Jillian P. Fry1*
Rachel E. Scroggins2
Taryn M. Garlock3
David C. Love2,4
Frank Asche5,6
Mark T. Brown7
Elizabeth M. Nussbaumer2,5Ly Nguyen8
Lekelia D. Jenkins9
James Anderson5,6
Roni A. Neff2,4- 1Department of Health Sciences, College of Health Professions, Towson University, Towson, MD, United States
- 2Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
- 3School of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States
- 4Environmental Health and Engineering Department, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
- 5School of Forest, Fisheries and Geomatics Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
- 6Global Food Systems Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
- 7Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
- 8Agribusiness Program, College of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, United States
- 9School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States
Introduction: The food-energy-water (FEW) nexus highlights the interdependencies between the systems that people rely on for these essential resources. For example, globally, over two thirds of freshwater withdrawals are used to produce food, and another 10% is used during energy generation. In addition, the food system uses one eighth of global net energy. Seafood is a nutritionally important food, and it is critical to use freshwater and energy resources efficiently throughout seafood supply chains to safeguard future supplies and to reduce environmental impacts. Diverse seafood production methods result in highly variable resource use across supply chains, which may contribute to siloed efforts within supply chains to improve efficiency, instead of larger efforts that involve multiple seafood supply chains. Additionally, efforts to develop and implement efficiency strategies must be informed by fishers, aquaculturists, processors, and other seafood supply chain actors to avoid investing time and resources into strategies that will have low uptake. A significant proportion of seafood is imported into the U.S., so engaging with industry and stakeholders in the U.S. and abroad is critical for understanding and improving the FEW nexus associated with seafood consumed by Americans.
Methods: To understand how resources are being used, current and potential strategies to improve resource use, and relevant motivations and barriers, we conducted 47 semi-structured interviews from 2019 to 2021 with seafood supply chain actors, including producers and processors. Seafood supply chains included were farmed catfish produced in the U.S., farmed pangasius and shrimp produced in Vietnam, farmed Atlantic salmon produced in Norway, and wild-caught sockeye and pink salmon caught in the U.S.
Results: We provide detailed descriptions of stages within each supply chain regarding resource use and efficiency strategies, and report higher-level findings that apply across supply chains. There was variation across settings regarding how resources are used and opportunities and barriers for improving efficiencies, but we also found commonalities in settings, indicating that resource-saving strategies or innovations could lead to increased efficiency across multiple supply chains. Interviewees shared that cost savings drove past adoption of, and high interest in, energy conservation practices. Generally, direct costs did not motivate reduced use of freshwater, but associated costs like energy to run pumps and supplies to treat contaminated surface water drove interest in reducing water use.
Discussion: Efforts to improve resource use in the U.S. seafood supply should focus on identifying and scaling-up strategies that (i) involve improved efficiency of more than one resource and/or (ii) apply across multiple settings. This work should involve partnerships between industry, government agencies, and academic researchers, and should be informed by supply chain actors’ experiences and insights. The qualitative insights from this study encompass rich descriptions of FEW-relevant factors at the level of specific supply chain stages as well as findings across six major seafood supply chains in three countries. The study provides an essential complement to existing quantitative characterizations of resource use, and enables nuanced and informed responses to challenges.
1 Introduction
Supplying a nutrient-rich diet to a growing population without damaging the environment is a significant global challenge, and seafood plays an important role (Gordon et al., 2017; Troell et al., 2019; Fanzo et al., 2021; Naylor et al., 2023). According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), at least 767 million people lacked access to nutritious food in 2021, the equivalent of one out of every nine persons. Seafood, also called aquatic food (i.e., edible fish, shellfish, and crustaceans from fresh, brackish, or seawater), is an excellent source of protein, omega-3 fatty acids, and vitamins and minerals essential for good health (FAO, 2022). For 3.3 billion people, seafood provides at least a fifth of their animal protein intake (Golden et al., 2021; FAO, 2022). Seafood can reduce malnutrition and food insecurity, generally with an equivalent or lower environmental footprint than most terrestrial animal-based food sources (Gephart et al., 2021; Golden et al., 2021).
The food, energy, and water (FEW) nexus considers the interconnectedness of these three critical necessities and their dependence on one another (Albrecht et al., 2018; Abdi et al., 2020; Proctor et al., 2021). The nexus approach seeks to understand the tradeoffs within each resource while optimizing their synergies (Scanlon et al., 2017; Abdi et al., 2020). The interdependencies in the FEW nexus at the global level are striking. For example, 69% of freshwater withdrawals are used in the food production stage of the food system, including for irrigation, livestock, and aquaculture (UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme, 2021), and 10% of global withdrawals are used for energy (International Energy Agency, 2023). More than half (57%) of the water used in the global energy system is used to produce, process, and transport fossil fuels or during fossil fuel-powered electricity generation (International Energy Agency, 2023). The food system, including all stages from food production to retail and households, is estimated to be responsible for 13% of global net energy use (Usubiaga-Liaño et al., 2020). In North America, the following stages/uses comprise 75% of net energy use in the food system: agriculture (17%), food processing (19%), electricity/heat (19%), transport (4%), and households (16%; Usubiaga-Liaño et al., 2020). These are just a few high-level examples of the interdependencies in the FEW nexus.
Facilitating improvements in the FEW nexus requires the engagement of stakeholders whose actions define their status (Ghodsvali et al., 2019), but the integration of stakeholders in FEW nexus work is limited, except as end-users of the results (Hoolohan et al., 2018). The multifaceted nature of the FEW nexus requires multidisciplinary collaboration to effectively address system complexities (Bergendahl et al., 2018; Hoolohan et al., 2018; Ghodsvali et al., 2019), and qualitative research with stakeholders can provide critical insights on drivers and barriers that complement quantitative approaches (Bergendahl et al., 2018; Yung et al., 2019; Kropf et al., 2021). For example, comprehensive stakeholder engagement is an important element of marine spatial planning, as it is recognized that the long-term success of fisheries management demands consideration of human activities and ecological resources in decision-making (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Nutters and Pinto da Silva, 2012). Most research to date on FEW nexus systems has focused on approaches that consider the nexus from a technological lens (Daher et al., 2017; Bergendahl et al., 2018; van Gevelt, 2020). Therefore, multidisciplinary knowledge informed by stakeholders who are connected to or impacted by FEW nexus realities is needed (Hoolohan et al., 2018; Yung et al., 2019; Kropf et al., 2021).
