WASHINGTON – (Saving Seafood) – A recent newspaper column from a top public relations official at the USDA Agricultural Research Service falsely made the claim that the use of plant-based fish feed in aquaculture is much more environmentally friendly than fishmeal, despite the scientific data proving otherwise and views of the agency's own scientists.
The column also inaccurately argued that menhaden, one of the primary sources of fishmeal, is in danger of being overfished.
The December 6 “Everybody's Science” column from Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Director of Information Sandy Miller Hays published in Chicago's Southwest News-Herald raises the specter of U.S. government officials making industry damaging claims in the media that are not backed by scientific fact. In the piece – which focused on touting the aquaculture science advances spearheaded by ARS, the Agriculture Department's research arm – are these claims:
“ARS researchers in Idaho have been working on making fish feeds that don't rely on fishmeal, which is good news for several reasons. For one thing, the fishmeal typically comes from small, bony fish species such as menhaden, and the growing worldwide demand for seafood (and thus for the fishmeal that's a big component of the commercial fish feed) has put menhaden and other such fish in danger of being overfished. A fish feed based on an easily renewable resource such as barley concentrate is much more environmentally friendly than depleting the ocean's aquatic population.”
“The fishmeal-free, vegetable-based trout feeds that have been developed by the ARS scientists in Idaho result in fish growth that's every bit as impressive as the rates obtained with current industry-standard diets that contain high levels of fishmeal. And the fish waste — which is a major source of phosphorus and nitrogen pollutants — is firmer, which means it settles out of the water system more quickly, making it easier to maintain high water quality. Plus, the researchers say the fish that eat the vegetable-based feeds actually have better fin condition!”
Many of the claims are not based in fact, such as that plant-based feed for aquaculture are significantly more environmentally friendly than fishmeal-based diets and that fishmeal stocks are facing depletion. Another is built on the false premise that fishmeal-based diets for aquaculture are inherently inferior to plant-based diets.
Ignored in the piece is the fact that fish oil culled from the same fish that are used to produce fishmeal is needed for any plant-based aquaculture feed regime. Without it, these long chain omega-3 fatty acids, which are well recognized as important contributors to a healthy human diet, would not be produced. Fishmeal also provides those omega-3 and other nutrients, which are also essential to the healthy development of trout and other farm-raised fish.
When contacted by Saving Seafood to discuss her claims, Hays said that the column was based on the work of others at ARS and politely directed us to the agency's scientists to discuss the claims.
“What I know about it is in the story,” said Hays. “I’m not a scientist at all. I'm just a writer. I am head of the news division. Pretty much everything I know of these subject areas is in the stories we write.”
Nevertheless, when asked specifically about the claim that plant-based fish feed is “more environmentally friendly than depleting the ocean's aquatic population,” Miller Hays echoed the scientifically questionable claims of environmentalists and other aquaculture industry opponents that catching menhaden and other fish for the production of fishmeal is depleting ocean stocks.
“That's a tremendous concern,” Miller Hays said about the production of fishmeal. “You don't want to drain the ocean of all the menhaden.”
One of the ARS scientists who Hays recommended interviewing was Dr. Rick Barrows, an ARS research nutritionist who oversees the barley concentrate project in Hagerman, Idaho. When reached via phone, Barrows dismissed many of the claims in the article about the environmental superiority of barley-based fish feed for use in aquaculture. He also dismissed the claims of anti-fishing advocates that the menhaden population is being depleted.
Barrows – whose work focuses on developing more cost-effective and environmentally friendly ingredients for aquaculture feed – told Saving Seafood that while plant-based feed can be used in much higher quantities than is currently the norm, fish oil cultivated from naturally occurring stocks is still required to produce the healthiest fish. There is no other source besides the oil from wild-caught fish like menhaden for farm-raised fish to contain long chain omega-3 fatty acids contained in fishmeal and fish oil to ensure the health benefits associated with fish consumption.
“We rely on omega-3s from fish oil,” said Barrows. “A plant-based diet still contains fish oil in order to have the health effects. There really are no viable alternatives to the fish oils for the fish omega-3s at this time”
This is important because the essential fatty acids provided through the processing of wild-caught fish are not only integral to creating the nutrient balance needed to ensure the triglyceride-lowering health benefits provided by fish in the human diet. They are also important to the healthy development of farm raised fish as well recognized in the scientific literature and by various federal agencies that deal with the matter.
