Farmville!

Two exclusively awesome farm-raised varieties are on the menu this week (and always).
Salt-water Cobia Fillet: 100% yield – 8.95/lb
Allow me to introduce our Florida Fresh Farm Raised Cobia Fillets from the Sunshine State!
We buy this meaty cousin of the Remora (shark sucker) already filleted and de-boned. 
Do you want to know why we only sell cobia by the fillet? It is because the bones of the cobia are very heavy. Obviously the money we save by leaving the bones in the bone-yard is a saving passed along to you, our beloved customer.

Cobia eat clams and other marine animals. They are sheer ravenous carnivores who love eating crabs. They are sometimes referred to as crab-eaters. I truly commend the creative genius who came up with such a nickname!

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 
Now for a morsel of information regarding one of the most prized and honorable fish ever farmed by human-kind, the Tasmanian Sea Trout!

Petuna Tasmanian Ocean Trout have a marbled rosy pink and orange flesh that literally tastes like heaven on earth. The trout are bred in a fresh-water hatchery for 12 months, then moved to special marine farms on Tasmania’s rugged west coast where they spend another six to twelve months growing until they reach about 8 pounds a pop.
Many chefs consider the farmed Tasmanian trout meat superior to that of farmed salmon. This could be exactly what you are looking for when farmed raised salmon doesn’t cut it and wild king salmon is out of season. Plus, at 8.95/lb and a 75% fillet yield, lets just say you should never look a gift horse in the mouth.

Tasmanian sea trout is stuffed to the gills with healthy cholesterol and has a very high omega 3 oil content.
Top 5 reasons to fall in love with Tasmania (and it’s trout):
1) The islands favorite sports include cricket, field hockey and apparently woodchopping. Ax wielding Tasman David Foster held the title of Wood Chopping World Champion for 21 years straight.

  …here we have the ax legend with his wife

How can you not love this guy?

2) Tasmania is an Australian state. Mainland Aussies are encouraged to move to Tasmania, but are also forewarned to look for a job there before actually moving.

3) Tasmania is world renowned for having some of the cleanest and greenest fishing and aquaculture environments in the world.

4)Creative in most fields, Tasmanians are making a clear impact in the emerging business of multimedia animation with television programs such as Real Life Water Rats.

5) Tasmanian Devils are real and they eat every part of their prey. Even the bones.

As the world population and the middle class increase, the poor will be deprived of fish as a natural source of food. Their livelihood will be threatened as they would be unable to compete with large commercial trawlers for fish.

Fish farming can be increased to augment future fish supplies. Could there come a time, in the near future, when seas cannot meet our demand for fish if left unchecked?

Too many hooks in the water. That’s the problem with today’s fisheries. Working from small pole-and-line boats to giant industrial trawlers, fishermen remove more than 170 billion pounds of wildlife a year from the seas. A new study suggests that our current appetite could soon lead to a worldwide fisheries collapse.

By Paul Greenberg

Photograph by Jonathan Clay

Just before dawn a seafood summit convenes near Honolulu Harbor. As two dozen or so buyers enter the United Fishing Agency warehouse, they don winter parkas over their aloha shirts to blunt the chill of the refrigeration. They flip open their cell phones, dial their clients in Tokyo, Los Angeles, Honolulu—wherever expensive fish are eaten—and wait.

Soon the big freight doors on the seaward side of the warehouse slide open, and a parade of marine carcasses on pallets begins. Tuna as big around as wagon wheels. Spearfish and swordfish, their bills sawed off, their bodies lined up like dull gray I beams. Thick-lipped opah with eyes the size of hockey pucks rimmed with gold. They all take their places in the hall.

Auctioneers drill core samples from the fish and lay the ribbons of flesh on the lifeless white bellies. Buyers finger these samples, trying to divine quality from color, clarity, texture, and fat content. As instructions come in over cell phones, bids are conveyed to the auctioneer through mysterious hand gestures. Little sheets of paper with indecipherable scribbling are slapped on a fish’s flank when a sale is finalized. One by one fish are auctioned and sold to the highest bidder. In this way the marine wealth of the north-central Pacific is divided up among some of the world’s most affluent purchasers.

Every year more than 170 billion pounds (77.9 million metric tons) of wild fish and shellfish are caught in the oceans—roughly three times the weight of every man, woman, and child in the United States. Fisheries managers call this overwhelming quantity of mass-hunted wildlife the world catch, and many maintain that this harvest has been relatively stable over the past decade. But an ongoing study conducted by Daniel Pauly, a fisheries scientist at the University of British Columbia, in conjunction with Enric Sala, a National Geographic fellow, suggests that the world catch is neither stable nor fairly divided among the nations of the world. In the study, called SeafoodPrint and supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts and National Geographic, the researchers point the way to what they believe must be done to save the seas.

They hope the study will start by correcting a common misperception. The public imagines a nation’s impact on the sea in terms of the raw tonnage of fish it catches. But that turns out to give a skewed picture of its real impact, or seafood print, on marine life. “The problem is, every fish is different,” says Pauly. “A pound of tuna represents roughly a hundred times the footprint of a pound of sardines.”

The reason for this discrepancy is that tuna are apex predators, meaning that they feed at the very top of the food chain. The largest tuna eat enormous amounts of fish, including intermediate-level predators like mackerel, which in turn feed on fish like anchovies, which prey on microscopic copepods. A large tuna must eat the equivalent of its body weight every ten days to stay alive, so a single thousand-pound tuna might need to eat as many as 15,000 smaller fish in a year. Such food chains are present throughout the world’s ocean ecosystems, each with its own apex animal. Any large fish—a Pacific swordfish, an Atlantic mako shark, an Alaska king salmon, a Chilean sea bass—is likely to depend on several levels of a food chain.

To gain an accurate picture of how different nations have been using the resources of the sea, the SeafoodPrint researchers needed a way to compare all types of fish caught. They decided to do this by measuring the amount of “primary production”—those microscopic organisms at the bottom of the marine food web—required to make a pound of a given type of fish. They found that a pound of bluefin tuna, for example, might require a thousand pounds or more of primary production.

