FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3200510275> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3200510275 endingPage "1232" @default.
• W3200510275 startingPage "1220" @default.
• W3200510275 abstract "Aquatic foods are increasingly being recognized as having an important role to play in an environmentally sustainable and nutritionally sufficient food system. Proposals for increasing aquatic food production often center around species, environments, and ambitious hi-tech solutions that mainly will benefit the 16% of the global population living in high-income countries. Meanwhile, most aquaculture species and systems suffer from large performance gaps, meaning that targeted interventions and investments could significantly boost aquatic food supply and access to nutritious foods without a concomitant increase in environmental footprints. Here we contend that the dialogue around aquatic foods should pay greater attention to identifying and implementing interventions to improve the productivity and environmental performance of low-value commodity species that have been relatively overlooked in this regard to date. We detail a range of available technical and institutional intervention options and evaluate their potential for increasing the output and environmental performance of global aquaculture. Aquatic foods are increasingly being recognized as having an important role to play in an environmentally sustainable and nutritionally sufficient food system. Proposals for increasing aquatic food production often center around species, environments, and ambitious hi-tech solutions that mainly will benefit the 16% of the global population living in high-income countries. Meanwhile, most aquaculture species and systems suffer from large performance gaps, meaning that targeted interventions and investments could significantly boost aquatic food supply and access to nutritious foods without a concomitant increase in environmental footprints. Here we contend that the dialogue around aquatic foods should pay greater attention to identifying and implementing interventions to improve the productivity and environmental performance of low-value commodity species that have been relatively overlooked in this regard to date. We detail a range of available technical and institutional intervention options and evaluate their potential for increasing the output and environmental performance of global aquaculture. Sustainable food provisioning is increasingly recognized as one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time, as food production contributes substantially to the risks of disrupting the Earth system.1Gordon L.J. Bignet V. Crona B. Henriksson P.J. Holt T. Van Jonell M. Lindahl T. Troell M. Barthel S. Deutsch L. et al.Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship.Environ. Res. Lett. 2017; 12: 100201Crossref Scopus (59) Google Scholar,2Willett W. Rockström J. Loken B. Springmann M. Lang T. Vermeulen S. Garnett T. Tilman D. DeClerck F. Wood A. et al.Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.Lancet. 2019; 393: 447-492Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1748) Google Scholar Food production is estimated to account for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, 75% of all deforestation, 70% of freshwater withdrawals, and largely all nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide emissions.1Gordon L.J. Bignet V. Crona B. Henriksson P.J. Holt T. Van Jonell M. Lindahl T. Troell M. Barthel S. Deutsch L. et al.Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship.Environ. Res. Lett. 2017; 12: 100201Crossref Scopus (59) Google Scholar These environmental challenges are often attributed to our focus on enhancing productivity over resilience, through monocultures dependent on anthropogenic input, such as inorganic fertilizers, fuels, pesticides, and feed.1Gordon L.J. Bignet V. Crona B. Henriksson P.J. Holt T. Van Jonell M. Lindahl T. Troell M. Barthel S. Deutsch L. et al.Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship.Environ. Res. Lett. 2017; 12: 100201Crossref Scopus (59) Google Scholar,3Rockström J. Edenhofer O. Gaertner J. DeClerck F. Planet-proofing the global food system.Nat. Food. 2020; 1: 3-5Crossref Scopus (35) Google Scholar Terrestrial-animal-source foods, dominated by a handful of species, have disproportionately high impacts on the environment.2Willett W. Rockström J. Loken B. Springmann M. Lang T. Vermeulen S. Garnett T. Tilman D. DeClerck F. Wood A. et al.Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.Lancet. 2019; 393: 447-492Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1748) Google Scholar,4Poore J. Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers.Science. 2018; 992: 987-992Crossref Scopus (305) Google Scholar,5Troell M. Naylor R.L. Metian M. Beveridge M. Tyedmers P.H. Folke C. Arrow K.J. Barrett S. Crépin A.-S. Ehrlich P.R. et al.Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system?.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2014; 111: 13257-13263Crossref PubMed Scopus (297) Google Scholar Farmed fish add to these impacts, but have been estimated to have 87% smaller carbon footprints than beef, use 49% less land than poultry, and require 84% less stress-weighted fresh water than pigs.4Poore J. Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers.Science. 2018; 992: 987-992Crossref Scopus (305) Google Scholar It has also been projected that the production of aquatic foods (defined here broadly as fish and other aquatic animals) will increase by 32% between 2018 and 2030.6FAOThe State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 2020Google Scholar As only marginal increases (optimistic maximum ≈15%) in aquatic food production can be expected to result from improved fisheries management,7Costello C. Cao L. Gelcich S. Cisneros-Mata M.Á. Free C.M. Froehlich H.E. Golden C.D. Ishimura G. Maier J. Macadam-Somer I. et al.The future of food from the sea.Nature. 