In collaboration with

European Sea Bass and Gilthead Sea Bream Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata

©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/www.scanfish.com

Sustainable Blue, Nova Scotia, Canada Closed-containment, Recirculating system

December 11, 2012

Jenna Stoner - Seafood Ecology Research Group Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

2

Final Seafood Recommendation European sea bass and gilthead sea bream, raised in closed-containment at Sustainable Blue, received an overall green rank and a final score of 9.34. All individual criterion received high scores and ranked green as a result of the farm’s ability to control on-site farm environments and minimize overall environmental impacts. Note that these two species received the same assessment because they are grown side-by-side in the same facility, are fed the same feed, and are quite similar biologically; as such, there was not enough variation to warrant separate assessments.

European Sea Bass and Gilthead Sea Bream Dicentrarchus labrax and Sparus aurata Sustainable Blue, Nova Scotia, Canada Closed-containment land based recirculating system

Scoring note – scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 9.17 GREEN n/a

C2 Effluent 10.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 8.79 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 6.75 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 10.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN n/a

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN n/a

Total 74.71

Final Score 9.34

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 9.34

Initial rank GREEN

Red Criteria 0

Intermediate Rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final rank BEST CHOICE

3

Executive Summary Sustainable Blue is a land-based, closed-containment fish farm located in Centre Burlington, Nova Scotia. It is the only facility in Canada farming European sea bass and gilthead sea bream, both of which are typically sourced from the Mediterranean. Sustainable Blue operates under a state-of-the-art 100% recirculation system, and employs stringent biosecurity policies that have allowed it to operate pathogen- and chemical-free. It has worked closely with a New Brunswick-based nutrition company, Corey Nutrition, to develop a custom feed for the exotic species that maximizes growth, nutrition, and feed conversion. Additionally, Corey Nutrition sources all of its fishmeal and fish oil from by-product of the Canadian Atlantic herring fishery, which resulted in a green ranking (score 6.75) for the feed criterion. The ‘habitat’ criterion was the other factor that received a slightly lower score, however this is namely because this factor aims to assess the effectiveness of local management and regulatory bodies. Closed-containment aquaculture is still a relatively new practice within the aquaculture industry and, as such, is seen to be ahead of the curve as policy and regulation have yet to catch up with the advances in the industry. Provincial and national regulations drafted for net-pen farming were thus applied to most factors in this criterion as this ensured a conservative assessment. Overall, Sustainable Blue’s products—sea bass and sea bream—both received overall green rankings and a final score of 9.34. Both species received the same assessment because they are grown side-by-side in the same facility and are fed the same feed; as such, there was not enough variation to warrant separate assessments.

4

Table of Contents Final Seafood Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ............................................................ 5

Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Scoring guide .......................................................................................................................... 6

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ............................................................................... 6

Criterion 2: Effluents .............................................................................................................. 8

Criterion 3: Habitat ................................................................................................................ 9

Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities .................................................................... 10

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 11

Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 12

Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 14

Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species................................................. 15

Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ....................................... 17

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 18

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 19

About SeaChoice® ......................................................................................................................... 21

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 22

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 23

Data points and all scoring calculations........................................................................................ 25

5

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation Sustainable Blue is a land-based, closed-containment aquaculture facility located in Centre Burlington, Nova Scotia. It started by raising Arctic char, but began diversifying their product, over the past few years by growing European sea bass and gilthead sea bream. At the time of this writing, Sustainable Blue was the only farm raising these species in Canada at a marketable scale, and as such, this assessment and all data and ensuing recommendations are specific to sea bass and sea bream produced in closed-containment at Sustainable Blue. The two species are included in the same assessment and received identical scores because they are grown side-by-side in the same facility and fed the same feed, therefore, there were not enough differentiating variables to warrant separate assessments.