In assessing the true impact that nations have on the seas, the team needed to look not just at what a given nation caught but also at what the citizens of that nation ate. “A country can ac­quire primary production by fishing, or it can acquire it by trade,” Pauly says. “It is the sheer power of wealthy nations to acquire primary production that is important.”

Nations with money tend to buy a lot of fish, and a lot of the fish they buy are large apex predators like tuna. Japan catches less than five million metric tons of fish a year, a 29 percent drop from 1996 to 2006. But Japan consumes nine million metric tons a year, about 582 million metric tons in primary-production terms. Though the average Chinese consumer generally eats smaller fish than the average Japanese consumer does, China’s massive population gives it the world’s biggest seafood print, 694 million metric tons of primary production. The U.S., with both a large population and a tendency to eat apex fish, comes in third: 348.5 million metric tons of primary production. And the size of each of these nations’ seafood prints is growing. What the study points to, Pauly argues, is that these quantities are not just extremely large but also fundamentally unsustainable.

Exactly how unsustainable can be seen in global analyses of seafood trade compiled by Wilf Swartz, an economist working on SeafoodPrint. Humanity’s consumption of the ocean’s primary production changed dramatically from the 1950s to the early 2000s. In the 1950s much less of the ocean was being fished to meet our needs. But as affluent nations increasingly demanded apex predators, they exceeded the primary-production capacities of their exclusive economic zones, which extend up to 200 nautical miles from their coasts. As a result, more and more of the world’s oceans had to be fished to keep supplies constant or growing.

Areas outside of these zones are known in nautical parlance as the high seas. These vast territories, the last global commons on Earth, are technically owned by nobody and everybody. The catch from high-seas areas has risen to nearly ten times what it was in 1950, from 1.6 million metric tons to around 13 million metric tons. A large part of that catch is high-level,high-value tuna, with its huge seafood print.

The wealthier nations that purchase most of the products of these fisheries are essentially privatizing them. Poorer countries simply cannot afford to bid for high-value species. Citizens in these nations can also lose out if their governments enter into fishing or trade agreements with wealthier nations. In these agreements local fish are sold abroad and denied to local citizens—those who arguably have the greatest need to eat them and the greatest right to claim them.

Although supermarkets in developed nations like the U.S. and Japan still abound with fish flesh, SeafoodPrint suggests that this abundance is largely illusory because it depends on these two troubling phenomena: broader and broader swaths of the high seas transformed from fallow commons into heavily exploited, monopolized fishing grounds; and poor nations’ seafood wealth spirited away by the highest bidder.

Humanity’s demand for seafood has now driven fishing fleets into every virgin fishing ground in the world. There are no new grounds left to exploit. But even this isn’t enough. An unprecedented buildup of fishing capacity threatens to outstrip seafood supplies in all fishing grounds, old and new. A report by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations recently concluded that the ocean doesn’t have nearly enough fish left to support the current onslaught. Indeed, the report suggests that even if we had half as many boats, hooks, and nets as we do now, we would still end up catching too many fish.

Some scientists, looking at the same data, see a different picture than Daniel Pauly does. Ray Hilborn, a fisheries scientist at the University of Washington, doesn’t think the situation is so dire. “Daniel is fond of showing a graph that suggests that 60 to 70 percent of the world’s fish stocks are overexploited or collapsed,” he says. “The FAO’s analysis and independent work I have done suggests that the number is more like 30 percent.” Increased pressure on seafood shouldn’t come as a surprise, he adds, since the goal of the global fishing industry is to fully exploit fish populations, though without damaging their long-term viability.

Many nations, meanwhile, are trying to compensate for the world’s growing seafood deficit by farming or ranching high-level predators such as salmon and tuna, which helps maintain the illusion of abundance in the marketplace. But there’s a big problem with that approach: Nearly all farmed fish consume meal and oil derived from smaller fish. This is another way that SeafoodPrint might prove useful. If researchers can tabulate the ecological value of wild fish consumed on fish farms, they could eventually show the true impact of aquaculture.

Given such tools, policymakers might be in a better position to establish who is taking what from the sea and whether that is just and sustainable. As a global study, SeafoodPrint makes clear that rich nations have grossly underestimated their impacts. If that doesn’t change, the abundance of fish in our markets could drop off quickly. Most likely the wealthy could still enjoy salmon and tuna and swordfish. But middle-class fish-eaters might find their seafood options considerably diminished, if not eliminated altogether.

What then is SeafoodPrint’s long-range potential? Could some version of it guide a conservation agreement in which nations are given a global allowance of oceanic primary production and fined or forced to mend their ways if they exceed it?

“That would be nice, wouldn’t it?” Pauly says. He points out that we already know several ways to shrink our impact on the seas: reduce the world’s fishing fleets by 50 percent, establish large no-catch zones, limit the use of wild fish as feed in fish-farming. Unfortunately, the seafood industry has often blocked the road to reform.

SeafoodPrint could also give consumers a map around that roadblock—a way to plot the course toward healthy, abundant oceans. Today there are dozens of sustainable-seafood campaigns, each of which offers suggestions for eating lower on the marine food chain. These include buying farmed tilapia instead of farmed salmon, because tilapia are largely herbivorous and eat less fish meal when farmed; choosing trap-caught black cod over long-lined Chilean sea bass, because fewer unwanted fish are killed in the process of the harvest; and avoiding eating giant predators like Atlantic bluefin tuna altogether, because their numbers are simply too low to allow any harvest at all.

The problem, say conservationists, is that the oceans have reached a critical point. Simply changing our diets is no longer sufficient if fish are to recover and multiply in the years ahead. What Pauly and other conservation biologists now believe is that suggestions must be transformed into obligations. If treaties can establish seafood-consumption targets for every nation, they argue, citizens could hold their governments responsible for meeting those targets. Comparable strategies have worked to great effect in terrestrial ecosystems, for trade items such as furs or ivory. The ocean deserves a similar effort, they say.

“Barely one percent of the ocean is now protected, compared with 12 percent of the land,” Enric Sala adds, “and only a fraction of that is fully protected.” That’s why National Geographic is partnering with governments, businesses, conservation organizations, and citizens to promote marine reserves and help reduce the impact of fishing around the globe.

