Nutritional Attributes, Substitutability, Scalability, and Environmental

Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF DURHAM

Nutritional attributes, substitutability, scalability, and environmental intensity of an illustrative subset of current and future protein sources for aquaculture feeds: Joint consideration of potential synergies and trade-offs Nathan L. Pelletier, Dane H Klinger, Neil A Sims, Janice-Renee Yoshioka, and John N Kittinger Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05468 • Publication Date (Web): 10 Apr 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 11, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Nutritional attributes, substitutability, scalability, and environmental

2

intensity of an illustrative subset of current and future protein sources for

3

aquaculture feeds: Joint consideration of potential synergies and trade-offs

4 5 6

Nathan Pelletier1*, Dane H. Klinger2, Neil A. Sims3, Janice-Renee Yoshioka4, John N.

7

Kittinger4,5

8 9 10

1

11

Columbia, Kelowna, BC, V1V1V7. [email protected]

12

2

Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA 94305

13

3

Kampachi Farms LLC, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, USA 96740

14

4

Conservation International, Center for Oceans, Honolulu, Hawaiʻi USA 96825

15

5

Arizona State University, Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute

16

of Sustainability, Tempe, AZ USA 85281

* 340 Fipke Centre for Innovative Research, 3247 University Way, University of British

17 18

Table of Contents/Abstract art

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 2 of 37

19 20 21

Abstract:

22

Aquaculture is anticipated to play an increasingly important role in global food security, as it may

23

represent one of the best opportunities to increase the availability of healthy animal protein in the context

24

of resource and environmental constraints. However, the growth and sustainability of the aquaculture

25

industry faces important bottlenecks with respect to feed resources, which may be derived from diverse

26

sources. Here, using a small but representative subset of potential aquafeed inputs (which we selected in

27

order to highlight a range of relevant attributes), we review a core suite of considerations that need to be

28

accommodated in concert in order to overcome key bottlenecks to continued development and expansion

29

of the aquaculture industry. Specifically, we evaluate each input’s nutritional attributes, substitutability,

30

scalability, and resource/environmental intensity. On this basis, we illustrate a range of potential synergies

31

and trade-offs within and across attributes that are characteristic of ingredient types. We posit that

32

recognition and management of such synergies and trade-offs is imperative to satisfying the multi-

33

objective decision-making associated with sustainable increases in future aquaculture production.

34


Page 3 of 37

35


Introduction

36 37

Global food production may need to double in the next 30 years to meet the demands of a

38

growing and increasingly affluent population.1 However, the inputs required to sustain production in

39

traditional agricultural sectors are already limited, and competition for these resources from other sectors

40

is intensifying. For example, agriculture accounts for 70% of freshwater demand, and crop and

41

pastureland occupy 30% of land surface area.2 Moreover, expansion of agricultural activities is a major

42

contributor to a range of critical environmental problems, including climate change, biodiversity loss,

43

water pollution, and perturbation of the global nitrogen cycle.3 This is particularly true of terrestrial

44

livestock production, which plays a dominant role in food-related resource and environmental impacts.4

45

In the ocean, fisheries production has stagnated, and there is similarly limited potential for expansion.5-7

46

Aquaculture potentially presents one of the best opportunities for increasing global animal protein

47

production while minimizing resource demands and environmental impacts. Compared to conventional

48

terrestrial animal production, cold-blooded organisms reared in aquatic environments typically have

49

superior feed conversion efficiencies.8 Global aquaculture production, excluding aquatic plants, increased

50

by 1,567% between 1980 and 2014,9 and the sector is expected to grow by an additional 78% over the

51

next 15 years.10 However, the growth potential of aquaculture production is dependent on numerous

52

factors, including the method of farming, the species farmed and, for fed aquaculture, the specific kinds

53

and amounts of feed inputs required.11 Feed price and availability remains one of the critical bottlenecks

54

to expanding aquaculture globally. Demand for aquaculture feed is expected to rise from 30 million MT

55

in 2008 to around 71 million MT in 2020, as more farms rely on commercial feeds and total aquaculture

56

production increases.12

57

Feeds used in intensive aquaculture are typically formulated from multiple ingredients to meet the

58

nutritional requirements of the culture organism at least cost. While the nutritional profile and suitability

59

of feed inputs are clearly essential considerations for the aquaculture sector, so too is the scalability of



Page 4 of 37

60

existing and emerging sources – which presents a second critical bottleneck for the expansion of

61

aquaculture. Specifically, growth of the aquaculture sector may be limited by: (1) the extent to which the

62

availability of feed materials can expand commensurate with increasing demand; (2) the costs of

63

production inputs, which is often a function of alternative uses for each ingredient; and (3) the capacity of

64

the sector to increase production and sales, while maintaining or increasing profitability and efficiency.