Species Overview

Both European sea bass and gilthead sea bream are native to the East Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Both species hold strong market demand throughout Europe where they have been commercially fished extensively. In 2010, 10,817 tonnes of sea bass and 8,333 tonnes of seabream were caught by European and Mediterranean commercial fisheries (FAO 2012). A limited supply of wild stocks and a consistently high demand for both fish lead early research in Europe to domesticate these species. European sea bass was the first marine non-salmonid to be commercially cultured, with early research being conducted in France and Italy in the 1960’s and more widescale production occuring throughout Europe by the late 1970’s (FAO 2005a). Research into rearing gilthead seabream was not far behind, as Italy succeeded in closing the life cyle in the early 1980s and large-scale aquaculture production of the species was occurring throughout Europe by the late 1980s (FAO 2005b). Both industries were deemed success stories in European aquaculture due to their rapid growth and acceptability in the marketplace. Today, more than 125,901 tonnes of sea bass and 139,186 tonnes of sea bream are produced with leading countries being Greece, Turkey, Spain and Egypt (FAO 2012). In the late 1990s seabass sold for € 6.31 -7.45 per kilo, but a flooding of the market substantially decreased the value to €4.50 – 5.10 per kilo in 2004–a trend observed in the gilthead seabream market as well (Monfort 2007). Sustainable Blue is currently the only farm in Canada raising European sea bass and gilthead sea bream and produces approximately 80 MT and 100 MT annually, respectively (Sustainable Blue, n.d. (a)). The product is typically sold whole, head-on, gutted or not to high end restaurants across the country.

6

Analysis

Scoring guide With the exception of the exceptional factors (3.3x and 6.2X), all scores result in a zero to

ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional factors result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero indicates no negative impact.

The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available here.

The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Annex 1.

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the

impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts.

Sustainability unit: The ability to make a robust sustainability assessment. Principle: Robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts is

available to relevant stakeholders. Criterion 1 Summary

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 10 10

Effluent Yes 10 10

Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5

Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10

Chemical use Yes 10 10

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10

Disease Yes 10 10

Source of stock Yes 10 10

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) no not relevant n/a

Total 82.5

C1 Data Final Score 9.17 GREEN

7

The quality of the data used to complete this assessment was high and achieved a final score of 9.17 and a final rank of green. Only two criteria, ‘Locations/Habitat’ and ‘Feed,’ received scores lower than 10 as these criteria contain more broad factors that could not specifically be addressed by the farm owner. Justification of Ranking Only a small amount of information regarding the farming operations at Sustainable Blue is publicly available. It is the only farm in Canada raising sea bream and sea bass in closed-containment and as such neither Statistics Canada nor the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) disclose production values in order to protect business identity. The farm owners, however, were highly cooperative in the assessment process and provided much of the required information. The farm also maintains a relatively informative website that provides a description of their farm site and addresses general farming practices. For all data categories that received a score of 10 (production statistics, effluent, predators and wildlife, chemical use, escapes, disease and source of stock) the president and co-owner of Sustainable Blue, Jeremy Lee, provided the required information. Farm location and siting details were provided in part by Jeremy Lee and through Sustainable Blue’s website, however, further details were taken form Nova Scotia’s agriculture and fisheries department in order to accurately score the management effectiveness factors included in this criterion. Much of the provincial and national aquaculture legislation does not speak directly to land-based systems and thus some data gaps had to be inferred from more general information. Sustainable Blue has worked closely with Corey Nutrition to develop a custom feed for the sea bream and sea bass. Corey Nutrition provided much of the information required to complete the Feed criterion, with the exception of some specific details such as inclusion levels of crop ingredients. Thus, this category scored a 5 on data quality, as there is some loss of relevant information. It should be noted that due to the scale of production and the focus of this assessment on a single farm, much of the information was not independently verified or peer-reviewed, and it was collected over a relatively short time frame. With the data provided by the producer along with knowledge of the closed-containment system used, the author was able to conduct the assessment with confidence.

8

Criterion 2: Effluents Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the

amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads.

Sustainability unit: The carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect.

Principle: Aquaculture operations minimize or avoid the production and discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm.

