Hey everyone!
(Warning: it's basically a small novel ahead.)
There's a lot of debate as to whether or not aquacultured fish are inferior to wild-caught fish, and I wanted to address some points on the topic without muddying up other threads. I do recognized this something of a controversial topic; my point is not to raise a controversy, or to praise aquacultured or wild-caught fish here, it's mainly just to discuss some potential flaws of current aquaculture, secondarily, to discuss some differences between aquacultured and wild-caught fish, and, thirdly, to discuss why I'm not overly concerned about the current issues with aquaculture (hint: it's largely due to a professional aquaculturist's financial interests).
To preface this and be completely transparent, I am very much so pro-aquaculture (it's a field I hope to personally get into some day), but I do try to address the points here fairly.
So, first things first, aquacultured means you took some fish, you got them spawning, and you reared the larvae to the point where they could be sold. Those reared larvae are aquacultured specimens. Aquaculture is NOT to be confused with tank-raised, where (at least relatively) freshly hatched, juvenile, wild-caught fish are kept in aquaria until they're an appropriate size to being sold, or with larviculture, which is where you take eggs from the wild, hatch them, and rear the larvae to the point where they could be sold. Larviculture is great for learning how to rear difficult to keep/breed species, but it's not as good from a sustainability perspective as aquaculture. Tank-raised is really just aquarium-adapted, but may or may not be more ecologically friendly than regular wild-caught fish depending on how the specimens are acquired.
I would ask any company or individual advertising tank-raised or larvicultured fish as aquacultured to adjust their advertising to accurately reflect their true status.
So with that said, here are the issues that I'll try to cover at least somewhat here:
-Coloration
-Lifespan, Health, Immunity, and Deformities (Mechanical/Environmental)
-Genetic Deformities and Other Issues
-Cost
-Availability
So, to cover the longest one first, let's talk about captive-bred/aquacultured vs. wild-caught coloration.
Coloration:
This is typically where I see the most complaints from reefers - the aquacultured fish are pale and "not as colorful" as their wild-caught counterparts. This may or may not be true, but let's address some of the issues at hand with coloration.
First and foremost, juvenile fish are typically transparent/translucent, and retain a very pale, grayish white color until they're a little older and larger. Wild caught fish are almost never sold in this size range (probably in part because it's really, really hard to tell fish apart at this stage). Aquacultured fish, however, are fairly frequently sold in this size range. As mentioned, any fish in this size range will take a while to color up.
Second, many different factors impact both long-term and short-term coloration, including the following:
-Light (wavelength, intensity, and duration)
-Health
-Diet (including both vitamins, minerals, etc. and pigments like astaxanthin in a fish's diet)
-Chemicals (including hormones, pheromones, toxins, etc.)
-Genetics
-Stress
-Biological Sex
-Social Interactions (mating, aggression, social hierarchies, etc.)
-Age/Size/Life-stage
-Etc.
Some things that affect a fish's coloration are immediate and short-term (like stress) while others (like lighting and diet) can take much, much longer to make a noticeable difference, but that difference is likely to linger much, much longer once the issue is resolved.
Out of the factors above, aquacultured fish could potentially suffer comparative, color-related issues from the first five (light, health, diet, chemicals, and genetics):
-No manufactured light currently mimics the sunlight all wild-caught fish would be exposed to, so there's potential for deficiency there, but it may not be an issue at all depending on the specific species involved. Additionally, some aquaculture facilities do use sunlight for their operations, so any differences here could be drastic or negligible depending on the facility lighting.
-Unhealthy fish may not look as vibrant as healthy fish. Additionally, if there is some kind of deficiency during the egg or larval stages for a fish, it could (in addition to impacting their health/lifespan) impact a fish's coloration as it grows; many times the color issue is just temporary when deficiencies in the larval stage are the cause. The more known issues here, the more the incentive for aquaculturists to resolve the source of the issue, but it does require knowing about the issue and being able to identify what is causing it.
-Diet impacts not only the health, but a fish's coloration as well; different pigments (found in various food items) in different quantities in whatever a fish eats impacts the coloration of the fish - wild-caught fish are going to have a very different diet than aquacultured fish, and may have different dietary pigments/pigment levels as a result. So, the color of an aquacultured fish may be different/subjectively inferior based on its diet. The healthier and better looking the fish, the more likely it is to sell well, though, so, again, there's incentive to correct any issues with diet here.
