Much has happened in the last two years since I last wrote a post for thepiscivore. I graduated, started a residency, got married, and bought a house. Needless to say, it’s been a busy two years. With the holidays comes a little more time to slow down and write again so for a short post, I thought I’d share my sushi experiences from my recent trip to Vancouver, BC.
If you can’t make it to Japan to try fantastic sushi, Vancouver is probably the next best destination with hundreds of establishments to chose from. The US-Canadian exchange rate also makes the seafood all the more affordable. I was recently in Vancouver for a conference and decided to try a different sushi establishment for each meal. While no sushi restaurants were open for breakfast, fresh seafood was still to be had at De Dutch with delicious hash and eggs with wild BC sockeye salmon and at Forage with the cold smoked, wild salmon lox. After reading several articles about the best Vancouver sushi restaurants, I picked five downtown restaurants to visit over the course of four days.
Hash N Eggs with wild BC sockeye salmon from De Dutch
Cold smoked, wild salmon lox from Forage
In order that I went to them, they were as follows:
If you’re staying along the harbourfront, Miku is a must for sushi. Although on the higher end price wise, it is well worth it. The restaurant itself is very stylish with high ceilings, waterfront view, simple white counter for the sushi bar and the coolest salmon mural spanning the entire restaurant. While they specialize in their Aburi brand of sushi, I went for the Miku Signature Selection, which featured their Aburi sushi as well as the best of their traditional sushi and nigiri offerings. Simply fantastic sushi. I almost went for their omakase, or Kaiseki on their menu, but I was saving my omakase experience for later in the trip. Overall thoughts: Recommended
Miku’s Signature Selection
A portion of the salmon mural that spans the restaurant
The next stop was perhaps the most surprising, if not my favorite, restaurant of the trip. After visiting the Vancouver Aquarium (which is another must visit!), we walked a few blocks over to Sushi Itoga for lunch. With just one long table, this unassuming sushi joint churns out quality sushi fast and on the cheap. How cheap? For five basic rolls totaling 30 pieces of sushi and consisting of the Maki Combo 3, Tekka (albacore tuna), and Ikashiso (squid), I paid $16 CAN, or just over $12 USD. I haven’t had sushi of this good quality for so cheap a price ever. The top-notch, fast sushi, affordable price tag, and the minimal, simple atmosphere make this a great option for lunch or dinner. Overall thoughts: Highly Recommended
There are several locations for Momo Sushi in downtown Vancouver and I visited the Gastown location for dinner one evening since it was close to the convention center. The sushi was fresh and good, but nothing special (I had a sashimi platter) and similar in quality to the sashimi I was accustomed to having back in the states. Overall, this was a good sushi restaurant, but if you’re in Vancouver for a visit, there are better places to try. Overall thoughts: Pass
Another hole-in-the-wall a few blocks inland downtown, this restaurant looks and feels like one of those Chinese places you might find in any major city (Manhattan came to mind for me when I first saw it), but that also has the potential to be a hidden gem. It did not disappoint. The shop features a small counter with a few seats in the window and a few small round tables. The service counter is framed by pictures depicting the many bowls and sushi options. With a name like Kyzock Sushi Bowl, I had to try one of their many sushi bowls, the Chirashi Don Deluxe. The fish was spectacularly fresh and the sushi rice was the best of the trip. Definitely worth a visit for lunch or pick up/take out for dinner, but be prepared to take your food and go as this place has little seating. Overall thoughts: Recommended
This specialty omakase sushi bar was to be the sushi highlight of my trip. The restaurant is tucked away from the street, meaning you might miss it if you’re driving by looking for it. Six of us wait outside the restaurant, waiting for it to open. I strike up a conversation with a young Japanese couple, talking about their recent omakase experience in New York. The door opens and we are ushered inside promptly at 6:00. The restaurant consists of only the sushi bar, which seats 10 people for two omakase sessions a night and is reservation only. As I survey the restaurant, I take note of the patrons, a mother and daughter, two young couples, three businessmen, and myself. The chef welcomes us and wastes no time getting to work preparing the first course, Madai (Red Seabream).
All of the courses are nigiri with a little flare, featuring only the freshest fish, and no alcohol is served with the meal. We sample the 10 courses individually over the next 45 minutes, savoring each one and eagerly awaiting the next. Once the 10th course is finished, the chef opens it up for us to order off the nigiri menu of what’s available that day. I sample some of the more obscure fish that aren’t a part of mainstream sushi in the states: Bora (Grey Mullet), Isaki (Chicken grunt), Uchiwahagi (Unicorn Leatherjacket), Taira Gai (Razor Clam), Mejina (Large scale Blackfish), Suzuki (Japanese seabass), and Kanpachi (Greater Amberjack). All were outstanding!
While the nigiri ranked among the best I’ve tried, it was a little different from what I was expecting from a sushi bar specializing in omakase. Omakase is a practice where you put yourself into the hands of the chef, giving them free reign to produce their best, most creative sushi with the freshest ingredients for a truly superb, unique experience. The quality and taste of the fish from Sushi Bar Maumi was outstanding; however, it felt very prepared, as though the chef had prepared these same courses hundreds of times, lacking the creativity one might expect with omakase. Granted, he was preparing 10 courses for 10 people at rapid pace, followed by the onslaught of random orders, all within an hour and a half. Creativity and presentation were simple and Chef Maumi let the nigiri speak for itself. While not what I would consider true omakase, it was some of the finest quality and most diverse selection of nigiri I’ve ever had the opportunity to taste.
