Feed sustainability: current status, future prospects and consumer attitudes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Feed sustainability: current status, future prospects and consumer attitudes



By Dr Paul Morris

By Dr Paul Morris



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 20

http://www.slideshare.net 13
http://nlws0134 6
http://developingsustainability.com 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Feed sustainability: current status, future prospects and consumer attitudes Presentation Transcript

  • 2. Milestones • Fishmeal and oil replacement • Responsible sourcing • Schemes and controls • Fundamentally efficient • Uptake of the industry’s offering • Barriers to progress
  • 3. Fishmeal and fish oil replacement • Fish require nutrients, not feed materials • Feed raw materials have been under continuous investigation since fish farming entered the “modern” age • Early feeds for salmonids had high proportions of slaughterhouse waste, later replaced by fishmeal and fish oil • Fishmeal and fish oil provide an excellent balance of nutrients and have been very economic in fish feeds though competition for this resource will become more fierce • Major EU-funded projects (RAFOA, AquaMax) highlight potential for fishmeal and oil substitution in species commonly farmed in Europe; delineate current substitution boundaries • Published studies indicate complete replacement of fishmeal and oil is feasible in some commonly farmed species • Skretting data shows portion-sized trout, for example, can grow effectively on feeds without fishmeal and oil though growth and FCR are less good than with fishmeal
  • 4. Cumulative growth rate (SGR) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of portion-sized rainbow trout fed diets made with / without fishmeal and with / without fish oil in freshwater at 11°C (legend indicates meal / oil combination) 1.60 SGR FCR Meal: P = 0.0025 Meal: P = 0.0005 b b Oil: P = 0.7475 Oil: P = 0.4714 1.40 Interac’: P = 0.8465 Interac’: P = 0.2897 a a 1.20 Sgr (%/day) or FCR 1.00 b b a a 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 FF FV VF VV FF FV VF VV SGR FCR Morris, Unpublished
  • 5. Amounts of fatty acid in feeds had a significant impact on amounts of fatty acids in flesh of rainbow trout given feeds with / without fishmeal and with / without fish oil T o t lsa t ra t s a u e 18 : n - ( lno e c ac d ) 2 6 i l i i 26 12 25 11 Su sa t ra tes n f l sh % o f f tty ac d s ) A 18 : n - n f l sh % o f f tty ac d s ) i i 10 24 a a 9 23 ( ( 8 i e 2 6 i e 22 Y = 0.3196x + 17.4466 7 Y = 0.2230x + 4.7042 r2 = 0.7800 r2 = 0.7155 u 21 P = 0.0001 6 P = 0.0005 m 20 5 12 16 20 24 12 16 20 24 28 S u sa t ra t s n f ed % o f f tt ac d s ) m u e i e ( a y i A18 : n - n f ed % o f f tt ac d s ) 2 6 i e ( a y i 20 : n - EPA ) 5 3 ( 22 : n - DHA ) 6 3 ( 5 14 13 A 22 : n - n f l sh % o f f tty ac d s ) A 20 : n - n f l sh % o f f tty ac d s ) i 4 i 12 a a 11 ( 3 ( 10 6 3 i e 5 3 i e Y = 0.1917x + 2.3348 9 Y = 0.5362x + 8.0362 2 r2 = 0.4725 r2 = 0.4958 8 P = 0.0135 P = 0.0106 7 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A22 : n - n f ed % o f f tt ac d s ) 6 3 i e ( a y i A20 : n - n f ed % o f f tt ac d s ) 5 3 i e ( a y i Morris, Unpublished
  • 6. Responsible sourcing • We are in it for the long-term - the feed industry and its suppliers are obliged to secure sustainable resources to stay in business • Fishmeal and oil remain highly desirable feed materials because of the relative cost- effectiveness of their high protein/digestible amino acid content and LC n-3 PUFAS • Fishmeal and oil will be “strategic” feed materials, used optimally to be of greatest benefit • Increasingly, our customers are asked to provide differentiated offerings to their customers. Sustainability credentials (explicit and implicit) are becoming fields for competition between retailers and ultimately, between feed producers and our suppliers • Fishmeal and oil supply has remained approximately static for many years with most fisheries supplying this market being fully exploited • Net increase in FM/FO requirement from aquaculture (annual increase in feed requirement partly offset by decreasing proportion in feed) means the proportion of the commodities entering aquaculture has increased at the expense of agricultural feeds • Estimates vary but according to Tacon & Metian (2008) in 2006 global aquaculture used: 68.2% of the annual fishmeal production 88.5% of the annual fish oil production
  • 7. Jackson, 2009
  • 8. Annual productiuon (tonnes x 1 million 8 7 6 5 4 Fish meal Fish oil At best - outlook is static 3 2 1 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Annual output of the main fishmeal and oil producing countries compared to 12-year average values 1995 - 2006 Source: IFFO
  • 9. 2000 Rapeseed 1800 Fish oil, Scand. 1600 Fish oil, Peruvian Palm oil 1400 USD / tonne 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug-07 Aug-08 Jul-04 Apr-05 Jun-05 Apr-06 Jun-06 Apr-07 Jun-07 Apr-08 Jun-08 May-04 Jan-04 Mar-04 Feb-05 Feb-06 Feb-07 Feb-08 Feb-09 Oct-04 Oct-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-08 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08 Trends in spot prices of commodity oils 2004–2009 Biofuel  rising price of food oils linked with mineral oil USD / tonne, CIF