Multiple factors affect resource use in seafood production, with varying potential for adaptation. In capture fisheries, direct use of fuel and indirect inputs such as water are required to produce the fossil fuel energy to operate fishing vessels (Troell et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Viglia et al., 2022a). In addition to being an indicator of environmentally unsustainable practices, the high reliance on fossil fuels has exposed fishery sectors to rising fuel costs and fuel price fluctuations that have challenged the viability of some fisheries (Parker et al., 2018). Aquaculture also relies heavily on fossil fuels, but aquaculture has a greater opportunity to shift to clean, renewable sources because electricity from major utilities comprises a significant share of energy used (Scroggins et al., 2022). At the same time, some forms of aquaculture are dependent on capture fisheries as a source of marine ingredients for fish feeds.
Technological innovations have enabled intensification of aquaculture (Asche et al., 2022) which results in greater yields per unit cost and provides economies of scale (Kumar et al., 2020). However, it has also resulted in more water and energy use to provide feed, exchange water, and maintain water quality during production (Wilfart et al., 2013; Viglia et al., 2022b). In addition, processing of seafood has become more automated in some sectors (Asche et al., 2018), and thus energy and water demands have changed (Brown et al., 2022). Seafood production and processing methods are highly variable within both aquaculture and wild-capture fisheries (Naylor et al., 2021) and also vary significantly by species (Love et al., 2022), resulting in heterogeneous resource use profiles and environmental impacts, and bidirectional interactions between fisheries and aquaculture (Natale et al., 2013; Troell et al., 2019; Bohnes and Laurent, 2021).
The United States (US) sources seafood from all over the world and is the world’s leading importer of seafood by value and second in terms of quantity (Shamshak et al., 2019). Over the last thirty years, the US seafood supply has consistently delivered ~5.8 oz. per person weekly (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2022). This is largely supplied from imports, and increasingly from aquaculture, as US and global capture fisheries are fully exploited while aquaculture production is growing (Garlock et al., 2020). However, although there is significant variation between demographic groups, almost 90 percent of Americans do not meet US Department of Agriculture (USDA) dietary intake recommendations (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020; Love et al., 2022, 34). Recommendations from US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and USDA to double seafood consumption among Americans raise sustainability concerns related to resource use (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). Resource inefficiencies, including waste of seafood, and increasing stress on resources due to changing global diets and climate change highlight the need for practical, cost-effective interventions to improve existing supply chain practices and resource use efficiency (Halpern et al., 2019; Love et al., 2020).
This paper contributes to an improved understanding of the FEW nexus and sustainable food systems, with a focus on seafood. In-depth exploration of seafood is essential due to its distinctive and variable production practices, long supply chains, perishability, and nutritional value. Studies on the FEW nexus and/or seafood sustainability tend to have a quantitative approach and many focus on one stage of a supply chain (e.g., fishing or farming) and/or one type of seafood. In addition, studies that cover multiple stages and/or supply chains often use secondary data from multiple sources (for example, see Hallström et al., 2019 and Koehn et al., 2022). This paper adds to, and complements, the existing literature by providing highly detailed descriptions of (i) how water and energy are used in production and processing stages across six seafood supply chains, (ii) how use of these resources has changed over time, and (iii) perspectives of supply chain actors on potential strategies to improve efficiencies. The results are based on primary data collected via qualitative interviews. The insights cover wild-caught, farmed, domestic (US), and international seafood supply chains, thus enabling analysis of synergies and tradeoffs regarding use of energy and water within and across seafood supply chains.
1.1 Seafood supply chains
This study focuses on four of the nine most consumed species groups in the US (Figure 1): shrimp, salmon, catfish and pangasius; and more specifically on six important supply chains: Vietnam farmed shrimp (Penaeus monodon, Litopenaeus vannamei), Vietnam farmed pangasius (Pangasius hypophthalmus); US farmed channel (Ictalurus punctatus) and hybrid (I. punctatus x I. furcatus) catfish; Norway farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar); US Alaska wild capture sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and US Alaska wild capture pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha).
Figure 1. Study sites.
1.1.1 United States Alaska wild sockeye salmon
The Alaska sockeye salmon fishery is one of the largest and most valuable sockeye fisheries in the world and is a major economic driver in rural Alaska. The fishery operates during a short 4–6-week period in the summer when sockeye salmon return from the ocean to spawn in the rivers that flow into Bristol Bay. The fishery uses two types of gillnets, driftnets and setnets (description of gillnets).1 The fishery harvests an average of 96 thousand tonnes of sockeye annually, valued at $409 million USD (Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), 2022). Salmon is the second most consumed species group in the US, surpassed only by shrimp (Love et al., 2020). The short season also highlights the challenge of the industry in serving a market across an entire year, and contributes to the use of imported products (Love et al., 2023b).
1.1.2 United States Alaska wild capture pink salmon
The Alaska wild capture pink salmon fishery operates in nearshore waters of Prince William Sound. Pink salmon are caught using purse seines from July to August (description of purse seines).2 The fishery harvests about 60 thousand tonnes of pink salmon annually, valued at $55 million USD (Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), 2022), and more than 60% of the catch is hatchery-origin fish (Wilson, 2022). Pink salmon are less valuable than sockeye salmon due to their lower oil content, and a high share of the pink salmon harvest is canned.
1.1.3 Norway farmed Atlantic salmon
Norway, the largest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon, produces 1.4 million tonnes of farmed salmon, which represents 51% of global farmed Atlantic salmon production (FAO, 2022). Salmon farming involves two stages: land-based freshwater rearing of eggs to smolts (i.e., the lifestage when salmon transition to saltwater), and grow-out of smolts to adults in coastal or offshore net pens. During the 1–2 year grow out cycle, salmon are fed pelleted feeds. The limited ability to control the environmental conditions in the net pens has resulted in high mortality attributable to diseases and parasitic infestation, primarily salmon lice (Overton et al., 2019). To decrease exposure to risks during pen-rearing, producers are rearing smolts to larger sizes in land-based systems and reducing the time spent in ocean net pens (Ytrestøyl et al., 2020), however, this increases energy and water use.
1.1.4 United States farmed catfish
The US farmed catfish industry is the largest aquaculture sector in the US, with an average production of 150 thousand tonnes annually. Catfish farming occurs primarily in Alabama and Mississippi. Catfish aquaculture has two production phases: a hatchery phase that occurs in indoor tanks and a grow-out phase that occurs in 4–5 ha freshwater ponds. During the 18-month grow-out period, the ponds require mechanical aeration to increase dissolved oxygen levels; rotating paddle wheel aerators are the most commonly used (description available here).3 Catfish are harvested at 1.7 pounds and primarily shipped as frozen filets and consumed in the US. Catfish are the seventh most consumed seafood in the US.