2020; 588: 95-100Crossref PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar,8van der Meer J. Limits to food production from the sea.Nat. Food. 2020; 1: 762-764Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar aquaculture's contribution to global aquatic food production is expected to increase from 46% in 2018 to 53% in 2030.6FAOThe State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 2020Google Scholar Aquaculture is highly diverse, comprising numerous species and systems with varied environmental impacts and nutritional values,5Troell M. Naylor R.L. Metian M. Beveridge M. Tyedmers P.H. Folke C. Arrow K.J. Barrett S. Crépin A.-S. Ehrlich P.R. et al.Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system?.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2014; 111: 13257-13263Crossref PubMed Scopus (297) Google Scholar,9Hicks C.C. Cohen P.J. Graham N.A.J. Nash K.L. Allison E.H. D’Lima C. Mills D.J. Roscher M. Thilsted S.H. Thorne-Lyman A.L. et al.Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies.Nature. 2019; 574: 95-98Crossref PubMed Scopus (132) Google Scholar, 10Hallström E. Bergman K. Mifflin K. Parker R. Tyedmers P. Troell M. Ziegler F. Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods.J. Clean. Prod. 2019; 230: 402-411Crossref Scopus (29) Google Scholar, 11Tlusty M.F. Tyedmers P. Bailey M. Ziegler F. Henriksson P.J.G. Béné C. Bush S. Newton R. Asche F. Little D.C. et al.Reframing the sustainable seafood narrative.Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019; 59: 101991Crossref Scopus (20) Google Scholar ranging from marine bivalves, which require minimal input during grow-out, to filter-feeding freshwater finfish species (e.g., silver and bighead carps), to omnivorous finfish and crustaceans that commonly rely on plant-based feed with partial inclusion of fishmeal and fish oil, to carnivorous finfish, including tuna, which can consume up to 20 times their weight in wild fish.5Troell M. Naylor R.L. Metian M. Beveridge M. Tyedmers P.H. Folke C. Arrow K.J. Barrett S. Crépin A.-S. Ehrlich P.R. et al.Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system?.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2014; 111: 13257-13263Crossref PubMed Scopus (297) Google Scholar,12Henriksson P.J. Banks L.K. Suri S.K. Pratiwi T.Y. Fatan N.A. Troell M. Indonesian aquaculture futures — identifying interventions for reducing environmental impacts.Environ. Res. Lett. 2019; 14: 124062Crossref Scopus (4) Google Scholar, 13Metian M. Pouil S. Boustany A. Troell M. Farming of bluefin tuna-reconsidering global estimates and sustainability concerns.Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2014; 22: 184-192Crossref Scopus (17) Google Scholar, 14Cao L. Naylor R. Henriksson P. Leadbitter D. Metian M. Troell M. Zhang W. China’s aquaculture and the world’s wild fisheries.Science. 2015; 80: 347Google Scholar Historically dominated by extensive and improved-extensive pond-based farming systems sometimes supplemented with agricultural by-products, the aquaculture sector has, over the past few decades, been increasingly steered toward intensification through the use of pelleted feed in marine, brackish-water, and freshwater environments.15Tacon A.G.J. Trends in global aquaculture and aquafeed production: 2000–2017.Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2019; 0: 1-14Google Scholar,16Edwards P. Aquaculture environment interactions: past, present and likely future trends.Aquaculture. 2015; 447: 2-14Crossref Scopus (187) Google Scholar These pelleted feeds are generally produced from a mix of fishmeal and fish oil, agricultural products, animal by-products, and micronutrients, often tailored to support the nutritional needs of individual species. Each of these ingredients is associated with its own set of environmental concerns, making feed the major driver behind many environmental life-cycle impacts caused by fed aquaculture.17Pelletier N. Klinger D.H. Sims N.A. Yoshioka J.R. Kittinger J.N. 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.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018; 52: 5532-5544Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar Intensification of fed aquaculture has consequently shifted resource needs from on-farm to: (1) other agricultural land, often in locations remote from the farm, for production of crop-based feed ingredients; (2) open waters for fish-based feed ingredients (fishmeal and fish oil); and (3) additional exogenous energy inputs (infrastructure, pumps, aeration, etc.) and/or land that may be used to maintain water quality (i.e., settling ponds).17Pelletier N. Klinger D.H. Sims N.A. Yoshioka J.R. Kittinger J.N. 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.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018; 52: 5532-5544Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar, 18Henriksson P.J. Belton B. Jahan K.M.- Rico A. Measuring the potential for sustainable intensification of aquaculture in Bangladesh using life cycle assessment.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2018; 115: 2958-2963Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar, 19Henriksson P.J.G. Rico A. Zhang W. Nahid S.A.A. Newton R. Phan L.T. Zhang Z. Jaithiang J. Dao H.M. Phu T.M. et al.Comparison of asian aquaculture products by use of statistically supported life cycle assessment.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015; 49: 14176-14183Crossref PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar, 20Cottrell R.S. Blanchard J.L. Halpern B.S. Metian M. Froehlich H.E. Global adoption of novel aquaculture feeds could substantially reduce forage fish demand by 2030.Nat. Food. 2020; 1: 301-308Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar, 21Klinger D. Naylor R. Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable course.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012; 37: 247-276Crossref Scopus (131) Google Scholar Overall, intensification may aggravate some environmental concerns, such as acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity, but reduce others, such as freshwater consumption.18Henriksson P.J. Belton B. Jahan K.M.- Rico A. Measuring the potential for sustainable intensification of aquaculture in Bangladesh using life cycle assessment.