Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus Hippoglossus

In collaboration with

Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Scotian Halibut Limited, Nova Scotia, Canada Land-based, closed-containment, recirculating

December 14, 2012 Jenna Stoner – Seafood Ecology Research Group

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Final Seafood Recommendation

Atlantic halibut raised in closed-containment at Scotian Halibut Limited scored green rankings on all criteria with the exception of the ‘Feed’ criterion, which ranked red. This resulted in a final score of 8.73 and a Good Alternative.

Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus Scotian Halibut Limited, Nova Scotia, Canada Closed-containment

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 8.61 GREEN N/A C2 Effluent 10.00 GREEN NO C3 Habitat 8.27 GREEN NO C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO C5 Feed 2.98 RED NO C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO C7 Disease 8.00 GREEN NO C8 Source 10.00 GREEN N/A

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO 6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN N/A Total 69.86 Final Score 8.73

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 8.73 Initial rank GREEN Red Criteria 1 Intermediate Rank YELLOW Critical Criteria? NO Final Rank GOOD ALTERNATIVE

Scoring note—scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.

Executive Summary

Aquaculture of Atlantic halibut is a relatively new practice, particularly in Canada where exploratory research did not commence until the mid-1990s. When this report was written, three companies were identified to be producing Atlantic halibut in closed-containment at a marketable scale, all of which are located in the Maritime Provinces: Scotian Halibut Limited and CanAqua are located in Halifax and HalibutPEI located in PEI. This assessment, however, remains specific to Scotian Halibut, as it was the only farm to respond to initial information requests and as such all data herein are specific to this farm.

Scotian Halibut Limited received high green rankings for all criteria with the exception of ‘feed.’ Scotian Halibut Limited manager Brian Blanchard was highly cooperative throughout the assessment process, providing much of the required data to ensure the assessment was accurate and relevant to their operation. They operate as a fully recirculating, land-based, closed- containment facility. The nature of the production system allows this operation to flock, collect and appropriately discharge all effluent, and it eliminates the risk of escapees, and mitigates any potential interaction with wildlife and predators. By applying strict biosecurity protocols, is able to greatly minimize the risk of onsite disease and therefore chemical use. All stock is sourced from their onsite hatchery, which raises fully domesticated broodstock, and supplies Scotian Halibut Limited as well as all other Canadian halibut farmers. With respect to Criterion 3 (habitat), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture jointly manage all aquaculture operations in the area. Together these departments were found to be effective regulatory bodies; however, there is some concern around how regulation has yet to “catch up” to technological advances in the industry such as closed-containment aquaculture. Criterion 5, ‘feed,’ was anomalous in receiving a red ranking, which resulted from a high wild fish use from an unknown source fishery, a net protein loss and a moderate feed footprint.

Overall, Atlantic halibut raised in closed-containment at Scotian Halibut Limited received a high score of 8.73 but the final rank was yellow due to the feed criterion ranking red.

Table of Contents

Final Seafood Recommendation ...... 2 Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 5 Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ...... 5 Analysis...... 6 Scoring guide ...... 6 Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ...... 6 Criterion 2: Effluents ...... 8 Criterion 3: Habitat ...... 9 Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ...... 10 Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ...... 12 Criterion 5: Feed ...... 13 Criterion 6: Escapes...... 15 Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species ...... 16 Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ...... 17 Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ...... 18 Overall Recommendation ...... 19 Acknowledgements ...... 20 References...... 20 About SeaChoice® ...... 22 About Seafood Watch® ...... 23 Guiding Principles...... 24 Data points and all scoring calculations ...... 26

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation Halibut aquaculture in closed-contained systems is still a relatively new practice. Exploratory research identified three companies that were producing Atlantic halibut in closed-containment at a marketable scale, all of which are located in the Maritime Provinces: Scotian Halibut Limited and CanAqua are located in Halifax and HalibutPEI located in PEI. Due to the small scale of the industry, production statistics and other industry details are not made publicly available through Fisheries and Oceans Canada or Statistics Canada as a way to protect business identity, therefore producer participation was critical in carrying out this assessment. The original intent for this assessment was to produce a single general assessment for the species, however limited response to initial information request did not make this possible. Scotian Halibut Limited was the only farm out of the three to respond and hence the resultant assessment is farm-specific. All data included herein, as well as all scores and rankings, are specific to Atlantic halibut farmed in closed-containment at Scotian Halibut.