65

These issues constitute core challenges for the sector and for global food security.

66

As with terrestrial animal production, the resource use and emissions levels characteristic of fed

67

aquaculture will depend on species type, production technology and, importantly, the environmental

68

performance profile of specific inputs to aquaculture feeds. As of 2014, 69% of all farmed aquatic

69

animals were raised with feeds (i.e. not filter feeders or autotrophs).8 Production of marine and

70

diadromous finfish, which generally require higher levels of proteins and lipids in feeds, increased by

71

169% between 2005 and 2014, to 7.3 million tons. Production of freshwater finfish, which generally

72

require fewer protein and lipids, increased by 179% to 42.4 million tons.9 A variety of studies have

73

described the importance of aquafeed production in the overall life cycle environmental impacts of fed

74

aquaculture.13-20 For example, a study of global salmon aquaculture production found that feed inputs

75

account for, on average, 90% of the cradle-to-farm gate impacts of producing farmed salmon.13 At the

76

same time, the environmental performance profiles of potential aquafeed inputs – whether of fisheries,

77

livestock, or agricultural origin – vary widely.13, 17 In light of the increasing attention being paid to the

78

role of food systems, and of animal production in particular, with respect to resource demands and

79

environmental change, considerations of the embedded environmental costs of aquaculture feeds will

80

likely assume an important role in determining the trajectory of the aquaculture sector globally and may

81

hence be considered a third important bottleneck.

82

The nutrient profiles of feeds are often described in terms of four main components: energy,

83

protein, lipid, and carbohydrate.21 Protein often makes up the largest fraction of aquaculture feeds, and

84

increased usage of existing and novel protein sources is critically important in determining future

85

increases in global aquaculture production. However, expanded use of protein inputs to aquaculture feeds


Page 5 of 37


86

may ultimately be constrained by these bottlenecks, specifically: (1) their substitutability (i.e., how their

87

particular nutritional profiles limit the extent to which they might substitute for competing protein inputs);

88

(2) their scalability (i.e. the extent to which production of protein inputs can feasibly be increased over

89

time to match rising demand; and (3) the resource and environmental implications of their production.

90

Moreover, these factors may potentially interact, creating a range of possible synergies or trade-offs.

91

Understanding such potential synergies and trade-offs is imperative to inform decision-making in support

92

of continued aquaculture development and efficient utilization of feed ingredients across multiple animal

93

production sectors.

94

Like terrestrial livestock production, aquaculture may source feed inputs from a wide range of

95

production systems, including marine fisheries, terrestrial crop and animal agriculture, and others.

96

Moreover, feed inputs may be “virgin materials”, co-products of food for human consumption, or

97

recycled biomass. Looking forward, the latter may include substantial but currently underutilized sources

98

– such as fish processing trimmings that are currently, in some cases, slurried and discharged to local

99

waterways.22.

Here, we review a representative subset of important current and emerging protein

100

sources for aquaculture feeds in order to illustrate such potential synergies and trade-offs. First, we

101

consider soy (a relatively low-input leguminous crop) produced in two major production regions (the US

102

and Brazil) that are characterized by differing production conditions and environmental implications. Soy

103

is processed into either soybean meal (a low-energy process producing a feed input whose use may be

104

constrained by anti-nutritional factors) or soy protein concentrate (an energy-intensive process resulting in

105

an output of superior nutritional value). Second, we consider three types of marine protein: (1) Peruvian

106

anchoveta meal, which is derived from a large-scale, energy efficient reduction fishery; (2) herring by-

107

product meal, derived from a smaller-scale, less energy efficient fishery for human consumption (in this

108

case, herring roe); and (3) Antarctic krill meal, which has unique nutritional properties but is derived from

109

a comparatively energy-intensive fishery and low-yielding rendering process. We also consider two

110

potential protein feed inputs derived from livestock processing materials. These are poultry by-product

111

meal, which has high nutritional value, and feather meal, which has comparatively lower nutritional



Page 6 of 37

112

value. For both, raw material provision is characterized by non-trivial resource demands and emissions

113

due to the inefficiencies inherent to biological feed conversion. The former is also produced via an

