Abalone Haliotis spp.

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

China and Japan Sea ranched aquaculture

October 27, 2012

Andrea Robertson, Consulting Researcher

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

2

Final Seafood Recommendation Abalone farmed via sea ranching receive a moderate score of 5.57 out of 10. However, due to the great loss of habitat functionality and impacts on surrounding wildlife populations, ranched

abalone have received an Avoid ranking.

Abalone Haliotis spp.

China and Japan

Sea ranching

Criterion Score (0–10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 6.11 YELLOW N/A

C2 Effluent 8.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 1.43 RED NO

C4 Chemicals 8.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 10.00 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 6.00 YELLOW NO

C7 Disease 4.00 YELLOW NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN N/A

3.3X Wildlife mortalities -8.00 RED NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN N/A

Total 45.54

Final score 5.69

OVERALL RANKING

Final score 5.69

Initial rank YELLOW

Red criteria 2

Interim rank RED

Critical criteria? NO

Final rank AVOID

Scoring note – Scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.

3

Executive Summary

Abalone are single-shelled molluscs native to temperate and tropical oceans around the world. Of the 100 species found worldwide, approximately 15 are grown in aquaculture for human consumption. Cultured abalone available to US consumers are grown domestically (18% of US market) and imported from Mexico (23%), Australia (18%), Chile (16%), and China (13%), among other countries. Sea ranching is an aquaculture method in which large areas of seafloor are modified for farming purposes. Modifications may include significant changes to the substrate, removal of potential predators and other undesirable species, and widespread control over habitat composition and ecosystem balance. Sea ranching is, in essence, the creation of an underwater pasture for slow-moving grazing species. A moderate amount of data on sea ranching practices is available, though much of it is not peer reviewed. Because abalone move slowly, sea ranches do not use enclosures. Abalone grow in highly controlled areas of the open ocean, and effluent disperses freely. There is no evidence, however, that this effluent is detrimental to surrounding wild habitats. The heavy modifications to marine habitats in sea ranching generally result in a great loss of habitat functionality. Abalone produced by means of sea ranching have received a Red/Avoid rating primarily for this reason. Abalone farming is not chemical intensive and results in minimal release of chemical effluent to the marine environment despite the high potential for discharge. Abalone are strict herbivores, consuming only micro and macroalgae over the course of their lives. Algae harvest is generally regulated, and harvested biomass regrows quickly. Abalone feed is therefore considered to be very sustainable. Sea ranching takes place primarily in China and Japan. For this reason, ranched abalone are almost exclusively Japanese abalone (H. discus hannai), which are native to the region. Native populations of Japanese abalone are depressed due to heavy fishing, and the potential exists for escaped ranched abalone to hybridize with surrounding wild populations. Due to effluent discharge and dispersal, there is a high risk of pathogen and parasite transmission between wild and cultured populations. The global industry is well regulated, with constant monitoring for outbreaks. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether operations in China and Japan maintain the same level of vigilance as the global standard. Overall, abalone farmed via sea ranching receive a moderate score of 5.57 out of 10. However,

4

due to the great loss of habitat functionality and impacts on surrounding wildlife populations, ranched abalone have received a Red/Avoid ranking.

5

Table of Contents Final Seafood Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ............................................................ 6

Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Scoring guide .......................................................................................................................... 8

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ............................................................................... 8

Criterion 2: Effluents ............................................................................................................ 10

Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 11

Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities .................................................................... 12

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 13

Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 14

Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 16

Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species................................................. 17

Criterion 7. Disease, pathogen and parasite interactions ................................................... 18

Criterion 8. Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ....................................... 20

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 21

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 22

References .................................................................................................................................... 22

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 25

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 26

Data points and all scoring calculations........................................................................................ 28

