Seafood Watch

In collaboration with

Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

MDM Aqua Farms - Rumsey, Alberta, Canada Closed-containment: Land-based Recirculating System

December 12, 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

Tilapia farmed in closed-containment at MDM Aqua Farms scored yellow for the data quality, feed, and chemical use criteria, while receiving green rankings in all remaining criteria. The overall score was 7.87 and a final green rank was achieved, making this product a ‘Best Choice.’

Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus MDM Aqua farms, Alberta, Canada Closed-containment land based recirculating system

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 6.39 YELLOW n/a C2 Effluent 10.00 GREEN NO C3 Habitat 6.00 YELLOW NO C4 Chemicals 6.00 YELLOW NO C5 Feed 6.55 YELLOW 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 62.94 Final Score 7.87

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 7.87 Initial rank GREEN Red Criteria 0

Intermediate Rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank BEST CHOICE

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

The original intent of this report was to produce a single general assessment for tilapia grown in closed-containment farms in Canada, however, only two such farms could be identified with the available contact information, and only one of these two farms responded to information requests. As such, all data included in this assessment, along with all ensuing recommendation, are specific to tilapia farmed in closed-containment at MDM Aqua Farms. Farm manager of MDM Aqua Farms, Mark McNaughton, was very cooperative throughout the assessment process, providing much of the information required to accurately complete this assessment. There were some factors, such as feed and habitat, to which he could not speak to, resulting in a moderate overall data quality score. Although the farm did not have to conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and local regulatory and management bodies were found to be only moderately effective, the farm appears to have only a moderate to minor impact on habitat functionality allowing for a high habitat score to be achieved. The effluent criterion scored 10 because the closed-containment, recirculation production system allows all effluent to be collected and used as fertilizer for land-based crops. Although most of the water gets filtered and recycled through the system, some wastewater is discharged onto land-based crop. This discharge, although not directly released into a waterbody, does act as a point source for chemical and pathogen release, potentially affecting soil bacteria and/or leaching into ground water. Pathogen events have occurred onsite; in particular, stress induced parasites have occurred when fingerlings were transferred to grow- out tanks, requiring moderate application of a parasiticide. This resulted in scores of 6 and 8 for the chemical use and disease criteria, respectively. The escapees, wildlife mortalities, and introduced species escapees were deemed to be of no concern because the farm operates as a closed-containment system, with recirculating tanks that are fully enclosed, which completely excludes predators and eliminates the risk of escapes. Overall, tilapia raised in closed-containment at MDM Aqua Farms is considered a good choice, with a final score of 7.87 and a green ranking.

Table of Contents

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

Tilapia farming is a growing industry in Canada; however, it is still difficult to identify farms producing at market-scale. This is primarily because the industry is still relatively small compared to other aquaculture ventures in Canada, and thus reporting of production volumes and farming details are not available through the Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO) or Statistics Canada. It is said that individual provinces are collecting data about these smaller- scale farms, but there are not enough farms from which to aggregate data, and as a means of protecting business identity data are not publicly available. The original intent of this report was to produce a single general assessment for tilapia grown in closed-containment farms in Canada, however, only two such farms could be identified with available contact information, and only one of these two farms responded to information requests. As such, all data included in this assessment, along with all ensuing recommendations, are specific to tilapia farmed in closed-containment at MDM Aqua Farms.

Species Overview

Nile tilapia is a warm water, omnivorous fish native to Africa. Evidence of culture dates back some 4,000 years to the Egyptians, which are to said to have raised tilapia in ornatmental ponds (FAO, 2012). Through the 1960s to the 1980s, Nile tilapia experienced wide-spread global distribution as research and technological advances, particularly the development of hormonal sex-reversal, made it a viable foodfish for aquaculture (FAO 2012). Nile tilapia is a highly adaptable species with the ability to alter its feeding habits to available feed, live in a broad range of salinities, and to survive under low oxygen supply. These characteristics make the species highly favourable for aquaculture, but also allow it to be a highly invasive species. Today, Nile tilapia has been introduced, primarily through aquaculture, to 90 countries across nearly every continent (MBA 2006). Nile tilpia is the most widely cultured species in the world and is the second most cultured species by quantity following carp. In 2008, more than 2.8 million tonnes of tilapia were cultured, of which more than half came from China (FAO 2011). Other top producing countries include Indonesia, Phillipines and Malaysia. In Canada, tilapia aquculture first started in Ontario in 1995 (DFO, 2006). Given that the fish is a warm-water species, all Canadian production occurs in indoor, heated tanks. Production statistics, at both a national and provincial level, are not available due to the small scale of the industry. The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance states that tilapia aquaculture is currently occuring in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario (2012).

