Is salmon farming costing the earth?

Salmon are carnivores that feed on small fish such as anchovies and krill, known collectively as forage fish. Farmed Atlantic salmon diets have been heavily reliant on fish oil and fish meal from wild caught forage fish.  To reduce overfishing, fish meal and fish oil is increasingly supplemented by fish processing by-products, and non-marine products such as vegetable proteins and oils (including soy and palm oil), algae oil and insect meal. Processed animal proteins are used elsewhere but not in the UK due to supermarket policy.  The use of non-marine products in aquafeed is increasing and often comprises more than 50% of fish feed.

The amount of wild fish required to produce one farmed salmon is measured by two figures; the Fish In:Fish Out ratio (FIFO), and the Forage Fish Dependency Ratio (FFDR).

• The FIFO ratio takes the amount of fish meal and fish oil used to produce 1 Kg of farmed fish and calculates it back to the weight equivalent of wild fish.  For example, 20 tonnes of forage fish reduces to about 5 tonnes of fishmeal and 1 tonne of fish oil. However the fish meal and fish oil may not all come from forage fish, for example FIFO can include fish meal and fish oil produced from offal.
• The FFDR is the amount (Kg) of wild caught fish used to produce the amount of fish meal and fish oil required to produce 1 Kg of salmon.

From 1990 to 2016, the FFDR – the amount of wild caught fish used to produce the fish-based feed required to produce 1 kg of salmon – decreased from 4.4 to 0.6 for fish meal and 7.2 to 1.1 for fish oil in Norwegian salmon farming. The FIFO equivalent for the same time period decreased from 4.4 to 0.8 for fish meal, and 7.2 to 1.5 for fish oil.  A current global figure for a FIFO ratio for salmon and trout is 0.82 for fish meal.

A more accurate assessment of the efficiency of salmon farming is through the use of Marine Protein Dependency Ratio (MPDR) and Marine Oil Dependency Ratio (MODR) calculations, which analyse the use of nutrients and not ingredients. For the same time period figures for MDPR reduced from 3.8 to 0.6, and for MODR from 2.8 to 0.5.  Farmed salmon in both Norway⁵ and Scotland⁶ is a net producer of marine protein, indicating along with the FFDR and FIFO ratio that less than one wild fish is needed to produce each farmed salmon.

Feed production is also the primary source of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions in the aquaculture supply chain, contributing approximately 90% of a farms total GHG emissions. Soy, rapeseed and wheat are particularly high contributors to feed emissions. It is estimated over 70% of GHG emissions from Scottish fish diets is from plant-based ingredients ²⁴. Concerns regarding high feed GHG emissions from agriculture derived proteins has resulted in alternative low emission protein sources being assessed, including algae, insects and single cell proteins²⁵.

Waste from the fish (faeces) and uneaten food contribute high levels of nutrients into the aquatic environment surrounding open net pens, especially under the farm structures, and may also contain medicines that have been added to the feed.  The waste material immediately around fish farm pens is not fully mixed or dispersed, and lands on the sea or loch floor. There it can smother animals that live in or on the seabed, and when breaking down can lower oxygen levels and release nutrients in a process called eutrophication.  This can in turn result in excessive algal growth to produce toxic ‘blooms’ that can have harmful effects on people, fish, shellfish, marine mammals and birds.  Eutrophication occurs particularly in shallow water, therefore deeper waters are now favoured for farm sites.

SEPA’s regulatory framework allows for some damage to the environment from waste and chemicals in a limited area around the pens of fish farms. This is referred to as the mixing zone and is equivalent to the non-overlapping area lying within 100 metres of the pens in all directions.

Interactions between salmon farms and predators such as seals, otters and seabirds are common in areas where their distributions overlap, and the high density of fish can be very attractive.  Seals in particular can damage nets, and injure and eat large numbers of fish.  This incurs costs due to revenues lost from fish, uptake of methods to protect the farms from seals and repair of any damage caused.   Until 2021 farms could use lethal methods of control under licence for predators if non-lethal methods had been tried and were not effective. However due to the amendment of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers)(Scotland) Act 2020, from 1 February 2021 licences are no longer granted to shoot seals in order protect fish farms

In 2022 legislation was introduced which essentially banned the use of ADD in Scotland. The use of ADDs requires a European Protected Species licence to be obtained, which require the applicant to demonstrate the ADDs will not harm or impact wildlife and that no alternative solution to deter wildlife is available. These stringent criteria mean that the use of ADDs has greatly reduced as of 2023 in Scotland. 

To find out more about the use of a non-lethal predator control option, Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), read our blog: ‘Acoustic Deterrent Devices: An environmentally sound option?’ Following a review of Acoustic Deterrent Device use on salmon farms and subsequent Code of Practice developed by Marine Scotland⁷.

