The sustainability of aquaculture hangs on aquafeed companies.

A few days ago, BioMar , the Danish conglomerate Schouw & Co subsidiary, posted on one of its social networks that 80% of the carbon footprint of aquaculture operations is due to aquafeed.

This revelation leaves fish farmers concerned about the sustainability of their operations with only two options to reduce the carbon footprint of their farms:

1.- Reduce feed consumption and thereby reduce the percentage of the aquaculture factories' carbon footprint of aquafeed factories in the total carbon footprint of their fish and shrimp production.

2.- Wait for these aquafeed suppliers to significantly reduce their carbon footprint by selecting raw material suppliers who, in turn, adopt fundamental carbon footprint reduction practices, especially in the production of their grains or seeds. As well as their suppliers of other inputs such as proteins and minerals and additives such as essential oils or free amino acids, vitamins, enzymes, etc. Also, their milling, extrusion, drying, and packaging equipment suppliers. All should commit to reducing the carbon footprint in their machinery and equipment production and operation.

Without dismissing all of these efforts, the two options represent a challenge the industry still needs to solve fully, and the paths to solving them are not yet evident.

Suppose fish farmers succeed in reducing the average feed conversion of their crops from 1.4 to 1.1, which is already a difficult challenge in practice. In that case, the reduction in the share of feed in the carbon footprint of feed consumed could be as low as 18%, and nominally the reduction would be 12%.

The carbon footprint corresponding to feed purchased for fish and shrimp production, in this case, would still account for more than 60% of the total carbon footprint generated by on-farm production. And the possibility of continuing to reduce feed conversion without impacting production performance would already be minimal.

The remaining option would be to wait for feed producers to make unprecedented efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of their products, but there are others in this process. They depend on suppliers, especially grains and seeds. Here, as fish farmers, we are confronted with situations beyond the possibility of influencing. I am talking about sustainable agricultural practices that exclude several concepts, such as deforestation, monocultures, certain fertilizers and insecticides, among others, all the activities that the suppliers of the inputs of the feed producing companies carry out or not, and the carbon footprint that each of these activities generates.

Then come the additives, animal proteins and fats, probiotics, and all the other elements that make up the feed, including milling, extruding, drying, packaging, and transport to the farms.

How and when will Aquafeed factories effectively reduce this carbon footprint? We do not know, and some of these companies may not know either.

But as harsh as this reality may seem, we must join the effort to be sustainable and reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses that are the primary cause of global warming. Far from being daunting, this reality provides us with enough arguments to bring about change. And we must all work together because we form a production chain, and if one link fails, we all fail.

We are at a time when humanity's challenges exceed the lifespan of the generations currently experiencing them. That is, our generation may lead to a decline in greenhouse gas production, but future generations will feel the manifestation of that decline. Or the other way around.

With that in mind, we need to start being more transparent about the processes of each link in the aquaculture production chain so that we all know where we stand regarding greenhouse gas emissions. And it's the same transparency that seafood consumers want regarding fish and shrimp farm production.

Are we ready to be transparent?