1.1.5 Vietnam farmed pangasius
Vietnam is the largest producer and exporter of pangasius with China, the US, and Europe as the main markets (Nguyen et al., 2023). Nearly 1.5 million tonnes of pangasius are farmed annually in Vietnam (Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP), 2019). Pangasius farming occurs in earthen ponds near river tributaries. The ponds are filled with water pumped from the adjacent water bodies. There are three stages of pangasius culture: hatchery ponds for rearing larvae to fry, nursery ponds for rearing fry to fingerlings, and grow-out ponds. Pangasius are capable of breathing air. Therefore, farming of pangasius does not require aeration, unlike similar farmed species such as catfish.
1.1.6 Vietnam farmed shrimp
Vietnam is one of the leading producers of farmed shrimp with production of 879 thousand tonnes annually (Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP), 2020). Production is comprised of whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), and occurs primarily in the Mekong Delta region. Shrimp broodstock are spawned and larvae are reared in indoor, recirculating tanks. Post-larvae shrimp are stocked into brackish ponds (i.e., water with salinity levels in between freshwater and seawater) filled with water pumped from nearby canals and rivers mixed with seawater, and aerators are used to support higher stocking densities. Shrimp is the most consumed seafood in the US and a high share is purchased at retailers, such as grocery stores (Love et al., 2020).
1.2 Research questions
The purpose of the study was to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the main uses of water and energy in each stage of the supply chain, and how has resource use changed?
2. How are usage, costs, and availability of water and energy perceived by seafood supply chain actors?
3. What strategies are used by seafood supply chain actors, or are identified as potential strategies, to reduce energy and/or water use? What are the key motivating factors and barriers to implementation?
4. Where in seafood supply chains are there synergies and tradeoffs between water and energy use? How do synergies and tradeoffs vary by stage of the supply chain and across selected supply chains?
2 Methods
The FEW nexus was the overarching framework used for this study, and we applied it to the six seafood supply chains using a multiple-case study design. A multiple-case study design allows researchers to study cases that exist in different contexts and compare and contrast them (Yin, 2009). The FEW nexus informed the research questions and methods for data collection and analysis. At the same time, we used an inductive, descriptive approach to data analysis instead of developing and testing hypotheses within the FEW nexus (additional details on data analysis are below).
This work was part of a larger study that involved primary and secondary quantitative data collection, consumer surveys, and separate case studies. The larger effort spanned additional supply chain stages and included waste of seafood. This study provides qualitative results from stakeholders that compliment quantitative aspects of the overall study. The quantitative data we collected on the six seafood supply chains are not reported in this paper, but just as the qualitative data contextualized the quantitative data, the quantitative data was used to check and improve our understanding of the qualitative data. Mixed-method and quantitative results from the larger study have been published (Brown et al., 2022; Scroggins et al., 2022; Viglia et al., 2022a,b; Love et al., 2023a) and other results are forthcoming.
In this paper, water use includes all freshwater that serves a purpose at an operation. We include some information about sea water to fully describe certain supply chain stages, but we did not explore strategies to reduce use of sea water. Other parts of our overall research effort used a lifecycle inventory approach to quantify water use and defined water use consistent with the concept of “blue water” (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2008), as water that has been sourced from surface or groundwater resources and has either evaporated, been incorporated into a product, or taken from one body of water and returned to another (e.g., surface water pumped onto a farm and discharged into the same body of water would not be considered “water use”; Viglia et al., 2022a). Using a broader definition in this study was consistent with how interviewees interacted with water and enabled exploration of important issues identified by interviewees that did not fit the narrower definition.
From 2019 to 2021, we conducted 47 semi-structured interviews. Interviewees were recruited through industry and academic contacts, and using chain sampling (i.e., snowball sampling). Chain sampling involves one interviewee referring the research team to one or more contacts who may be willing to be interviewed. Recruitment methods for the overall study, including the qualitative interviews, are described in more detail elsewhere (Brown et al., 2022; Scroggins et al., 2022; Viglia et al., 2022a,b). The majority of the interviewees (44) were employees or owners of feedmills, hatcheries, commercial fishing boats, fish farms, and processing plants (Table 1). These interviewees were mostly business owners or middle/upper management, so they generally provided business-level perspectives. In addition, we were referred to and interviewed three experts based on their role in a relevant government agency or as a representative of a trade group supporting one of the supply chains in the study. These interviewees provided complementary sector-level perspectives for wild-caught sockeye salmon and farmed pangasius (Table 1). Several interviewees represented more than one stage of the supply chain; for example, interviewees whose business included multiple stages provided information about hatchery and grow-out operations, or grow-out and processing. The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB no. 8345). Key aspects of data collection, data analysis, and the structure of the results section are summarized in Figure 2.
Table 1. Study sample.
Figure 2. Summary of methods and structure of results.
The interviews were semi-structured; interviewers used a list of questions and potential probes, and also asked follow-up questions that were not pre-written. The first set of questions focused on water use (Supplementary Material), including how water is used by the business, how water use has changed and drivers of any changes (if applicable), current and potential strategies to reduce water use, and motivations and barriers related to adopting water conservation practices. The second set of questions focused on energy use and covered the same topics. Interviewers also asked questions about the amount of seafood that is wasted at each supply chain stage, and those results are reported elsewhere (Love et al., 2023a). The final questions were about general challenges facing the business or sector and how the business prepares for future challenges. Questions about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were added to the questionnaire in 2020.
Interviews were conducted in person, over the phone, or via Zoom (Zoom Video Communication, Inc., San Jose, CA, United States). Notetakers participated in all interviews to accurately capture responses. The audio of phone and Zoom interviews was recorded to allow the research team to check their notes, except for two interviewees who were not comfortable being recorded.
