Science

In the world of sustainable best practices, good intentions are no longer good enough. Sustainable projects with funding must be monitored and held accountable to meet compliance and business needs. Problem is, most sustainable projects work from shoddy data sources, or in many cases, have no data to work from at all.

A very recent and unfortunate example of bad data hampering sustainability projects involves the state of New Jersey’s environmental officials shutting down the state’s river herring fishery. Are the herring fisherman of New Jersey abusing the river or overfishing? Hardly. According to the Associated Press, the decision was made in part because the state doesn’t have the necessary personnel or funding to collect the data needed to prove the fishery is sustainable. The restriction also bars recreational anglers from targeting the herring, and if they happen to catch one, they must throw it back immediately. Officials say New Jersey was one of several states that didn’t meet the deadline.

Brandon Muffley, who leads the state’s Bureau of Marine Fisheries, said, “We don’t have the data. We don’t know what river herring’s abundance is or what our fisheries are taking. We haven’t had the resources to do the work.”

Inadequate data gathering methods can lead to the “irrelevant data, unsubstantiated claims, gaps in data and inaccurate figures,” a Leeds University team reported in its examination of more than 4,000 corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports and company surveys.

Read the complete story from Thomas Net News

 

 

 

 

 

While fishmeal is favoured by farmers because of its protein content, other protein sources are challenging its place as an animal feed.

Protein rich substitutes

Farmers and feedstuff producers value fishmeal mainly because of its high protein content and health enhancing nutrients. These characteristics are however not only found in fishmeal, but to different degree also in vegetable based products like rapeseed, soybean, corn and gluten. It is also possible to use terrestrial byproducts like meal from meat, blood, bone and feathers. Alternative marine-based substitutes from crustaceans, krill and algae are also useable as substitutes, and these sources may become more important in the future (Tacon 2008).

The common denominator of all of these organic substances is that they have a high content of protein and some contain omega-3 acids. Soybeans have a particularly high protein content and also contain favorable acids which have made it a very common substitute and complement to fishmeal. Since soybean meal is the most fitting and widespread vegetable alternative to fishmeal, I will in the statistical examinations in this paper focus on the relationship among fishmeal and soybean meal. A qualitative discussion of other vegetable substitutes will follow in chapter 6.

Production of soybeans

Soybean meal is the most used vegetable protein feed in the production of animal feeds. The production process is similar to that of fishmeal: The beans are crushed and then cooked to approximately 60°C. The beans are then squeezed to remove any liquids, then toasted and subsequently cooled. Depending on whether the hulls removed prior to cooking are added back to the mixture or not, the soybean meal will have a protein content of 44 to 47 per cent.

The US has historically been the largest producer of soybean meal in the world followed by China and South American countries. In the 2009/2010 harvest7 the total world production was 165 million tons of soybean meal, which is about 25 times the global fishmeal production. The US and China were each responsible for 23 per cent of total world production in the 09/10 season, and it is estimated by the USDA that China will surpass the US in the forthcoming years as the leading producer of soybean meal to meet its increasing demand for protein (USDA 2007). Brazil and Argentina each had 16 per cent of the 2009/2010 global harvest while the EU, India and Mexico produced 6, 3 and 2 per cent respectively. This means that the top four producers of soybean meal hold nearly 80 per cent of the global production.

Read the full article at TheFishSite.com.

 

Ecologists may have captured the first deep-sea fish sounds, hidden among the sounds of dolphins and humpback, fin and pilot whales, they report in a new study.

More than 50 years ago, researchers hypothesized that sound production in deep-sea fish is common, based on the fact that many of the species have the anatomy needed to produce sound. Most fish make incidental noises as a byproduct of chewing and swimming, but for deep-sea fish, which live in perpetual darkness, communicative noises might be important for survival and reproduction.

"But just because they have the anatomy to make noises, doesn't mean they necessarily do it," said Rodney Rountree, a marine ecologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "In terms of communicative sounds, we don't know what proportion of the fish do it."

