Pacific Bluefin Tuna Thunnus orientalis

© Monterey Bay Aquarium

Japan Net Pens

Aquaculture Standard Version A2

Cyrus Ma, Consulting Researcher Originally published: December 5, 2016 – Updated: April 5, 2021

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.

2

Final Seafood Recommendation

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 4.72 YELLOW C2 Effluent 0.00 CRITICAL YES C3 Habitat 1.70 RED NO C4 Chemicals 2.00 RED NO C5 Feed 0.00 CRITICAL YES C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO C7 Disease 6.00 YELLOW NO C8 Source 0.00 RED C9X Wildlife mortalities –6.00 YELLOW NO C10X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN Total 18.42 Final score 2.30

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 2.30 Initial rank RED Red criteria 5 Interim rank RED FINAL RANK

Critical Criteria? YES RED Scoring note—scores range from 0 to 10 where 0 indicates very poor performance and 10 indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact. Color ranks: red = 0 to 3.33, yellow = 3.34 to 6.66, green = 6.66 to 10. Criteria 9X and 10X are exceptional criteria, where 0 indicates no impact and a deduction of –10 reflects very poor performance. Two or more red criteria trigger a red final result.

Summary The final numerical score for net pen farming of Pacific bluefin tuna in Japan is 2.30 out of 10. The presence of five Red criteria (Effluent, Habitat, Chemical Use, Feed, and Source of Stock) results in an overall Red recommendation of “Avoid.”

3

Executive Summary This assessment was originally published in December 2016 and reviewed for any significant changes in February 2021. Please see Appendix 2 for details of review. Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) farming in Japan is primarily a capture-based aquaculture practice that uses wild-caught individuals for captive farm stock. Because of the ongoing decline of the wild Pacific bluefin population from overfishing, increasing importance has been placed on tuna farming and hatchery-based stock enhancement. Since 2002, fully farm-raised Pacific bluefin has been successfully produced in Japan, and hatchery production has sharply increased in recent years. Currently, hatchery-based tuna represents an estimated 3% of the annual farmed tuna production in Japan. For the other 97% of production, which is from wild-capture, over 90% of the wild fish caught are juvenile Pacific bluefin that are considered to be vulnerable to the risk of extinction, and much of the industry’s management continues to be influenced by both aquaculture and wild-fishery regulations. Pacific bluefin tuna has been a commercially important fish species for the sashimi and sushi industry in Japan for many years, but new markets are emerging in the United States, Europe, and other parts of Asia. Currently, bluefin tuna farming occurs in 14 prefectures and on 2 islands in Japan. Yearling (age 0) and juvenile bluefin are caught in the Sea of Japan and are typically reared for 1–4 years. Depending on biological, farm management, and economic factors, captive bluefin are harvested at sizes between 30 kg and 70 kg. In Japan, tuna farming periods typically last for several years, and there are no legal regulations in place that mandate fallowing between production cycles. Major sources of information in this assessment include regional fisheries management organizations (ISC, WCPFC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the national environmental agency responsible for aquaculture management in Japan (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries—Fisheries Agency, MAFF-FA), and communications with industry experts. Though scientific interest in Japan often focuses more on the economic aspects of tuna farming rather than related environmental impacts, relevant research has mostly been written in Japanese and reported only in domestic journals, resulting in literature that is largely inaccessible. As a result, information from other bluefin tuna farming regions has been incorporated into this report where applicable. Overall, because of the lack of publicly available regulatory data and the inaccessibility of relevant research, data availability to assess the Japanese bluefin tuna farming industry’s regulatory management and environmental impacts is considered to be below average. The Criterion 1 - Data score is 4.72 out of 10. Given the scarcity of information regarding effluent-related environmental impacts caused by bluefin tuna farming in Japan, a risk-based assessment method is applied in this report, using the amount of nitrogen-based waste discharged per ton of production combined with the regulatory effectiveness and enforcement structure in Japan. Based on an average protein

4

content of feed (18.6%), eFCR (15:1), and protein content of whole harvested bluefin (22.28%), the total nitrogen-based waste discharged per ton of bluefin production is estimated to be 410.8 kg per ton of tuna production. In the absence of any mechanism to mitigate the discharge of waste from tuna net pens, approximately 80% of the waste (328.6 kg N per ton of production) leaves the farm boundary. Furthermore, an underdeveloped environmental monitoring system has been reported for aquaculture throughout Japan, where the majority of environmental authorities are not actively implementing environmental management measures unless farm sites have already developed noticeable environmental degradation. Given an environmental management strategy that is based on maximizing carrying capacity for the aquaculture industry, a lack of robust measures for controlling discharged waste in the Japanese tuna farming industry has led to ongoing uncertainties concerning the extent of both site-specific and cumulative impacts. Overall, these conditions result in a Critical Criterion 2 - Effluent score of 0 out of 10 for the bluefin tuna farming industry in Japan. In the Habitat criterion, proxy comparisons with bluefin tuna farms in Croatia were used to evaluate benthic impacts in the immediate vicinity of Japanese tuna farms. In Croatia, the absence of seasonal fallow periods and the siting of tuna farms in protected inshore locations have enabled the accumulation of excess nutrients directly beneath net pen sites and produced significant losses of functionality to the benthos. For Habitat Conversion and Function (Factor 3.1), the significant seafloor impacts in Croatia are also anticipated for tuna farms in Japan due to similar production practices, and result in a score of 2 out of 10. Furthermore, although regulations for critical habitat protection are established in Japan, poorly developed environmental management procedures and a lack of public transparency in regulatory management have contributed to varying levels of farm siting effectiveness at the prefectural (provincial) level. For Farm Siting Management (Factor 3.2), the mixed level of implementation for habitat regulations and the strong potential for significant habitat impacts result in a score of 1.10 out of 10. When combined, these conditions result in a low overall Criterion 3 - Habitat score of 1.70 out of 10. Although chemicals have historically been absent in the Japanese tuna farming industry, praziquantel (an anti-parasitic blood fluke treatment) and oxytetracycline (an antibiotic that is highly important for human medicine) are now being utilized to treat farmed tuna in Japan. Research data indicate that praziquantel is nontoxic to the marine environment, but the ongoing use of oxytetracycline in open net pen farming systems lends to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Though certified fish-health specialists monitor chemical use on a routine basis, the chemical management regime for Japan’s aquaculture industry primarily focuses on food safety in farmed tuna products rather than on related environmental impacts. Overall, the ongoing use of oxytetracycline in the Japanese tuna farming industry results in a high level of concern and a Criterion 4 - Chemical Use score of 2 out of 10. Although formulated pellet feeds are available in Japan, bluefin tuna farms rely almost entirely on the use of whole, wild baitfish for feed because of their lower feeding costs. Unlike almost all other aquaculture industries that are focused on growing their farmed stocks, the primary goal of Japanese tuna operations is to increase the tuna’s fat content for market desirability.

5

Therefore, the feed conversion ratio is typically high. A reported economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) of 15:1 is considered representative for farmed Pacific bluefin. The exclusive use of whole feedfish means that the Fish In to Fish Out ratio (FIFO) is the same as the eFCR and produces a critically high FI:FO ratio and a Factor 5.1a score of 0 out of 10. In the wild, tuna also consume baitfish, but do so as part of a complex natural foodweb and ecosystem. The extraction of these two ecosystem components (i.e., the tuna and the baitfish) and their use as inputs in an artificial farming system does not enable them to provide the same ecosystem services. Locally-caught chub mackerel, horse mackerel, sand lance, anchovy, and sardine represent the most common feed ingredients in Japan; a variety of other baitfish species are also utilized as a minor portion of the feed composition in each country. Thus, a precautionary Source Fishery Sustainability score of –4 out of –10 was applied to Factor 5.1 (Wild Fish Use), producing a final adjusted score that remained 0 out of 10. Furthermore, a net protein loss greater than 90% and the presence of a significant feed footprint (107.28 ha per ton of farmed fish) represent additional environmental concerns. Overall, the absence of by-products or non-edible processing ingredients as alternative sources of feed protein and the highly inefficient conversion of feed into harvestable fish results in a Critical Criterion 5 - Feed score of 0 out of 10. For net pen aquaculture systems, there is an inherent high risk of escape from catastrophic losses or more chronic “leakage.” But the bulk of the farmed bluefin production from Japan (97%) is based on catching wild tuna to be grown on-site as captive farm stock, and the risk of ecological (i.e., competitive and/or genetic) impacts from escaped tuna on other wild species or wild counterparts is considered to be negligible. The final Criterion 6 - Escape score is 10 out of 10. There is currently no clear evidence of pathogens or parasites within bluefin tuna farms causing significant population declines in wild tuna stocks or other wild species; however, the prevalence of pathogens within farm sites, the open nature of tuna net pens, and the overlap between farm sites, migratory feeding routes, and spawning grounds in the western Pacific warrant some concern for potential disease transfer between farmed and wild fish. Because specific data are limited, these conditions result (on a precautionary basis) in a moderate Criterion 7 - Disease score of 6 out of 10. An estimated 97% of farmed tuna production in Japan is currently sourced from historically overfished wild tuna stocks considered to be “Vulnerable” by the IUCN. These conditions result in a low Criterion 8 - Source of Stock score of 0 out of 10. In Japan, near-threatened blacktip reef sharks have been observed interacting with Pacific bluefin tuna farms and are either killed intentionally or released from net pens. Although national legislation is established for marine mammals and protected species, robust data on the tuna farming industry’s impact on local wildlife are absent. The lack of data on wildlife interactions with Pacific bluefin tuna farms results in a precautionary approach to scoring this criterion. The final score for Criterion 9X - Wildlife Mortalities is –6 out of –10.

6

In Japanese bluefin tuna farming, wild tuna are captured and transported to net pens within the same body of water, so the unintentional introduction of non-native species does not occur. Although there generally is some risk of non-native species introduction associated with open exchange net pens, the exclusive use of native tuna (0% reliance on international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments) results in a Criterion 10X - Escape of unintentionally introduced species final score of 0 out of –10. In summary, the final numerical score for net pen farming of Pacific bluefin tuna in Japan is 2.30 out 10. This low numerical score, in addition to the presence of five Red criteria (Effluent, Habitat, Chemical Use, Feed, and Source of Stock), results in an overall Red recommendation of “Avoid.”

7

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

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

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ............................................................ 8

Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Scoring guide ........................................................................................................................ 15

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ............................................................................. 16

Criterion 2: Effluents ............................................................................................................ 20

Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 27

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 34

Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 36

Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 42

Criterion 7. Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ................................................... 45

Criterion 8. Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ....................................... 48

Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ................................................................... 51

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. A score of zero means there is

no impact. ............................................................................................................................ 51

Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species .............................................. 53

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 54

Supplemental Information ............................................................................................................ 55

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 58

References .................................................................................................................................... 59

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 75

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 76

Appendix 1 - Data points and all scoring calculations .................................................................. 78

8

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation Species Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) Geographic coverage Japan Production Method Net pens Species Overview Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) is 1 of 13 species of tuna in the Scombridae family and possesses the largest home range of the three bluefin species. Found throughout the Pacific Ocean from the East China Sea to the Pacific coasts of the United States and Mexico (Collette and Nauen 1983) (Bayliff 1994), Pacific bluefin is a highly mobile fish with extraordinary migratory activity, and it must swim continuously in order to breathe (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Boustany 2011) (Estess et al. 2014). Well known for its distinct physiology, bluefin tuna is an endothermic fish species possessing the unique ability to maintain internal temperatures through metabolic processes (Korsmeyer and Dewar 2001). Reflected in its high metabolic rates (Korsmeyer and Dewar 2001) (Munday et al. 2003) (Conservation Working Group 2007) (Di Maio and Mladineo 2008), bluefin tuna grows faster than any other teleost fish (Itoh 2000) (Block et al. 2005) and reaches a maximum length of 3 m (9.84 ft) and a maximum weight between 400 and 600 kg (≈1,100 lbs) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Blinch et al. 2011) (Boustany 2011) (Masuma et al. 2011). Pacific bluefin is generally an epipelagic and oceanic species, but seasonally comes close to shore (Zertuche-González et al. 2008). Although it is a predominantly temperate-water species, it has been observed in tropical regions (Collette et al. 2014). Diving to depths of 550 m, Pacific bluefin tolerates a variety of temperature and salinity ranges and sometimes schools with other scombrids of the same size (SAGARPA 2013) (Collette et al. 2014). Tuna are voracious opportunistic feeders and consume a wide range of prey (Yokota et al. 1961) (Collette and Nauen 1983). Though juvenile Pacific bluefin feed on small fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods, adult Pacific bluefin primarily feed on larger pelagic finfish species—herring (Clupea harengus), sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and various anchovy, sardine, and sprat species—and are associated with the top of the trophic food web (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (SAGARPA 2013). Pacific bluefin matures between the ages of 3 and 5 and can live over 25 years (Bayliff 1994) (Chen et al. 2006) (Tanaka 2006) (Itoh 2006) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Shimose 2009) (Boustany 2011) (SAGARPA 2013).

9

Figure 1. Home range and spawning area of Pacific bluefin tuna. Source: Boustany, 2011

Thunnus orientalis ranges throughout the Pacific Ocean (although primarily in the North Pacific), but the entire population is considered to be a single, Pacific-wide stock that relies on two distinct spawning areas in the eastern Pacific (Collette et al. 2014) (IATTC 2014). Spawning occurs between Japan and the Philippines (East China Sea among the Ryukyu Islands) in April, May, and June; off southern Honshu in July; and in the Sea of Japan in August (Figure 1) (Bayliff 1994) (Inagake 2001) (Collette et al. 2014). Females weighing between 270 kg and 300 kg may produce as many as 10 million eggs per spawning season (Collette and Nauen 1983) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008). Though a portion of the resulting juvenile tuna population will spend their entire lives in the western Pacific, others will migrate over 11,000 km to the eastern Pacific during their first and second years of life, depending on oceanographic and prey conditions (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (SAGARPA 2013) (Collette et al. 2014). In the western Pacific, bluefin migrate northward in the summer and southward during the winter. Fish enter the Sea of Japan from the south in early summer and move as far north as the Okhotsk Sea, but most leave the Sea of Japan through Tsugara Strait, north of Honshu (Collette and Nauen 1983). This northerly migration during the summer and fall in the eastern Pacific coincides with the migration of Pacific sardines through the same area (Yamanaka et al., 1963) (Kitagawa et al. 2007) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008). During these feeding migrations, the strong schooling behavior exhibited by juvenile Pacific bluefin (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) makes them especially vulnerable to fishing pressure. Fisheries information Although catches of Pacific bluefin tuna have fluctuated substantially between years and by gear type, there has been an overall negative trend since the 1950s (Collette et al. 2014). The highest historical annual catch occurred in 1956, totaling 39,824 MT, and the lowest catch occurred in 1990, with 8,588 MT. During the last 10 years, wild fisheries have produced 21,250 MT, with 80% of the catch occurring in the western Pacific. Since the 1950s, the catches have

10

been predominantly juveniles, and since the 1990s, the catch of age-0 fish (yearlings) has increased significantly (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Tzoumas 2009) (ISC, 2014). Most bluefin are caught in the north Pacific, with Japan catching the majority, followed by Mexico, the United States, South Korea, and China (Collette et al. 2014). More than 70% of the global Pacific bluefin tuna catch is harvested by Japan alone (MAFF, 2010). Recently, regional fisheries management organizations (RMFOs) have instituted catch limits in response to the dramatic decline in the Pacific bluefin tuna stock. In the western Pacific, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has adopted the Conservation and Management Measure 2013-09 (CMM) for the conservation and management of Pacific bluefin tuna. In broad terms, the CMM states that fishing effort for Pacific bluefin shall stay below 2002–2004 levels, and that catches of juveniles (ages 0–3; < 30 kg) would be reduced by 50% (Collette et al. 2014). Production of Pacific bluefin tuna Although Pacific bluefin aquaculture has been researched by Japan since the 1970s and commercially practiced since the early 1990s (Harada et al. 1971) (Agawa et al. 2009) (Yamamoto 2012) (MAFF 2013) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015), the technology and culture methods used to produce fully farm-raised (i.e., hatchery-based) tuna were developed more recently by Kindai University (Oshima) in 2002 (Sawada et al. 2005) and industrialized in 2004 (Sawada 2016). According to Kindai University (pers. comm. 2015) and Anonymous (2016), hatchery-raised bluefin currently account for approximately 3% of farmed tuna production in Japan. In 2013, 147 farm sites with 1,362 net pens were actively farming tuna under the management of 92 companies in 14 prefectures (Inoue 2013) (Fisheries Agency 2014). In response to the sharp decline of wild Pacific bluefin, Japan has implemented legislation prohibiting any further expansion of its wild-caught tuna farming industry since 2012 (MAFF 2012) (Inoue 2013) (MAFF, 2013). But this legislation has no bearing on hatchery-based tuna production, so it has not restricted the expansion of the Japanese tuna farming industry in recent years. In the western Pacific, up to 93% of wild Pacific bluefin are below the age of maturity (Itoh 2001) (IATTC 2010). In Japan, yearling tuna (Yokowa) are caught by pole and line, while juveniles are taken by the purse seine fishery (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Yearling tuna (100–800 g), which are caught in the Sea of Japan during the second half of the year, are typically reared for 28–48 months; juvenile tuna (2,000–5,000 g) are reared for 24–36 months (primary rearing period); and rare adult tuna (20,000–60,000 g) are farmed for as little as 6–7 months (Kusano 2010) (Ono 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Meng et al. 2011) (Shirakashi et al. 2012) (Hata et al. 2013) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). Depending on biological, farm management, and economic factors, captive bluefin are harvested after reaching a suitable quality and marketable size of 30–70 kg (Deguara et al. 2011) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015 (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a).

11

Farmed Pacific bluefin production statistics In Japan, farmed bluefin production statistics are published annually by the Fisheries Agency (FA) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Aquaculture production of Pacific bluefin tuna increased sharply from 450 MT in 1999 to 8,000 MT in 2008 (Meng et al. 2011). According to the FA’s most current report on domestic Pacific bluefin aquaculture, Japan produced 10,396 MT of Pacific bluefin in 2013 and 14,713 MT in 2014 (Fisheries Agency 2014) (MAFF 2014) (Fisheries Agency 2015), roughly averaging 10,000 MT per annum in recent years (Figure 2) (Tada and Harada 2009) (Itoh 2013) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015).

Figure 2: Annual Pacific bluefin tuna production in Japan (Source: Tunafarming.net 2015)

Since the successful breeding of fully farmed-raised Pacific bluefin tuna by Japan’s Kindai University in 2002 (Sawada et al. 2005), considerable effort has been taken to increase hatchery-based bluefin production, as a means to reduce reliance on wild stocks and to normalize production throughout the industry. According to Kindai University (pers. comm., 2015) and Anonymous (2016), 3% of the farmed tuna production in Japan is currently sourced from hatcheries, but major companies have recently begun focusing on increasing hatchery production in response to recent catch regulations and the dwindling availability of wild yearling tuna. Production system Both hatchery larviculture and net pen farming currently take place in 14 prefectures (primarily Kagoshima, Nagasaki, Ehime, and Kochi, but also Kyoto, Mie, Okinawa, Osaka, Shimane, Shizuoka, Tottori, Tokushima, Wakayama, and Yamaguchi), which include 2 islands (Amami Island and Tsushima Island) (Ono 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Inoue 2013) (Tunafarming.net 2015). Because offshore production currently remains under development (Sawada 2016), Japanese tuna farms are generally sited at inshore locations within the coastal zone, where

Prod

uctio

n (m

t)

12

(according to one estimate) distances range between 100 m and 300 m from shore (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Anchored floating net pens are either circular (15–50 m × 7–20 m), square (20–40 m × 20–40 m × 10–20 m), or rectangular (20–90 m × 26–60 m × 10–20 m) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Hata et al. 2013) (Jusup 2014) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). The typical net pen stocking density in Japanese tuna farms is 2–3 kg/m3 (Masuma et al. 2011) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). Hatchery broodstock management, spawning, and larviculture in Japan (Masuma et al. 2011) Wild Pacific bluefin that are used as broodstock are maintained in larger net pens than pens typically used for grow-out. The Fisheries Research Agency (FRA) also utilizes a barrier-net enclosed cove (14 ha) to maintain Pacific bluefin broodstock. Japanese bluefin hatcheries rely on natural spawning events in open water for egg production, because researchers have yet to develop successful methods for artificial spawning. Depending on the stage of growth, surviving larval tuna are fed rotifers, Artemia nauplii, and the larvae of other small fish species such as striped beakfish (Oplegnathus fasciatus), spangled emperor (Lethrinus nebulosus), or minced sand eel (Ammodytes personatus). Once the larvae have reached 5–7 cm in total length (≈35 days), they are transferred from indoor tanks to intermediate net pens (12 m x 12 m x 5 m) before the final grow-out phase (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (Sawada 2016). Under current hatchery conditions, only 1% of hatchery-raised tuna survive to maturity (Ito 2016). Import and export sources and statistics Farmed bluefin sold in Japan are concentrated in the hands of Japanese trading houses; most notably, those in the Tsukiji Fish Market in Tokyo (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (SAGARPA 2013) (Tunafarming.net 2015). The primary bluefin tuna consumption period in Japan occurs during the holiday season in December, when many festivities mark the end of the year (Sanada 2016). Japan consumes approximately 50,000 MT of bluefin tuna per year, of which farmed Pacific bluefin makes up approximately 20% (Scott et al. 2012) (CONAPESCA 2013) (Fisheries Agency 2014). Though Japan currently consumes 80% of the world’s bluefin tuna, important markets are also emerging in the United States, Europe, and other parts of Asia (SAGARPA 2013) (Kyoto and AP 2014). In recent years, major importers of Japanese farmed tuna have been China, the United States, Thailand, and China (Hong Kong). Secondary exports from these four major importers have distributed farmed Pacific bluefin globally. Exports of farmed Pacific bluefin to the United States in particular have increased rapidly since 2006 (MAFF 2013) (Sato 2013) (Figure 3).