Though my wallet left quite a bit lighter than when I first entered, it was a fantastic and delicious experience that you must do if you ever visit Vancouver. Overall Thoughts: Recommended
I hope you enjoyed reading about my sushi adventures in Vancouver, BC. This is only a sampling of the many fine sushi establishments in the city so explore and savor the seafood my fellow piscivores!
I have read many books about the state of seafood in the last nine years. Some better than others. Some exceptional work written by noted authors like Paul Greenberg and Mark Kurlansky, others by less known but equally good writers like Inga Saffron and Charles Clover. Many of these works I need to revisit to write proper reviews, but the one I’ve just finished reading may be far more important for concerned piscivores to read than any other I’ve come across.
The book of which I speak is The Unnatural History of the Sea by Callum Roberts. It has taken me several months to finish, not because of how its written, but because it forces the reader to come to terms with the reality of the state of our oceans, how our fishing has reshaped ocean ecosystems. With each chapter, it felt as though I was there, seeing places I knew through the eyes of those from centuries earlier. The abundance described by these early fishers and explorers would seem impossible if it weren’t for these accounts. It is an abundance of life we will never see in our lifetimes and the world may never see again. Through Robert’s book, each chapter read tells the downfall of yet another mighty species, another mighty ecosystem, at the hands of human destruction. Over the course of human history, we systematically pushed the boundaries of the known world to discover untapped stocks, making technological advances and expanding fishing fleets to mask the downfall of fish species until it was too late. Picturing the systematic and repeated discoveries of life followed by the collapse of marine populations (fish, birds, seals, whales, etc) at the hands of commercial and recreational fishermen; this is what made getting through this book a challenge as Roberts put you square in the middle of it.
Cover Art for The Unnatural History of the Sea by Callum Roberts
While difficult to read for the dose of reality it delivers, Roberts makes some very good points and provides important information for a concerned piscivore to consider when choosing their fish. An important concept that Roberts draws attention to early on and addressed later in the book is “shifting baselines;” the baseline being what we would describe as normal compared to what was considered normal in the past. There are articles like this one that talk about why the Gulf of Maine cod have yet to rebound alongside those that claim a rebound for cod in Canadian waters. There are articles like this one that talk about the decline in world fisheries since the 1970s. The problem is that the baseline these articles utilize are far too recent. The populations of global fisheries in 1970 were nothing compared to early accounts of when new fishing grounds were discovered. With each generation, the baseline shifts and what we accept as the normal baseline becomes less and less representative of what it was historically, which is as much true on land as well as in the sea. Global fisheries have been under siege for centuries with ever advancing fishing technology, increasing fishing effort, and spotty regulation. Will we ever see the abundance that was described by early explorers? Not until we accept that as our baseline and make that our goal for fisheries management.
Roberts spreads the blame around for the current state of global fisheries from fishermen, scientists, regulators, and politicians to flawed fisheries science, destructive and devastating fishing technology, massive fishing effort fueled by government subsidies, and other environmental impacts humans have contributed to the ocean (pollution, eutrophication, warming ocean temperatures, etc). While all receive a portion of the responsibility, one stands out though out the course of the book: advancements in fish technology, particularly the use of trawls. Today, trawls are a mainstay in global fishing they are raking up and destroying deepwater corals and ecosystems that are thousands of years old or engulfing massive herring schools in midwater. They also catch a significant amount of non-target species, often termed bycatch, which include other fish species, dolphins, turtles, seabirds, and invertebrates, which usually end up towed over the side of the boat dead and dying. Trawls certainly aren’t alone in this distinction; gill nets and longlines also produce a large amount of by catch with the added feature of continuing to fish even when gear is lost. Roberts starts us back before the trawl, twisting and turning through discoveries and declines of fish, navigating fights by fishermen to ban trawls, explaining how evolutions in technology unintentionally aided fishing (steam engines, refrigeration, gear modifications for rough terrain, stronger nets, scuba, GPS, spotter planes, etc), jumping from fish to fish as one became scarce and another filled its place in the market for a time before it too became too scarce.
Finally Roberts offers steps to be taken to stop the continued decline of global fisheries. I won’t spoil it for you by listing them out here, but he does bring up creating marine protected areas, sections of ocean completely closed to or very limited in the fishing activities allowed. Discussing marine protected areas, Roberts offers example after example of how fishing has improved in areas immediately surrounding the areas closed to fishing. Combined with some of his other recommendations that being acted on, it seems we are heading in the right direction, but will it be enough? Will it be enforced? Will we learn from the past or repeat the mistakes we made?
I highly recommend this book to anyone concerned about the way we catch our seafood. Many books try to focus on the issues presented here through the scope of a handful or a single species. While those books are good for those interested in the species they cover, Robert’s book is superior in that it provides a concise, detailed, global history of fishing examining multiple species (including megafauna like whales, seals, and seabirds). It may difficult to stomach, but it paints the ocean in new light and the potential that lies beneath the waves. If you’re not familiar with modern fishing gear and techniques, Seafood Watch provides a limited explanation of each of the major fishing and farming techniques. Their explanations are very PC, failing to emphasize the importance of the drawback to each of the methods so as not to alienate the fisheries they work with, but they should be sufficient to give you a background for reading this book. You can find the book on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Additional review provided here. Any questions or inquiries can be made via email to thepiscivore@gmail.com.