Criterion 2 Summary

Effluent Rapid Assessment

C2 Effluent Final Score 10.00 GREEN

The effluent data quality score is 10 and thus the rapid assessment can be used with confidence. The final effluent score for sea bass and sea bream raised at Sustainable Blue scored 10 (green). Justification of Ranking Sustainable Blue operates as a land-based, closed-containment system with 100% water recirculation. This system allows for the collection and treatment of solid effluent. At this time, effluent slurry is kept in a large tank with bacteria that allow anaerobic fermentation to convert nitrogen wastes into nitrogen gas. All left over solid wastes are then trucked, once per year, to a landfill (Jeremy Lee, pers. comm.). In the future, Sustainable Blue hopes to use the collected effluent slurry as fertilizer; however, they are still in the development phase for this project.

9

Criterion 3: Habitat Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat

types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide.

Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the habitat type.

Principle: Aquaculture operations are located at sites, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.

Criterion 3 Summary

Habitat parameters Value Score

F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 10.00

F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 3.75

F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 4.25

F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 6.38

C3 Habitat Final Score 8.79 GREEN

Critical? NO

The final habitat score for Sustainable Blue sea bass and sea bream was 8.79, which ranked green. Due to Sustainable Blue’s relatively low-impact farming system and the farm adhering to local, provincial and national aquaculture legislation, it has earned a high score. Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function The farm is located on 55 acres of woodland in Centre Burlington, NS. Prior to conversion into an aquaculture farm, the site was an orchard that was no longer productive. The land borders the Avon Estuary, however the farm is sited 1.5 km from the high water mark (Jeremy Lee, pers. comm.). Given that the farm operates at 100% recirculation and does not discharge wastes, it is most likely that the farm is maintaining full functionality. Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) This factor is certainly the weakest scoring within this criterion; however, this is more reflective of lagging management and regulatory regimes at a larger scale. As is often the case with most advancement in industry technology, closed-containment aquaculture can be viewed as being ahead of the curve. As such, the technology is being developed and implemented at a faster rate than regulation and policy can be drafted and implemented for appropriate management. The farm is adherent to current national and provincial legislation, which are enforced by the DFO and the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (NSDFA), respectively. Both regulatory bodies have thorough regulations that address growth of the aquaculture industry (siting), however much of it speaks specifically to net-pen and cage farming. For instance, Nova

10

Scotia has an Environmental Monitoring Program (2005) that is quite comprehensive, but it does not address land-based aquaculture sites. Personal communications with NSDFA identified that land-based facilities are subject to regulatory review and some approvals have required site specific monitoring. At this time, the more general regulations designed for net-pen aquaculture set out by DFO and NSDFA were applied to this assessment, which ensures a conservative estimate for this factor.

Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities

A measure of the effects of deliberate or accidental mortality on the populations of affected species of predators or other wildlife. This is an ’exceptional’ factor that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact. Factor 3.3X Summary

This ‘exceptional’ factor ranks green with an overall score of 0 because all tanks are fully enclosed in a secure building eliminating all risk of interaction with wildlife and predators. Justification of Ranking F3.3X Wildlife and predator score The farm operates as a land-based system where tanks are located in fully enclosed buildings. As such, there are no interactions with wildlife or predators and this factor is of no concern.

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

11

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non-target organisms and leads to

production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical-resistant organisms.

Sustainability unit: Non-target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments.

Principle: Aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid the discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively control the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.

Criterion 4 Summary

Sustainable Blue states that they operate as a chemical-free farm and hence this factor is on no concern, which results in a score of 10 (green). Justification of Ranking The Sustainable Blue website (2012) states that they are a disease-free farm and hence do not apply any chemicals on-site–a statement that was confirmed by president and co-owner, Jeremy Lee. In addition, the production system operates at 100% recirculation and no wastewater is ever discharged, which suggests that if chemical treatments did need to be applied then active chemicals or by-products could not be released into the environment. Overall, this criterion confidently scored being of ‘no concern.’