13

Figure 3: Annual farmed Pacific bluefin exports from Japan (Tunafarming.net 2015).

Common and market names

Scientific Name Thunnus orientalis Common Names Pacific bluefin tuna United States Pacific bluefin tuna (FDA, 2015)

Bluefin tuna Northern Pacific bluefin tuna Northern bluefin tuna

Japan When sold as sushi or sashimi: クロマグロ(くろまぐろ) Kuro maguro (black tuna) Maguro (tuna) Hon maguro (real tuna) Chikuyo maguro (farmed tuna)

Mexico/Spain Atún aleta azul del Pacífico, Atún cimarrón China 和平的藍鰭鮪魚 France Thon bleu du Pacifique, thon rouge

Product forms Although the majority are destined for the Japanese market, small amounts of farmed Pacific bluefin are sold to the United States and Europe (Dalton 2004) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (SAGARPA 2013) (IATTC 2014) (Kyoto and AP 2014). Pacific bluefin are supplied to the U.S. market as whole fish (gilled and gutted) in either fresh-chilled or frozen form.

New Zealand US Canada UAE Macau Malaysia Singapore Thai Hong Kong Taiwan China Korea

Expo

rt Q

uant

ities

(kg)

14

Tuna sold to restaurants and markets are traditionally prepared as sushi or sashimi. Specific cuts of bluefin are sold in a variety of forms based on the fat content of the flesh. Primary cuts include akami (lean), chu-toro (medium), and o-toro (high fat) (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The terms used to describe certain cuts are not specific to bluefin and are applied to all tuna species

(Source: Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Co-operative Associations).

Other terms used to describe bluefin tuna farming include ranching, penning, on-growing, cage-culture, and mariculture. The scope of this assessment is farmed Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) in the Pacific Ocean (Japan), in net pens.

15

Analysis

Scoring guide • With the exception of the exceptional factors (9X and 10X), 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 http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_AquacultureCriteraMethodology.pdf

• The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Appendix 1 This Seafood Watch assessment involves a number of different criteria covering impacts associated with effluent, habitats, wildlife and predator interactions, chemical use, feed production, escapes, introduction of non-native organisms (other than the farmed species), disease, the source stock, and general data availability1. As a result of the controversy and polarity of opinions relating to some of these aspects, this report has been reviewed by a number of experts representing a variety of stakeholders.

1 The full Seafood Watch aquaculture criteria are available at: http://www.seafoodwatch.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_aboutsfw.aspx

16

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.

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 7.5 7.5 Effluent Yes 5 5 Locations/habitats Yes 5 5 Predators and wildlife Yes 2.5 2.5 Chemical use Yes 5 5 Feed Yes 5 5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 2.5 2.5 Disease Yes 2.5 2.5 Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not relevant n/a Total 42.5

C1 Data Final Score 4.72 YELLOW Brief Summary Although scientific interest in Japan often focuses on the economic aspects of tuna farming rather than related environmental impacts, relevant research has mostly been written in Japanese and reported only in domestic journals, resulting in literature that is largely inaccessible. As a result, information from other bluefin tuna farming regions has been incorporated into this report where applicable. For other types of required information, data accessibility and availability are variable, depending on the subject matter. Overall, because of the lack of publicly available regulatory data and the inaccessibility of relevant research, data availability to assess the Japanese bluefin tuna farming industry’s operations and impacts is considered to be below average. The Criterion 1 - Data score is 4.72 out of 10. Justification of Ranking In Japan, various studies over the last five decades have attempted to measure the nutrient fluxes at fish farms, to assess the potential environmental impacts, and to determine criteria to optimize aquaculture site selection and production levels. As a result, considerable effort has also been made to establish methods to improve fish farming environments. But the majority of

17

these results have been written in Japanese and reported only in domestic journals, resulting in literature that is largely inaccessible to an international audience (Yokoyama 2010). When relevant data is located, it is often difficult to obtain translated copies (Price and Morris 2013). Because the majority of net pen aquaculture in Japan is dedicated to the culture of well-established species such as Japanese amberjack (yellowtail), coho salmon, and red sea bream (Tsutsumi 2007), data on the environmental impacts of bluefin tuna farming are essentially absent (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Besides the relative youth of commercial-scale bluefin tuna farming in Japan (which was established in the early 1990s), data from farmers are scarce and rearing conditions are generally kept confidential because of the commercial nature of the tuna farming industry (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Quality and availability of scientific literature Scientific interest in bluefin tuna farming is increasing (as documented by the growing inventory of scientific papers in Japan), but research has largely been devoted to improving commercial production, and it focuses more on the economic aspects of tuna farming than related environmental impacts (Lioka et al. 2000) (Miyake et al. 2003) (Mylonas et al. 2010). The majority of research relevant to Pacific bluefin tuna farming involves devising formulated feeds (Carter et al. 1999) (Ji et al. 2008) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) and closing the lifecycle in captivity (Sawada et al. 2005) (De Metrio et al. 2010) (Grubišić et al. 2013) (Masuma et al. 2008) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Jusup 2014). Other research topics include maintaining flesh quality, and heavy metal/pesticide contamination in farmed tuna products. Production statistics: Farmed tuna production statistics are published online annually by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries—Fisheries Agency FA (MAFF), and both peer-reviewed literature and communications with industry experts were used to confirm production trends in recent years. The proportion of farmed tuna being produced in hatcheries was confirmed by Kindai University. Though these data sources are considered to be up-to-date and cover relevant timeframes, there is an inherent level of aggregation in calculating national production statistics. Based on these qualities, production statistics for net pen farming of Pacific bluefin tuna in Japan is assessed a score of 7.5 out of 10. Effluent: Evidence in the literature indicates that a high proportion of the nutrients discharged from tuna net pens originates from the application of commercial feeds, but information specifically on the resulting environmental impact of bluefin tuna farms in Japan remains exceptionally scarce. Moreover, data from farmers are scarce and rearing conditions are generally kept confidential because of the commercial nature of the tuna farming industry (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Without robust information regarding the effluent-related environmental impacts caused by bluefin tuna farming in Japan, a risk-based assessment method is applied in this report, using the amount of nitrogen-based waste discharged per ton of production combined with the regulatory effectiveness and enforcement structure in Japan. Habitat: There is a lack of data regarding the benthic impacts of the Japanese bluefin tuna farming industry, so information from other tuna farming regions, their farming characteristics, and related environmental impacts are used in this assessment to evaluate Japanese tuna farms

18

by proxy. Environmental impacts derived from the release of organic waste are highly influenced by a fish farm’s management characteristics, location, and the hydrographic nature of the receiving water body (Abo et al. 2013). Thus, comparisons between tuna farming regions are made with the understanding that the data used, while describing similar production practices, may not be representative of impacts in Japan. Under these conditions, both the Effluent and Habitat Criteria receive moderate data scores of 5 out of 10. Chemical Use: Peer-reviewed literature, information from the World Health Organization, and communications with tuna farming experts in Japan were used to describe current chemical use and potential impacts in the Japanese tuna farming industry. Industry experts have supplied information on the frequency of use for praziquantel and oxytetracycline, but communications on chemical inputs have not been consistent between experts, and information remains unverified by independent sources. Because application rates are also unknown, the Japanese bluefin tuna farming industry receives a Chemical data score of 5 out of 10. Feed: Both peer-reviewed literature and communications with industry experts indicate that wild-caught baitfish are the primary feed source for the Japanese bluefin tuna farming industry. Data on FCR, feedfish composition, protein content of feedfish/bluefin, and edible yield of farmed bluefin were sourced from peer-reviewed literature, FAO, and communications with industry experts. Although major feedfish species can be identified with the data provided, the combination of baitfish used by the tuna farming industry is based on price, and the exact number of feedfish species and their sustainability are unknown. These conditions result in a Feed data score of 5 out of 10. Escapes: Escape monitoring requirements for farmed bluefin tuna in Japan are absent because the potential for impact from escapees (wild-caught) on other wild species is low, even though information is available regarding best management practices to prevent escapes. The Japanese bluefin tuna farming industry receives an Escapes data score of 2.5 out of 10. Disease: Though there is currently no clear evidence that pathogens or parasites within bluefin tuna farms are causing population declines in wild counterparts, few studies are actively investigating the matter. Nonetheless, peer-reviewed literature describes the occurrence of pathogens within tuna farms and associated disease management measures. These conditions result in a Disease data score of 2.5 out of 10. Source of Stock: Farm stock for tuna aquaculture is well documented as being based on both hatchery and wild-caught sources in Japan. But the percentage of production that is hatchery-based is not officially tracked by the FA (MAFF) (i.e., the amount of seed produced is tracked, but not production figures, where survival is different) and scoring for this criterion is based on expert communications with Kindai University (the primary tuna breeding research institute in Japan). The Source of Stock data score for Japanese farmed bluefin tuna is 7.5 out of 10. Predators and Wildlife Interactions: Because of the absence of any regulatory requirement to monitor the impact of bluefin tuna farms on predators, little data are available regarding the

19

interactions between bluefin tuna farms and other wildlife species. Scoring for this criterion was largely based on observations of interactions between seals, sea lions, and sharks in Mexican and Australian bluefin tuna farms. The lack of predator interaction data for bluefin tuna farms in Japan results in a Predator and Wildlife Interaction data score of 2.5 out of 10. Data Criterion — Conclusions and Final Score Overall, data accessibility and availability regarding the environmental impacts of bluefin tuna farming is very low. Many scores are justified using proxy information from tuna farming in other geographic regions using similar production methods. The final score for the Data Criterion is 4.72 out of 10.

20

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.

Effluent Risk-Based Assessment Effluent parameters Value Score

F2.1a Biological waste (nitrogen) production per of fish (kg N ton-1) 410.76 F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 80 F2.1 Waste discharge score (0–10) 0 F2.2a Content of regulations (0–5) 2.5 F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0–5) 2.5 F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0–10) 2.5 C2 Effluent Final Score 0.00 CRITICAL Critical? YES

Brief Summary The Seafood Watch Effluent Criterion considers the impact of farm waste beyond the immediate farm area or outside a regulatory allowable zone of effect. Given the scarcity of information regarding effluent-related environmental impacts caused by bluefin tuna farming in Japan, a risk-based assessment method is applied in this report, using the amount of nitrogen-based waste discharged per ton of production combined with the regulatory effectiveness and enforcement structure in Japan. Based on an average protein content of feed (18.6%), feed conversion ratio (FCR) (15:1), and protein content of whole harvested bluefin (22.28%), the total nitrogen-based waste discharged is estimated to be 410.76 kg per ton of tuna production. In the absence of any mechanism to mitigate the discharge of waste from tuna net pens, approximately 80% of the waste (328.608 kg N per ton of production) leaves the farm boundary. Furthermore, an underdeveloped environmental monitoring system has been reported for aquaculture throughout Japan, where the majority of environmental authorities are not actively implementing environmental management measures unless farm sites have already developed noticeable environmental degradation. Given an

21

environmental management strategy that is based on maximizing carrying capacity for the aquaculture industry, a lack of robust measures for controlling discharged waste in the Japanese tuna farming industry has led to ongoing uncertainties concerning the extent of both site-specific and cumulative impacts. Overall, these conditions result in a Critical Criterion 2 - Effluent score of 0 out of 10 for the bluefin tuna farming industry in Japan. Justification of Ranking Organic waste is discharged from Pacific bluefin tuna farms in the form of fecal matter, uneaten feed, and other excretory waste that are released into the surrounding ocean environment in both dissolved and particulate form. The amount of waste generated by farmed Pacific bluefin depends on the feeding regime employed, the feed composition, length of the growout period, water temperature, stocking density, and age of the fish. Given the endothermic characteristics and exceptionally high metabolic rate of Pacific bluefin (Korsmeyer and Dewar, 2001) (Munday et al. 2003) (Conservation Working Group 2007) (Di Maio and Mladineo 2008), only a small fraction of feed inputs are retained for growth, and a large amount of effluent is typically released from tuna farms. Under research conditions, only 12.4% of the gross energy consumed by captive Pacific bluefin is directly applied to growth (Estess et al. 2014). Evidence in the literature indicates that a high proportion of the nutrients discharged from tuna net pens originates from the application of commercial feeds, but information specifically on the resulting environmental impact of bluefin tuna farms in Japan remains exceptionally scarce. Because the majority of net pen aquaculture in Japan is dedicated to the culture of well-established species such as Japanese amberjack (yellowtail), coho salmon, and red sea bream (Tsutsumi 2007), data on the environmental impacts of bluefin tuna farming are essentially absent (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Moreover, data from farmers are scarce and rearing conditions are generally kept confidential because of the commercial nature of the tuna farming industry (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Given the poor data availability for effluent-based environmental impacts, the Risk-Based Assessment method (as opposed to Evidence-Based) is employed in this Seafood Watch report. Factor 2.1a – Biological waste production per ton of farmed tuna For Factor 2.1a, the nitrogenous waste produced per ton of farmed tuna is used as a proxy indicator to measure the amount of waste discharged during a typical bluefin tuna production cycle. The data required to calculate this quantity includes the protein content of feed, eFCR, and the protein content of whole harvested bluefin (with protein made of 16% nitrogen). The specific combination of baitfish used to feed farmed bluefin varies, depending on their availability and cost of shipment. The six most commonly used baitfish species (chub mackerel, Japanese horse mackerel, Japanese sardine, Japanese anchovy, Japanese sand lance, and Californian sardine) are used to calculate an average protein content of feed (Masuma et al. 1991) (Norita 2002) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Masuma 2006) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (Kunio 2010) (Masuma 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous

22

2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). Based on yield values by FAO (Torry Research Station 1989) and Robards et al. (1999), the average protein content of these baitfish species is 18.6%. Over a farming season, eFCRs generally range from 10:1 to 20:1 (Sylvia 2007) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Kunio 2010) (Estess et al. 2014) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (Sawada 2016). Overall, an eFCR of 15:1 is considered representative of the industry in this assessment. An average protein content of 22.28% is applied to whole, harvested farmed Pacific bluefin based on the average protein content of farmed southern bluefin (23%) (Thunnus maccoyii) (Fernandes et al. 2007) and farmed northern bluefin (21.55%) (Thunnus thynnus) (Giménez-Casalduero and Sánchez-Jerez 2006). Based on these values, a calculated 410.76 kg of nitrogen-based waste is produced per ton of farmed Pacific bluefin. The discharge of this waste results in the loss of more than 85% of the nitrogen inputs from Japanese bluefin tuna farms. Factor 2.1b – Production system discharge Under the Seafood Watch criteria, the waste that is discharged by a production system is established using a basic score that can be adjusted by production/management techniques that reduce the discharge of nutrients. For bluefin tuna farms in Japan, all discharged effluent is released untreated from the net pens into the surrounding environment. Thus, the basic unadjusted production system discharge score for net pens is 0.8. This value indicates that 80% of the waste produced by farmed Pacific bluefin is considered to be directly discharged into the surrounding environment. Combining the scores from 2.1a and 2.1b produces a final Factor 2.1 score of 0 out of 10 for farmed Pacific bluefin from Japan. Factor 2.2a Content of effluent regulations and management measures Although the federal government is responsible for administering aquaculture management legislation in Japan, the environmental impacts of Pacific bluefin tuna farming are influenced by a variety of national and local organizations. Effluent legislation and regulatory management In Japan, there is strong involvement from prefectural and local authorities, and fisheries organizations in aquaculture management (De Young 2006). The Fisheries Law is the principal law regulating aquaculture activity in Japan (Abo et al. 2013). It establishes Sea Area Fisheries Adjustment Commissions and a Central Fisheries Adjustment Council to address matters of policy, implementation, and enforcement in each sea area, and to ensure the coordination of prefectural aquaculture development within the overall national framework. The focus of Japan’s regulatory framework is on the protection of aquaculture from other threats, such as sewage and industrial effluents, rather than managing the environmental impact from aquaculture (FAO 2009) (Abo et al. 2013).

23

The Basic Environmental Law requires the government to establish Environmental Quality Standards (EQS that are specific to aquaculture in local waterbodies) to maintain public water quality. The Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production is the first law in Japan to specifically target aquaculture, and it comprises two major parts: the Aquaculture Ground Improvement Programme (AGIP) and measures to prevent the spread of “specific diseases” (contagious disease stipulated under MAFF) (Takeda 2010) (Yokoyama 2010). Pursuant to this law, local Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs) are required to develop and implement AGIPs based on the Basic Guidelines to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (1999) issued by MAFF (FAO 2009) (Takeda 2010) (Yokoyama 2010). Using environmental assimilative capacity models, AGIPs may include various agreements on production, monitoring, sediment sampling, etc. AGIPs can be developed individually by a single FCA or jointly by multiple FCAs, and must be approved by the prefectural authorities (NASO-Japan 2006) (Telfer et al. 2009). In Japan, regulatory requirements for aquaculture include benthic community monitoring that is specific to finfish culture in net pens. Critical threshold values of biotic and abiotic parameters are based on studies in 2003 and 2007 (Yokoyama 2003) (Yokoyama et al. 2007) that examined the hydrographic characteristics (current velocity; depth and width of the surrounding water body) and benthic community characteristics (six macrofaunal indicator groups) beneath net pens (Price and Morris, 2013). These monitoring parameters are examined by both tuna farmers and local FCAs, and reported annually to prefectural authorities (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). Despite these established requirements, environmental monitoring is largely underdeveloped throughout Japan (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Although FCAs are obligated to perform monitoring and reporting requirements for the fish farms in their area (Telfer et al. 2009) (White et al. 2013), budgetary and capacity issues have made it difficult to enforce monitoring requirements (FAO 2009) and only a limited number of large-scale and well organized FCAs are conducting environmental monitoring efforts themselves. Although national EQS and benthic monitoring parameters are specific to aquaculture, effluent limits in Japan are not considered in this assessment to be set according to the ecological status of the receiving waterbodies. Furthermore, the presence of effluent monitoring measures for all stages of the tuna production cycle (e.g., peak biomass, harvest) cannot be verified. Therefore, scoring reflects a low level of confidence. Local carrying capacity and site-specific effluent management With its long-established marine farming industry, Japan has studied environmental capacity issues for some time (Price and Morris, 2013). To determine the upper limit of fish production for a local waterbody, the current approach has been to define environmental capacity in terms of the maximum rate of assimilation. This site-specific environmental management strategy is based on maximizing carrying capacity for the aquaculture industry, rather than defining environmental capacity in terms of breaching pre-farming baseline characteristics or a regionally agreed-upon environmental quality standard (White et al. 2013).