114

energy-intensive rendering process relative to the latter. Finally, we also consider insect meal – an

115

emerging protein source that is oft-touted as a sustainable alternative to animal proteins. For each, we

116

evaluate aspects of their nutritional attributes, substitutability and scalability. We also employ Life Cycle

117

Assessment (LCA) models (that we created on a methodologically consistent basis from previously

118

reported, peer-reviewed studies in order to ensure comparability) to quantitatively assess and describe

119

some of the resource utilization and environmental impacts characteristic of the life cycle of each feed

120

input considered. On this basis, we discuss how these attributes of each protein source may both interact

121

and influence their immediate and future utility as a protein source for aquaculture feeds. We recognize

122

that protein provides a somewhat crude (albeit preferable to mass) basis for making comparisons among

123

feed inputs, since proteins can differ in nutritional value and be of varying nutritional utility depending on

124

what species and at what life stage they are fed. However, in the absence of more refined metrics such as

125

Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Scores or Dietary Indispensable Amino Acid Scores that are

126

generalizable across species, we nonetheless believe this provides a reasonable first-order basis for our

127

analysis.

128

The balance of the manuscript is hence organized into three sections. The first compares and

129

contrasts each feed input in terms of its nutritional profile, potential substitutability, and scalability. The

130

second describes the varied resource and environmental considerations that may be attributable to the

131

different ingredient types, highlighting generalizable insights and underscoring where context-specific

132

factors may be determining. The third section, which synthesizes and concludes, provides summary

133

recommendations for decision support for feeding future aquaculture production.

134 135


Page 7 of 37


136 137 138 139

Nutritional Profiles, Substitutability and Scalability

140 141

Protein is required in fish and crustacean diets as a source of amino acids for protein synthesis

142

and for gluconeogenesis and metabolic energy.23,

24

143

crustaceans is often described as a single value, but the value represents the variety and ratio of up to 22

144

different amino acids, ten of which cannot be synthesized by fish and crustaceans and must be acquired

145

through dietary sources (for reviews of amino acids and nutrition, see

146

protein in an organism’s diet can change as a result of the size of the organism, the profile of amino acids

147

in the protein, the bioavailability of amino acids in the protein, and the level of dietary energy in the

148

feed.29, 30 There has been an extensive body of research focused on determining the optimal protein and

149

amino acid levels for fish growth under common culture conditions.31 Generally, an ideal feed will

150

contain similar amino acids as the proteins in the cultured animal.32

The specific requirement for protein in fish and

25-28

). The total requirement for

151

Protein sources vary widely in both the amount of crude protein and the type and ratio of amino

152

acids they provide.33, 34 Amino acid deficiencies can result in reduced growth and feed utilization.24 Diets

153

deficient in specific amino acids have been associated with reduced immune function and increased

154

overall susceptibility to disease.29, 30 Deficiencies in individual amino acids can also lead to erosion of the

155

dorsal fin (lysine deficiency), spinal deformities (tryptophan, leucine, lysine, arginine or histidine

156

deficiencies), or cataracts (methionine, tryptophan, or histidine deficiencies) (as reviewed in

157

addition, many plant-based protein sources contain anti-nutritional factors which can interfere with

158

utilization of nutrients in a feed and negatively impact the health and growth of an organism.36, 37. In some

159

cases, processing of protein ingredients can help increase digestibility, but at added cost.38

160 161

24, 35

). In

Protein ingredients are often among the most expensive components in aquaculture feeds, and farmers have a strong incentive to source the cheapest proteins that satisfy their animal’s nutritional



162

needs.35, 39 Traditionally, fishmeal has provided an inexpensive, reliable, and nutritious source of protein

163

for aquaculture feeds, but growing demand from aquaculture, other sectors, and human consumption,

164

coupled with stagnating or decreasing supply from capture fisheries, has increased fishmeal prices to

165

historically high levels.40-42 Many sectors in the aquaculture industry now diversify feed formulations to

166

include large amounts of non-fishmeal protein ingredients.33, 43

Page 8 of 37

167

For a protein source to be viable for feed use in a range of aquaculture species, it must have

168

adequate protein content (48-80%), a suitable amino acid profile, high digestibility, and acceptable

169

palatability.44 Additionally, it must have low levels of fiber, starch, non-soluble carbohydrates, and anti-

170

nutritional factors that might impair performance.44 A protein source should ideally also be scalable, to

171

meet the growing demand from the aquaculture sector.

