (3), 235-24
34. Forster, J (1999) Aquaculture chickens, salmon: a case study. World Aquaculture
Magazine, 30(3), 33, 35-38, 40, 69-70
35. Naylor, R L, Goldburg, R J, Primavera, J H, Kautsky, N, Beveridge, M C, Clay, J, Folke,
C, Lubchenco, J, Mooney, H and Troell, M (2000) Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature, 405, 1017–1024.
36. Ellingsen, H and Aanondsen, S A (2006) Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and
farmed Salmon, a comparison with chicken. Int J. LCA 1, 60-65. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org./10.1065/lca2006.01.236
37. Winther, U, Ziegler, F, Skontorp Hognes, E, Emanuelsson, A, Sund, V and Ellingsen, H
(2009) Project report: Carbon footprint and energy use of Norwegian seafood products
www.sintef.no/Fiskeri-og-Havbruk-AS/Prosjekter/2011/Miljoregnskap-og-klimasporingav-
sjomat/. Trondheim, Norway: SINTEF Fisheries and aquaculture.
38. FAO (2012) http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/al993e/al993e00.pdf
39. Bjørkli J (2002) Protein og energiregnskap hos laks, kylling, gris og lam. (Protein and
energy account in chicken, pig and lamb). Master’s thesis at Agricultural University of
Norway (in Norwegian).
40. Åsgård T and Austreng, E (1995) Optimal utilization of marine proteins and lipids for
human interest. In Reinertsen & Haaland (Eds.): Sustainable fish farming. Balkema, p 79-87
41. Hognes, E S, Ziegler, F, and Sund, V (2011) Carbon footprint and area use of farmed
Norwegian salmon. SINTEF report no F21039. SINTEF Fisheries & Aquaculture,
Trondheim, Norway, 30 pp
42. Pelletier, N, Tyedmers, P, Sonesson, U, Scholz, A, Ziegler, F, Flysjo, A, Kruse,S,
Cancino, B and Silverman, H (2009) Not All Salmon Are Created Equal: Life Cycle
23
Assessment (LCA) of Global Salmon Farming Systems. Environmental Science &
Technology, 43, 8730-8736.
43. Boissy, J, Aubin, J, Drissi, A, van der Werf, H M G, Bell, G J and Kaushik, S.J, (2011)
Environmental impacts of plant-based salmon diets at feed and farm scales. Aquaculture 321,
61-70
44. Wijkström, U N (2012) Is feeding fish with fish a viable practice? In Farming the Waters
for People and Food (Subasinghe, R P, Arthur, J R, Bartley, D M, De Silva, S S Halwart, M,
Hishamunda, N, Mohan, C V and Sorgeloos, P, eds). Proceedings of the Global Conference
on Aquaculture 2010, Phuket, Thailand. 22-25 September 2010. pp. 33-35. FAO, Rome and
NACA, Bangkok.
45. Onozaka, Y, Hansen, H, and Tveterås, R (2012) Salmon’s position among consumers.
Global Aquaculture Advocate, Vol 15, Issue 5, September/October, pp. 68-70
46. Marine Stewardship Council (2013) http://www.msc.org/get-certified?gclid=CLX-
2ZG36bsCFWbLtAodqVcAgg
47. Alaska Seafood (2013) http://certification.alaskaseafood.org/fao-based
48.Global Aquaculture Alliance. http://www.gaalliance.org/bap/standards.php
49. Aquaculture Stewardship Council www.asc-aqua.org
50. International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation www.iffo.net/iffo-rs-standard
51. The Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation www.scottishsalmon.co.uk
52. Code of good practice for Scottish finfish aquaculture www.thecodeofgoodpractice.co.uk
53. RSPCA Freedom Food http://www.rspca.org.uk/freedomfood
54. Simopoulos, A P (2008). The importance of the omega 6/omega 3 fatty acid ratio in
cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Experimental Biology and Medicine,
233(6):674-688
55. Shepherd, C J (2012) Implications of increased competition for fish oil. Bergen.
FishFarmingXpert, September 2012. 15:40-45
56. European Food Safety Authority (2009) Scientific Opinion: Labelling reference values
for n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. EFSA journal 1176, 1-11.
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation/EFSA-proposes-reference-intake-levels-for-
omega-3-omega-6.
57. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. (2004) Advice on fish consumption, benefits
and risks. http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/fics_sacn_advice_fish.pdf
58. Newton, R, Telfer, D and Little, D C (2014) Perspectives on the utilisation of aquaculture
co-products in Europe and Asia; prospects for value addition and improved resource
efficiency. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 54:495-510
59. Ramírez, A (2007) Salmon by-product proteins. FAO Fisheries Circular. No.1027.
Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1394e/a1394e00.HTM 2007. 31p.
24
60. Costa-Pierce, B A, Bartley, D M, Hasan, M, Yusoff, Y, Kaushik, S J, Rana, K, Lemos, D,
Bueno, P and Yakupitiyage, A (2012) Responsible use of resources for sustainable
aquaculture. In: Farming the Waters for People and Food. Proceedings of the Global
Conference on Aquaculture 2010 (R P Subasinghe, J R Arthur, D M Bartley, SS De Silva, M
Halwart, N Hishamunda, C V Mohan and P Sorgeloos. eds.), FAO, Rome and NACA,
Bangkok, Phuket, Thailand. 22-25 September 2010. pp.113-147.
61. International collaboration to sequence the Atlantic salmon genome
http://www.genomebc.ca/files/2912/6929/4134/5.2.2%20dec7%20background.pdf
62. Migaud, H (2013) Pers. Comm.
63. AquaBounty http://www.aquabounty.com/products/products-295.aspx
64. Hemre, G I, Karlsen, O, Mangor-Jensen, A, Rosenlund, G (2003) Digestibility of dry
matter, protein, starch, and lipid by cod (Gadus morhua): Comparison of sampling methods.
Aquaculture, 225:225-232
65. Jackson, A J and Shepherd, C J (2010) Connections between farmed and wild fish:
fishmeal and fish oil as feed ingredients in sustainable aquaculture. In: Advancing the
aquaculture agenda. Policies to ensure a sustainable aquaculture sector. Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris,15–16 April 2010, pp. 331–343
66. Tacon, A G J, Hasan, M R and Metian, M (2011) Demand and supply of feed ingredients
for farmed fish and crustaceans: trends and prospects. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No.564. FAO, Rome, Italy. 87pp.
67. Turchini, G M, Torstensen, B E and Ng, W-K (2009) Fish oil replacement in finfish
nutrition. Rev. Aquaculture 1, 10-57
68. Cavalett, O and Ortega, E (2009) Energy, nutrient balance, and economic assessment of
soybean production and industrialisation in Brazil. J. Cleaner Product. 17:762-771
69. Asche, F, Guttormsen, A G and Tveterås, R (1999) Aquaculture – opportunities and
challenges. Marine Resource Economics 23: 395-400
70. Tveterås, S (2002) Norwegian Salmon Aquaculture and Sustainability: The Relationship
between Environmental Quality and Industry Growth. Marine Resource Economics, 17, 121-
132