6

Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report will focus on abalone produced through sea ranching that is available to consumers in the United States. Sea ranching of abalone occurs almost exclusively in Japan and China. Abalone farming consists of three phases: hatchery, juvenile, and growout. In the hatchery and juvenile phases, young abalone are grown in land-based raceway and holding tanks. During the growout phase, sea ranching operations will transfer the “seed” abalone (small juveniles) to prepared areas of seafloor without cages or other enclosure systems. Typically, multiple mollusc species will be farmed together. The molluscs are supplied with food and protected from predators until they are large enough to harvest (Jia and Chen 2011). A separate evaluation is available from Seafood Watch for abalone farmed using enclosures on land and at sea. Species overview Abalone are sessile molluscs found in temperate and tropical intertidal marine waters around the world. They are exclusively herbivores, consuming microalgal films as larvae and macroalgae as juveniles and adults. They are characterized by their single large shell, which has a series of holes along one edge and an iridescent interior. The meat of the abalone is a single large foot that it uses for locomotion, like most marine snails. More than 100 species of abalone exist worldwide, but aquaculture operations tend to focus on approximately 15 species, subspecies, and hybrids (Allsopp et al. 2011). Red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) dominates US markets, as it grows most quickly and reaches the largest size of any abalone species. However, sea ranching operations in Japan and China generally farm the native Japanese abalone (Haliotis discus hannai), which are available in US markets in canned form. Humans have been eating abalone for thousands of years. Over time, however, increasing demand for abalone meat has driven wild stocks down (Braje et al. 2009). As of 2012, the IUCN Red List of endangered species includes both the northern (pinto) abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) and black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) (IUCN 2012). Declining wild populations have led the United States and South Africa to close commercial fisheries of wild stocks altogether, though recreational fishing and some poaching still continue (Braje et al. 2009; Cook and Gordon 2010; Moore et al. 2002). Abalone farming began in California and Japan in the 1960s (Flores-Aguilar et al. 2007; Leighton 1989; McBride 1998). Since then, abalone culture has grown into a multi-million dollar global industry, producing 30,670 mt (33,800 tons) of abalone in 2008 (Cook and Gordon 2010). The industry continues to grow at an average rate of 35–40% annually (Brannen 2009; FAO 2010).

7

Today, more than 70% of abalone consumed worldwide is produced using aquaculture methods (Brannen 2009).

Fig. 1. Distribution of sources of abalone consumed in the United States in 2008. “Other” includes abalone from Peru, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, and South Korea. Note that abalone imported from Mexico are primarily wild caught and therefore not addressed in this assessment (Data from FAO, NMFS).

Of the 433 mt (477 tons) of abalone consumed in the United States in 2008, only 18% was produced domestically (Fig. 1). Abalone can be purchased live or as frozen, preserved, or canned fillets. Most abalone products are not identified by species and are instead sold under the general “abalone” name. Consumers may also find “Chilean abalone” in stores, but it should be noted that this is not true abalone. Chilean abalone and “loco” are the trade names of Concholepas concholepas, a heavily overfished carnivorous marine snail (Castilla and Gelcich 2008). Sea ranched abalone is primarily grown for domestic markets in Japan and China, though it can be purchased as canned abalone in the United States.

8

Analysis

Scoring guide Aside from the exceptional factors (3.3X and 6.2X), scores are measured on a zero to ten

scale for each criterion as well as the overall final rank. A score of zero indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional factors yield negative scores from zero to minus ten, where zero indicates no negative impact and minus ten indicates a highly negative impact.

The full set of Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria to which the following scores relate are available here.

Full data values and scoring calculations are available in Annex 1.

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the

impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts.

Sustainability unit: the ability to make a robust sustainability assessment Principle: robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts is

available to relevant stakeholders.

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0–10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5

Effluent Yes 7.5 7.5

Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5

Predators and wildlife Yes 5 5

Chemical use Yes 5 5

Feed Yes 7.5 7.5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 5 5

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5

Other (e.g., GHG emissions) No n/a n/a

Total 55

C1 Data final score 6.11 YELLOW

9

Justification of Ranking The abalone aquaculture industry – including the use of sea ranching technology – is still developing, so a large amount of data sharing is taking place among commercial operations and research institutions. A recent effort by the World Wildlife Fund and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) has led to global dialogues and the development of guidelines for best practices for abalone aquaculture as a whole (ASC 2011; Munoz et al. 2011). More specifically, sea ranching has been examined and documented through a number of industry papers and conferences. Although both peer-reviewed and industry research have increased industry transparency, some aspects of sea ranching seem to remain proprietary. Because most sea ranching takes place in Japan and China, many of these documents are only available in Japanese and Chinese. Overall, a moderate amount of data on sea ranching is available at this time.

10

Criterion 2: Effluents Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the

amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads.

Sustainability unit: the carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect.

Principle: aquaculture operations minimize or avoid the production and discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm.

C2 Effluent Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Justification of Ranking In their post-larval form, abalone consume algal films that form naturally on surfaces inside their holding tanks. As larger juveniles and adults, abalone consume algae that grow naturally on the substrate of the sea ranched habitat. In the rare cases where supplemental feed is used, farmers rely on locally cultured or harvested macroalgae (Allsopp et al. 2011). Brown algae (Macrocystis spp. and Laminaria spp.) are most commonly used as feed for juvenile and adult abalone (Allsopp et al. 2011; FAO 2010; Flores-Aguilar et al. 2007; Munoz et al. 2011; Perez-Estrada et al. 2011; Wu 2007). These algae have an average protein content of 11.7%, and no additional fertilizer is used for the culture of abalone or their feed (Hernandez et al. 2009). When harvested, abalone meat has a protein content of approximately 17.1% (Hernandez et al. 2009). As a result, biological waste tends to be low in nitrogen; approximately 5.48 kg N is produced per ton of abalone raised to market size. While at sea during the growout phase, 100% of this waste is discharged and diffuses into the ocean (Allsopp et al. 2011; Godoy and Jerez 1998). Abalone culture operations are subject to local and national environmental regulations. However, the information available about some areas is unclear as to whether these laws are adequately enforced. Abalone have been rated at 8 on a scale of 0–10 because, while discharge of effluent occurs, it is relatively low in nitrogen, and there is little evidence that this discharged waste adversely affects the surrounding environment.