In the end, neither Pauly nor Sala nor the rest of the SeafoodPrint team wants to destroy the fishing industry, eliminate aquaculture, or ban fish eating. What they do want to change is business as usual. They want to let people know that today’s fishing and fish-farming practices are not sustainable and that the people who advocate maintaining the status quo are failing to consider the ecological and economic ramifications. By accurately measuring the impacts nations have on the sea, Seafood­Print may lay the groundwork for effective change, making possible the rebuilding of the ocean’s dwindling wealth. Such a course, Pauly believes, could give the nations of the world the capability, in the not too distant future, to equitably share a truly bountiful, resurrected ocean, rather than greedily fight over the scraps that remain in the wake of a collapse.

Fruits & Vegetables: Watermelon and tomatoes are the best foods for protection against the sun. The red pigment in them is Lycopene which according to MayoClinic.com is a carotenoid present in human serum and skin as well as the liver, adrenal glands, lungs, prostate and colon. Lycopene has been found to possess antioxidant and anti-proliferative properties that increases the skins natural protection against the sun. According to Self.com, Dark leafy vegetables contain lots of Vitamin E which also protects your skin against harmful UV rays. People with a history of skin cancer who ate one serving of leafy greens (like spinach and kale) a day lowered their risk of developing subsequent tumors by more than 50 percent, the International Journal of Cancer found. Dark greens are loaded with antioxidants that seem to hunt down and destroy free radicals. Other Vitamin E packed foods are MANY types of berries and olives as well! Also, bell peppers and sweet potatoes contain large amounts of Vitamins A and C! So during Thanksgiving load up on the yams, especially if you live in a sunny place! Antioxidants are key! Click here for a list of the World’s Healthiest Foods High in Antioxidant Phytonutrients and take it with you next time you go grocery shopping! Keep in mind that steaming, boiling and peeling certain types of fruits and veggies can decrease their antioxidant content. The fresher the better!

Omega-3 Fatty Acids: A big way to rid the body of potentially cancerous cells is by consuming foods that contain inflammation-fighting acids. These foods contain Omega-3 fatty acids. According to MedicineNet.com, Omega-3′s are a class of essential polyunsaturated fatty acids. Foods high in omega-3′s include MANY types of fish, especially my two favorites, salmon and halibut. Also, spinach, walnuts, flaxseed oil, canola oil and many types of shellfish such as shrimp and clams as well. Because I was born and raised in Alaska and am a self-proclaimed “Salmon Snob,” I recommend staying away from farmed fish all together! There is nothing better than FRESH ALASKAN salmon, but farmed salmon can be contaminated. Farmed fish have been known to contain high levels of PCB, which are organic pollutants which can cause cancer in animals. They also tend to be much higher in mercury than fresh fish. Don’t be fool by salmon that is labeled “Atlantic” or “Icelandic” either, chances are they are farmed fish as well. A higher priced salmon is a good indicator that it is wild, fresh and free of pollutants!

*FYI: Fresh salmon on the East Coast is generally available from May-September while Alaska and the West Coast can provide reasonably priced year-round fresh, wild salmon! Frozen wild salmon is great too! A great place to order fresh, wild Alaskan seafood is from Coal Point Seafoods in Homer, Alaska. Check out WeLoveFish.com for more info!

So you’ve learned that the same pigments that give plant foods their rich, deep color can also help protect us from our skin from the harmful UVA/UVB rays of the sun! How amazing is that! Pick fruits and veggies with dark, rich, natural color! The darker the better! If you start to notice a subtle orange cast in your skin, especially in your palms, this is a good indication that you are eating foods rich in antioxidants that are aiding in your protection against skin cancer. This is also a great way to add a natural base color to compliment your sunless spray tan instead of using a tanning bed or basking in the dangerous sun.

Flavonoids: But wait, there’s more! There are a few other surprising things you can consume to aid in skin protection as well. Even some of our most guilty pleasures! According to a study done at the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, Flavonoids are compounds found in fruits, vegetables, and certain beverages that have diverse beneficial biochemical and antioxidant effects. Flavonoids have aroused considerable interest recently because of their potential beneficial effects on human health. They have been reported to have antiviral, anti-allergic, antiplatelet, anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor and antioxidant activities. There have been over 4,000 flavonoids identified. Mostly in fruits, vegetables and even beverages such as tea, coffee, beer, wine and of course fruit drinks. If you are a fan of lager beer, red wine or green tea… DRINK AWAY and know that you are consuming plenty of antioxidants! How great is this? Less guilt after a late night at the pub or wine-tasting event? Yes please! Everything in moderation of course!

BONUS: All you chocolate lovers will be ecstatic about this! Dark chocolate or cocoa has been shown to make skin up to 25% less sensitive to the sun! Ghirardelli has a whole new Intense Dark Chocolate line out! They even have a food and beverage pairing that shows it’s good with fruits, nuts and red wine. This means you can indulge in an evening of delicious edible delights and even if you wakeup with a hangover, you will be loaded up with antioxidants that will protect your skin from the harmful UV rays! It’s easier than it seems to be pro-active against skin cancer!

Although these foods can aid in the protection of your skin, they ARE NOT a replacement to sunscreen. Always remember sunscreen, (SPF 50+ to be the safest). I recommend Cetaphil UVA/UVB Defense SPF 50. Check out their CetaphilRESTORADERMSkin Restoring Moisturizer and Body Wash too! And stay out of those tanning beds!

-Kamela Brewer

“Closed systems separate farmed fish from wild fish and the environment”, says Shauna Mackinnon of Living Oceans Society. “This will help chart a path forward for sustainable aquaculture.”

Sustainable? Really?

About 550 million fish are grown each year by two main methods of aquaculture. Salmon farming and salmon ranching. Salmon farming takes place in places like Norway, Chile, Scotland, British Columbia, Tasmania, Washington State and Nova Scotia and produces about 300 million fish each year. Salmon ranching is common practice in Asia, Russia and Alaska and grows about 250 million fish annually that helps feed the world.  No matter which way you fillet it, the production of salmon as a protein is very biologically efficient – far more efficient than most other meats (chicken, pork etc) that we are more than happy to consume (if you’re asking why, it’s because fish are cold blooded and don’t waste energy heating themselves). Growing fish in the ocean is also very energy efficient – using natural ocean currents to provide clean water and oxygen.