Catfish is not a popular food fish in the northeast. My first experience with it at a chain restaurant in New England left much to be desired. I knew I couldn’t put much stock in this experience though because I knew it was a southern specialty. When I came to the southeast to interview for veterinary school, I thought I’d give catfish a second chance, especially since catfish are among the top aquaculture species produced and consumed in the United States. The night before my interview, I went out to dinner with my father and ordered fried catfish with sides of rice and vegetables. I cleaned that plate. To give you some background on how this fish arrives on my plate, the life of a catfish starts in either the hatchery or a specially designated pond where mature brood fish spawn and eggs are fertilized. A mature female can produce between 3-4 thousand eggs per pound of body weight. In the hatchery, the eggs are placed in fresh, well-oxygenated water and take around 7 days to hatch. The hatchlings, called fry, absorb the rest of their yolk sac, begin to swim, and are transferred to a special pond where they grow to fingerlings (about 4 inches in length). From there, they are either transported to a catfish pond or sold to another facility to grow out. The clay-based grow out ponds are dug 4-6 feet deep, filled with pure, fresh water from underground wells and less frequently surface water, covering between 10-20 acres. Their diet consists of a floating, high protein pellet made from soybeans, corn, wheat, vitamins, and minerals. After spending 18-24 months in a catfish pond, the fish are harvested and transported in aerated tanks live to a processing plant. The processing takes less than 30 minutes allowing fish to either be transported fresh on ice or frozen. Catfish are sold as whole fish, filleted, steaks, strips, and nuggets, marinated, or even precooked. US Catfish must pass strict taste tests at the pond they were grown and the processing plant for quality control, inspections by the US Department of Commerce at the processing plant, and the standards set by The Catfish Institute. The fish are then transported year-round to supermarkets and restaurants around the country where they satisfy increasing seafood demands by piscivores like me.
Farm raised catfish is among the most sustainable, established aquaculture industries in the US today. Mississippi is the nation’s largest producer of catfish, particularly channel catfish, for food fish consumption, followed closely by Alabama. These states, along with Arkansas and Louisiana, make up 95% of catfish production in the US. The industry produced just over 100 tons of fish last year alone, generating over $350 million in sales from growers (retail sale from supermarkets, fish markets, and restaurants are likely even higher, on the order of a couple billion). A southern staple, it holds a “Best Choice” rating from Seafood Watch, the leading organization for seafood sustainability. A white, flaky fish without the fishy taste, it’s a fish that appeals to a variety of palates and culinary styles.
Deere Creek, where Jim Henson played as a child, is credited for being the source of inspiration for Kermit the Frog.
The NWAC, based at the Delta Research and Education Center, provides various services for the entire industry including veterinary diagnostics, cooperative extension, seminars, extension publications, and research into issues this industry faces. Mississippi State University and USDA primarily operate it in cooperation, along with other state agencies. At one week in, it felt as though I saw so much already, let alone all four I am here for. Alongside veterinary students from Mississippi State University, we toured one of the largest catfish producers in the region; a fully integrated farm controlling each step from hatching to processing, with nearly 7,000 acres of ponds in production and plans to increase it. We spoke extensively with the general manager of the farm and toured their hatchery facility (where they produce their fingerling catfish for stocking ponds) and some of their 300+ ponds. The NWAC has its own ponds and facilities as well including commercial-sized ponds, smaller research ponds, partition aquaculture systems, aquaria, and separate ponds and aquaria for disease research. We’ve seen cases of common catfish diseases and provided instruction for farmers on how to address them. I’ve assisted with multiple research projects on farming methods and veterinary medicine. By the time I leave, I will have seen first hand the entire process of catfish farming from fish egg to filet on my plate. It’s not just learning about the farming and veterinary medicine that’s brought me here; I was not going to pass on the opportunity to try the best catfish straight from the source.
The NWAC services primarily the catfish industry, but the diagnostic lab will see cases from warmwater aquaculture facilities all over the United States.
Southern hospitality is very much alive in Mississippi. Thanks to my hosts here at the NWAC, I’ve been able try some outstanding catfish at a number of local establishments. Where it’s found, catfish is most often consumed fried, but this is more than a one trick fish. Because of its mild flavor, catfish can adapt to a variety of cuisines. The restaurant where I’ve tried the best non-fried catfish here in the Delta is The Crown in Indianola, MS. Operated since 1976, The Crown has received national recognition for its various catfish dishes and Taste of Gourmet desserts. The Catfish Allison is the popular favorite, though we also recommend the Panneed Catfish. Other restaurants serving excellent US catfish include Cicero’s in Stonesville and Nola in Indianola.
You can find US farm raised catfish outside Mississippi as well. Businesses that commit to selling only US catfish will display a sign by the Catfish Institute. Unfortunately while US catfish is sold around the country, I’ve only seen these signs in Mississippi and Alabama so be sure to ask wherever you find catfish where it comes from. Why is it important to only eat US farm raised catfish?
Restaurants and other seafood merchants that commit to selling sustainable US Catfish will display signs like this one provided by the Catfish Institute.
The answer is similar to that of other food fish species produced abroad. Imported fish marketed as catfish aren’t the same species as our channel cats. They are Pangasius bocourti (marketed as Basa or Pangasius) and Pangasius hypophthalmus (marketed as Swai, Tra, Sutchi, or Pangasius). Important note: it’s a bad idea to mention these fish around US farmers and here’s why. Produced in Asian countries, like China and Vietnam, their cheap labor and substandard production methods (putting it nicely) allow them to undercut US farmers financially making it difficult to compete in the market. “A Catfish by Any Other Name”, written by Paul Greenberg for the New York Times back in 2008, provides an excellent synopsis on the issue with many of the problems still relevant today.