11

Criterion 3: Habitat Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat

types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide.

Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the habitat type.

Principle: aquaculture operations are located at sites, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.

Habitat parameters Value Score

F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 2.00

F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 0.50

F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 1.50

F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 0.30

C3 Habitat final score 1.43 RED

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function In sea ranching, all larval production occurs in tanks at land-based facilities. Small juvenile abalone are then “seeded” onto areas of the shallow seafloor where they grow until large enough to harvest. The seafloor may be in its natural state or it may be heavily modified with complete removal of undesirable native species and structures or the addition of artificial reefs. These modifications result in significant, if not total, disruption of original ecosystem functioning with major changes to nutrient cycling and almost complete loss of biodiversity (Bell et al. 2008). China is the world’s largest producer of abalone (Jia and Chen 2001) across all methods of abalone aquaculture, including sea ranching and farming with rafts, pens, tunnels, cages, and indoor tanks (Hishamunda and Subasinghe 2003; Jia and Chen 2001). A single sea ranching operation can cover tens of thousands of hectares (Wu 2007). Japan is home to the greatest number of sea ranching operations in the world (James et al. 2007). In both China and Japan, ranched abalone are typically Japanese (disc., Ezo) abalone (Haliotis discus hannai) and Tokobushi (variously colored) abalone (H. diversicolor) farmed for domestic and other Asian markets. Such products are traditionally sold in Asia in canned form, so it is likely that any ranched abalone sold in the United States will also be canned (Allsopp 2011; Oakes and Ponte 1996). It is nevertheless difficult to ascertain exactly how many ranched abalone reach US markets.

12

Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) Chinese aquaculture operations are managed by the Bureau of Fisheries, while Japanese aquaculture is managed by the Fisheries Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. There are serious concerns about the effectiveness of environmental law enforcement by these agencies (FAO China; FAO Japan). Both Chinese and Japanese governments subsidize abalone aquaculture, including sea ranching operations (James et al. 2007). Ranch and enclosure farming locations are assigned by permit, but it is unclear how much weight environmental considerations are given in permit decisions (FAO China; FAO Japan).

Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities A measure of the effects of deliberate or accidental mortality on the populations of affected species of predators or other wildlife. This is an “exceptional” factor that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact.

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score -8.00 RED

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Sea ranching methods may be as simple as supplementing existing abalone populations with cultured larvae or as comprehensive as completely removing all undesirable species, which may include potential competitors, such as other molluscs, or predators such as crabs, sea stars, and other marine carnivores. Ranched abalone may be grown with other compatible marine invertebrates such as sea cucumbers or scallops. The affected area of a seach is effectively converted to pasture for the grazing abalone, and most other ecosystem services and habitat functions are disrupted (Bell et al. 2008; Wu 2007). After the initial conversion of seafloor area, undesirable species are regularly removed to maintain habitat suitability. In this evaluation, the practices with the greatest environmental impact were analyzed in order to produce the most conservative ranking.

13

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non-target organisms and leads to

production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical-resistant organisms.

Sustainability unit: non-target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments

Principle: aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid the discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively control the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 8.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Abalone culture is largely free of the chemicals found in other forms of intensive aquaculture. Larval settlement during the hatchery phase is induced with a synthesized, concentrated form of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which is naturally found in the red coralline algae preferred by larval abalone in the wild. Land-based aquaculture requires the use of general disinfectants to maintain sanitary conditions. Hatchery and growout facilities ultimately discharge their wastewater into the environment, potentially introducing these chemicals into the marine environment (BCSGA 2012).

14

Criterion 5: Feed Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or losses

vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of conversion can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability.

Sustainability unit: the amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation.

Principle: aquaculture operations source only sustainable feed ingredients, convert them efficiently and responsibly, and minimize and utilize the non-edible portion of farmed fish.