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

12

Criterion 5: Feed Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or

losses vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of conversion can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability.

Sustainability unit: The amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation.

Principle: Aquaculture operations source only sustainable feed ingredients, convert them efficiently and responsibly, and minimize and utilize the non-edible portion of farmed fish.

Criterion 5 Summary

Overall, the feed criterion for sea bass and sea bream from Sustainable Blue scored 6.75, which suggests low conservation concern. Although it was found that this practice resulted in a net protein loss and had a moderate feed footprint, there is very low use of wild fish for fishmeal and fish oil, which resulted in an overall green ranking for the feed criterion. Justification of Ranking Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use Sustainable Blue has worked with Corey Nutrition Company to develop a sustainable feed for their sea bass and sea bream. The feed formulation sheet provided by Corey Nutrition states a fishmeal inclusion is between 20% and 32% and a fish oil inclusion level between 12% and20%, depending on the inclusion level of land animal product (Dave Snow, pers. comm.). Corey Nutrition also confirmed that all fishmeal and fish oil used in the custom manufactured diets are sourced from the Canadian caught and processed Atlantic herring fishery. In Canada, it is illegal to fish Atlantic herring for the express purpose of reduction to fishmeal and thus the fishmeal and fish oil used are made strictly from waste products of the human food sector (Dave Snow, pers. comm.). The sourcing of fishmeal and fish oil from the Canadian Atlantic

Feed parameters Value Score

F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 0.00 10.00

F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00

F5.1: Wild Fish Use 10.00

F5.2a Protein IN 44.10

F5.2b Protein OUT 6.97

F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -84.19 1

F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 11.98 6

C5 Feed Final Score 6.75 GREEN

Critical? NO

13

herring fishery is considered a moderately sustainable practice (score of -6) as the fishery has one Fishsource score <6 (Fishsource 2011). An economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) of 1.05 has been achieved for both sea bass and sea bream (Jeremy Lee, pers. comm.). As a result of sourcing all fishmeal and fish oil from by-product, this factor scored 10. Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss The feed used for sea bass and sea bream at Sustainable Blue has a protein content of 45%. The proportion of feed from non-edible versus edible crop sources was not specified by either the feed company or the farm and hence was scored as zero. The protein content of a whole harvested sea bream is 16.6%, while the edible yield of a harvested farmed sea bream is 42% (Valente et al. 2010). Only data specific to sea bream were used for these factors because the two species included in this assessment are likely to have very similar characteristics and minor variations would not change the overall score. The farm did not provide details regarding use of non-edible by-products from harvested, farmed fish and hence this factor was scored as zero. This resulted in an overall ‘Net Protein Loss’ of 84.2% and a final score of 1 for factor 5.2. Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint Two feeds, both produced by Corey Nutrition, are used at Sustainable Blue: one that has no land animal protein (LAP) and the other with LAP. Actual percent inclusion levels were not provided, however an ingredient list was (Dave Snow, pers. comm.). As such, the remaining portion of feed (once fish meal and fish oil was accounted for) was divided evenly amongst the remaining ingredients for each of the two feeds. The crop feed ingredient and land animal product inclusion levels were then averaged from the two feeds used on-site. This resulted in a crop feed ingredient inclusion level of 48.8%, a land animal product inclusion level of 4%, and an overall ‘Feed Footprint’ score of 6.

14

Criterion 6: Escapes Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage , spawning disruption, and

other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non-native and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations.

Sustainability unit: Affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations. Principle: Aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Criterion 6 Summary

Although escapees theoretically pose a moderate invasiveness risk (score 4), the nature of the land-based, closed-containment system used at Sustainable Blue eliminates the risk of escapes (score 10) and as such the final score for the ‘escapes’ criterion is 10 with an overall green ranking.