24

Regulating cumulative impacts There are established legal requirements for strategic environmental assessments (SEA) to evaluate cumulative impacts in Japan; nonetheless, there has been limited application of SEAs specifically for aquaculture (Telfer et al. 2009). Although assimilative capacity is used as a means of ecosystem-based aquaculture management under the Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (regulating the number of tuna farms by prefecture), there are no regulations requiring a minimum distance between tuna farm sites (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). Besides carrying capacity thresholds for local waterbodies, there are no laws in Japan that regulate cumulative impacts in the tuna farming industry, and a comprehensive monitoring system accounting for cumulative impacts has yet to be implemented in Japan (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). For Factor 2.2a, these regulatory conditions result in a score of 2.5 out of 5 for the bluefin tuna farming industry in Japan. Factor 2.2b – Enforcement of effluent regulations and management measures In Japan, the overall responsibility for aquaculture management is appointed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). Within MAFF, the Fisheries Agency (FA) is responsible for preserving and managing marine biological resources and aquaculture production activities. Despite the Fisheries Law that provides national legislation for aquaculture management, most regulations exist at the prefecture or local level of government. Environmental management of aquaculture is delegated and assigned to Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs: organizations of local, small-scale fishers). FCAs are responsible for the management of coastal aquaculture areas, with support from fishery research stations and oversight by the prefectural government. FCAs then become responsible for management and evaluation, including environmental assessment, monitoring, and putting in place appropriate local regulations, which in turn are authorized by prefectural governments. Fisheries rights, including those to practice aquaculture, are granted to FCAs by the prefecture’s governor (NASO-Japan 2006) (FAO 2009) (Abo et al. 2013) and last for 5 years (Inoue 2013). Environmental monitoring Despite the presence of established effluent regulations that are relevant to aquaculture, environmental monitoring is largely underdeveloped throughout Japan (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). FCAs are obligated to perform monitoring and reporting requirements for the fish farms in their area (Telfer et al. 2009) (White et al. 2013), but not all FCAs are capable of conducting environmental monitoring efforts, due to technical and resource limitations. In Japan, a considerable part of the budget, especially for coastal fisheries, is covered by prefectural governments, municipal offices, fisheries cooperatives, and the private sector (De Young 2006). Only a limited number of large-scale and well-organized FCAs are conducting environmental monitoring efforts themselves, and the majority of the FCAs rely on public authorities, such as the prefectural fisheries stations, to fulfill regulatory requirements and the guidelines. FCAs with budgetary and capacity issues find it difficult to enforce monitoring requirements (FAO 2009). Under these conditions, the majority of FCAs are not actively implementing environmental management measures unless a farm site has noticeable

25

environmental degradation or disease outbreaks (Telfer et al. 2009), and enforcement resources are not considered appropriate to the scale of Japan’s aquaculture industry. Compliance and penalties for infringements Under MAFF’s Basic Guidelines to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (1999), FCAs are instructed to conduct regular environmental monitoring as part of their AGIP. Although this system is based on voluntary activities (i.e., guidelines), in the event that an FCA does not comply with these basic recommendations, and aquaculture grounds within its jurisdiction deteriorate, the prefectural governor may recommend that the cooperative take necessary measures for improving aquaculture practices and reevaluate its AGIPs. If the FCA does not follow the recommendation, the prefectural governor may elect to have the environmental status of the FCA’s aquaculture area made public. Such cases have been extremely rare (no occurrences from 1999–2009) (FAO 2009). Overall, these regulatory enforcement conditions result in a final Factor 2.2b score of 2.5 out of 5. Combining Factor 2.2a and 2.2b results in an overall management effectiveness and regulatory enforcement score of 2.5 out of 10 for the bluefin tuna farming industry in Japan. Effluent Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score Currently, there is little publicly available data regarding the effluent-related environmental impacts produced by the Pacific bluefin tuna farming industry in Japan. Without direct evidence of impacts, a risk-based assessment is applied under these data-poor conditions, using the amount of nitrogen-based waste discharged per ton of production combined with the effectiveness of the current management structure. Based on an average protein content of feed (18.6%), economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) (15:1), and protein content of whole harvested bluefin (22.28%), the total nitrogen-based waste produced per ton of bluefin production is 410.8 kg. Approximately 80% of the waste generated by farmed bluefin (328.6 kg N) leaves the farm boundary. For bluefin tuna farmed in Japan, the significant amount of waste generated combined with their unmitigated release from net pens into the surrounding environment results in a discharge score of 0 out of 10. Regarding waste management, an underdeveloped environmental monitoring system has been reported for aquaculture throughout Japan. Despite the development of benthic community monitoring that is specific to net pen aquaculture, the majority of environmental authorities are not actively implementing environmental management measures unless farm sites have already developed noticeable environmental degradation. Given an environmental management strategy that is based on maximizing carrying capacity for the aquaculture industry, a lack of robust measures for controlling discharged waste in Japan’s tuna farming industry has led to ongoing uncertainties concerning the extent of both site-specific and cumulative impacts. Thus, the management effectiveness and regulatory enforcement score is 2.5 out of 10.

26

Overall, these conditions result in a Critical Criterion 2 - Effluent score of 0 out of 10 for the bluefin tuna farming industry in Japan.

27

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.

Habitat parameters Value Score F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 2.00 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 1.00 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 2.75 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 1.10 C3 Habitat Final Score 1.70 RED Critical? NO

Brief Summary In the Habitat criterion, proxy comparisons with bluefin tuna farms in Croatia are used to evaluate benthic impacts in the immediate vicinity of Japanese tuna farms. In Croatia, the absence of seasonal fallow periods and siting tuna farms in protected inshore locations has enabled the accumulation of excess nutrients and produced significant losses of functionality to the benthos. For Habitat Conversion and Function (Factor 3.1), the significant seafloor impacts in Croatia are also anticipated for tuna farms in Japan due to similar siting in protected, inshore locations, and results in a score of 2 out of 10. Furthermore, although regulations for critical habitat protection are established in Japan, poorly developed environmental management procedures and a lack of public transparency in regulatory management have contributed to varying levels of farm siting effectiveness at the prefectural (provincial) level. For Habitat and Farm Siting Management (Factor 3.2), the mixed level of implementation for habitat regulations and the strong potential for significant habitat impacts results in a score of 1.10 out of 10. When combined, these conditions result in a low overall Criterion 3 - Habitat score of 1.70 out of 10. Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function Intensive finfish culture generates a large amount of waste in the form of particulate organic matter, dissolved organic matter, and nutrients, which affect the benthic fauna beneath net pen farming facilities (Yokoyama 2010). Organic waste is discharged into the surrounding area,

28

resulting in chemical and biological changes to the benthic environment in and around the culture facilities (Abo et al. 2013). Because benthic impacts are highly influenced by a farm’s location and the hydrographic nature of the receiving water body, site selection is of critical importance to ensure the environmental sustainability of tuna farming (Ottolenghi 2008). The hydrodynamic regime (current speed, wave action) and geographic exposure (water depth, distance from shore) at bluefin tuna farms largely controls the dispersion and deposition of organic material (Axiak et al. 2002) (Aksu et al. 2010) (Grigorakis and Rigos 2011). Although data characterizing the environmental impacts of Japanese bluefin tuna farms are not available (see Data Criterion for further information), the environmental impact data for other juvenile bluefin tuna farming regions are more robust, and related farming characteristics are used in this assessment to evaluate Japanese tuna farms by proxy. Relevant tuna farming characteristics influencing waste production, such as stocking densities, feeding parameters, and production volumes, are included in the table below for Japan, Croatia, Mexico, and Australia. Although the majority of these tuna farming characteristics are quite similar between the four regions, Croatian tuna farming operations were most similar to those found in Japan in terms of rearing period and the use of juvenile bluefin.

In contrast to the minor benthic impacts observed in offshore tuna farms in Australia (Fernandes et al. 2007) (Kirchhoff et al. 2011) (Pecl et al. 2011) (Gaylard et al. 2013) (PIRSA 2013e), the siting of Croatian tuna farms in protected inshore locations within the coastal zone (Katavić and Tičina 2003) (Požar-Domac et al. 2004) (Požar-Domac et al. 2005) (Tičina et al. 2005) (Matijević et al. 2006) (Ottolenghi 2008) (Vrgoč 2013) has resulted in the accumulation of organic matter and produced major losses of functionality to the benthos.

JAPAN CROATIA MEXICO AUSTRALIA

Rearing period 1-4 years 1-3 years 4-9 months 4-8 months

Stocking density 2-3kg/m-3 1-2kg/m-3 4kg/m-3 2-4kg/m-3

Feeding schedule 6 days/wk 5-6 days/wk 6 days/wk 6-7 days/wk

Primary feedfish species

Chub mackerelHorse mackerel

Sardine Anchovy

Sand lance

Round sardinellaPilchardHerring

Chub mackerelHorse mackerel

SardineSardineRedbait

Protein-content of feed 18.60% 19.20% 18.67% 18.13%

Daily feed (% of biomass) 2-3% 3-8% 5-8% 1-15%

Juvenile tuna eFCR 15.0:1 12.5:1 15.0:1 12.5:1

Initial weight 2-5kg 8-10kg >12kg 15-20kg

Harvest weight 30-50kg 30-50kg 30-45kg 30-40kg

Annual production 10,000t 4,500t 3,500t 7,700tSee Supplemental Information for references.

Juvenile Bluefin Tuna Farming Characteristics by Region

29

In locations with shallow depths and slow currents, Croatian tuna farms have created a negative redox-potential in the sediments or have significantly reduced benthic flora (P. oceanica seagrass) in proximity to the net pens (even 5 years after the study site’s closure) (Požar-Domac et al. 2004) (Požar-Domac et al. 2005) (Matijević et al. 2006) (Matijević et al. 2007) (Vrgoč 2013) (Kružić et al. 2014). In addition to poor siting, the absence of seasonal fallow periods between production cycles (Miyake et al. 2003) (Mylonas et al. 2010) further contributes to the substantial biodeposition and resulting benthic impacts observed at Croatian tuna farms. Given that offshore bluefin tuna farming is still under development in Japan (Sawada 2016), tuna farms are currently sited among inshore locations within the coastal zone (typically 100–300 m from shore by one estimate (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015)), and the degree of benthic impact documented at Croatian tuna farms is considered to be representative of the likely impact at bluefin tuna farms in Japan. With more than double the production of Croatia (see table above) and no established fallowing requirements for marine finfish farming in Japan (Yamamoto and Hayase 2008) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2016), the potential for significant benthic impacts beneath Japanese tuna farms is high, given the current scale and ongoing growth of Japan’s tuna farming industry. Based on these farm-siting similarities between the two regions (including absence of seasonal fallow periods) and the strong potential for parallel (if not greater) impacts to the benthos, a low Habitat Conversion and Functionality score of 2 out of 10 is assigned to Pacific bluefin tuna farms in Japan. Factor 3.2. Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness Factor 3.2a: Regulatory or management effectiveness Under the Basic Guidelines to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (issued by MAFF in 1999), the Japan Fisheries Resources Conservation Association (JFRCA) has established an Organic Pollution Index with associated guidance material for the development of local environmental management plans. Thresholds in the Organic Pollution Index are further supplemented with a set of standards relating to water quality under the Basic Environmental Law (FAO, 2009). In Japan, acid volatile sulphides (AVS) are used as the key indicator for evaluating the environmental impact of aquaculture farms (Telfer et al. 2009) (Ishibashi 2010) (Abo et al. 2013). Indicators of the Basic Guideline include: water quality within net pens, sediment condition beneath net pens, and the occurrence of macrofauna under tuna farms (Telfer et al. 2009).

30

Environmental criteria for the Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (Source: Abo et al. 2013).

The organic pollution index is used to designate criteria under the Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production, where the total nutrient loading from individual farms is prohibited from exceeding specified amounts (see table above). Despite the presence of these guidelines, the majority of FCAs are not actively implementing environmental management measures unless farm sites have exhibited noticeable environmental degradation (Telfer et al. 2009). Site selection process Aquaculture planning is highly developed and zoning is well established in Japan (Abo et al., 2013) (White et al. 2013). Studies have been conducted to develop guidelines for siting fish farms, in which benthic quality standards were derived to classify potential fish farm sites as healthy, cautionary, or critical (Abo et al. 2013). In addition to these standard guidelines, potential new farm sites are screened by an ad hoc committee that includes members of local government, FCAs, academics, and other relevant bodies (FAO 2009). These “Fisheries Coordinating Committees” have strong authority in planning aquaculture operations at the prefectural level. Both hydrographic and benthic macrofaunal indicators are used to guide siting decisions (Price and Morris 2013). Critical habitat protection and restoration requirements Japan has a strong policy toward nature conservation, where critical habitats are avoided or restored due to several pieces of environmental legislation, including the Basic Act on Ocean Policy, the Fisheries Basic Act, the Fishery Act, the Act on the Protection of Fishery Resources, and the Law for the Promotion of Nature Restoration (ENV 2012). Under the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan, MAFF takes habitat biodiversity into consideration during the planning stage in aquaculture zone development. Despite these site selection processes, it is unclear how new farm sites are screened by ad hoc committees and if the site selection process robustly maintains ecosystem functionality. Furthermore, there are no regulations currently in place requiring a minimum distance between tuna farm sites (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a), there are no laws for regulating cumulative habitat impacts in the tuna farming industry, and a comprehensive monitoring system accounting for cumulative impacts has yet to be implemented in Japan (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a).

31

Environmental impact assessment Environmental management responsibilities are largely delegated and assigned to local FCAs under the Fisheries Law with support from fishery research stations and oversight by prefectural governments. Broadly speaking, the emphasis in Japan’s regulatory framework is on the protection of aquaculture from other threats, such as sewage and industrial effluents, rather than managing the environmental threats from aquaculture (FAO 2009) (Abo et al. 2013). Although there are legal provisions for environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Japan, environmental authorities do not apply EIA to aquaculture development; rather, they rely on a range of alternative environmental management procedures that are delegated and assigned to FCAs (FAO 2009) (Soto et al. 2013). In practice, no official EIAs have been conducted for aquaculture (Telfer et al. 2009) (Abo et al. 2013). Instead, FCAs conduct their own management and evaluation of aquaculture activities. Within this delegated prefectural framework, each FCA is responsible for establishing its own regulations regarding environmental assessment and monitoring for tuna farms (Telfer et al. 2009). Although several environmental studies have been conducted to monitor aquaculture environments to estimate the assimilative capacity of aquaculture grounds and to develop models for environmental assessments, these research projects have not been adapted to formal environmental assessment processes (Abo et al. 2013). Thus, there is currently no adequate legal framework requiring EIA processes for aquaculture, and even the Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production does not require an assessment of the environment before the commencement of aquaculture. Therefore, for most of the fish farm grounds in Japan, there have not been any environmental impact assessments conducted prior to the establishment of aquaculture, and the scope of the “environmental assessment” is focused on the monitoring of environmental parameters and evaluation of the assimilative capacity rather than pre-farm baseline data (Telfer et al. 2009) (Abo et al. 2013). In general, few studies have been made on the benthic recovery rates beneath fish farms in Japan (Abo et al. 2013). The score for Factor 3.2a is 1 out of 5. Factor 3.2b: Siting regulatory or management enforcement Environmental monitoring Nationally, the Fisheries Agency (FA-MAFF) is the primary aquaculture authority under the Fisheries Law, while local FCAs are responsible for granting aquaculture licenses, evaluating fish farm waste management (monitoring), and developing Aquaculture Ground Improvement Programs (AGIPs) under the Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production. Regulatory requirements for aquaculture include benthic community monitoring that is specific to finfish culture in net pens. Critical threshold values of biotic and abiotic parameters are based on studies in 2003 and 2007 (Yokoyama 2003) (Yokoyama et al. 2007), which examined the benthic community characteristics (six macrofaunal indicator groups) beneath net pens (Price and Morris, 2013). These monitoring parameters are examined by both tuna farmers and local Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs) and reported annually to prefectural authorities (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a).

32

Although FCAs are obligated to perform monitoring and reporting requirements for the fish farms in their area (Telfer et al. 2009) (White et al. 2013), not all FCAs are capable of conducting environmental monitoring efforts, due to technical and resource limitations. In Japan, FCAs with budgetary and capacity issues find it difficult to enforce monitoring requirements (FAO 2009). Thus, only a limited number of large-scale and well organized FCAs are conducting environmental monitoring efforts themselves, and the majority of the FCAs rely on public authorities, such as the prefectural fisheries stations, to fulfill regulatory requirements and the guidelines. Under these conditions, the majority of FCAs are not actively implementing environmental management measures unless a farm site has noticeable environmental degradation or disease outbreaks (Telfer et al. 2009), and enforcement resources are not considered appropriate to the scale of Japan’s aquaculture industry. Public participation and transparency In Japan, public participation is emphasized in environmental assessment legislation (delegated to FCAs) (Telfer et al. 2009), but the statuses of Aquaculture Ground Improvement Programs are not made public unless prefectural governors choose to release data as a result of noncompliance (Takeda 2010) (Yokoyama 2010). Compliance Under MAFF’s Basic Guidelines to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production (1999), FCAs are instructed to conduct regular environmental monitoring as part of their AGIP. This system is based on voluntary activities (i.e., guidelines), but in the event that an FCA does not comply with these basic recommendations and aquaculture grounds within its jurisdiction deteriorate, the prefectural governor may recommend that the cooperative take necessary measures for improving aquaculture practices and re-evaluate its AGIPs. If the FCA does not follow the recommendation, the prefectural governor may elect to have the environmental status of the FCA’s aquaculture area made public. Such cases have been extremely rare (no occurrences from 1999–2009) (FAO 2009). Overall, there is currently no adequate legal framework requiring EIA processes for aquaculture development, and fallowing requirements for marine fish farming have yet to be established in Japan. Furthermore, the majority of local environmental monitoring organizations are not actively implementing management measures, and the statuses of AGIPs are generally not made public. Although AGIP violations, including critical habitat protection, have been extremely rare, the emphasis in Japan’s regulatory framework is on the protection of aquaculture from other threats, rather than managing the environmental threats from aquaculture. Currently, no comprehensive monitoring system is in place to regulate the cumulative environmental impacts of the aquaculture industry in Japan. The score of Factor 3.2b is 2.75 out of 5 for enforcement. The combination of Factors 3.2a and 3.2b results in a final management score of 1.1 out of 10.

33

Habitat Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score The final score for the Habitat Criterion is a combination of the habitat conversion score (Factor 3.1) and the effectiveness of the regulatory system in managing potential cumulative impacts (Factor 3.2). The environmental impacts derived from the release of organic waste are highly influenced by a net pen farm’s location and the hydrographic nature of the receiving water body. Given the lack of information regarding the environmental impacts associated with bluefin tuna farms in Japan, the information for other juvenile bluefin tuna farming regions is used by proxy in this assessment to evaluate the habitat impacts of Japanese tuna farms. Japanese tuna farms were found to be most similar to tuna farms in Croatia, where protected inshore farm sites were responsible for major losses of functionality to the benthos. Based on the strong similarity in tuna farm siting between the two regions, the extent of benthic impacts in the immediate vicinity of Croatian tuna farms is considered representative of potential environmental impacts at bluefin tuna farms in Japan. Though critical habitat protection and the site selection process for aquaculture are well-established in Japan, the absence of EIA requirements for individual farm sites, poorly developed environmental monitoring requirements for cumulative impacts, and the lack of transparency in regulatory management have contributed to poor levels of prefectural farm siting effectiveness. Overall, when combined with the ongoing expansion of the tuna farming industry in Japan, these conditions result in a low Criterion 3 - Habitat score of 1.70 out of 10.

34

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

Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score 2.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 2.00 RED Critical? NO

Brief Summary Although chemicals have historically been absent in the Japanese tuna farming industry, praziquantel (an anti-parasitic blood fluke treatment) and oxytetracycline (an antibiotic) are now being utilized to treat farmed tuna in Japan. Research data indicate that praziquantel is nontoxic to the marine environment, but the ongoing use of oxytetracycline in open net pen farming systems lends to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Though certified fish-health specialists monitor chemical use on a routine basis, the chemical management regime for Japan’s aquaculture industry primarily focuses on food safety in farmed tuna products rather than related environmental impacts. Overall, the ongoing use of oxytetracycline (an antibiotic that is highly important for human medicine) in the Japanese tuna farming industry results in a high level of concern and a Criterion 4 - Chemical Use score of 2 out of 10. Justification of Ranking Pacific bluefin tuna is a species known to have a high tolerance to infectious diseases, due to a relatively robust immune system compared to other teleosts (Shirakashi et al. 2012). Although chemical therapeutants were generally absent early in the tuna farming industry’s history (Sawada et al. 2005), praziquantel and oxytetracycline are now being utilized to treat farmed tuna in Japan (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2016). On average, these chemicals are applied one or two times per production cycle (pers. comm., Anonymous 2016). Praziquantel is a schistosomicide used to treat juvenile tuna with blood fluke (Cardicola orientalis) infections in net pens. Notably, trials carried out at Japanese and Australian bluefin

35

tuna farms have suggested that praziquantel appears to be harmless to the marine environment (Ishimaru 2013) (FRDC 2014). Oxytetracycline is an antibiotic that is recognized by the World Health Organisation as a highly important chemical for human medicine (WHO, 2011). A major concern with the use of antibiotics is the development of resistant strains of bacteria, which can potentially alter the ecological structure of microbial communities in the surrounding waterbody. Because net pens represent an open production system that lends to the deposition and accumulation of chemicals into the receiving waterbody, the ongoing use of antibiotics that are highly important for human medicine warrants a high level of concern. Chemical Management Among Japan’s drug laws, aquaculture chemicals are regulated specifically under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and Feed Safety Law. Prefectural fish disease centers and extension services engage in the actual supervision of aquaculture chemicals. Fish health specialists, who are certified by the Japan Fisheries Resource Conservation Association (Wilder 2000), visit local fish farms to conduct health monitoring on a routine basis (FAO 2009) (Abo et al. 2013). But chemical management in the Japanese aquaculture industry primarily focuses on food safety in farmed tuna products rather than related environmental impacts. Chemical Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score Although chemicals were previously absent in the Japanese tuna farming industry, praziquantel and oxytetracycline are currently being used to treat farmed bluefin during grow out. Though studies indicate that the risk of environmental impact from praziquantel is low, an open production system lends to the deposition and accumulation of oxytetracycline in the receiving waterbody. Chemical use in Japanese tuna farming is routinely monitored by certified specialists, but the fact that management bodies focus more on commercial food safety rather than related environmental impacts warrants additional concern. Overall, the ongoing use of oxytetracycline (an antibiotic that is highly important for human medicine) in Japanese tuna farming results in a final Criterion 4 - Chemical Use score of 2 out of 10.