Feed parameters Value Score

F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 0.00 10.00

F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score 0.00

F5.1: Wild Fish Use 10.00

F5.2a Protein IN 0.00

F5.2b Protein OUT 5.99

F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) 5985000 10

F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 0.34 10

C5 Feed Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking The FIFO ratio for abalone is zero because abalone are herbivores. Abalone are primarily fed with kelp and other macroalgae, which are rapidly renewable resources. While some sea ranching operations supplement their stocks’ feed, most rely on the algae that grow naturally on the substrates of the ranched area. In cases where additional feed is required, locally harvested feed is generally used. Kelp and other algae are harvested from wild or cultured sources by third party suppliers or the aquaculture operations themselves using mowers or hand collection methods (Allsopp et al. 2011; Munoz et al. 2011), frequently under permit or other regulatory oversight (Flores-Aguilar et al. 2007; McBride 1998; Perez-Estrada et al. 2011). Some abalone aquaculturists supplement this algal feed with proteins from fishmeal and soy (FitzGerald 2008). Because kelp is an adequate and typically inexpensive food source, however, the use of artificial feed appears to be rare. Factor 5.1. Wild fish use No wild fish is used for feed. Macroalgae are harvested by hand or by mower from wild or

15

cultured stocks. In nearly all cases, these algae are not used for human consumption. Factor 5.2. Net protein gain or loss Macroalgae used as abalone feed have a protein content of approximately 11.7–27.4% (dry weight), depending on species (Hernandez et al. 2009). At harvest, approximately 35–40% of the abalone is edible; the rest of the animal consists of shell and viscera (American Abalone Farms). Harvested and processed abalone meat has a protein content of approximately 17.1% wet weight (Hernandez et al. 2009). The most significant factor in this calculation, however, is the fact that macroalgae used as abalone feed are not used for human consumption. Therefore, abalone culture leads to a net gain in edible protein and an assessment score of 10. Factor 5.3. Feed footprint To produce the most conservative sustainability evaluations, data for the most intensive grazing scenarios were used. Abalone grazing rates depend on water temperature, abalone species and size, and type of algae being consumed. An adult red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) of average pre-market size (shell length 9 cm/3.5 in, live weight 100 g/0.2 lbs) consuming a typical diet of brown algae (Macrocystis spp.) in temperate waters (14°C/57°F) will eat 1–2% of its body weight per day (Winter and Estes 1998). An average-sized abalone farm holds two million abalone, of which approximately 500,000 will be adults in the growout phase (Big Island Abalone 2012). If each abalone were to consume 2% of its body weight every day, the farm would go through 1000 kg/2200 lbs of wet kelp per day. For purposes of these calculations, the total kelp weight was converted to the amount of carbon contained in the kelp, so these 500,000 abalone consume 44 kg/97 lbs of carbon daily (Zimmerman and Kremer 1986). The weight of 500,000 live abalone in the growout phase is approximately 50 tonnes, of which 35% is salable meat after harvest. Thus, 500,000 live abalone will produce 17.5 tonnes of marketable product. One tonne of salable meat therefore requires 2.51 kg of carbon in kelp per day, or 0.918 tonnes of carbon per year. Kelp grow in shallow shelf seas, which have an average annual productivity of 2.68 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year (Talberth et al. 2006). Thus, one tonne of salable abalone meat requires 0.342 hectares’ worth of seafloor productivity per year. Kelp are a rapidly renewable resource, and studies have shown that properly executed harvests have no significant effect on the kelp forest canopy (Donnellan and Foster 1999). In short, macroalgae provide a sustainable, low-impact source of aquaculture feed. However, the enormous scale of sea ranching operations calls into question whether kelp harvests remain sustainable in such large quantities. At this time, data on supplementary feed for sea ranching are scarce.

16

Criterion 6: Escapes Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage , spawning disruption, and

other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non-native and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations

Sustainability unit: affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations. Principle: aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Escape parameters Value Score

F6.1 Escape Risk 0.00

F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 90

F6.1b Invasiveness 4.50

C6 Escape Final Score 6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape risk Sea ranching is conducted without the use of enclosures. As such, the escape of adult individuals and larvae is an inherent part of this production system. For the purposes of this assessment, ranched abalone can be considered “escaped” when they have ventured beyond the intended boundaries of the sea ranch area. Additional escapes result from the spread of larvae from adults spawning within the ranch. Because abalone are raised in habitats suitable for their growth, there is estimated to be no mortality of escapees as a result of environmental factors. Juvenile abalone of average seeding size (30mm/1.2in) have a natural survivorship rate of 40–80% when released into the sea (FAO 1990). Similarly, Jia and Chen (2001) reported that typically only 50–70% of the initial seed stock can be recovered at harvest. Because sea ranching carries a high risk of escape, it receives an escape score of 0 out of 10. However, because sea ranches are so vast and few abalone are estimated to leave the ranched areas, the number of escapees that survive to maturity is expected to be low. As such, a score of 90% was assigned for the recapture and mortality score. Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness The native Japanese abalone (Haliotis discus hannai) accounts for the vast majority of Chinese-grown abalone, which are farmed primarily for domestic consumption. Exports may be an intraspecific H. discus hannai x H. discus hannai hybrid of stock from Japan and China or an interspecific H. discus hannai x H. discus discus cross exclusive to aquaculture (Allsopp 2011; Cook and Gordon 2010; Guo 2009). In all cases, abalone used as broodstock have been hatchery raised over multiple generations. As a result, there is some risk that escaped individuals may cross-breed with native wild populations. In areas where abalone are not native, there is also a