Species Overview Atlantic halibut, Hippoglossus hippoglossus, is native to the North Atlantic Ocean and has long been targeted by commercial fisheries. Peak capture landings occurred in the 1950s and 1960s when upwards of 20 000 tonnes of Atlantic halibut were being caught annually, however, landings have steadily declined since and the global catch in 2010 was a mere 5 575 tonnes (FAO 2012). Leading countries in the commercial fishery are Canada, Norway, and Iceland, which together account for approximately 87% of the global catch in 2010, while the remaining 13% of the harvest is accounted for by 13 other countries (FAO 2012). Atlantic halibut is a high valued fish with a strong local and global demand - Canada’s 2010 landings alone (2 462 MT) sold for just under $22 million (DFO 2012). In 1996, Atlantic halibut was listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List and although many efforts have been put in place to protect the species, there has been no significant recovery observed within the species (Sobel 1996).

Although Atlantic halibut is a highly valued species with declining commercial landings, experimental aquaculture projects did not begin until the 1980s and have been slow to develop. Norway, Iceland, and, to a lesser extent, the UK were the first countries to develop an Atlantic halibut aquaculture industry with product coming to market scale in the late 1990s (Glover et al. 2006). Norway is currently the industry leader, producing over 1610 MT in 2010, with Iceland and the UK trailing, as each coutry produced less than 150 MT in the same year (FAO 2012).

Canada, on the other hand, did not begin investigative research into the culture potential of Atlantic halibut until the mid-1990s and a steady, year-round supplier did not emerge until 2005 (DFO 2006). Early attempts of culturing this species were plagued with challenges such as finding a proper strain to domesticate, high larval mortality, and slow growth rates (DFO 2006). Current national production values are not available for Canada and only three producers farming Atlantic halibut in closed-containment were identified.

Analysis

Scoring guide  With the exception of the exceptional factors (3.3x and 6.2X), all scores result in a zero to ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional factors result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero indicates no negative impact.  The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available here.  The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Annex 1.

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts. . Sustainability unit: The ability to make a robust sustainability assessment. . Principle: Robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts is available to relevant stakeholders.

Criterion 1 Summary The data quality for all categories assessed was high, with the exception of production statistics and feed categories, because the farm manager, Brian Blanchard, provided much of the data and Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5 Effluent Yes 10 10 Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5 Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10 Chemical use Yes 10 10 Feed Yes 5 5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10 Disease Yes 10 10 Source of stock Yes 10 10 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) no not relevant n/a Total 77.5

C1 Data Final Score 8.61 GREEN information required to accurately complete the assessment.

Justification of Ranking As this assessment focuses on a single farm, the voluntary involvement of Brian Blanchard, Scotian Halibut’s farm manager, was critical to obtaining the required information to complete this assessment. Due to the small scale of the closed-containment halibut farming industry in Canada, information about production statistics and industry norms are not made publicly available in order to protect business identity. Brian Blanchard, however, provided many of the details required to accurately complete the assessment for Scotian Halibut, and the data quality for all categories scored 10 with the exception of production statistics, locations/habitats, and feed. The ‘locations/habitats’ category scored a 7.5 to reflect the lack of legislation that speaks directly to closed-containment aquaculture. The ‘Feed’ and ‘Production’ statistics categories scored 5 due to lack of verification or loss of relevant information through data gaps or outdated information. It should be noted that because this assessment is specific to a single farm, data were collected over a relatively short time frame and are not necessarily peer-reviewed; however, in all circumstances the assessor was confident that the information being provided by the farm manager was truly reflective of current operations.

Criterion 2: Effluents

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads. . Sustainability unit: The carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect. . Principle: Aquaculture operations minimize or avoid the production and discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm.

