Callander McDowell
Callander McDowell
reLAKSation no 412
Turning the worm: According to IntraFish, marine ecologist Dr Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia is now planning to host a seafood party. The party will take place in 2048, the year he previously predicted that all commercial fish species will have disappeared from the world’s oceans. Following the publication of his latest paper in the magazine ‘Science’, he no longer expects to mourn the loss of all marine ecosystems but instead hopes to celebrate their continued ability to supply fish to the world’s markets, albeit in a much more managed way.
We, at Callander McDowell, would suggest that Dr Worm doesn’t need to wait until 2048 to celebrate the availability of fish and seafood; he can do so now with a clear conscience that he is not further depleting any major commercial fishery. On the menu of his ‘seafood’ party, we would recommend he serve a choice of sea bass, sea bream, salmon, trout, prawns, halibut, turbot, cod, yellowtail amongst others. The common feature of all these are that they are farmed in the marine environment as well as tasting good and worthy of celebration. Dr Worm can also use his party to celebrate the extensive coverage his latest paper has received in the mainstream press.
Dr Worm’s paper has been hailed as glimpse of a future but actually the vision offered by Dr Worm and his colleagues is not rocket science. As the New York Times points out, the paper simply suggest that depleted fisheries can be saved if they are wisely managed. This is nothing new. As Professor Poul Holm of Trinty College Dublin wrote in the Times newspaper, history has already shown that moratoria on fishing actually work. He cites the example of fish stocks that recovered during the Second World War when fishing activity was much curtailed.
Dr Worm and his collaborators concluded that it makes little sense to fish for the ‘maximum sustainable yield’ and that more conservative targets offered a smarter course. They also suggest that restricting destructive fish gear, quotas for every boat and no-take zones would also help in the recovery of threatened fish stocks.
Unfortunately, none of these strategies address the fundamental problem as to why fish stocks have become threatened in the first place. This is that global demand for fish and seafood exceeds the supply that the world’s oceans can provide on a continuing basis and still remain viable. Nothing that Dr Worm and his team can suggest can rectify this imbalance. There will always be pressure to take more fish, irrespective of whatever control is in place because there is a ready and waiting market for any fish and seafood.
The only way that pressure can be taken off threatened and depleted fish stocks is if the market can be supplied from an alternative source. This has been shown to work as fishing vessels have relocated away from over-fished European waters to work off the coast of Africa. Of course, whilst this may help European fisheries recover, it does nothing to help those in African waters. The problem is simply being displaced from one fishery to another. Even fisheries which have been adjudged to be sustainable appear to be under increased fishing pressure as demand for so-called sustainable species increases.
There is only one way to relieve the fishing pressure on wild stock AND still continue to supply the world’s markets with fresh and tasty fish and seafood and that is from farming. Aquaculture is the best available tool for fisheries management but it is the one that is least recognised. In every other area of food supply man has turned from hunter gathering to farming and as the world’s population continues to rise, it is inevitable that this must happen in the seas or else fish and seafood will be denied to much of mankind and become an exclusive food for those that can afford it.
Fortunately, fish and seafood will continue to be available to all as aquaculture continues to expand. Nearly fifty percent of fish consumed by man now originates from farming whereas according to the FAO, it was less than ten percent in 1980. It is inevitable that aquaculture will eventually become the major source of the world’s fish and seafood in years to come.
So how does aquaculture fit into Dr Worm’s vision of world fisheries leading up to 2048? Sadly, his latest paper doesn’t consider aquaculture even though in his executive summary Dr Worm rues the lack of alternatives to fishing and sees this as a constraint on the ability to rebuild fisheries in many parts of the world. However, Dr Worm does explain his position in relation to aquaculture in an interview he gave to Natural News.com (www.naturalnews.com/podcasts/InterviewBorisWormPodcast2009.mp3 ). He begins by saying that it is important to understand that aquaculture cannot replace wild fisheries, although he doesn’t explain exactly why. Certainly, it is unlikely that aquaculture can replace the diversity of species that can be harvested from the sea but in terms of reducing the fishing pressure on wild stocks, it doesn’t really matter if consumers choose to eat sea bass instead of swordfish. For every farmed fish consumed, it means that one less fish needs to be caught from the sea, although fishing of sustainable wild stocks can help maintain the choice available to consumers.
Although he doesn’t say specifically why aquaculture cannot replace wild catch fisheries, he does say that aquaculture depends on wild catch fisheries as a source of food (therefore presumably there must always be a need for wild catch fisheries). He continues to say that the conversion of wild fish to farmed fish is not very good with salmon taking 2-3 lbs of herring or mackerel to grow one pound of salmon. Dr Worms argues that this is a waste of wild fish which could be eaten directly.
We have discussed the use of fishmeal in aquaculture diets several times previously but for the benefit of Dr Worm, we would summarise the points made by Dr Andrew Jackson of the International Fishmeal & Fishoil Organisation writing in the Times newspaper (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5847095.ece ) earlier this year. Dr Jackson says that about 25% of fishmeal used in aquaculture is now manufactured from the trimmings from fish processing. Some mackerel and herring are used in fishmeal manufacture but most is made from species that are not usually consumed by man.