36

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.

Feed parameters Value Score F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 15.00 0.00 F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score –4.00 F5.1 Wild Fish Use 0.00 F5.2a Protein IN 279.00 F5.2b Protein OUT 22.28 F5.2 Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) –93.69 0 F5.3 Feed Footprint (hectares) 107.28 0 C5 Feed Final Score 0.00 CRITICAL Critical? YES

Brief Summary Although formulated pellet feeds are available in Japan, bluefin tuna farms rely almost entirely on the use of whole, wild baitfish for feed due to their lower feeding costs. Unlike almost all other aquaculture industries that are focused on growing their farmed stocks, the primary goal of Japanese tuna operations is to increase the tuna’s fat content for market desirability. Therefore, the feed conversion ratio is typically high. A reported economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) of 15:1 is considered representative for farmed Pacific bluefin. The exclusive use of whole feedfish means that the Fish In to Fish Out ratio (FIFO) is the same as the eFCR and produces a critically high FI:FO ratio and a Factor 5.1a score of 0 out of 10. In the wild, tuna also consume baitfish, but do so as part of a complex natural foodweb and ecosystem. The extraction of these two ecosystem components (i.e., the tuna and the baitfish) and their use as inputs in an artificial farming system does not enable them to provide the same ecosystem services. Although locally caught chub mackerel, horse mackerel, sand lance, anchovy, and sardine represent the most common feed ingredients in Japan, a variety of other baitfish species are also utilized as a minor portion of the feed composition. Therefore, a precautionary Source Fishery Sustainability score of –4 out of –10 was applied to Factor 5.1 (Wild Fish Use),

37

producing a final adjusted score that remained 0 out of 10. Furthermore, a net protein loss greater than 90% and the presence of a significant feed footprint (107.28 ha per ton of farmed fish) represent additional environmental concerns. Overall, the absence of by-products or non-edible processing ingredients as alternative sources of feed protein and the highly inefficient conversion of feed into harvestable fish result in a Critical Criterion 5 - Feed score of 0 out of 10. Justification of Ranking Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use This factor combines an estimate of the amount of wild fish used to produce farmed Pacific bluefin with the sustainability of the fisheries from which they are sourced. Factor 5.1a: Fish In to Fish Out ratio An economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) is used to measure the efficiency of farmed tuna at converting feed into harvestable fish. In the Feed Criterion, an eFCR is used to determine the industry’s reliance on wild feedfish, the net protein gain/loss in tuna production, and the ocean area appropriated for feed ingredients. Reflecting Pacific bluefin’s high metabolic rates and higher waste outputs (Korsmeyer and Dewar 2001) (Munday et al. 2003) (Conservation Working Group 2007) (Di Maio and Mladineo 2008), eFCRs for farmed Pacific bluefin are much larger than those of other cultured species (Volpe 2005) (Cardia and Lovatelli 2007). As a consequence of endothermy and constant swimming, only a small fraction (5%–12.4%) of the energy input is used for body growth (Korsmeyer and Dewars 2001) (Estess et al. 2014). The eFCR in farmed Pacific bluefin is strongly influenced by water temperature (Mourente and Tocher 2009), but also varies due to differences in rearing period (3–41 months), feedfish composition, and each farm’s feeding regime. Over a farming season, eFCRs generally range from 10:1 to 20:1 using baitfish (Sylvia 2007) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Kunio 2010) (Estess et al. 2014) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (Sawada 2016). An eFCR of 15:1 is considered representative of the industry in this assessment. Using Seafood Watch Criteria, the use of whole, wild baitfish as the primary feed input results in a FI:FO value equal to the eFCR for farmed tuna. A FI:FO value of 15 indicates that 15 tons of wild fish are required to supply sufficient feed for 1 ton of farmed tuna growth. The substantial amount of feed input required to produce harvestable farmed tuna results in a critical FI:FO factor score of 0 out of 10. Factor 5.1b: Source fishery sustainability Feedfish composition Young tuna are initially raised on Japanese sand lance (Ammodytes personatus) and Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus), then switched as they mature to chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), Japanese horse mackerel (Trachurus japonicus), and Japanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus), with variable quantities of Pacific saury (Cololabis saira), squid (Todarodes pacificus), mackerel scad (Decapterus tabl), cuttlefish (Sepia esculenta), cod, and other available baitfish species (Masuma et al. 1991) (Norita 2002) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Masuma 2006)

38

(Mourente and Tocher 2009) (Kunio 2010) (Masuma 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a) (Sawada 2016). During the last few months before harvest, farmers mostly feed mature tuna chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and bonito (Sarda spp.) to restore the redness in meat color of the fish (Inoue 2013). The specific combination of baitfish used by the tuna farming industry is based on price, in which farmers generally select the most inexpensive baitfish available at the time of purchase (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Though the majority of baitfish are sourced locally from Japanese waters, foreign fisheries (chub mackerel from China and sand lance from Europe) are also utilized when local sources are considered overpriced (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Therefore, the exact composition of feedfish is generally not known in most cases because of the commercial nature of the tuna farming industry. Although the baitfish species used by tuna farmers represent a normal dietary component of wild Pacific bluefin, the use of wild baitfish for farming is inherently extractive in nature. The sourcing of wild baitfish for farming both increases pressure on pelagic feedfish resources and creates additional impact on predators that exploit these baitfish as prey. Removal of both the tuna and these baitfish from the wild and concentrating them into tuna farms results in the loss of ecosystem services provided by both species throughout their native ranges. Local chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) in Japan is considered Not Overfished or Subject to Overfishing (4/4 points) by NOAA’s Fish Stock Sustainability Index (NOAA, 2014) and a “Species of Least Concern” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Collette et al. 2011). Japanese horse mackerel (Trachurus japonicus) represents one of the most important fisheries in Japan and has been managed by annual TAC limits since 1997 (Kanaji et al. 2009) (Nakamura and Hamano 2009). The annual catch has fluctuated over time and ranged from 100,000–300,000 MT over the last 30 years (Fisheries Agency and Fisheries Research Agency, 2006). According to the 2014 Annual Report of Fisheries Stock Assessment in Japan, both the Tsushima Warm Current and the Pacific Ocean Japanese horse mackerel stocks are considered to be at moderate resource levels compared to historical figures, and show a neutral population trend (FA and FRA 2014). Stock biomass estimates from the assessment conducted in 2004 have indicated that the Japanese sardine population (Sardinops melanostictus) has remained at a lower abundance level than during the 1980s (Nishida 2005). Despite poor recruitment and the implementation of total allowable catch (TAC) quotas in Japan, fishing mortality of Japanese sardines has increased considerably since the early 1990s due to strong commercial incentives (Yatsu et al. 2003). According to the 2014 Annual Report of Fisheries Stock Assessment in Japan, both the Tsushima Warm Current and Pacific Ocean Japanese sardine stocks are considered to be at moderate resource levels compared to historical figures, and currently show an increasing population trend (FA and FRA 2014).

39

In 2013, 206,000 MT of Japanese anchovy were harvested by Japan. Although the stock abundances of Japanese anchovy show dramatic fluctuations on a multidecadal time scale (Itoh et al. 2009), both the Tsushima Warm Current and Pacific Ocean stocks show a decreasing population trend (FA and FRA 2014). Compared to historical figures, the Tsushima Warm Current stock is at a moderate resource level, while the resource level of the Pacific Ocean stock is considered low (FA and FRA 2014). In 2014, 13,050 MT of Japanese sand lance were harvested in Japan. According to the 2014 Annual Report of Fisheries Stock Assessment in Japan, Japanese sand lance stocks are considered to be at moderate resource levels compared to historical figures, and show a neutral population trend (FA and FRA 2014). In addition to the five primary species listed above, baitfish of mixed origin are also fed to farmed Pacific bluefin (Norita 2002) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (Masuma 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Given the variety of baitfish species that are utilized as feed, the sustainability of every baitfish fishery contributing to the tuna farming industries in Japan cannot be assessed with any confidence, because the full list of species is indeterminate. In Seafood Watch criteria, these conditions result in a precautionary score of –4 out of –10 for source fishery sustainability. In Japan, wild-caught local baitfish species are the primary feed source for the tuna farming industry (Norita 2002) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). Currently, over 90% of farmed bluefin tuna in the country are fed baitfish (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Farmed bluefin tuna is purposefully fed a diet made of fish with high lipid content to increase its fat stores, making it more desirable to the Japanese sushi and sashimi markets (Zertuche-González et al. 2008). Feeding practices have been developed to simultaneously accommodate the tuna’s large appetite and minimize the labor required. According to the literature, growth rates for farmed Pacific bluefin in captivity can be significantly increased by consistent feeding of high quality baitfish in enclosed areas (Masuma 2008). In some cases, farmed Pacific bluefin achieved growth rates more than three times the growth observed in wild counterparts over the same time period (Deguara et al. 2011). As a result of this feeding strategy, pellet feeds are scarcely used in Japan’s bluefin tuna farming industry (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). The necessity to formulate and manufacture artificial diets has generally been avoided due to several other reasons, including a desire to use fish derived from local or other commercially available baitfish fisheries, high feed production costs, and an unenthusiastic Japanese market for tuna reared on pelleted food (Ottolenghi 2008) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). For the consumption of raw tuna meat, texture and taste are highly important and vary depending on the feed policy used by tuna farm operators. The development of commercially formulated feed pellets has been explored and investigated in Japan as a way to minimize reliance on wild baitfish, reduce eFCR, and increase farm tuna production, but a nutritionally balanced formulated diet has yet to be established due to the limited development of feed technology to date (i.e., ongoing rejection

40

of pellets from tuna) (Biswas et al. 2009b) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2016). Though research on blended feeds is ongoing (Ono 2010) (Kunio 2010) (Itoh 2013), a smaller part of the tuna farming industry currently uses damaged raw baitfish mixed with powdered artificial feeds. These blended feeds are formed into moist pellets and are used to reduce feed costs without switching to artificial feeds completely (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Wild Fish Use Score A sustainability penalty of –4 is applied to the FI:FO score and generates a final Wild Fish Use score that remained at 0 out of 10, indicating critical conservation concerns. Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss Aquaculture has the potential to be a net producer of protein, but when external feed is used in any significant quantity, there is typically a net loss of protein when feed is converted into farmed fish. A net protein value is quantified using an average protein content of feed, eFCR, the protein content of whole harvested tuna, and the edible yield of farmed Pacific bluefin. The specific combination of baitfish used to feed farmed bluefin varies, depending on availability and cost of shipment. The six most commonly used baitfish species (chub mackerel, Japanese horse mackerel, Japanese sardine, Japanese anchovy, Japanese sand lance, and Californian sardine) observed in the literature were used to calculate an average protein content of feed. Based on yield values by FAO (Torry Research Station 1989) and Robards et al. (1999), an average protein content of 18.6% is applied to baitfish feed. Because feed fish are fed whole and no byproducts are used as feed, all these species are considered to be “edible” protein sources. An average protein content of 22.28% is applied to whole harvested farmed tuna, based on the average protein content of farmed southern bluefin (23%) (Thunnus maccoyii) (Fernandes et al. 2007) and farmed northern bluefin tuna (21.55%) (Thunnus thynnus) (Giménez-Casalduero and Sánchez-Jerez 2006). It is considered that Pacific bluefin tuna has an edible yield of 58% (Torry Research Station 1989), and it is assumed that 50% of the inedible by-products from harvested bluefin are used in other food production processes. For farmed tuna, the primary reliance on external feedfish inputs results in a calculated 93.7% loss in edible protein (i.e., for human consumption), and a critical factor score of 0 out of 10. Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint This factor is an approximate measure of the global resources used to produce feed based on the area used to produce the ingredients. The resources used to obtain feedfish for tuna farming are substantial, and a large amount of ocean area is required to produce the feed necessary to grow each farmed fish. When whole fish are used as feed, the inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients is equal to the total fishmeal and fish oil available in the feed (27.5%). Using an eFCR of 15, a carbon-feed

41

conversion of 69.7 MT C per ton of feed, and a carbon-ocean-area conversion of 2.68 MT C per hectare, a calculated 107.28 ha of ocean area is required to supply the amount of feed ingredients necessary to produce one ton of farmed tuna. This feed footprint is considered very high and results in a factor score of 0 out of 10. Feed Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score The final Feed score combines the three factors with a double weighting on the FI:FO score. On average, 15 tons of wild fish are used to produce 1 ton of farmed bluefin tuna in Japan. The consequence of this process is a net protein deficit, where over 90% of protein inputs are lost to the environment. The inefficiency of Pacific bluefin tuna feed is compounded by the significant ocean area appropriated for feed ingredients, because the industry relies almost completely on using wild baitfish for feed. Overall, even though bluefin tuna farming in theory mimics the natural predator-prey relationship found in the wild, the highly extractive nature of bluefin tuna farming in Japan results in a critical Feed Criterion score of 0 out of 10.

42

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.

Escape parameters Value Score F6.1 Escape Risk 2.00 F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0 F6.1b Invasiveness 10 C6 Escape Final Score 10.00 GREEN Critical? NO

Brief Summary For net pen aquaculture systems, there is an inherent high risk of escape from catastrophic losses or more chronic “leakage.” But the bulk of the farmed bluefin production from Japan (≈97%) is based on catching wild tuna to be on-grown as captive farm stock, and the risk of ecological (i.e., competitive and/or genetic) impact from escaped tuna on other wild species or wild counterparts is considered to be negligible. Thus, the final Criterion 6 - Escape score is 10 out of 10. Justification of Ranking The Escapes Criterion combines the risk of escape with the potential for ecological impact of the escapees. The capture-based nature of bluefin farming in Japan creates an inevitably low concern for ecological impact. Factor 6.1a. Escape risk Fish escapes from farming sites are an inevitable occurrence, resulting from human errors during routine handling, mechanical failures, damages caused by adverse weather conditions, or aquatic predators such as seals and dolphins tearing the nets (Grigorakis and Rigos 2011). In Pacific bluefin tuna farming, operational “leakage” losses are associated with tuna escapes during initial capture, fish transfer between purse seines and transport cages, and during net-herding maneuvers at harvest. But large-scale “event” escapes are typically caused by storms, vandalism, marine mammals, or human error. Because storm damage is one of the greatest

43

causes of escapes for farmed bluefin tuna, submersible net pens have been developed in Japan to withstand rough offshore conditions (Tunafarming.net 2015). Robust data on escapes are rare due to the difficulty in counting live fish. Without robust escape statistics, the magnitude of current escapes is unknown, and information on both low-level leakage and large event escapes is poor for Japanese Pacific bluefin tuna farming. Regardless of the absence of escape statistics, the relatively large biomass held in any one net pen and the risk of escape inherent in open-ocean net pen farming suggests that the ongoing potential for escapes continues to be high. Despite improvements in the design and construction of net pens, the risk of escape from catastrophic losses or chronic leakages remains, and no escapes reporting data are available to demonstrate an effective mitigation of that risk. The initial numerical Escape Risk factor is scored 2 out of 10. Recapture and Mortalities With no specific recapture data available for Japan, no Recapture and Mortality adjustment was applied to the Escape Risk score (and will not affect the score for this criterion due to the wild-caught nature of the stocked bluefin). Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness Although the escape of hatchery-raised tuna into the surrounding environment could result in competitive and/or genetic impacts to wild conspecifics (i.e., same species) or heterospecifics (i.e., opposite sex), hatchery production currently accounts for a very small amount of farmed tuna in Japan (≈3%) (pers. comm., Kindai University 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous, 2016). Given that the remaining 97% of the farmed tuna production from Japan is based on using wild-caught tuna for on-growing as captive farm stock, the assessment of their post-scape impact is scored based on the potential escape of wild-caught tuna. Because farm stock consists almost entirely of wild individuals that are native to Japanese waters, any significant impact of escaped bluefin tuna on other wild species, including wild counterparts, is low. Although the potential exists for ecological impact from reintroducing these farmed tuna into their native habitat (potential pathogen amplification and dispersal is addressed in C7 Disease), this Invasiveness factor (6.1b) is specific to the primary species being farmed. Given that the majority of farmed tuna are the product of capture-based aquaculture and that captive tuna are native to Japan, the majority of escapees would pose no additional risk of direct, ecological (i.e., competitive and/or genetic) impacts upon their reintroduction. Consequently, the overall Invasiveness score for farmed southern bluefin tuna in Japan is 10 out of 10. Escape Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score Given that ≈97% of the farmed tuna production from Japan is based on catching wild tuna for on-growing as captive farm stock, the Escape Criterion is scored based on the potential escape

44

of wild-caught tuna. Invasive impacts are considered low for tuna that escape back into their original environment. The final score for the Escape Criterion is 10 out of 10.

45

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 water body 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.

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 6.00 C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO Brief Summary There is currently no clear evidence that pathogens or parasites within bluefin tuna farms cause significant population declines in wild tuna stocks or other wild species. But the prevalence of pathogens within farm sites, the open nature of tuna net pens, and the overlap between farm sites, migratory feeding routes, and spawning grounds in the western Pacific warrant some concern for potential disease transfer between farmed and wild fish. Because specific data are limited, these conditions result (on a precautionary basis) in a moderate Criterion 7 - Disease score of 6 out of 10. Justification of Ranking The open nature of net pens means that farm fish are constantly exposed to ubiquitous pathogens from the surrounding waterbody, from wild fish, or from other captive individuals. As a result, tuna farms can act as a temporary reservoir for a variety of pathogens and parasites that have the potential to affect other wild species in the region. In Japan, diseases in wild bluefin are caused by a variety of pathogens, including parasites, viruses, and bacteria (Munday et al. 2003) (Di Maio and Mladineo 2008) (Meng et al. 2011) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). Although pathogens occur at very low levels in the wild, an increase in the intensity and prevalence of infection for some of these pathogens has been observed in farmed Pacific bluefin (Munday et al. 2003). For example, an industry expert indicates that there has recently been a mass mortality due to an outbreak of iridovirus infections (pers. comm., Anonymous 2016). Pacific bluefin is host to a diverse parasite community (Di Maio and Mladineo 2008). Parasites spanning several phyla, including Acanthocephala, Ciliophora, Microspora, Myxozoa, Nematoda, and Platyhelminthes, have been identified in farmed Pacific bluefin (Miyashita and Kumai 2002) (Munday et al. 2003) (Di Maio and Mladineo 2008) (Zhang et al. 2010) (Meng et al.