We analyzed the data using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches. A deductive approach to qualitative data analysis involves applying pre-determined codes to the data, and this approach is often used to test whether data is consistent with an existing theory (Creswell, 2007). An inductive approach does not have pre-determined codes, and instead involves developing codes based on the collected data and then applying those codes across the data. Combining deductive and inductive data analysis techniques is beneficial because it allows researchers to analyze the data using codes created based on an existing theory (i.e., “top down”) and codes that emerge from the collected data (i.e., “bottom up”), resulting in a robust understanding of the cases that is not limited to one approach. We developed codes prior to data analysis that aligned with the subtopics and concepts in the research questions (section 1.2). This part of the analysis process applied the FEW nexus framework to the data and was deductive (Creswell, 2007). Codes included: current energy use, changes in energy use, current energy conservation strategies, potential energy conservation strategies, motivating factors, etc. Similar codes were developed for water, as well as codes for interactions between water and energy that involve synergies and/or tradeoffs. We also used inductive analysis techniques (Creswell, 2007); we developed additional codes based on the collected data and focused on creating rich descriptions for each seafood supply chain, or “case.” Codes were applied to the detailed notes from each interview to organize and analyze the text. Data analysis involved examining text relevant to synergies and tradeoffs, and identifying similarities and differences across stages and supply chains. Coding and data analysis were completed using MAXQDA (VERBI Software, Berlin, Germany) and Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, United States).
Results from qualitative interviews are used to better understand how issues impact people and groups, including businesses, and how related issues interact. Qualitative research methods are not designed to generate results that are quantifiable, and due to our sampling methods, our results cannot be interpreted as representative of a larger population (i.e., supply chain actors who were not interviewed). Therefore, the results are reported using descriptive language and do not include the number of interviewees who gave a certain response.
3 Results
As summarized in Figure 2, study results are presented in tables and a narrative. Descriptive summaries for each supply chain, by stage, are presented in Tables 2, 3. Information in the tables include the source of water or type of energy, the main uses of each resource, stakeholders’ perceptions, trends, challenges, and current and potential conservation strategies. The text below focuses on findings across the stages and supply chains, including synergies, tradeoffs, trends, and factors driving trends.
Table 2. Descriptive summaries for water.
Table 3. Descriptive summaries for energy.
3.1 Water
Freshwater is used in aquaculture supply chains during the production of feed and to fill tanks and ponds at the hatchery and grow-out stages. Water is used similarly during processing in wild and farmed seafood supply chains; the most common uses are cleaning fish, washing equipment and the plant, and making ice (Table 2). The fishing stage of the wild-caught salmon supply chains are not included in Table 2 because the fishers we interviewed used small amounts of freshwater for cooking, bathing, and other personal uses. Some fishers in these supply chains use ice to chill their fish, and the ice is supplied by the processors. Therefore, this use of water is included with the salmon processors.
Across supply chains, interviewees explained that direct costs of water did not motivate businesses to identify or implement water-saving strategies (Table 2). This response was consistent regardless of water source, including groundwater via wells, surface water via pumps, water from a local utility, or a combination. Many stressed this point by comparing their water costs to their energy costs, and the latter were often many orders of magnitude higher. Nonetheless, some interviewees identified relevant conservation strategies. The most common water-saving strategies that interviewees used, or were interested in using, were: purchasing equipment that is more efficient, reuse and recirculation of water, reducing use of ice in shipping, and training employees to avoid wasting water (i.e., turn hoses off when not in use).
In addition to viewing water as cheap, especially regarding direct costs, water was widely described as plentiful. This was true even when evidence of declining water availability in the local area or region came up later in the interview or with another interviewee in the same geographic area. For example, catfish farms in the US rely on groundwater and/or precipitation to fill ponds. Some interviewees that use groundwater stated at the beginning of the interviews that they were unconcerned about water cost and availability, but dropping water levels in local aquifers and the need to dig deeper, more expensive wells came up later in some of the interviews. Researchers have described this phenomenon and argued that it shows the value of conducting qualitative interviews for exploring inconsistent answers in response to different issue framing (Bercht, 2021).
Although direct costs of water were not a major concern, it was common for interviewees to describe other costs that are tied to water use and/or water quality when asked about water use and water-saving strategies. Common costs related to water included energy (e.g., pumping, cooling, and heating), water treatment supplies, and wastewater treatment and/or disposal. In Vietnam, producers generally only have access to surface water, and declining water quality attributable to broader industrialization and urbanization is a widespread concern (Thanh Giao et al., 2021). Fish and shrimp farmers have invested in equipment and water treatment supplies, and used space on their farms as settling and/or treatment ponds. A settling pond holds water that is pumped onto a farm and allows suspended solids to collect on the bottom, resulting in improved water quality. They also recirculated the water to minimize the volume of surface water coming onto the farm that needs to be treated. The motivation to increase recirculation in Norway is different, but it is also related to water quality. Fish farmers in Norway have increased the time fish spend in the land-based, freshwater production stage before transitioning to coastal or offshore net pens to minimize disease risk (Ytrestøyl et al., 2020). The net pen growout stage involves little direct use of freshwater. In addition, the production of smolts in freshwater has shifted from flow-through to recirculating operations.
3.2 Energy
Sources of energy used across supply chains were electricity from a local power utility, diesel, gasoline, solar panels, and backup generators (Table 3). Energy was used for refrigeration, and to power a variety of types of equipment, fishing vessels, and vehicles.
Among most interviewees, there was strong interest in energy conservation strategies, and reducing costs was the main motivation (Table 3). Salmon fishermen were an exception; they explained that other costs were higher on an annual basis (e.g., labor, insurance, nets) and that they viewed the amount of fuel used each season as something that would be very difficult to change. A key reason is the importance of speed while fishing; the sockeye salmon fishery is one of the most compressed fishing seasons in the world, lasting about 2 weeks, and vessels compete with one another in a ‘race to fish’ (Hilborn, 2007). Boats need to (i) quickly reach specific areas that are temporarily opened for fishing by regulators, (ii) compete with one another to catch available fish, and (iii) avoid dangerous weather.
Common energy-saving (or cost-saving) strategies used by interviewees were LED lights and motion detectors, soft start motors, regular maintenance of equipment, purchasing new energy-efficient equipment, using electricity during off-peak times, training staff to avoid unnecessary energy use, reusing hot water for another purpose, and minimizing equipment stops and starts (feedmills and processors).
Across supply chains and stages, many operations have become more energy intensive over the past several years, according to interviewees. In aquaculture production, this was described as being driven by increased aeration and use of filters and pumps needed for recirculation and/or to accommodate higher stocking densities. US catfish farms use electricity to run aerators at night for fish health/survival and to accommodate higher stocking densities. Pangasius producers in Vietnam do not have the same need for aeration because pangasius can breathe air, but, as described above, some pangasius and shrimp farmers in Vietnam are using equipment to recirculate water and increase oxygen levels in ponds in response to declining water quality. Compared to salmon production methods in use in recent years, farms are now growing fish to a larger size in the freshwater stage to shorten the amount of time spent in open net-pens where salmon are vulnerable to disease pressures, like sea lice, and this increases energy use.