So why the heck would environmental groups be suggesting that we move 550 million fish on land? Instead of using natural tidal power moving water (all environmental groups suggest using green power sources which include tidal), we would burn fossil fuels or electricity to pump water into tanks. Instead of utilizing very little fresh water (all environmental groups tell us to limit fresh water use), we would use 100% freshwater.

Here’s some much needed context:

To move 550 million farmed and ranched salmon onto land, it would require about 7500 football fields (American or English, doesn’t matter) of prime land. It would burn millions of gallons of fossil fuel. It would use millions of gallons of limited fresh water. Is this a benefit to the environment or an ecological nightmare?

If fact doesn’t make you question this hair-brained idea, then we’ll go for the ENGO favorite tactic – pure emotion. If you were a salmon, would you want to be raised in a windowless tank, or would you prefer to be raised in your natural home? Poor little fishies…

Perhaps Alaska salmon growers will want to start pushing back at these environmental groups that don’t seem to consider the environment when trying to gain media attention.

Sustainable?  Come on Shauna…really? Do you even know what that word means?

As I’ve mentioned before, this “fissue“ has been a quandary for me because I love to eat fish. The dilemma is that farmed fish is similar to feedlot meat (exposed to fecal pollution and antibiotics), while wild-caught fish does damage to the environment–especially due to the abuse of bycatch. And many species–in many places around the world–carry toxins so we need to limit the amount of fish we eat per week. No fun.

The Times article answers this question: Why do ecologists seem to give the nod to farmed catfish and tilapia but not salmon? The very first sentence in the answer is “The ecological issues related to fish farming vary from freshwater to saltwater fish; from carnivorous species to noncarnivores; and from open pens to closed ponds and tanks, among many other factors.” See what I mean? Not very helpful.

Apparently farmed catfish and tilapia aren’t as much of a concern as farmed salmon because “they require no fish or animal components in their feed and thrive in enclosed freshwater tanks, ponds or channels.” My guess is they’re getting corn to eat, which doesn’t fit well in my world of food.

So, I don’t feel much better about my options.

Andrew Knowlton, aka The BA Foodist from Bon Appetit magazine, has a few good rules to follow, which I posted last December.

Otherwise, looks like I’m stuck in my quandary. If anyone’s got some guidance on the fish topic, I’d love to hear it!

The initiative supports the company’s long-term sustainability goal to sell products that sustain people and the environment,

Walmart Canada’s new sustainable seafood policy will cover all frozen, wild and farmed fish, the company said.

The company aims to source wild-caught fresh and frozen fish certified to the Marine Stewardship Council ( MSC ) standard or the minimum equivalent; to ensure farm-raised adhere to Best Aquaculture Practices, or the minimum equivalent; and to source canned tuna from an International Seafood Sustainability Foundation ( ISSF ) member.

The company plans to phase out any suppliers procuring frozen, wild and farmed fish from unreported or unregulated sources.

“We’re taking a fist step to help sustain the future of fish,” said Sam Silvestro, divisional merchandise manager at Walmart Canada. “We believe that by offering sustainably-harvested fish at affordable prices we can help improve the industry overall.”

During the past 50 years, it is estimated demand for seafood has increased fivefold and three-quarters if the world’s fisheries are being fished at or beyond sustainable limits.

It is estimated 10 percent of large ocean fish such as tuna and halibut still exist. In addition, an estimated one billion people rely on fish as their primary source of protein and 200 million people rely on the industry as their main source of income.

Walmart Canada outlined its policy to suppliers last month at a meeting at the company’s home office. Over the coming months, the company will work with suppliers of frozen, wild and farmed fish, as well as MSC, to assess the sustainability of the company’s current fish assortment.

Over the longer term, the company will work with these suppliers on product labeling to ensure they are properly representing the type of fish in their frozen and fresh products, and to help them make their operations and supply chain more sustainable.

The policy is expected to evolve over time and suppliers will receive regular communication from the company. The company is working with non-governmental organizations, such as MSC, to look at ways to change the larger seafood marketplace.

“MSC is pleased Walmart Canada is announcing a new Sustainable Seafood Policy and looking to source wild-caught fresh and frozen fish that is MSC-certified,” said Kerry Coughlin, MSC regional director for the Americans. “We applaud Walmart Canada on this move and their efforts to conserve the marine environment and ensure seafood is available for future generations.”

The company’s U.S business is already collaborating with MSC, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership ( SFP ), World Wildlife Fund ( WWF ), Environmental Defense Fund ( EDF ), and the Aslaskan salmon industry for wild caught seafood, and with Global Aquaculture Alliance ( GAA ) for all farmed seafood.

Together, they are encouraging seafood suppliers to strengthen fishery management practices, rebuild stocks, reduce environmental impacts and support broader marine ecosystem management and protection efforts.

Walmart in the U.S currently has 28 products in its stores that carry the MSC certification and they are continuing to expand the selections. In the future, the company hopes to replicate the progress it has made in North America on a broader, international scale.

Headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario, Walmart Canada operates 317 retail outlets nationwide and serves more than one million customers daily.

Information from IntraFish Media

Why do few people seem to care whether their chicken, pork and beef is of the “farmed” or “wild” variety? Why do even fewer people care whether their onions or beets were cultured or grown in a natural meadow? Perhaps

Farmed or...farmed?

 it’s because there is no alternative to market chicken – it is farmed. Period.

But when it comes to seafood, apparently it makes a heck of a difference. A restaurant  in California is apparently tired of the “farmed vs wild” nonsense.

Matt Stein, Chief Seafood Officer at King’s Seafood Company, says his restaurants are happy to let people know if their food is farmed or wild – and that includes everything! 

To show people how their perception of farm-raised seafood differs from other foods they eat, every menu and placements labels each food item as “wild” or “farmed”. Carrots, lettuce, burgers, potatoes…everything.

Taking a page from the environmental group playbook, Stein feels that repetition is key. If the farmed vs wild silliness is pushed so hard and so often, consumers may start to realize that their perception of farmed seafood really is unwarranted.

Hopefully soon the question might be “farmed” or ”overtly marketed”?

