Use of wild fish in aquaculture and its effects on income and food for the poor 383
characteristics. First, that indeed aquaculture is usually an effective rural activity as a
source of income. As income is such a key factor in elimination of poverty, this seems
to be extremely important. The second fact is that rural fish farming, where it is a long
established tradition, has been and continues to be a source of food that even the lower
income groups can afford to buy.
- USE OF WILD FISH AS FEED: EFFECTS ON FOOD AND INCOME
Up to this point, the paper has provided a brief review of poverty, food insecurity,
the interdependence of these conditions and the extent to which aquaculture alleviates
poverty and improves food security. The effects of aquaculture on poverty and food
security are sometimes large, like those reported for freshwater fish culture in many
parts of Asia, sometimes smaller, as is the case in Africa and the Americas. However,
there is little doubt that when undertaken in areas where a large part of the population is
poor and food insecure, aquaculture will have positive effects on food security and help
individuals exit poverty. In economically well-off regions, aquaculture contributes to
economic growth. Nevertheless, climatic and economic conditions are not favourable
everywhere, and in some regions the initiation and growth of aquaculture has been
dependent on provision of public subsidies.
This section reports on investigations of the effects that might stem from the practice
of using wild fish (and other aquatic animals) as feed for cultured fish and crustaceans.
When these practices reduce income for the poor or decrease their food supplies, then
aquaculture activities that employ wild fish as feed can be said to cause negative or
undesirable outcomes.
5.1 Use of bycatch as aquaculture feed: impacts on food and income of the
poor
Globally, the use of wild fish as direct feed is not common. It occurs mainly in Asia,
but is only infrequently practiced elsewhere^14 and with the exception of fattening of
bluefin tuna, it is virtually absent from aquaculture as practiced in Africa, Europe and
the Americas.
In Asia, the practice is common mostly in East Asia. It has hardly spread to India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka or the Pacific Islands. For countries in which freshwater fisheries
predominate, the picture is mixed. There seems to be relatively little feeding with fish in
Bangladesh and Laos, while the practice is widespread in Cambodia (Nam et al., 2005),
where aquaculture production reached 34 000 tonnes in 2006 (FAO, 2008b).
In East Asia, virtually all of the fish given as feed to fish and crustaceans originates
in bycatch. However, bycatch has many uses. Some of it is sold directly as food, some
is cured and some is used as raw material for surimi and other modern, ready-to-eat
products. Also, some of the bycatch is used as raw material for fishmeal production.
There are reports (De Silva and Turchini, 2009) that fish farmers in Asia go fishing
to provide feeds to their aquaculture activities. However, although in some areas large
number of farmers are involved, if measured in terms of volumes of fish caught and
supplied as feed, this practice is not significant in the Asian context.
In East and Southeast Asia, most of the fish used directly^15 as aquaculture feed has
its origin in bycatch, often from trawl fisheries. In the context of this analysis, this fact
raises four questions:
(^14) E.g. small-scale fattening of crabs in Africa.
(^15) In this paper, the term “directly as feed”, or “direct feed” when applied to wild fish, refers to all
practices, with one exception, that result in the fish being used as feed for cultured aquatic animals. The
exception is the practice of converting fish to fishmeal that is then incorporated, in an industrial process,
in the manufacture of fish or shrimp feed, a practice referred to as using wild fish as “indirect feed” for
aquaculture.