Analysis

Scoring guide  With the exclusion 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 Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 0 0 Effluent Yes 10 10 Locations/habitats Yes 5 5 Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10 Chemical use Yes 7.5 7.5 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 5 5 Disease Yes 7.5 7.5 Source of stock Yes 10 10 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not relevant n/a Total 80

C1 Data Final Score 6.39 YELLOW

Data quality and availability scored ‘moderate’ with a final score of 6.39 (yellow) because the farm manager of MDM Aqua Farms was highly cooperative throughout the assessment process,

providing much of the required information. There were, however, some factors the manager could not speak to and general species data had to be applied.

Justification of Ranking This assessment is specific to MDM Aqua Farms whose manager, Mark McNaughton, was highly cooperative throughout the assessment process. Mr. McNaughton provided many of the details and data required for accurate completion of the assessment, specifically on the points of effluent, predators and wildlife, chemical use, disease and source of stock. No information was made available regarding production statistics. Mr. McNaughton provided as much information as he could with regards to feed data, however, much of the required data fell under proprietary information with the US-based feed company. The author’s attempts to contact the feed company went unanswered. The locations/habitats and animal movement criteria scored ‘moderate’ in data quality, as these factors required data and information from a broader level (i.e. not specific to the farm) that was not readily available. In instances where farm-specific data were not available, average values from tilapia production in the US were applied, as these were determined to be the most representative of Canadian practices. It should be noted that due to the small scale of the farm and this type of production system, data are not peer reviewed, even in the case where categories received high data quality scores. Most of the data collected were also gathered over a relatively short time frame. The author, however, conducted the assessment conservatively and is confident that the data used are accurate and the assessment is fully representative of the farming operation.

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

Operating as a land based, closed containment, recirculating aquaculture system, MDM Aqua Farms scored 10 (green) on the effluent criterion because the system allows all wastes to be collected and treated before they are applied to the onsite grain farm as fertilizer.

Rapid assessment – used when good quality data clearly defines an appropriate score The rapid assessment was used here because the farm owner/manager, Mark McNaughton provided a robust description of the farming system used at MDM Aqua Farms and highlighted how wastes are collected and used onsite.

Justification of Ranking MDM Aqua Farms confirmed that both solid waste and wastewater are collected and used onsite as fertilizer and as water for land-based crops. Prior to discharge, water is filtered and put through scrubbing towers to be recirculated through the tanks at a rate of approximately 99%. Overall, the effluent criterion scored 10 and ranked green, as wastes are properly collected, treated and disposed of.

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 8.00 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 2.50 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 2 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 2 C3 Habitat Final Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

A low score was achieved for regulatory and management effectiveness due to the lack of information about the two groups governing aquaculture in Alberta: the Alberta Environment and Water Department and the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Department. MDM Aqua Farms is having minor to moderate impacts on the habitat functionality and an overall habitat score of 6.00 (yellow) was achieved.

Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function MDM Aqua Farms is sited in southern Alberta grasslands. The farm raised hogs for 30 years until 1999 when the farm owners converted the hog pens into fish rearing tanks. Grain and other land crops are still raised onsite and the wastes from the fish tanks are used as fertilizer (Mike McNaughton, pers. comm.). The siting of this farm some 40 years ago certainly resulted in a loss of habitat functionality, however the original grassland habitat is considered to be of low concern and the loss of habitat occurred over a historic time frame. The conversion of MDM farms to the raising of tilapia has lead to the development of a, more integrated farming system, and has allowed for some of the original grassland habitat to be restored. Overall, a score of 8 was achieved for this factor.

Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) There are two departments in the government of Alberta that are responsible for monitoring and regulating the aquaculture industry in the province: the Department of Environment and

Water and the Department of Agriculture, and Rural Development. Neither department is very transparent with respect to the degree of enforcement or reporting required by aquaculture operations in Alberta. The Commercial B Fish Culture License regulations, under which MDM Aqua Farms operates, do identify a ‘restricted area’ in the southwest corner of the province where aquaculture operations are highly restricted due to sensitive natural fishery habitat (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2012). Additionally, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development states that each application for a commercial fish culture license is evaluated on a site-by-site basis to ensure that they do not interfere or threaten native populations (2006). MDM Aqua Farms owner/manager Mark McNaughton did confirm that an environmental impact assessment was not conducted for his farm site and that a representative from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development conducts on-site inspections every two years. Details regarding what aspects of the farm were inspected were not provided, inspection reports are not made publicly available, and individuals from the aquaculture inspection agency could not be identified from the Alberta Department of Agriculture and Rural Development website.

Although it appears that the Government of Alberta has proper regulatory standards in place for their aquaculture industry, the lack of transparency and publicly available data makes it challenging to score the effectiveness of the management and enforcement bodies. As such, this factor scored 2 at this time.

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

The wildlife and predator mortality criterion scored 0 (green) because MDM Aqua Farms is fully enclosed in a secure building and as such there is no risk of interaction with wildlife or predators.

Justification of Ranking F3.3X Wildlife and predator score

Mark McNaughton, owner/manager of MDM Aqua Farms, confirmed that all fish tanks are fully enclosed in a secure building as required by the Commercial B Fish Culture License under which they operate. This system ensures there is no interaction with wildlife and predators, and as such, this factor scored 0 and ranked green.

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

The chemical use criterion scored 6 (yellow) because it is known that at least one parasiticide is used onsite with relative frequency, however the nature of the closed-containment, recirculating system minimizes the amount of water discharge and there is no evidence of resistance to the treatment or impacts on non-target organisms.

Justification of Ranking MDM Aqua Farms owner/manager Mark McNaughton stated that the parasiticide, Parasite-S is used approximately 6-10/year on their farm. The closed-containment, recirculating systems used onsite allow for the collection and treatment of effluent, and limits the amount of water discharged from the aquaculture facility. One point of potential concern is that collected effluent and wastewater is typically applied to the land crop that is grown onsite. The half life (amount of time required for half the amount of the chemical to degrade) of Parasite-S (formalin) is 2-14 days in groundwater (Health Canada 2007), which suggests that there is potential residue in effluent, and the continuous Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score 6.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO application of residual concentrations could, over time, result in impacts on non-target organisms. At the time of this writing, however, there was no evidence of impacts on non- target organisms or of resistance to the treatment and therefore this factor scored 6.

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) 0.45 8.87 F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00 F5.1: Wild Fish Use 8.59 F5.2a Protein IN 61.2 F5.2b Protein OUT 6.66 F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -89.1 1 F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 3.48 8 C5 Feed Final Score 6.55 YELLOW Critical? NO The feed used to raise tilapia at MDM Aqua Farms was found to have a low wild fish use (score 8.59), a net protein loss (score 2) and a low feed footprint (score 8), which resulted in a moderate final feed score of 6.55 (yellow).

Justification of Ranking Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use MDM Aqua Farms sources their feed from an Idaho-based company called Rangen Feeds. Multiple attempts were made by the author to contact them for more detailed information, however all attempts went unanswered, and as such, much of the feed data within this assessment are sourced from literature. The economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR), fish meal inclusion level and fish oil inclusion level used in this assessment were 1.7, 6% and 0.5%, respectively (Tacon and Metian 2008). This resulted in a low fish in: fish out ratio (FIFO) of 0.45. The source of the wild feed was unknown, and as such, the sustainability score for the source fishery was -6. An overall wild fish use score of 8.59 was achieved.

Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss

The feed used at MDM Aqua Farms has a protein content of 36% as per the nutrition label provided on the feed bag (Mark McNaughton pers. comm.). Details regarding the percentage of feed protein being sourced form non-edible versus edible crop could not be found, and both scored 0 as per the default value provided in the scoring tool. The protein content of a whole harvested tilapia was found to be 18% and the edible yield is 37% (FAO 1989). This results in an overall net protein loss of 89.1% and a score of 1 for this factor.

Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint According to the ingredient list provided on the nutrition label on the feed bag (Mark McNaughton pers. comm.) all ingredients with the exception of fishmeal and fish oil are sourced from crop feed. This resulted in an overall low feed footprint of 3.48 and an overall final score of 8 for this factor.

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

Although tilapia are considered a highly invasive species (invasiveness score of 1.5) the nature of the closed-containment, land-based system used at MDM Aqua Farms eliminates the escapee risk and as such this factor received a final score of 10 and ranked green.

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape risk At MDM Aqua Farms Tilapia is raised in a land-based recirculating system, which has appropriate water treatment, filters and screens in place to eliminate the risk of escapes. Additionally, the farm has no connection to natural water bodies as all discharges, including any wastewater, are applied to onsite land crops. Mark McNaughton confirmed that no escape events have occurred at MDM Aqua Farms. Furthermore, no product is sold live, which eliminates the risk of escape of this non-native fish from the market place. The escape risk factor scored 10 overall.

Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness As the escape risk score is 10, this invasiveness factor is not relevant (as there is no risk of escape). However for information, tilapia is considered a highly invasive species and has been introduced, primarily through aquaculture, to 90 countries across nearly every continent (MBA, 2006). Populations have established in both the northern and southern United States as a result of escapes from (more open) aquaculture facilities. As such, if escapes were to occur in Canada there is some risk that they would be able to establish viable populations. Escapees are likely to compete with wild native populations for food or habitat, act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations, disturb breeding behavior of other species and modify habitats to the detriment of other species (Martin et al., 2010). This results

Escape parameters Value Score F6.1 Escapee Risk 10.00 F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0 F6.1b Invasiveness 1.5 C6 Escapee Final Score 10.00 GREEN Critical? NO

in an overall invasiveness score of 1.5.

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 MDM Aqua Farms is fully reliant on live international animal shipments for their source of 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 stock; however, the destination farm with its closed-containment, recirculating tanks is fully biosecure and has no connection to natural waterbodies, resulting in a final score of 0 for this ‘exceptional’ factor

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments MDM Aqua Farms sources 100% of their fry from a hatchery in Idaho and as such this factor scored 0.

Factor 6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination The specific source hatchery from which MDM Aqua Farms receives their fry is not known. US tilapia hatcheries vary in their production style from tank-based, recirculating systems to pond culture. All aquaculture operations in the US, however, fall under stringent regulations outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, among others, suggesting that best managements practices are often applied. A moderate score of 5 was awarded to the biosecurity of the source farm. The destination farm was awarded a biosecurity score of 10 because it operates as a closed-containment, recirculating system that has no connection to natural waterbodies–all discharges, both solid and liquid, are applied to land-based crops grown onsite.

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 overall because stress induced health issues occur regularly onsite when fingerlings are transferred to grow-out ponds, however, the nature of the closed-containment production system greatly limits the risk of amplification in natural populations.

Justification of Ranking The nature of the closed-containment production systems allows producers to control the rearing environment and minimize potential introduction of pathogens by using good husbandry techniques. MDM Aqua Farms does state that they have some water quality/stress induced health issues when fingerlings are transferred to grow-out ponds and a parasiticide is applied 6-10/year (Mark McNaughton, pers. comm.). The production system does allow all wastes (both solid and liquid) to be collected and used on site for agriculture (fertilizer and water); however, they are not monitored upon 'discharge.' It is unlikely that the production practices are increasing the pathogen rates above background levels because the farm has no direct connection to wild fish populations. Due to lack of ongoing monitoring, and regular testing of discharging effluent and wastewater onto land crops, this factor scored 8.

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

MDM Aqua Farms sources all of their stock from a hatchery in Idaho that uses fully domesticated broodstock and as such this factor scored 10 and ranked green.

Justification of Ranking MDM Aqua Farms receive their fry from a hatchery in Idaho. The broodstock in Idaho is originally from Thailand and is part of the Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) strain of Tilapia, which is fully domesticated (Mark McNaughton, pers. comm.). As such, 100% of the farms stock is sourced from hatchery-raised broodstock; thus this factor scored 10 (green).

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.