How can US Catfish compete? The odds are stacked against them and the number of producers shrinks each year, but there is one area that, with improvement, might help the industry. Marketing for US catfish outside the south is dismal at best. Businesses are proud of the fact they sell US catfish here in the Delta. Local chefs know how to make some incredible dishes from it. Why is it not similar around the country? The cultural basis of catfish lies in the south and it has narrowed the industry’s marketing campaign to target this niche. A long term, nation wide marketing campaign in restaurants and supermarkets needs to take place with signs and informational pamphlets to educate you, the piscivore, on the importance of eating US catfish. Armed with that knowledge, a consumer can confidently ask the right questions to source their seafood.
After a day at the NWAC, I take a run around the station and reflect upon what I’ve learned from my time here. As I pass over Deere Creek, I think about the history of US catfish and the Delta and the challenges it faces moving forward. Passing Cicero’s, I try not to think about the delicious Catfish Cicero for fear of ending my run early for a bite. Instead, I think of the possibilities for US catfish if chefs from around the country were to come spend a few weeks here, learning the secrets of the Delta, and spreading them far and wide. Running along abandoned railroad tracks and corn fields, I think about the farmers trying to make every fish count so that their farms might survive another year. Arriving back at the NWAC gives me hope though, as I think about how people, like you, are trying to become more aware of where their food comes from. This can only help the industry because US catfish is in a whole other league from its competitors. Once people learn that, the rest is just savory, sustainable seafood.
References are hyperlinked throughout the article. For more information on US Catfish, be sure to visit the Catfish Institute’s website and download their app at the App Store or Google Play. Questions may be sent to thepiscivore@gmail.com
Our society is becoming more conscious of the way it produces and consumes seafood. Initiatives have taken shape around the country, as people are increasingly aware of the problems of modern day seafood production, both with wild caught fish and aquaculture. The Piscivore, Seafood Watch, the Marine Stewardship Council, and the Global Aquaculture Alliance are examples of such initiatives who’s sole purpose is to assess fisheries and aquaculture, establish standards, and educate consumers on which fish species are sustainable, environmentally friendly, and delicious. Other places consumers find information regarding seafood include print and digital media outlets, where some writers gather just enough information to write a story they want to write, not necessarily the objective, factually correct one. While I’ve seen plenty of misinformation regarding seafood portrayed to consumers through the Internet and by some industries themselves, there are plenty of people who mean well and share constructive and informative information. Unfortunately, much of this information is summarized, leaving out important context, not intentionally, but because they don’t posses a complete understanding of the subject. Most commonly, I’ve seen these incomplete, but well meaning, stories told by journalists, celebrities, and chefs. Here are two such stories.
The first came after I recently received an email from a colleague regarding someone interested in sustainable aquaculture. We will call her Martha. After getting Martha’s contact information, we emailed back and forth so I could get a better understanding of what she was trying to accomplish. Martha was interested in learning more as she didn’t have a background in aquaculture, but wanted to get into sustainable aquaculture after watching a TED talk called “How I Fell in Love with a Fish,” inspired them. Looking to encourage sustainable aquaculture, I provided her with as many relevant resources as I could, including aquaculture businesses claiming sustainability, various aquaculture courses, university research and cooperative extension labs, and local state fish hatcheries. She was looking to start her business in Belize, which I thought was odd, so I asked why Belize? The answer I got worried me. She said the land was cheaper in Belize than the United States (which makes sense) and that it had large amounts of undeveloped wetlands. This last part scared me as my mind flashed to scenes of aquaculture’s dark past with bulldozers clearing invaluable mangroves away to build shrimp farms. What did she see from this TED talk that made her want to develop undisturbed wetlands in beautiful Belize into a sustainable aquaculture farm? I immediately went and watched this TED talk from start to finish despite already being late for a previous engagement.
The second came to me on my phone while riding in the back of van bound for a conference I was presenting at. I was sent an article titled “The Piscivore’s Dilemma” with a word of warning as it was written by an associate producer of an extremely biased, intentionally misleading, and at times blatantly false documentary that shall not be named. But seeing as I’m a piscivore, I wanted to know more about the dilemma I was to find myself in.
Both the talk and article wanted sustainable and environmentally friendly seafood. Both offered advice on how to choose your seafood. Both had good intentions. Unfortunately, neither had a complete understanding of all that they discussed.
The TED talk, given by celebrity chef Dan Barber, focuses on two farms. The first is a sustainable aquaculture farm while the second is, well, kind of borderline as to whether it is a farm at all. He doesn’t get two minutes into his talk before I start picking out errors starting with his discussion on tuna. Bluefin tuna having a feed conversion ratio around 15 to 1 makes sense due to their natural physiology; however I have yet to hear of an actual private commercial aquaculture facility producing tuna from eggs to market size. Universities or heavily subsidized companies perhaps, but not a commercial company. Most of what’s done is called “tuna ranching” where wild juvenile tuna are corralled inshore where they are fed a high protein diet, often fish based, and grown up to market weight. It is a bastard form of aquaculture, if it can even be called aquaculture, that doesn’t allow the fish an opportunity to reproduce. You might even consider it worse than wild caught tuna, since at least wild caught fish might have had the opportunity to reproduce. At this time, no one can consume Bluefin tuna with a clean conscience. They need time for their populations to recover and if they ever recover, should be managed as a sustainable fishery, not a form of aquaculture.