46

2011) (Shirakashi et al. 2012) (SAGARPA 2013). Among these parasites, blood flukes achieve the highest prevalence and abundance and are considered a threat to the tuna farming industry (Colquitt et al. 2001) (Munday et al. 2003) (Mladineo and Tudor 2004) (Nowak 2004) (Di Maio and Mladineo 2008) (Ogawa et al. 2010) (Ogawa et al. 2011) (Shirakashi et al. 2012). Despite the strong prevalence and diversity of pathogens linked to tuna farming, the large number of infectious species typically do not cause intensive disease proliferation (Sawada 2005) (Sawada 2016). Even when subjected to trauma and other factors likely to predispose them to infection, bluefin is recognized as having a relatively high tolerance to pathogens and is a species known to be resistant to disease (Munday et al. 2003) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Shirakashi et al. 2012). Except for RSIV outbreaks in yearling tuna (which has no available treatment), disease proliferation has been relatively uncommon in Pacific bluefin aquaculture (Masuma et al. 2011; Meng et al. 2011). Introduced Pathogens Although the presence of introduced species has yet to be reported in the history of commercial bluefin tuna farming in Japan (approximately 25 years), the use of imported baitfish represents a risk of propagating pathogenic microorganisms and a potential for infecting susceptible native baitfish and tuna populations (Mourente and Tocher 2009). The sourcing of feedfish by the tuna industry is primarily based on local baitfish species (Norita 2002) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a), but tuna farmers are known to import baitfish from China and Europe if competitive pricing is available (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). The globalized sourcing of feedfish for bluefin tuna farming potentially enables pathogenic microorganisms to enter Japan and subsequently propagate diseases, and susceptible wild fish populations could suffer mortalities (Raynard et al. 2007). Of particular concern is the spread of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (harbored in herrings) to other susceptible naive baitfish populations, and digenean trematodes that use baitfish as an intermediate host prior to infecting tuna (Mladineo et al. 2008) (Mladineo and Bočina 2009). In addition, the dissemination of a virus (via tuna feces, seagulls, or uneaten baitfish) into a foreign environment represents a serious threat to species with a naive immune response (Mladineo et al. 2008). A well-known example of this occurred in Australian southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) farms in 1995 and 1998, in which a previously unknown pilchard herpes virus was propagated by exotic baitfish feed, resulting in two mass mortality events that caused the native Australian pilchard spawning biomass to fall by 75% and 70%, respectively, though it has since recovered (Ward et al. 2007) (WWF 2005). Disease management Disease management for aquaculture is implemented by MAFF. Under the Law to Ensure Sustainable Aquaculture Production, measures are prescribed to prevent the domestic spread of major diseases (Abo et al. 2013), and prefectural governors enforce restrictions on the movement of cultured organisms in which specific diseases are known to occur. Onsite

47

inspections by prefectural “fish disease prevention specialists” are mandated under the same law (Takeda 2010). When a disease of a cultured aquatic animal occurs in an aquaculture farm, the farmer is required to notify the prefectural fisheries research institute of the disease occurrence. The disease is diagnosed by a fish disease specialist and the farmer is given advice on the treatment of the disease. Furthermore, “aquacultural extension workers” of the local government visit local fish farms to conduct health monitoring on a routine basis (FAO 2009) (Abo et al. 2013). Currently, no vaccines are used in the tuna farming industry in Japan (Tunafarming.net 2015). Impact of farmed tuna pathogens on wild species There is no evidence that on-farm pathogens have been transmitted to and affected wild fish, and there is no peer-reviewed literature on disease interactions between farmed and wild bluefin tuna in Japan. But the prevalence and diversity of pathogens within farm sites, the open nature of tuna net pens, and the overlap between farm sites with migratory feeding routes and spawning grounds in the western Pacific justifies concern for potentially significant disease transfer between farmed tuna and wild species. Given the current growth of the Japanese tuna farming industry, the transfer of disease from farmed bluefin to wild stocks is considered an ongoing concern under Seafood Watch criteria. Disease Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score Overall, there is currently no evidence that pathogens or parasites within Japanese bluefin tuna farms have been transmitted to wild counterparts, but few studies have actively investigated the matter. Despite the lack of disease in bluefin tuna farms in Japan, the open nature of net pens and the prevalence of pathogens in farmed tuna warrant some concern for potential disease transfer between farmed and wild species. Furthermore, consideration of the geographical overlap between the tuna farming industry, migratory feeding routes, and spawning grounds in the western Pacific also represent additional areas of concern for potential disease impacts. The data, although somewhat limited, show low, temporary, or infrequent occurrences of on-farm infections or mortalities. Therefore, the final score for the Criterion 7 - Disease is 6 out of 10 and reflects the ongoing concern associated with the potential for amplified pathogen transmission through open-exchange net pens.

48

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, use minimal numbers, or source them from demonstrably sustainable fisheries.

Source of stock parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock, natural (passive) settlement, or sourced from sustainable fisheries

10

C8 Source of stock Final Score 0.00 RED Brief Summary An estimated 97% of farmed tuna production in Japan is currently sourced from historically overfished wild tuna stocks considered to be “Vulnerable” by the IUCN. These conditions result in a low Criterion 8 - Source of Stock score of 0 out of 10. Justification of Ranking Historically, Pacific bluefin farms in Japan have relied entirely on catching wild tuna, transporting them into net pens, and rearing them as farm stock (Yamamoto 2012). The extractive nature of Pacific bluefin farming is compounded by the high catches of juveniles, which are prevented from spawning and contributing to wild stocks (Blinch et al. 2011). Currently, an estimated 93% of Pacific bluefin caught in the western Pacific for captive on-growing are below the size (60–100 cm) and age (< 3 years old) of maturity (Itoh 2001) (IATTC 2010) (IATTC 2014). These recent rates of fish removal (for stocking in net pens) are considered to be well over sustainable levels (ISC 2008), indicating that Pacific bluefin has been overfished for decades (Ichinokawa et al. 2010). As an inherent part of capture-based aquaculture, Pacific bluefin farming practices clearly overlap with the wild fisheries sector, and access to farm stock is heavily influenced by fisheries regulations and management. Declining wild stocks Since the 1950s, catches of Pacific bluefin tuna have fluctuated substantially over time and by gear type, with an overall negative trend (Collette et al. 2014). The maximum historical catch occurred in 1956 with 39,824 MT, and the lowest historical catch occurred in 1990 with 8,588 MT. During the last 10 years, the average catch has been 21,250 MT, with most of the catch (80%) occurring in the western Pacific. Since the 1950s, the catches have been predominantly made of juveniles, but since the 1990s, the catch of age-0 fish (yearling) has increased

49

significantly due to overfishing (Tzoumas 2009) (ISC 2014). Overall, more than 70% of the global Pacific bluefin tuna catch was harvested by Japan alone (MAFF 2010). Despite some inconsistencies in catch data, a large number of stock status analyses have all produced the same conclusion: the Pacific bluefin stock is highly depleted and is currently experiencing overfishing (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (ISC 2014) (Maunder et al. 2014) (NOAA 2014). The global Pacific bluefin stock is at very low levels, and the spawning population (mostly made of a single cohort) has been declining for more than a decade (NOAA 2014). It is estimated that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2012 was approximately 4% of the stock’s original unfished SSB levels (< 10,000 MT) (Collette et al. 2014) (Maunder et al. 2014). As a result of decades of overfishing, Pacific bluefin was listed as “Overfished” by NOAA in 2013 and “Vulnerable” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2014, based on the species’ population decline between 19% and 33% over the past 22 years (three generations) (Collette et al. 2014) (NOAA 2014). Although no target or limit reference points have been officially adopted (Collette et al. 2014), relevant regional fisheries management organizations have instituted catch limits in response to the dramatic decline in the Pacific bluefin tuna stock. In the western and central Pacific, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has adopted the Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2013-09 for the conservation and management of Pacific bluefin tuna. In general, the CMM states that fishing effort for Pacific bluefin shall stay below 2002–2004 levels, and that catches of juveniles (ages 0–3; < 30 kg) shall be reduced by 50% (Collette et al. 2014). Even with current WCPFC management and conservation measures, it is unlikely that the status of the stock will improve if low recruitment continues. Therefore, more effective management measures to reduce fishing mortality and increase SSB are needed (Collette et al. 2014) (Maunder et al. 2014). In addition to the protection of spawning adults, substantial, immediate cuts in fishing mortality of juveniles are needed to ensure the viability of Pacific bluefin tuna, at least until reductions in fishing mortality of juveniles allow for incorporation of new spawners (Maunder et al. 2014) (ISC 2014). Pacific bluefin hatchery production Japan is currently the only country capable of producing commercial quantities of Pacific bluefin through hatchery production (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). The production of hatchery stock has increased dramatically since the successful breeding of fully farm-raised Pacific bluefin tuna (i.e., second generation) by Kindai University in 2002. In 2010, the trading house Toyota Tsusho and Kindai University formed the first technological partnership to commercialize Pacific bluefin seed production (Asahi Shimbun 2014). According to Kindai University (pers. comm., 2015) and Anonymous (2016), 3% of the farmed tuna production in Japan is currently being sourced from hatcheries, but major companies have recently begun focusing on increasing hatchery production in response to recent catch regulations and the decreasing availability of wild yearling tuna. In 2015, an estimated 110,000 bluefin fingerlings were commercially distributed from hatcheries in Japan (Sawada 2016).

50

Source of Stock Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score The Japanese bluefin tuna farming industry is considered to be 97% reliant on populations of wild bluefin tuna (a species considered “Vulnerable” by the IUCN) for its supply of fish. The ongoing removal of threatened fish is extractive in nature and considered to be a significant loss of ecosystem services. Furthermore, over 90% of the catch is made of juveniles that have not reached sexual maturity and are prevented from spawning and contributing to wild stock recruitment. These conditions result in a low Criterion 8 - Source of Stock score of 0 out of 10.

51

Criterion 9X: 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” criterion 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.

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score C9X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score –6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO Brief Summary In Japan, near-threatened blacktip reef sharks have been observed interacting with Pacific bluefin tuna farms and are either killed intentionally or released from net pens. Although national legislation is established for marine mammals and protected species, robust data on the tuna farming industry’s impact on local wildlife are absent. The lack of data on wildlife interactions with Pacific bluefin tuna farms results in a precautionary approach to scoring this criterion. The final score for Criterion 9X - Wildlife Mortalities is –6 out of –10. Justification of Ranking In Japan, data on the interaction of marine mammals with Pacific bluefin tuna farms are absent. But anecdotal information indicates that, though seals and sea lions are not perceived as a threat to tuna farming operations, blacktip reef sharks (Carcharhinus melanopterus) have occasionally broken into tuna net pens to feed on dead or dying bluefin (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a). According to Anonymous (pers. comm., 2015a), these sharks are either killed intentionally or released from net pens. Globally, blacktip reef shark is categorized as a “Near-Threatened” species by the IUCN (Heupel 2009). Wildlife management Although Japan has a number of laws (Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law and the Law for Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) in place to conserve protected marine mammals and threatened species, there is currently no reporting requirement in place for bluefin tuna farms in Japan (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015). Given the frequent interactions observed between seals, sea lions, dolphins, and sharks in Mexican tuna farms (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) and Australian tuna farms (Kemper and Gibbs 2001) (Tanner 2007) (National Seal Strategy Group and Stewardson 2007) (Goldsworthy et al. 2009), ongoing concern regarding the impact of bluefin tuna farms on other wildlife species in Japan is warranted.

52

Wildlife and Predator Mortalities Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score Overall, exceptionally little information exists regarding the impact of Japanese Pacific bluefin tuna farms on blacktip reef shark or other wildlife species, because of a lack of regulatory monitoring requirements. The absence of data for farm-related mortalities results in a precautionary approach to this exceptional criterion, given the interactions documented in other bluefin tuna farming regions. Note that this is an “exceptional” criterion and the scoring range is from 0 (no concern) to –10 (very high concern). The final score for this exceptional criterion is therefore –6 out of –10.

53

Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principal 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.

Brief Summary In Japanese bluefin tuna farming, wild stocks are captured and transported to net pens within the same waterbody, so the unintentional introduction of non-native species does not occur. Generally, there is risk associated with open exchange net pens, but the exclusive use of native tuna (0% reliance on international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments) results in a Criterion 10X - Escape of unintentionally introduced species final score of 0 out of –10. Justification of Ranking In Japan, bluefin tuna farming is an aquaculture practice that both utilizes and produces a fish species that is native to the region. Thus, the unintentional introduction of non-native species cannot occur. Factor 10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments Pacific bluefin tuna grown in Japanese net pens are either wild stocks (97%) native to the region or the first generation offspring (3%). None of the industry is reliant on international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments, resulting in a Factor 10Xa score of 10 out of 10. With no international or trans-waterbody animal movements, Factor 10Xb is not applicable. Escape of Introduced Species Criterion—Conclusions and Final Score In Japan, Pacific bluefin tuna farming relies on wild stocks that are native to the region or hatchery-raised, domestically produced fish. Therefore, the unintentional introduction of non-native species does not occur, and the final score is 0 out of –10 for Criterion 10X – Escape of unintentionally introduced species.

Score10.002.000.00 GREEN

F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destinationC10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parametersF10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%)

54

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 4.72 YELLOW C2 Effluent 0.00 CRITICAL YES C3 Habitat 1.70 RED NO C4 Chemicals 2.00 RED NO C5 Feed 0.00 CRITICAL YES C6 Escapes 10.00 GREEN NO C7 Disease 6.00 YELLOW NO C8 Source 0.00 RED C9X Wildlife mortalities –6.00 YELLOW NO C10X Introduced species escape –3.00 GREEN Total 15.97 Final score 2.00

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 2.00 Initial rank RED Red criteria 5 Interim rank RED FINAL RANK

Critical Criteria? YES RED

55

Supplemental Information

Rearing period (1) (Lioka et al. 2000) (Miyake et al. 2003) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Tada and Harada 2009) (Kusano 2010)

(Ono 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Meng et al. 2011) (Shirakashi et al. 2012) (Hata et al. 2013) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015a)

(2) (Miyake et al. 2003) (Ottolenghi 2008) (Mylonas et al. 2010) (3) (Sylvia et al. 2003) (Dalton 2004) (NASO-Mexico 2005) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Díaz-

Castañeda and Valenzuela-Solano 2009) (SAGARPA 2013) (4) (Nowak et al. 2003) (Clean Seas Tuna 2005) (Aiken et al. 2006) (Cardia and Lovatelli 2007) (Díaz

López and Bernal Shirai 2007) (Fernandes et al. 2007) (Tanner 2007) (Clarke and Ham 2008) (Kirchhoff et al. 2011) (Kirchhoff et al. 2011b) (Pecl et al. 2011) (Leef et al. 2012) (PIRSA 2013) _ pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015)

Stocking density (1) (Masuma et al. 2011) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (2) (Mylonas et al. 2010) (3) (Sylvia et al. 2003) (NASO-Mexico 2005) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Díaz-Castañeda and

Valenzuela-Solano 2009) (SAGARPA 2013) (4) (Nowak et al. 2003) (Tanner 2007) (Clarke and Ham 2008) Feeding schedule (1) (Masuma et al. 1991) (Masuma 2006) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (Masuma et al. 2011) (2) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (3) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Díaz-Castañeda and Valenzuela-Solano 2009) (SAGARPA 2013) (4) (Ottolenghi et al. 2004) (Tanner 2007) (Cardia and Lovatelli 2007) (Clarke and Ham 2008) (Thomas

2010)

JAPAN CROATIA MEXICO AUSTRALIA

Rearing period 1-4 years (1) 1-3 years (2) 4-9 months (3) 4-8 months (4)

Stocking density 2-3kg/m-3 (1) 1-2kg/m-3 (2) 4kg/m-3 (3) 2-4kg/m-3 (4)

Feeding schedule 6 days/wk (1) 5-6 days/wk (2) 6 days/wk (3) 6-7 days/wk (4)

Primary feedfish species

Chub mackerel (1)Horse mackerel

Sardine Anchovy

Sand lance

Round sardinella (2)PilchardHerring

Chub mackerelHorse mackerel

Sardine (3)Sardine (4)

Redbait

Protein-content of feed 18.6% (1) 19.2% (2) 18.67% (3) 18.13% (4)

Daily feed (% of biomass) 2-3% (1) 3-8% (2) 5-8% (3) 1-15% (4)

Juvenile tuna eFCR 15.0:1 (1) 12.5:1 (2) 15.0:1 (3) 12.5:1 (4)

Initial weight 2-5kg (1) 8-10kg (2) >12kg (3) 15-20kg (4)

Harvest weight 30-50kg (1) 30-50kg (2) 30-45kg (3) 30-40kg (4)

Annual production 10,000t (1) 4,500t (2) 3,500t (3) 7,700t (4)

Juvenile Bluefin Tuna Farming Characteristics by Region

56

Primary feedfish species (1) (Masuma et al. 1991) (Norita 2002) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Masuma 2006) (Mourente and Tocher

2009) (Kunio 2010) (Masuma 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015)

(2) (GFCM 2005) (Ottolenghi 2008) (3) (Sylvia et al. 2003) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (SAGARPA 2013) (4) (Nowak et al. 2003) (Ottolenghi 2004) (Cardia and Lovatelli 2007) (Fernandes et al. 2007) (Tanner

2007) (Padula et al. 2008) (Clarke and Ham 2008) (Tanner and Volkman 2009) (pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015)

Protein-content of feed (1) (Torry Research Station 1989) (Robards et al. 1999) (2) (Torry Research Station 1989) (3) (Torry Research Station 1989) (Barnveld et al. 2003) (4) (Torry Research Station 1989) Daily feed (% of biomass) (1) (Masuma et al. 1991) (Masuma 2006) (Mourente and Tocher 2009) (Masuma et al. 2011) (2) (Katavić, 2005) (3) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Díaz-Castañeda and Valenzuela-Solano 2009) (SAGARPA 2013) (4) (Fernandes et al. 2007b) Juvenile tuna FCR (1) (Ikeda 2003) (Kunio 2010) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (Sawada 2016) (2) (Aguado-Giménez and García-García 2005) (Ottolenghi 2008) (Mylonas et al. 2010) (3) (Sylvia 2007) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Estess et al. 2014) (4) (Ottolenghi et al. 2004) (Cardia and Lovatelli 2007) (Fernandes et al. 2007) (pers. comm., ASBTIA

2015) Initial weight (1) (Lioka et al. 2000) (Miyake et al. 2003) (Sawada et al. 2005) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Tada

and Harada 2009) (Kusano 2010) (Ono 2010) (Masuma et al. 2011) (Meng et al. 2011) (Shirakashi et al. 2012) (Hata et al. 2013) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015)

(2) (Glamuzina 2010) (Croatian Aquaculture 2011) (3) (Carta Nacional Pesquera 2012) (4) (Nowak et al. 2003) (Clean Seas Tuna 2005) (Aiken et al. 2006) (Cardia and Lovatelli 2007) (Díaz

López and Bernal Shirai 2007) (Fernandes et al. 2007) (Tanner 2007) (Clarke and Ham 2008) (Kirchhoff et al. 2011) (Kirchhoff et al. 2011b) (Pecl et al. 2011) (Leef et al. 2012) (PIRSA 2013) (pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015)

Harvest weight (1) (Deguara et al. 2011) (Tunafarming.net 2015) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (2) (Ticina et al. 2007) (3) (Sylvia et al. 2003) (Dalton 2004) (NASO-Mexico 2005) (Zertuche-González et al. 2008) (Díaz-

Castañeda and Valenzuela-Solano 2009) (SAGARPA 2013)

57

(4) (Nowak et al. 2003) (Clean Seas Tuna 2005) (Aiken et al. 2006) (Cardia and Lovatelli 2007) (Díaz López and Bernal Shirai 2007) (Fernandes et al. 2007) (Tanner 2007) (Clarke and Ham 2008) (Kirchhoff et al. 2011) (Kirchhoff et al. 2011b) (Pecl et al. 2011) (Leef et al. 2012) (PIRSA 2013) (pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015)

Annual production (1) (Tada and Harada 2009) (Itoh 2013) (pers. comm., Anonymous 2015) (2) (Glamuzina 2010) (Croatian Aquaculture 2011) (3) (CONAPESCA 2013) (4) (pers. comm., ASBTIA 2015)

58

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 three anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

59

References Abo, K., Burgetz, I. and Dumbauld, B. (Eds.) 2013. Report of Working Group 24 on

Environmental Interactions of Marine Aquaculture. PICES Sci. Rep. No. 44, 122 pp. FA and FRA. 2014. Annual report of fisheries stock assessment in Japan. Fisheries Agency and

Fisheries Research Agency. Government of Japan. From: http://abchan.job.affrc.go.jp/digests26/index.html

Agawa, Y., Honryo, T., Kurata, M., Okada, T., and Sawada, Y. (2009). Introduction of selective breeding of Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis and its molecular biological approaches. Proceedings of the 2nd Global COE Program Symposium of Kinki University, “Sustainable Aquaculture of the Bluefin and Yellowfin Tuna - Closing the Life Cycle for Commercial Production.” Kinki University Global COE Program. p8-11.

Aguado-Giménez, F., & García-García, B. (2005). Changes in some morphometric relationships in Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus thynnus Linnaeus, 1758) as a result of fattening process. Aquaculture, 249(1), 303-309.

Aiken, H. M., Hayward, C. J., & Nowak, B. F. (2006). An epizootic and its decline of a blood fluke, Cardicola forsteri, in farmed southern bluefin tuna, Thunnus maccoyii. Aquaculture, 254(1), 40-45.

Aksu, M., Kaymakçı-Başaran, A., & Egemen, Ö. (2010). Long-term monitoring of the impact of a capture-based bluefin tuna aquaculture on water column nutrient levels in the Eastern Aegean Sea, Turkey. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 171(1-4), 681-688.

Anonymous. (2015). Seafood Watch farmed Pacific bluefin survey. Personal communication Anonymous. (2015a). Seafood Watch farmed Pacific bluefin survey. Personal communication Anonymous. (2016). Seafood Watch farmed Pacific bluefin survey. Personal communication Asahi Shimbun. (5 Dec. 2013). "Restaurant Featuring 'Kindai' Farmed Bluefin Tuna Opens in

Tokyo." Asahi Shimbun. The Asahi Shimbun Company. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201312050046>.

Asahi Shimbun. (30 Aug. 2013b). "Toyo Reizo seeking to turn farm-raised bluefin tuna into brand name." Asahi Shimbun. The Asahi Shimbun Company. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201407160058>.

Asahi Shimbun. (16 Jul. 2014). "Tie-up aims to achieve world first in commercial production of bluefin tuna hatchlings." Asahi Shimbun. The Asahi Shimbun Company. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201407160058>.

Axiak, V., Gauci, V., Mallia, A., Mallia, E., Schembri, P. J., Vella, A. J., & Vella, L. (2002). State of the Environment Report for Malta 2002. Ministry for Home Affairs and the Environment, Malta.

Barneveld R. J., Carter C. G., Glencross B. D. and Clarke S. M. (2003). Southern Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) Aquaculture Subprogram. Project 2: Development and optimisation of manufactured feeds for SBT. FRDC Project No. 1997/362, 119 pp.

