Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture: practices, sustainability and implications

164 Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture – Practices, sustainability and implications

2.2 Future aquaculture outlook

While the prospects for the aquaculture industry in the region are bright (Masser

and Bridger, 2006; Rojas, Simonsen and Wadsworth, 2006; Flores-Nava, 2007), the

sector has not been without its

problems and constraints, which

will have to be addressed if it is

to grow in a sustainable manner,

including (but not limited to):

• The need for improved
  environmental sustainability


• The intensive culture of finfish
  within open floating-cage
  farming systems can exert adverse
  effects on the surrounding aquatic
  environment and ecosystem,
  including pollution impacts
  from uneaten feed and excreta
  (Mente et al., 2006; Muñoz,
  2006; Rojas, Simonsen and
  Wadsworth, 2006), the transfer
  of diseases and parasites of cage-
  reared fish to natural fish populations (Volpe et al., 2006), dependency of cage-
  reared salmonid and other carnivorous fish species upon fishery resources as feed
  inputs (Kristofersson and Anderson, 2006; Tacon, Hasan and Subasinghe, 2006),
  increased risk of fish escapes
  from cages and potential
  negative genetic impacts on wild
  fish populations (Naylor et al.,
  2005; FAO, 2006b), increased
  potential negative impacts upon
  predatory mammals and birds
  (Masser and Bridger, 2006; Rojas,
  Simonsen and Wadsworth,

2006. and increased community
      concerns regarding the use of
      shared public inland and coastal
      waterbodies for rearing fish and
      the environmental sustainability
      of open cage-based farming
      systems (FAO, 2006b, Tacon,
      Hasan and Subasinghe, 2006);
      and

• The need for improved food security and poverty alleviation impacts – Preliminary
  estimates (2002–2004) of the prevalence of undernourishment in the region,
  expressed as a percentage of the total population, currently range from
  under 2.5 percent in the case of Canada, Cuba, the United States of America
  and Uruguay to over 20 percent within several aquaculture exporting countries,
  including Guatemala, 22 percent; Panama, 23 percent; and Nicaragua, 27 percent
  (FAO, 2006c). Moreover, the apparent consumption of fish and fishery products
  varied widely within the region, ranging from under 10 kg/caput/year supply
  (2001–2003 average: Honduras, 1.1; Bolivia, 1.9; Guatemala, 2.0; Nicaragua,
  4.3; Ecuador, 4.7; El Salvador, 5.0; Colombia, 5.3; Costa Rica, 5.7; Brazil, 6.4) to
  over 20 kg/caput/year supply (Chile, 17.9; Suriname, 18.8; Peru and Bolivarian

FIGURE 2

Aquaculture production of salmonids and marine shrimp within

the Americas

Source: FAO (2006a), except salmonid data for 2005 from AquaVision (2006)

FIGURE 3

Aquaculture production of miscellaneous freshwater fish species

(mainly channel catfish) and tilapia within the Americas

Source: FAO (2006a)