In collaboration with

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

©New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Bell Aquaculture, Indiana, US

Closed-containment: Land-based Recirculating System

November 29, 2012 Jenna Stoner – Seafood Ecology Research Group

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 Yellow perch farmed at Bell Aquaculture in a land-based, closed-containment system received a green ranking in all criteria with the exception of ‘Feed,’ which scored yellow. The overall rank

for this product is green and is listed as a ‘Best Choice.’

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Bell Aquaculture, Indiana, United States Closed-containment land based recirculating system

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical ?

C1 Data 8.61 GREEN n/a

C2 Effluent 10.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 7.27 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 5.41 YELLOW NO

C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 8.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN n/a

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN n/a

Total 69.29

Final Score 8.66

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

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 8.66

Initial rank GREEN

Red Criteria 0

Intermediate Rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final rank BEST CHOICE

3

Executive Summary

Bell Aquaculture, a land-based, closed-containment farm in Indiana, was the only farm assessed for yellow perch production. They were the only closed-containment yellow perch farm in North America with a strong online presence producing at a marketable scale. Overall, Bell performed very well receiving a final score of 8.66 and an overall green rank. It received green ranks on all criteria with the exception of feed for which it scored 5.41 (yellow). The land-based, closed-containment system used at Bell Aquaculture operates at ~99% recirculation. The nature of the system greatly minimizes many of the environmental risks commonly associated with finfish aquaculture because the growing environment, inflowing and outflowing water, and effluent can all be monitored and controlled on site. For this reason, the ‘Effluent,’ ‘Chemicals,’ and ‘Escapes’ criteria all scored 10. The feed criterion scored moderately, due to a lack of available data. Some communication was made with Zeigler Feeds, the company that supplies feed to Bell Aquaculture, however, they could not disclose all the required information due to proprietary laws, and as a result some of the feed data had to be taken from broad country-species values found in the literature. In instances where values derived from the literature had to be applied to this assessment, the assessor used a conservative approach to ensure that the final score did not overstate the sustainability of the farm in question.

4

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ............................................................ 5

Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Scoring guide .......................................................................................................................... 6

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ............................................................................... 6

Criterion 2: Effluents .............................................................................................................. 8

Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 10

Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities .................................................................... 11

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................................................. 16

Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ................................................... 18

Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ....................................... 19

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 20

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 21

References .................................................................................................................................... 21

About SeaChoice® ......................................................................................................................... 23

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 24

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 25

Data points and all scoring calculations........................................................................................ 27

5

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation The intent of this report was to develop an assessment for yellow perch being farmed in closed-containment in North America. After multiple online queries and personal communications with members of the closed-containment aquaculture industry, Bell Aquaculture was identified as the only farm raising yellow perch in closed-containment at a marketable scale. Given the small scale of the industry, producer participation was critical in developing accurate assessments because production statistics and farming details are not otherwise publicly available. Fortunately, the members of Bell Aquaculture were highly cooperative throughout the assessment process. Overall, this assessment remains farm-specific—all information, data, scores and rankings speak only to yellow perch raised in closed-containment at Bell Aquaculture. Species Overview Yellow perch (Persca flavescens) is native to North America inhabiting lakes and large rivers from the eastern seaboard, west to the Rockie Mountains, north to the Northwest Territories and down to South Carolina. There has been an active commercial fishery namely in the Great Lakes for over 100 years (Brown et al. 2009), with reported landings in 2010 of 4,270 mt and 797 mt in Canada and the US, respectively (DFO 2012; National Marine Fisheries Service 2012). A large portion of the Canadian landings are exported to the US as the largest demand for yellow perch exists in the North Central US It is estimated that almost 70% of yellow perch sales within the U.S. occur within 80 km of the Great Lakes region (Malison 2000). The development of the yellow perch aquaculture idustry has been slow. In early 2000, some funded research about broodstock and feed development was conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), but there are still no farms producing at a marketable scale in Canada (DFO 2011). The 2005 American Aquaculture Census (2007) cites 40 farms growing yellow perch to food size, producing 110 000 pounds (55 mt). Since these production statistics were published, Bell Aquaculture, a land-based, closed-containment in Albany, Indiana, started bringing farm-raised yellow perch to market. Their expected annual production for 2012 was 450 MT (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.), which would easily place them as the largest yellow perch farm in the US. Bell Aquaculture sells its product as fillets, fresh or frozen, and as added-value fillets (i.e. dressed, breaded) to local restaurants, grocery stores and online. They also produce a soil fertilizer, FishRich, with the fish waste products (solid effluent and processing by-product) which can be purchased online (Bell Aquaculture 2012).

