Marine Aquaculture in the U.S. State of the Science Briefing October 2019 Please contact us to learn more or to connect with researchers. Kimberly Thompson, Director, Seafood for the Future Aquarium of the Pacific [email protected]/ (562) 951-5388/ MarineAquaComms.org SUMMARY An integrated approach to food production that combines responsible land-based agriculture with ocean-based aquaculture can support a long-term strategy to create a safe, secure, sustainable, and more resilient global food system. Today Americans are among the highest-volume consumers of meat on the planet, but the amount of resources (land and fresh water) needed to produce beef, pork, and chicken at scale are not sustainable, and land alterations for and emissions from livestock are a major source of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Responsible marine aquaculture (farming shellfish, seaweed, and finfish in the ocean) can operate with less reliance on scarce land and freshwater resources than land-based food production. It can also create lower GHG emissions per pound of protein than other meat sources and may be less susceptible to the impacts of drought, floods, and severe weather events. Appropriately sited and managed offshore fish farms may also provide a more resilient food source in the changing climate. The U.S. has ample areas offshore that are conducive to responsible finfish production in terms of ecological, economic, and regulatory potential. Marine aquaculture can also provide secondary benefits. Shellfish and seaweed aquaculture can clean the water; protect and stabilize shorelines; and provide habitat for wild marine species. Emerging research indicates that seaweeds may also help to sequester carbon and provide a buffer for local environments from the impacts of ocean acidification. The U.S. imports more seafood than any other country. Increasing the domestic supply of seafood by expanding responsible marine aquaculture can provide greater assurances that it is produced under regulated conditions, providing more nutritious food that is safe for people and the planet. Marine aquaculture could also provide alternative ocean-based livelihoods for fishers affected by shifting fish stocks or low wild catches. As with any form of food production, the risks associated with putting farms (shellfish, seaweed, and finfish) in the ocean are not zero. However, there is a growing body of science that shows the bigger-picture benefits of marine aquaculture, in terms of producing more nutritious food using fewer resources and supporting a more resilient food supply in the changing climate. There is also strong scientific evidence that appropriate siting, best management practices, and use of appropriate technologies can greatly reduce the risks. The U.S. has the scientific, ecological, economic, and regulatory capacities to support a robust marine aquaculture sector that provides more nutritious food while supporting healthy ocean ecosystems and communities. @Remy Hale, Hog Island Oyster Company
Transcript
Marine Aquaculture in the U.S. State of the Science Briefing October 2019 Please contact us to learn more or to connect with researchers.
Kimberly Thompson, Director, Seafood for the Future Aquarium of the Pacific [email protected] / (562) 951-5388/ MarineAquaComms.org
SUMMARY An integrated approach to food production that combines responsible land-based agriculture with ocean-based aquaculture can support a long-term strategy to create a safe, secure, sustainable, and more resilient global food system. Today Americans are among the highest-volume consumers of meat on the planet, but the amount of resources (land and fresh water) needed to produce beef, pork, and chicken at scale are not sustainable, and land alterations for and emissions from livestock are a major source of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Responsible marine aquaculture (farming shellfish, seaweed, and finfish in the ocean) can operate with less reliance on scarce land and freshwater resources than land-based food production. It can also create lower GHG emissions per pound of protein than other meat sources and may be less susceptible to the impacts of drought, floods, and severe weather events. Appropriately sited and managed offshore fish farms may also provide a more resilient food source in the changing climate. The U.S. has ample areas offshore that are conducive to responsible finfish production in terms of ecological, economic, and regulatory potential. Marine aquaculture can also provide secondary benefits. Shellfish and seaweed aquaculture can clean the water; protect and stabilize shorelines; and provide habitat for wild marine species. Emerging research indicates that seaweeds may also help to sequester carbon and provide a buffer for local environments from the impacts of ocean acidification. The U.S. imports more seafood than any other country. Increasing the domestic supply of seafood by expanding responsible marine aquaculture can provide greater assurances that it is produced under regulated conditions, providing more nutritious food that is safe for people and the planet. Marine aquaculture could also provide alternative ocean-based livelihoods for fishers affected by shifting fish stocks or low wild catches. As with any form of food production, the risks associated with putting farms (shellfish, seaweed, and finfish) in the ocean are not zero. However, there is a growing body of science that shows the bigger-picture benefits of marine aquaculture, in terms of producing more nutritious food using fewer resources and supporting a more resilient food supply in the changing climate. There is also strong scientific evidence that appropriate siting, best management practices, and use of appropriate technologies can greatly reduce the risks. The U.S. has the scientific, ecological, economic, and regulatory capacities to support a robust marine aquaculture sector that provides more nutritious food while supporting healthy ocean ecosystems and communities.
