reLAKSation 334. Callander McDowell
Higher and higher: First Securities analyst Aslak Berge told IntraFish that the price of farmed cod will remain high even if production increases. This is contrary to the experiences of the salmon industry that found increased production pushed prices down. Mr Berge is confident that farmed cod will buck this trend because landings of wild caught cod are falling and it is the availability of these fish that dictates cod prices. He argues that the reduced supply together with growing demand means that prices will increase.
Yet in the UK, a key market for cod, availability appears to be sufficiently strong that retailers are actively discounting the price of cod fillets. At the time of writing, fresh cod fillet is available in Morrison’s stores for £6.65/kg (NOK 68/kg, € 8.70/kg). Whilst this is a promotional offer, other stores appear to be holding the price of cod fillet at just under £9/kg. At the same time, demand for cod appears to be falling. The Metro newspaper reports that market research group TNS has found that consumption of cod has fallen by about 3%, mostly due to reduced demand for frozen cod. TNS believe that the fall is not due to higher prices as would usually be expected but rather due to environmental concerns. However, this concern is not one voiced by the consumer but rather by the main suppliers who have increasingly substituted cod with more sustainable species. This means that there is less cod overall available to the consumer and this has a direct effect on consumption.
Whilst falling consumption may yet not be attributable to price, the price of skinless boneless cod loins has increased in recent weeks with most stores raising prices to similar levels. It remains to be seen whether consumers are willing to pay these higher prices or look for cheaper alternatives. Whilst British consumers have a fondness for cod, they are unlikely to be willing to buy cod at any cost.
Although sourcing continuous supplies of cod does not appear to be a problem, farmed cod is available on some fish counters. Unfortunately, farmed cod has been priced higher than wild caught fish giving consumers little incentive to buy it. Farmed cod will only become widely sought if the price is below the price of wild fish. It might be expected that as increasing volumes of farmed cod come to market, the price of farmed cod might fall enabling retailers to price it more competitively against wild fish. Sadly, this is not a forgone conclusion. Mr Berge suggests that both juveniles and slaughtering costs will decline, reducing the overall production cost. The salmon experience would suggest that this would be the case but cod and marine fish are a totally different ball game to salmon.
We have discussed previously that the real bottleneck for cod production is the hatchery due to the small size of the eggs. This means that the fry require much more care than salmon and this contributes to a higher juvenile cost which cannot be offset by volume alone. We expressed these concerns as long ago as in reLAKSation no 27 and so far we have not been convinced otherwise.
Of course, all this could change if retailers started to price wild cod at more realistic levels or even took a more proactive approach to reducing demand for wild caught fish. Consumers have been repeatedly told that cod stocks are under threat, yet the retailers continue to pile up cheap cod fillets at the front of fish counters.
The availability of wild caught cod does not have to be a deterrent to farming cod. The key will be to market the fish so that it isn’t in direct competition with the wild catch. The success of the industry may be dependent on developing new perceptions about farmed cod not whether it is just another cod fillet.
Under attack: As might be expected from a magazine aimed at the ‘foodie’ generation, the latest issue of the ‘Observer Food Monthly’ has launched another attack on the aquaculture industry. Sadly, in his haste to criticise modern fish farming, reporter Alex Renton did not check his facts prior to publication. For example he implies that consumers are being misled into buying farmed fish because supermarkets do not have to specify whether the fish are farmed or not when they are actually legally obliged to do so. Perhaps as a ‘foodie’ Mr Renton has been looking at the counters in the type of independent fishmonger often applauded by the Observer’s Food Monthly, as it usually these outlets that often fail to label the fish in accordance with the law.
Mr Renton doesn’t even get simple facts right such as saying that Melanie Sechdeva of Sainsbury’s actually works for Tesco. Ms Sachdeva spoke at the recent Seafood Summit which Mr Renton attended. It’s a pity he didn’t bother to read the programme to confirm the speakers’ position before writing his piece.
The one theme of his article on which we would like to focus is the question of feeding farmed fish. Mr Renton reports that during the Seafood Summit, Greenpeace launched their challenge to the sustainability of aquaculture. He said that during this side meeting, it was said that ‘The feeding of fish to fish in order to feed humans can never be sustainable.’ This point was reiterated by celebrity chef Tom Aitkens who said that feeding wild fish like sand eel and whiting to farmed ones at a 6:1 ration is just morally wrong. (We would like to comment more about Tom Aitkens another time).
The problem is that what do Greenpeace and Mr Aitkens think that the wild fish that they advocate we buy actually eat? Whilst bemoaning the fact that each farmed salmon needs to eat three kilos of fish to produce one kilo of weight gain, they ignore the reality that wild salmon eat just as much. Do they think wild fish should ignore their usual prey and stop off at the local McDonalds for chicken nuggets instead?
Mr Renton recounts the story told by M&S fish specialist Andrew Mallison to the Seafood Summit about his visit to a tilapia farmer who lives just up the road from a massive battery chicken operation. The farmer said ‘Whats to stop me feeding the chicken off cuts to my salmon (another error in Mr Renton’s piece – could he mean tilapia?). Mr Mallinson replied that ‘He wouldn’t want to tell a customer that there’s chicken parts in his fish’ at which point the audience laughed but the real question is whether M&S tell their customers that there might be fish in their chicken? (M&S may not actually feed fishmeal to their chickens but fishmeal is often used in some poultry feeds).