Bersama ini kami PT. Lestari Suisan Abadi menyampaikan penawaran produk dengan kondisi Segar atau beku sebagai berikut :

CTP Instructor Jay Weinstein

Students often ask which is better: Farmed fish or wild caught. Sometimes we should go wild. Other times, it may be better to stay down on the farm. Many wild-caught fish face extinction due to habitat loss, overfishing, and pollution. And some fish farming (aquaculture) operations avoid the unhealthy, ecologically unwise, and ethically bankrupt practices of the worst players in that industry.

While populations of large, predatory fish like tunas, billfish, wild salmon, and sharks have plummeted in recent years, and should be subject to a worldwide fishing moratorium, other marine food sources have proven resilient to fishing pressure, especially within well-managed fisheries. Wild striped bass recovered well from depletion in the 1980s. Squid, certain wild crabs, lobsters, Pacific halibuts, Atlantic mahi-mahi, and others are carefully monitored by marine conservation organizations like the Blue Ocean Institute and Monterey Bay Aquarium, who track their numbers, and advise consumers on which species are abundant enough to withstand fishing pressure. These organizations provide free downloadable guides to fish and seafood choices from their websites. Among their suggestions right now are herrings, domestic shrimp, bluefish, Alaskan Pollock, and Maine lobsters.

Most of the recommended choices are now aquaculture fish. When I started in the cooking field, salmon farming was the big new thing. Chefs viewed it as a solution to dwindling wild catches, and a source of consistent, fresh product. Salmon farming caused cruel conditions, environmental damage, drain on wild resources for feed, and health threats created by the massive concentration of these carnivorous fish in rivers, streams, and ocean pens. Since then fish farmers learned lessons from the salmon farming industry’s mistakes, and now raise other fish on largely vegetarian diets, including tilapia, catfish, barramundi, and cobia. These fish are raised in closed systems that prevent escape of farmed fish or their waste into wild ecosystems. They have been chosen in part for their tendency to school tightly together, so that they aren’t deprived of natural behavior in aquaculture ponds.

The greatest success story in aquaculture is the cultivation of mussels, clams, and oysters. Their normal diet of algae requires virtually no wild harvesting of fish to feed them. And their filtering of algae from coastal waterways has mitigated some of the excessive algae blooms caused by runoff of fertilizer from suburban lawns, agriculture, and other human activities. It’s a case of unintended positive consequences.

Those who choose to eat fish and seafood have sustainable options from both wild and farmed sources. To ensure that threatened species aren’t further depleted and that harmful aquaculture practices aren’t encouraged, consumers should regularly check with marine conservation organizations like those listed above to stay abreast of the latest data and best seafood choices.

Jay Weinstein, part-time instructor, was trained at the Culinary Institute of America.  A New York based food writer, editor, culinary instructor, and cookbook author, his food articles and recipes have been featured in The New York Times, Travel & Leisure, Newsday, Time Out New York, National Geographic Traveler, and numerous other publications. Jay’s latest book, The Ethical Gourmet (Random House/Broadway Books), focuses on ecologically sustainable fine foods. He is also author of The Everything Vegetarian Cookbook (Adams), and A Cup of Comfort Cookbook (Adams). He is a veteran of some of America’s top restaurant kitchens, including New York’s Le Bernardin and Orso, and Boston’s Jasper’s and The Four Seasons Hotel.

Photo credit: Angela Y. Martin

A few weeks ago I was a guest at the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance‘s Farmed Seafood Extravaganza held at Starfish Restaurant in Toronto. The food was fantastic and spokespeople representing every aspect of the industry were present to tell their story and answer questions. While I learned a lot, I left the event feeling unsure about how to evaluate the many aspects of aquaculture. After all, it’s not really just one topic but dozens since different methods and species face different challenges.

I turned to Theodora (Teddie) Geach, Ocean Wise’s Eastern Coordinator, to help sort out my thoughts. Not only was she eager and able to answer my questions, she did such a great job that I’m excerpting her email here so that you can learn more about the pros and cons of Aquaculture, too!

“Aquaculture is the fastest growing food production system in the world and definitely has benefits if done correctly. It has the potential to relieve the pressure from over-exploited aquatic resources; however, it also has the potential to negatively impact the surrounding environment and wild fish stocks.

Five main criteria need to be taken into consideration:

1. Use of marine resources: This would be for example, the amount of wild fish used in fishmeal. If you’re feeding your farmed fish with more wild fish than you’re producing, you’re still putting pressure on the wild fish stocks. Ideally more fish protein is produced using aquaculture, than is used to facilitate it.

2. Risk of disease and parasite transfer to wild stocks: Since farmed fish are confined, they generally live closer together than they would in the wild. This increases the risk of disease and parasites. Therefore, the stock density needs to be considered. As I’m sure you know, with farmed salmon there is the issue of sea lice which can be transferred to juvenile wild salmon, increasing their mortality. In order to reduce this risk, antibiotics are sometimes added to the water which can result in stronger more resistant strains. However, today in BC, you need to get approval from a veterinarian before using any antibiotics. (I’m not sure if this is the case on the east coast as well.)

3. Risk of escapes to wild stocks: Most salmon farms are open-net pens or floating net pens in the ocean, therefore there is the risk of escape. These escaped fish can then compete with wild stocks for resources and may reproduce with wild stocks, thus reducing their genetic viability.

4. Risk of Pollution and habitat effects: These open-net pens can have a significant impact on the surrounding environment since anything added to the water is able to leach out. There can be a build-up of excessive fish feed and feces, which pollute the water and creates a very anoxic environment where nothing can grow except for sulfur loving bacteria. These open-net pens are usually in sheltered coves to protect the nets from extreme weather, but this also means that there is no current flowing through to flush out all the build-up of chemicals and feces, etc.

5. Effectiveness of the management regime: As with any fishery, there needs to be an effective management system in place to ensure that aquaculture practices favour conservation of the environment. For example the use of licensing to control the location, number, size and stocking density of farms; the existence of better management practices; and regulations for release of chemicals into the environment.

So for Atlantic salmon and cod farms, if they are able to address all these issues and support their claims with the data and sound science they would be considered sustainable. However, it is difficult for any open-net pen farm to address all these issues sufficiently.