INTRODUCTION The United Nations predicts that we will need to produce 50 percent more food by 2050 to feed an additional 2.5 billion people on Earth. Feeding the growing population while adapting to climate change will require a diverse portfolio of food production systems that are more resilient to the changes ahead. Marine aquaculture provides an opportunity to increase our food supply without heavy reliance on land and freshwater resources. It can also increase our food supply with lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. An integrated approach to food production that combines responsible land-based agriculture with ocean-based aquaculture can support a long-term strategy to create a safe, secure, sustainable, and more resilient global food system. The ocean has the capacity to support sustainable expansion for food production while relieving pressures on land that can otherwise be used for wildlife and natural ecosystem functions. Plant and animal species on land are experiencing the fastest rates of extinction because of habitat loss. The U.S. has one of the largest exclusive economic zones (EEZ) in the world. This area includes vast expanses of water with depths, current speeds, and temperatures that are necessary to support responsible production of a diverse portfolio of species (shellfish, seaweed, and finfish) and production methods that can be adapted to meet the specific ecological, economic, and social requirements of the areas in which they will operate. Combined with easy accessibility to ports and markets, these factors make U.S. waters home to areas with the highest offshore aquaculture potential in the world. Despite this, the U.S. imports more seafood by value than any other nation in the world to support the growing domestic seafood demand, resulting in a trade deficit of nearly $16 billion in 2017. Imported sources are harder to trace and increase the likelihood of seafood products entering our market that lack sufficient environmental, social, or food safety standards. Increasing the supply of domestically grown seafood can provide greater assurances that the seafood Americans consume comes from safe, environmentally and socially responsible sources.
The Nature Conservancy. 2017. The Aquaculture Opportunity.
MARINE AQUACULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE Research shows that food system diversification will play an important role in supporting a more stable food supply in the face of a changing climate. Marine aquaculture can play an important role in the diversification strategy. Its products can be produced with less reliance on scarce land and freshwater resources than land-based food production. Seafood farmed in the ocean can also be produced with lower GHG emissions per pound of protein than other meat sources. Properly sited marine aquaculture operations may also be less susceptible to the impacts of drought, floods, and severe weather events.
Additionally, marine aquaculture could provide alternative ocean-based livelihoods for fishers affected by shifting fish stocks or low wild catches. However, marine aquaculture is not immune to impacts from climate change, such as ocean acidification and warming waters, which can affect the growth, health, and survival of farmed and wild marine species. Science-based best practices, such as appropriate farm siting and selective breeding could reduce the impacts to and increase benefits from marine aquaculture under a changing climate.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Marine aquaculture can provide ecosystem services that benefit the surrounding environment. Shellfish and seaweed aquaculture can clean the water, protect and stabilize shorelines, and provide habitat for wild marine species. Emerging research indicates that seaweeds may also help to sequester carbon, possibly buffering local environments from the impacts of ocean acidification. Factors that affect the provision of ecosystem services include proper siting, use of appropriate gear and species for the environment, and leveraging science-based best management practices. FINFISH AND THE ENVIRONMENT The U.S. is one of the world’s largest consumers of meat (a major contributor to GHG emissions). Responsibly farming finfish in the offshore environment can play an important role in complementing well-managed wild-capture fisheries to provide a more environmentally conscious source of meat. It can support a more sustainable food supply that uses less land and fresh water and emits lower GHG emissions. Increased domestic finfish production can also reduce GHG emissions associated with importing seafood from other countries that may not adhere to adequate regulations to support human and environmental health. Oysters, mussels, and seaweed will play an important role in a more sustainable domestic seafood supply, but finfish dominate the top ten list of preferred seafood in the U.S. (9 lbs. per capita of salmon, canned tuna, tilapia, pollock, pangasius, cod, and catfish in 2015) alongside shrimp, crab, and clams (4 lbs.; 0.6 lbs.; 0.3 lbs. in 2015, respectively). They are also a closer substitute to the land-based meat products that Americans prefer to consume. The U.S. has ample areas offshore that are conducive to responsible finfish production in terms of ecological, economic, and regulatory potential. Increasing domestic production of marine finfish can contribute to a more sustainable food supply and provide greater assurances that the seafood we are consuming is produced responsibly. As with any form of food production, poorly managed finfish farming can negatively impact the environment. Scientifically informed, proactive spatial planning combined with science-based best management practices and the use of appropriate gear can minimize the risks while maximizing the ecological and economic benefits of responsible marine finfish aquaculture.
