Jean-Jacques SABAUT
President of the Interprofessional Committee for Aquaculture Products (CIPA) France and
Director of Biomar S.A. (France)

This document was presented to the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament at its Hearing on European Aquaculture (Brussels – 1st October 2002). The final report of this hearing was published in December 2002 (Rapporteur: Mr. Hugues Martin)

Global aquaculture has undergone very strong development during recent decades and the perspectives for future growth are very promising, particularly in Europe. The food for both traditional and new aquaculture species of fish and crustaceans, raised in marine or freshwater conditions, is an essential component of this activity and serves to assure:

• the quality and security of aquaculture's products
• mastering the costs of production
• the control of the impact of aquaculture on the surrounding environment.

The fish species raised in European aquaculture are essentially carnivorous (trout, salmon, seabass, seabreams, turbot, sturgeon…), reflecting the nature of the fish supplied by fisheries and which are the European consumer's favourites (cod, sole, turbot, tuna, ray, hake…). At the global level, these species currently represent less than 20% of the total fish farmed (including carps, tilapia and catfish) and less than 10% of the total of the world's aquaculture production (including molluscs and algae).

When compared to the needs for the production of other terrestrial animals, both at European and global levels, aquaculture uses only limited quantities of the raw materials that are available globally - only 1% of animal feeds in Europe are for aquaculture. Thus, there is no 'a priori' risk for the supply of the basic raw materials. However, following the same reasoning where the European Union questions its dependence on international supplies [imports] for vegetable proteins to cover its needs, it is also necessary to evaluate the availability and the use of all natural resources, such as the meals and oils of fish that are used specifically for the manufacture of aquaculture feeds. It is also essential to look at the perspectives for their substitution by other products of plant or animal origin.

1) The composition and specific technology for the manufacture of complete diets for farmed fish

In order to supply the dietary needs of carnivorous fish, the feeds that they receive must be energetic (20-26 MJ/kg of gross energy), rich in proteins (38-45% following the requirements of the individual species) that are of adequate quality (good digestibility and an amino acid profile adapted to requirements) and which do not present any anti-nutritional factors.

As most farmed fish do not have access to other food than that distributed by the farmer, it is indispensable that all the dietary needs of the fish are covered by the feeds provided, giving a complete diet. Apart from the indispensable proteins, the food must equally cover the particular requirements for oils (e.g. -3/-6 poly-unsaturated fatty acids) as well as the needs for vitamins, minerals and necessary pigments.

Since the start of trout farming at the end of the nineteenth century, when the fish were fed with the spleens of cattle and the wastes of fisheries and abattoirs, the feeds used for fish farming have evolved radically, first of all with the introduction of pelleted dry feeds during the 1960s, using technology derived from that used for the manufacture of compound feeds for terrestrial animals. During the 1980s, the introduction of the cooking-extrusion technique constituted another decisive step forward. This technology assures a better physical presentation and a much-improved assimilation of the food ingredients. Above all, this process allows the preparation of feeds of higher energetic content by allowing higher lipid proportions. This has, as its first consequence, a reduction of the food conversion ratio. It allows a considerable saving of the precious proteins which are destined primarily for the building of muscle and, as a direct consequence, reduces the nitrogenous waste into the environment.

Thus, it is possible to produce a portion-size trout of 250 grams with only 200 grams of a high quality commercial feed, with a food conversion of 0.8 (kilograms of feed to produce 1 kilogram of fish). During the last decade, this has been translated by a strong reduction in the waste materials of the fish farms; diminished by a factor of 2 for Nitrogen and by a factor of 3 for Phosphorous. This favourable trend is the subject of constant improvement. The most representative example of this can be found in Denmark which has been able to combine national legislation with efficiency of the professional sector since the end of the 1980s.

This efficiency in both feeding and ecology is similar to that obtained for the farming of salmon (large sizes) and is being applied to newer species which are benefiting from the numerous research applications that have been developed for the salmonid species (e.g. salmon and trout).

2) Essential Raw materials for the manufacture of complete feeds

The principle raw materials that are used for the manufacture of fish feeds in Europe (and in the world) are fish meals and fish oils. These 2 ingredients provide all of the elements that are essential to cover the dietary needs of the fish species reared.

A lot of research work has shown that vegetable sources of protein (e.g. soya, lupin, pea, sunflower, cereal glutens…) and oils (e.g. soya, olive, colza, flax…) are perfectly usable in feeds for fish, in varying proportions.

Some of these ingredients are already used in quantity by the industrial feed manufacturers. This substitution gives not only a reduction and stability in the costs of feeds, whose impact in the final production cost of a farmed fish is very important (30-50% of all costs),  but also reduces the pressure on the natural oceanic reserves of wild fish that are destined for the specific industries that produce fish oils and meals.

Nonetheless, it is necessary to be objective when considering the use of these 2 resources, fish meal and fish oil (which are both indispensable for aquaculture), that is made by aquaculture when compared to other global food animal sectors (where the need is accessory).