6

Analysis

Scoring guide With the exception of the ‘exceptional’ factors (3.3x and 6.2X), all scores result in a zero to

ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional factors result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero indicates no negative impact.

The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available here.

The 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. Criterion 1 Summary

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

Industry or production statistics Yes 10 10

Effluent Yes 10 10

Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5

Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10

Chemical use Yes 10 10

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 10 10

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not relevant n/a

Total 77.5

C1 Data Final Score 8.61 GREEN

7

The data quality score was achieved as a result of transparent data sharing on behalf of Bell Aquaculture. Justification of Ranking This assessment is specific to a single farm raising yellow perch in a closed-containment system. The owners were highly cooperative and provided much of the requested information, which resulted in an overall high data quality score. Personal communications with farm representatives along with online video tours of the farm provided a complete picture of general on-site operations. Detailed information was made available regarding effluent, location, predators and wildlife, chemical use, escapes, and source of stock, and hence these all scored highly. Some information was made available with respect to the feed being used on-site, however, much of the requested information falls under proprietary information of the feed producer and thus it could not be obtained at this time. It should be noted that due to the scale of production and the focus of this assessment on a single farm that much of the information was not independently verified or peer-reviewed and it was collected over a relatively small time frame. The data provided by the producer along with knowledge of the closed-containment system used, ensured the author was able to conduct the assessment with confidence.

8

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.

Criterion 2 Summary Bell Aquaculture grows all its yellow perch in a closed-containment, land-based facility, which allows it to collect, treat, and dispose of solid effluent in an appropriate way. Rapid assessment – used when good quality data clearly defines an appropriate score Bell Aquaculture provided high quality data regarding its on-site operations and treatment of effluent, which allowed the author to use the rapid assessment with confidence. Bell Aquaculture scored 10 as its land-based closed-containment system allows it to collect solid wastes prior to discharge. Justification of Ranking Effluent, the waste discharged by a fish farm, has been identified as a major environmental impact of the aquaculture industry. The degree to which effluent may negatively impact the surrounding environment varies depending on the farmed species, production system, quality of feed, on-site husbandry practices and local management regimes. Numerous efforts have been made to minimize impact of effluent including maximizing feed conversion ratios, building of settling ponds, and adding structures such as “lift-ups” that collect settling effluent from the bottom of cages. One of the most successful ventures thus far in addressing effluent impacts has been the development of closed-containment aquaculture systems. These systems, which

are often land-based, allow producers to control the quality of both inflowing and outflowing water. By doing so, producers are able to negate common environmental impacts of nutrient loading that are associated with traditional farming methods. Bell Aquaculture raises its yellow perch in a land-based closed-containment system that operates at ~99% recirculation. Solid effluent is collected from the tanks and recirculating water, and nutrients are reclaimed for use in row crop or horticulture applications. The fish

Effluent Rapid Assessment

C2 Effluent Final Score 10.00 GREEN

9

processing solid residuals are ensiled/emulsified and converted into nutrient-rich fertilizers sold to land-based agriculture operations under the labels FishRich and FishRich+. FishRich is listed as organic under the Organic Materials Review Institute and approved for use in organic crop production under the USDA National Organic Program rules. (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.). All outflowing water from both their grow-out site and processing plant are discharged, after the removal of solid wastes, into a neighboring stream in accordance with the farms National Pollution and Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Under compliance of NPDES, the processing plant discharge is tested weekly for BOD, oil and grease, pH, phosphorous, total suspended solids, ammonia and flow. Additional monthly tests for flow, CBOD, pH, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids and ammonia also occur. (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.). Furthermore, Bell Aquaculture is working to minimize the effects of its effluent even more by working on a catchment system that would allow it to collect smaller solid waste particles, and increase the amount of removed oil and grease. The company has also constructed an artificial wetland on site to help filter the fish farm’s liquid effluent before it is discharged into the receiving stream (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.). Overall, Bell Aquaculture demonstrated appropriate treatment is in place to mitigate the impacts of solid effluent, resulting in a score of 10 for this criterion.