-Chemicals can impact a fish's coloration, but regardless of if a fish is wild-caught or aquacultured, it would be an effort in futility to try and measure each chemical a fish could potentially be exposed to and its impact on a fish's color. One could make a few, shaky assumptions here - such as that wild-caught fish would generally be exposed to more but also more-diluted chemicals than aquacultured fish, or that most chemicals a fish could be exposed to would be detrimental to their color rather than helpful - but we just don't have enough information here to know if those assumptions are even valid enough to be addressed. So, I'll just say that - at this point - chemically speaking, I wouldn't expect either wild-caught or aquacultured fish to be superior.
-Genetics obviously play a role in a fish's coloration. One of the main concerns I hear with aquacultured fish is the concern of inbreeding and genetic issues with aquacultured fish. With responsible aquaculture (which would maintain at least three different genetic lines just like responsible farming/ranching), this really shouldn't be a concern, as the genetic lines should be distinct enough to avoid most issues just like wild-caught genetic lines would be. With irresponsible aquaculture, though, this is a serious concern primarily for the health and longevity of a fish, but also somewhat from a coloration perspective.
Now for the other issues.
Lifespan, Health, Immunity, and Deformities (Mechanical/Environmental):
The field of marine aquaculture is still largely in its early stages - yes, we've figured out how to culture a lot of species, but there are still plenty more to figure out. There are also a number of improvements to be made on the current culture methods of many species (some of which will take a very long time to figure out), and some issues which may need correcting.
Some of these potential issues are related to our care for the species (either broodstock, larvae, or both) in captivity, and can directly impact a specimen's lifespan, health, immunity, development, and more. For example, when the broodstock fish have a diet that is good enough to get the fish spawning, but which diet still has minor flaws in it, it can lead to eggs which hatch with deformed or sickly larvae. Similarly, for some species, if a larval diet is lacking in some way but good enough to still rear the fish, it can lead to deformities, coloration issues, poor health, a shortened lifespan, etc. in the future for specimens reared on that diet.
Beyond just the diet of the fish, though, there are other possible issues that can arise and cause problems. For example, under improper feeding conditions or environmental conditions, larval fish may develop coloration issues and/or deformities such as deformed jaws, heads, fins, etc. Many common deformities are caused by lighting issues in the rearing process (which often cause the larvae to smack into the walls or floor of their tanks, sometimes leading to things like misshapen heads), but some may be caused by things like the use of slurry feeds which larvae attempt to eat off of the walls and floors of their tanks, resulting in serious jaw deformities (which may sometimes prove fatal to a fish over time).
Additionally, some aquarists are concerned that due to the relatively sterile environments in which aquacultured fish are reared, that the fish will be more susceptible to disease than their wild-caught counterparts. This may or may not be true, but I suspect it will take years of study before we know for sure if this is a valid concern or not. Given our current knowledge and the already high mortality rate of wild-caught fish to disease, however, it's understandable to view this as a concerning possibility.
That said, judging from the success of current aquacultured specimens in aquariums with both aquacultured and wild-caught specimens (to say nothing of live rock or sand), it would seem likely that this concern may be overblown, as if their theoretically weaker immune system was going to cause problems when exposed to wild/oceanic pathogens, it should do so in systems with wild-caught fish and live rock/sand.
As mentioned before, though, we likely won't know the theoretically weakened immune systems are a real problem in some way or not for several years.
Either way, I expect that most of these issues will be addressed in time, and that we will see both fewer issues with these over time and higher survival rates for aquacultured fish over time.
Genetic Deformities and Other Issues:
To be brief here, good genetics are key to good health. Bad genetics can lead to deformities, discoloration, shortened lifespan, increased chance of specific diseases/health issues, etc., so it's of the utmost importance to maintain good genetics in a population of aquacultured fish.
As mentioned before, with responsible aquacultured, multiple distinct genetic lines (at least three of them, but the more the merrier) should be maintained. By maintaining these distinct genetic lines, there should be comparable numbers of genetic issues for both wild-caught and aquacultured species, meaning that there should not really be any more genetic concerns from captive-bred populations than there are for wild-caught specimens.