As University of Florida aquatic science professors RD. Miles and F.A. Chapman noted in their paper “The Benefits of Fish Meal in Aquaculture Diets,” omega-3 fatty acids, are “necessary for normal larval development, fish growth, and reproduction.” Their research also notes that nutrients found only in fishmeal and fish oil play an important role in the skin, nervous system, and immune system development of fish.
While the two scientists acknowledge that a primary objective in developing next generation fish feeds is not only to balance nutrients but also to keep the use of costly fishmeal to a minimum. They also note that right amount of wild caught product must be used to meet optimal nutritional requirements, “for fast (aquaculture) growth and reproduction.”
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has also long recognized the fact that Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil and fishmeal are important components in the proper growth of farmed raised fish. In relation to its ongoing efforts to spearhead the development of alternative feed sources, like barley, through the NOAA-USDA Joint Initiative on Alternative Feeds for Aquaculture, Michael Rubino, Director of NOAA's Aquaculture Program, has noted publicly in the past that the intent of the program is to reduce the use of fishmeal and fish oil. The need for the nutrients that wild-caught stocks supply is unquestionable.
In addressing the overfishing claims in the column. ARS’s Barrows pointed to the sustainability of menhaden, a prime source for fishmeal and fish oil production in the United States. Along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, menhaden landings have actually been sustained at or above current levels since the 1870s, countering claims from critics that they are overfished.
Barrow noted that while fish oil is becoming less abundant, he doesn’t see the same crisis that others claim is upon the industry and planet. Instead, he ascribes this development to heightened demand for fish oil itself, not lowered stocks of the wild caught fish from which it is culled.
“You have to buy into (the idea) that aquaculture is depleting the ocean or the harvest of fishmeal is depleting the ocean,” said Barrows. “But while the harvest of fishmeal has increased for about 30 years, the harvest hasn't gone down for the menhaden. For me what that suggests it’s sustainability.”
He added that the consensus among ARS scientists is that fishmeal is not the environmental evil that its opponents contend, noting that if fishmeal was no longer used in aquaculture it would still be used to feed pigs and other livestock.
“Its sustainable use is reasonable as long as long as it is watched,” said Barrows. “There is a huge group of people out there that think fishmeal is a bad thing. We (ARS scientists) don't agree with that.”
Nevertheless, Barrow stuck by Hays’ claims that barley-based fish feed is more environmentally friendly, at least from a purely phosphorus pollution standpoint. According to his research, the barely concentrate helps reduce such emissions in water.
“The effluent from fish farms have high levels of phosphorus,” noted Barrows. “From that standpoint she is correct.”
But phosphorus emissions are only a small part of the equation. As UF’s Miles and Chapman noted, the use of fishmeal in aquatic animal diets helps reduce effluent wastewater pollution by providing greater nutrient digestibility and therefore broadly reduced nutrient leaching and water-quality degradation.
There is also plenty of proof the environmental impact of fishing is much less than that of growing grain and other products. University of Washington fisheries professor Ray Hilborn has evaluated the published research into the effects on the environment of protein production (including farming animals on land and catching wild fish) and found that, on average, commercial fishing has a much smaller impact on the environment than land-based animal farming.
As Saving Seafood reported in March, Hilborn told a meeting of the New Zealand Fishing Industry Council that not only are seafood industries held to “higher environmental standards generally” than other food producers, they have a small environmental impact. He argued that when compared in term of water use, water pollution, pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics and soil erosion, fishing barely registers as an environmental detriment.
It is also generally superior in terms of energy use and carbon dioxide production as well as biodiversity. Hilborn's research demonstrates that fishing reduces measured biodiversity by 30 percent and fish abundance by one half to three quarters. In comparison, plowing land reduces the biodiversity of the area involved by almost 100 percent.
While Barrows disagreed with many of the column's points, he did not blame Hays for the inaccuracies in the piece. Instead, he took responsibility for not paying enough attention when signing off on her column.
Nevertheless, he placed the ultimate culpability for the misinformation on the feet of those who most often supply it, environmentalists and other anti-fishing advocates that misinterpret or ignore the scientific evidence against their claims.
“I did proof that (column), but maybe not as carefully as I should have,” said Barrows. “I think what Miss Hays did is that she's been reading the websites of the anti-aquaculture people.”