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO 6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN n/a Total 62.94 Final Score 7.87

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 7.87 Initial rank GREEN Red Criteria 0

Intermediate Rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank BEST CHOICE

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

Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. (2012). Canadian Farmed Tilapia. [Internet] accessed 6 July 2012 from http://www.aquaculture.ca/files/species-tilapia.php

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1989. Yield and nutritional value of the commercially more important fish species. Text by Torry Research Stations, Aberdeen (UK). In: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 309. Rome. [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T0219E/T0219E00.HTM

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). GLOBEFISH Tilapia- February 2011. [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www.globefish.org/tilapia-february- 2011.html

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). Culture Aquatic Species Information Programme Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758). [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Oreochromis_niloticus/en

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2006. Tilapia. [Internet] accessed 6 July 2012 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/finfish-poissons/tilapia-eng.htm

Government of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. (2012). Fish Culture Licence. [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/general/progserv.nsf/all/pgmsrv112

Government of Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. (2006). AG-Ventures Agriculture Business Profiles. [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex4258/$file/485_830-1.pdf

Health Canada. 2007. 2.0 Summary of Information Critical to Assessment of “Toxic” Under CEPA 1999. [Internet] accessed 10 July 2012 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/pubs/contaminants/psl2-lsp2/formaldehyde/formaldehyde_2-eng.php

Martin C.W., M.M. Valentine, and J.F.Valentine(2010). Competitive Interactions between Invasive Nile Tilapia and Native Fish: The Potential for Altered Trophic Exchange and Modification of Food Webs. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14395. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014395

Monterey Bay Aqurarium (MBA). (2006). Farmed Tilapia. Text by Tetreault, I. In: Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Seafood Reports Monterey, CA. [Internet] accessed 9 July 2012 from http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWa tch_FarmedTilapiaReport.pdf

Tacon, A.G. and Metian, M. (2008). Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture, 285, 146-158.

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

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 0 0 Effluent Yes 10 10 Locations/habitats Yes 5 5 Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10 Chemical use Yes 7.5 7.5 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 5 5 Disease Yes 7.5 7.5 Source of stock Yes 10 10 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not relevant n/a Total 57.5

C1 Data Final Score 6.388888889 YELLOW

Criterion 2: Effluents Rapid Assessment C2 Score 10

Criterion 3: Habitat 33.1 Habitat conversion and function F3.1 Score 8

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 moderately 0.5 principles, including an EIAs requirement for new sites? 2 - Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts partly 0.25 and the maintenance of ecosystem function? 3 - Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and mostly 0.75 thereby 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 Yes 1 international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty) 5 - Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or No 0 critical habitats or ecosystem services? 2.5

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

1 - Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, and partly 0.25 are they appropriate to the scale of the industry? 2 - Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning or mostly 0.75 other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control measures? 3 - Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and their moderate 0.5 cumulative impacts? ly 4 - Is the enforcement process transparent - e.g. public availability of farm no 0 locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc? 5 - Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control measures moderate 0.5 are being achieved? ly 2

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 2.00

C3 Habitat Final Score 6.00 YELLOW 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 6.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1 Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1a – Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 6 Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0 % FM 6 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 0.5 Fish oil from by-products (%) 0 % FO 0.5 Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5 Fish oil yield (%) 5 eFCR 1.7 FIFO fishmeal 0.45 FIFO fish oil 0.17 Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 0.45 FIFO Score 8.87

Factor 5.1b – Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF) SSWF -6 SSWF Factor -0.272

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 8.59

5.2 Net Protein Gain or Loss Protein INPUTS Protein content of feed 36 eFCR 1.7 Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 0 Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 0 Protein OUTPUTS Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 18 Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 37 Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 0

Protein IN 61.20 Protein OUT 6.66 Net protein gain or loss (%) -89.11764706 Critical? NO F5.2 Net protein Score 1.00

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 (%) 6.5 eFCR 1.7 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) 2.87

Factor 5.3b – Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 93.5 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0 Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88 eFCR 1.7 Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64 Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.60

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 3.48

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 8.00

C5 Feed Final Score 6.55 YELLOW 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 0

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 yes 1 disturb breeding behavior of the same or other species? Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g. by feeding, yes 1 foraging, settlement or other)? Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? No 0 1

F 6.1b Score 1.5

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 10.00 GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

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

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

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