So, assuming that professional aquaculturists recognize that good genetics are good for business, where do these issues really come into view? Largely from hobbyist breeders, unfortunately. I am fully supportive of hobbyist aquaculture, but I do recognize that care needs to be taken to avoid inbreeding (or at least excessive inbreeding), and with popular species - like clownfish - that may be hard. Why? Because while professionals should be keeping records of their livestock to avoid inbreeding, hobbyists may not always know which fish are related and which aren't, or how closely related the fish may be. So, purposefully or otherwise, inbreeding may occur if care is not taken.
Additionally, breeding for things like specific color morphs can take a very long time, so some may (irresponsibly) try to take shortcuts to that consistently produce that morph by heavily inbreeding specimens which display it. Again, professionals should know better than to do this, so it's likely to be primarily of concern amongst hobbyists.
So, remember, responsible hobbyists/professionals and responsible aquaculture frame the hobby in a positive light and produce higher quality fish- so, be careful to avoid excessive inbreeding. If you're hoping to breed a fish that has already been bred, especially if it's a popular fish (such as clownfish), ask around about the broodstock or breeder of the exact specimens you're interested in breeding before you breed them.
Cost:
It's popular to complain about the cost of fish, especially when those fish are aquacultured. So, why do aquacultured fish generally cost more than wild-caught fish? A few reasons:
-Research and development costs to produce viable and repeatable aquaculture procedures, then more research and development costs to improve those procedures.
-Opportunity costs; how much money could the aquaculturist be making if they sold somethings else, like a different species (particularly one that they already know how to culture)?
-Maintenance costs; just like any business, the aquaculturist has to keep the lights on and the equipment operating correctly. However, in addition to that, they also have to keep feeding their broodstock and any larvae their broodstock produce, and they have to keep producing the feeders to feed them. So, the maintenance costs can add up fast, particularly if there are multiple batches of larvae from the same broodstock being reared at once. Additionally, the longer larvae are kept, the more it costs to maintain them (they need more food as they grow, and they can't be sold until they reach viable sizes), and some species have very long larval stages. So, price will vary from one species to another depending on both the amount and type of food needed, and on the larval duration.
-Shipping and handling; while aquacultured fish don't always need shipped internationally (though they also often are), they do still need shipped within country.
-Country-specific labor costs; the hands-on side of aquaculture isn't something that can be done remotely, and a lot of aquaculture is done in relatively expensive countries (like the U.S.). Those relatively expensive countries have relatively (very) high labor prices, and that really bumps the cost. Many wild-caught fish are caught and exported from countries with relatively (very) cheap labor, and have minimal labor costs as a result; so much of the cost of wild-caught fish is really just shipping.
With all of this in mind, the more common aquacultured fish become, and the more the field of aquculture advances, the (relatively) cheaper the fish will likely become in the future.
Availability:
At this point, not every fish is available through aquaculture. That's indisputable. For a number of reasons (ethics/morals, politics/legalities, finances, passion, research, etc.), however, I suspect we will see more species being aquacultured more frequently in the future. Honestly, for those same reasons, while it would definitely take a while, it seems likely that aquacultured specimens will eventually overtake wild-caught specimens as being more common in the hobby.
So, I suspect that availability will only be a concern for rarer species in the future (though I also suspect that at least some species will likely remain available only as wild-caught specimens for the foreseeable future), but it's definitely a concern now. The more responsible aquaculturists we can get breeding different species, though, the sooner that concern may be diminished.
Anyway, whether aquacultured specimens are objectively inferior or not in some way to their wild-caught counterparts, aquaculture is still in its beginning stages and already shows great promise. Speaking bluntly here, it will likely only show more promise going forward. While we definitely have a long way to go in the field, I do believe it could be an effective, sustainable way forward - particularly with the help of responsible hobbyists and professionals alike.
So, don't be afraid to give aquacultured fish a try, and, who knows, with public support and enough research, aquaculture may even produce objectively superior specimens at some point (a controversial thought, I know).
On a final note, regardless of if you think wild-caught or aquacultured is better, and regardless of if you think aquaculture is the future of fish-keeping or not - thanks for reading! If you can think of any other major points I missed, let me know.