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2018; 115: 2958-2963Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar Fulfilling the potential of aquaculture to contribute positively to food system transformation will require better accounting of the environmental performance of different types of production systems, and interventions that facilitate upscaling of aquatic farming to support sustainable diets.4Poore J. Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers.Science. 2018; 992: 987-992Crossref Scopus (305) Google Scholar,22Béné C. Oosterveer P. Lamotte L. Brouwer I.D. de Haan S. Prager S.D. Talsma E.F. Khoury C.K. When food systems meet sustainability – current narratives and implications for actions.World Dev. 2019; 113: 116-130Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar Some recent literature on this subject proposes that most of aquaculture's potential for environmentally sustainable growth lies in one of three domains: (1) marine finfish aquaculture (i.e., in offshore systems), (2) recirculating aquaculture systems (RASs), and/or (3) bivalve production.7Costello C. Cao L. Gelcich S. Cisneros-Mata M.Á. Free C.M. Froehlich H.E. Golden C.D. Ishimura G. Maier J. Macadam-Somer I. et al.The future of food from the sea.Nature. 2020; 588: 95-100Crossref PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar,23Gentry R.R. Froehlich H.E. Grimm D. Kareiva P. Parke M. Rust M. Gaines S.D. Halpern B.S. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; : 1-8PubMed Google Scholar,24Stentiford G.D. Bateman I.J. Hinchliffe S.J. Bass D. Hartnell R. Santos E.M. Devlin M.J. Feist S.W. Taylor N.G.H.H. Verner-Jeffreys D.W. et al.Sustainable aquaculture through the one health lens.Nat. Food. 2020; 1: 468-474Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar The first two domains are expensive to operate and intensive, with a high reliance on off-farm resources. The third, bivalve production, is challenged by low edible yields, limited consumer demand, and more demanding processing and logistics.25Ziegler F. Winther U. Hognes E.S. Emanuelsson A. Sund V. Ellingsen H. The carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood products on the global seafood market.J. Ind. Ecol. 2013; 17: 103-116Crossref Scopus (82) Google Scholar,26Belton B. Little D.C. Zhang W. Edwards P. Skladany M. Thilsted S.H. Farming fish in the sea will not nourish the world.Nat. Commun. 2020; 11: 1-8Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar We contend that the existing literature overlooks large “performance gaps” in existing conventional aquaculture systems, especially freshwater pond systems, that could be rapidly narrowed to meet future global demand for more sustainable aquatic foods. This approach would particularly benefit those most in need of the essential nutrients offered by aquatic foods. In this perspective we reflect on the evolution and performance gains of different aquaculture farming systems in relation to terrestrial animal production. Given the great diversity of aquaculture species and production systems, we group production into four categories of aquatic food species: accessible commodity, accessible niche, luxury commodity, and luxury niche. Among these, we find that, while Atlantic salmon may have experienced gains comparable to those of broilers, most aquatic foods still suffer from substantial performance gaps (the gap between attainable and actual yields). We subsequently explore a variety of interventions that could close the performance gap in aquaculture, and thereby improve the environmental profile of global aquaculture. Nine intervention areas are identified for improving the productivity and environmental performance of global aquaculture: species choice, genetic improvements, farm technologies and practices, spatial planning and access, disease reduction, feed, regulations and trade, post-harvest processing and distribution, and financial tools. We argue that these could have the most impact if geared toward boosting accessible-commodity aquatic food species, as they play a vital role in food security and providing nutrients for low-income consumers. At the same time, they have experienced relatively limited advancements in farming to date, due to diverse farming practices, limited access to capital investments, and small profit margins. In agriculture, reducing “yield gaps” (here defined as the difference between observed and attainable yield in a given region)27Mueller N.D. Gerber J.S. Johnston M. Ray D.K. Ramankutty N. Foley J.a. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management.Nature. 2012; 490: 254-257Crossref PubMed Scopus (1349) Google Scholar is often promoted as a way of meeting food security and sustainability challenges. Narrowing or closing of yield gaps in terrestrial crop production is generally achieved through better nutrient, chemical, or freshwater management.28Licker R. Johnston M. Foley J.A. Barford C. Kucharik C.J. Monfreda C. Ramankutty N. Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the “yield gap” of croplands around the world?.Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2010; 19: 769-782Crossref Scopus (322) Google Scholar In animal production systems, including aquaculture, attainable yields are also greatly influenced by feed availability and quality, access to genetically improved strains, sound biosecurity, and access to therapeutants and vaccines. Although competition among different uses of land and water can limit scope for spatial expansion of aquaculture in some locations, the availability of feed resources, technological capacity, and socioeconomic factors, such as demand, generally pose greater constraints to increasing fed aquaculture production.29Oyinlola M.A. Reygondeau G. Wabnitz C.C.C. Troell M. Cheung W.W.L. Global estimation of areas with suitable environmental conditions for mariculture species.PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0191086Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 30Troell M. Jonell M. Henriksson P.J.G. Ocean space for seafood.