Few studies have ever reported recording possible deep-sea fish sounds, so scientists know little about these sounds, Rountree explained. It's not as simple as putting the fish in a tank and listening in on their conversations.

Read the complete story at MSNBC

 

 

 

 

 

Friend of the Sea, the major sustainability certification for products from sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, has also become the international reference standard for producers of fish oil, fishmeal and Omega-3.

Thirty-two companies (list below) from 11 countries (Australia, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Morocco, Norway, Sweden, UK and USA) have relied on Friend of the Sea's assessment to verify the sustainable origin of their products.

The Antartic krill, the Atlantic menhaden and the Peruvian anchovies fisheries are among those approved according to Friend of the Sea sustainability requirements. These fisheries are considered among the best managed fisheries worldwide, with historical catch and biomass data collected and interpreted over the past decades and enforcement of strict regulations.

Most of these fisheries are pelagic fisheries with no impact on the seabed and very high selectivity. Some of the certified products originate from selected seafood processing bycuts or trimmings, thus optimizing use of marine resources.

Producers know that Omega-3 consumers care for conservation and ecology.
Friend of the Sea has been selected by Omega-3 producers worldwide as the most independent and reliable sustainability certification.

The ecolabel also provides an effective way to communicate environmental performance to their customers.

"Friend of the Sea aims at promoting those Omega-3 products which originate from sustainable and well managed fisheries" said Dr Paolo Bray – director of Friend of the Sea, "for this reason we will participate to the International Omega-3 tradeshow – VitaFoods Geneva – and we will also increase our communication to the Omega-3 consumers."

Read the full article at fishupdate.com

 

Many in the aquaculture industry are dependent on fishmeal, according to the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration.

Production of fishmeal

The fishmeal production process and value chain

Fishmeal is a brown powder obtained after cooking, press drying and squeezing fresh raw fish or trimmings3 from food fish. IFFO has estimated that in 2009 pelagic fish was used in 75 per cent of all fishmeal production, while the remaining 25 per cent came from trimmings. Pelagic species are ocean fish that swim in schools and live in the upper sea levels. Their source of food is mainly plankton and most pelagic species are considerably fattier than other fish species. Historically, landings of fish have been around 90 million tons p.a. and about 1/3 of this has been converted into fishmeal and fish oil4, while the remaining 60 million tons are marketed as fresh, frozen and canned fish.

Fishmeal contains typically 60 to 72 per cent protein, 10 to 20 per cent ash, 5 to 12 per cent fat and has a high content of the fatty acids EPA and DHA; more commonly referred to as omega-3 (IFFO 2011).

Fishmeal in its basic form has been produced for centuries and usage has varied from production of fertilizers to salmon feed. Nowadays, fishmeal is used primarily in feed production. Fishmeal and fish oil production has become a very thriving industry as both fishmeal and fish oil prices have soared (see figure 5.1 for fishmeal price data).

The Peruvian fishmeal and fish oil producer Copeinca has illustrated how the value chain in the industry is formed.

Global production

Global production of fishmeal is concentrated around a few top producers; top ten manufacturers in 2007 made up approximately 80 per cent of the global production. Today Peru is the largest producer, China the second, Chile the third and then the Nordic countries Norway, Denmark and Iceland follow as the most important producers. There are approximately 300 dedicated plants worldwide that produce about 6.3 million tons of fishmeal and 1.1 million tons of oil annually from roughly 33 million tons of whole fish and trimmings (FIN 2010). The species used in production vary from region to region, but generally speaking it consists of small, bony, pelagic fish that has little or no commercial value as fish for direct consumption5 (FAO 1986). It is estimated that about 90 per cent of the fish species used to make fishmeal is “presently unmarketable in large quantities as human food” (Bose et.al 1991). See table 2.1 for an overview of the different species used around the globe.