Criterion 2 Summary

C2 Effluent Final Score 10.00 GREEN

The effluent criterion scored 10 (green) because a land-based, closed-containment, recirculating system is used at Scotian Halibut, which allows the producers to collect, treat and properly dispose of all effluent material.

The farm manager provided a comprehensive description of the site operations and as such the rapid assessment could be used here with confidence.

Justification of Ranking Scotian Halibut Limited operates as a land-based, closed-containment, recirculating system whereby solid wastes are flocked and pumped out of the grow-out tanks where they are then held in onsite septic tanks. These septic tanks are emptied about once per year and the sludge is sent to a landfill for proper disposal. Under current operating standards, this production system scores 10 and ranks green with respect to the effluent criterion. Scotian Halibut Limited is also working on a project that would grow seaweed from fish effluent, making the farm a fully integrated system.

Criterion 3: Habitat

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide. . Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the habitat type. . Principle: Aquaculture operations are located at sites, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.

Criterion 3 Summary Habitat parameters Value Score F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 9.00 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 4.00 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 4.25 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 6.80 C3 Habitat Final Score 8.27 GREEN Critical? NO

Overall the habitat criterion received a high score, 8.27, as the farm was found to maintain full functionality of the surrounding habitat and the local, provincial and federal regulation bodies were deemed to be effective.

Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function Scotian Halibut Limited is a land-based farm sited on moderately vegetated land in Nova Scotia. Some vegetation did need to be cleared in order to build grow-out tanks and other operational facilities; however, this accounts for less than 50% of the land cover, which suggests that the farm has only minimal impacts on habitat functionality, and thus a score of 9 was awarded. It should be noted that if the farm or the industry were to expand, then it would likely have a larger impact on the habitat, in which case a reassessment of this factor would be required.

Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), a federal body, and the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a provincial body, work together in the management and the regulating of the aquaculture industry in Nova Scotia. Brian Blanchard confirmed that Scotian Halibut Limited underwent an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the 1990s, and since then they produce an annual environmental certificate.

The Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (NSDFA) is largely responsible for monitoring and enforcement. A complete list of their enforcement staff is readily available online through the provinces staff directory, and is appropriate for the size of the industry. An online interactive map of active aquaculture farms is also available through the Department (NSDFA, 2002).

Looking at the broader picture, however, DFO is largely responsible for setting out the regulatory framework that is meant to ensure the sustainable development of the aquaculture industry. According to DFO’s frequently asked questions webpage “in the vast majority of cases, aquaculture operations undergo a thorough environmental assessment and appropriate mitigating measures are adopted before the facilities can be approved" (2005); however, no record could be found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (CEAA) online, public database for EIAs conducted on closed-containment aquaculture sites (2011). (Note that the CEAA’s registry has files dating back to only October 30, 2003, and Scotian Halibuts records are not available through this tool). Additionally, DFO speaks of addressing cumulative impacts of multiple farms and avoiding high valued habitat in the farm siting process; however, there is little within the regulatory framework that speaks directly to closed-containment aquaculture (2005). This highlights the growing issue of management and regulation not keeping up with the advancements of the aquaculture industry. As such, closed-containment aquaculture can be seen as being ‘ahead of the curve.’ It has addressed many of the environmental issues of conventional fish farming, but remains, in its own way, unregulated. In this assessment, the mandates and regulations of DFO and the NSDFA, although specific to net pen and cage farming, have been applied to closed- containment farming. By doing so, the assessment reflects the fact that a regulatory body exists but also accounts for the lag in developing closed-containment specific regulation. Overall, this approach ensures the effectiveness of management score is not over- or understated.

Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities

A measure of the effects of deliberate or accidental mortality on the populations of affected species of predators or other wildlife. This is an “exceptional” factor that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact.

Factor 3.3X Summary

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score F3.3X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score 0.00 GREEN Critical? NO

This factor scored 0 (green) because Scotian Halibut Limited operates as a land-based system that is fully contained within a secure building and as such there is no concern for wildlife and predator interactions.