Bayliff, W.H. 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for northern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, in the Pacific Ocean. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 336: 244–295.

Bierman, P. (2005). Oceanographic conditions in the offshore Southern Bluefin Tuna Farming Zone, Near Pt. Lincoln SA. Honours Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide, 41 pp.

60

Biswas, A., Biswas, B. K., and Takii, K. (2009). Towards the establishment of formulated diets for Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis). Proceedings of the 2nd Global COE Program Symposium of Kinki University, “Sustainable Aquaculture of the Bluefin and Yellowfin Tuna - Closing the Life Cycle for Commercial Production.” Kinki University Global COE Program. p8-11.

Biswas, B. K., Ji, S. C., Biswas, A. K., Seoka, M., Kim, Y. S., Kawasaki, K. I., & Takii, K. (2009b). Dietary protein and lipid requirements for the Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis juvenile. Aquaculture, 288(1), 114-119.

Blinch, J., McCarron, B., & Carmody, L. (2011). The future of fish in Asia. Responsible Research. 99p.

Block BA, Teo SLH, Walli A, Boustaray A, Stockesbury MJW, Farwell CJ, Weng KC, Dewar H, Williams TJ. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Nature 2005; 434: 1121–1127.

Boustany, A. 2011. Bluefin Tuna: The State of the Science. Ocean Science Division, Pew Environment Group, Washington, DC.

Cardia, F., and Lovatelli, A. "A review of cage aquaculture: Mediterranean Sea." FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 498 (2007): 159.

Carta Nacional Pesquera. (2012).National Fisheries Charts. National Institute of Fisheries. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/documentos/publicaciones/CARTA%20NACIONAL%20PESQUERA/24082012%20SAGARPA.pdf

Chen, K.S., P. Crone, and C.C. Hsu. 2006. Reproductive biology of female Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis from south-western North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Science 72: 985–994.

Clarke, S. M., Cartwright, C., Smith, B., Madigan, S. & Haskard, K. (1999). Southern Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) Aquaculture Environmental Monitoring Report 1996 to 1998. Souther Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, 100 pp.

Clarke, S.M., Madigan, S., Edwards, J., Mathews, C., Preece, P. & Haskard, K. (2000). Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) aquaculture environmental monitoring report 1999 to 2000. South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, 66 pp.

Clarke, S and Ham, J. (2008). Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture (Wild-Capture) Strategic Plan - Towards 2012: Striving for a Sustainable and Profitable Future. South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, Australia, 20pp.

Clean Seas Tuna. (2005). Cleanseas Tuna Ltd Prospectus. Stehr Group. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.cleanseas.com.au/uploads/pdfs/investor-information/Clean%20Seas%20Tuna%20Limited%20Prospectus%20October%202005.pdf

Collette BB, Nauen CE. 1983. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. FAO Fish.Synop., 125(2):137 p.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Guzman-Mora, A., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Uozumi, Y., Wang, S., Wu, J. & Yeh, S. 2011. Scomber japonicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

Collette, B.B., K.E. Carpenter, B.A. Polidoro, M.J. Juan-Jordá, A. Boustany, D.J. Die, C. Elfes,

61

W. Fox, J. Graves, L.R. Harrison, R. McManus, C.V. Minte-Vera, R. Nelson, V. Restrepo, J. Schratwieser, C.L. Sun, A. Amorim, M. Brick Peres, C. Canales, G. Cardenas, S.K. Chang, W.C. Chiang, N. de Oliveira Leite, Jr., H. Harwell, R. Lessa, F.L. Fredou, H.A. Oxenford, R. Serra, K.T. Shao, R. Sumaila, S.P. Wang, R. Watson and E. Yáñez. 2011b. High value and long-lived: A double jeopardy for threatened tunas and billfishes. Science 333(6040): 291–292.

Collette, B., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Nelson, R., Pollard, D., Suzuki, N. & Teo, S. 2014. Thunnus orientalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

Colquitt, S.E., Munday, B.L., Daintith, W., 2001. Pathological findings in southern bluefin tuna, Thunnus maccoyii (Castelnau), infected with Cardicola forsteri (Cribb, Daintith & Munday, 2000) (Digenea : Sanguinicolidae), a blood fluke. Journal of Fish Diseases 24, 225–229.

Conservation Working Group, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. Open Ocean Aquaculture in the Santa Barbara Channel: An emerging challenge for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. July 20, 2007. Prepared by the Environmental Defense Center, Santa Barbara, CA. 81 pp.

Croatian Aquaculture. (2011). Ministry of Agriculture. In: Directorate of Fisheries [online]. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.mps.hr/ribarstvo/default.aspx?id=42

Dalton, R. 2004. “Fishing for Trouble.” Nature 431: 502-4. De Silva, S.S. and Phillips, M.J. (2007). A review of cage aquaculture: Asia (excluding China).

In M. Halwart, D. Soto and J.R. Arthur (eds). Cage aquaculture – Regional reviews and global overview, pp. 18–48. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 498. Rome, FAO. 241 pp.

De Young, C. (Ed.). (2006). Review of the state of world marine capture fisheries management: Indian Ocean (No. 488). Food & Agriculture Org.

Deguara, S., Caruana, S., & Agius, C. (2011). Potential growth rates in fattened/farmed Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis Temminck and Schlegel) and southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii Castelnau). Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 66(2), 845-850.

Di Maio, A., & Mladineo, I. (2008). Ultrastructure of Didymocystis semiglobularis (Didymozoidae, Digenea) cysts in the gills of Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis). Parasitology research, 103(3), 641-647.

Diaz-Castaneda, V., and S. Valenzuela-Solano. 2009. Polychaete fauna in the vicinity of bluefin tuna sea-cages in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Magnolia Press, Zoosymposia 2: 505-526. Available at: www.mapress.com/zoosymposia/content/2009/ v2/f/v002p505-526f.pdf.

Díaz López, B., & Bernal Shirai, J. A. (2007). Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) presence and incidental capture in a marine fish farm on the north-eastern coast of Sardinia (Italy). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87(01), 113-117.

ENV. (2012). National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2012-2020. Roadmap towards the establishment of an enriching society in harmony with nature. Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan. From http://www.env.go.jp/press/files/en/528.pdf. 305p.

ENV. (2012b). Environmental impact assessment in Japan. Environmental Policy Bureau and the Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.env.go.jp/policy/assess/1-3outline/img/pamph_e.pdf

62

Estess, E. E., Coffey, D. M., Shimose, T., Seitz, A. C., Rodriguez, L., Norton, A., Block, B., & Farwell, C. (2014). Bioenergetics of captive Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis). Aquaculture, 434, 137-144.

FAO. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. Rome, FAO. 2009. 57p. Includes a CD-ROM containing the full document (648 pages).

Farwell C.J. (2003). Management of captive tuna: Collection and transportation, holding facilities, nutrition, growth , and water quality. In: Bridges C.R. (ed.), García A. (ed.), Gordin H. (ed.). Domestication of the bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus thynnus. Zaragoza : CIHEAM. p. 65-68 (Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes; n . 60)

FDA. Thunnus thynnus. In: The Seafood List [online]. Updated 9 October 2015. Available at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=seafoodlist&id=Thunnus_orientalis&sort=SLSN&order=ASC&startrow=1&type=basic&search=thunnus%20orientalis

Fernandes M., Lauer P, Cheshire A, Svane I, Putro S, Mount G, Angove M, Sedawie T, Tanner J, Fairwather P, Barnett J, Doonan A. (2007). Aquafin CRC-southern Bluefin tuna aquaculture subprogram: tuna environment subproject evaluation of waste composition and waste mitigation. Aquafin CRC Project 4.3.2. (FRDC Project No. 2001/103. 311pp.

Fernandes, M., Lauer, P., Cheshire, A., and Angove, M. (2007b). Chapter 9: Modeling of nitrogen environmental loads from southern bluefin tuna aquaculture. In Fernandes M., Lauer P., Cheshire A., Svane I., Putro S., Mount G., Angove M., Sedawie T., Tanner J., Fairweather P., Barnett J., and DoonanA. (Eds.) AquaFin CRC –Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture Subprogram Tuna Aquaculture Subproject: Evaluation of Waste Composition and Waste Mitigation. Technical Report, Aquafin CRC Project 4.3.2, FRDC Project 2001/103. Aquafin CRC, Fisheries Research & Development Corporation and South Australian Research & Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No RD03/0037-9, SARDI Research Report Series No 207, 289pp.

Fisheries Agency and Fisheries Research Agency, 2006. Annual report of fisheries stock assessment in Japan. pp. 69–112, (in Japanese).

Fisheries Agency (2014, March 31). For domestic bluefin tuna aquaculture performance in 2013. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/press/saibai/140331.html

Fisheries Agency (2015, March 31). For domestic bluefin tuna farming performance in 2014 (preliminary). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/press/saibai/150331_1.html

FRDC. (2014). Investigation success no fluke. FISH, 1-44. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://frdc.com.au/knowledge/publications/fish/Documents/Fish1403_low_res.pdf

Gaylard, S., Nelson, M., and Noble, W. (2013). Nearshore Marine Aquatic Ecosystem Condition Reports - Lower Spencer Gulf bioregional assessment report 2012. Nearshore Marine Aquatic Ecosystem Condition Reports. Environment Protection Authority, 101pp.

GFCM. (2005). GFCM/ICCAT Working Group on Sustainable Bluefin Tuna Farming/Fattening Practices. Meeting, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (Food, & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Report of the Third Meeting of the Ad Hoc GFCM/ICCAT Working Group on Sustainable Bluefin Tuna Farming/Fattening Practices in the

63

Mediterranean, Rome, 16-18 March 2005 (No. 779). International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (Ed.). Food & Agriculture Org.

Giménez Casalduero, F., & Sánchez Jerez, P. (2006). Fattening rate of bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus in two Mediterranean fish farms.

Glamuzina, B. (2010, October). Perspectives of Croatian mariculture in the light of EU accession. In 11th biennial Mediterranean Symposium on" Animal farming and enironmental interactions in Mediterranean region"-Zadar: University of Zadar, Department of Ecology and Agronomy.

Globefish. (2014). Tuna - November 2014. FAO and Globefish Partners. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.globefish.org/tuna-october-2014.html

Goldsworthy, S. D., Page, B., Shaughnessy, P. D., Hamer, D., Peters, K. D., McIntosh, R. R., Baylis, A. M. M., and McKenzie, J. (2009). Innovative solutions for aquaculture planning and management: addressing seal interactions in the finfish aquaculture industry. SARDI Aquatic Sciences. 291pp.

Gomez, G. A., Sanchez-Triana, E., and Enriquez, S. (2006). Legal Framework of Environmental Impact Assessment in Latin America. Este trabajo se presenta completo en el CD adjunto.

Grigorakis, K., & Rigos, G. (2011). Aquaculture effects on environmental and public welfare–the case of Mediterranean mariculture. Chemosphere, 85(6), 899-919.

Harada T, Kumai H, Mizuno K, Murata O, Nakamura M, Miyashita S, Furutani H. On rearing of young bluefin tuna. Mem. Fac. Agr. Kinki Univ. 1971; 4: 153–157.

Hardy-Smith, P., Ellis, D., Humphrey, J., Evans, M., Evans, D., Rough, K., ... & Nowak, B. (2012). In vitro and in vivo efficacy of anthelmintic compounds against blood fluke (Cardicola forsteri). Aquaculture, 334, 39-44.

Hata, H., Hirabayashi, I., Hamaoka, H., Mukai, Y., Omori, K., & Fukami, H. (2013). Species- diverse coral communities on an artificial substrate at a tuna farm in Amami, Japan. Marine environmental research, 85, 45-53.

Heupel, M. 2009. Carcharhinus melanopterus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T39375A10219032. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T39375A10219032.en.

Higuchi, K., Tanaka, Y., Eba, T., Nishi, A., Kumon, K., Nikaido, H., & Shiozawa, S. (2013). High incidence of death due to collision of hatchery-reared Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis juveniles in sea cages, as revealed by head and spinal injuries. Fisheries science, 79(1), 111-117.

Higuchi, K., Tanaka, Y., Eba, T., Nishi, A., Kumon, K., Nikaido, H., & Shiozawa, S. (2014). Causes of heavy mortality of hatchery-reared Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis juveniles in sea cages. Aquaculture, 424, 140-145.

IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission). 2005. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Working group on stock assessments 6th meeting. La Jolla, California, 2-6 May 2005. Document sar-6-09

IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission). 2006. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Fishery status report No 4. Tunas and billfishes in the Eastern Pacific ocean in 2005. La Jolla California, 2006.

IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission). 2010. Tunas and billfishes in the eastern

64

Pacific Ocean in 2009. Fishery Status Report No. 8. La Jolla, Calif. IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission). 2013. Tunas and billfishes in the Eastern

Pacific Ocean in 2012. Fishery Status Report - Informe de la Situación de la Pesquería No 11. La Jolla, California.

IATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission). 2014. Resolution C-14-06, Measures for the conservation and Management of Pacific bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 2015-2015. 87th meeting (resumed), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, La Jolla, 27 October-01 November 2014. 3p. From https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-06-Conservation-of-bluefin-2015-2016.pdf Ichinokawa, M., M. Kai, and Y. Takeuchi. 2010. Stock assessment of Pacific bluefin tuna with updated fishery data until 2007. ISC/10–1/PBFWG/01, July 2010.

Ikeda S. 2003. Market and domestic production of cultured tuna in Japan-Cultured tuna in the Japanese market. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, 60:83-84.

Inagake, D. 2001. Migratory of the Pacific bluefin tuna using archival tags and its relation with oceanographic conditions. Aquabiology 23: 547–552.

Inoue, K. (2013, February 14). Bluefin tuna farms fill demand as fishing ban restricts catches. The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201302140004

Inouye, K. 1996. An overview of health management of coldwater fish and shrimp in Japanese aquaculture. In Health Management in Asian Aquaculture. Proceedings of the Regional Expert Consultation on Aquaculture Health Management in Asia and the Pacific. R. P. Subasinghe, J. R. Arthur & M. Shariff (eds.), p. 104–114. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 360, Rome, FAO. 142 p.

ISC (International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean). 2008. Report of the Pacific bluefin tuna working group workshop. May 28-June 4, 2008, Shimizu, Japan.

ISC (International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean). 2014. Report of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna Working Group workshop. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean, La Jolla, California, USA.

Ishibashi, Y. (2010). Seed production technique in Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi; 76(5), 973.

Ishibashi, Y., Honryo, T., Saida, S., Hagiwara, A., Miyashita, S., Sawada, Y., Okada, T., Kurata, M., 2009. Artificial lighting prevents high night-time mortality of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, caused by poor scotopic vision. Aquaculture 293, 157–163.

Ishimaru, K., Mine, R., Shirakashi, S., Kaneko, E., Kubono, K., Okada, T., Sawada, Y., & Ogawa, K. (2013). Praziquantel treatment against Cardicola blood flukes: Determination of the minimal effective dose and pharmacokinetics in juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna. Aquaculture, 402, 24-27.

Ito, M. (23 January 2016). Can farmed tuna save the bluefin from extinction? The Japan Times. Available at: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2016/01/23/lifestyle/can-farmed-tuna-save-bluefin-extinction/#.Vqf_tvkrKUk

Itoh T, Shiina Y, Tsuji S, Endo S, Tezuka N. (2000). Otolith daily increment formation in laboratory reared larval and juvenile bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis. Fish. Sci. 66:834–839.

65

Itoh T. 2006. Sizes of adult bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis in different areas of the Western Pacific ocean. Fisheries Science 72:53-62.

Itoh, S., Yasuda, I., Nishikawa, H., Sasaki, H., & Sasai, Y. (2009). Transport and environmental temperature variability of eggs and larvae of the Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus) and Japanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus) in the western North Pacific estimated via numerical particle-tracking experiments. Fisheries Oceanography, 18(2), 118-133.

Itoh, A. 2013, Present status and future prospect of Pacific bluefin tuna aquaculture in Japan. Presentation given, on behalf of Maruha Nichiro SeaFoods, Inc., in The World Aquaculture Society (October 2013), https://www.was.org/_documents/kagoshima/22.%20Itoh.pdf.

Itoh, T. 2001. Estimation of total catch in weight and catchat- age in number of bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis in the whole Pacific Ocean. Bulletin of the National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries 38: 83–111.

Ji, S. C., Takaoka, O., Biswas, A. K., Seoka, M., Ozaki, K., Kohbara, J., Ukawa, M., Shimeno, S., Hosokawa, H., & Takii, K. (2008). Dietary utility of enzyme-treated fish meal for juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis. Fisheries science, 74(1), 54-61.

JIJI. (2014, November 27). Farmed 'Kindai Tuna' output to triple, says Kinki University. The Japan Times. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/11/27/business/farmed-kindai-tuna-output-triple-says-kinki-university/#.VK283RbHz2o

Johnson H. 2004. Tuna ranching: market overview and strategic assessment. Rep. WWF White Pap., World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC

Jusup, M., Klanjšček, T., & Matsuda, H. (2014). Simple measurements reveal the feeding history, the onset of reproduction, and energy conversion efficiencies in captive bluefin tuna. Journal of Sea Research.

Kanaji, Y., Watanabe, Y., Kawamura, T., Xie, S., Yamashita, Y., Sassa, C., & Tsukamoto, Y. (2009). Multiple cohorts of juvenile jack mackerel Trachurus japonicus in waters along the Tsushima Warm Current. Fisheries Research, 95(2), 139-145.

Karamanlidis, A. A., Androukaki, E., Adamantopoulou, S., Chatzispyrou, A., Johnson, W. M., Kotomatas, S., Papadopoulos, A. Paravas, V., Paximadis, G., Pires, R., Tounta, E., & Dendrinos, P. (2008). Assessing accidental entanglement as a threat to the Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus. Endangered Species Research, 5(2-3), 205-213.

Katavić, I., & Tičina, V. (2003). Fishing and farming of the northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus L.) in the Adriatic Sea. STUDIES AND REVIEWS, 181. In: Cataudella, S.; Massa, F.; Crosetti, D. (eds.) Interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries: a methodological perspective. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No. 78. Rome, FAO. 2005. 229p.

Katavić, I., Herstad, T. J., Kryvi, H., White, P., Franičević, V., & Skakelja, N. (2005). Guidelines to marine aquaculture planning, integration and monitoring in Croatia. Project “Coastal zone management plan for Croatia,” Zagreb.

Kemper, C.M. and Gibbs, S.E. (2001) Dolphin interactions with tuna feedlots at Port Lincoln, South Australia and recommendations for minimising entanglements. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3: 283–292.

Kirchhoff N. T., Rough K. M., Nowak B. F. (2011) Moving Cages Further Offshore: Effects on

66

Southern Bluefin Tuna, T. maccoyii, Parasites, Health and Performance. PLoS ONE 6(8): e23705. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023705

Kirchhoff, N. T., D'Antignana, T., Leef, M. J., Hayward, C. J., Wilkinson, R. J., & Nowak, B. F. (2011b). Effects of immunostimulants on ranched southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii: immune response, health and performance. Journal of fish biology, 79(2), 331-355.

Kitagawa T, Boustany AM, Farwell C, Williams TD, Castleton MR, Block BA. 2007. Horizontal and vertical movements of juvenile bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) in relation to seasons and oceanographic conditions in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography 16:5, 409-421.

Korsmeyer, K.E. & Dewars, H. 2001. Tuna metabolism and energetics. In Tuna: Physiology, Ecology and Evolution. B.A. Block & E.D. Stevens (eds). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA. Fish Physiology Series, 19: 35–78.

Kružić, P., & Požar-Domac, A. (2007). Impact of tuna farming on the banks of the coral Cladocora caespitosa in the Adriatic Sea. Coral Reefs, 26(3), 665-665.

Kružić, P., Vojvodić, V., & Bura-Nakić, E. (2014). Inshore capture-based tuna aquaculture impact on Posidonia oceanica meadows in the eastern part of the Adriatic Sea. Marine pollution bulletin, 86(1), 174-185.

Kumai H. 1998. Studies on bluefin tuna artificial hatching, rearing and reproduction. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi; 64: 601– 605.

Kumai, H., 1997. Present state of bluefin tuna aquaculture in Japan. Suisanzoshoku 45, 293- 297.

Kunio, S. (2010). Development of aquaculture industry of bluen tuna -Nippon Suisan-. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi; 76(5), 979.

Kusano, T. (2010). Bluefin tuna current state of the farming business - Maruha Nichiro Fisheries -. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi; 76(5), 978.

Kyodo and AP. (2014, September 4). International conference strikes deal to slash bluefin tuna catches. The Japan Times. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/09/04/national/international-conference-strikes-deal-slash-bluefin-tuna-catches/#.VK24SxbHxfs

Laxminarayan, R., A. Duse et al. 2013. "Antibiotic resistance - the need for global solutions." The Lancet Infectious Diseases 13(12): 1057-1098.