  • 10. Schemes and controls • The fishmeal and oil used in Europe comes mainly from the N.E. Atlantic and S.E. Pacific, mostly produced by the “IFFO 5/6” • Fishing is heavily regulated in these areas by government enforcement underpinned by scientific advice and codes of practice • Anchovetta, Atlantic herring, blue whiting and Chilean jack mackerel are 4 of the top 10 marine fish species caught in 2006 and are commonly used for the production of fishmeal and oil. They are described as “fully exploited” with some components of the individual fisheries classified as “over exploited” as of 2006 (FAO 2008) • In addition to governmental controls, individual companies along the chain have established their own sourcing criteria to assure that their aspirations and beliefs are translated into sustainable feed
  • 11. Organisations issuing guidance and setting standards – A far from complete list • Fishery “health” and productivity ICES - N.E. Atlantic IMARPE - Peru IFOP - Chile IMR - Icelandic waters NOAA - W. Atlantic • Guidance and control on how / when and how much to fish FAO - UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Quota setting - NEAFC & coastal states e.g. EU, Norway, Iceland MSC - Certification of responsibly fished fisheries Friends of the Sea - Certification of responsibly fished fisheries • How to use the resource IFFO - Code of Responsible Practice Feed standards - Aquaculture standards e.g. Soil Association (organic) Farming standards - Global Aquaculture Alliance, Aquaculture Stewardship Council, Scottish Code of Practice • Farmer and retailer schemes Individual farming companies and most retailers have codes of practice and/or standards which mostly add specific criteria to those prescribed by the organisations above
  • 12. Sustainability doesn’t just mean securing marine resources • Replacement of fishmeal / oil must be achieved without contributing to unsustainable practices elsewhere • Plant proteins and oils should ensure that fish production remains resource efficient in terms of feed conversion ratio or at least no net increase in environmental impact • Schemes are emerging that will provide guarantees of the sustainability of the plant products used e.g. Soya: ProTerra Round Table for Sustainable Soya FEMAS Sustainable Soya Scheme Palm: Round Table for Sustainable Palm • Although not necessarily acceptable in all markets, land animal by-products represent a means of using materials that are not usually consumed by humans to “spare” fishmeal and oil
  • 13. Opportunities for differentiation • Sustainability is implicit in the feed compounders’ activities though, with some farming companies seeing sustainability as away to differentiate their product from the mainstream, there are a number of interpretations of what is sustainable • Partnerships between retailers, processors, farmers and their suppliers have emerged • Raw materials, processes and husbandry are all subjected to rigorous assessment and re- evaluation to provide documented evidence that the principles are being adhered to and strengthened Example of a decision tree used to determine the acceptability of fishery products for inclusion in a bespoke feed
  • 14. Fundamentally efficient – Feed conversion ratios • Finfish aquaculture is fundamentally efficient w.r.t. feed use due to the low feed conversion ratios (FCRs) achievable, the high edible yield of the fish produced and the high nutritional value of the processing by-products • Each incremental improvement in FCR saves the feed material resource and the energy involved in feed manufacture, handling and transportation • Feed manufacturers and farmers work closely on projects to optimise FCR to shrink the gap between the biological FCRs seen in feed trials and the economic FCRs achieved in the field • Optimising FCRs is how farmers can make the biggest contribution to the sustainability of fish feed
  • 15. Influence of ration size (% bw/d) on the specific growth rate (SGR) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of rainbow trout grown from 100g in freshwater at 11ºC 1.8 FCR CU 1.6 SGR cu 1.4 y = 0.9225Ln(x) + 1.1637 FCR or SGR (%/day) 2 R = 0.9927 1.2 Standard 1 table 0.8 0.6 y = 0.2348x2 - 0.3948x + 0.8973 Fastrack 0.4 2 R = 0.9356 table 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Nominal Ration (% bw/d)
  • 16. Fundamentally efficient – Fish in vs fish out • Numerous publications have proposed the fish in / fish out (FIFO) ratios achieved by aquaculture and salmon farming in particular: Tacon & Metian, 2008 Aquaculture in general = 0.7 Salmon = 4.9 Trout = 3.4 Marine fish = 2.2 Other finfish = 0.2 – 0.5 Jackson, 2009 Takes a broader view and incorporates production of animals other than salmon, the improved conversion of fish into fishmeal and the use of fishery by-products (responsible for 22% of total fishmeal production) Aquaculture in general = 0.5 Salmon = 1.7 Livestock in general = 0.07 (1 tonne fishmeal  14 tonnes livestock) • The debate will run and run • By applying simple assumptions, it is possible to evaluate the impact of partial fishmeal / oil substitution on the fishery resource required for salmonid production  opportunities for salmonid farming to become a net fish protein producer (NFPP) or even a net fish producer • There will be questions regarding the acceptability of fish grown according to such criteria in different markets but there will be opportunities for differentiation