Justification of Ranking F3.3X Wildlife and predator score Scotian Halibut Limited operates in a fully secure land-based building, which eliminates the risk of wildlife and predator interactions. Thus, this factor is of no concern and scored 0.

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non-target organisms and leads to production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical-resistant organisms. . Sustainability unit: Non-target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments. . Principle: Aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid the discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively control the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.

Criterion 4 Summary Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN Critical? NO

This factor score 10 (green) because the need for chemical use at Scotian Halibut Limited is low as the closed-containment, recirculating production system allows for minimal introduction of pathogens. Additionally, the nature of the production system allows all wastes to be properly treated prior to disposal, which ensures no active chemicals or by-products are being release into the environment.

Justification of Ranking By using a closed-contained, recirculating farming system, Scotian Halibut Limited is able to control the rearing environment of their fish. By applying strict biosecurity protocols and monitoring tank environments (which reduce stress and limit pathogen introductions) onsite disease rates are greatly minimized. In personal communication with Brian Blanchard, it was confirmed that a prophylactic was used in 2004/2005 to treat a small increase in mortality due to supersaturation, and that formalin is used infrequently to treat parasites. However, even during times of chemical use, water is recycled through the system and solid wastes are collected and disposed of appropriately, thus the production system ensures that no active chemicals or by-products are being released into the environment. Overall, this factor scored 10 and ranked green as a result of low chemical use and because appropriate measures are in place to mitigate any environmental affects of discharges.

Criterion 5: Feed

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or losses vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of conversion can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability. . Sustainability unit: The amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation. . Principle: Aquaculture operations source only sustainable feed ingredients, convert them efficiently and responsibly, and minimize and utilize the non-edible portion of farmed fish.

Criterion 5 Summary Feed parameters Value Score F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 2.59 3.52 F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00 F5.1: Wild Fish Use 1.96 F5.2a Protein IN 57.60 F5.2b Protein OUT 18.60 F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -67.71 3 F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 12.26 5 C5 Feed Final Score 2.98 RED Critical? NO

The feed criterion scored 2.98 and ranked red due to a high wild fish use from an unknown source fishery, a net protein loss and a moderate feed footprint.

Justification of Ranking Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use Scotian Halibut Limited source their feed from Skretting and EWOS Canada, both of whom did not reply to the author’s efforts to contact them for further details on their feed formulations. Mike McDermid, partner relations manager at Ocean Wise, provided great insight regarding many of the data points required to complete this portion of the assessment as Ocean Wise received a better response from the feed companies when they conducted their assessment of Scotian Halibut. It was found that an economic FCR (eFCR) of 1.2 was achieved for for both EWOS and Skretting halibut feeds (Mike McDermid, pers. comm.). Fishmeal and fish oil inclusion levels used in this assessment were taken as averages of the two fish feeds and were found to be 26.4% and 10.8%, respectively (Mike McDermid, pers. comm.). The source fishery for the fishmeal and fish oil is not known, and although both companies state their source is strictly from sustainable fisheries, the

sustainability of the source of wild fish factor still scored -6 because specific details on the source fisheries could not be obtained (EWOS, 2009; Skretting, 2007).

Overall, the fish in: fish out (FIFO) value was found to be 1.41 and 2.59 for fishmeal and fish oil, respectively, and the higher of the two was used in the determination of the final wild fish use score, which was 1.96.

Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss The average protein content of the two feeds used at Scotian Halibut Limited was found to be 46%, while details about the sources of the protein (edible versus non-edible) were not available. The protein content of a whole harvested farmed Atlantic halibut is 18.6% (EDF, 2011) and the edible yield of the fish is about 57% (Arnason et al. 2009). Scotian Halibut Limited typically sell their fish as head on, and gutted, and as such, the only processing waste is the internal organs, which are sold to local mink farms (Brian Blanchard, pers. comm.). Overall, the farming of Atlantic halibut was found to lead to a net protein loss of 66.3% and this factor scored 3.

Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint Details about crop feed versus land animal product inclusion levels were not available. The author’s attempts to find an ingredient list from either of the two companies were also unsuccessful. Values for these factors were therefore calculated by subtracting the inclusion level of marine ingredients and dividing the remaining portion evenly between crop feed and land animal products.

Calculation used to determine inclusion level of crop feed and land animal products:

Inclusion level of crop feed/ = 100 – (% inclusion of fishmeal + % inclusion of fish oil) Land animal product 2

Using the above equation the inclusion levels of crop feed ingredients and land animal products were determined to be 36.8%. This resulted in an overall feed footprint score of 5.

Criterion 6: Escapes

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage , spawning disruption, and other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non-native and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations . Sustainability unit: affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations. . Principle: aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild populations associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Criterion 6 Summary Escape parameters Value Score F6.1 Escape Risk 10.00 F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0 F6.1b Invasiveness 6 C6 Escape Final Score 10.00 GREEN Critical? NO

The escape criterion scored 10 (green) because Scotian Halibut Limited have a low escape risk and Atlantic halibut have a moderate invasiveness score.

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape risk The risk of escapes is of no concern at Scotian Halibut Limited as they operate as a land-based closed-containment system in a fully secure building. There is no potential for fish to escape from this site and as such this factor scored 10.

Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness As the escape risk score is 10, the invasiveness score is not relevant (as there is no risk of escapees). However, for information, Atlantic halibut received a moderate invasiveness score, which can largely be attributed to the fact that the halibut farming industry is relatively young. At Scotian Halibut, the current farmed stock is only one-generation hatchery raised as it takes 14 years to bring halibut to maturity (Brian Blanchard, pers. comm.). As such the current farmed stock is not likely to be genetically distinct from natural populations and escapees would have less of an impact on the natural species status. Escapees could, however, potentially compete with wild native populations for food or habitat, act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations, and compete with wild native populations for breeding partners. Overall, this results in a moderate invasiveness score of 6.

Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principle farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments. This is an “exceptional” criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score.

Factor 6.2X Summary

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0.00 F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00 C6 Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Scotian Halibut Limited rear broodfish onsite and therefore do not require international or trans- waterbody live animal shipments, resulting in a score of 10 for this factor.

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments No international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments are occurring in the raising of Atlantic halibut at Scotian halibut. They source all of their broodstock from broodfish reared onsite, and as such, this factor scored 10.

Factor 6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination This factor was not scored because no live animal shipments are occurring.

Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their retransmission to local wild species that share the same water body. . Sustainability unit: Wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and parasites. . Principle: Aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

Criterion 7 Summary Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 8.00 C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 8.00 GREEN Critical? NO

This factor scored 8 (green) because the closed-containment, recirculating production system used at Scotian Halibut Limited allows wastes to be collected and treated prior to disposal, and minimizes the amount of discharge, which decreases the risk of amplifying disease rates; however, the farm is not fully biosecure.

Justification of Ranking Pathogen and parasite interactions are of little concern in closed-containment systems as all discharged water and effluent are treated on site prior to release, thus minimizing the possibility of further impact. Additionally, the occurrence of parasites and pathogens on site are minimal; the last incident occurring in 2004/2005 (Brian Blanchard, pers. comm.), suggesting that the farm is unlikely to increase disease levels in natural populations above background levels. A score of 8 was awarded to this criterion as a result of the low onsite infection rate and minimal discharge.

Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: The removal of fish from wild populations for on-growing to harvest size in farms. . Sustainability unit: Wild fish populations. . Principle: Aquaculture operations use eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm-raised broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.

Criterion 8 Summary Source of stock parameters Score C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement 100 C8 Source of stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

All of the stock at Scotian Halibut Limited is sourced from onsite broodfish, which are now fully domesticated, resulting in a score of 10 (green) for this factor.