Energy use has shifted and potentially increased in the two Alaskan fisheries in the study. In recent years there has been a major shift toward chilling fish on boats using ice slurries or refrigerated sea water (RSW) systems. These systems chill sea water in holds and are either powered by the main engine of the boat or a separate, smaller engine. For boats that do not have RSW systems, ice is provided by processors. Chilling sea water or making ice requires energy. A benefit of onboard chilling and improved storage is higher quality fish that can be sold fresh or frozen instead of canned. The share of Alaskan salmon that is canned has declined significantly in recent decades. Canning uses a great deal of energy and water in processing, however, as more salmon from Alaska are sold fresh or frozen, energy is used to (i) chill fish on boats, (ii) keep fish chilled or frozen at processing plants, during transport, and at other stages of the supply chain, and (iii) transport some fish in airplanes. These are significant shifts compared to using energy and water to cook and can fish and then ship and store shelf-stable seafood products. It is not clear from our interviews whether overall energy use in these supply chains has increased.
Some processing plant interviewees described trends toward using more per-unit energy than previously due to increased refrigeration capacity, ice production, water chilling, automation, and/or use of hot water for cleaning. There was wide variation regarding the extent of automation in processing plants across seafood supply chains. In Vietnam, workers processed seafood by hand, and in Norway processing was highly automated. The US-based processing plants in our study used some automation and were generally interested in increasing automation. Using more automation requires additional energy, and some machines also use water. For example, some machines use jets of water to cut fish. Interviewees explained that an important reason that US plants were interested in automation was difficulty attracting and retaining workers, especially in rural and/or geographically isolated locations.
3.3 Water-energy synergies and tradeoffs
Use of water and energy were directly coupled in several ways in the production and processing stages of seafood supply chains. Various sources of energy were used to pump, heat, and cool water. Large volumes of water were involved in many of the operations, and energy, usually in the form of electricity, was used to move water with pumps. Energy was also used to create hot water, steam, cold water, and ice. Depending on the processing plant, hot water was used for cleaning and during canning. Feedmills used steam to cook fish feed. Water was cooled on fishing vessels that have RSW systems and in processing plants to chill fish (storing fish in water also prevented crushing). Processing plants made ice to keep products in boxes or other types of containers cool when they were shipped, and processing plants in Alaska also made ice and provided it to fishers who lacked RSW systems to cool fish on the vessel. Due to water and energy being linked in these ways, improving efficiency of water use can result in improved efficiency for energy.
As described above, water quality issues have resulted in increased energy use in some aquaculture production settings. A key tradeoff is that increased reuse or recirculation of water during hatchery and production stages of aquaculture reduced the volume of water used and increased use of energy to run filters, pumps, and other equipment. Also, extending the length of the freshwater stage and adoption of recirculating technology in Norway has increased the overall amount of energy used to produce farmed salmon. These changes have important benefits, like improved survival rates.
There are also instances where it is unknown how changes in the use of one resource impact use of another. Some processing plant personnel were using, or were interested in, equipment that chills products in a manner that reduces the need for ice during shipping. The main benefit of using the equipment was to reduce per-unit shipping costs by reducing the weight and space that ice takes up in shipping. The strategy would reduce water use, but it is not clear based on our interviews how energy use is impacted by adding the chilling equipment and making less ice.
3.4 Challenges related to the few nexus
3.4.1 Disease pressures
Across all aquaculture supply chains, diseases during hatchery and/or grow-out stages were a major concern. A disease outbreak can sicken or kill a large number of fish or shrimp and result in a major economic loss (Quezada and Dresdner, 2017; Asche et al., 2021). Losses due to disease reduce overall efficiency of operations regarding use of water and energy per-unit of production.
3.4.2 Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic
Due to the timing of interviews, stakeholders working in the farmed shrimp and two wild salmon supply chains were asked about impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their businesses and sector. Impacts on demand for seafood during the pandemic have been described in detail in other studies (Love et al., 2021; van Senten et al., 2021; Anderson et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022; Engle et al., 2023; Love et al., 2023b). Interviewees in this study described effects on demand for products that varied across supply chains and over time. Demand remained strong for farmed shrimp, although some price volatility occurred. There was a decrease in demand for sockeye salmon caused by widespread closure of restaurants, but demand subsequently rebounded due to interest in cooking sockeye salmon at home. Demand for canned pink salmon increased early in the pandemic, and processing plants had a hard time meeting demand due to constraints on labor and access to raw materials. Domestic landings were moderately down during the pandemic, while imports increased.
There were significant labor challenges in all three supply chains, and processing plants seemed to be most impacted. Due to the short fishing seasons and isolated geographic location, salmon processing plants in Alaska rely on workers who fly in from other parts of the US and other countries, so travel disruptions added an additional layer of difficulty for these businesses compared to processing plants in other settings that rely on local workers. Processing plants also had increased costs associated with social distancing and purchasing additional protective equipment for workers.
The supply chains also experienced increased costs of inputs. In response to increased prices for commercial shrimp feed, one producer supplemented with local, noncommercial feed sources. The farmed shrimp sector also experienced higher shipping costs and general disruptions attributed to the pandemic. This is a key part of the supply chain since exports are important for the farmed shrimp sector in Vietnam.
3.4.3 Requirements from government agencies or certification organizations
Processing plant operators described new requirements related to regulations or certification programs. They described requirements for cleaning the processing plant and using more ice during shipping as main drivers for increased use of water and/or energy. The requirements were viewed by plant operators as unnecessary for ensuring food safety or preventing other issues.
3.4.4 Climate change
When asked about future threats to their businesses, climate change was brought up by several interviewees. In addition, the warming climate was linked to increased energy use by interviewees in two supply chains. One Alaskan pink salmon fisherman explained that there had been a couple of unusually warm summers and some RSW systems did not have enough capacity to properly cool the sea water and fish. They said that some fishermen in Alaska were investing in larger RSW systems to avoid that issue in the future. A manager at a catfish processing plant said that higher ambient temperatures have made it difficult to keep the plant and fish cool and requires additional air conditioning, especially when outside air enters the plant during deliveries.