Happy reefing!
(Warning: it's basically a small novel ahead.)
There's a lot of debate as to whether or not aquacultured fish are inferior to wild-caught fish, and I wanted to address some points on the topic without muddying up other threads. I do recognized this something of a controversial topic; my point is not to raise a controversy, or to praise aquacultured or wild-caught fish here, it's mainly just to discuss some potential flaws of current aquaculture, secondarily, to discuss some differences between aquacultured and wild-caught fish, and, thirdly, to discuss why I'm not overly concerned about the current issues with aquaculture (hint: it's largely due to a professional aquaculturist's financial interests).
To preface this and be completely transparent, I am very much so pro-aquaculture (it's a field I hope to personally get into some day), but I do try to address the points here fairly.
So, first things first, aquacultured means you took some fish, you got them spawning, and you reared the larvae to the point where they could be sold. Those reared larvae are aquacultured specimens. Aquaculture is NOT to be confused with tank-raised, where (at least relatively) freshly hatched, juvenile, wild-caught fish are kept in aquaria until they're an appropriate size to being sold, or with larviculture, which is where you take eggs from the wild, hatch them, and rear the larvae to the point where they could be sold. Larviculture is great for learning how to rear difficult to keep/breed species, but it's not as good from a sustainability perspective as aquaculture. Tank-raised is really just aquarium-adapted, but may or may not be more ecologically friendly than regular wild-caught fish depending on how the specimens are acquired.
I would ask any company or individual advertising tank-raised or larvicultured fish as aquacultured to adjust their advertising to accurately reflect their true status.
So with that said, here are the issues that I'll try to cover at least somewhat here:
-Coloration
-Lifespan, Health, Immunity, and Deformities (Mechanical/Environmental)
-Genetic Deformities and Other Issues
-Cost
-Availability
So, to cover the longest one first, let's talk about captive-bred/aquacultured vs. wild-caught coloration.
Coloration:
This is typically where I see the most complaints from reefers - the aquacultured fish are pale and "not as colorful" as their wild-caught counterparts. This may or may not be true, but let's address some of the issues at hand with coloration.
First and foremost, juvenile fish are typically transparent/translucent, and retain a very pale, grayish white color until they're a little older and larger. Wild caught fish are almost never sold in this size range (probably in part because it's really, really hard to tell fish apart at this stage). Aquacultured fish, however, are fairly frequently sold in this size range. As mentioned, any fish in this size range will take a while to color up.
Second, many different factors impact both long-term and short-term coloration, including the following:
-Light (wavelength, intensity, and duration)
-Health
-Diet (including both vitamins, minerals, etc. and pigments like astaxanthin in a fish's diet)
-Chemicals (including hormones, pheromones, toxins, etc.)
-Genetics
-Stress
-Biological Sex
-Social Interactions (mating, aggression, social hierarchies, etc.)
-Age/Size/Life-stage
-Etc.
Some things that affect a fish's coloration are immediate and short-term (like stress) while others (like lighting and diet) can take much, much longer to make a noticeable difference, but that difference is likely to linger much, much longer once the issue is resolved.
Out of the factors above, aquacultured fish could potentially suffer comparative, color-related issues from the first five (light, health, diet, chemicals, and genetics):
-No manufactured light currently mimics the sunlight all wild-caught fish would be exposed to, so there's potential for deficiency there, but it may not be an issue at all depending on the specific species involved. Additionally, some aquaculture facilities do use sunlight for their operations, so any differences here could be drastic or negligible depending on the facility lighting.
-Unhealthy fish may not look as vibrant as healthy fish. Additionally, if there is some kind of deficiency during the egg or larval stages for a fish, it could (in addition to impacting their health/lifespan) impact a fish's coloration as it grows; many times the color issue is just temporary when deficiencies in the larval stage are the cause. The more known issues here, the more the incentive for aquaculturists to resolve the source of the issue, but it does require knowing about the issue and being able to identify what is causing it.
-Diet impacts not only the health, but a fish's coloration as well; different pigments (found in various food items) in different quantities in whatever a fish eats impacts the coloration of the fish - wild-caught fish are going to have a very different diet than aquacultured fish, and may have different dietary pigments/pigment levels as a result. So, the color of an aquacultured fish may be different/subjectively inferior based on its diet. The healthier and better looking the fish, the more likely it is to sell well, though, so, again, there's incentive to correct any issues with diet here.