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017; 1: 1224-1225Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar, 31Naylor R.L. Hardy R.W. Buschmann A.H. Bush S.R. Cao L. Klinger D.H. Little D.C. Lubchenco J. Shumway S.E. Troell M. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture.Nature. 2021; 591: 551-563Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar, 32Farmery A.K. Alexander K. Anderson K. Blanchard J.L. Carter C.G. Evans K. Fischer M. Fleming A. Frusher S. Fulton E.A. et al.Food for all: designing sustainable and secure future seafood systems.Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2021; (0123456789)https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09663-xCrossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar Fish have metabolic advantages over terrestrial animals, as they are cold blooded and neutrally buoyant in water and thus do not need to expend energy maintaining body temperature, building supportive structures, or fighting gravity. Some forms of aquaculture do not compete for land (e.g., cages or suspended bivalves), and in forms that do (e.g., ponds), farmed aquatic animals utilize all three spatial dimensions (length, breadth, and depth) for production. Aquatic animals subsequently have biological advantages over terrestrial livestock in terms of their resource-use profiles.8van der Meer J. Limits to food production from the sea.Nat. Food. 2020; 1: 762-764Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar,33Tlusty M. Tyedmers P. Ziegler F. Jonell M. Henriksson P.J. Newton R. Little D. Fry J. Love D. Cao L. Commentary: comparing efficiency in aquatic and terrestrial animal production systems.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13: 128001Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar However, given the short history of farming for most aquaculture species, few have reached the levels of efficiency seen in the highly homogenized terrestrial-animal production systems, such as poultry farming. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is commonly used as an efficiency indicator in aquaculture, since it, at least in theory, accounts for feed utilization, conversion of feed to body mass, and the survival of stocked organisms. FCR meanwhile disregards differences in feed ingredient components, feed quality, moisture content of feed and farmed aquatic products, and information about co-produced species and edible yields.33Tlusty M. Tyedmers P. Ziegler F. Jonell M. Henriksson P.J. Newton R. Little D. Fry J. Love D. Cao L. Commentary: comparing efficiency in aquatic and terrestrial animal production systems.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13: 128001Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar,34Fry J.P. Mailloux N.A. Love D.C. Milli M.C. Cao L. Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13: 024017Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar For example, some marine fish species are still fed whole wild fish, while carps often are fed agricultural by-products. Other species, such as salmon, have been partially weaned off carnivorous diets and are today raised using diets composed predominantly of agricultural feed resources.5Troell M. Naylor R.L. Metian M. Beveridge M. Tyedmers P.H. Folke C. Arrow K.J. Barrett S. Crépin A.-S. Ehrlich P.R. et al.Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system?.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2014; 111: 13257-13263Crossref PubMed Scopus (297) Google Scholar,35Aas T.S. Ytrestøyl T. Åsgård T. Utilization of feed resources in the production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway: an update for 2016.Aquac. Rep. 2019; 15: 100216Crossref Scopus (47) Google Scholar,36Cottrell R.S. Metian M. Froehlich H.E. Blanchard J.L. Sand Jacobsen N. McIntyre P.B. Nash K.L. Williams D.R. Bouwman L. Gephart J.A. et al.Time to rethink trophic levels in aquaculture policy.Rev. Aquac. 2021; 13: 1583-1593Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar Agricultural feed resources used to produce carnivorous fish species are generally of higher quality than those fed to omnivorous fish, but also allow for higher retention of nutrients.34Fry J.P. Mailloux N.A. Love D.C. Milli M.C. Cao L. Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly?.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13: 024017Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar,36Cottrell R.S. Metian M. Froehlich H.E. Blanchard J.L. Sand Jacobsen N. McIntyre P.B. Nash K.L. Williams D.R. Bouwman L. Gephart J.A. et al.Time to rethink trophic levels in aquaculture policy.Rev. Aquac. 2021; 13: 1583-1593Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar The simplicity of FCR, however, allows farmers to easily benchmark their performance and recognize farming improvements. FCR can also serve as an indicator of environmental performance, as feed production remains the primary driver behind most environmental impacts related to fed aquaculture systems.37Bohnes F.A. Hauschild M.Z. Schlundt J. Laurent A. Life cycle assessments of aquaculture systems: a critical review of reported findings with recommendations for policy and system development.Rev. Aquac. 2019; 11: 1061-1079Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar Where more comprehensive efficiency measures are needed, life cycle assessment (LCA) enables evaluation of environmental performance and trade-offs on a multi-criteria basis.18Henriksson P.J. Belton B. Jahan K.M.- Rico A. Measuring the potential for sustainable intensification of aquaculture in Bangladesh using life cycle assessment.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2018; 115: 2958-2963Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar,33Tlusty M. Tyedmers P. Ziegler F. Jonell M. Henriksson P.J. Newton R. Little D. Fry J. Love D. Cao L. Commentary: comparing efficiency in aquatic and terrestrial animal production systems.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13: 128001Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar LCA is a quantitative environmental assessment framework used to assess the environmental performance of a product or service throughout its life-cycle stages. The environmental impact assessment results produced by an LCA commonly detail impacts such as global warming, eutrophication, land use, and freshwater use, but may also include more aquatic-food-specific impacts, such as biotic resource use.38Bohnes F.A. Laurent A. LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential improvements.