  • 17. Effects of increasing the proportion of fish oil substituted on the requirement for wild fish and efficiency of fish oil production 5000 500 ( ) il f sh r qu ired (kg /onne fa m ed fsh ) LW d i e t r i R 1 )O ilp rodu c tv it % ) ( i y ( W id f i h r qu ir d ( g /t nn e f m ed f i h ) Feed s 4000 400 CP = 44% CF = 28% ar FM = 25% 3000 300 O ilp r du c t i ity % ) Alt. oil = variable ( e k o Fish  FM = 22% v Fish  FO = 5% 2000 200 o l s e Fish usage now 1000 100 constrained by fishmeal need Reduce FM inclusion or improve fish  FM 0 0 ratio to become a net 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 fish producer % o f f i h o i l su b s t it t d s u e
  • 18. Fundamentally efficient – Impact on the climate 16 • Skretting has commissioned a life cycle analysis (LCA) for farmed 14 salmon from SIK (Swedish Institute for Food and Kg Co2-e/kg edible product 12 Biotechnology) 10 • The net result shows that per kg edible fish, salmon is a “climate 8 efficient animal product” with a global warming potential that is 6 very similar to that of chicken and substantially less than that of pork 4 and beef 2 • Approx 80% of the life cycle 0 environmental impact (GWP, Salmon Chicken Beef (D+M) Pork energy use & acidification) of salmon farming is a consequence of feed, still plenty for the feed industry to do Beef D+M = combined beef + dairy production
  • 19. Uptake of the industry’s offering • Fishmeal reduction Unless producing fish for a specific niche market or according to prescriptive quality scheme rules e.g. Label Rouge, when economic, most salmon and trout farming companies accept feeds made with the minimum fishmeal content each feed manufacturer recommends  No issues with fishmeal replacement using appropriate vegetable proteins  UK, Ireland and Norway strongly resisting use of animal by-products  Limited concern regarding use of land animal proteins in the rest of the world including mainland Europe • Fish oil reduction Global uptake of the opportunity to partially replace fish oil has been mixed  Scotland & Ireland very conservative – limited but growing use now  Norway very active for a long time  Chile, Canada and Australia open to partial replacement with vegetable oils and potentially to animal fats e.g. poultry oil as well
  • 20. Barriers to progress • Both in academic realm and in production, there is plenty of evidence to show salmon and trout productivity and quality, including healthy eating, need not be compromised through partial fish oil replacement with vegetable oil • In the absence of recent, unbiased intelligence regarding the consumer’s view, SARF, the feed compounders and SSPO commissioned a review of attitudes towards replacing fish oil in the production and retail chain and consumers (Thistle Environmental, 2008) • The barrier to implementation within the UK has been one of perception within the industry itself and the desire to serve a differentiated market • Food scares in recent decades instilled a conservatism in sections of the production and retail chain where “naturalness” of fish feed is seen as protection from media assault • While Thistle’s report showed that conservative sectors of the supply chain could supply a relatively large niche (approx 20% of consumers), the majority of consumers were likely to accept of a degree of responsible fish oil substitution
  • 21. Responses in consumer attitude survey carried out by IPSOS MORI for SARF Project • What is your preference, if any, for the type of diet that farmed salmon should be given? Mainly fish based 21% No preference 35% Mixed 21% Mainly plant Don't mind / based care 13% 10% Thistle Env. / SARF, 2008
  • 22. Responses in consumer attitude survey carried out by IPSOS MORI for SARF Project • If farmed salmon feed was changed to about half and half with some fish-based feed replaced by plant-based feed, how if at all, would this affect your salmon eating? Would eat less 7% Don't mind / care 13% Would eat more Would make no 9% difference 71% Thistle Env. / SARF, 2008
  • 23. Summary • Fishmeal and oil are resources that we will continue to use in the future though we will be use them in a much smarter way • Fishmeal and oil are sustainable commodities with practically the whole industry devoted to assuring we only use responsibly sourced materials • Fish farming is still fundamentally an efficient, relatively low impact form of animal protein production • Sustainability of feed resources is fundamental to what we do, yet sectors of the production chain will still find a niche in which to market their own perspective on sustainability and naturalness
  • 24. FIN