17

risk that escaped abalone will establish themselves as invasive species in surrounding ecosystems. Additionally, escaped abalone and their offspring may impact non-abalone species through direct competition for algae and other food, and as additional prey items for predators of shellfish, indirectly leading to increased predation pressure on other mollusc species. The combination of high escape risk and moderately low risk of invasiveness results in Criterion 6.1 being assigned a score of 5 out of 10.

Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principal farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments. This is an “exceptional criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score.

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 10.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 5.00

C6 Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Justification of Ranking According to US National Marine Fisheries Service statistics, the US does not import live abalone; all live, farmed abalone in the US market are domestically grown (NMFS Office of Science and Technology 2011). Abalone produced in Asia for Asian markets are typically canned or frozen; sale of live abalone is relatively rare (Allsopp 2011). Larval and juvenile abalone are generally produced locally with no international movement of stock and minimal risk of the unintentional introduction of alien species.

18

Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their

retransmission to local wild species that share the same water body Sustainability unit: wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and

parasites. Principle: aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 4.00

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite final score 4.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Justification of ranking There is a moderate concern of pathogen and parasite transmission between wild and cultured populations. Both wild and cultured abalone on the west coast of North America have been afflicted with withering syndrome, a disease caused by infection with the bacterium “Candidatus Xenohaliotis californiensis” (Elston and Ford 2011; Moore et al. 2002). Abalone may harbor the bacteria in their gastrointestinal tract with no ill effect; it is only in waters warmer than 18°C/64°F that the infection becomes lethal (Elston and Ford 2011; Moore et al. 2000). Withering syndrome causes the abalone’s muscular foot to atrophy and shrink, eventually killing the animal and destroying salable meat. Transmission of “Ca. X. californiensis” occurs only between abalone, with no other vectors, though every species of Haliotis tested thus far has been susceptible (Moore et al. 2002). Infections of “Ca. X. californiensis” have not yet been observed in Chinese or Japanese waters. To prevent further spread of withering syndrome, abalone health is closely monitored throughout the global industry. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the governing body for live animal transport under the World Trade Organization, recommends regular testing of all farmed abalone and notification of any “Ca. X. californiensis” infection. These protocols have been internationally adopted as basic standards (Elston and Ford 2011). Chinese stocks of cultured abalone have been impacted by other diseases and parasites over the years. In 1994, disease killed more than 90% of the abalone in the still-fledgling industry, prompting aquaculturists to hybridize the H. discus hannai native to China with the H. discus hannai native to Japan. Today, the intraspecific hybrids show high disease resistance and account for 95% of farmed Chinese abalone (Guo 2009). The emergence of an extremely virulent herpes-like infection in southern Australia, Taiwan, and

19

China has recently become a concern in the region (Corbeil et al. 2012; Hooper et al. 2007; Jones and Fletcher 2012). This infection causes abalone viral ganglioneuritis (AVG), which results in inflammation and decay of nervous tissues with a 60–95% mortality rate within 14 days (Corbeil et al. 2012; Dang et al. 2011; Hooper et al. 2007). Australian outbreaks have led to high mortality events in surrounding wild populations when the virus was introduced to seawater through the placement of infected abalone in sea cages and discharge of water from land-based operations (Corbeil et al. 2012; Hooper et al. 2007). The disease criterion for abalone scored a 4 out of 10 because of the high risk of pathogen and parasite transmission between wild and cultured stocks. This risk is nevertheless somewhat mitigated by the presence of strong, industry-wide biosecurity regulations.

20

Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: the removal of fish from wild populations for on-growing to harvest size in farms Sustainability unit: wild fish populations Principle: aquaculture operations use eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm-

raised broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture

Source of stock parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement

100

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Justification of Ranking Sea ranching operations use captive broodstock that has been bred to enhance desirable traits. This broodstock has been separate from wild stocks for multiple generations and, in most cases, is hybridized with stock from other geographic areas or subspecies (Guo 2009). Collection of wild broodstock occurs rarely, if at all, thus reducing pressure on native abalone populations (Allsopp 2011; Elston and Ford 2011).

