From time to time when I’m not already upset about something else, I’ll go surfing online to peruse the latest criticisms of aquaculture. Almost invariably, the term “Industrial Aquaculture” is discussed in the same light as nuclear fallout or uncontained oil spills. The usual narrative is that small-scale, low-input aquaculture is good and large-scale operations are bad. That’s it, pretty much: good or bad, small or industrial. But for many cultured aquatic species there is a continuum of scale and intensity among operations, and an objective observer might find some flaws in these simplified depictions of aquaculture if the facts were more freely available.

For example, criticism of high-density production systems often ignores the counter argument that increased environmental control and monitoring can result in improved fish welfare. And criticism of the localized environmental impacts of these systems ignores the potential for more focused monitoring, management and mitigation. In Thailand, researchers recently demonstrated that tilapia production in a high-density in-pond raceway system generated 18% lower CO2 equivalents per ton of production than traditional pond culture, at a 38% lower cost.

In the farming of aquatic organisms, larger and more intensive operations are almost always more sustainable. In Vietnam, researchers evaluated white-leg shrimp farms and determined that intensive operations were roughly twice as resource efficient as semi-intensive ones. Another group determined that the larger the farm size, the more efficiently these shrimp farmers could utilize their inputs. An analysis of the Italian aquaculture sector generated similar findings. The smallest farms were generally inefficient, while larger firms exhibited higher average efficiencies. Studies on seabream and seabass production in Greece have also established that larger farm sizes and species specialization result in improved technical efficiency (summarized here).

So why do critics consistently demonize industrial aquaculture? It would seem that some individuals who make a living criticizing the sector have become adept in their choice of words. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, “industrial,” in its traditional use means “relating to or characterized by industry.” Given the environmental, social and economic impacts of global industrialization over the past century, the term can easily conjure up negative reactions. However, it can also mean “of or relating to productive work, trade or manufacture.” Perhaps… we should start using the term “industrious aquaculture.”

Which brings up another trend in semantics that is increasingly bothersome: the use of the oxymoron “scientific consensus” by many aquaculture detractors. The word scientific refers to something based on, or characterized by, the methods and principles of science. This involves quantifiable, observable evidence, not beliefs or guesses. In any reputable research setting hypotheses are proven or rejected and results are verifiable, repeatable and objectively evaluated within a real-world context. Casual or imprecise interpretations of observed phenomena or behaviors have no place in sound science. Nor do arbitrarily assigned values, except possibly when analyzed with non-parametric statistical methods.

Consensus is accepted to mean general agreement about ideas or opinions. But the definition of consensus is often a moving target that depends on the context in which the word is used. The criteria that would normally establish “scientific consensus” (as the term is tossed around and misused these days) are conveniently never clearly defined. Consensus implies a lack of certainty and a preponderance of opinion, as anyone who has participated in a Delphi study can readily understand. The term “scientific consensus” is easily abused by those who want to skip the real science. Once a fact is rigorously proven scientifically, there is no longer any need for consensus.
— C. Greg Lutz, Editor-in-Chief