What is a feed conversion ratio anyway? Neither the chef or the writer fully understood the concept of a feed conversion ratio (FCR) and portrayed it either incorrectly or as unimportant. FCR refers to the pounds of feed (not necessarily fish) required to produce one pound of fish (whole fish, not filet or steaks, etc). Barber brushes this off as too science-y, not simple and laissez faire as he, the foodie, believes it should be (and shame on the aquaculture facility that didn’t have someone competent enough to explain FCR and sustainable proteins to him). Also an FCR of 2.5 to 1 is considered average, not “best in the business” as he calls it. Both Barber and Zimmerman believe it refers to the amount of fish required to produce other fish, which isn’t the case in most forms of aquaculture anymore, as fishmeal is being replaced by alternative sources of protein. Zimmerman also believes a 1.5 to 1 ratio is poor and inefficient. It’s been misrepresented this way in other articles too. Let’s put this into context. Fish, depending on the species and our knowledge/experience with farming the species, usually have a feed conversion ratio between 1 to 1 and 3 to 1. Poultry average around 3 to 1, swine around 5 to 1, and cattle around 10 to 1. As discussed previously, the exception would be tuna with around 15 to 1 due to their natural physiology. The point is that feed conversion ratios are important for assessing the sustainability of aquaculture and agriculture and fish typically have better FCRs than their land based counterparts. An FCR of 1.5 to 1 should not be regarded as inefficient, but celebrated.
The importance of limiting fishmeal in the diets of farmed fish has been touched on previously and the use of alternative and sustainable protein sources, like soy, to make that possible. Feathers are another such alternative protein source. Feathers are made of an indigestible protein called keratin the same protein that makes up our hair. When processed into feed, it’s hydrolyzed (broken down) into amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and used to replace fishmeal. Other parts considered “not fit for human consumption” (bones, skin, etc) are also used as protein sources in feeds, instead of wasting them. As a byproduct of the poultry industry, it’s also a more affordable protein source. Why are we feeding chicken to fish? What’s sustainable about it? It limits our impact on the oceans and wild forage fish used to create fishmeal based diets, it’s affordable (important since feed is one of the largest expenses on a farm), and would otherwise be thrown away.
Finally open ocean, or offshore, aquaculture alleviates many issues attributed to coastal aquaculture. Proper siting is key to coastal net pen aquaculture as good water flow is needed to disperse the wastes. Because the open ocean is deprived of nutrients, the nutrient rich fish wastes are utilized quickly and dispersed over a wide area. Out in the open ocean, fish aren’t exposed to the coastal pollution caused by human activities. Being in a world unto themselves is probably for the best to limit their impact on the ocean and our impact on them.
Aerial View of Veta La Palma, a very extensive aquaculture farm in Spain.
The second “farm” Barber speaks on isn’t really a farm at all, but more closely resembles “cattle ranching on grassland,” but for fish in a restored wetland habitat with very large ponds. The farm utilizes extensive aquaculture (low input (fish, feed, effort, etc), low output (harvest)) as opposed to intensive culture (high input, high output). Its very extensive compared to most other extensive operations with no feeding, predator or disease control, and little water quality control aside from using possibly contaminated river water to replace pond water. The success of this farm can likely be attributed to its size and marketing, as smaller operations would not be able to produce the volume to remain profitable. The income of the farm is also probably supplemented by other, more profitable, agricultural activities on the remaining 15,000 acres. The farm produces 0.15 tons of fish per acre (1,200 tons from 8,000 acres) annually, which may seem like a lot, but is indeed very low output compared to other extensive aquaculture industries, like sustainable US catfish, which produces ~2 tons per acre (106,119.5 tons from 53,510 acres last year). With little input (mainly fish and energy to move water around) and very low output, however, it should be considered a stock-enchanced wetland fishery (with one company having exclusive rights) or a very extensive aquaculture operation.
Aerial View of a US Catfish Farm
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see previously drained and developed wetlands restored and utilized for such a purpose as Veta La Palma has done. Indeed, this is an exceptional way to produce seafood and easy for even a non-foodie to be romanticized by it. What I don’t take kindly to is how Barber discredits the progress made by aquaculture to become a sustainable, environmentally sound way of producing seafood. Just because it isn’t simple, romantic, and beautiful, doesn’t make it bad. Just because a fish doesn’t have a fishy flavor, doesn’t make it bad either. In fact, most Americans would probably prefer a fish without the fishy taste. Barber’s understanding of aquaculture is obviously limited as evidenced by using Bluefin tuna, a fish not widely farmed outside perhaps Japan and “ranched” in Mexico, both terrible, unsustainable forms of aquaculture, to say the practice of aquaculture as a whole is inefficient. His lack of understanding regarding the importance and concepts of FCRs, “sustainable proteins,” and open ocean aquaculture leaves viewers of his talk seeing it as something lesser, which isn’t the case. Is this his fault? Not necessarily, I’m sure he means well and loves his seafood like all us piscivores; however, he should understand what sustainable aquaculture actually is before discrediting it in front of a general public that doesn’t know any better.
Barber is right that we need to be aware of how our seafood is produced and it’s effect on the environment. This extensive, sustainable aquaculture working within the ecosystem is certainly an ideal way to produce seafood, but will it be practical in a world with an ever growing population? A world where humans continue to encroach into and disrupt natural ecosystems? He doesn’t have an answer for these questions and puts the blame on agribusiness, which I’m sure has some merit to it, but that still doesn’t solve the problem. This model does have its place in future of seafood production as a method of sustainable aquaculture, but it is not and cannot be the only method.
