Callander McDowell
Callander McDowell
reLAKSation no 411
Wrong answer; wrong question!: Scottish salmon is highly regarded and rightly so. However, less well known is the fact that salmon can be found in many English rivers too. Our principal grew up in the North East of England and regularly ate wild salmon freshly caught from the River Esk and landed in the fishing town of Whitby. These fish were every bit as good to eat, and some might say even better, than fish from Scotland. The upmarket purveyor of food Fortnum & Mason, even sell English smoked salmon as distinct from their Scottish offerings.
The fact that salmon are native to English waters begs the question why salmon farming has never developed in England whereas it has become a major industry in Scotland. The reason why is not difficult to understand. The west coast of the Scottish Highlands & Islands is permeated with a large number of lochs which afforded much needed protection from the elements, especially during the early days of the industry when the pioneers went through a rapid learning curve of how to grow salmon. In addition, the west coast is sparsely populated which confers extra advantages to the salmon farming industry.
By comparison, the English coastline is much more exposed, has a much higher competing population and more conflicting uses. This means that the English coast is not really suited for aquaculture development unless it is well off-shore. This is why the English aquaculture industry is rather insignificant. The dominant species is trout with production of 7,294 tonnes out of a total fish production of 8,127 tonnes in 2006. The other fish were brown trout (441 tonnes) carp (for restocking 175 tonnes), salmon (63 tonnes), turbot (63.5 tonnes), barramundi (45 tonnes) and tilapia (33 tonnes). In addition, English shellfish production stood at 15, 449 tonnes of which oysters totalled 880 tonnes and the remainder dominant production being mussels.
Since 2006, the barramundi farm has closed and there has been an increasing interest in tilapia farming, although it remains still very small scale. Whether the other niche products remain in business is unclear. Trout farming is probably at its maximum due to the limited availability of sufficient fresh running water needed to grow more fish, especially through the warmer summer months (although based on the evidence of this summer, there has been so much rain that if future years suffer from similar rainfall then who knows what might be possible?)
Since most of the emphasis on aquaculture production is directed towards Scotland, it is not surprising that there has been little attempt to investigate the possible opportunities as to whether aquaculture can be further developed in England to help boost the supply of locally produced fish and seafood. To rectify this deficiency, Defra, the Government department responsible for fisheries and aquaculture in England commissioned a study on the potential for aquaculture to contribute towards food security in England.
Fishnewseu.com report that the study has now been published and has reached the conclusion that there needs to be an enabling strategy for aquaculture development to ensure that seafood remains accessible and affordable. The link to the full report can be found on the aquaculture page of the Defra website, however, we at Callander McDowell, are reluctant to recommend the report for anyone interested in finding out what opportunities exist to develop aquaculture in the UK for we believe that the report has missed the point. To be fair to the authors, Mark James and Richard Slaski, the problem is that they have been asked totally the wrong question. It is therefore not unexpected that the report fails to investigate the opportunities for aquaculture development in the UK.
The problem is the focus on the issue of food security. According to their website, Defra commissioned this strategic review of the potential of aquaculture to contribute to the security of food and non-food products in the UK and specifically in England. Scotland has a thriving aquaculture industry, but whenever it is discussed, food security is never on the agenda. In fact, Seafood.com reports that this week, Gareth Williams of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry told a meeting of business leaders in Inverness that the Scottish salmon continues to be exported to markets around the world resulting in a boost to the economy of £290 million.
Whilst the Scottish salmon industry is looking at how it can further develop its export markets, Mark James and Richard Slaski describe food security as the responsibility of Government to ensure that everyone in the UK has enough to eat. Yet, developed economies, like that in the UK, rely heavily on imports and there is concern that some developed economies will be unable to respond effectively to chronic ‘insults’ on food security in the face of global changes in the economy, climate, the energy gap and anticipated population growth. The authors conclude that it would therefore be desirable and strategically important for the UK to develop aquaculture as a means of reducing our reliance on imports yet still ensuring that seafood remains accessible and affordable and is produced sustainably.