FEED The latest feed formulations for farmed fish have significantly reduced the fishmeal component through replacement with by-products from wild-capture fisheries and plant material. Historically, fed fish (such as salmon) have relied on fishmeal and fish oil made from small pelagic wild-caught fish (such as sardines, anchovies, and menhaden) to provide the high oil diet that gives fish protein the characteristic nutrients desired for human consumption, specifically long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids. Research has shown that the nutrients required by finfish are not limited to fishmeal and fish oil, so long as the animals obtain the essential amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids they need to be healthy. Innovations are underway in the U.S. and globally that include the culture of bacteria, macro-algae, and insects to produce protein and amino acid-rich oils for feeds that are healthful to the fish, maintain the desired seafood qualities consumers look for, and reduce the strain of aquaculture production on environmental resources. ESCAPES It is inevitable that fish farmed in netpens will sometimes escape. In countries where reporting of escapes is mandatory (e.g. U.S., Canada, and Norway), the number of escapes and escape events has declined despite increases in farmed fish production. Ultimately, highly domesticated species will have a low chance of survival in the wild. Science-based best management practices for the farms can significantly reduce the risk and impact of escaped fish. In some cases, there are very small and infrequent escapes from farms, usually associated with stocking, maintenance, or harvest activities. Large escape events (more than 10,000 individuals) are rarely observed. These may result from severe weather, predator attacks, vandalism, human error, or theft. There are several reasons why escaped farmed fish may be of concern for wild fish populations. These include the transmission of diseases and pathogens and the genetic consequences of interbreeding between farmed and wild fish (e.g. loss of genetic diversity or lower fitness in wild populations). The extent of the impact from the escaped fish depends on a variety of factors: the number of fish that escaped, the life-stage of the escaped fish, the reproductive capabilities of those fish, the similarity in the genetic make-up between wild and farmed populations, and the proximity of farmed fish to wild population spawning habitats. Much of the historical data on fish escapes comes from salmon farming. Modeling systems, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Offshore Mariculture Escapes Genetics Assessment (OMEGA) model, are helping researchers to better understand the potential risks associated with the escape of other species, such as yellowtail (Seriola dorsalis), a candidate species for offshore production in California and the U.S. These models are also shedding light on best practices that can be implemented to reduce the impacts resulting from escapes. ANTIBIOTIC USE Antibiotics can play an important role in animal welfare, but they can also pose risks to human and environmental health if not used properly. In the U.S. antibiotics are considered a “last resort” for treating aquaculture species, and prophylactic use (growth promotion) is prohibited. Best practices designed to maximize fish health can greatly reduce the need for antibiotic use, and there is strong science that supports this. Norway, for example, decreased antibiotic use in its farmed salmon sector by 99 percent while increasing production by using vaccines. Effective best practices to reduce antibiotic use differ worldwide and are determined by key factors, including species types, production methods, regional climatic and environmental conditions, and institutional capacities to effectively regulate and enforce the regulations. U.S. regulations require antibiotics to be used sparingly and under close supervision of a licensed veterinarian to prevent amplification of risks to environmental and human health.
WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS Interactions between wildlife and production activities on land and in the ocean do occur and occasionally result in mortality. Aquaculture is no exception. Animals could be attracted to aquaculture gear for food and shelter provisions. The animals most at risk for entanglement in marine aquaculture gear are marine mammals (such as seals, sea lions, whales, and dolphins), sea turtles, sea birds, and sharks. There is little information on negative interactions between marine animals and aquaculture gear in the U.S. Globally, there is evidence that the implementation of best management practices, such as maintaining tight lines and stringent waste disposal, has been successful in reducing interactions. Knowledge and experience from farmers around the world, coupled with information on interactions with gear used in the fishing industry, can inform potential interactions for aquaculture and provide insight for permitting, siting, and management decisions. There is a risk that other interactions—including spatial competition, underwater noise disturbance, and alterations in trophic pathways—may drive marine animals from their habitats. It is important to understand these interactions as the aquaculture industry continues to expand in the U.S. The greatest concern for marine animal interactions with aquaculture gear is ropes and lines that may entangle the animals. To minimize risk of harmful interactions, there are management plans in place to inform best practices. The first and foremost consideration is whether the location invites interactions between wild animals and aquaculture farms. NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) has integrated whale migration and other related data to identify potential farm sites that minimize the likelihood of interactions. After the facility has been established, the continuous monitoring for presence and proximity of marine animals to farm locations, including observations of animals interacting with the farm, can better inform management and policy decisions. Establishing strict guidelines for maintaining farm gear (minimizing vertical lines, maintaining line tension, avoiding conversion of sea floor habitat, and installing weak links) and using appropriate methods for disposal of biological and non-biological waste can also minimize the risk of entanglement. CONCLUSION Meeting the fundamental food, water, and energy needs of our growing human population in a rapidly changing climate is putting immense pressure on the ocean and land systems. The U.S. has the scientific, technological, economic, and regulatory capacity to farm the ocean responsibly as part of a domestic strategy to integrate land- and ocean-based food production to diversify our domestic food portfolio. The risks are not zero, but most of the concerns can be managed with science-based best management practices, appropriate siting, and the use of appropriate technology and gear. Additional questions and concerns can be addressed leveraging the scientific bench strength provided by world-class U.S. ocean research institutions and programs, many of which are already engaged in research on this topic, to help monitor and collect additional data from farms in domestic waters. A robust and diverse responsible marine aquaculture sector that includes shellfish, seaweed, and finfish can complement our well-managed fisheries, freshwater aquaculture, and robust agriculture sectors to reduce our reliance on land and freshwater resources; reduce GHG emissions associated with seafood imports; protect shorelines; reduce the impacts of ocean acidification; and improve climate resilience—all while increasing local supplies of nutritious food with stronger assurances that it is produced responsibly and supports local U.S. economies.
CITATIONS *Indicates U.S.-based researchers led or participated in the study or body of work
MARINE AQUACULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE *Alleway, H., Gillies, C., Bishop, M., Gentry, R., Theuerkauf, S., & Jones, R. (2018). The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: Valuing Benefits to People and Nature. BioScience, 69(1). DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy137 Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M., Cochrane, K., Funge-Smith, S., & Poulain, F. (2018). Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 627. ISBN 978-92-5-130607-9 *Froehlich, H., Gentry, R., & Halpern, B. (2018). Global change in marine aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(11). DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0669-1 *Froehlich, H., Afflerbach, J., Frazier, M., & Halpern, B. (2019). Blue Growth Potential to Mitigate Climate Change Through Seaweed Offsetting. Current Biology, 29(18). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.041 *Gentry, R., Alleway, H., Bishop, M., Gillies, C., Waters, T., & Jones, R. (2019). Exploring the potential for marine aquaculture to contribute to ecosystem services. Reviews in Aquaculture. DOI: 10.1111/raq.12328 *Hilborn, R., Banobi, J., Hall, S., Pucylowski, T., & Walsworth, T. (2018). The environmental cost of animal source foods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(6). DOI: 10.1002/fee.1822 *Klinger, D., Levin, S., & Watson, J. (2017). The growth of finfish in global open-ocean aquaculture under climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1864). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.0834 Mongin, M., Baird, M., Hadley, S., & Lenton, A. (2016). Optimising reef-scale CO2 removal by seaweed to buffer ocean acidification. Environmental Research Letters, 11(3). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034023 *Waite, R., Beveridge, M., Brummet, R., Castine, S., Chaiyawannakarn, N., Kaushik, S.,… Phillips, M. (2014). Improving Productivity and Environmental Performance of Aquaculture. World Resources Institute. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES *Alleway, H., Gillies, C., Bishop, M., Gentry, R., Theuerkauf, S., & Jones R. (2018). The ecosystem services of marine aquaculture: Valuing Benefits to People and Nature. BioScience, 69(1). DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy137 *Froehlich, H., Afflerbach, J., Frazier, M., & Halpern, B. (2019). Blue Growth Potential to Mitigate Climate Change Through Seaweed Offsetting. Current Biology, 29(18). doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.04110.1016/j.cub.2019.07.041 *Gentry, R., Alleway, H., Bishop, M., Gillies, C., Waters, T., & Jones, R. (2019). Exploring the potential for marine aquaculture to contribute to ecosystem services. Reviews in Aquaculture. DOI: 10.1111/raq.12328 Mongin, M., Baird, M., Hadley, S., & Lenton, A. (2016). Optimising reef-scale CO2 removal by seaweed to buffer ocean acidification. Environmental Research Letters, 11(3). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034023 FINFISH AND THE ENVIRONMENT *Davies, I., Carranza, V., Froehlich, H., Gentry, R., Kareiva, P., & Halpern, B. (2019). Governance of marine aquaculture: Pitfalls, potential, and pathways forward. Marine Policy, 104(2019): 29-36. doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.054
*Froehlich, H., Gentry, R., & Halpern B. (2018). Global change in marine aquaculture production potential under climate change. Nature Ecology & Evolution. doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0669 *Gentry, R., Froehlich, H., Grimm, D., Kareiva, P., Parke, M., Rust, M., Gaines, S., & Halpern, B. (2017). Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nature Ecology & Evolution. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0257-9 *Kapetsky, J., Aquilar-Manjarrez, J., & Jenness, J. (2013). A global assessment of offshore mariculture potential from a spatial perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. ISSN 2070-7010
*Lester, S., Stevens, J., Gentry, R., Kappel, C., Bell, T., Costello, C.,… & White, C. (2018). Marine spatial planning makes room for offshore aquaculture in crowded coastal waters. Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03249-1 *Rust, M., Amos, K., Bagwill, A., Dickhoff, W., Juarez, L., Price, C., Morris, Jr., J., & Rubino, M. (2014). Environmental Performance of Marine Net-Pen Aquaculture in the United States. Fisheries, 39(11): 508-524. DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2014.966818 *Welch, A.W., Knapp, A.N., Tourky, S.E., Daughtery, Z., Hitchcock, G., and Benetti, D. (2018). The nutrient footprint of a submerged-cage offshore aquaculture facility located in the tropical Caribbean. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 50. 10.1111/jwas.12593. FEED *Feed, F3 Future of Fish. (2019). F3 Fish Oil Challenge. Retrieved from https://f3challenge.org/https://f3challenge.org/ *NOAA Fisheries. (2018). NOAA USDA Alternative Feeds Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/noaa-usda-alternative-feeds-initiative *Rust, M., Amos, K., Bagwill, A., Dickhoff, W., Juarez, L., Price, C., Morris, Jr., J., & Rubino, M. (2014). Environmental Performance of Marine Net-Pen Aquaculture in the United States. Fisheries, 39(11): 508-524. DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2014.966818 *Tacon, A. (2019). Trends in global aquaculture and Aquafeed Production: 2000-2017. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture. 1-14. 