Lauer P., Fernandes M., Fairweather P., Cheshire A. and TannerJ. (2007) Chapter 5: Effects of SBT farming on benthic metabolism. In Fernandes M., Lauer P., Cheshire A., Svane I., Putro S., Mount G., Angove M., Sedawie T., Tanner J., Fairweather P., Barnett J., and DoonanA. (Eds.) AquaFin CRC –Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture Subprogram Tuna Aquaculture Subproject: Evaluation of Waste Composition and Waste Mitigation. Technical Report, Aquafin CRC Project 4.3.2, FRDC Project 2001/103. Aquafin CRC, Fisheries Research & Development Corporation and South Australian Research & Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No RD03/0037-9, SARDI Research Report Series No 207, 289pp.

Leef, M. J., Carter, C. G., & Nowak, B. F. (2012). Assessment of nutritional status and digestive physiology in southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii fed a modified baitfish diet. Aquaculture, 350, 162-168.

Lioka, C., Kani, K., & Nhhala, H. (2000). Present status and prospects of technical

67

development of tuna sea-farming. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, 47, 275-285. MAFF. (2014). 2013 Fisheries and aquaculture production statistics. Statistics of agriculture,

forestry and fisheries. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Government of Japan. 31p. From: http://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kouhyou/kaimen_gyosei/pdf/gyogyou_seisan_13s_141010.pdf

MAFF. Announcement by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) on Actions toward effective conservation and management for Pacific bluefin tuna. (2010). Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kokusai/kanri_kyouka/index2.html

MAFF: Trends in Fisheries, FY2012. (2012). Annual reports, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/wpaper/pdf/2012_jfa_wp.pdf

MAFF: Trends in Fisheries, FY2013. (2013). Annual reports, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/wpaper/pdf/2013_jfa_wp.pdf

Masuma, S. (2010). Impacts of fish farming on environments and sustainable aquaculture. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi; 76(5), 972.

Masuma, S., 2006. Studies on broodstock management and spawning ecology of bluefin and yellowfin tuna in captivity. Ph. D Thesis, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, 197pp. (in Japanese with English summary).

Masuma, S., Miyashita, S., Yamamoto, H., Kumai, H., 2008. Status of bluefin tuna farming, broodstock management, breeding and fingerling production in Japan. Rev. Fish. Sci. 16, 411–416.

Masuma, S., Oka, M., Kanematu, M., Tezuka N., Teruya K., Fushimi H., Ishibashi N., 1991. Feeding and growth of captive bluefin in Yaeyama. Saibaigiken 20, 35-40 (in Japanese).

Masuma, S., Takebe, T., & Sakakura, Y. (2011). A review of the broodstock management and larviculture of the Pacific northern bluefin tuna in Japan. Aquaculture, 315(1), 2-8.

Matijević, S., Kušpilić, G., & Barić, A. (2006). Impact of a fish farm on physical and chemical properties of sediment and water column in the middle Adriatic Sea. Fresenius Environ. Bull, 15(9), 1058-1063.

Matijević, S., Kušpilić, G., & Kljaković-Gašpić, Z. (2007). The redox potential of sediment from the Middle Adriatic region. Acta Adriatica, 48(2), 191-204.

Maunder, M. N., Piner, K. R., and Silva, A. A. (2014). Stock assessment Report 15: Stock status of Pacific bluefin tuna and the urgent need for management action. 5th Meeting of the IATTC Scientific Advisory Committee. May 2014. 27p. Available at: https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/StockAssessmentReports/SAR15/5-PBF-stock-assessment-and-management.pdf

Meng, F., Yokoyama, H., Shirakashi, S., Grabner, D., Ogawa, K., Ishimaru, K., Sawada, Y., and Murata, O. (2011). Kudoa prunusi n. sp. (Myxozoa: Multivalvulida) from the brain of Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis (Temminck & Schlegel, 1844) cultured in Japan. Parasitology Interna�onal, 60(1), 90-96.

Miyake, P. M., De la Serna, J. M., Di Natale, A., Farrugia, A., Katavic, I., Miyabe, N., & Ticina, V.

68

(2003). General review of bluefin tuna farming in the Mediterranean area. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers ICCAT, 55(1), 114-124.

Miyashita S. & Kumai H. (2002) Present status of Pacific bluefin tuna seedling production. Aquaculture Magazine 39, 68–71.

Miyashita, S., 2006. Surfacing and bottoming death in seedling production. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 72, 947-948.

Miyashita, S., Murata, O., Sawada, Y., Okada, O., Kubo, T., Ishitani, Y., Seoka, M., Kumai, H., 2000. Maturation and spawning of cultured bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus. Suisanzoshoku 48, 475-488 (in Japanese with English abstract).

Mladineo I, Tudor M (2004) Digenea of Adriatic cage-reared bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus thynnus. Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 24:144–153

Mourente, G., & Tocher, D. R. (2009). Tuna nutrition and feeds: current status and future perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 17(3), 373-390.

Munday, B. L., Sawada, Y., Cribb, T., Hayward, C. J. (2003). Diseases of tunas, Thunnus spp. J. Fish Dis. 26:187–206

Mylonas, C. C., De La Gándara, F., Corriero, A., & Ríos, A. B. (2010). Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) farming and fattening in the Mediterranean Sea. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 18(3), 266-280.

Nakahara, N. (2004) Characteristics of bluefin tuna cultivation management at present stage. J. Jpn. Reg Fish Soc., 45, 137-153 (in Japanese).

Nakamura, T., & Hamano, A. (2009). Seasonal differences in the vertical distribution pattern of Japanese jack mackerel, Trachurus japonicus: changes according to age?. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, fsp114.

NALO-Japan. National Aquaculture Legislation Overview. Japan. National Aquaculture Legislation Overview (NALO) Fact Sheets. Text by Spreij, M. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 15 November 2004. [Cited 1 December 2014].

NASO-Japan. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Japan. National Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets. Text by Makino, M. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 1 February 2006. [Cited 1 December 2014].

NALO-Mexico. National Aquaculture Legislation Overview. Mexico. National Aquaculture Legislation Overview (NALO) Fact Sheets. Text by Spreij, M. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 17 January 2005. [Cited 9 January 2015].

NASO-Mexico. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Mexico. National Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets. Text by Montero Rodríguez, M. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 1 February 2005. [Cited 1 December 2014].

National Seal Strategy Group and Stewardson, C. (Bureau of Rural Sciences). (2007). National Assessment of Interactions between Humans and Seals: Fisheries, Aquaculture and Tourism. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, Australia. 142 pp.

Naylor, R., & Burke, M. (2005). Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising tigers of the sea. Nishida, H. (2005). Stock assessment and ABC calculation for Japanese sardine (Sardinops

melanostictus) in the northwestern Pacific under Japanese TAC system. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH-ENGLISH EDITION-, 9(2), 125.

69

NOAA. (2014). National Marine Fisheries Service - 3rd Quarter 2014 Update. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2014/third/q3_stock_status_tables.pdf

NOAA. (2014). Pacific Bluefin Tuna, Population Status. In: Fishwatch [online]. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/tuna/species_pages/pac_bluefin_tuna.html

Nobuhara. K. "Toyota-affiliated fish farm sets sail on trade of cultivated Pacific bluefin tuna." Asahi Shimbun 30 Jan. 2012. The Asahi Shimbun Company. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201201300057 >.

Norita, T. (2002). Feeding of bluefin tuna: Experiences in Japan and Spain. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Domestication of the Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus thynnus (pp. 3-8).

Nowak, B. F., Rough, K., Ellis, D., Crane, M., Cameron, A., & Clarke, S. (2003). A risk assessment of factors influencing the health of southern bluefin tuna.

Nowak, B.F., 2004. Assessment of health risks to southern bluefin tuna under current culture conditions. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathologists 24, 45–51.

Ogawa, K., Ishimaru, K., Shirakashi, S., Takami, I., Grabner, D., 2011. Cardicola opisthorchis n. sp. (Trematoda: Aporocotylidae) from the Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis (Temminck & Schlegel, 1844), cultured in Japan. Parasitology International 60, 307–312.

Ogawa, K., Tanaka, S., Sugihara, Y., Takami, I., 2010. A new blood fluke of the genus Cardicola (Trematoda: Sanguinicolidae) from Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis (Temminck & Schlegel, 1844) cultured in Japan. Parasitology International 59, 44–48.

Okada, T., Honryo, T., Sawada, Y., Agawa, Y., Miyashita, S., & Ishibashi, Y. (2014). The cause of death of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) reared in sea net cages. Aquacultural Engineering, 59, 23-25.

Ono, S. (2010). Current status, issues and perspective of bluefin tuna aquaculture. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi; 76(5), 980.

Ottolenghi, F., 2008. Capture-based aquaculture of bluefin tuna. In: Lovatelli, A., Holthus, P.F. (Eds.), Capture-Based Aquaculture. Global overview. Technical Paper. FAO Fisheries, Rome, pp. 169–182.

Ottolenghi, F.; Silvestri, C.; Giordano, P.; Lovatelli, A.; New, M.B. Capture-based aquaculture. The fattening of eels, groupers, tunas and yellowtails. Rome, FAO. 2004. 308p.

Padula, D. J., Daughtry, B. J., & Nowak, B. F. (2008). Dioxins, PCBs, metals, metalloids, pesticides and antimicrobial residues in wild and farmed Australian southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii). Chemosphere, 72(1), 34-44.

Pecl G. T., Doubleday Z., Ward T., Clarke S., Day J., Dixon C., Frusher S., Gibbs P., Hobday A., Hutchinson N., Jennings S., Jones K., Li X., Spooner D., and Stoklosa, R. (2011). Risk Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change for Key Marine Species in South Eastern Australia. Part 2: Species profiles. Fisheries and Aquaculture Risk Assessment. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project 2009/070.

Perevochtchikova, M., & André, P. (2013). Environmental Impact Assessment in Mexico and Canada: Comparative Analysis at National and Regional Levels of Federal District and Quebec. International Journal, 3(8), 1-12.

70

Phys.org. (2014). The road to sustainable tuna aquaculture. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://phys.org/news/2014-07-road-sustainable-tuna-aquaculture.html

PIRSA. (2013). Red tape reduction to benefit tuna industry. PIRSA - Our Role. Primary Industries and Regions SA. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/pirsa/media_list/fisheries/red_tape_reduction_to_benefit_tuna_industry

PIRSA. (2013e). Draft aquaculture (Zones - Lower Eyre Peninsula) policy 2012: Summary of submissions and responses. Primary Industries and Regions SA. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/184615/Summary_submissions_Aquaculture_Zone_Lower_Eyre_Peninsula_Policy_2013.pdf

Price, C.S. and J.A. Morris, Jr. 2013. Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-first Century Science Informing a Sustainable Industry. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 164. 158 pp.

Putro, S. P., Svane, I., and Tanner, J. (2007). Chapter 10: Effects of fallowing on macrobenthic assemblages in sediments adjacent to southern bluefin tuna cages. In Fernandes M., Lauer P., Cheshire A., Svane I., Putro S., Mount G., Angove M., Sedawie T., Tanner J., Fairweather P., Barnett J., and DoonanA. (Eds.) AquaFin CRC –Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture Subprogram Tuna Aquaculture Subproject: Evaluation of Waste Composition and Waste Mitigation. Technical Report, Aquafin CRC Project 4.3.2, FRDC Project 2001/103. Aquafin CRC, Fisheries Research & Development Corporation and South Australian Research & Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No RD03/0037-9, SARDI Research Report Series No 207, 289pp.

Ramsden, N. (2014, July 1). Commercial bluefin tuna egg supplier courting investors. Undercurrent News. Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/07/01/commercial-bluefin-tuna-egg-supplier-courting-investors/

Raynard, R., Wahli, T., Vatsos, I., & Mortensen, S. (2007). Review of disease interactions and pathogen exchange between farmed and wild finfish and shellfish in Europe. VESO project, (1655).Robards, Martin D.; Willson, Mary F.; Armstrong, Robert H.; Piatt, John F., eds. (1999). Sand

lance: a review of biology and predator relations and annotated bibliography. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-521. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 327 p.

Rodriguez-Villanueva LV. 2005. Estructura de las comunidades de invertebrados macrobénticos y su relación con variables fisico-químicas en la zona costera Tijuana-Ensenada, Baja California, México. Doctoral Thesis. FCM-IIO. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. 264 pp.

Saborio Coze, A. and Flores Nava, A. 2009. Review of environmental impact assessment and monitoring of aquaculture in Latin America. In FAO. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring of aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. Rome, FAO. pp. 395–454.

SAGARPA. (2013). National Aquaculture Charter. Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural

71

Development, Fisheries and Food. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/publicaciones/carta-nacional-acuicola

Sanada, Y. (20 January 2016). Presentation: Pacific bluefin tuna fisheries and reuglations in Japan. Bluefin Futures Symposium. Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Sato, Aki. "'Kindai' Bluefin Tuna Set to Delight Taste Buds in Osaka." Asahi Shimbun 24 Apr. 2013. The Asahi Shimbun Company. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201304240009>.

Sawada, Y. (2016). Bluefin Futures Symposium. Presentation: Challenges of Raising Bluefin Tuna. Monterey Bay Aquarium. 20 January 2016.

Sawada Y, Tokihiko O, Miyashita S, Murata O, Kumai H. 2005. Completion of the Pacific Bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis (Temminck et Schlegel) life cycle. Aquaculture Research 36:413-421.

Sawada, Y., 2005. Bluefin tuna. In: Kumai, H. (Eds.), Marine fish. Kouseishakouseikaku, Tokyo, pp. 173-204

Sawada, Y., Miyashita, S., Murata, O. & Kumai, H. 2004. Seedling production and generation succession of the Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis. Marine Biotechnology, 6: 1–5.

Scott, D., Meyer, T., Bostock, J., Spiteri, A., Zarb, M., Deidun, A., Corner, R., & Balzan, C. (2012). An aquaculture strategy for Malta. Government of Malta, Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs. Government of Malta.

Shimose, T., Tanabe,T., Chen, K-S and Hsu, C-C. 2009. Age determination and growth of Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, off Japan and Taiwan. Fisheries Research 100: 134-139.

Shirakashi, S., Andrews, M., Kishimoto, Y., Ishimaru, K., Okada, T., Sawada, Y., & Ogawa, K. (2012). Oral treatment of praziquantel as an effective control measure against blood fluke infection in Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis). Aquaculture, 326, 15-19.

Soto, D., White, P. & Isyagi, N. 2013. Report on the training workshop on Environmental Management and Environmental Impacts Assessment for Aquaculture Managers. Report/Rapport: SF-FAO/2013/19. October/Octobre 2013. FAO-SmartFish Programme of the Indian Ocean Commission, Ebene, Mauritius.

Sugaya, T., Mori, K., Nishioka, T., Masuma, S., Oka, M., Mushiake, K., Okinaka, Y., & Nakai, T. (2009). Genetic heterogeneity of betanodaviruses in juvenile production trials of Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis (Temminck & Schlegel). Journal of fish diseases, 32(10), 815-824.

Sugiura, K., Asai, T., Takagi, M., & Onodera, T. (2009). Control and monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria in food-producing animals in Japan. Veterinaria italiana, 45(2), 305-315.

Svane, I. and Barnett, J. (2007). Chapter 8: The occurrence of benthic scavengers and their consumption at SBT farms off Boston and Rabbit Islands, Port Lincoln, Sout Australia: a preliminary study. In Fernandes M., Lauer P., Cheshire A., Svane I., Putro S., Mount G., Angove M., Sedawie T., Tanner J., Fairweather P., Barnett J., and DoonanA. (Eds.) AquaFin CRC –Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture Subprogram Tuna Aquaculture Subproject: Evaluation of Waste Composition and Waste Mitigation. Technical Report, Aquafin CRC Project 4.3.2, FRDC Project 2001/103. Aquafin CRC, Fisheries Research & Development

72

Corporation and South Australian Research & Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No RD03/0037-9, SARDI Research Report Series No 207, 289pp.

Sylvia P. 2007. Current Status of Bluefin Tuna Farming in North America. World Aquaculture Society.

Sylvia, P. C., Belle, S., & Smart, A. (2003). Current status and future prospective of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus orientalis) farming in Mexico and the west coast of the United States. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, 60, 197-200.

Tada, M. and Harada, S. (2009). Trend of bluefin tuna catch, regulations and the price in the Japanese market. Proceedings of the 2nd Global COE Program Symposium of Kinki University, “Sustainable Aquaculture of the Bluefin and Yellowfin Tuna - Closing the Life Cycle for Commercial Production.” Kinki University Global COE Program. p8-11.

Takeda, I. (2010). The measures for sustainable marine aquaculture in Japan. Aquaculture, 100(1,215), 434.

Tanaka, S. 2006. Maturation of bluefin tuna in the Sea of Japan. ISC PBF-WG/06/ Doc.9. Tanner, J.E. (2007). Aquafin CRC – Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture Subprogram: Tuna

environment subproject – Development of regional environmental sustainability assessments for tuna sea-cage aquaculture. Technical report, Aquafin CRC Project 4.3.3, FRDC Project 2001/104. Aquafin CRC, Fisheries Research & Development Corporation and South Australian Research & Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No F2007/000803-1 SARDI Research Report Series No. 235, 286pp.

Tanner, J. E., & Volkman, J. K. (2009). Aquafin CRC–FRDC Southern Bluefin Tuna Aquaculture Subprogram: Risk and Response: Understanding the Tuna Farming Environment. Aquafin CRC, West Beach, SA.

Telfer, T.C., Atkin, H. and Corner, R.A. 2009. Review of environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture in Europe and North America. In FAO. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. Rome, FAO. pp. 285–394.

Thomas, P. (2010). Extending the shelf life of farmed juvenile Southern Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus maccoyii). Internatonal Aquafeed. 13(3): 26 - 30.

Tičina, V., L. Grubišić and I. Katavić (2004) Sampling and tagging of live bluefin tuna in growth-out floating cages. Aquacult. Res., 35, 307-310.

Tičina, V., Katavić, I., Grubišić, L., Skakelja, N., & Franičević, V. (2005, May). Farming northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus L.) in the Adriatic Sea. In Meeting Word Aquaculture.

Ticina, V., Katavic, I., Grubisic, L., 2007. Growth indicies of small northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus, L.) in growth-out rearing cages. Aquaculture 269 (1–4), 538–543.

Torry Research Station, Aberdeen (UK). (1989). Yield and Nutritional Value of the Commercially More Important Fish Species (No. 309). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 309. Rome, FAO. 187p. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0219e/T0219E00.htm#TOC.

Tsuda, Y., Sakamoto, W., Yamamoto, S., & Murata, O. (2012). Effect of environmental fluctuations on mortality of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, in closed life-cycle aquaculture. Aquaculture, 330, 142-147.

Tsutsumi, H. 2007. Environmental deterioration of fish farms in Japanese enclosed bays and

73

measures for their environmental management. Pages 45-49 in C.-S. Lee and P.J. O’Bryan, editors. Open Ocean Aquaculture - Moving forward. Oceanic Institute, Waimanalo, Hawaii. Available at: http://nsgl.gso. uri.edu/ocei/oceiw06001.pdf.

Tsutsumi, H., S. Srithongouthai, A. Inoue, A. Sato, and D. Hama. 2006. Seasonal fluctuations in the flux of particulate organic matter discharged from net pens for fish farming. Fisheries Science 72:119- 127.

Tzoumas, A. 2009, European tuna farming sector: Presentation and challenges. Presentation given, on behalf of FEAP (Federation of European Aquaculture Producers), in EU ACFA Meeting 18th March 2009 (Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture), http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/dialog/acfa180309_annex4_en.pdf.

Tunafarming.net. (2015). Current status of tuna farming (マグロ養殖の現状). Marino-Forum 21(MF21). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://www.yousyokugyojyou.net/index4.htm

Vezzulli, L., Moreno, M., Marin, V., Pezzati, E., Bartoli, M., Fabiano, M., 2008. Organic waste impact of capture-based Atlantic bluefin tuna aquaculture at an exposed site in the Mediterranean Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 78, 369–384.

Vizzini, S., & Mazzola, A. (2012). Tracking multiple pathways of waste from a northern bluefin tuna farm in a marine-coastal area. Marine environmental research, 77, 103-111.

Volpe, J. P. (2005). Dollars without sense: the bait for big-money tuna ranching around the world. BioScience, 55(4), 301-302.

Vrgoč, B. (2013). Influence of cage farming of tuna on seagrass posidonia oceanica (l.) delila in the islets fulija (middle adria) . (Doctoral dissertation), Available from Hrvatska Znanstvena Bibliografija. (690738). Retrieved from https://bib.irb.hr/prikazi-rad?&rad=690738

White, P., Phillips, M.J. & Beveridge, M.C.M. 2013. Environmental impact, site selection and carrying capacity estimation for small-scale aquaculture in Asia. In L.G. Ross, T.C. Telfer, L. Falconer, D. Soto & J. Aguilar-Manjarrez, eds. Site selection and carrying capacities for inland and coastal aquaculture, pp. 231–251. FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Expert Workshop, 6–8 December 2010. Stirling, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 21. Rome, FAO. 282 pp.