Table 1: Forecasts for the use of Fish meal

Table 2: Forecasts for the use of Fish oils

Data provided by Dr. Ian Pike of IFFO

Following these forecasts, the resources of fish oils should probably become critical around 2010 but, if one applies the current forecasts for the aquaculture's development and following the hypothesis of low substitution levels, one can see that, even in a scenario where the recourse to alternative protein sources is modest, the part of global aquaculture in the use of fish meals remains reasonable.

The animal feed industry of the European Union produces some 125 million tons of compound feeds each year. Global industrial production (Europe, Americas and Asia) produced 597 million tons of feeds in 2001. These figures do not account for feeds produced on-farm which represents an equivalent volume. With 13.6 million tons of feeds produced in 2001, aquaculture uses less that 2% of global resources of raw materials.

On the other hand, the strong dependence on imports for vegetable proteins in Europe (primarily soya) exists equally for fish meals and oils. It is therefore necessary that one makes sure that our resources are increased to provide adequate vegetable proteins for aquaculture and not to abandon the use of protein by-products whose origin is based on terrestrial animals if we want secure availability and improve cost management.

3) Efficiency and quality of aquaculture products

It is a general belief that it is necessary to use between 2-3.5 kg of wild [forage] fish to produce 1 kg of farmed fish, a ratio that could seem to be extravagant. It is however necessary to know that the same fish (e.g. cod, hake, salmon...), caught within a natural ecosystem, will consume between 5 and 10 kg of the same wild [forage] fish ((Akvaforsk 1998, Forster 1999). This figure can be raised to between 10 or 15 kg if one considers the inefficiency of fisheries which only keep 25% of the by-catch species caught (about 25 million tons/year), the rest being thrown back to the sea as discards.

100 kg of feed mix (protein, carbohydrates, oil) gives as an edible meat quantiy:

• 65 kg of salmon
• 20 kg of chicken
• 13 kg of pork

In gross terms of production, aquaculture is at present much more efficient than a natural system that is exploited by fisheries, even if it is well managed. What is more, the Research and Development departments of the feed manufacturers and public research institutions are actively working on increasing the quotient of vegetable resources in fish feeds. It is completely reasonable to think that, in the short term, the proportion of fish meals and oils in fish feeds will be further reduced. At present, they constitute around 50% or less for certain formulations.

It is indisputable that fish possess certain remarkable dietary virtues where one of the most important is the beneficial role of -3 poly-unsaturated fatty acids on the cardiovascular and immune systems. Thanks to the compound feeds that are given to farmed fish, one can assure that they continue to satisfy this unique nutritional role.

Indeed, the resource of fish oils is limited but in resorting to the use of vegetable oils, for at least a part of the production cycle, does not pose nutritional problems and does not harm the production performance. This has been described in many scientific publications and levels of substitution reaching 50% of fish oils by vegetable oils are applicable while conserving the required wealth of -3 poly-unsaturated fatty acids.

One manages therefore, through the use of a controlled and equilibrated diet, to produce healthy fish, nutritious and of excellent quality for a demanding consumer. Nutritionists recommend moreover that one should eat fish at least twice a week, above all in the countries where the excess intake of saturated fats has important consequences on health. This is translated by a continuous increasing demand that, between 1990 and 1997, led to a rise in consumption of 31%, while the increased yield from marine fisheries has only accounted for 9% of this increase - a circumstance that has been aggravated by the overexploitation of the majority of commercial fisheries.

4) The sustainability of resources and aquaculture production

One of the principle reproaches which generally targets aquaculture, and through this the feeds that it uses, is the application of a growing and important pressure on the forage pelagic species that are used specifically for the production of fish meals and oils. Nonetheless, this reproach is certainly not founded in the light of figures and statistics. The production of fish meal has changed very little over the last 15 years (Tidwell & Allan, 2001). According to the FAO, market mechanisms have simply redirected the use of fish meals and oils but not the global quantity of fishmeal produced (approximately 6 million tons per year), reflecting therefore the quantity of fish caught for this application has not changed – approximately 30 million tons per year.

On the same level, in the name of the precautionary principle (Carthagena Protocol [2000]), the majority of aquaculturists refuse the use of GMOs in feed ingredients and a large part of the feed manufacturers have committed themselves to follow this objective with them.

In respect of dioxins, the law is very strict since it limits presence levels to 2.25 picograms/gram of food, a measure that is under the control of the public health authorities of the Member States of the European Union (from Directive 2001/102/EC). In supposing a retention rate of 100% (N.B. a rate that is impossible to achieve), and in presuming that dioxins would be distributed homogeneously throughout the fish (which is a false assumption since the majority of dioxins are concentrated in the perivisceral fats that are not eaten), this would mean that 1 kg of a large trout that has eaten 1.2 kg of feed in its production cycle would contain a maximum of 2.7 pg of dioxins. The maximum limit of consumption that is recommended by the WHO is 14 pg/kg of body weight per week. In other words, for a person weighing 70 kg, a maximum weekly 'dose' of 980 pg of dioxins. Therefore, to reach this 'dose' a person would have to eat 980/2.7=363 kg of trout each week.