The global fishmeal output has remained at 6 to 7 million metric tons p.a. for the last 20 years, while world trade has averaged around 3 to 4 million tons. Fluctuations in output and export level are naturally linked to variations in landings of fish used for fishmeal production. Overfishing and unsustainable fishery management has caused some of this variation, but the large deviations are mainly due to the El Niño phenomena.

Read the full article at TheFishSite.com

Today, NOAA released recalculated recreational catch estimates for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts going back to 2004 using an improved estimation method. As we've reported to you previously, this new method is a fundamental part of our overall work to improve the accuracy of the recreational catch data we collect and report. The improved methodology addresses a key issue identified in the 2006 report by the National Research Council, which identified a mismatch between the way we gather information from anglers and how we use those data to generate estimates.

We've developed a suite of outreach materials to help you answer questions and facilitate discussion about the new methodology and its impacts. The materials include:

    •    A fact sheet that explains the new methodology, analyzes its effects on four species in a series of case studies, and outlines NOAA Fisheries' strategy for transitioning to the improved numbers.

    •    A video in which NOAA Fisheries representatives, regional partners, stakeholders and outside experts offer a more in-depth look at the process of the re-estimation, what it will mean for the recreational fishing community, and what will come next.

    •    A presentation to read over and share with others that explains the new estimation work and a schedule for future improvements.

    •    A data query tool to allow for user-friendlycomparisons of the improved MRIP estimates and previously reported MRFSS numbers. Just select "MRFSS/MRIP Comparisons" from the drop down menu.

This suite of materials is now available on MRIP's website . Please let us know if we can help answer questions or provide additional information by contacting Forbes Darby at forbes.darby@noaa.gov or (301) 427-8528.

View the Marine Recreational Information Program Update from NOAA

 

 

 

 

 

Gulf of Maine cod has become the latest species to be potentially threatened amid controversial data.  A 22,000 metric ton disparity exists between the 2008 survey, which showed a rebounding stock and was hailed as an example of solid managment, and the 2011 survey which contradicts the prior survey and suggests disaster on the horizon. Few believe that both can be correct.  Although officials from Oceana and Pew Environment have arugued that the the 2011 survey is the more credible, experts ranging from council members to top scientists disagree. Saving Seafood interviewed numerous industry leaders, scientists, and individuals with council ties to produce this report detailing eleven of the most-frequently cited problems with the 2011 survey.

by John Cooke and Sarah Hanselman

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) 25 January 2012 — The 2011 Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment has many methodological uncertainties, and is based on assumptions that may not be an accurate reflection of the health of the stock. Some of these uncertainties and assumptions were introduced in the 2011 assessment (SAW 53), while others have been persistent (existing in all or some previous assessments). There are numerous problems; we have high highlighted eleven of them:

1. THE DEFINITION OF GULF OF MAINE COD

A persistent problem affecting the accuracy of current and previous assessments is the exact definition of ‘Gulf of Maine cod,’ specifically the stock boundaries, potential sub-populations, and movement between stocks. Under current models, Atlantic cod (in U.S. waters) is assumed to be two completely separate stocks (Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank), with no mixing between them. Recent research indicates that the stock boundary is wrong.  Specifically, genetics indicate that cod in southern New England are more related to Gulf of Maine cod and are distinct from cod on eastern Georges Bank. Tagging data also shows frequent movement between Southern New England, the Great South Channel and the Gulf of Maine, and relatively little movement between those areas and eastern Georges Bank. This suggests that the stock boundaries should be revised to assess and manage eastern Georges Bank separately from inshore areas of the Gulf of Maine and southern New England.

2. THE LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP

The length-weight relationship (the equation used to convert fish length into fish weight) and catch-weight-at-age model (the weight of caught fish broken down by age) provided in the survey are unreliable. The survey calculates length-weight relationship based on their own catch; numbers from the commercial and recreational fisheries are not included. However, the fish caught in the survey are different in size from the commercial and recreational landings; where the survey is randomized—aimed at catching fish of all sizes—commercial landings are focused on larger fish, meaning the survey does not accurately depict what was caught commercially and recreationally.