This is a noble ideal, yet we prefer a more simplistic approach to whether aquaculture can be developed in the UK. Simply, can any proposed aquaculture venture produce fish and seafood profitably? If it can’t then it won’t stay in business long, unless the Government is prepared to pump large sums of money into it, just in case our future food security is threatened.
The result of this focus on the issue of food security has meant that much of the 125 page report looks at the issues affecting this subject. There is also a review of UK production and production technologies. However, the question of which species should be considered for development and how they should be produced cover just five pages. These conclude that the two species that are likely to show reasonable growth in the short to medium term are salmon and mussels.
The authors suggest that given all the constraints on site availability, the most likely method of production will be in land based tanks although they do say that the economics remain challenging. (They actually suggest that this could add up to 30% to the production cost over Scottish cage farming) For mussels, they recommend long line production but they also point out that a more detailed assessment of shellfish production had previously been published by Nike Lake and Sue Utting!!
Their main conclusion is that the lack of an overall enabling strategy is a serious constraint to the development of aquaculture in England, citing the Scottish Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture as an example as how this could be addressed. Considering that the main features of the Scottish Framework are issues such as containment, health and finance, it is unlikely that this would help promote and develop English aquaculture.
If Defra want to see aquaculture expand in England then they should pose some very basic questions. These have nothing to do with food security but rather are focused on the feasibility of developing aquaculture further in England.
For any species under consideration, the first question would be ‘Is there a market for this fish (or shellfish)?’ ‘Is it local, national or international?’
Secondly, ‘Can we produce the fish in England and is the production method feasible?’ or ‘Is the locality suited to the economic production of this fish?’
And finally ‘Can the fish be produced profitably?’ or ‘Will consumers be willing to pay a high enough price to cover the cost of production?’
Mark James and Richard Slaski have suggested that salmon looks the most promising species for the development of English aquaculture. If our three questions are posed about their recommendation, their conclusion may not appear so clear cut.
Certainly, there is a market for salmon, both in the UK and in overseas markets, although it might be rather competitive at times. Currently, prices are high and the prospect for the salmon looks good. However, when Chilean production recovers prices may not remain so high. Yet, it is clear that the popularity of salmon could be further widened with investment in marketing. The answer is therefore yes, there is a market for the fish.
Salmon are native to the UK so are ideally suited to the English environment. As the authors recognise, the problem with salmon is the production method. Cage farming is unlikely to be suitable given the issues with sites, unless it is taken well off-shore. This may be feasible in years to come but at present is unlikely. Instead, the authors have recommended the use of land based tank systems. Such a production system is feasible for salmon but as Mr James and Mr Slaski have identified, this system carries the burden of extra costs.
The higher cost of production is relevant to the third and last question. Will consumers be willing to pay a high enough price to cover the extra cost of production so making the system profitable? Our experience of the retail salmon market is that consumers are not prepared to pay a high market price for salmon, especially when cheaper alternatives are available. This may change in years to come but at present any producer based in England must compete in the global marketplace and the certainty is that prices will eventually be cut back. The scope for making money from salmon farming in England is extremely minimal. The recommendation to base an expanding English aquaculture industry on land based farming of salmon is thus rather blinkered.
The authors cite the example of Selonda Aquaculture’s sea bass farm in Anglesey as a land based recirculation farm that has been successfully expanded. This is certainly true and their product is being successfully sold into the UK market. However well this one farm may be judged to be a success it is questionable how far it can be replicated. The farm serves a niche high end market for sea bass, which would be compromised if production was significantly increased. There is always a place for such niche specialists but they are not the basis on which to form a whole industry.
Even these niche specialists can come unstuck as the now defunct barramundi venture demonstrated. Whilst the land based growing system may have worked, their problem was that they failed to appreciate that English consumers did not have a taste for the fish and thus wouldn’t buy it, at least not in the form that it was sold.
If high cost production systems are excluded, at least until the viability of such systems can be justified, then is there still scope to develop aquaculture in England. We, at Callander McDowell, believe there is.