172

The concept of scalability has multiple definitions across sectors and disciplines.45 A quantitative

173

analysis of scalability to meet demand from aquaculture feeds would require extensive economic

174

modeling, and is outside the scope of this review. Instead, we review and compare key factors that will

175

likely influence scalability, including the availability of inputs to production, and the market price of

176

protein meals.46 Specifically, we evaluate major inputs to production that could increase production costs

177

through either supply or demand dynamics, such as supply constraints, or use in other sectors. The market

178

price of each protein source is also considered, including discussion of historical price volatility,

179

innovations in production technology, and demand for the protein from other sectors. Given the inherent

180

difficult of forecasting future global production frontiers, factors are qualitatively determined to be

181

favorable, uncertain, or unfavorable for scalability.

182 183

Fishmeal

184 185

Historically, fishmeal has been the primary protein source in aquaculture feeds. It has a high

186

protein content (e.g. 65–72% crude protein), suitable amino acid profile, and numerous trace elements


Page 9 of 37


187

that are beneficial for the health of fish and crustaceans. The specific protein content of fishmeal varies

188

depending on the species of fish used, and the season and location in which they were caught.47 Fishmeal

189

is also highly digestible and palatable, and lacks anti-nutrients that can be toxic or impede growth.44, 48

190

Fishmeal is produced by cooking, pressing, drying and milling raw fish or fish parts to produce a

191

brown powder.49 Global fishmeal production increased from 1961 to 1985 and has since leveled out, with

192

substantial annual and multi-year fluctuations. The primary input to fishmeal is whole fish or fish parts.

193

On average, producing one kilogram of fishmeal requires 4.4 – 4.6 kilograms of whole fish.49 There is

194

limited capacity to increase fishmeal production, due to limited access to additional fish as raw

195

ingredients. Most fisheries for the small, pelagic fish used in fishmeal production (e.g. anchoveta and

196

sardines) are either at maximum capacity, or are currently overharvesting.50 Additionally, many small

197

pelagic fisheries are prone to dramatic fluctuations in abundance due to cyclical climatic variations every

198

2 to 7 years, complicating management.51 Expanding fishmeal production by using additional fish species

199

or populations would result in a net loss of available seafood for human consumption52 and would also

200

provide only limited additional production, as most fisheries are near, at, or beyond long-term production

201

capacity.5 There is some capacity to increase fishmeal production by utilizing fish that are currently

202

discarded as bycatch, although doing so may not be economically attractive and can lead to additional

203

incentives to overfish.53,

204

processing by-products will likely continue to increase in the near-term,55 although the total production

205

level is constrained by the total amount of fishery landings and aquaculture production.12

54

Additionally, the amount of fishmeal production derived from seafood

206

Fishmeal prices increased substantially in the mid-2000’s, and have remained higher than

207

terrestrial protein meals.42, 56 Aquaculture used 73% of global fishmeal production in 2010 (competing

208

uses included swine, 20%; poultry, 5%; and other sectors, 2%), and use in aquaculture is expected to

209

remain constant or increase.49, 57 Due to the limited supply of fish and the increasing demand, fishmeal

210

prices are expected to increase through 2025 and beyond, and high prices will continue to incentivize

211

many aquaculture enterprises to substitute other types of protein for fishmeal.8 The inputs to production

212

and the market price of fishmeal are therefore unfavorable for scalability of fishmeal use in aquaculture.



Page 10 of 37

213

We summarize below key attributes of each alternative protein source considered in terms of nutritional

214

value, potential substitutability for fishmeal, and scalability.

215 216

Soybean Meal

217 218

Soybean meal, the co-product of oil extraction from soya beans, is the most frequently used non-

219

fishmeal protein source in aquaculture, due to its high digestibility, suitable amino acid profile, and low

220

price.47 Its performance with carnivorous aquatic species is diminished, relative to fishmeal, due to its

221

lower protein content (47% crude protein), and low concentrations of two essential amino acids,

222

methionine and lysine.34, 58, 59 Some species of fish also find soybean meal unpalatable without addition of

223

other protein meals or attractants.60 In addition, soybean meal contains anti-nutritional factors (e.g.

224

protease inhibitors, lectins, phytic acid, saponins, phytoestrogens, antivitamins, and allergens) that can

225

lead to reduced gut health and may ultimately be toxic.36, 48, 61 While extensive (>30%) use of soybean

226

meal is common in omnivorous species, use in carnivorous species is currently limited (

Nutritional Attributes, Substitutability, Scalability, and Environmental

Recommend Documents