WHO. 2012. Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine - 3rd rev. World Health Organization. 38p.

WHO. 2013. WHO model list of essential medicines - 18th list. World Health Organization. 47p.

Wilder, M.N. (2000). Government regulations concerning the use of chemicals in aquaculture in Japan. In: J.R. Arthur, C.R. Lavilla-Pitogo, & R.P. Subasinghe (Eds.) Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia : Proceedings of the Meeting on the Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia 20-22 May 1996, Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines (pp. 119-126). Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines: Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center.

Yamamoto, N. (2012). Historical Development and Future Prospects of Tuna Farming Business. The Faculty of Fisheries, Nagasaki University. Departmental Bulletin Paper, (93)59-77 pp.

Yamamoto, Y. and Hayase, S. 2008. Japan. In A. Lovatelli, M.J. Phillips, J.R. Arthur and K.

74

Yamamoto (eds). FAO/NACA Regional Workshop on the Future of Mariculture: A Regional Approach for Responsible Development in the Asia-Pacific Region. Guangzhou, China, 7–11 March 2006. FAO Fisheries Proceedings. No. 11. Rome, FAO. 2008. pp. 189–198.

Yamanaka H et al. 1963. Synopsis of biological data on kuromaguro Thunnus orientalis (Temminck and Schlegel) 1942 (Pacific Ocean). FAO Fish.Rep., 6(2):180–217.

Yokota T, Toriyama M, Kanai F, Nomura S. 1961. Studies on the feeding habit of fishes. Rep.Nankai Reg.Fish.Res.Lab., (14):1–234.

Yokoyama, H. 2005. Benthos research expected by practical aquaculture farm, pp. 145–159 in Benthos and Fisheries edited by I. Hayashi and S. Nakao, Koseisha Koseikaku, Tokyo (in Japanese).

Yokoyama, H. 2010. Monitoring, assessment and management of fish farm environments in Japan. Rev. Aquaculture 2: 154–165.

Zertuche-González, J.A., Sosa-Nishizaki, O., Vaca Rodriguez, J.G.,Moral Simanek, R.d, Yarish, C., 2008. Marine science assessment of capture-based tuna (Thunnus orientalis) aquaculture in the Ensenada region of northern Baja California, Mexico. 1. Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology-Stamford, University of Connecticut, pp. 1–95.

Zhang, J., Meng, F., Yokoyama, H., Miyahara, J., Takami, I., & Ogawa, K. (2010). Myxosporean and microsporidian infections in cultured Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis in Japan. Fisheries Science, 76(6), 981-990.

75

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.

76

Guiding Principles Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished2 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

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

77

• 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 Choice/Green: Buy first, they're well managed and caught or farmed in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they're caught or farmed. Avoid/Red: Don't buy, they're overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

78

Appendix 1 - 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

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

10) Industry or production statistics Yes 7.5 7.5 Effluent Yes 5 5 Locations/habitats Yes 5 5 Predators and wildlife Yes 2.5 2.5 Chemical use Yes 5 5 Feed Yes 5 5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 2.5 2.5 Disease Yes 2.5 2.5 Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) No Not relevant n/a Total 42.5 C1 Data Final Score 4.72 YELLOW

Criterion 2: Effluents Factor 2.1a - Biological waste production score Protein content of feed (%) 18.6 eFCR 15 Fertilizer N input (kg N/ton fish) 0 Protein content of harvested fish (%) 22.28 N content factor (fixed) 0.16 N input per ton of fish produced (kg) 446.4 N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 35.65 Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 410.75 Factor 2.1b - Production System discharge score

Basic production system score 0.8 Adjustment 1 (if applicable) 0

79

Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0 Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0 Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0.8

80% of the waste produced by the fish is discharged from the farm 2.2 – Management of farm-level and cumulative impacts and appropriateness to the scale of the industry Factor 2.2a - Regulatory or management effectiveness Question Scoring Score

1 - Are effluent regulations or control measures present that are designed for, or are applicable to aquaculture? Mostly 0.75

2 - Are the control measures applied according to site-specific conditions and/or do they lead to site-specific effluent, biomass or other discharge limits?

Yes 1

3 - Do the control measures address or relate to the cumulative impacts of multiple farms? Partly 0.25

4 - Are the limits considered scientifically robust and set according to the ecological status of the receiving water body? Partly 0.25

5 - Do the control measures cover or prescribe including peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning, etc.? Partly 0.25

2.5

Factor 2.2b - Enforcement level of effluent regulations or management Question Scoring Score

1 - Are the enforcement organizations and/or resources identifiable and contactable, and appropriate to the scale of the industry? Partly 0.25

2 - Does monitoring data or other available information demonstrate active enforcement of the control measures? Partly 0.25

3 - Does enforcement cover the entire production cycle (i.e., are peak discharges such as peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning included)? Mostly 0.75

4 - Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits? Mostly 0.75

5 - Is there evidence of robust penalties for infringements? Moderatel

y 0.5

2.5

F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 2.5 C2 Effluent Final Score 0.00 CRITICAL Critical? YES

80

Criterion 3: Habitat 3.1. Habitat conversion and function F3.1 Score 2 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? No 0

2 - Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts and the maintenance of ecosystem function? No 0

3 – Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion in appropriate locations, and thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services? Partly 0.25

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)?

Mostly 0.75

5 - Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or critical habitats or ecosystem services? No 0

1

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?

Moderately 0.5

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

Mostly 0.75

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

Partly 0.25

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

2.75

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 1.1 C3 Habitat Final Score 1.70 RED Critical? NO

81

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score 2.00 C4 Chemical Use Final Score 2.00 RED

Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1. Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1a - Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 22.5 Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0 % FM 22.5 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 5 Fish oil from by-products (%) 0 % FO 5 Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5 Fish oil yield (%) 5 eFCR 15 FIFO fishmeal 15.00 FIFO fish oil 15.00 Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 15.00 FIFO Score 0.00 Factor 5.1b - Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF) SSWF –4 SSWF Factor –6 F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 0.00 5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss Protein INPUTS Protein content of feed 18.6 eFCR 15 Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 0 Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP sources (%) 0

82

Protein OUTPUTS Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 22.28 Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 58 Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 50 Protein IN 279.00 Protein OUT 17.60 Net protein gain or loss (%) –93.7 Critical? YES F5.2 Net protein Score 0.00 5.3. Feed Footprint 5.3a Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 27.5 eFCR 15

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) 107.28 5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 27.5 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0 Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88 eFCR 15 Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64 Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 1.56 Value (Ocean + Land Area) 108.84

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 0.00 C5 Feed Final Score 0.00 CRITICAL Critical? YES

83

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk Escape Risk 2

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 2 6.1b. Invasiveness Part A – Native species Score 5 Part B – Non-Native species Score 0 Part C – Native and Non-native species Question Score Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? No

Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations? No

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb breeding behavior of the same or other species? No

Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g., by feeding, foraging, settlement or other)? No

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

5

F 6.1b Score 10 Final C6 Score 10.00 GREEN Critical? NO

84

Criterion 7: Diseases Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 6.00 C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Criterion 8: Source of Stock Source of stock parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock, natural (passive) settlement, or sourced from sustainable fisheries

10

C8 Source of stock Final Score 1 RED

Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

C9X Wildlife and Predator Final Score –6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score C10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 7.00 C10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 0.00 F6.2X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score –3.00 GREEN

85

Appendix 2 – Interim Update An Interim Update of this assessment was conducted in February 2021. Interim Updates focus on an assessment’s limiting (i.e. Critical or Red) criteria (inclusive of a review of the availability and quality of data relevant to those criteria), so this review evaluates Criterion 5 Feed and Criterion 8x Source of Stock. No information was found or received that would suggest the final rating is no longer accurate. No edits were made to the text of the report (except an update note in the Executive Summary). The following text summarizes the findings of the review. Criterion 1 – Data The availability and quality of data for Pacific bluefin tuna farmed in Japan in net pens is moderate overall. Data for Criterion 5 – Feed were captured from peer reviewed literature, although the most recent readily available publications documenting production practices and performance are from 2016. Data for Criterion 8x – Source of stock were readily available, however, there is a lack of a fishery assessment evaluating the potential ecological impacts of purse seine fisheries corralling wild juveniles for tuna ranching operations. As a result, the availability of information for each Criterion (e.g., Feed and Source of Stock) in this interim update is moderate. Criterion 5 – Feed In the 2016 SFW assessment of Japanese net pen tuna aquaculture production, all Japanese Pacific bluefin tuna (PBFT) farms applied whole fish as the exclusive feed source and there is no readily available evidence in primary literature or other sources that demonstrate feed practices have changed. The motivation to use whole fish instead of a pelleted diet are many fold, but briefly: (i) fish are less expensive than formulated diets, but still accounts for “over 60% of operation budgets for tuna farming operations” (Benetti et al 2016a), (ii) capturing wild tuna and weaning off whole fish to formulated pelleted feeds has led to increased mortality and quality issues - effecting demand from the Japanese market (Buentello et al., 2016a), and (iii) a preference for tuna with high fat content and flesh composition (Buentello et al., 2016a) that is achieved more easily with whole fish. Due to these feeding practices, the “daily feeding of large quantities of untreated fresh or frozen fish/ squid results in unreasonably high feed conversion rates (22.6:1 to 17.8:1; Ottolenghi et al., 2004; Estess et al., 2014).” (Buentello et al., 2016a). This is consistent with the previous 2016 assessment of Japanese net pen tuna farming practices, which estimated an eFCR of 15:1. Without a significant change in feeding practices by the industry, such as the use of pelleted feeds, it is highly unlikely for the eFCR to have changed significantly. Buentello et al (2016b) lays out the research needs to begin using pelleted feeds across the industry:

“For the foreseeable future, tuna nutrition will follow the path paved already for other marine fish such as the Atlantic salmon in the determination of nutrient requirements, utilization of alternative feed ingredients and supplements, and optimization of weaning and grow-out diets, taking into account the unique scombrid physiology and metabolic needs. The achievement of these nutritional objectives will resolve some of the most critical issues currently limiting the success and permanence of the tuna aquaculture industry.” (Buentello et al 2016b).

In the Seafood Watch Standard for Aquaculture, Criterion 5 – Feed, evaluates the amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or

86

cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation. If the eFCR is ≥4, then the Feed criterion will be ‘Critical’. Currently, there is no evidence that the tuna industry has significantly substituted whole fish with pelleted feed. Since feeding practices haven’t changed, the eFCR is not likely to have significantly changed in response, and the eFCR reported in the 2016 assessment is highly likely to be still applicable. Therefore, the Feed Criterion score is still ‘Critical’ for tuna net pen operations in Japan. Criterion 8x – Source of Stock Closing the life cycle of Pacific bluefin tuna by developing a successful broodstock, hatchery, grow out to harvest tuna production cycle is a significant research and investment priority for the industry. Currently, Australia, Japan, and Mexico are all at different stages of commercializing these production techniques. In 2000, Australia’s Clean Seas Tuna Ltd “set the major objective to realize the commercial production of SBFT fingerlings from eggs spawned by captive broodstock” (Chen et al 2016), but after years of research and development Clean Seas Tuna Ltd shifted its focus from SBFT production in 2014 and is no longer actively developing SBFT hatchery production (Clean Seas, 2020). Mexico has no hatchery operations currently operating (Benetti et al 2016), but as of 2019 Ichthus Unlimited has begun pursuing fully closed life cycle production. Ichthus Unlimited is operating in San Diego, California, U.S.A close to the U.S-Mexico border with the goal of stocking PBFT for grow out in Mexico, and potentially the U.S. if demand arises (Leschin-Hoar, C., 2020). Japanese hatchery production of PBFT is further along, and a timeline is explored to help contextualize the evolution of the program.

In Japan, Kinki University first began a tuna aquaculture project in 1970, and in 1974 “successfully reared wild caught juveniles in offshore cages” (Waycott, B. 2018). In 1979, these reared juveniles successfully matured and spawned but the artificially hatched PBFT died in 1979, 1980 and 1982 (Waycott, B. 2018). This was followed by a failure to successfully spawn captive PBFT from 1983-1993. But in 2002 Kinki University “made a breakthrough, producing the world’s first generation of fully farmed Pacific bluefin using the fertilized eggs of artificially hatched, farm-raised parents.” (Waycott, B. 2018). This breakthrough marked the beginning of a fully closed PBFT aquaculture program in Japan and the “latest generation [of broodstock] were produced in 2012.” (Waycott, B. 2018). Data for the stocking of hatchery produced juveniles for all of Japan and tons harvested were published by Buentello et al (2016) from 2011 to 2014 and summarized in Table 1. From 2012 to 2014, the average percentage of wild juveniles stocked was 48% and the average percentage of hatchery produced juveniles stocked was 52%; roughly half of the total PBFT stocked in grow out pens in Japan were from the wild and half were from the hatchery. However, during this same period the percentage of total production that was harvested from hatchery produced juveniles was just 2.54%, 2.65%, and 2.63% respectively, demonstrating the difficulties of successfully rearing PBFT from egg to harvest. The highest mortality rate appears to be the larval stages where survival rates range from 0.01% to 4.5% (Masuma et al., 2008) with cannibalism the greatest driver although mortality rate at any of the stages “can approach 90%” (Benetti et al 2016). More recent harvest production estimates were available through the FAO, but greater detail such as the number of wild juveniles and the number of hatchery juveniles stocked was not readily accessible. But, according to a recent Undercurrent article (October 2020) by Craze and Waycott, 6.5% of the total PBFT harvests in 2018 were sourced from hatchery produced juveniles – marking the largest production volume of egg to harvest PBFT to date. Without significant improvements in survival of hatchery reared PBFT by overcoming key technological, genetic, nutritional,

87

and husbandry barriers described by Buentello et al. 2016a, and identified by Hiroyuki Metoki, a leading PBFT researcher, the number of eggs to harvest PBFT will only improve incrementally. Therefore, the percentage of hatchery harvested PBFT in 2018, 6.5%, is likely accurate for current production estimates in 2020.

Table 1 Japanese Pacific Bluefin Tuna Production Data. Source: Buentello, 2016; FAO, 2019; Craze and Waycott, 2020.

2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017 2018 Number of Companies 94 94 92 95 NA NA NA NA Number of Farms 137 140 147 150 NA NA NA NA Number of Cages 949 1191 1362 1375 NA NA NA NA Number of Wild juveniles stocked 534,000 206,000 347,000 221,000

NA NA NA NA

Number of hatchery produced juveniles stocked 141,000 268,000 264,000 298,000

NA NA NA NA

FAO Total production (tonnes) 9,043 9,592 10,396 14,713 14,825 13,413 15,900 NA Production from hatchery produced juveniles (tons)

NA 244 276 387 NA NA NA NA

% of production from hatchery NA 2.54% 2.65% 2.63% NA NA NA 6.5%a *2014 data is a forecast (except for Total Production data is from FAO records) a 6.5% is reported from Craze and Waycott, 2020.

Despite the improvement of eggs to harvest production in Japan nearly all (roughly 93.5%) of PBFT production is sourced from wild PBFT stock. This form of aquaculture - capturing wild stock for aquaculture purposes - is described as either capture-based aquaculture (CBA) or ranching. Capture based aquaculture defines the practice of capturing juvenile wild species for grow out, while ranching is the practice of corralling adults for grow out or broodstock. Japan sources roughly 93.5% of its capture-based aquaculture production from purse seine fisheries or fisheries trolling with barbless hooks and targeting juveniles of about 100g to 2kg then growing them out to about 30-50kg (Buentello et al. 2016a; Benetti et al 2016). Given this reliance on wild stock, the abundance of these wild populations and impacts of the fishery activities to ocean ecosystems is important to evaluate the sustainability of the industry. According to Collette et al. (2014) in association with the IUCN Red List, the entire PBFT population is considered vulnerable - inclusive of the wild PBFT sourced for Japan’s aquaculture production.

In the Seafood Watch Standard for Aquaculture, Criterion 8x evaluates the source of farm stock and its independence from wild stocks. Seafood Watch considers capturing wild fish, even from a sustainable fishery, and raising them on a farm to be a net loss of resources and ecosystem services. A score of ‘Critical’ is assigned if there is sourcing of wild juveniles and/or broodstock that are considered endangered, protected, vulnerable, threatened, or critically endangered by the IUCN Red List or by a national or other official list with equivalent categories. Since wild PBFT stock are considered vulnerable by the IUCN, the score for Criterion 8x is Critical for Japanese PBFT production sourced from wild stock. Japanese PBFT production sourced from hatcheries are not reliant on wild stock and score a 0 out of -10 for Criterion 8x.

88

References

Australian Fisheries Management Authority. (accessed 2021). Southern bluefin tuna. Retrieved from: https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-management/species/southern-bluefin-tuna#:~:text=Southern%20bluefin%20tuna%20migrate%20southwards,Dependent%20under%20the%20EPBC%20Act.

Benetti, D. D., Partridge, G. J., & Stieglitz, J. (2016). Overview on status and technological advances in tuna aquaculture around the world. In Advances in tuna aquaculture (pp. 1-19). Academic Press.

Buentello, A., Seoka, M., Kato, K., & Partridge, G. J. (2016a). Tuna farming in Japan and Mexico. In Advances in Tuna Aquaculture (pp. 189-215). Academic Press.

Buentello, A., Seoka, M., & Suarez, J. (2016b). Nutrition of cultured tuna species. In Advances in Tuna Aquaculture (pp. 273-321). Academic Press.

Clean Seas. (Accessed 2020). Clean Seas Story. Retrieved from: http://www.cleanseas.com.au/about/clean-seas-story/

Chen, B. N., Hutchinson, W., & Foster, C. (2016). Southern bluefin tuna captive breeding in Australia. In Advances in Tuna Aquaculture (pp. 233-252). Academic Press.

Collette, B., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Nelson, R., Pollard, D., Suzuki, N. & Teo, S. 2014. Thunnus orientalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170341A65166749. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-3.RLTS.T170341A65166749.en

Craze, M. and Waycott, B. (2020). Maruha Nichiro bets big on bluefin tuna farming. Retrieved from: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/03/16/maruha-nichiro-bets-big-on-bluefin-tuna-farming/

Ellis, D., & Kiessling, I. (2016). Ranching of southern bluefin tuna in Australia. In Advances in Tuna Aquaculture (pp. 217-232). Academic Press.

Estess, E.E., Coffey, D.M., Shimose, T., Seitz, A.C., Rodriguez, L., Norton, A., et al., 2014. Bioenergetics of captive Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis). Aquaculture 434, 137_144.

Jeffriess, B. A further Review of Tuna Growth performance in Ranching and Farming Operations, and of the CCSBT expert advice.

Leschin-Hoar, C. (2020). ‘Not convinced it can’t be done’: A look inside California’s new bluefin tuna hatchery. Retrieved from: https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/not-convinced-it-cant-be-done-a-look-inside-californias-new-bluefin-tuna-hatchery/

Masuma, S., Miyashita, S., Yamamoto, H., Kumai, H., 2008. Status of Bluefin Tuna Farming, Broodstock Management, Breeding and Fingerling Production in Japan. Rev. Fish. Sci. 16, 385_390.

Ocean Watch Australia. (2021). Southern bluefin tuna. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanwatch.org.au/seafood/aquaculture/species/southern-bluefin-tuna/

89

Ottolenghi, F., Silvestri, C., Giordano, P., Lovatelli, A., New, M.B., 2004. Capture-based aquaculture: the fattening of eels, groupers, tunas and yellowtails. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, Rome. Seafood Watch. (2020). Western and Central Pacific Tunas and Swordfish. Retrieved from: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/recommendation/tuna/tuna-southern-bluefin-southwest-pacific-ocean-drifting-longlines?species=384 Sylvia, P. C., Belle, S., & Smart, A. (2003). Current status and future prospective of bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus orientalis) farming in Mexico and the west coast of the United States. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, 60, 197-200. Vergara-Solana, F. J., Araneda-Padilla, M., Ramos Sáenz Pardo, J., Ortega-García, S., Seijo, J. C., & Ponce-Díaz, G. (2019). Growth and survival model of Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) for capture-based aquaculture in Mexico. Aquaculture Research, 50(12), 3549-3558. Waycott, B. (2018). Japan hopes aquaculture can save bluefin tuna. Retrieved from: https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/japan-hopes-aquaculture-can-save-bluefin-tuna/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20started%20our%20tuna%20aquaculture,in%201979%2C%201980%20and%201982.

Zertuche-González, J. A., Sosa-Nishizaki, O., Vaca Rodríguez, J. G., del Moral Simanek, R., Yarish, C., & Costa-Pierce, B. A. (2008). Marine science assessment of capture-based tuna (Thunnus orientalis) Aquaculture in the Ensenada Region of Northern Baja. California, México. Paper, 1, http://digit alcom mons.uconn.edu/ecost am_pubs/1.