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape risk The production system used at Sustainable Blue is a land-based, recirculation system with appropriate treatments and screens that completely eliminates the risk of escapes from the facility. They operate at 100% recirculation and do not discharge any liquid wastes, suggesting there is no discharge pipes through which fish could escape and no connection to natural water bodies, resulting in an overall escape risk score of 10. Additionally, Sustainable Blue does not sell any live fish, which eliminates the risk of unintentional escapes from the marketplace. No details could be found with respect to recapture and mortality of escapees, because this has not been an issue on-site and is not expected to be with the low escape risk. Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness There are no established populations of either of these species in the Canadian Atlantic and it is unlikely they could establish viable populations as they commonly thrive is warmer temperatures than those seen in that region (Fish Base 2012; 2011). As such, the genetic difference from wild populations received a score of 1.5, as per the scoring table included in the assessment tool. In the case of the rare escape event, escapees could, theoretically, compete with native populations for food or habitat, act as additional predation pressure on wild native

Escape parameters Value Score

F6.1 Escape Risk 10.00

F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0

F6.1b Invasiveness 4

C6 Escape Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

15

populations, and may, to some extent, modify habitats to the detriment of other species. Sea bass are known to inhabit coastal inshore waters, including estuaries and brackish waters, and feed primarily on zoobenthos and zooplankton (Fish Base 2012). Sea bream, on the other had, inhabit seagrass beds and sandy bottoms from the surf zone to depths of about 30 m (Fish Base 2011). They are namely carnivorous fish and feed on a variety of shellfish. Neither species is expected to compete with wild native populations for breeding partners as there are no native populations of either species established in Canada and, as such, breeding could not occur. Together these factors contribute to an overall ‘Invasiveness’ score of 4.

Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principle farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments. This is an “exceptional” criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. Factor 6.2X Summary The farm is fully dependent on international and trans-waterbody shipments of live fry because this is the first operation of farming sea bass and sea bream in Canada, and there are no established hatcheries for these species in the country. This exceptional factor scored 10 and received a final rank of green, however, because both the source and destination of animal movements are fully biosecure. Justification of Ranking Factor 6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments Fish originate from France where they are shipped as one-day-old larvae to the Great Bay Hatchery in New Jersey. They are then sent to Sustainable Blue once they have reached fingerling size. The source hatchery is fully biosecure and Sustainable Blue holds a permit for importing live fish and transfers are regulated with a provincial veterinarian (Jeremy Lee, pers. comm.). The source of the animal movements received a score of 10. Factor 6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination The Sustainable Blue website (n.d. (b)) states that all fry are extensively tested for infection prior to coming onto the farm. In addition, the farm is fully enclosed and does not release any wastewater, suggesting it has no connection to natural water bodies and is fully biosecure

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

C6 Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 10.00 GREEN

16

(score of 10).

Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their

retransmission to local wild species that share the same waterbody. Sustainability unit: Wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and

parasites. Principle: Aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites. Criterion 7 Summary

Sustainable Blue operates as a pathogen-free farm and, as such, this criterion was scored as 10 with a final green ranking. Justification of Ranking The website states that Sustainable Blue operates as a pathogen-free farm as a result of rigorous husbandry and exhaustive testing of fry and water before they enter the system (n.d. (b))—a statement that was confirmed by president and co-owner, Jeremy Lee. Additionally, the farm does not have any connections to natural water bodies as they do not discharge any wastewater and all solid wastes are collected and held in an on-site septic tank. Overall, this criterion scored 10 (green) as the farm was deemed fully biosecure.

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 10.00

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

17

Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: The removal of fish from wild populations for on-growing to harvest size in farms. Sustainability unit: Wild fish populations. Principle: Aquaculture operations use eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm-

raised broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture. Criterion 8 Summary

Criterion 8, source of stock, achieved a final score of 10 and a green rank because 100% of the stock is sourced from domesticated broodstock. Justification of Ranking All stock is sourced from a hatchery in France where larvae come from fully domesticated broodfish (Jeremy Lee, pers. comm.). This suggests that the farm is fully independent of wild stock, allowing this criterion to score 10 (green).