6. The best option for farmed fish is a land-based, closed containment system. This way there is no risk of transfer of disease to wild stocks, no risk of escapes and you are able to treat and control the effluent water. An excellent example of one of these farms is in Agassiz, B.C. where Bruce Swift as created a land based Coho salmon farm. He is able to treat the effluent water and collect the solid waste, which is then used as fertilizer for garlic and bean crops. The wastewater is used to grow wasabi, watercress and algae. The algae are then used to feed his freshwater crayfish.

In addition to the land based farmed salmon that Bruce Swift is doing, there are some species of fin-fish which are better candidates for farming than others. Other examples of sustainable-farmed fish would include raceway-raised rainbow trout, land based arctic char and land based catfish

Tilapia offers and excellent case study: tilapia provides more protein than it takes to raise it and are relatively resistant to disease. Tilapia are also vegetarian and can be raised on soy protein and rice, which obviously does not put any pressure on the wild fish stocks. However, you still have to be careful where you get farmed tilapia. The best choice is tilapia farmed in the US, which generally uses land-based, closed containment systems. Farmed tilapia from Central America can also be found in our markets. In CA, regulations can vary and the farms may not always be land based; likewise, farmed tilapia from Asia would generally always be considered unsustainable since they are mostly produced in open-net pens.

7. In general farmed shellfish is considered sustainable. This is because they are filter feeders, eating the plankton out of the water column, so they don’t need supplemental feed and don’t put pressure on wild fish stocks. They can even improve the water quality as they clear excess plankton. Shellfish such as oysters and mussels are often grown on suspended cages or in bags off the seafloor so there is little damage when they’re harvested. (This is called off-bottom culture.) Clams can be farmed on-bottom and there can be an issue if they are harvested by dredge. However, the impact of farmed dredging is far less than dredging wild clams.”

Thanks Teddie! I think my readers will agree that you’ve done a great job explaining the benefits and pitfalls of current aquaculture practices!

Do any of you have questions about seafood? If so, jot them below and I’ll invite folks from the CAIA and Ocean Wise to pop in and answer your concerns.

Now that’s where Will Allen’s urban farm, Growing Power, is now selling microgreens, perch, tilapia, pumpkins, beets, honey. And tours.

They sure know how to use space.

Farmed fish is anathema in Alaska for so many reasons. That they eat so much wild fish, for one. That they (the salmon, at least) might escape and enter the wild-fish breeding population, for another. And, of course, that they pose substantial competition to Alaskan fishermen.

Alaskans call fish like this 'bait.'

I’m all for experimenting with urban farming systems that incorporate fish … how I love fish … but I’d need to hear more to be convinced that this could be scaled up, or repeated many times over, in a sustainable way. I’ll look into it.

The watercress above is filtering the fish-water from below. Ignore the lettuce, which was only there because the frost was coming.

W. still wants to raise Dolly Vardens in our basement.

Red wigglers in their sumptuous castings.

“They said it couldn’t be done,” said the staffer leading the tour, proudly displaying a giant pile of worms on the side of a greenhouse that stays warm and vital through the Wisconsin winter.

Novella instantly started making plans to scale up her California wigglers by orders of magnitude.

Inside, the worms are working their way through more than a million pounds of food waste a week (from restaurants, breweries, grocery stores and wholesale distributors). Outside, the worms are getting a mix of coffee and brewing malt, and moving up or down in the several-feet-high pile to get to the best food or the nicest temperature.

This was the hypothesis Dr. Erin Friesen, Product Manager at Skretting North America, decided to pursue when she started her PhD research in Food Science in 2003 at UBC.

In order to meet consumer demands for fish products, the aquaculture industry is growing at a rate of approximately eight percent per year. This in combination with a worldwide commercial fishery that isn’t seeing growth in the amount of fish it catches, suggests that the worldwide demand for fish oil will soon exceed supply, said Erin.

This is where suitable alternative feed ingredients of plant and/or animal origin become imperative, she added.

Farmed fish have often come under attack for containing higher levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, furans and flame-retardants. The major sources of theses POPs in farmed fish are the fish oil and to a lesser extent, fish meal, in the feed. As a result, in addition to lowering production costs, the use of plant and/or animal ingredients has the potential to lower levels of POPs found in fish flesh.

Erin’s research co-authored with researchers at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans included both tank feeding trials with Atlantic salmon and sablefish and an on-farm field study in 2005 with commercial farmed salmon. She examined the effects of partially replacing marine fish oil in aquaculture feeds with economical and abundant oils from land-based sources such as flax oil and canola oil. In the laboratory feeding trials, decreases in contaminants were found to be directly related to how much marine fish oil was replaced with alternative oil sources.

For the farm site feeding trial, fish were collected from various BC farms in both 2003 and 2005. In 2003 farms were using higher levels of fishmeal and fish oil in their diets and in 2005 the diets were more highly replaced with alternative sources of protein and fat.

“The more knowledge (we) have on replacements, the better”, Erin stated.

The findings from this study showed that with more replaced diets, the contaminant levels in farmed Atlantic salmon were similar or lower than wild Pacific salmon but at the same time had higher flesh levels of Omega-3 fatty acids than wild salmon. Consumption of both farmed Atlantic salmon or wild Pacific salmon can meet recommended weekly Omega-3 nutritional requirements.

Although Omega-3s are needed by the body for optimal memory and performance, our bodies can’t produce them naturally. So that means we must regularly eat foods that contain them. This is where fish comes in, with its significant levels of this necessary healthy fat.

Erin’s research findings have been published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

Here is a link to the article citation and abstract

Aboriginal fish racks are empty, commercial boats worth millions of dollars are tied to the docks and sport anglers are being told to release any sockeye they catch while fishing for still healthy runs of Chinook.

Between 10.6 million and 13 million sockeye were expected to return to the Fraser this summer. But the official count is now just 1.7 million, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

via Millions of missing fish signal crisis on the Fraser River – The Globe and Mail.

The United States (U.S.) is spending about $50 million on a fish food stimulus package to help fish farmers that are hit by higher fish feed costs in the last year.

