400 Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture – Practices, sustainability and implications
5.2.7 Outlook
The data used above include some information for 2006. They do not, therefore,
reflect the convulsions that the fishmeal and fish oil industry and associated markets
have experienced as prices sky-rocketed for fishmeal and fish oil in 2007 and 2008.
The immediate effects were reduced demand, but also an increased ability by fishmeal
manufacturers to pay for raw material. Simultaneously, however, the least proficient
aquaculture enterprises may have experienced difficulties in affording the increase in
feed prices. Simultaneously, they would have had difficulties in passing on cost increases
to consumers, as several of the more important markets experienced stagnation and/or
recession.
The increase that has taken place in the real prices of fishmeal and fish oil, on the
one hand, will speed up the gradual replacement of fishmeal and fish oil in aquaculture
feeds by plant proteins and vegetable oils^50 and, on the other hand, lead to reduced
inclusion of fish proteins in feeds for omnivorous species. In addition, it will lead to
increased efforts to include offal obtained when foodfish are processed industrially,
which may reach 50 percent of the live weight. Eventually these developments will
help the aquaculture industry to grow and the poor to keep their employment in and
income from shrimp and fish culture.
Until the middle of the first decade in the present century, the aquaculture industry’s
use of fishmeal and fish oil grew rapidly. This has not led to any real increase in the
volumes of fishmeal and fish oil produced, but to a shift in the use of what has been
produced – instead other users of these products have reduced their share. However,
this trend has now come close to its natural end – there is little output left to shift to
aquaculture.
While the recent price increase leads to increased supply of fishmeal and oil, it
simultaneously reduces demand and spurs the development of alternative feeds.
This will help the aquaculture industry expand; but how will it affect the poor and
undernourished? For them, the employment/income effect will be the sum of two
divergent trends. On the one hand, employment in aquaculture will be maintained
and possibly expand, but on the other hand, employment will fall in fish processing
as the share of a stagnant world marine fisheries output that is dedicated to feed
fisheries expands. Simultaneously, a growing population will face a contracting supply
of (comparatively) cheap fish that is instead used for feed. This is a possible future
negative outcome.
Finally, with time, weak states will become stronger. Corruption will decline and
managers will have a better chance to manage fisheries effectively. This ought to
improve sustainability in feed fisheries and reduce fluctuations in supply of fishmeal
and fish oil also to aquaculture feed manufacturers.- DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC POLICIES FOR MODIFYING NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
FOR THE POOR AND UNDERNOURISHED DERIVING FROM THE PRACTICE OF
USING WILD FISH AS AQUACULTURE FEED
So far this paper has looked at the issues surrounding the use of fish as aquaculture
feed from a global perspective. It has found that on the whole feed fisheries provide
considerable benefits to many. Nevertheless, governments hosting export-oriented
reduction industries may want to shift the use of fish away from feed to food. Apart
from improving the nutritional status of local populations, such policies may also lead
to more local employment and, therefore, contribute to economic growth.
With regard to the use of bycatch as aquaculture feed, the situation is much less
favourable. It is evident that such usage has reduced the availability of cheap fish in
(^50) Feed producers and academic research institutions are making an enormous effort in this field, which is
likely to produce results in the near future (see Naylor et al., 2009).