21

Overall Recommendation The overall final score is the average of the individual criterion scores (after the two exceptional scores have been deducted from the total). The overall ranking is decided according to the final score, the number of red criteria, and the number of critical scores as follows: – Best Choice = Final score ≥6.6 AND no individual criteria are Red (i.e., <3.3) – Good Alternative = Final score ≥3.3 AND <6.6, OR Final score ≥ 6.6 and there is one

individual Red criterion. – Red = Final score <3.3, OR there is more than one individual Red criterion, OR there is one

or more Critical score.

Abalone Haliotis spp.

China and Japan

Sea ranching

Criterion Score (0–10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 6.11 YELLOW N/A

C2 Effluent 8.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 1.43 RED NO

C4 Chemicals 8.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 10.00 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 6.00 YELLOW NO

C7 Disease 4.00 YELLOW NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN N/A

3.3X Wildlife mortalities -8.00 RED NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN N/A

Total 45.54

Final score 5.69

OVERALL RANKING

Final score 5.69

Initial rank YELLOW

Red criteria 2

Interim rank RED

Critical criteria? NO

Final rank AVOID

22

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® would like to thank Art Seavey (Director, California Aquaculture Association), Dr. James Moore (Shellfish pathologist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) and an anonymous reviewer for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

References Allsopp, M., F. Lafarga-De la Cruz, R. Flores-Aguilar, E. Watts. Abalone culture; In: Recent advances and

new species in aquaculture,Fotedar, R. (ed.), Phillips, B. (ed.), Wiley-Blackwell, October 2011,

416pp.

American Abalone Farms. Abalone aquaculture at American Abalone Farms in Davenport, California.

Accessed 26 Feb 2012. http://americanabalone.net/about-abalone.html

Aquaculture Stewardship Council (October 20, 2011). ASC abalone standard version 1.0. Aquaculture

Stewardship Council, 38pp.

BC Shellfish Grower’s Association (BCSGA) (2012). Abalone. BC Shellfish Grower’s Association. Accessed

10 Feb 2012 at: http://bcsga.ca/about/industry-encyclopedia/abalone/

Bell, J. D., K. M. Leber, H. L. Blankenship, N.R. Loneragan, R. Masuda (2008). A new era for restocking,

stock enhancement and sea ranching of coastal fisheries resources. Reviews in Fisheries Science

16 (1-3): 1-9. doi: 10.1080/10641260701776951

Big Island Abalone (2012). About our abalone. Accessed 26 Feb 2012 at:

http://www.bigislandabalone.com/aboutourabalone

Brady-Campbell, M. M., D. B. Campbell, M. M. Harlin (1984). Productivity of kelp (Laminaria spp.) near

the southern limit in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 18: 79-88.

Braje, T. J., J. M. Erlandson, T. C. Rick, P. K. Dayton, M. B. A. Hatch (2009). Fishing from past to present:

continuity and resilience of red abalone fisheries on the Channel Islands, California. Ecological

Applications 19(4): 906–919.

Brannen, C. (2009). Abalone aquaculture dialogue. WWF, 2pp.

Castilla, J. C. and S. Gelcich (2008). Management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas) as a driver for

self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. In: Townsend, R., R. Shotton, H. Uchida

(eds.). Case studies in fisheries self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper (FAO), no.504.

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Div., Rome (Italy). p. 441-451.

Cook, P. A. and H. R. Gordon (2010). World abalone supply, markets, and pricing. Journal of Shellfish

Research 29(3): 569-571.

Donnellan, M.D. and M.S. Foster (1999). The effects of small-scale kelp harvesting on giant kelp surface

canopy dynamics in the Ed Ricketts Underwater Park region. Final Report to the Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary and the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove. Accessed 26 Feb 2012

23

at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/research/techreports/kelpcover/kelpcover.html

Elston, R. A. and S. E. Ford (2011). Shellfish diseases and health management; In: Shellfish aquaculture

and the environment (ed. S. E. Shumway), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Ch. 13.

doi: 10.1002/9780470960967

FAO (China). 2004-2012. National aquaculture legislation overview: China. National aquaculture

legislation overview (NALO) fact sheets. Spreij, M. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

[online]. Rome. Updated 3 May 2004. [Cited 27 Feb 2012].

http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_china/en

FAO (Japan). 2005-2012. National aquaculture legislation overview: Japan. National aquaculture

legislation overview (NALO) fact sheets. Spreij, M. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

[online]. Rome. Updated 15 Nov 2004. [Cited 27 Feb 2012].

http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_japan/en

FAO (1990). Training manual on artificial breeding of abalone (Haliotis discus hannai) in Korea DPR.