3. CATCH WEIGHT AT AGE

The other model, catch-weight-at-age, is created by averaging the commercial and recreational catch. This creates a different set of problems. By combining the two data sets, the assessment blurs the distinction between what the recreation fishery catches and what the commercial fishery catches, Generally, the recreational fishery will catch smaller fish than the commercial fishery; it is not accurate to assume that the two separate industries are catching the same size and age of cod. By not factoring in this distinction, the model creates further uncertainty in the data. The previous surveys have collected the counts for recreational fishing, but have never included them in the model and the final assessment. Adding new information such as this can introduce a new source of error. Furthermore, no one can account for the accuracy of the recreational discard information with any credibility. It is an educated guess, at best.

4. MEASUREMENT OF AGE

The assessment’s measurements of age are also skewed. Large, older fish, generally older than age 7, are likely under-sampled. The model also groups all fish over the age of 9 into a single category, even though cod can grow past the age of 16.  This leads to underestimating the average weight of the cod and potentially underestimating the size of the stock.

5 ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MORTALITY

The assessment’s assumptions about mortality are also likely flawed. The model used in the assessment estimates a constant natural mortality (M = 0.2) rate among all age groups of cod. However, this model most likely needs to be rethought, as a mortality rate that varies with time and age is probably a more accurate depiction of the population. The assessment also makes the assumption that 100% of discarded fish die. While this may appropriate in some fisheries, tagging data and other scientific studies suggest a range of discard mortalities, less than 100%, in different fisheries (different gear types) and different seasons. Overall the mortality assumptions should be reviewed.

6. CHANGE IN SURVEY VESSELS

In addition to flaws in methodology, there are several troubling uncertainties and flaws in the survey methods and data, some of which are new to the 2011 assessment. For 2011, there was a change in the survey vessel used in the assessment. The Bigelow, the new research vessel, is different from the previous vessel, the Albatross in several important ways. Most importantly, the Bigelow is significantly larger than the Albatross; it’s big enough that it can’t navigate the shallower waters in the region that Gulf of Maine cod inhabit and both commercial and recreational cod fishermen frequent. As a result, it was unable to include in the assessment any of the abundant cod that swim in the shallower waters.

7. CHANGE IN GEAR TYPES

NOAA not only changed vessels for the assessment, but it also changed the gear types used to perform its survey. Because the change in gear and vessels resulted in the vessels being able to catch different amounts of fish, NOAA devised a ratio in order to standardize the catch data between the old and new vessels and the old and new assessments. This method of standardization introduces a new source of uncertainty into the assessment, as it is unclear whether the calibrations are correct.

In addition to a change in research vessels, an anomalously high estimate of recreational catch also provides a new source of potential error in the 2011 assessment. There is a legitimate question in whether the measurement of the size of the recreational fishery is an accurate representation of recreational fishing activity. The 2011 assessment concluded that half of all 2010 recreational fishing activity occurred in just a two-week period in the spring, an unusually high concentration of activity. Further, it concluded that 60% of the recreational catch came from private day boats. Given the size and significance of the charter and party boat industries, few observers believe this to be possible. These anomalous data points more likely reflect errors in the methodology and uncertainty in the results than they do an accurate picture of recreational fishing activity.

9. INSHORE SAMPLES FROM RECENT SURVEYS WERE EXCLUDED

Inshore samples from the recent surveys were excluded from the assessment due to inconsistent sampling even though they provide indications of higher abundance for fish age 0-2. Further, surveys by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) provide the only reliable measurements of juvenile fish abundance because they survey inshore juvenile habitat. However, they are consistently down-weighted and the MADMF fall survey was completely removed from the final model.

10. BIOMASS ESTIMATES ARE CONTRADICTED BY CATCH PER UNIT OF EFFICIENCY DATA

The biomass estimates of the new assessment, which indicates a dramatically lower stock population than previously thought, is contradicted by catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE) data, a measure of efficiency in the fleet. If the assessment was correct, it would imply that the stock of cod has shrunk dramatically, and that efficiency as measured by CPUE would decline, as cod would be more difficult to find. However, the opposite is true in CPUE data, which has been steadily increasing for most of the past decade, indicating a decrease in effort and an increase in landings.