-Chemicals can impact a fish's coloration, but regardless of if a fish is wild-caught or aquacultured, it would be an effort in futility to try and measure each chemical a fish could potentially be exposed to and its impact on a fish's color. One could make a few, shaky assumptions here - such as that wild-caught fish would generally be exposed to more but also more-diluted chemicals than aquacultured fish, or that most chemicals a fish could be exposed to would be detrimental to their color rather than helpful - but we just don't have enough information here to know if those assumptions are even valid enough to be addressed. So, I'll just say that - at this point - chemically speaking, I wouldn't expect either wild-caught or aquacultured fish to be superior.
-Genetics obviously play a role in a fish's coloration. One of the main concerns I hear with aquacultured fish is the concern of inbreeding and genetic issues with aquacultured fish. With responsible aquaculture (which would maintain at least three different genetic lines just like responsible farming/ranching), this really shouldn't be a concern, as the genetic lines should be distinct enough to avoid most issues just like wild-caught genetic lines would be. With irresponsible aquaculture, though, this is a serious concern primarily for the health and longevity of a fish, but also somewhat from a coloration perspective.
Now for the other issues.
Lifespan, Health, Immunity, and Deformities (Mechanical/Environmental):
The field of marine aquaculture is still largely in its early stages - yes, we've figured out how to culture a lot of species, but there are still plenty more to figure out. There are also a number of improvements to be made on the current culture methods of many species (some of which will take a very long time to figure out), and some issues which may need correcting.
Some of these potential issues are related to our care for the species (either broodstock, larvae, or both) in captivity, and can directly impact a specimen's lifespan, health, immunity, development, and more. For example, when the broodstock fish have a diet that is good enough to get the fish spawning, but which diet still has minor flaws in it, it can lead to eggs which hatch with deformed or sickly larvae. Similarly, for some species, if a larval diet is lacking in some way but good enough to still rear the fish, it can lead to deformities, coloration issues, poor health, a shortened lifespan, etc. in the future for specimens reared on that diet.
Beyond just the diet of the fish, though, there are other possible issues that can arise and cause problems. For example, under improper feeding conditions or environmental conditions, larval fish may develop coloration issues and/or deformities such as deformed jaws, heads, fins, etc. Many common deformities are caused by lighting issues in the rearing process (which often cause the larvae to smack into the walls or floor of their tanks, sometimes leading to things like misshapen heads), but some may be caused by things like the use of slurry feeds which larvae attempt to eat off of the walls and floors of their tanks, resulting in serious jaw deformities (which may sometimes prove fatal to a fish over time).
Additionally, some aquarists are concerned that due to the relatively sterile environments in which aquacultured fish are reared, that the fish will be more susceptible to disease than their wild-caught counterparts. This may or may not be true, but I suspect it will take years of study before we know for sure if this is a valid concern or not. Given our current knowledge and the already high mortality rate of wild-caught fish to disease, however, it's understandable to view this as a concerning possibility.
That said, judging from the success of current aquacultured specimens in aquariums with both aquacultured and wild-caught specimens (to say nothing of live rock or sand), it would seem likely that this concern may be overblown, as if their theoretically weaker immune system was going to cause problems when exposed to wild/oceanic pathogens, it should do so in systems with wild-caught fish and live rock/sand.
As mentioned before, though, we likely won't know the theoretically weakened immune systems are a real problem in some way or not for several years.
Either way, I expect that most of these issues will be addressed in time, and that we will see both fewer issues with these over time and higher survival rates for aquacultured fish over time.
Genetic Deformities and Other Issues:
To be brief here, good genetics are key to good health. Bad genetics can lead to deformities, discoloration, shortened lifespan, increased chance of specific diseases/health issues, etc., so it's of the utmost importance to maintain good genetics in a population of aquacultured fish.
As mentioned before, with responsible aquacultured, multiple distinct genetic lines (at least three of them, but the more the merrier) should be maintained. By maintaining these distinct genetic lines, there should be comparable numbers of genetic issues for both wild-caught and aquacultured species, meaning that there should not really be any more genetic concerns from captive-bred populations than there are for wild-caught specimens.