10

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.

Criterion 3 Summary

A score of 8 (green) was achieved for the habitat criterion as Bell Aquaculture was found to be maintaining full functionality of the surrounding habitat, and the local regulatory and management bodies were found to be moderately effective. Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function Bell Aquaculture is sited on old farmland that was originally used for dairy and grain farming. There is a classified wetland in the woods behind the actual farm location, which Bell is helping to protect. Bell has also built an artificial wetland environment closer to the farm site that helps filter the farm effluent prior to being discharged into the receiving stream. The farm in question is in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Rule 5 and Rule 6, which is a thorough piece of legislation created to "establish requirements for storm water discharges [...] so that the public health, existing water uses, and aquatic biota are protected" (EPA 1996). Rule 5 speaks specifically to construction sites, while Rule 6 speaks to industrial activity. In accordance with Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the NPDES there are a number of temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures in place. Additionally, Bell is required to conduct annual monitoring at discharge sites. All evidence suggests that current operations at Bell Aquaculture are maintaining full functionality of the surrounding habitat and ecosystems and thus scored a 10 on this criterion.

Habitat parameters Value Score

F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 10.00

F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 3.25

F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 3.25

F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 4.23

C3 Habitat Final Score 8.08 GREEN

Critical? NO

11

Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) The Indiana Aquaculture Permit Procedures and Regulations are heavily focused on animal heath and animal movement and do not address farm siting (Indiana Department of Natural Resources 1997). Bell Aquaculture is more greatly governed by national policy and regulations. The primary applicable national program is the NPDES, which is a national effort, under the Clean Water Act, to "establish requirements for storm water discharges [...] so that the public health, existing water uses, and aquatic biota are protected" (EPA 2009). Bell Aquaculture is in compliance with Rule 5 and Rule 6, which speak specifically to construction sites and to industrial activity, respectively. Applications that fall under these regulations must provide detailed descriptions of the site, operations, monitoring plans, mitigation plans and response plans with respect to all activities that may impact storm water. These regulations, although thorough, consider only discharge and storm water. They do not address potential habitat loss, energy usage, air quality or other factors that a complete environmental impact assessment (EIA) would include. Although Bell Aquaculture did not have to conduct an EIA prior to receiving its operating license, it did get a third party consulting company to complete an Environmental Risk Management Information Report (EDR) that focused on the geology and hydrology of the site and voluntarily provided this report to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm. 2012). Under the NPDES, Bell Aquaculture is also adherent to Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) regulations, which apply to all fish farms in the United States that produce more than 100,000 pounds of seafood per year (EPA 2006). The CAAP and Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the NPDES have specific sections that set out required annual monitoring at discharge sites and states that all sites operating under these regulations are subject to inspection and enforcement (EPA 2006). Inspection typically occurs upon notice of potential violation, suggesting that a lack of inspection is actually a positive thing. Overall there is strong regulation and management at a national scale that applies to the aquaculture industry. One challenge that faces closed-containment facilities such as Bell Aquaculture is that its operations typically run at a higher level of environmental stewardship then are required by local legislation. This is because legislation, often directed towards net-pen, cage and pond facilities, has yet to ‘catch-up’ with new technological advancements in the industry. In this assessment, all the points under this factor were assessed as per the current writings of legislation and policy unless there was exceptional evidence that the farm was operating at a higher standard. As such, the author ensures the final score is truly reflective of the habitat and farm siting management effectiveness.

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.

12

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.

Factor 3.3X Summary

Interaction with wildlife and predators was determined to be of no concern at Bell Aquaculture as the facility is fully contained within secure buildings. Justification of Ranking As a land-based, closed-contained system, Bell Aquaculture operates in a fully enclosed and secure building. This minimizes all risk of interaction with wildlife and predators. F3.3X Wildlife and predator score There is no concern of interaction with wildlife and predators at Bell Aquaculture and hence a score of 0 was awarded for this exceptional factor.

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

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.