Source of stock parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement

100

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

18

Overall Recommendation The overall recommendation is as follows: The overall final score is the average of the individual criterion scores (after the two exceptional scores have been deducted from the total). The overall ranking is decided according to the final score, the number of red criteria, and the number of critical scores as follows: – Best Choice = Final score ≥6.6 AND no individual criteria are Red (i.e. <3.3).

– Good Alternative = Final score ≥3.3 AND <6.6, OR Final score ≥ 6.6 and there is one

individual “Red” criterion.

– Red = Final score <3.3, OR there is more than one individual Red criterion, OR there is one or more Critical score.

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 9.17 GREEN n/a

C2 Effluent 10.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 8.79 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 10.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 6.75 GREEN NO

C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 10.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN n/a

3.3X Wildlife mortalities 0.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN n/a

Total 74.71

Final Score 9.34

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 9.34

Initial rank GREEN

Red Criteria 0

Intermediate Rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final rank BEST CHOICE

19

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® would like to thank Dr. Steve Summerfelt, Director of Aquaculture Systems Research at the Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

References Fish Base. 2011. Sparus aurata (Gilthead seabream) Linnaeus, 1758. [Internet] accessed 02 March 2012 from http://www.fishbase.org/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?genusname= Sparus&speciesname=aurata Fish Base. 2012. Dicentrarchus labrax (European Seabass) Linnaeus, 1758. [Internet] accessed 07 March 2012 from http://www.fishbase.us/summary/Dicentrarchus-labrax.html FishSource. 2011. Atlantic herring - SW Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy. [Internet] accessed 10 May 2012 from http://www.fishsource.com/fishery/data_summary?fishery=Atlantic+herring+-+SW+Nova+Scotia+and+Bay+of+Fundy Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2005a. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Sparus aurata. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Text by Collaoca, F., and Cerasi, S. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome. [Internet] accessed 3 July 2012 from http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Sparus_aurata/en Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2005b. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Dicentrarchus labrax. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Text by Bagni, M. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome. [Internet] accessed 13 July 2012 from http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Dicentrarchus_labrax/en

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2012. FishStat Plus. Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Version 2.3. [Software]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en (Data sources: Aquaculture Production (1950–2010) and Capture Production) Monfort, M.C. Marketing of aquacultured seabass and seabream from the Mediterreanean basin. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No. 82. Rome, FAO. 2007. 50p.

20

Nova Scotia Agriculture and Fisheries. 2005. Growing our Future. [Internet] accessed 1 march 2012 from http://www.gov.ns.ca/fish/aquaculture/FullReport.pdf Sustainable Blue. n.d. (a). Our Species. [Internet] accessed 1 March 2012 from http://sustainableblue.com/ourspecies.php Sustainable Blue. n.d. (b). Our Contribution to Sustainable Sea Food Production. [Internet] accessed 1 March 2012 from http://www.sustainableblue.com/sustainability.php Valente, L.M.P., Cornet, J., Donnay-Moreno, C., Gouygou, J.P., Berge, J.P., Bacelar, M., Escoricio, C., Rocha, E., Malhao, F., Cardinal, M. 2010. Quality Differences of Gilthead Sea Bream From Distinct Production Systems in Southern Europe: Intensive, Integrated, Semi-intensive, or Extensive Systems. Food Control 22(5). pp 708-717. Personal Communications Dave Snow, Corey Nutrition Company, 10 May 2012. Jeremy Lee, Sustainable Blue, 9 May 2012.

21

About SeaChoice® SeaChoice, Canada’s most comprehensive sustainable seafood program, is about solutions for healthy oceans. Launched in 2006, SeaChoice was created to help Canadian businesses and shoppers take an active role in supporting sustainable fisheries and aquaculture at all levels of the seafood supply chain. Based on scientific assessments, SeaChoice has created easy-to-use tools that help you make the best seafood choices. Working in collaboration with the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s acclaimed Seafood Watch program, SeaChoice undertakes science-based seafood assessments, provides informative resources for consumers, and supports businesses through collaborative partnerships. The SeaChoice program is operated by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society and Sierra Club BC. Our work is funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Webster Foundation, and the Eden Foundation.