With a better understanding, I email Martha back and recommend she looks into doing something similar to what Veta La Palma did in the TED talk: restore previously developed wetlands into the form of an easily harvestable wetland ecosystem instead of undeveloped wetlands in their natural state (although they did destroy and drain the original wetlands to try cattle ranching and then restored it and turned to fish when they couldn’t stop the flooding). She agrees this is a better course to take and continues on her quest for sustainable seafood. I hope she and others like her are successful in mimicking Veta La Palma’s model and success.
Turning now to the dilemma I, a piscivore, find myself in, I’m confronted with a lengthy article about how to choose my seafood and still sleep soundly at night. It was just shy of a home run, as there were a few things that needed correction or clarification, but overall, it’s a fantastic article. Therefore, I will try to keep the assessment of this article brief.
The Piscivore’s Dilemma Introduction – “Meanwhile, fish farming, with its reputation for overcrowding and antibiotic-laced, fecal-polluting practices, doesn’t sound like a very appealing solution.” This is a major generalization typically promoted by those against aquaculture. As was discussed at length previously in our article on tilapia, it is very much dependent on where and how a fish is produced. Since Zimmerman goes on to talk about sustainable forms of aquaculture, I’ll leave it at that, but just wanted to remind you to keep this in mind whenever reading something bad or good about aquaculture or fisheries.
I. Consider the Source – This section was almost flawless with the exception of this statement: “By the time Belov is done with me, I have a few new beliefs. One is that you can eat some wild seafood without trashing the oceans—wild-caught Alaskan salmon, for example, is a well-managed fishery.” Due to spawning habitat loss by pollution and dams, stocks of pacific salmon are heavily enhanced by state and national hatcheries to create the illusion of a healthy fishery. While there are still some healthy salmon runs in Alaska that are well managed, approximately 40% of what’s harvested in Alaska originated in a hatchery and 80-90% in the rest of the pacific northwest.
Whole Foods supermarket utilizes the Marine Stewardship Council’s and Seafood Watch’s Ratings to source their seafood
II. Red Light, Green Light – This section was great and Zimmerman nailed it when he talks about Seafood Watch’s Good Alternative rating sounding too much like a buy recommendation, especially since there are still concerns with those fish. There’s only on minor thing that should be corrected: “Eating in the green zone takes some dedication. That is, when you can find it and afford it—wild-caught Alaskan salmon can cost upwards of $15 a pound.” He’s right, it does take dedication and work, but it can be affordable. US farm raised catfish and tilapia are both affordable Best Choice ratings. Even Atlantic salmon farmed in recirculating systems have a Best Choice rating.
III. Modern Farmer – “According to Seafood Watch, it can take three pounds of smaller forage fish, like anchovies, menhaden, and sardines, to create the feed needed to produce a pound of salmon; even the most efficient farms have a ratio of 1.5:1. That’s not a particularly sustainable way to produce fish.” We’ve already discussed Zimmerman’s misinterpretation of a feed conversion ratio and provided greater context previously. We’ve also discussed briefly how open ocean aquaculture addresses many issues associated with coastal farms. If you read our tilapia article, you’ll remember, The Piscivore recommends you avoid tilapia (and quite frankly other farmed species) produced in China/Asia. When reading this section, just remember its where and how a fish is produced that counts. Enjoy the feature on Australis Aquaculture; they are doing some awesome work!
IV. Vegan Fish – An excellent section on the quest for alternative protein sources to replace fishmeal. I can only hope aquaculture moves toward utilizing these plant based diets in the future. “Until more farmed fish fed a vegan diet are widely available, try to add in FIFO-light options, like tilapia and catfish, to your menu.”
An example of rope line mussel aquaculture from the University of New Hampshire
V. The Seafood Chain – Another hit, this time focusing on the rope line mussel aquaculture done in the northeast and other sustainable species. Despite what I said previously about Alaskan salmon not being the most sustainable fishery, eating it every once in a while is actually a good thing as it gives them incentive to protect and manage the last remaining salmon runs. Anyway, eat up those PEI and Bangs Island mussels my fellow Piscivores!
VI. Navigating the Marketplace – Another well written section. While I certainly respect his position not to consume seafood, the article’s purpose is to help us piscivores make an educated decision on our seafood. Zimmerman’s recommendation? “Eat a lot less meat and a lot more sustainable seafood, wild when you can verify it, and lower on the food chain, but mostly farmed, particularly mussels, clams, and oysters.” I completely agree, although the wording is a bit jumbled. It should probably read something closer to the following:
“Eat a lot less meat and a lot more sustainable seafood, wild when you can verify it, but mostly farmed, and lower on the food chain, particularly mussels, clams, and oysters.”
That’s a recommendation I can get behind. I recommend you read this article if you haven’t already, just keep in mind what’s been said here. References are hyperlinked throughout the article. Questions may be sent to thepiscivore@gmail.com
Fresh produce and sustainable tilapia being grown in an aquaponics system at Disney Epcot’s “Living with the Land”
Tilapia is an increasingly popular food fish being grown and consumed around the world. This is because it’s primarily an herbivore (plant eating animal) that is easy to grow in a variety of conditions. It grows to market size relatively quickly and with less input compared to other cultured species. Because it’s a freshwater fish that’s generally easier to cultivate, tilapia is commonly used in increasingly popular aquaponic polyculture, the practice of growing fish and recycling the water and nutrient rich wastes to grow plants. When you find it on a restaurant menu or in a supermarket freezer, it is usually cheaper than most other fish options as well. Tilapia is among the most sustainable and affordable fish being produced for human consumption today. Tilapia farmed in the US, Canada, and Ecuador also have a “Best Choice” rating from Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch, the leading organization for seafood sustainability, so why are some people so against it?