Criterion 4 Summary A score of 10 was achieved on the chemical criterion because there is low chemical use on site, and the nature of the closed-containment, recirculating facility that greatly minimizes the discharge of any active chemicals. Justification of Ranking Bell Aquaculture scored 10 on the chemical use criterion because the farm operates as a closed system, which both minimizes the need for chemical use and allows any discharges to be treated and monitored prior to release. Due to good husbandry and strong biosecurity practices, Bell Aquaculture operates as an antibiotic-free, parasiticides-free and chemotheraputant-free facility. Jane Ferguson provided a list of chemicals used on site for cleaning and disinfection purposes, which include:

Muriatic acid

Sodium carbonate (soda ash)

6% chlorine bleach solution

68% sodium hypochlorite/calcium hypochlorite

Sodium thiosulfate (used to neutralize the sodium hypochlorite)

Vikron Aquatic

Sodium chloride (occasionally used therapeutically at levels of 2-4 ppt in specific systems)

All of the above mentioned chemicals are commonly used as disinfectants and for biosecurity

reasons throughout the agricultural industry, and have been shown to have demonstrably low impact on the environment when used in diluted concentrations. As Bell Aquaculture operates under compliance with NPDES, it is required to test discharge sites at least once per year and no adverse environmental effects have been identified so far.

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

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.

Criterion 5 Summary

Feed parameters Value Score

F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 1.35 6.63

F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00

F5.1: Wild Fish Use 5.82

F5.2a Protein IN 40.28

F5.2b Protein OUT 18.87

F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -53.16 4

F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 10.18 6

C5 Feed Final Score 5.41 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Overall, the feed criterion for Bell Aquaculture scored 5.41 suggesting moderate conservation concern. This results from moderate scores being awarded in all of the three subcategories: wild fish use, net protein gain/loss, and feed footprint. Justification of Ranking Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use Bell Aquaculture is currently using a finfish, omnivorous feed produced by Zeigler, a Pennsylvanian-based feed company. Specific values for fishmeal and fish oil inclusion levels were not provided by Zeigler, however they stated that they are lower than 20% and 5%, respectively (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.). With this being the only data available, a fishmeal inclusion level of 19.5% and fish oil inclusion level of 4.5% were used for this assessment. The feed company confirmed that they do not use by-product materials in their fishmeal or fish oil. The operating economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) was not made available by Bell. FCR values found in the literature were typically from experimental results and varied greatly from 1.0 to 6.5. Values on the higher end of the spectrum (like 6.5) were certainly outliers and the result of feeding yellow perch at unfavorable temperatures (Brown et al. 2002). The majority of FCRs fell between 1.0 -2.8 and thus a median value of 1.5 was applied in this assessment (Hart

15

et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2002; Wallat et al. 2005). This is likely to be a relatively conservative estimate because feeding is typically optimized in closed-contained systems. As a result, the fish in: fish out ratio for this feed was calculated to be 1.30 and 1.35 for fishmeal and fish oil, respectively. The source fisheries used to produce Zeigler Feeds could not be identified. There is some indication from personal communications with Jane Ferguson that they source from a certified sustainable fishery, however, details about which fishery and which certifications were not made available. As such, the sustainability of the source of wild fish scores as ‘unknown’ (-6). Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss The feed used at Bell Aquaculture has a protein content of 40%, of which approximately 30% is derived from non-edible sources. The protein content of a whole harvested yellow perch was found to be 18.87% (Guan et al. 2005) and 45% of the harvested fish is edible (B. Manci, 2000). Bell Aquaculture operates their own processing plant, where they collect all non-edible by-products from processing and use them in the production of their fertilizers, FishRich and FishRich+. This resulted in a final score of 4 for this criterion. Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint Inclusion levels of crop feed ingredients and land animal products could not be identified for the Zeigler feed used at Bell Aquaculture. It is known that the feed has a fishmeal inclusion level of 19.5% and a fish oil inclusion level of 4.5%, which leaves 76% of the feed ingredients unattributed. Because there were no data to inform otherwise, this 76% was divided equally among the crop feed ingredients and land animal products, resulting in 38% inclusion levels for each. As such, the feed footprint factor scored 6.

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.

Criterion 6 Summary

This criterion scored 10 because Bell Aquaculture operates as a land-based, closed-containment system thus there is no risk of escapes.

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape risk Bell aquaculture operates as a land-based, closed-containment, recirculation facility. They have appropriate filters and screens in place that eliminate the risk of potential escapes and have never experienced an escape event. This factor scored 10. Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness Bell Aquaculture holds its own broodstock on site and sourced its original broodfish from an individual who had been raising yellow perch for over 20 year, and, as such, current stock is more than 4 generations hatchery-raised (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.). If an escape event were to occur, the escapees would carry a risk of being invasive with the potential to compete for food and habitat, act as additional predation pressure on native populations and compete with wild native populations for breeding partners; however, given the security of the operating system, responses to these questions are theoretical.

Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principle farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments.

Escape parameters Value Score

F6.1 Escape Risk 10.00

F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0

F6.1b Invasiveness 3

C6 Escape Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

17

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. Factor 6.2X Summary

Bell Aquaculture does not depend on international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments and thus there is no concern of unintentionally introduced species escaping. Justification of Ranking There is no concern of escaped, unintentionally introduced species because Bell Aquaculture holds its broodstock on-site and thus it no longer relies on live animal shipments. This exceptional criterion scored 0.

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

C6 Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

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. Criterion 7 Summary This criterion scored 8 because the risk of disease at Bell Aquaculture is low due to stringent biosecurity practices. Although some infections have occurred on-site due to opportunistic pathogens, these are rare events that occur in isolation in different systems (i.e. not facility wide) and there is no evidence of increased infection rates in wild fish. Justification of Ranking The nature of the production system inherently minimizes the risk of pathogen introduction because inflowing water is groundwater that is free from obligate pathogens, and fry coming on site can be treated before entering the system. Site tours are also limited for this reason. Water quality and chemistry is tested daily to ensure optimal growing conditions. Fish of concern are collected and sent to Purdue University for testing. It was not made clear how common it is to find 'fish of concern' on site; however, it was stated that Bell stocks at a higher density (increased 10%) to account for mortality and unthrifty fish. The farm has limited connection to natural fish populations and is able to treat outflowing water prior to discharge into stream. The farm does test for many other chemical features in outflowing water prior to discharge in compliance with NPDES rules; however, this does not address potential pathogen release. Additionally, solid waste is collected and used as fertilizer but it is not known if this product is tested for potential pathogen and parasite contamination. (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.).

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 8.00

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

19

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. Criterion 8 Summary

Bell Aquaculture’s source of stock is fully domesticated and thus this criterion scored 10. Justification of Ranking Original broodfish were sourced from an individual who had been raising yellow perch for over 20 years and Bell now holds its own broodstock on site (Jane Ferguson, pers. comm.). As such its source of stock is fully independent from wild fisheries (i.e. 100% domesticated), which results in a score of 10 for this criterion.

Source of stock parameters Score

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

100

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

20

Overall Recommendation The overall recommendation is as follows: 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.

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical ?

C1 Data 8.61 GREEN n/a

C2 Effluent 10.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 7.27 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 5.41 YELLOW NO

C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 8.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN n/a

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN n/a

Total 69.29

Final Score 8.66

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 8.66

Initial rank GREEN

Red Criteria 0

Intermediate Rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final rank BEST CHOICE

21

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 Dr. Steve Summerfelt, Director of Aquaculture Systems Research at the Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

References

Bell Aquaculture. 2012. Our Products. [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://www.bellaquaculture.com/our-products/ Brown, P.B., J.E. Wetzel, J. Mays, K.A. Wilson, C.S. Kasper & J. Malison (2002): Growth Differences Among Stocks of Yellow Perch, Perca flavescens, Are Temperature Dependent, Journal of Applied Aquaculture, 12:1, 43-56 Brown, T.G., Runciman, B., Bradford, M.J., Pollard, S. 2009. A Biological Synopsis of Yellow Perch. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. NPDES General Permit Rule Program. In: Indiana Administrative Code. [Internet] accessed 12 July 2012 from www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03270/A00150.PDF Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category (EPA 821-B-05-001). Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2011. Yellow perch (Perca Flavescens): Broodstock, feed development and commercial production. [Internet] accessed 30 June 2012 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/enviro/aquaculture/acrdp-pcrda/projects/info-eng.asp?pro=CA-02-01-004&cp=&srch= Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012. Commercial Fisheries Landings 2012. [Internet] Accessed 30 June 2012 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/commercial/land-debarq/freshwater-eaudouce/2010-eng.htm