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019; 24: 324-337Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar Most dietary comparisons based upon LCA results tend to generalize aquaculture into one or a few broad groups (e.g., circulating and non-circulating; fish and other “seafood”; freshwater finfish, farmed freshwater finfish, tuna, crustaceans, mollusks, etc.).39Clark M. Tilman D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice.Environ. Res. Lett. 2017; 12: 064016Crossref Scopus (318) Google Scholar,40Heller M.C. Willits-Smith A. Meyer R. Keoleian G.A. Rose D. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self-selected US diets.Environ. Res. Lett. 2018; 13: 044004Crossref PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar Relative LCA results are, moreover, heavily influenced by how the authors derive environmental footprint estimates for food categories. For example, David et al.41Davis K.F. Gephart J.A. Emery K.A. Leach A.M. Galloway J.N. D’Odorico P. Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources.Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016; 39: 125-132Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar report 0.59 kg CO2-equiv kg−1 seafood, while Shewmake et al.42Shewmake S. Okrent A. Thabrew L. Vandenbergh M. Predicting consumer demand responses to carbon labels.Ecol. Econ. 2015; 119: 168-180Crossref Scopus (29) Google Scholar report 8.94 kg CO2-equiv kg−1 on average for “fish and seafood,” with a minimum of 0.08 and a maximum of 15.06. Such discrepancies can result from differences among species and production system, but also reflect limited availability of LCA studies from which impact estimates are derived, as well as the differences in the methodological choices that condition them.38Bohnes F.A. Laurent A. LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential improvements.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019; 24: 324-337Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar Moreover, such results are rarely weighted to represent actual production volumes and systems. This means that, in the literature on sustainable diets, aquatic foods are generally overrepresented by Atlantic salmon, which is the most researched aquaculture species.38Bohnes F.A. Laurent A. LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential improvements.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019; 24: 324-337Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar Atlantic salmon farming constitutes one of the most homogeneous and intensive aquaculture practices, while the omnivorous species and freshwater finfish (especially carps [Cyprinidae]) that represent the majority of aquaculture production globally are underrepresented in LCA literature.38Bohnes F.A. Laurent A. LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential improvements.Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019; 24: 324-337Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar Hilborn et al.43Hilborn R. Banobi J. Hall S.J. Pucylowski T. Walsworth T.E. The environmental cost of animal source foods.Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018; 16: 329-335Crossref Scopus (69) Google Scholar benchmark carp but present it as environmentally unfavorable compared with both Atlantic salmon and pork, based upon estimates from a report by Hall et al.44Hall S.J. Delaporte A. Phillips M.J. Beveridge M.C.M. O’Keefe M. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, 2011Google Scholar Hall et al.,44Hall S.J. Delaporte A. Phillips M.J. Beveridge M.C.M. O’Keefe M. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, 2011Google Scholar in turn, detail extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive carp production systems, but unfortunately mix up on-farm electricity consumption with embodied industrial energy,45Muir J. Managing to harvest? Perspectives on the potential of aquaculture.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2005; 360: 191-218Crossref PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar resulting in the suggestion that electricity generation contributes more than half of the global warming and acidification impacts of carp production. MacLeod et al.,46MacLeod M.J. Hasan M.R. Robb D.H.F. Mamun-Ur-Rashid M. Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture.Sci. Rep. 2020; 10: 1-8Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar in turn, assume all carp to be fed at an FCR of 1.7–1.8, despite the fact that global carp production comprises, by roughly one-third, filter-feeding silver and bighead carps,47FAOFishStatJ. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2020Google Scholar and an estimated quarter of all carps are produced in extensive systems without external feed input.15Tacon A.G.J. Trends in global aquaculture and aquafeed production: 2000–2017.Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2019; 0: 1-14Google Scholar,44Hall S.J. Delaporte A. Phillips M.J. Beveridge M.C.M. O’Keefe M. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, 2011Google Scholar These examples illustrate that, to date, no LCA-based comparison of global aquaculture has been able to capture the diversity of farming systems for cyprinids, nor has any LCA utilizing empirical data from China (where 71% of all cyprinids are farmed) been published. Henriksson et al.18Henriksson P.J. Belton B. Jahan K.M.- Rico A. Measuring the potential for sustainable intensification of aquaculture in Bangladesh using life cycle assessment.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2018; 115: 2958-2963Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar show that the environmental performance of carps from Bangladesh can differ by two orders of magnitude, depending on farming system and the individual" @default.