If you would like to skip the play-by-play, scroll down to see The Piscivore’s Recommendations. If you’d like to continue down the rabbit hole, keep reading.
The answer, more often than not, has less to do with the fish itself and more to do with where and how it was produced. For example, my father’s friend posted this article on Facebook about tilapia recently. After reading the article, I decided to address misinformation/provide context for information associated with tilapia and its production shared through this article and others in the media. It begins by trying to assert feeding “GMO” corn and soy to fish is a bad thing. If they had an accurate understanding of what a “GMO” actually is, they’d know most of the food we consume has to some extent been genetically modified, primarily through artificial selection. Also these “GMO” plants are broken down into more basic nutrient components (proteins, carbohydrates, etc), the same components that make up all organisms, when they are processed into pellets for feed. Their diets are formulated to consist of more than just corn and soy, as you can’t have a balanced diet off just corn and soy. Alternative protein sources, like soy, limit the inclusion of fishmeal into the feeds of fish produced by aquaculture. The use of fishmeal in agriculture and aquaculture is a controversial issue that deserves another post of its own, so I won’t go into it here more than to say limiting its use is a good thing. Since tilapia are primarily herbivores, they require little to no fishmeal to begin with, which makes their selection for sustainable aquaculture ideal.
“Fatten up the fish” Tilapia are grown, not fattened up, and are an excellent source of low fat protein. That is the main reason why they are a healthy diet choice. The next statement asserts tilapia is not healthy because it doesn’t contain as much fish oil, particularly omega-3 fatty acids, as other species of fish. While there are other fish, like salmon, that provide higher levels of omega-3s, there are certainly worse forms of food we consume than tilapia. Which is a better source of protein: a low fat filet of tilapia or a Big Mac? It’s not just the oils in fish that make them healthy diet option. In the majority of cases, protein derived from fish is healthier than proteins from terrestrial based agriculture and tilapia is no exception.
“Almost all tilapia sold in the US is hormone tested.” Wrong. Less than 2% of the seafood we import is tested for banned chemicals, antibiotics, hormones, etc. This is a problem that also deserves its own post. For now though, you should realize that concerns about contaminants often have more to do with where and how its produced, not the fish. That being said, tilapia have very few drug/contaminant violations from what testing is done. Another claim this section makes is that testosterone is used to create all male populations because males grow faster. This may very well be true in countries other than the US; however, the testosterone would be given early in life. Since it takes between several months to close to a year to reach market size, it is safe to say you probably shouldn’t be worried as that testosterone is long gone by then. Why is this a concern? It’s not, but without context a reader wouldn’t know any better.
I’ll address the second paragraph of this article regarding the nutritional components of tilapia later when I assess the arguments made by similar articles.
The entire last paragraph make claims about PCBs and other toxins in tilapia; however, the Washington Post article that’s used as the “study” source only discusses salmon and even goes so far as to say that the benefits of farmed salmon outweigh the consumption of trace amounts of PCBs. The actual study the WP article discusses also only refers to salmon. Since this is about tilapia though, this paragraph is largely fabricated in an effort to scare and mislead the reader, but contaminants in our food should always be a concern, regardless of species. It is a concern for tilapia, but not for the reasons mentioned in the living traditionally article. As was mentioned before, tilapia are primarily herbivores and their diet contains little to no fishmeal, the major source of contaminants purposed in the salmon article. Not only is this WP article, and the actual study it reports about, more than 10 years old at this point and research on diets in salmonid aquaculture progressed considerably since then, the WP article fails to mention the source of the fish, mentioning only where it was sold, not where it was produced, as it compared to contamination. This is key to understanding the importance and impact of where and how tilapia, and other farmed fish, are produced.
There are plenty of other articles as well that try to dissuade their readers from consuming tilapia. Most amusing is it seems some of these articles, like the one discussed previously, use other articles as references, going so far as to copy and paste straight from the reference. This article takes issues from other species that have nothing to do with tilapia, fails to provide enough references to back up their claims even for those species, and uses them to mislead their readers. Another article, while singing the same tune, has a picture from the sustainable tilapia aquaculture demonstration at Disney Epcot’s “Living with the Land,” which produces the tilapia they use in Epcot’s restaurants. Farming in closed, recirculating systems prevents them from being introduced to wild environments, not to mention how its shows tilapia, a freshwater fish being grown in a recirculating system, some how impacts “native marine life.” I’d be willing to bet Disney doesn’t feed poor quality diets to their fish either. Reminds me of this example of repurposing images out of context to advance your cause. Let’s set the question of legitimacy aside and take a look at the arguments these articles and blog posts make against tilapia.
Farm-raised tilapia may cause more inflammation, leading to diseases like atherosclerosis and congestive heart failure
Farm raised fish (not just tilapia) have fewer healthy nutrients
Dioxin levels are higher in farmed-fish compared to wild
Farm raised fish (not just tilapia) contain high concentrations of antibiotic and pesticides
Farm raised fish (not just tilapia) contain cancer causing organic pollutants
Tilapia is an invasive species and is detrimental to native fish species
Sustainable tilapia being raised in recirculating systems at Disney Epcot’s “Living with the Land,” which qualifies as a “Best Choice” rating from Seafood Watch. This image was found without a caption or context in a blog post against tilapia.