22

Guan, M., Wang, J., and Zhang, L. 2005. Meet Composition of Yellow Perch Produced in Central China. Aqauculture America - Meeting Abstract. Accessed 06 March 2012 from https://www.was.org/Meetings/AbstractData.asp?AbstractId=7918 Hart, S.D., Garling, D.L., Malison, J.A. 2006. Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) Culture Guide. NCRAC Culture Series #103. p.56 [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://www.extension.org/mediawiki/files/4/4a/Yellow_Perch_Culture_Guide.pdf Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1997. 312 IAC 9-10-17 Aquaculture Permit. [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/aquaculture_permit.pdf Malison, J. 2000. A White Paper on the Status and Needs of Yellow Perch Aquaculture in the North Central Region. Prepared for the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center. [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://www.ncrac.org/oldfiles/NR/rdonlyres/B3058C05-7839-4107-88FE-C000CA9E9766/0/whitepaperyellowperch.pdf Manci, B. 2000. Prospects for Yellow Perch Aquaculture. [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://www.ftai.com/articles/GAAManciDec00.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. [Internet] Accessed 30 June 2012 from http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html United States Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Aquaculture Publication. [Internet] Accessed 30 June 2012 from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/ Wallat, G.K., Tiu, L.G., Wang, H.P., Rapp, D., Leighfield, C. 2005. The effects of size grading on production efficiency and growth performance of yellow perch in earthen ponds. North American Journal of Aquaculture. 67: 34-41 Personal Communications Jane Ferguson, Operations Coordinator at Bell Aquaculture, 2012.

23

About SeaChoice® SeaChoice, Canada’s most comprehensive sustainable seafood program, is about solutions for healthy oceans. Launched in 2006, SeaChoice was created to help Canadian businesses and shoppers take an active role in supporting sustainable fisheries and aquaculture at all levels of the seafood supply chain. Based on scientific assessments, SeaChoice has created easy-to-use tools that help you make the best seafood choices. Working in collaboration with the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s acclaimed Seafood Watch program, SeaChoice undertakes science-based seafood assessments, provides informative resources for consumers, and supports businesses through collaborative partnerships. The SeaChoice program is operated by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society and Sierra Club BC. Our work is funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Webster Foundation, and the Eden Foundation.

24

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.

25

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.

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

26

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

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.

27

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

Criterion 2: Effluents Rapid Assessment

C2 Score 10.00

Criterion 3: Habitat 33.1 Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 10.00

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?

yes 1

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

mostly 0.75

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

moderately 0.5

4 - Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e. avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance

yes 1

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

Industry or production statistics Yes 10 10

Effluent Yes 10 10

Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5

Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10

Chemical use Yes 10 10

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 10 10

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) yes 10 10

Total 87.5

C1 Data Final Score 8.75 GREEN

28

with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty)

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

no 0

3.25

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?

mostly 1

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

yes 1

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

mostly 1

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

partly 0.5

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

moderately

1

3.25

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 4.23

C3 Habitat Final Score 8.08 GREEN

Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and Predator Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence of Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed

29

5.1 Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1a – Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 19.5

Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0

% FM 19.5

Fish oil inclusion level (%) 4.5

Fish oil from by-products (%) 0

% FO 4.5

Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5

Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 1.5

FIFO fishmeal 1.30

FIFO fish oil 1.35

Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 1.35

FIFO Score 6.63

Factor 5.1b – Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF) SSWF -6

SSWF Factor -0.81

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 5.82

5.2 Net Protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 40

eFCR 1.5

Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 30

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP sources (%) 10

Protein OUTPUTS

Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 18.87

Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 45

Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 100

Protein IN 40.28

Protein OUT 18.87

Net protein gain or loss (%) -53.15758117

Critical? NO

F5.2 Net protein Score 4.00

5.3 Feed Footprint

30

Factor 5.3a – Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 24

eFCR 1.5

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

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

Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 9.36

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

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 37

Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 37

Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 1.5

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

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.82

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 10.18

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 6.00

C5 Feed Final Score 5.41 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes Factor 6.1a – Escape Risk

Escape Risk 10

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS)

Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the 0

escape site

Recapture & Mortality Score 0

Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 10

Factor 6.1b – Invasiveness Part A – Native Species

Score 1

Part C – Native and non-native species

31

Question Score

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? yes 1

Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations? yes 1

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

yes 1

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

No 0

Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? No 0

2 2

F 6.1b Score 3

Final C6 Score 10.00 GREEN

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 (%) 0.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

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

GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 8.00

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 8.00

Critical? NO GREEN

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of stock parameters Score

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

100

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10

GREEN