England has a real potential to produce food fish, especially in the current warming climate, that not only has a non-competitive market, but can be produced at a profit. One of the main reasons that it has not been considered is because it is not produced within the traditional idea of a fish farm. Instead it is integrated into existing agricultural farms, with small areas of land unsuited for traditional agriculture.
The main stumbling block in developing this form of aquaculture production has not been the species, the market or the method of production but rather the inability of Government to break down the barriers between fisheries and farming within its own departments. In the case of English aquaculture, this would be the same Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Many years ago, an approach was made to the then Ministry of Fisheries and Food (MAFF), the predecessor to Defra, in which some farmers asked their agricultural advisors about growing fish within their existing farms. They were told that fish are the responsibility of the fisheries people. When they were asked to help, they replied that it wouldn’t be practical to establish a farm to grow these fish in monoculture. The farmers said that they intended to integrate the fish into their farms. The fisheries people replied that farming was the responsibility of the farming people and not in their remit. Although both groups were based in the same building, no effort was made to cross the divide between farming and fisheries. Perhaps, if this report has considered the potential then it could have acted as the catalyst to develop a new industry. This now seems unlikely.
The fish to which we refer is carp. According to Mark James and Richard Slaski there are about 100-150 small businesses in England that are involved in cultivation of carp and other freshwater fish but all work in the restocking industry supplying fish, either bred, or more likely caught elsewhere and sold to enhance fisheries for recreational angling. They indicate that none produce the fish for food, although we know of one venture that is trying to convince British consumers to buy organically produced carp. Current production is about 250 kg. This small niche market may work but if we apply the key three questions, it shows that there is much greater potential outside the organic market.
Firstly, is there a market for carp in England? The answer is yes. The main demand for carp would come from the Chinese ethnic community living in the UK who would readily buy large quantities of carp on one proviso; it is supplied live. This is a totally untapped market for whilst it is possible to import carp from outside Britain which we already do, imported fish must be dead due to the Fish Diseases Act.
Whilst dead carp attract interest from the Polish and Eastern European communities living in Britain, the Chinese community only want the fish live. This is part of their culture and which is why fish tanks are part and parcel of the décor of most Chinese restaurants. Those serving the Chinese communities often have large tanks on display mainly for lobsters but which would be used for fish if live fish were available.
Secondly, can we produce the fish in England? Carp are now a native of British freshwater although they were not always so. The evidence suggests that carp were imported into England in the late 1400’s to enhance the commercial status of fish ponds owned by wealthy landowners and subsequently the Monastic Houses.
The method of production is simple using static water ponds. Production is seasonal and concentrated in the warmer spring and summer months when water temperatures boost fish growth. The fish predominantly grow on the natural life, which is encouraged to grow in the ponds, but further growth can be attained with wastes generated elsewhere on the farm. The fish are very hardy and easy to farm.
Thirdly, can farmers make money from growing these fish? The whole system is based on wastes and therefore is extremely inexpensive. Typically carp sell for around £6.99/kg in large supermarkets but clearly an additional premium can be generated when sold live. Since most farmers would operate this form of aquaculture on a small scale, a co-operative arrangement would help farmers sell their fish and manage stock to provide year round availability.
Sadly, the potential to integrate aquaculture with traditional agriculture in England has been consistently ignored. The most recent opportunity to recognise this potential occurred when RELU – the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme decided to investigate the fish production as a method of diversification for arable farmers. The project which appears still to be ongoing opted to look at growing tilapia in recirculating systems, a much more cost and time intensive venture than extensive pond culture of carp and more importantly, a much more doubtful market opportunity. But, if the question is asked of specialists in growing tilapia in recirculating systems then the answer should not be of any surprise.
It’s unfortunate that whenever aquaculture is considered, it is always within the context of a stand alone unit. The prospect of integration is always dismissed simply because of a lack of cross discipline expertise. However, this should not be a barrier to development. What does seem to be the greatest obstacle is asking the wrong question for it is guaranteed that it will produce the wrong answer.