While I’ve received coursework and training in nutrition as a veterinary student, I certainly wouldn’t consider myself an expert compared to someone specialized in nutrition, especially, human nutrition. I do feel confident in assessing scientific literature though, and I set out to evaluate claims 1 & 2 made above. Articles mention “recent studies” suggesting tilapia contain higher levels of n-6 fatty acids (aka omega 6 fatty acids), which may (or may not) contribute to certain human disease conditions. The “recent studies” also suggest tilapia contain less of beneficial n-3 fatty acids (aka omega-3 fatty acids). These “recent studies” are actually only a single study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association by researchers from Wake Forest University. This study attempted to evaluate the fatty acid profile of 30 different fish species. There were several flaws I found with this study, namely a small sample size where often only a single fish was used to represent a species and small pooled samples (in the case of tilapia, catfish, and others) regardless of country of origin. Because of these pooled samples, there are wide variations in their results, which they attributed to difference in where the fish is produced. This is acknowledged only briefly and the authors fail to discuss its importance.
Despite these issues and additional issues posed by more credentialed reviewers, let’s assume for sake of argument that the findings of this paper are sound. Our understanding of the role of dietary n-6 fatty acids and their impacts on the human body are controversial, as evidenced by the research editorial in response to the study, the study author’s response to the editorial, and the editorial author’s final comments. Indeed, in the study article, the authors acknowledge the role/impact of increased n-6 fatty acid intake is likely dependent on multiple factors. If dietary intake of arachidonic acid (a derivative of n-6 fatty acids) effects levels of it in the body (this is controversial in the literature), it would likely only contribute to disease in those vulnerable, particularly those lacking a gene to metabolize it, a very small portion of the population, that’s assuming it even does contribute to disease or inflammation (this is also controversial in the literature). Contrary to many web articles that cite this study, this study found that farm raised salmon and trout had favorable fatty acid profiles and higher omega-3 content compared to wild salmon species, in opposition to claim #2. While tilapia may not be as high in omega-3s as other fish species, this does not make the fish unhealthy, as multiple sources (referenced previously and below) also note.
Claims 3, 4, and 5 will be assessed together as “farmed fish contain more contamination from various undesired chemicals than wild fish.” This is actually a valid concern and has much to do with where and how the fish was produced (are you starting to see a pattern?). The United States has some of the strictest regulations regarding the production of seafood and only a limited number of approved drugs including only 3 antibiotics which are legal to treat specific conditions in specific species of fish (not to aid in fish growth), one anesthetic, one injectable hormone for inducing spawning (not to make fish grow or determine sex), and a few other medications for different external parasites all of which have established mandatory withdrawal periods to ensure no drug residue is present in the fish by the time its harvested. This is not the case in other countries, especially in places like China where there is little to no regulation. Obviously this has less to do with the fish itself than where and how it’s produced. Tilapia makes up a very small percentage of the number of drug/contaminant violations reported in imported seafood, thus, these arguments likely don’t apply, especially in the case of US produced tilapia, as was discussed previously with the Washington Post article.
Tilapia is an ideal aquaculture species, but this does not mean its been farmed responsibly in all the countries its grown. Recirculating systems and man-made pond culture are the usual and preferred methods of production that limit tilapia’s impact on native species significantly. In countries with less regulation, tilapia is sometimes grown in net pens in lakes where there is a risk they can escape and become established. That all being said, this has more to do with humans introducing fish to non-native regions through globalization and poor regulation than the fish themselves. Again, it’s where tilapia is produced and how it’s produced that matters and your power as a consumer makes the difference.
Finally, the New York Times published one of the more widely read articles on tilapia back in 2011. It is far from perfect, for many of the reasons addressed above. Because of this, it came under fire from multiple sources soon after it was published. I like the later article, “In Defense of Tilapia,” from Bon Appetit writer Helen York in response to the New York Times article, which takes the perspective of trying to work with producers to improve their methods and hold them to a higher standard to produce a fish that even non-fish eaters can enjoy.
In conclusion, tilapia is the ideal sustainable food fish for aquaculture. When farmed responsibly, it has minimal impact on the environment and provides an affordable source of low fat protein for piscivores and non-piscivores alike. There are concerns about how it’s produced in certain areas of the world, but as a consumer, you have the power to hold your fish markets/supermarkets to a higher standard of fish, who will then hold the producers to those standards. Ask for the source of the fish in the restaurants you visit. It can be daunting sometimes for the consumer to source their seafood but isn’t impossible and those that do will contribute toward the future of savory and sustainable seafood.
The arguments put forward by those against tilapia are intentionally misleading by failing to provide context, based on poor science, and often flat out fabricated by those with little understanding of the fish itself and the way its produced beyond what they probably read on the internet. Misinformation is shared, intentionally or not, by those who lack a complete understanding of the subject they are communicating to people like my father’s friend.
The Piscivore’s Recommendation:
Tilapia is here to stay and may very well become the fish that feeds the world. It’s sustainable, healthy, cheap, and appealing to non-piscivore palates. Its drawbacks come from where and how it’s produced more than the fish itself. For those who can afford to pay a little extra and search for it, tilapia farmed in the United States is the best way to consume it. Seafood Watch also gives fish from Ecuador (South America) a “Best Choice” rating and Asia a “Good Alternative” rating; however, the Piscivore recommends a “Good Alternative” and an “Avoid” rating, respectively. While there may be some producers in Asia voluntarily improving their standards and methods of culture, certainly not all are doing that and with little regulation for their industry, the Piscivore recommends you avoid tilapia farmed in Asia.
Enjoy your tilapia my fellow piscivores!
References are hyperlinked throughout the post. Questions regarding this post may be sent to thepiscivore@gmail.com.
The Piscivore 