Justification of Ranking Original broodfish were caught in the late 90s from local waters just 40 miles from the hatchery (Brian Blanchard, pers. comm.). The Scotian Halibut Limited hatchery supplies not only their grow- out facility, but all other Canadian halibut farmers as well, and their current broodfish are one- generation hatchery raised, suggesting that 100% of their stock comes from domesticated broodstock.

Overall Recommendation The overall recommendation is as follows:

The overall final score is the average of the individual criterion scores (after the two exceptional scores have been deducted from the total). The overall ranking is decided according to the final score, the number of red criteria, and the number of critical scores as follows:

– Best Choice = Final score ≥6.6 AND no individual criteria are Red (i.e. <3.3). – Good Alternative = Final score ≥3.3 AND <6.6, OR Final score ≥ 6.6 and there is one individual “Red” criterion. – Red = Final score <3.3, OR there is more than one individual Red criterion, OR there is one or more Critical score.

Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus Scotian Halibut Limited, Nova Scotia, Canada Closed-containment

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO 6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN N/A Total 69.86 Final Score 8.73

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 8.73 Initial rank GREEN Red Criteria 1 Intermediate Rank YELLOW Critical Criteria? NO Final Rank GOOD ALTERNATIVE

Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® would like to thank Dr. Steve Summerfelt, Director of Aquaculture Systems Research at the Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

References

Arnason, J., Imsland, A.K., Gustavsson, A., Gunnarsson, S., Arnarson, I., Reynisson, H., Jonsson, A.F., Thorarensen, H. 2009. Optimum Feed formulation For Atlantic Halibut (Hippoglossus hippogossus L.): Minimum Protein Content in Diet for Maximum Growth. Aquaculture 291(3-4): pp. 188-191

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2011. Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry. [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 2011. Atlantic Halibut. [Internet] accessed 10 July 2012 from http://apps.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=15851

EWOS Group. 2009. Sustainable Aquaculture Feed. Modified 5 June 2012. [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://www.ewos.com/portal/wps/wcm/connect/ewoscom/com/frontpage/about_ewos/about_e wos_sustainability

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2005. Frequently Asked Questions. [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/faq-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2006. Atlantic Halibut. [Internet] accessed 10 July 2012 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/finfish-poissons/halibut-fletan-eng.htm

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2012. FishStat Plus. Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Version 2.3. [Software]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en (Data sources: Aquaculture Production (1950–2010) and Capture Production)

Glover, K.A., T. Svåsand, I. Olesen and M. Rye. 2006. Atlantic halibut – Hippoglossus Hippoglossus, in Genimpact final scientific report: 17-22p.

Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. 2002. Aquaculture Sites of Nova Scotia. Last updated 6 July 2011. [Internet] accessed 10 July 2012 from http://gis8.nsgc.gov.ns.ca/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=FG&cmd=fish&left=147907.25&bottom=4809 513.3&right=770790.15&top=5212480.4&Action=Start&list=AllSpecies&click.x=100&click.y=100/

Sobel, J. 1996. Hippoglossus hippoglossus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. [Internet] accessed 10 July 2012 from http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/10097/0

Skretting. 2007. Skretting – passionately committed to sustainability. [Internet] accessed 11 July 2012 from http://www.skretting.ca/Internet/SkrettingCanada/webInternet.nsf/wprid/BC70B7B588F4564A88 2573F40001E581/$file/SkrSustainBro.pdf

Personal Communications Brian Blanchard, Manager of Scotian Halibut, personal communication 13 March 2012

Mike McDermid, Partner Relations Manager OceanWise, Personal communication 7 March 2012

About SeaChoice®

SeaChoice, Canada’s most comprehensive sustainable seafood program, is about solutions for healthy oceans. Launched in 2006, SeaChoice was created to help Canadian businesses and shoppers take an active role in supporting sustainable fisheries and aquaculture at all levels of the seafood supply chain. Based on scientific assessments, SeaChoice has created easy-to-use tools that help you make the best seafood choices.

Working in collaboration with the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s acclaimed Seafood Watch program, SeaChoice undertakes science-based seafood assessments, provides informative resources for consumers, and supports businesses through collaborative partnerships.