So, assuming that professional aquaculturists recognize that good genetics are good for business, where do these issues really come into view? Largely from hobbyist breeders, unfortunately. I am fully supportive of hobbyist aquaculture, but I do recognize that care needs to be taken to avoid inbreeding (or at least excessive inbreeding), and with popular species - like clownfish - that may be hard. Why? Because while professionals should be keeping records of their livestock to avoid inbreeding, hobbyists may not always know which fish are related and which aren't, or how closely related the fish may be. So, purposefully or otherwise, inbreeding may occur if care is not taken.
Additionally, breeding for things like specific color morphs can take a very long time, so some may (irresponsibly) try to take shortcuts to that consistently produce that morph by heavily inbreeding specimens which display it. Again, professionals should know better than to do this, so it's likely to be primarily of concern amongst hobbyists.
So, remember, responsible hobbyists/professionals and responsible aquaculture frame the hobby in a positive light and produce higher quality fish- so, be careful to avoid excessive inbreeding. If you're hoping to breed a fish that has already been bred, especially if it's a popular fish (such as clownfish), ask around about the broodstock or breeder of the exact specimens you're interested in breeding before you breed them.
Cost:
It's popular to complain about the cost of fish, especially when those fish are aquacultured. So, why do aquacultured fish generally cost more than wild-caught fish? A few reasons:
-Research and development costs to produce viable and repeatable aquaculture procedures, then more research and development costs to improve those procedures.
-Opportunity costs; how much money could the aquaculturist be making if they sold somethings else, like a different species (particularly one that they already know how to culture)?
-Maintenance costs; just like any business, the aquaculturist has to keep the lights on and the equipment operating correctly. However, in addition to that, they also have to keep feeding their broodstock and any larvae their broodstock produce, and they have to keep producing the feeders to feed them. So, the maintenance costs can add up fast, particularly if there are multiple batches of larvae from the same broodstock being reared at once. Additionally, the longer larvae are kept, the more it costs to maintain them (they need more food as they grow, and they can't be sold until they reach viable sizes), and some species have very long larval stages. So, price will vary from one species to another depending on both the amount and type of food needed, and on the larval duration.
-Shipping and handling; while aquacultured fish don't always need shipped internationally (though they also often are), they do still need shipped within country.
-Country-specific labor costs; the hands-on side of aquaculture isn't something that can be done remotely, and a lot of aquaculture is done in relatively expensive countries (like the U.S.). Those relatively expensive countries have relatively (very) high labor prices, and that really bumps the cost. Many wild-caught fish are caught and exported from countries with relatively (very) cheap labor, and have minimal labor costs as a result; so much of the cost of wild-caught fish is really just shipping.
With all of this in mind, the more common aquacultured fish become, and the more the field of aquculture advances, the (relatively) cheaper the fish will likely become in the future.
Availability:
At this point, not every fish is available through aquaculture. That's indisputable. For a number of reasons (ethics/morals, politics/legalities, finances, passion, research, etc.), however, I suspect we will see more species being aquacultured more frequently in the future. Honestly, for those same reasons, while it would definitely take a while, it seems likely that aquacultured specimens will eventually overtake wild-caught specimens as being more common in the hobby.
So, I suspect that availability will only be a concern for rarer species in the future (though I also suspect that at least some species will likely remain available only as wild-caught specimens for the foreseeable future), but it's definitely a concern now. The more responsible aquaculturists we can get breeding different species, though, the sooner that concern may be diminished.
Anyway, whether aquacultured specimens are objectively inferior or not in some way to their wild-caught counterparts, aquaculture is still in its beginning stages and already shows great promise. Speaking bluntly here, it will likely only show more promise going forward. While we definitely have a long way to go in the field, I do believe it could be an effective, sustainable way forward - particularly with the help of responsible hobbyists and professionals alike.
So, don't be afraid to give aquacultured fish a try, and, who knows, with public support and enough research, aquaculture may even produce objectively superior specimens at some point (a controversial thought, I know).
On a final note, regardless of if you think wild-caught or aquacultured is better, and regardless of if you think aquaculture is the future of fish-keeping or not - thanks for reading! If you can think of any other major points I missed, let me know.
Happy reefing!