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Accessed February 7, 2012 at http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/ab731e/AB731E01.htm

FAO Statistics and Information Service (2009). Summary tables of fishery statistics: Capture, aquaculture,

commodity and food balance sheets. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed February 7, 2012 at

ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/CDrom/CD_yearbook_2008/root/aquaculture/c1.pdf

Flores-Aguilar, R. A., A. Gutierrez, A. S. Ellwanger, R. Searcy-Bernal (2007). Development and current

status of abalone aquaculture in Chile. Journal of Shellfish Research 26(3): 705–711.

Godoy, C., G. Jerez (1998). The introduction of abalone in Chile: ten years later. Journal of Shellfish

Research 17(3): 603-605.

Guo, X. (2009). Use and exchange of genetic resources in molluscan aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture

1: 251–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-5131.2009.01014.x

Hernández, J., I. Uriarte, M. T. Viana, R. Westermeier, and A. Farías (2009). Growth performance of

weaning red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fed with Macrocystis pyrifera plantlets and Porphyra

columbina compared with a formulated diet. Aquaculture Research 40: 1694–1702.

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02267.x

Hishamunda, N. and R. P. Subasinghe (2003). Aquaculture development in China: the role of public

sector policies. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, no. 427. Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations, Rome. 56pp.

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2012). International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources. Retrieved from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/

James, D. S., R. W. Day, S. A. Shepherd (2007). Experimental abalone ranching on artificial reef in Port

Phillip Bay, Victoria. Journal of Shellfish Research 26(3): 687–695.

Jia, J. and J. Chen (2001). Sea farming and sea ranching in China. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 75pp.

Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2257E/Y2257E00.htm

Leighton, D. L. (1989). Abalone (genus Haliotis) mariculture on the North American Pacific coast. Fishery

Bulletin 87: 689-702.

McBride, S. C. (1998). Current status of abalone aquaculture in the Californias. Journal of Shellfish

24

Research 17(3): 593-600.

Moore, J. D., C. A. Finley, T. T. Robbins, C. S. Friedman (2002). Withering syndrome and restoration of

Southern California abalone populations. CalCOFI Rep. 43: 112-117.

Munoz, J., V. Kumar, R. Fotedar. Seaweed culture with special reference to Latin America; In: Recent

advances and new species in aquaculture,Fotedar, R. (ed.), Phillips, B. (ed.), Wiley-Blackwell,

October 2011, 416pp.

NMFS Office of Science and Technology (2011). Cumulative trade data by product. Personal

communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver

Spring, MD. Accessed February 7, 2012 at

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/cumulative_data/TradeDataProduct.html

Oakes, F. R. and R. D. Ponte (1996). The abalone market: Opportunities for cultured abalone.

Aquaculture 140: 187-195.

Perez-Estrada, C. J., R. Civera-Cerecedo, A. Hernandez-Llamas, E. Serviere-Zaragoza (2011). Growth and

biochemical composition of juvenile green abalone Haliotis fulgens fed rehydrated macroalgae.

Aquaculture Nutrition 17: e62-e69. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2095.2009.00733.x

Talberth, J., K. Wolowicz, J. Venetoulis, M. Gelobter, P. Boyle, B. Mott (2006). The ecological fishprint of

nations, measuring humanity’s impact on marine ecosystems. Redefining Progress, Oakland, 10

pp.

USDA Centers for Epidemiology & Animal Health (1995). Overview of aquaculture in the United States.

United States Department of Agriculture, 28pp.

Winter, F. C. and J. A. Estes (1992). Experimental evidence for the effects of polyphenolic compounds

from Dictyoneurum californicum Ruprecht (Phaeophyta : Laminariales) on feeding rate and

growth in the red abalone Haliotus rufescens Swainson. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 155: 263-277.

Wu, H., Natural Choice Sea Products, professional process management – shellfish ecological

aquaculture and safety control in the north of the Yellow Sea; In: Global Trade Conference on

Aquaculture, 29-31 May 2007 Qingdao, China ; FAO Fisheries Proceedings (FAO) , no. 9; Global

Trade Conference on Aquaculture, 1, Qingdao (China), 29-31 May 2007 Arthur, R. (ed.)

Nierentz, J. (ed.) / FAO, Rome (Italy). Fisheries and Aquaculture Dept. , 2007, p. 261-267

Zimmerman, R. C. and J. N. Kremer (1986). In situ growth and chemical composition of the giant kelp,

Macrocystis pyrifera: response to temporal changes in ambient nutrient availability. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 27: 277-285.

25

About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices”, “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid”. The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990. Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

26

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program: Seafood Watch will:

Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make

information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant

stakeholders.

Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the

farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control

the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the

immediate vicinity of the farm.

Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively

maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing

historic habitat damage.

Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use

and discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency,

risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use

Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative

indicators to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of

conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

fish or shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression,

hybridization, spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated

with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated

broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture

recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a

major impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

27

practices for some criteria may lead to more energy intensive production systems (e.g.

promoting more energy-intensive closed recirculation systems)

Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide: Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways. Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

28

Data points and all scoring calculations

This is a condensed version of the criteria and scoring sheet to provide access to all data points and calculations. See the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for a full explanation of the criteria, calculations and scores. Yellow cells represent data entry points.

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data

Quality Score (0-10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5

Effluent Yes 7.5 7.5

Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5

Predators and wildlife Yes 5 5

Chemical use Yes 5 5

Feed Yes 7.5 7.5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 5 5

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not

relevant n/a

Total 55

C1 Data Final Score 6.1 YELLOW

Criterion 2: Effluents

Effluent concern Effluent or pollution examples Score

No concern The species produced is extractive, or not provided external feed or nutrient fertilization and has no other effluent or waste impacts

The production system does not discharge soluble or solid nutrient wastes, or data show all wastes are treated on site, or collected and disposed of appropriately

Data show the effluent discharged is of the same quality as the influent water supply

10

Low Data show no evidence that effluent discharges cause (or contribute to cumulative) local or regional impacts

8

Low-moderate Data show no evidence that discharges cause (or contribute to cumulative) impacts beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm or discharge point

6

29

Moderate

Data show only occasional, temporary or minor evidence of impacts beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm or discharge point, or contributions to cumulative local or regional impacts

4

Moderate-high Data show evidence of frequent impacts beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm or discharge point, or contributions to cumulative local or regional impacts

2

High Data show discharges consistently cause impacts beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm or discharge point, and/or contribute to cumulative local or regional impacts

0

Critical Data show discharges from aquaculture operations lead to population declines in key indicator species beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm or discharge point, or result in mortality of protected or endangered species

C

Effluent Rapid Assessment

C2 Effluent Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Criterion 3: Habitat

3.1. Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 2

3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry)

Factor 3.2a - Regulatory or management effectiveness

Question Scoring Score

1 - Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological principles, including an EIAs requirement for new sites?

No 0

2 - Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts and the maintenance of ecosystem function?

No 0

3 – Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services?

No 0

4 - Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e. avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty)

Moderately 0.5

5 - Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or critical habitats or ecosystem services?

No 0

0.5

30

Factor 3.2b - Siting regulatory or management enforcement

Question Scoring Score

1 - Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, and are they appropriate to the scale of the industry?

Moderately 0.5

2 - Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning or other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control measures?

No 0

3 - Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and their cumulative impacts?

No 0

4 - Is the enforcement process transparent - e.g. public availability of farm locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc?

Moderately 0.5

5 - Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control measures are being achieved?

Moderately 0.5

1.5

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 0.30

C3 Habitat Final Score 1.43 RED

Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and Predator Final Score -8.00 RED

Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 8.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed

5.1. Wild Fish Use

Factor 5.1a - Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO)

Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 0

Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0

% FM 0

Fish oil inclusion level (%) 0

31

Fish oil from by-products (%) 0

% FO 0

Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5

Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 1.75

FIFO fishmeal 0.00

FIFO fish oil 0.00

Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 0.00

FIFO Score 10.00

Factor 5.1b - Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF)

SSWF 0

SSWF Factor 0

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 10.00

5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 11.73

eFCR 1.75

Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 100

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 0

Protein OUTPUTS

Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 17.1

Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 35

Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 0

Protein IN 0.00

Protein OUT 5.985

Net protein gain or loss (%) 5985000

Critical? NO

F5.2 Net protein Score 10.00

5.3. Feed Footprint

5.3a Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood

Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 0

eFCR 1.75

Average Primary Productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7

32

Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68

Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 0.34

5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 0

Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0

Conversion ratio of crop ingedients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 1.75

Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.00

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 0.34

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 10.00

C5 Feed Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 0

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS)

Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the 90

escape site

Recapture & Mortality Score 0.9

Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 9

6.1b. Invasiveness

Part A – Native species

Score 1

Part B – Non-Native species

Score 0

33

Part C – Native and Non-native species

Question Score

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? To some extent

Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations? No

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb breeding behavior of the same or other species?

To some extent

Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g. by feeding, foraging, settlement or other)?

To some extent

Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? No

3.5

F 6.1b Score 4.5

Final C6 Score 6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 10.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 5.00

F6.2X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 4.00

C7 Disease, pathogen, and parasite Final Score 4.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of stock parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement

100

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10 GREEN