3.5 Stakeholder experiences with resource efficiency strategies
Many interviewees explained that they were hesitant to invest money and/or time into a resource conservation strategy that is unproven. There is general interest in strategies that have been tried in similar settings and have detailed data and other information available on impacts to product quality, upfront costs, and costs compared to potential cost-savings over time. The risks involved with investing time and/or money in strategies that are not fully proven and understood came up more frequently in interviews in the US compared to the other two countries.
There were other differences between the three countries regarding sources of information and other support for improving efficiency. First, some supply chain actors in the US had received or were aware of grants or cost-share support from the state or federal government to improve efficiency (e.g., a federal program helped a feedmill purchase new, more efficient equipment). Interviewees in the US stated that these types of programs often require a significant amount of staff time for finding relevant opportunities and preparing applications; another issue was funding levels that have stayed the same while costs have increased, therefore resulting in programs covering a smaller share of the costs. On the other hand, it was common to hear from supply chain actors in Vietnam that they were looking for more support from government agencies. Specifically, many hatchery and grow-out operators would like government agencies to create and implement regional plans that would address water quality issues caused by agricultural operations and other sources of water contamination that are nearby and/or up river. Supply chain actors in Vietnam were also frustrated by a lack of support from universities. Some interviewees described developing and testing their own strategies to address problems at their operations, and their associated frustration that this information was not coming from universities (or not at an adequate level). By contrast, in Norway, many supply chain actors explained that academic researchers were an important source of information that contributed to innovation in the farmed salmon industry.
4 Discussion
Using the FEW nexus as a framework, we collected qualitative data from a variety of seafood supply chain actors across six supply chains that are important for the US seafood supply. Understanding how water and energy are used in these settings, and supply chain actor motivations, barriers, and perspectives regarding efficiency strategies, is critical for improving resource use.
The results indicate that the indirect costs of water use is a priority area for developing efficiency strategies, including instances where water and energy use are coupled. Availability and direct costs of water were not significant concerns across the respondents, but interviewees were aware of indirect costs, including cost of energy, that could be reduced if they were able to reduce the volume of water used. For example, reducing the volume of water used on a pond-based farm could reduce energy used to run pumps, and using less ice in product shipments (e.g., due to improved packing materials that keep products cold) would decrease water and energy used to make ice at processing plants. These strategies, that target coupled use of energy and water instead of areas that involve tradeoffs, could result in less use of water and energy per unit of production and thus lower costs for businesses.
Development and/or adoption of efficiency strategies that address commonalities across multiple supply chains, such as wastewater treatment and preservation technologies, should be prioritized. For example, more efficient and/or cheaper ways to aerate, treat, and/or recirculate water in aquaculture systems are cross-cutting and can impact multiple supply chains. Similarly, innovations in cooling and preservation technologies that reduce the volume of ice used during shipping is relevant across supply chains.
We found numerous differences across production methods and settings. The industry is fractured by geographic and sociopolitical settings, varying priority areas needing innovation due to different stressors, and competition within the industry. The heterogeneity likely results in less investment in and support for identifying, developing, and scaling-up strategies and innovations that would improve efficiencies and lower costs than might be expected considering the overall size of the seafood production industry.
Fisheries research has shown that supply chain actors are an important source of ideas for innovative strategies to solve problems (Jenkins, 2010), and also that substantial government support is needed for many innovations to become commercially viable (Dreyer et al., 2019). These fisheries studies, and the results of the current study, support development and/or strengthening of partnerships between industry, government agencies, and academic researchers focused on identifying or developing innovative solutions and working together to scale-up adoption. The benefit of partnerships, and varying levels of current effectiveness, were brought up by interviewees across supply chains. With the goal of improving resource use across the seafood industry, concerted efforts should extend beyond country borders.
There are limitations of this study. We focused on collecting information that was most salient to the FEW nexus, and many aspects of sustainability of food supply chains and social responsibility are not included in the study, such as holistic ecosystem effects and worker health/wellbeing. In addition, prioritizing strategies based on the greatest potential to reduce resource use or improve cost-effectiveness was beyond the scope of the study. Similarly, the study did not attempt to evaluate the prevalence of various practices. Future research should examine these factors. Also, the research relies on perceptions and recall of interviewees, and, given the number of supply chains and stages studied, the research often included a relatively small sample in specific stages of the different supply chains. Lastly, most interviewees were in management and/or ownership roles, and their perceptions may differ from those of frontline workers.
5 Conclusion
This study contributes to an in-depth understanding of six seafood supply chains, including wild and farmed, and international and domestic supply chains. We characterized the operations of multiple stages in each supply chain using the FEW nexus framework, and the descriptions of trends, resource use, and synergies and tradeoffs provide extensive context that should inform future research, interventions, and policies. The study illustrates the importance of engaging with supply chain actors in order to learn from their expertise and perspectives and to develop practical solutions. The supply chain actors shared firsthand knowledge of their operations and explained which aspects of resource use at the operations they have been working to improve and/or are most interested in addressing. These perspectives are critically important for stakeholders to understand because current perceptions will impact rates of adoption of an intervention. In particular, we found interest among many supply chain actors in reducing water use to lower associated energy and/or water treatment costs, and common resource use issues in multiple seafood supply chains that would benefit from innovations that are scaled-up in multiple settings. Future studies can build on these results by developing inquiries informed by the details we provide on how the FEW nexus describes the supply chain stages, including quantifying resource use and modeling costs and impacts of potential interventions.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health IRB. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because of a low risk of harm to participants.
Author contributions
JF: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RS: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. TG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DL: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. FA: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MB: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. EN: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. LN: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. LJ: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. JA: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. RN: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under an Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems (INFEWS) grant [#2018–67003-27408].