If environmental groups are really concerned about the use of fishmeal in the food chain perhaps they should first lobby for a ban on the use of fishmeal in terrestrial farming before they start to attack the aquaculture industry. After all, farmed fish eat other fish as part of their natural diet, terrestrial animals do not.
Greenpeace argue that turning one fish into another is wrong and that instead the aquaculture industry should focus on the production of omnivorous or vegetarian fish such as carp. The reality is that even if consumers were willing to buy such fish, there is not sufficient fresh water available to farm such fish in the huge quantities that would be needed.
Aquaculture is the only logical way forward to ensure that a growing market demand for fish is satisfied. Unfortunately, the critics, such as Mr Renton, are just too blinkered to take an objective view.
Certified!! One of the other issues highlighted in The Observer’s Food Monthly was the ‘logofest’ of labels competing to certify sustainability. Melanie Sachdeva said that the lack of a universal standard will simply confuse consumers even more than they already are. Part of this problem is that the Marine Stewardship Council have so far refused to consider certification for farmed fish thus splitting the supply side in two, even though the consumer products end up mixed together on the retail fish counter. The MSC have recently said that after pressure from some retailers, they may now consider aquaculture certification, although Jon Harman from Seafish told IntraFish that such certification was far from a forgone conclusion.
Although, we at Callander McDowell have repeatedly argued that the MSC should recognise the importance of aquaculture produce both in its own right as sustainable but also as a management tool aiding a reduction of fishing pressure on wild stocks, we are now starting to wonder whether the MSC are really the best adjudicators of whether farmed produce is truly sustainable. This doubt is based on increasing concern about the sustainability of MSC certified wild stocks.
IntraFish recently reported that MSC Chief Executive Rupert Howes had reiterated the his support for the recertification of New Zealand Hoki fishery despite claims that it should loose its status due to falling stock levels. Mr Howes drew a parallel between quota limitations of New Zealand hoki catches and a 30% cut to the Icelandic cod quota. However, there is one big difference between the New Zealand hoki fishery and the cod fishery in Iceland and that is the hoki fishery has been certified by the MSC, whilst the cod fishery has not. Mr Howes added that this is what sensible management regimes do in the light of new information.
If this is the case then we see no point in the MSC certification programme since they cannot guarantee sustainability. Surely, the significance of eco-certification is that the catch has been set at a level which ensures that the fishery can sustain itself, regenerating new stock to offset that removed. If too much catch is taken, then the fishery is simply not sustainable and not worthy of eco-certification. If the quota has to be reset, then the fishery is no different to the way that fisheries are currently managed, reviewing recruitment against harvests. The environmental lobby have been against this form of fishery yet it seems that this is exactly how Mr Howes seems to believe that sustainable fisheries should be managed.
Clearly, the rush to buy MSC certified fish has exerted too much fishing pressure on certified stocks that they are being damaged in the process. The hoki fishery is not the only MSC fishery that appears to be suffering from increased fishing pressure since certification.
IntraFish also reported recently that De Boer Holding NV had applied for MSC certification for North Sea plaice fishery. This certification, if approved, will be restricted to specifically named vessels. However, certification ignores the fact that De Boer Holding is not the only company fishing to exploit the same stock. Other boats, which are not MSC certified will continue to fish for plaice in the North Sea. This makes no sense. Either the fishery is certified or it is not. If plaice are overfished, will the De Boer boats be allowed to continue fishing because they have been deemed to fish in a sustainable way?
However, the most concern over MSC certification must come from an article in the ‘The Canadian Press’ which reports that boats fishing for Alaskan Pollock in the Bering Sea have ‘accidentally’ caught a by-catch of 130,000 prized Chinook salmon. The Canadian Press do not actually state that the fishery is MSC certified but according to the MSC website, the Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Pollock fishery is MSC certified.
Many of these Chinook were destined to return to Canadian waters, where stocks are already sufficiently threatened that Canadian fishermen have been stopped from fishing for them. Seemingly, the by-catch issue has been a problem for years yet it seems that this problem has not been addressed during the certification process. As a result, the current by-catch has reached dramatic proportions. About 90% of these fish were caught in trawl nets.
Even if it proves that MSC certified boats did not catch these Chinook salmon, it is rather surprising that the MSC has certified a fishery that uses trawl nets as these are known not to discriminate which fish they catch and will always produce a by-catch. It is for this reason that Sainsbury’s and some other UK supermarkets now only sell line caught cod because of the potential for damaging by-catches. This does not seem to apply to boats trawling for Alaskan pollock.
Stephanie Marsden of the ‘At Sea Processors Association’, which represents seven Pollock processing companies and which is also the holder of the MSC certification told ‘The Canadian Press’ that it is unclear how to avoid the salmon as they appear to be following the Pollock or vice versa (maybe they’re after a tasty meal!!!). She said that rolling closures don’t seem to be working as when one spot is closed, they find that the by-catch is high at the next.
Possible solutions suggested include a cap on the total number of salmon taken, a trigger cap for specific areas, fixed closures or keeping the status quo. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has recommended a total cap on 37,000 salmon to which Ms Marsden said would devastate the pollock industry.
Whilst there is enormous pressure for a speedy resolution to this problem, no-one seems to have posed a key question – how was this fishery deemed to be sustainable when it carries the risk of such a damaging by-catch? Perhaps, like the New Zealand hoki fishery, eco-certification offers no real guarantees.