Having experienced the influence of the media on BSE, GMOs, dioxins and other toxins, the professional fish feed production sector has developed control and traceability systems for their feeds and ingredients which, added to the species barrier (fish is the only cold-blooded (poikilothermic) animal that is consumed in quantity), provides reinforced food security. Control plans are enforced by fish meal and oil suppliers (IFFO), feed manufacturers, professional organisations and State governments,

Certain interprofessional organisations, such as the CIPA, have created dedicated working groups to monitor such public health issues and to foresee future risks. The results that have been obtained in recent years are encouraging and, in the case of the dioxin issue, demonstrate that the products of French aquaculture contain levels of dioxins that are lower than the factor of 10 that have been recommended (by the WHO – World Health Organisation).

Nonetheless, the conscience of the professionals of European aquaculture goes higher than this and in spite of the economic difficulties that are certain for a majority of the sector, they are keenly aware not only of the consequences of their activity on natural resources that they require but also of the consequences of farming on the environment.

It is thus that the food conversion ratios are dropping constantly, thanks to the use of feeds of higher and higher performance in combination with husbandry practices that are increasingly better, actions that are limiting and reducing waste. Today, and generally throughout the profession, less than 1 kg of feed is needed to produce 1 kg of portion-size (~300 grams) trout. This has beneficial consequences on three essential components for sustainable development: respect for the environment, economic efficiency, reduction of the workload.

Over and above these simple technical points, a global position towards sustainable development has been engaged by the FEAP and that has been implemented by at least 2 European countries, Denmark and France, where the professional organisations have initiated the necessary dialogue with the other players concerned (authorities, environmental groups, distributors, consumers and scientists) in order to anchor their activity on the essential road towards sustainable development.

The importance and the quality of European Research and Development, financed by public and private interests in the European Union, are the major advantages to be able to respond to the questions raised in this presentation and to propose the appropriate solutions.

5) The importance of clear and efficient Community legislation

For a long time, animal feeds have been under the responsibility of the respective administrations of the Member States of the European Union who have transcribed legal text that is more and more precise and constraining, and more or less restrictive in their application within the EU countries.

Farming animals has suffered from the recent crises of Mad Cow Disease as well as the disastrous consequences of the accidental or fraudulent contamination of feeds with dioxins and other undesirable products. These events have accentuated the general suspicion of consumers and brought the necessary application of new and more complex laws, being more restrictive and therefore imposing more costs for the producers.

Aquaculture does and must carry the image of food security in respect of the consumer. But it must continue constantly to battle against hearsay and unfounded criticism.

Since aquaculture started in Europe, aquaculture feeds contain neither antibiotics (except in the case of authorized therapeutic treatment), nor hormones, nor growth enhancers or additives that could have existed in other areas of animal production. The traceability of the products used at all stages of the production process up to the consumer's purchase is, without doubt, the best answer to give confidence.

The European Union imports products from third countries that do not always respect the same sanitary restrictions, a position which leads to food production costs that are considerably lower than in the Member States (without referring to social costs and ecological considerations). One can assert that the fish feeds produced in the EU are 10% more expensive, at an equivalent nutritive content, than elsewhere, in particular since the withdrawal of protein-rich terrestrial animal by-products (from abattoirs).

We must therefore pay attention to this discrepancy which exists and is growing in Europe and well as with other regions of the world. The trade of seafood and aquaculture products is international and the identification [labelling] of products at the level of the consumer's purchase is another point which has not been completely resolved, in spite of the wishes of all of the professionals of the feed and aquaculture production sectors of the EU as well as the new rules for labelling and identification that have been law since the 1^st January 2002.

The new European legislation that is being elaborated for the use of animal by-products must follow the Directive 90/667/CEE that establishes «the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin» . This new legislation classes animal by-products as a function of their potential risks and defines their conditions of destruction or use, where only products that are qualified as being of 'low risk' can be used for animal feeds by those establishments that have been approved for such an activity.

Unfortunately, the fish meals and oils that are derived from the fisheries dedicated to this activity have been assimilated with the by-products of terrestrial animals and are thus considered as being waste materials at the same level as the waste products obtained from abattoirs or kitchen waste. In addition to the fact that these fisheries are managed by quotas and are wholly natural products of very high food quality, this simplified and negative classification is a source of very serious confusion.

In particular, the rather negative image that has been given to these natural products will complicate any information and communication action of the international aquaculture community. This question merits all of our attention when we look to increase the importance of the products of fisheries and aquaculture.

ANNEXES

Table 3: FORECASTS FOR THE USE OF FISH FEEDS

Table 4: FORECASTS FOR THE USE OF FISH MEAL

Table 5: FORECASTS FOR THE USE OF FISH OIL

All tables and forecasts provided by Dr. Ian Pike (IFFO/IFOMA - 1999) 
Additional data from FAO FISHSTAT

(1) Seabasses, breams, yellowtail, groupers, jacks and mullets     

(2) Flatfish, cod and hake     

(3) Tonnage of fish fed