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the seafood supply chain actors for their willingness to be interviewed and for sharing their knowledge, experience, and perspectives.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1269026/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1. ^https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/bycatch/fishing-gear-gillnets
2. ^https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/bycatch/fishing-gear-purse-seines
3. ^https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=34100.wba
References
Abdi, H., Shahbazitabar, M., and Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B. (2020). Food, energy and water Nexus: a brief review of definitions, research, and challenges. Inventions 5:56. doi: 10.3390/inventions5040056
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). (2022). Commercial fisheries statistics and data. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Albrecht, T. R., Crootof, A., and Scott, C. A. (2018). The water-energy-food Nexus: a systematic review of methods for nexus assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:043002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa9c6
Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., Hegde, S., Ropicki, A., and Straume, H. M. (2022). Impacts of COVID-19 on US seafood availability. J. Agricul. Food Indus. Organization. 21:1–9. doi: 10.1515/jafio-2022-0017
Asche, F., Anderson, J. L., Botta, R., Kumar, G., Abrahamsen, E. B., Nguyen, L. T., et al. (2021). The economics of shrimp disease. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 186:107397. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2020.107397
Asche, F., Cojocaru, A. L., and Roth, B. (2018). The development of large-scale aquaculture production: a comparison of the supply chains for chicken and salmon. Aquaculture 493, 446–455. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.10.031
Asche, F., Eggert, H., Oglend, A., Roheim, C., and Smith, M. D. (2022). Aquaculture: Externalities and Policy Options. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy. 16, 282–305. doi: 10.1086/721055
Bercht, A. L. (2021). How qualitative approaches matter in climate and ocean change research: uncovering contradictions about climate concern. Glob. Environ. Chang. 70:102326. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102326
Bergendahl, J. A., Sarkis, J., and Timko, M. T. (2018). Transdisciplinarity and the food energy and water nexus: ecological modernization and supply chain sustainability perspectives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 133, 309–319. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.001
Bohnes, F. A., and Laurent, A. (2021). Environmental impacts of existing and future aquaculture production: comparison of technologies and feed options in Singapore. Aquaculture 532:736001. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736001
Brown, M. T., Viglia, S., Love, D., Asche, F., Nussbaumer, E., Fry, J., et al. (2022). Quantifying the environmental support to wild catch Alaskan sockeye salmon and farmed Norwegian Atlantic Salmon: an emergy approach. J. Clean. Prod. 369:133379. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133379
Chapagain, A. K., and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2008). Globalization of water: Sharing the planet’s freshwater resources. US: Blackwell.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches 2nd. US: Sage.
Daher, B., Saad, W., Pierce, S. A., Hülsmann, S., and Mohtar, R. H. (2017). Trade-offs and decision support tools for FEW nexus-oriented management. Current Sustain. Renew. Energy Reports 4, 153–159. doi: 10.1007/s40518-017-0075-3
Dreyer, S. J., Beaver, E., Polis, H. J., and Jenkins, L. D. (2019). Fish, finances, and feasibility: concerns about tidal energy development in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 53, 126–136. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.024
Engle, C., van Senten, J., Kumar, G., and Dey, M. (2023). Pre-and post-pandemic seafood purchasing behavior in the US. Aquaculture 571:739491. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739491
Fanzo, J., Bellows, A. L., Spiker, M. L., Thorne-Lyman, A. L., and Bloem, M. W. (2021). The importance of food systems and the environment for nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 113, 7–16. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa313
FAO. (2022). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2022. Towards blue transformation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Garlock, T., Asche, F., Anderson, J., Bjørndal, T., Kumar, G., Lorenzen, K., et al. (2020). A global blue revolution: aquaculture growth across regions, species and countries. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquacult. 28, 107–116. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2019.1678111
Gephart, J. A., Henriksson, P. J. G., Parker, R. W. R., Shepon, A., Gorospe, K. D., Bergman, K., et al. (2021). Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 597, 360–365. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2
Ghodsvali, M., Krishnamurthy, S., and de Vries, B. (2019). Review of transdisciplinary approaches to food-water-energy nexus: a guide towards sustainable development. Environ. Sci. Pol. 101, 266–278. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.003
Golden, C. D., Koehn, J. Z., Shepon, A., Passarelli, S., Free, C. M., Viana, D. F., et al. (2021). Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature 598, 315–320. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1
Gordon, L. J., Bignet, V., Crona, B., Henriksson, P. J. G., Van Holt, T., Jonell, M., et al. (2017). Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship. Environ. Res. Lett. 12:100201. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa81dc
Hallström, E., Bergman, K., Mifflin, K., Parker, R., Tyedmers, P., Troell, M., et al. (2019). Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. J. Clean. Prod. 230, 402–411. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229
Halpern, B. S., Cottrell, R. S., Blanchard, J. L., Bouwman, L., Froehlich, H. E., Gephart, J. A., et al. (2019). Putting all foods on the same table: achieving sustainable food systems requires full accounting. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 18152–18156. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913308116
Hilborn, R. (2007). Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned? Fish Fish. 8, 285–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00263_2.x
Hoolohan, C., Larkin, A., McLachlan, C., Falconer, R., Soutar, I., Suckling, J., et al. (2018). Engaging stakeholders in research to address water–energy–food (WEF) nexus challenges. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1415–1426. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0552-7
International Energy Agency. (2023). Global water withdrawal in the energy sector by fuel and power generation type in the Stated Policies Scenario, 2021 and 2030. Available at: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-water-withdrawal-in-the-energy-sector-by-fuel-and-power-generation-type-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2021-and-2030
Jenkins, L. D. (2010). Profile and influence of the successful fisher-inventor of marine conservation technology. Conserv. Soc. 8, 44–54. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.62677
Koehn, J. Z., Allison, E. H., Golden, C. D., and Hilborn, R. (2022). The role of seafood in sustainable diets. Environ. Res. Lett. 17:035003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac3954
Kropf, B., Schmid, E., and Mitter, H. (2021). Multi-step cognitive mapping of perceived nexus relationships in the Seewinkel region in Austria. Environ. Sci. Pol. 124, 604–615. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.004
Kumar, G., Engle, C., Hegde, S., and van Senten, J. (2020). Economics of US catfish farming practices: profitability, economies of size, and liquidity. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 51, 829–846. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12717
Liu, G., Arthur, M., Viglia, S., Xue, J., Meng, F., and Lombardi, G. V. (2020). Seafood-energy-water nexus: a study on resource use efficiency and the environmental impact of seafood consumption in China. J. Clean. Prod. 277:124088. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124088
Love, D. C., Allison, E. H., Asche, F., Belton, B., Cottrell, R. S., Froehlich, H. E., et al. (2021). Emerging COVID-19 impacts, responses, and lessons for building resilience in the seafood system. Glob. Food Sec. 28:100494. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100494
Love, D. C., Asche, F., Conrad, Z., Young, R., Harding, J., Nussbaumer, E. M., et al. (2020). Food sources and expenditures for seafood in the United States. Nutrients 12:1810. doi: 10.3390/nu12061810
Love, D. C., Asche, F., Young, R., Nussbaumer, E. M., Anderson, J. L., Botta, R., et al. (2022). An overview of retail sales of seafood in the USA, 2017–2019. Rev. Fisheries Sci. Aquacul. 30, 259–270. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2021.1946481
Love, D. C., Asche, F., Fry, J. P., Nguyen, L., Gephart, J., Garlock, T. M., et al. (2023a). Aquatic food loss and waste rate in the United States is half of earlier estimates. Nature Food. doi: 10.1038/s43016-023-00881-z
Love, D. C., Weltzien, L. M., Thorne-Lyman, A. L., Armstrong, N. S., Chatpar, E., Koontz, M., et al. (2023b). A scoping review of aquatic food systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rev. Fisheries Sci. Aquacul. 1-22, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2023.2231096
Natale, F., Hofherr, J., Fiore, G., and Virtanen, J. (2013). Interactions between aquaculture and fisheries. Mar. Policy 38, 205–213. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.037
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2022). 2020 fisheries of the United States. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2020.