Each year thousands of farmed salmon escape into the natural environment, through human error, severe weather and structural issues.  In 2016, there were five incidents involving the loss of over 300,000 fish from seawater Atlantic salmon sites⁸.  Three additional incidents reported no loss of fish. Escapes of salmon have continued, for example 48,834 salmon escaping as a result of storm damage to cages in 2020 ²³. Escaped farmed salmon may impact wild salmon stocks by genetic interaction and transfer of diseases.  Domesticated salmon are genetically distinct from wild Scottish salmon, having been bred by Scottish farms from Norwegian stocks.

Despite successful development and application of vaccines against a range of pathogens, sea lice and viral diseases are still a major problem in fish farming.

Salmon sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) are parasitic crustaceans which originate from wild salmon and can breed rapidly in the concentrated populations of farmed salmon in open net pens. Once attached to the skin of a fish, they feed on its flesh, causing lesions. This can reduce swimming ability, create disturbances in water/salt balance and increase stress levels, leading to poor health, greater susceptibility to disease, low blood count, poor growth and eventually death.  Sea lice can also transfer to wild populations of salmon and sea trout.

Viral disease outbreaks can be devastating to individual fish farms and can be spread by live fish transport or between fish farms. Diseases such as Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) and Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemica (VHS) are not currently seen in any farms in Scotland, with the last ISA outbreak in 1998. Legislation to try to control spread of disease has been in place since 1937, to protect wild salmon stocks. Import restrictions apply, and farms are checked by veterinarians at least once every two years.

What makes salmon pink?

The pink colour of wild salmon comes from naturally occurring pigments called carotenoids. There are over 600 naturally occurring carotenoids in plants and animals. Those found in fish belong to a group known as xanthophylls and include astaxanthin. Astaxanthin is the major carotenoid found in wild salmon and crustaceans (shrimp, lobsters) and is responsible for their pink-red pigmentation. Nature-identical synthesized pigments are used in salmon feeds.  Astaxanthin is approved for addition to the diet of farmed salmon and trout in all relevant markets¹¹.  Astaxanthin has been declared safe for the human consumer by the standards of the European Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP).  Pigment source has changed in Scotland in recent years to natural products such as extract of the red yeast Phaffia rhodozyma⁶.

Omega 3

Oily fish such as salmon are a source of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahxaenoic (DHA) acids, which may help prevent heart disease and have additional health benefits.  However, replacing the traditional marine ingredients of fishmeal and fish oil in salmon feed with sustainable alternatives can lead to a decrease in omega-3 levels¹². Recent research indicates that farmed Scottish salmon still delivers more omega-3 acids than most other fish species and all terrestrial livestock¹².  Present UK Government recommendations are to have 1 portion of oily fish such as salmon a week¹³. Omega-3s are also found in herring, mackerel and mussels. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)¹⁴, which helps to lower the risk of heart disease, and Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)¹⁵, which is important for brain function, can also be made from alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) found in vegetable oils (rapeseed and linseed), nuts (walnuts, pecans and hazelnuts), soya products and green leafy vegetables, but it is a slow process and only small amounts are formed.  Trials have been undertaken to genetically modify the plant Camelina sativa to express algal genes and produce oil containing  long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, to replace fish oil in salmon feeds¹⁶.

Antibiotics and other medicinal treatments

The development of vaccines has led to a significant decrease in the use of antibiotics, with some farms claiming to have ceased using them since 2012. Additional topical and in-feed chemotherapeutants are still used, and the Scotland Aquaculture website¹⁷ provides information on the use of medicinal treatments and pesticides at individual farms. It is unclear how often salmon is tested by industry, the Fish Health Inspectorate and third party auditors for residues of medicines or pesticides, as information is not all publicly available.

Read more about how changes in fish diets impact human health via our blog written by Dr Becky Gait: ‘Krilling off Omega-3s?’

Radically reducing marine pollution is one of ‘eight urgent, fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean health¹⁸’. One of three sources of marine pollution addressed is single use plastic packaging, and fish boxes is a prime example. The use, collection and disposal of single use packaging, and other plastic items needs to be carefully considered. It must be ensured that in doing this there are no regrettable substitutions or unintended consequences. We are living through a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis, as addressed by COP26 in 2021 and COP15 in 2022. Every individual, business and nation needs to be aware of the impact their actions and in particular use of resources has in terms of these. 

The environmental issues of polystyrene in the environment, and especially in the marine environment, have long been known.  A study by Carpenter and others¹⁹ highlighted its ability to absorb chemicals from the surrounding water and be ingested by marine life. Sadly little has changed, with plastic and polystyrene particles consistently top items found on beaches as part of marine litter and recorded in the Marine Conservation Society’s annual Great British Beach Clean report²⁰.  At Fidra we have researched alternatives to polystyrene for storing and transporting fish, as well as how the existing boxes are captured and processed by waste streams in the UK.

Every part of the seafood supply chain, from the sea to our supper plates, should be looking at how it uses single use plastic and other material items, to consider how they can be replaced with reusables/if not possible, can they be effectively collected and recycled? From the ends of ropes cut off and thrown into the sea when fixing nets, to broken items and disposable gloves etc, each should be examined and the alternative actions and products assessed and considered.