Putting Offshore Aquaculture in Perspective

In the national push to expand United States aquaculture in offshore waters, it seems that everyone is either all for it or dead-set against it. There is so much misinformation circulating that it has become difficult to make an informed decision on the issue. Let’s look at some of the background of the National Aquaculture Plan and some of the facts about marine aquaculture in this country.

What is “Offshore” and why does anyone want to grow fish there?
Generally, “offshore” refers to federal waters (aka the Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ) from 3 to 200 miles out. Growing seafood in inshore areas (along the coasts) of the U.S. is practical in very few cases, for several reasons:

1. Wetland and water quality regulations often prevent siting aquaculture operations in coastal zones.
2. In many areas, coastal property is expensive, and landowners don’t want highly visible commercial operations in their view.
3. Conflicts with other existing users (particularly navigation, and commercial and recreational fishing) can be serious.
4. Most states limit private use of public waters.
5. Growing seafood is neither easy nor cheap to accomplish, particularly in our country, with relatively high labor costs.

If marine aquaculture is an expensive process, how can anyone make money at it?
Much of our cultured marine seafood is shrimp, coming from countries with cheap coastal land, limited environmental regulations and low labor costs. In addition, many countries have plowed public funds into development of aquaculture industries. Some of the cultured seafood that is pouring into U.S. markets is being processed and packaged in brand new, state-of-the-art plants, built using various amounts of national economic-incentive funds.

Another factor in the push to develop U.S. aquaculture offshore is the escalating value of premium seafoods. As stated previously, growing fish is a fairly expensive process, but the success of the salmon farming industry is an example of a situation where the market will bear the price of a valued seafood product. Other examples of marine fish that are supporting relatively high values include recent successes with cobia (in a number of places) and Kona Kampachi (aka almaco jack) in Hawaii. The latter types of fast-growing, high-value marine fish are the most likely candidates for Gulf of Mexico offshore culture. The technology for construction of large deep water net-pens has been developing rapidly in these and other operations, such as tuna grow-out. Tuna grow- out involves the capture of young tunas, which are then fed in open-water pens until they reach premium value. Profitability for this type of operation was considered extremely unlikely in previous decades, but current values for prime tuna have created an explosion in this industry.

Why is the U.S. government promoting aquaculture?
Basically, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other administration sources are concerned about the trade imbalance in seafood. At present, we import about 80 percent of all the seafood we eat (and more than 90 percent of the shrimp). The National Offshore Aquaculture Act was first introduced in 2005, but failed to move out of Congress. Revisions were made, particularly to address perceived weaknesses in permitting processes and to address environmental concerns, and the bill became the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007. A major push to advance this initiative by using the Gulf of Mexico as the early model is currently being considered by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.

What are the concerns with this initiative? Are they valid?
Like most of the “green” groups, the folks at Food and Water Watch believe “This plan is bad for human health, the ocean environment, and coastal fishing communities. Advocates of this dirty and dangerous industry are hoping to sneak it into the Gulf under the radar of public opinion….” A critical look at the long list of Food and Water Watch concerns:

1) Concerns for Coastal Communities: the development of offshore aquaculture in the Gulf could depress fish prices and negatively impact commercial and recreational fishermen and women.

Possible but unlikely. Salmon farming did cause reduced value in wild salmon for a while, but these fish were being farmed in several countries, and oversupply became a problem. Now, good marketing is putting wild salmon into a superior position. Seafood from U.S. offshore aquaculture will probably never be cheap. It’s just as likely that high-value cultured fish could help bring prices up. Coastal fishing communities are currently in crisis in this country: the flood of imports and the high costs of fuel and insurance and everything else are pushing people out of the business. New fish-growing industries could be sources of badly needed income in coastal communities.

2) Consumer Health Concerns: The draft amendment allows for the use of federally approved antibiotics, hormones, antifoulants and pesticides in offshore aquaculture. It fails to require testing of fish feed for contaminants such as PCBs, dioxins and mercury, which can accumulate in the flesh of farmed fish.

Valid, but unlikely. The list of federally approved fish treatments is very short, even shorter than the lists for other food animal culture. Fish farmers will have to be careful in the use of any treatments, due to regulations and constraints of profitability. Contaminants in fish feed are no more or less of a problem than they are in any animal feed, or in the flesh of wild fish, for that matter.

3) Environmental Concerns: The draft amendment fails to cap aquaculture operations’ use of feed containing fishmeal and fish oil produced from wild fish. It can take two to six pounds of wild fish, such as Gulf menhaden, to produce one pound of farmed fish. These forage fish, which are prey for a variety of fish, birds and mammals, are a vital component of the Gulf marine ecosystem.

A valid concern. Hopefully, market pressures will help to solve this problem. Researchers all over the globe are working on ways to increase the percentage of plant products in animal feeds. Fish meal and fish oil are relatively expensive; no one wants to use any more than necessary.

4) Environmental Concerns: The draft amendment fails to establish stringent standards to prevent or mitigate potential pollutant releases. Water flowing out of fish farms can carry excessive nutrients, particulates, metals, antibiotics, pesticides, and other chemicals.

Some of these are valid concerns, particularly nutrient pollution and organic “loading.” Potential offshore culturists argue that the fertilizer off a few cornfields far exceeds the nutrients from a fish cage operation, and that demonstration cage projects in deep water have shown no major impacts. However, large numbers of cage operations could add measurable levels of nutrients. The draft amendment does not ignore these problems.

5) Escapement: Cages will allow some fish escapes into the open ocean. Escapement can affect native populations through disease and dilution of locally adaptive gene complexes, disrupt natural ecosystems.

A valid concern. Recent data demonstrate, in some cases, a lack of adaptive fitness in hatchery-reared fish. The potential for impacts to native populations in the Gulf is unknown, and probably varies by species and local conditions. Some culturists point out that this same lack of “survivability” in hatchery fish indicates reduced probability of impacts to wild stocks. But some fish always escape culture systems – non-native species should not be used. The transfer of disease from cultured fish to wild stocks is possible, but the risk of crowded cultured fish “catching” something from the wild is greater.

6) Competing/Conflicting Interests: Areas of current significant competing economic use or public value must be eliminated for consideration for open ocean aquaculture.

True. Conflicts with existing uses of offshore sites are bound to occur, but the total “footprint” of aquaculture operations will probably be tiny compared to the total available ocean area. Still, extensive preliminary research will be required on any proposed sites.

7) Growing Exotic / Mutated Species / Genetically Modified /Transgenic Organisms (GMOs)

See Number 5: Most regulators agree that only native species should be used, and that we should definitely avoid the mutated species!

All this uproar from environmental and fishing groups is serving a valuable service by demanding that potential problems be addressed. While there are unquestionably valid concerns about offshore aquaculture, the permitting process that is being proposed is quite strict. We can’t forget the overriding problem of U.S. seafood trade imbalances; we must find better ways to provide both wild and cultured fish to our markets, for the sake of both consumers and coastal community providers. Ultimately, any seafood produced in this country will undergo far better controls and inspections than applied to what is imported. The current situation of importing nearly all of our seafood from loosely regulated international sources is far from ideal.

Back to Top