• W3200510275 created "2021-09-27" @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5008332466 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5017482018 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5034338554 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5043905749 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5051103824 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5054457412 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5055513796 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5063391537 @default.
• W3200510275 creator A5072886707 @default.
• W3200510275 date "2021-09-01" @default.
• W3200510275 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W3200510275 title "Interventions for improving the productivity and environmental performance of global aquaculture for future food security" @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1240737776 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1436938390 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1453316556 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1901093104 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1966917391 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1980950199 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1981200711 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1982627164 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1983911366 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1992275610 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W1993712903 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2016686513 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2017084045 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2035781386 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2036657217 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2041188356 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2069921436 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2071282150 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2077813744 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2078577564 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2100461074 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2116081092 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2127854299 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2146833082 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2155366835 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2155609082 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2165998301 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2168199202 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2170234585 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2214058817 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2262681237 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2268272569 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2342746484 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2403993502 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2412725264 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2469220486 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2491489041 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2528917315 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2532717688 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2570010963 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2581716756 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2583927791 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2625424880 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2625471208 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2626928542 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2744357133 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2744973120 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2763060879 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2763354659 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2769061374 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2771436668 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2785682811 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2786719734 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2787999520 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2788506292 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2789449030 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2789512237 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2792179673 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2796908335 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2806569362 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2808681744 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2887157340 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2888335872 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2890027965 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2891598119 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2892467623 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2894599916 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2903603358 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2909678677 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2915211902 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2919954530 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2921731820 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2923330433 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2941245313 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2943253067 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2944859034 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2946868467 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2949797876 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2962883965 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2964213295 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2969812248 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2975042721 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2976858227 @default.
• W3200510275 cites W2979616588 @default.

• next