10.1080/23308249.2019.1649634. *Tlusty, M., Rhyne, A., Szczebak, J.T., Bourque, B., Bowen, J.L., Burr, G., Marx, C.J., and Feinberg, L. (2017). A transdisciplinary approach to the initial validation of a single cell protein as an alternative protein source for use in aquafeeds. PeerJ 5:e3170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.3170 ESCAPES *Baskett, M. & Waples, R. (2012). Evaluating Alternative Strategies for Minimizing Unintended Fitness Consequences of Cultured Individuals on Wild Populations. Conservation Biology, 27(1). doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01949.x Jensen, O., Dempster, T., Thorstad, E., & Fredheim, A. (2010). Escapes of fishes from Norwegian sea-cage aquaculture: causes, consequences and prevention. Aquaculture Environmental Interactions, 1(1): 71-83. DOI: 10.3354/aei00008 *Laikre, L., Schwartz, M., Waples, R., & Ryman, N. (2010). Compromising genetic diversity in the wild: unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(9): 520–529. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.013 *Lorenzen, K., Beveridge, M., & Mangel, M. (2012). Cultured fish: Integrative biology and management of domestication and interactions with wild fish. Biological Reviews, 87(3): 639-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00215.x Morris, M., Fraser, D., Heggelin, A., Whoriskey, F., Carr, J., O’Neil, S., & Hutchings, J. (2008). Prevalence and recurrence of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Eastern North American rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65(12): 2807-2826. DOI: 10.1139/F08-181 *Naylor, R., Hindar, K., Fleming, I., Goldburg, R., Williams, S., Volpe, J.,… Mangel, M. (2005). Fugitive Salmon: Assessing the Risks of Escaped Fish from Net-Pen Aquaculture. Bioscience, 55(5). DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0427:FSATRO]2.0.CO;2 *Rust, M., Amos, K., Bagwill, A., Dickhoff, W., Juarez, L., Price, C., Morris, Jr., J., & Rubino, M. (2014). Environmental Performance of Marine Net-Pen Aquaculture in the United States. Fisheries, 39(11): 508-524. DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2014.966818 *Waples, R., Hindar, K., & Hard, J. (2012). Genetic risks associated with marine aquaculture. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-119.
ANTIBIOTIC USE *American Veterinary Medical Association. (2019). Antimicrobial Use in Veterinary Practice. Retrieved from https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/Pages/Antimicrobial-Use-in-Veterinary-Practice.aspx *Bridson, P. (2014). Four-Region Summary Document: Atlantic salmon, coho salmon: Norway, Chile, Scotland, British Columbia. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch.
*Burridge, L., Weis, J., Cabello, F., & Pizarro, J. (2010). Chemical use in salmon aquaculture: A review of current practices and possible environmental effects. Aquaculture, 306(1-4): 7-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.05.020 FAO. (2019). National Aquaculture Legislation Overview: United States of America. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_usa/en *Henricksson, P., Rico, A., Troell, M., & Klinger, D. (2017). Unpacking factors influencing antimicrobial use in global aquaculture and their implication for management: a review from a systems perspective. Sustainability Science, 13(4). DOI: 10.1007/s11625-017-0511-8 Hernandez Serrano, P. (2005). Responsible use of antibiotics in aquaculture. FAO. Lozano, I., Nelson F., D., Munoz, S., & Riquelme, C. (2018). Antibiotics in Chilean Aquaculture: A Review. Antibiotic Use in Animals (Chapter 3). Miranda, C., Godoy, F., & Lee, M. (2018). Current Status of the Use of Antibiotics and the Antimicrobial Resistance in the Chilean Salmon Farms. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01284 Morrison, D. & Saksida, S. (2013). Trends in antimicrobial use in Marine Harvest Canada farmed salmon production in British Columbia (2003-2011). The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 54(12): 1160-3. *United Stated Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). (2017). Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold of Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals. USFDA, 2018. *USFDA. (2019). Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/development-approval-process/veterinary-feed-directive-vfd WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS Barrett, L., Swearer, S., & Dempster, T. (2018). Impacts of marine and freshwater aquaculture on wildlife: a global meta-analysis. Reviews in Aquaculture. DOI: 10.1111/RAQ.12277. *Munroe, D., Kraeuter, J., Beal, B., Chew, K., Luckenbach, M., & Peterson, C. (2015). Clam predator protection is effective and necessary for food production. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 100(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.042. *NOAA Fisheries. (2015). Potential Protected Resources Interactions with Longline Aquaculture, Report from a workshop. *Price, C., Morris, Jr., J., Keane, E., Morin, D., Vaccaro, C., & Bean, D. (2017). Protected Species & Marine Aquaculture Interactions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 211. Varennes, E., Hanssen, S., Bonardelli, J., & Guillemette, M. (2013). Sea duck predation in mussel farms: The best nets for excluding common eiders safely and efficiently. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 4(1): 31-39. DOI: 10.3354/aei00072.