An alternative explanation to the CPUE data is that, as the cod biomass declines, the stock will contract, pooling together in a smaller area and thus making them more efficient to catch. However, preliminary evidence would suggest that this is not happening. If the stock were to start converging, the fleet would converge on them in response. Rather than seeing a convergence of the fleet, fisherman are reporting finding cod in a wide variety of areas, indicating that the CPUE numbers could be a sign of a much larger biomass than has been reported in the assessment.

11. DATA CALLS INTO QUESTION ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD

The assessment data also calls into question both the stock estimates and assumptions about maximum sustainable yield (MSY). It has been accepted that a sustainable fishery can harvest around 20% of the cod stock without overfishing or depleting it. But according to the 2011 survey’s estimates, the past decade has seen catches at well over three times this level, with between 60-75% of the spawning stock caught. Catches in numbers that high should show a dramatic impact on the following year’s stock. However, the stock estimates do not show a consistent pattern of overfishing with little to no correlation between the population estimate and catch levels from the previous year, even when those levels would suggest a depletion of the stock. This suggests that either the stock estimates are too low or that the appropriate maximum sustainable yield should be reconsidered.

 

edited by Bob Vanasse

 

 

The sonar-based technology that has shown promise in improving fish stock assessment — now on a fast track for $1.3 million in state funding that could help solve the mystery of disappearing cod — has also been found to affect the behavior and singing of whales.

Humpback whales "sang less" and possibly swam away from the pings of the Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing technology — or OAWRS — system during a 2006 test to find and quantify schools of pelagic fish in the nearby Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, according to a newly published research article in PLoS One, for Public Library of Science One.

The study also found that the whales seemed to be reacting to the sonar sounds at a far greater distance from the source — roughly 120 miles.

That "anthropogenic" (man-made) sound affects aquatic animals, especially whales which communicate or sing across vast expanses of water is a heavily researched, disputed and litigated problem, according to the study, and U.S. Navy sonar has been linked to strandings, with one case going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the complete article by Richard Gaines in The Gloucester Times

 

 

 

 

 

The NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Cooperative Research Program has launched a new webpage.

Access the new page by clicking here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

STONY BROOK, NY – January 10, 2012 – Fish parents can pre-condition their offspring to grow fastest at the temperature they experienced, according to research published in the February 2012 edition of Ecology Letters. This pre-conditioning, known as transgenerational plasticity (TGP), occurs whenever environmental cues experienced by either parent prior to fertilization changes how their offspring respond to the environment.

Dr. Stephan B. Munch, an Adjunct Associate Professor at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) at Stony Brook University and a member of the Early Life History Team at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), along with Santiago Salinas, a Ph.D. candidate from Stony Brook University, found what they believe to be the first evidence for thermal TGP in a vertebrate.



Munch and Salinas highlight TGP as another potential mechanism for rapid responses to climate shifts. “In light of global climate change, transgenerational effects of temperature may be incredibly important mechanisms for coping with altered thermal regimes,” said Dr. Munch.

In the experiment, the team collected several hundred adult sheepshead minnows from the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Gulf Breeze, Florida, and brought them to the fish facility at Stony Brook University in August 2009. To test for thermal TGP in growth, parents were held at several different temperatures and growth of their offspring was subsequently measured. After seven days of parental temperature exposure, offspring growth was the same for all parents. However, after 30-days of temperature exposure, offspring grew best at their parents’ temperature. The experiment was fully replicated and repeated, each time revealing the same result that offspring from high (34° Celsius) and low (24° Celsius) temperature parents grew best at high and low temperatures, respectively. “The differences in growth of the offspring, based on whether the parents had experienced that same temperature, were significant,” noted Salinas.

Read the complete story in News Wise