Laine Welch - Fish Talk

So Laine Welch writes about this in her column for the Anchorage Daily News and says, “Let’s hope that the feed purchasers will “go green’ and “buy American” by sourcing some of that fish food from Alaska!”

Interesting thought Laine. For a state that poo-poos “fish farming”, you’re sure quick to get onside when there’s a buck to be made.

Laine continues, “Ironically, Alaska spends $20 million each year on fish feed for its 35 salmon hatcheries”.

Another interesting thought Laine. So, you do admit that you  ‘farm’ salmon – by way of 35 state salmon hatcheries.

Laine, are you thinking what we’re thinking…? You could take the waste from your Alaskan farm-raised salmon (60 million each year by the way) and render it into fish feed and feed it back into the 35 state hatcheries. Now apply for some of that ‘stimulus’ money and save yourself about $20 million per year!

That scenario would be a heck of lot better than you’re current practice of dumping fish waste at sea. Yeah, that’s right, dumping fish waste at sea. We’ll talk about that dirty little secret on an upcoming blog. Stay tuned.

The other evening, I was buying some fish for my tea. And I was finding it tricky. I was bewildered by the different labels on the packs of fish that seemed to suggest they were more ethical. There were fish that were “line-caught”. Fish that were an “RSPCA freedom food”. Some that were “Marine Steward Council-certified” and several others that suggested other seemingly eco credentials.

As most people are, I’m also aware that many species of fish are on the brink of extinction – most famously cod. So what varieties of fish should I be buying? What do the many labels mean, which are the best and which are worth paying a little bit more for?

So in order to understand the solutions, I decided to find out what the problems are.

Wild fish issues

The global fish catch increased five times in the second half of the twentieth century. And it’s still growing. So many fish have been caught that only a quarter of fish species are not in some kind of trouble.

Over half of the world’s fish stocks are being fished to the limit of what is sustainable. Nearly a fifth are being over exploited. And 8% are now seriously depleted. The number of cod spawning in the North Sea is considered to be only a third of the bare minimum needed to maintain its population. In other words it’s dying out. Because we are catching and eating more than are born. Well done us.

However, it’s not necessarily eating it that’s the problem. It’s partly about the way it’s caught. As fishing has become more industrial, with massive driftnets gathering every living thing in their path, the amount of bycatch has increased. Bycatch is stuff that you didn’t set out to catch. It includes turtles, sea-birds, seals, whales and sharks as well as huge quantities of small fish that are thrown back dead. So in order to catch a few fish you do want, you also catch and kill a load of stuff you don’t. Very wasteful.

Bottom trawling – used to catch prawns, scallops, plaice, clams and snapper amongst others – is even worse. It involves dragging a fine net across the bottom of the sea-bed. This completely destroys delicate ecosystems and has probably wiped out many spiecies we didn’t even know about.

Farmed-fish issues

99% of the salmon we eat in the UK is farmed and not wild. Unfortunately, farming fish (or aquaculture as it’s known in the trade) is not the answer. It comes with its own, even worse problems.

Salmon, trout and many other commonly farmed fish are carnivorous. They eat other fish. So in order to produce a kilo of salmon, you need to feed it five kilos of other fish. The other fish is caught in the wild. So eating farmed salmon is like eating five wild fish. Blimey.

Salmon also excrete a lot of phosphorus. This ends up in the surrounding waters and suffocates things that live on the seabed and creates other toxic side affects. And much like intensively farmed meat, farmed fish are also given antibiotics, growth promoting drugs and colouring. Salmon should be grey, not pink. And all this weird stuff also ends up in the water and is messes about with things living naturally. It’s likely to still be present in the fish we eat too. Yuck.

There’s also the problem of escapee salmon. The WWF estimate that over 600,000 farmed salmon escape from Norwegian farms every year. These fish breed with wild salmon.  This causes a kind of negative evolution. The wild fish become less able to deal with natural conditions and are more likely not to survive. Oops.

And farmed king or tiger prawns, the kind you get at your local Indian, are even worse. So bad that they deserve a separate blog post.

Herbivorous, vegetarian farmed fish are less problematic as you don’t need to feed them other fish. These include carp and various less glamorous fish along with shellfish such as mussels, oysters and clams.

So what can you do?

Labels

The best option is to buy fish marked with the Marine Steward Council blue tick.

The MSC promote a responsible approach to fishing and monitor best practice. They award the mark to fisheries that can demonstrate they are committed to maintaining and re-establishing fish populations and who consider the biological, social and environmental impact of how they fish.

Currently there are only a small number of certified fisheries but the number is growing. Supermarkets now stock MSC-certified Pollock and Salmon from Alaska, New Zealand Hoki, Pacific Cod and Mackerel, Herring and Dover Sole from the UK. There’s a full list of stockists and what they have on offer on the MSC website.

As for other labels, line-caught is a good sign as it means they have used a line and not a massive drift net to catch it and so there is unlikely to be much bycatch. However, if what they’ve caught is North Sea cod, it’s still not sustainable.

The RSPCA freedom food label is applied to farmed fish. This guarantees better animal welfare but their standards are not as high as organic.

If you buy farmed fish, then organic is the best option. Organic fish will have been farmed in less intensive conditions and will not have been given antibiotics or colourings. That’s why organic salmon is not as pink as the standard stuff. Wild fish can never be classed as organic. Because it’s wild, you don’t know what it’s eaten.

Be picky with varieties

The other important thing is not to buy fish that is endangered. There’s a full list on the MSC-run site, fishonile.org but here’s some general rules.

Don’t buy Atlantic salmon, cod (except from Iceland), ling, monkfish, plaice (except from the Irish Sea), Snapper, Sword Fish, Tiger/King prawns (except organic), Skate, Sturgeon, Swordfish and Tuna (except dolphin-friendly, line-caught yellow fin and skipjack).

Do buy carp, clams, cockles, cuttle fish, pollock, black bream, seabream, Dover sole, Dublin Bay prawns, flounder, grey gurnard, herring, hoki, mackerel, red mullet, mussels sprat and whitling.

UK-caught fish also has less food miles so mackerel, herrings and Dover sole are a good bet.

Also, try not to buy small fish. These won’t have had chance to breed and should have been thrown back.