The SeaChoice program is operated by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society and Sierra Club BC. Our work is funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Webster Foundation, and the Eden Foundation.

About Seafood Watch®

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild- caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:

Seafood Watch will:  Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant stakeholders.  Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm.  Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing historic habitat damage.  Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use and discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.  Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative indicators to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood.  Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild fish or shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression, hybridization, spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.  Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.  Promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

 Recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a major impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving practices for some criteria may lead to more energy-intensive production systems (e.g. promoting more energy-intensive closed recirculation systems).

Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.

Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed.

Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

Data points and all scoring calculations

This is a condensed version of the criteria and scoring sheet to provide access to all data points and calculations. See the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for a full explanation of the criteria, calculations and scores. Yellow cells represent data entry points. Criterion 1: Data quality and availability Score (0- Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality 10) Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5 Effluent Yes 10 10 Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5 Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10 Chemical use Yes 10 10 Feed Yes 5 5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10 Disease Yes 10 10 Source of stock Yes 10 10 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) no not relevant n/a Total 77.5

C1 Data Final Score 8.611111111 GREEN

Criterion 2: Effluents Rapid Assessment C2 Score 10

Criterion 3: Habitat 33.1 Habitat conversion and function F3.1 Score 9

3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) Factor 3.2a – Regulatory or management effectiveness Question Scoring Score 1 - Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological principles, Yes 1 including an EIAs requirement for new sites? 2 - Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts and the yes 1 maintenance of ecosystem function?

3 - Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and thereby mostly 0.75 preventing the future loss of ecosystem services? 4 - Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e. avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance with international Yes 1 agreements such as the Ramsar treaty)

5 - Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or critical partly 0.25 habitats or ecosystem services? 4

Factor 3.2b – Siting regulatory or management enforcement Question Scoring Score

1 - Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, and are they yes 1 appropriate to the scale of the industry?

2 - Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning or other Yes 1 ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control measures?

3 - Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and their Yes 1 cumulative impacts?

4 - Is the enforcement process transparent - e.g. public availability of farm locations and Partly 0.25 sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc?

5 - Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control measures are being Yes 1 achieved? 4.25

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 6.80

C3 Habitat Final Score 8.27 GREEN Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score F3.3X Wildlife and Predator Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence of Risk of Chemical Use Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1 Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1a – Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 26.4 Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0 % FM 26.4 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 10.8 Fish oil from by-products (%) 0 % FO 10.8 Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5 Fish oil yield (%) 5 eFCR 1.2 FIFO fishmeal 1.41 FIFO fish oil 2.59 Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 2.59 FIFO Score 3.52

Factor 5.1b – Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF) SSWF -6 SSWF Factor -1.5552

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 7.45

5.2 Net Protein Gain or Loss Protein INPUTS Protein content of feed 46 eFCR 1.2 Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 0 Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 0 Protein OUTPUTS Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 18.6 Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 57 Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 100

Protein IN 55.20 Protein OUT 18.6 Net protein gain or loss (%) -66.30434783 Critical? NO F5.2 Net protein Score 3.00

5.3 Feed Footprint Factor 5.3a – Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood

Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 37.2 eFCR 1.2 Average primary productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7 Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68 Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 11.61

Factor 5.3b – Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 36.8 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 36.8 Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88 eFCR 1.2 Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64 Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.65

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 12.26

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 5.00

C5 Feed Final Score 2.98 RED Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes Factor 6.1a – Escape Risk Escape Risk 10

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS) Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the escape site 0 Recapture & Mortality Score 0 Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 10

Factor 6.1b – Invasiveness Part A – Native Species Score 4

Part C – Native and non-native species

Question Score Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? yes 1 Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations? yes 1 Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb yes 1 breeding behavior of the same or other species?

Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g. by feeding, foraging, No 0 settlement or other)? Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? No 0 2 2

F 6.1b Score 6

Final C6 Score 10.00 GREEN Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0.00 F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00 F6.2X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 10.00 C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 10.00 Critical? NO GREEN

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of stock parameters Score C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement 100 C8 Source of stock Final Score 10 GREEN