Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production
Open Access

Aquaculture; Herbivorous; Farming; Natural resources

Introduction

It is anticipated that increased output over the medium term will require growth into new regions, more intensification, and efficiency enhancements for more environmentally and financially sustainable production. For the foreseeable future, at least, the trend towards increasingly sophisticated intensive systems with significant monocultures will continue to play a significant role in future supplies. Dependence on outside feeds, water, and electricity are major obstacles. Some new species will be introduced, and policies that promote resource footprint reduction and improved integration may lead to new inventions as well as halt the deterioration of some more existing systems.

Aquaculture has grown significantly over the previous 50 years, reaching 52.5 million tonnes in 2008, valued at US$98.5 billion, and contributing to around 50% of the world’s fish food. China is by far the largest producer in this sector, accounting for 79% of its value and 89% of its volume [1]. The region has rapidly developed for a variety of reasons, including pre-existing aquaculture technology, population and economic growth, a tolerant regulatory framework, and significant export possibilities.

However, aquaculture development in Europe and North America has stalled during the 1980s and 1990s, despite the fact that fish and seafood markets have continued to grow. Governmental restrictions on sites and other competing factors [2] are probably to blame for this. From 1970 and 2006, aquaculture grew at an average yearly rate of 6.9%; however, this growth rate seems to be slowing down. This exemplifies the typical trend of adoption followed by rapid development that, in the end, falls as a result of increasing competition and other constraints.

The countries that produce very little, including Lesotho, Rwanda, and Ukraine, saw the highest relative growth rates between 2006 and 2007. The impact of smaller percentage growth is greater in countries with already large production, despite the fact that these can be useful markers of new initiatives [3]. For instance, in 2007, China’s 5.2% increase contributed 52.3% of the global increase in aquaculture output. The second-most important country in this regard was Vietnam, which contributed 16.7% of the increased aquaculture production and had a growth rate of 30.1%.

Particularly notable were the few countries with significant production that experienced a fall in 2007. They included Thailand, Spain, and Canada. Market circumstances and competition were the main elements contributing to this, despite the fact that illness and sporadic environmental calamities can occasionally impair outcomes from a single year. The entire quantity of these reductions amounted to 1.6% of the world’s supplies.

In 2008, the FAO reported that 310 species, excluding aquatic plants, were being farmed. Nonetheless, the top five species produced around 33% of the total, the top 10 species produced 53%, and the top 20 species produced 74% of the total. The majority of freshwater fish output still comes from numerous species of carp, notwithstanding the rise in popularity of tilapia and later phantasies catfish [4]. The primary species actively produced in coastal aquaculture are white leg and, to a lesser extent, tiger shrimp, oyster, scallop, and mussels, with Atlantic salmon as the leader.

Discussion

It may be helpful to segment the market in the context of fisheries and aquaculture into products that stand out through distinctive characteristics and have smaller production and market bases, such as whitefish, salmon, tuna, and prawns, which are used in a variety of food presentations and outlets [5]. The most likely way for bulk supply to grow is through the expansion of the globalised, scale-based commodities, whereas the most likely way for the more specialised products to grow is through product and production system diversity.

The growth of sustainable aquaculture of all kinds, but particularly of commodity products, depends on improving the basic conversion of feed materials into consumable fish flesh and minimising the use and conversion of premium resources. Included are animal genetics, production methods, and species choice, management of the animal’s health, and the best feed and feeding [6]. They are somewhat related due to the growing understanding of animal welfare, which is also influencing other physiologic and environmental interactions. Aquaculture’s interactions with the environment in terms of both goods and services—are equally important and must be logically evaluated in order to take full advantage of the benefits of environmental services without abusing them or harming the ecosystem.

At the policy level, significant issues regarding the value of environmental protection against the exploitation of natural resources for food production arise [7]. Although if wealthier nations in Europe may be able to counteract lower food production by increasing imports, the environmental damage is transferred to other countries whose alternatives or control are more constrained. Strong environmental standards for imports and domestic production would support the creation and application of new technology, but undoubtedly at the expense of higher food costs.

Since the market is essential to defining the course of future development, there is growing momentum to educate and influence market demand to play a more responsible role in deciding future production systems [8]. Several campaign organisations are active on certain issues, which at least promotes conversation and potential improvements. Most importantly, there is a discernible trend towards the development of various standards that can be assessed, adhered to, and certified by independent authorities to provide producers with clear guidelines and customers and market chain participants’ confidence in the product’s social or environmental origins [9]. Establishing suitable criteria, though, could be challenging. Aquaculture-related programmes are now numerous, with GLOBALGAP-a business-tobusiness certification programme based on the private sector-possibly being the most noteworthy. GLOBALGAP focuses on standards for food quality, animal welfare, environmental protection, and social risk assessment. A standard for aquaculture feeds is currently being created, and certification programmes for shrimp, salmon, phantoms, and tilapia already exist. The consumer labels “Friend of the Sea,” “Freedom Foods,” or various organic labels are not included in GLOBALGAP despite its widespread adoption [10]. As of right now, there is no consumer label for aquaculture products that has the same level of popularity as the MSC seal for sustainable catch fisheries. This is expected to change with the establishment of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council7, which is moving forward a protracted programme of stakeholder talks hosted by the WWF8 on standards for 12 major aquaculture products and building a consumer-oriented certification scheme.