Naylor, R., Fang, S., and Fanzo, J. (2023). A global view of aquaculture policy. Food Policy 116:102422. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102422
Naylor, R. L., Hardy, R. W., Buschmann, A. H., Bush, S. R., Cao, L., Klinger, D. H., et al. (2021). A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature 591, 551–563. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03308-6
Nguyen, T. A. T., Nguyen, Q. T. T., Tran, T. C., Nguyen, K. A. T., and Jolly, C. M. (2023). Balancing the aquatic export supply chain strategy - a case study of the Vietnam pangasius industry. Aquaculture 566:739139. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.739139
Nutters, H. M., and Pinto da Silva, P. (2012). Fishery stakeholder engagement and marine spatial planning: lessons from the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP and the Massachusetts Ocean management plan. Ocean Coast. Manag. 67, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.05.020
Overton, K., Dempster, T., Oppedal, F., Kristiansen, T. S., Gismervik, K., and Stien, L. H. (2019). Salmon lice treatments and salmon mortality in Norwegian aquaculture: a review. Rev. Aquac. 11, 1398–1417. doi: 10.1111/raq.12299
Parker, R. W. R., Blanchard, J. L., Gardner, C., Green, B. S., Hartmann, K., Tyedmers, P. H., et al. (2018). Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 333–337. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0117-x
Pomeroy, R., and Douvere, F. (2008). The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 32, 816–822. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.017
Proctor, K., Tabatabaie, S. M. H., and Murthy, G. S. (2021). Gateway to the perspectives of the food-energy-water nexus. Sci. Total Environ. 764:142852. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142852
Quezada, F., and Dresdner, J. (2017). What can we learn from a sanitary crisis? The ISA virus and market prices. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 21, 211–240. doi: 10.1080/13657305.2016.1189011
Scanlon, B. R., Ruddell, B. L., Reed, P. M., Hook, R. I., Zheng, C., Tidwell, V. C., et al. (2017). The food-energy-water nexus: transforming science for society. Water Resour. Res. 53, 3550–3556. doi: 10.1002/2017WR020889
Scroggins, R. E., Fry, J. P., Brown, M. T., Neff, R. A., Asche, F., Anderson, J. L., et al. (2022). Renewable energy in fisheries and aquaculture: case studies from the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 376:134153. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134153
Shamshak, G. L., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., and Love, D. C. (2019). U.S. seafood consumption. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 50, 715–727. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12619
Sun, L., Engle, C., Kumar, G., and van Senten, J. (2022). Retail market trends for seafood in the United States. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 54, 603–624. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12919
Thanh Giao, N., Kim Anh, P., and Thi Hong Nhien, H. (2021). Spatiotemporal analysis of surface water quality in Dong Thap Province, Vietnam using water quality index and statistical approaches. WaterSA 13:336. doi: 10.3390/w13030336
Troell, M., Jonell, M., and Crona, B. (2019). The role of seafood for sustainable and healthy diets, the EAT-lancet commission report through a blue lens. Stockholm Resilience Centre.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th ed. Washington, DC: US Government Publishing Office.
UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. (2021). The United Nations world water development report 2021: Valuing water; facts and figures. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375751
Usubiaga-Liaño, A., Behrens, P., and Daioglou, V. (2020). Energy use in the global food system. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 830–840. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12982
van Gevelt, T. (2020). The water–energy–food nexus: bridging the science–policy divide. Current Opinion in Environ. Sci. Heal. 13, 6–10. doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2019.09.008
van Senten, J., Engle, C. R., and Smith, M. A. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 on U.S. aquaculture farms. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 43, 355–367. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13140
Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP). (2019). Report on Vietnam pangasius sector 2009–2018. Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers.
Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP). (2020). Report on Vietnam shrimp sector 2015–2019. Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers.
Viglia, S., Brown, M. T., Love, D. C., Fry, J., Neff, R. A., and Hilborn, R. (2022a). Wild caught Alaska sockeye salmon: a case study of the food energy water nexus for a sustainable wild catch fishery. J. Clean. Prod. 369:133263. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133263
Viglia, S., Brown, M. T., Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Scroggins, R., and Neff, R. A. (2022b). Analysis of energy and water use in USA farmed catfish: toward a more resilient and sustainable production system. J. Clean. Prod. 379:134796. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134796
Wilfart, A., Prudhomme, J., Blancheton, J.-P., and Aubin, J. (2013). LCA and emergy accounting of aquaculture systems: towards ecological intensification. J. Environ. Manag. 121, 96–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.031
Wilson, L. (2022). Alaska salmon fisheries enhancement annual report 2021. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries.
Ytrestøyl, T., Takle, H., Kolarevic, J., Calabrese, S., Timmerhaus, G., Rosseland, B. O., et al. (2020). Performance and welfare of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. post-smolts in recirculating aquaculture systems: importance of salinity and water velocity. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 51, 373–392. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12682
Keywords: seafood, sustainability, food-energy-water nexus, food system, fisheries, aquaculture
Citation: Fry JP, Scroggins RE, Garlock TM, Love DC, Asche F, Brown MT, Nussbaumer EM, Nguyen L, Jenkins LD, Anderson J and Neff RA (2024) Application of the food-energy-water nexus to six seafood supply chains: hearing from wild and farmed seafood supply chain actors in the United States, Norway, and Vietnam. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1269026. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1269026
Edited by:
Roberto Anedda, Porto Conte Ricerche, Parco Scientifico e Tecnologico della Sardegna, ItalyReviewed by:
Mo Li, Northeast Agricultural University, ChinaMichael Phillips, WorldFish, Malaysia
Ekundayo Shittu, George Washington University, United States
Copyright © 2024 Fry, Scroggins, Garlock, Love, Asche, Brown, Nussbaumer, Nguyen, Jenkins, Anderson and Neff. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jillian P. Fry, jfry@towson.edu