So next time I’m out looking for a fish supper, I’m going to avoid the salmon, unless its an organic treat. I’m going to try and avoid the cod and the haddock and try and go for something a bit more unusual. And if possible, I’m going to buy the one with the MSC blue tick and think twice about buying it if it doesn’t have one.

And I also might stop using the phrase “Plenty more fish in the sea”. Because there aren’t.

The July issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association published research indicating that not all fish was equally healthy and that tilapia and catfish could actually have an inflammatory effect.

The American Heart Association recommends 2 servings a week of fatty fish, approximately 8 oz total.  Fatty fish choices include salmon, sardines, lake trout, herring, mackerel, and albacore tuna.  (I might note here that mackerel and albacore tuna are among the fish highest in mercury – so I recommend chunk light tuna instead.)

These oily fish contain higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which are thought to have an anti-inflammatory effect.  This is a good thing since so many of the chronic conditions besieging us these days are inflammatory.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, “Which is Healthier – Beef or Salmon”, what animals eat effects their nutritional value.  The omega 6 fatty acid levels in tilapia are high because of what they were fed. 

Most tilapia and catfish are farmed.  Tilapia in particular grows rapidly on formulated feeds that contain lower protein levels, higher carbohydrate levels and a wider range of fat sources than other farmed fish.

Omega-6 fats are thought to be inflammatory, although there is controversy about the validity of the studies and about whether omega-6 intake matters or not.

I’ve actually written an ebook on the differences between omega-3 and -6 fats, and so far the theory and research looks promising to me.  I often recommend grass fed meats and wild fish because of the improved ratio’s of these two fatty acids. 

Meanwhile, is tilapia really worse for you than hamburgers and bacon?  It is hard to say.  It seems unlikely with conventionally fed and processed meats (especially considering the nitrites in the bacon).  However, naturally fed beef, pork or fish all seem like better bets.

Keep in mind that nutritional research is complex. There are many factors that influence how nutrients respond in our body. Who knows, there could be other nutrients in fish that mitigate the effects of the omega-6 fats.  Or maybe not.

If you eat a lot of farmed tilapia or catfish, I do think it is wise to eat less until we learn more.

New note 9/22/08:  Here is another valuable insight on Tilapia from the Endocrine Today Blog. He makes a good point about the low fat content of Tilapia. We are probably better off limiting other sources of omega-6 fats (like processed snacks) and fast foods, and including generally healthy foods like fish in our diet. I still would like to see them use better feed when raising Tilapia.

Find more nutrition information and my monthly newsletter on my website: 
http://healthyhabitscoach.com
.
Eat well!

However, we have the power to change this frightening trend. By choosing seafood that is ocean-friendly, you can help chart a new course. Below are two tools to help you make the right choices next time you are at the seafood counter or in a restaurant.

Here is a list of the Best Choices to choose from if you want to eat sustainable seafood that is also low in toxins provided by KidSafe Seafood.

Here is a searchable list of restaurants that specialize in serving sustainable seafood.

The National Organics Standards Board is meeting to decide whether or not to allow farmed fish to carry the federal government’s organic label.

While the industry believes an organic standard for farmed fish would improve operations and improve competition against sub-par foreign producers, opponents believe the label would violate organic standards.

According to those opposed, fish meal and fish oil used in fish farming concentrates harmful PCBs and mercury. Further, they say the most common method of fish farming, open pen net farming, is inconsistent with the principles of organic agriculture.

Currently, fish labeled “organic” in the United States does not carry an official USDA label. However, fish from foreign producers may carry an organic label issued by their own country.

Sources:

• Organic Consumers Association November 27, 2007

Exclusive Patented Vitamin K2 Formula is Only Available on Mercola.com Vitamin K is absolutely essential to build strong bones… and helps promote heart and immune health.* This key vitamin may also help you fight the signs of aging.* Plus, it’s a stronger antioxidant than vitamin E or coenzyme Q10.* You’ll not find this amazing product anywhere else on the Internet!

Learn More

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

This is a major perversion of the organic label, in many ways not too dissimilar from what these agencies did with “organic” milk. A far better description would restrict the term to animals that are being raised completely naturally. It is a simple bastardization of the term when you apply it to products produced from animals that are raised in food factories. It is simply impossible to obtain all the benefits that were naturally included in these foods when this artificial manipulation is introduced into the system. If you read last week’s newsletter, you’re already fully aware that there is major deception going on behind any farm-raised fish that is labeled organic. Farm-raised fish are raised in so-called “feedlots of the sea.” Here they are put into overcrowded pens where disease and parasites like sea lice flourish. They are fed synthetic diets that wild fish would never eat, and their waste devastates the marine life living on the ocean floor beneath the pens. Not to mention that they’re widely known to be chock full of cancer-causing toxins like PCBs. There is clearly nothing “organic” about it. Even among farmed fish that is labeled organic, chemicals are used (including pesticide-based anti-sea lice treatments, veterinary medicines, and chlorine-based Chloramine-T and formalin, which are used to prevent fungal growth), and the fish are fed synthetic vitamins and minerals, along with processed yeast to give them color. So, folks, please do not be deceived by claims that farm-raised fish — whether it’s organic or not — is healthy. Avoid farm-raised fish like the plague. Even most wild fish is now on my list of foods to avoid. This is because the waters in which most wild fish swim is polluted, possibly beyond repair. If you eat fish that grew up in polluted water, you will be ingesting a slew of mercury and other industrial chemicals that persist in the water. If you would like to eat fish safely, or at least gain the health benefits of doing so, here are the three steps you need to know: Small fish like sardines and anchovies are typically safe to eat (since they are small, they’ve had less time to accumulate toxins). Wild fish should only be eaten if you can verify via lab-testing that it’s safe. Vital Choice Wild Red Salmon is one such fish. By taking a high-quality krill oil daily, you can get plenty of the beneficial compounds in fish (omega-3 fats) without having to worry about toxins. Krill are at the bottom of the food chain and have virtually no time to grow and acquire toxic heavy metals.

Related Articles:

  Why “Organic” Farmed Salmon is Causing a Nasty Smell

 Not Any Old Fish Food Will Reduce Heart Attacks

 Heart Disease Linked to Mercury-Contaminated Fish