The WWF aquaculture discussions have highlighted the challenges in developing trustworthy indicators of sustainability, particularly when definitions shift from plain measurements of environmental effect to more complex evaluations of ecological efficiency [11]. As a result, multinational governmental and academic groups have been working on developing assessment systems simultaneously. The measurement of factors like total energy consumption or carbon emissions during the manufacture, distribution, use, or disposal of certain products is one of the most crucial techniques. This facilitates product comparisons and points in the life cycle of a product when potential efficiency increases can be made. As a result, the FAO and its partners are developing assessment frameworks that are based on the concept of an EAA. To assess how reliant on ecosystem support specific activities are, this makes use of a variety of criteria, such as the concept of ecological footprints [12]. Another useful tool is the “World Aquaculture Performance Index,” which was developed by the University of Victoria in Canada and is based on the Environmental Performance Index of Yale and Columbia Universities. Using a variety of weighted indicators and statistical analysis, this gives comparative scores for assessing species selections or performance variations between countries or places.

International standards may not seem to matter to smallholder systems in many nations, but there is a potential that by denying them access to larger markets, they could actually severely impede progress [13]. Research on the effects of globalising trade, standards and certification, development, and sustainability is being done as part of the SEAT project, which is funded by the European Commission and intends to create a more thorough score system incorporating a variety of ethical issues.

Conclusion

Future policymaking will clearly need to go beyond simple objectives like environmental protection and conservation or economic growth and employment. The complexity of the seafood industry demonstrates that there are numerous opportunities for segmentation and innovative, sustainable aquaculture techniques with the correct legislative support.

Conflict of Interest

None

Acknowledgement

None

1. Meharoof M, Gul S, Qureshi NW (2020) Indian seafood trade and Covid-19: anticipated impacts and economics.Food Sci Rep1: 54-58.

Google Scholar

2. Ngasotter S, Panda SP, Mohanty U, Akter S, Mukherjee S, et al. (2020) Current scenario of fisheries and aquaculture in India with special reference to Odisha: A review on its status, issues and prospects for sustainable development.IJBSM 11: 370-380.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Antler E (1977) Women's work in Newfoundland fishing families.Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice2: 107-113.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

4. Coulthard S (2012) Can we be both resilient and well, and what choices do people have? Incorporating agency into the resilience debate from a fisheries perspective.Ecology and Society17.

Google Scholar

5. Gustavsson M (2020) Women's changing productive practices, gender relations and identities in fishing through a critical feminisation perspective.J Rural Stud78: 36-46.

Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Harper S, Grubb C, Stiles M, Sumaila UR (2017) Contributions by women to fisheries economies: insights from five maritime countries.Coastal Management45: 91-106.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Hapke HM (2012) Capturing the complexities of globalization in fisheries: Gendered divisions of labour and divisions of labour and difference.Asian Fish Sci S25: 75-92.

Google Scholar

8. Kronen M, Vunisea A (2009) Fishing impact and food security–Gender differences in finfisheries across Pacific Island countries and cultural groups.SPC women in fisheries information bulletin19.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

9. Thomas A, Mangubhai S, Fox M, Meo S, Miller K, et al. (2021) Why they must be counted: Significant contributions of Fijian women fishers to food security and livelihoods. Ocean & Coastal Management 205: 105571.

Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Premapriya M, Jeyaseelan M (2020) Issues and Challenges of Fisher Folk Women During Covid-19 Lockdown: A Sociological Case Study Analysis With Special Reference to Puducherry.JCR7: 3613-7.

Google Scholar

11. Silva MRO, Silva AB, Barbosa JC, Amaral C, Lopes PF (2022) Empowering fisherwomen leaders helped reduce the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on fishing communities: Insights from Brazil.Marine Policy135: 104842.

Google Scholar, Crossref

12. Gozzer-Wuest R, Sueiro JC, Grillo-Núñez J, De La Puente S, Correa M, et al. (2022) Challenging the tradition of a fishmeal producing country: An economic overview of the fishing activity of Piura, Peru.Mar Fish Sci (MAFIS) 35: 263–286.

Google Scholar, Crossref

13. Clissold R, Westoby R, McNamara KE (2020) Women as recovery enablers in the face of disasters in Vanuatu.Geoforum113: 101-110.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at