22

About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990. Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

23

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program: Seafood Watch will:

Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make

information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant

stakeholders.

Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the

farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control

the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the

immediate vicinity of the farm.

Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively

maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing

historic habitat damage.

Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use

and discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency,

risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.

Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative

indicators to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of

conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

fish or shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression,

hybridization, spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated

with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

Promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated

broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

24

Recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a

major impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving

practices for some criteria may lead to more energy intensive production systems (e.g.

promoting more energy intensive closed recirculation systems).

Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide: Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways. Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

25

Data points and all scoring calculations This is a condensed version of the criteria and scoring sheet to provide access to all data points and calculations. See the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for a full explanation of the criteria, calculations and scores. Yellow cells represent data entry points.

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Criterion 2: Effluents Rapid Assessment

C2 Score 10

Criterion 3: Habitat 33.1 Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 10

3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) Factor 3.2a – Regulatory or management effectiveness

Question Scoring Score

1 - Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological principles, including an EIAs requirement for new sites?

mostly 0.75

2 - Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts and the maintenance of ecosystem function?

yes 1

3 - Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services?

mostly 0.75

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-

10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 10 10

Effluent Yes 10 10

Locations/habitats Yes 7.5 7.5

Predators and wildlife Yes 10 10

Chemical use Yes 10 10

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10

Disease Yes 10 10

Source of stock Yes 10 10

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) no not relevant n/a

Total 82.5

C1 Data Final Score 9.1666 GREEN

26

4 - Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e. avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty)

Yes 1

5 - Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or critical habitats or ecosystem services?

partly 0.25

3.75

Factor 3.2b – Siting regulatory or management enforcement

Question Scoring Score

1 - Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, and are they appropriate to the scale of the industry?

yes 1

2 - Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning or other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control measures?

Yes 1

3 - Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and their cumulative impacts?

Yes 1

4 - Is the enforcement process transparent - e.g. public availability of farm locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc?

Partly 0.25

5 - Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control measures are being achieved?

Yes 1

4.25

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 6.38

C3 Habitat Final Score 8.79 GREEN

Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and Predator Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence of Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 10.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

27

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1 Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1a – Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 27

Fishmeal from by-products (%) 100

% FM 0

Fish oil inclusion level (%) 16

Fish oil from by-products (%) 100

% FO 0

Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5

Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 1.05

FIFO fishmeal 0.00

FIFO fish oil 0.00

Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 0.00

FIFO Score 10.00

Factor 5.1b – Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF) SSWF -6

SSWF Factor 0

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 0.00

5.2 Net Protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 42

eFCR 1.05

Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 0

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 0

Protein OUTPUTS

Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 16.6

Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 42

Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 0

Protein IN 44.10

Protein OUT 6.972

Net protein gain or loss (%) -84.19047619

Critical? NO

F5.2 Net protein Score 1.00

28

5.3 Feed Footprint Factor 5.3a – Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood

Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 43

eFCR 1.05

Average Primary Productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7

Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68

Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 11.74

Factor 5.3b – Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 48.8

Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 4

Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 1.05

Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.24

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 11.98

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 6.00

C5 Feed Final Score 6.75 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes Factor 6.1a – Escape Risk

Escape Risk 10

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS)

Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the 0

escape site

Recapture & Mortality Score 0

Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 10

Factor 6.1b – Invasiveness Part B – Non-Native Species

Score 1.5 Part C – Native and non-native species

29

Question Score

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? yes 1

Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations?

yes 1

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb breeding behavior of the same or other species?

no 0

Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g. by feeding, foraging, settlement or other)?

to some extent

0.5

Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? no 0

2.5 2.5

F 6.1b Score 4

Final C6 Score 10.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

F6.2X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00

GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 10.00

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 10.00

Critical? NO GREEN

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of stock parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement

100

C8 Source of stock Final Score 10

GREEN