WWW.WAS.ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • MARCH 2018 51 Wildlife farming can benefit conservation of wild populations only if it meets the following criteria (Tensen 2016): • Its product is a substitute to wild-caught products and consumers prefer it, • It substantially meets the demands of the market for the product, and does not increase demand, • It is cost-efficient, • It does not rely on wild populations for restocking. and It does not allow for laundering of illegal products into the legal trade. The farming of seahorses and sea cucumbers does not satisfy the second and fourth criteria based on available information (Koldewey and Martin-Smith 2010, Purcell et al. 2012). Meanwhile, sturgeon farming is meeting and even exceeding market demands for meat and caviar (Wei et al. 2011, UNODC 2016), and reliance on wild stocks for seeding is very low and expected to decrease even further (Wei et al. 2011). Based on an analysis of financial feasibility (Pomeroy et al. 2006), wildlife farming of groupers (commonly traded live food fish) and common clownfish (commonly traded live ornamental fish) can be profitable for small-scale fisheries, but both require large capital investment and maintenance costs and so the fishers would likely need subsidies. Farming of traded live invertebrates such as corals seems impractical for small-scale aquaculture because of the costs and technical capacities required. The three examples of wildlife farming discussed here still have issues regarding the economics of their production and more research is needed to adequately respond. However, sturgeons are relatively easy to rear, despite the need for extensive facilities for keeping enlarging stocks in caviar production (Dalsgaard et al. 2013). Future Research Needs Because of challenges in wildlife farming that are truly responsive to conservation needs, it is difficult and perhaps careless to promote the practice without more research into the key aspects that touch on the criteria elucidated by Tensen (2016). Culturing sturgeons seems to be an example of viable wildlife farming based on these criteria, although biological and ecological requirements differ by species. Thorough knowledge of the biology of farmed animals is crucial. This is exemplified by the European eel, an extensively traded animal. At least 3.4 t of glass eels, declared by the IUCN as critically endangered, were seized between 2011 and 2015, accounting for millions of individuals (UNODC 2016). In certain destination markets, the price of glass eels can be as much as US$ 2,000/kg. Intensive farming of eels began in the 1970s, but it is still capture-based, with juveniles coming entirely from the wild (Dalsgaard et al. 2013). There is a fundamental lack of knowledge, experience and effective techniques on its reproductive cycle. Breeding eels in captivity will likely lead to a sustainable wildlife farming industry. Small-scale wildlife farms can indeed be successful in reducing pressure on wild populations of traded species. This necessitates more extensive research on aquaculture production practices, on the wildlife trade, and the economic, financial, legal, and social conditions that address the needs of local fishers while removing their dependency on wild stocks (Pomeroy et al. 2006). Challenging tasks lie ahead in seeing this to fruition, if indeed scientific evidence and public opinion support it, but the precarious state of biodiversity of the world’s aquatic environments may call for such cautious boldness and optimism. Notes Ronald Allan L. Cruz, Department of Biology, School of Science and Engineering, Ateneo de Manila University, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, NCR, Philippines 1108. Vikas Kumar, Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Hagerman, Idaho, USA 83332 Janice A. Ragaza, Department of Biology, School of Science and Engineering, Ateneo de Manila University, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, NCR, Philippines 1108. Email: jragaza@ateneo.edu References Bronzi, P., H. Rosenthal and J. Gessner. 2011. Global sturgeon aquaculture production: An overview. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27:169-175. Brooks, E.G.E., S.I. Roberton and D.J. Bell. 2010. The conservation impact of commercial wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam. Biological Conservation 143:2808-2814. Bulte, E.H. and R. Damania. 2005. An economic assessment of wildlife farming and conservation. Conservation Biology 19:1222-1223. Butler, M.J., A.P. Teaschner, W.B. Ballard and B.K. McGee. 2005. Commentary: Wildlife ranching in North America--Arguments, issues, and perspectives. The Wildlife Society B 33:381-389. Calado, R., I. Olivotto, M.P. Oliver and G.J. Holt GJ. 2017. Marine ornamental species aquaculture. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. Challender, D.W.S. and D.C. MacMillan. 2014. Poaching is more than an enforcement problem. Conservation Letters 7:484-494. Chen, J. 2003. Overview of sea cucumber farming and sea ranching practices in China. SPC beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 18:18-23. Dalsgaard, J., I. Lund, R. Thorarinsdottir, A. Drengstig, K. Arvonen and P.B. Pedersen. 2013. Farming different species in RAS in Nordic countries: Current status and future perspectives. Aquacultural Engineering 53:2-13. Diana, J.S. 2009. Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. BioScience 59:27-38. Domínguez-Godino, J.A, M.J. Slater, C. Hannon and M. González-Wangüermert. 2015. A new species for sea cucumber ranching and aquaculture: Breeding and rearing of Holothuria arguinensis. Aquaculture 438:122-128. Downes, A. 2015. Wildlife “farming” is not conservation. International Fund for Animal Welfare. www.ifaw.org/unitedstates/news/wildlife-“farming”-not-conservation. Accessed: 9 July 2017. Drury, R. 2009. Reducing urban demand for wild animals in Vietnam: Examining the potential of wildlife farming as a conservation tool. Conservation Letters 2:263-270. Eriksson, H., G. Robinson, M.J. Slater and M. Troell. 2012. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 52)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=