The conversion of wild caught fish to farmed fish in the case of salmon is 1.7:1, much lower than Dr Worm suggests and although the use of wild caught fish in aquaculture is increasing, much is actually being diverted from terrestrial farming rather than adding to the fishing pressure on wild stocks. Dr Worm, like many others critical of aquaculture, is quick to point out about fishmeal use in aquaculture but is equally happy to eat chicken and pork fed on fishmeal without any comment.
Whilst on the subject of fishmeal, Dr Worm advocates the consumption of freshwater species such as tilapia which are vegetarian. However, some fishmeal is often used in tilapia feeds although at low levels. This low rate consumption means that on a global basis, the actual conversion of wild fish to farmed is just 0.5:1.
Dr Worms explained that he uses the Sea Choice guide (www.seachoice.org ) to determine which fish he eats and which he doesn’t. Perhaps this is why he does not see marine aquaculture as a solution to the problem of over-fishing. For example, Sea Choices recommend that consumers avoid farmed salmon; the main reason given is that salmon farming utilises significant quantities of wild fish in its feed. By comparison, there are no such concerns about eating wild salmon despite the fact that wild salmon eat even greater amounts of other wild fish and do so less efficiently. Of course, wild salmon consume their feed out of sight of marine conservationists so it is not considered an issue just part of the natural cycle. Yet, sustainable wild salmon are mostly from enhanced fisheries which depend on the release of huge quantities of hatchery raised fish (i.e. farmed) into the natural environment where they out-compete the truly wild fish for food and in doing so clearly disrupt the natural balance.
The only way to protect commercial fish stocks is to remove the fishing pressure on them. This will only happen if consumers can access alternative supplies of fish and seafood. The only alternative and viable source is from farming. Wild catch fisheries will only receive this protection when the fisheries scientists realise that aquaculture is the best management tool available to them and they start to use it and benefit from it. Then will be the time to really celebrate with a seafood party. We suggest starting by getting some salmon kebabs (farmed of course) onto the BBQ and partying away!!
Short-termism: IntraFish reports that Danish processor Skagerak Group has urged the salmon industry to listen to their customers after huge price fluctuations continued to cause problems in the market. CEO of Skagerak Group, Iver Espersen said that it is very difficult when prices soar to recent levels. It is very bad for consumers, very bad for processors but very good for Norwegian farmers. Mr Espersen added that the European market needs a more stable mentality but Norway seems to be always striving to be the biggest exporter in the world and to get the highest prices possible. He said that they’re not thinking ahead.
We, at Callander McDowell, have some sympathy for Mr Espersen because we too believe that high salmon prices are damaging the market for salmon in Europe. We have recorded a significant reduction in the range of salmon products available, especially in the type of products that might attract a wider range of consumers. The expansion of the salmon farming industry made salmon into a widely available, value for money meal choice for many consumers. The rising price is slowly turning farmed salmon into a more luxury food which will inevitably attract a much smaller consumer audience. The Norwegian industry is fortunate that the slide in Chilean supply has meant that the extra salmon produced can be absorbed elsewhere, especially in the US otherwise; they might find that the price could begin to collapse. Last time prices went up the extra salmon produced found a home in the Russian market. Next time, it might be different a story.
In the UK and to some extent in the US, salmon is still being offered to consumers cheaply despite the higher spot prices. This is because the retailers recognise that if the price is too high consumers will simply look for something else to buy. In the US, this alternative may be wild salmon especially the cheaper varieties such as Keta salmon. It may not be the salmon as Farmed Atlantic but consumers still see it as salmon and cheaper too.
Of course, high salmon prices are good for the salmon farming industry but they will never be sustained. Prices will eventually take a tumble and then the whole economics of salmon farming will change.
Paul Aandahl of the Norwegian Seafood Export Council doesn’t think that Mr Espersen has cause to complain. He argues that buyers are taking a risk if they buy on the spot price at a time when there is disturbance in the marketplace. He says that working with the spot price means that you have to follow prices. Instead, he believes that companies should secure prices by fixing long term contracts if they are worried about price movements.
The problem is that fixed price contracts are fine if prices are relatively stable but they can be just as risky as following the spot price and even more so because the price is fixed for the length of the contract. Thus if the prices are too high, then there is a chance that prices could fall leaving those on contract paying over the odds for their salmon. Conversely, if the contract is too low, the farming companies may feel that they have missed out if prices have risen, as they have done.
There is an alternative solution. This is to calculate the price of salmon as cost of production plus an agreed margin. Companies will know their profitability irregardless of movements in the spot price. Whilst the market analysts won’t like such an approach since they would argue that the companies could be making even greater profits and thus reward their shareholders accordingly, yet, it would bring an increased stability to prices as well as encouraging greater market development. Framing companies would be better placed to plan ahead rather than waiting for the next inevitable downturn.