Dr Thierry Chopin, Professor of Marine Biology, University of New Brunswick, Canada
In both Asian countries (particularly in China) and western world countries, there is a renewed interest in the development of what we now call Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture or IMTA.
The approaches are completely different, resulting in very different speeds of adoption and implementation of the practice; however, the differences are maybe not an extreme case of apples and oranges, and there is great merit in analysing their differences and convergences to develop what should become the efficient and responsible food, and co-product, production systems of the future.
The western world FIS and the Asian SIF approaches
Several western world research groups working on IMTA have spent the last two-to-three decades developing small-scale, mostly pre-commercial, IMTA operations, by modifying relatively small fish sites to co-cultivate invertebrates and seaweeds.
Modern fish aquaculture (F) developed in the 1970-80’s, and invertebrate and seaweed aquacultures (I and S) were added in the 2000’s. This is what we can call the FIS approach; (70-80’s/00’s/00’s). Commercial scaling-up has not been easy: while the biological and environmental advantages of this practice are generally accepted, adoption barriers have been mostly economic and regulatory.
Asian countries have a long tradition of using different types of IMTA, long before this acronym was created in 2004. The approach in modifying their sites has been diametrically opposed: seaweed sites have seen the development of smaller invertebrate, and later fish, infrastructures (the SIF approach; 50’s/80’s/90’s). IMTA operations are now covering vast dedicated areas.
A historical background favourable to the development of IMTA in China
There is a long tradition of operating freshwater IMTA systems in China. Rice-fish systems have existed for more than 1,200 years and covered 3.3 million hectares in 2000. The benefits are at several levels: 1) full use of limited agricultural land; 2) fish nutrients are available to rice; 3) fish eat rice pests; 4) there are reduced fungal infections; 5) farming the sea is generally more lucrative than farming land (no irrigation, in particular); 6) there is an increased diversification of agricultural products; and 7) all the above led to farmers increasing their income.
Because of these advantages, demonstrated over centuries, there is strong government support at all levels for the practice, and practical policies have been put in place. Moreover, over time many variations appeared: rice-fish-crab, rice-fish-duck, rice-shrimp, etc.
Read more HERE.
In both Asian countries (particularly in China) and western world countries, there is a renewed interest in the development of what we now call Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture or IMTA.
The approaches are completely different, resulting in very different speeds of adoption and implementation of the practice; however, the differences are maybe not an extreme case of apples and oranges, and there is great merit in analysing their differences and convergences to develop what should become the efficient and responsible food, and co-product, production systems of the future.
The western world FIS and the Asian SIF approaches
Several western world research groups working on IMTA have spent the last two-to-three decades developing small-scale, mostly pre-commercial, IMTA operations, by modifying relatively small fish sites to co-cultivate invertebrates and seaweeds.
Modern fish aquaculture (F) developed in the 1970-80’s, and invertebrate and seaweed aquacultures (I and S) were added in the 2000’s. This is what we can call the FIS approach; (70-80’s/00’s/00’s). Commercial scaling-up has not been easy: while the biological and environmental advantages of this practice are generally accepted, adoption barriers have been mostly economic and regulatory.
Asian countries have a long tradition of using different types of IMTA, long before this acronym was created in 2004. The approach in modifying their sites has been diametrically opposed: seaweed sites have seen the development of smaller invertebrate, and later fish, infrastructures (the SIF approach; 50’s/80’s/90’s). IMTA operations are now covering vast dedicated areas.
A historical background favourable to the development of IMTA in China
There is a long tradition of operating freshwater IMTA systems in China. Rice-fish systems have existed for more than 1,200 years and covered 3.3 million hectares in 2000. The benefits are at several levels: 1) full use of limited agricultural land; 2) fish nutrients are available to rice; 3) fish eat rice pests; 4) there are reduced fungal infections; 5) farming the sea is generally more lucrative than farming land (no irrigation, in particular); 6) there is an increased diversification of agricultural products; and 7) all the above led to farmers increasing their income.
Because of these advantages, demonstrated over centuries, there is strong government support at all levels for the practice, and practical policies have been put in place. Moreover, over time many variations appeared: rice-fish-crab, rice-fish-duck, rice-shrimp, etc.
Read more HERE.
The Aquaculturists
This blog is maintained by The Aquaculturists staff and is supported by the
magazine International Aquafeed which is published by Perendale Publishers Ltd
For additional daily news from aquaculture around the world: aquaculture-news
No comments:
Post a Comment