Food (Evolution) For Thought: Agriculture vs. Aquaculture
Eleanor Roosevelt said, “Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself.”
Throughout the history of mankind, humans have harvested the natural planet to obtain food. And as we have evolved as a species, so have the methods by which we eat. There have been three major farming shifts within human history, characterized as agricultural revolutions, that mark significant changes in how we grow, harvest, and consume food. Agriculture, as we know it today, has evolved from nomadic foraging into monoculture and mass-farming systems, undergoing many phases of evolution along the way. In relativity to the radical innovation and infrastructure shifts observed in agriculture the past 10,000 years, aquaculture is still comparatively virgin. Although there are archeological indications that aquaculture has existed for thousands of years, the degree to which it has evolved since then is minuscule in comparison to its land-based counterpart. This gives aquaculture a unique opportunity to evolve in a more informed manner, learning from the trials and tribulations of the agricultural revolutions. This, paired with the technology that is widely available today, gives society all the tools to develop a responsible and productive future in aquaculture.
Scientists have positioned the First Agricultural Revolution to have occurred during the Neolithic period around 12,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age. The change was marked by the major shift from nomadic hunting, following food sources as needed, to creating settlements and cultivating food through farming. Sociologically this revolution created pressure to work together to produce larger amounts of food. This First Revolution also had environmental ramifications relative to the times. The concept of manipulating the environment to increase yield and productivity was born.
The Second Agricultural revolution coincided with the Industrial Revolution. This period was characterized by a stark emphasis on high-yielding crops versus lower-yielding alternatives. Advanced tools and machinery, as well as chemical fertilizers, were also introduced during this time. Farmers began to profit and trade their crops on an increasingly global scale, mirroring the expansive nature of this period. Land privatization and economic stratification were two major byproducts created by this shift.
The rise of bioengineering kickstarted the Third Agricultural Revolution, also known as the Green Revolution, in the 1950s and 60s. Sparked by famine and growing populations, large-scale farming was forced to adapt. Genetic modification, hybrid crops, modern irrigation systems, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and other technologies used to increase crop yield, were all introduced in heavy concentrations. Although the Green Revolution was able to satiate pressing world hunger crises, environmental repercussions were most drastic during this time period. Soil nutrients were harshly depleted, fertilizer contaminated freshwater sources, nutrition density of crops decreased, pollinators suffered, and several indigenous crops and species went totally extinct.
Years of environmentally harmful farming techniques have been in practice and have had dire consequences on the health of our natural environment. Humans are now at a point where we are attempting to undo much of the damage we’ve already done. Major initiatives such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive(CSDDD) from the European Union, the EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), and EPA’s national standards for PFAS in drinking water are a few of the recent examples contextualizing the pressing efforts being made to undo a problem that we created for ourselves. Hindsight twenty twenty, but nonetheless, what is history for if not to learn from our mistakes?
We are sitting at a frontier of sorts with the revolution of aquaculture. The earliest examples of aquaculture can be dated back as early as 2000 BC in China. Japanese were discovered to have been farming oysters about 3000 years ago and evidence from Pharaohs of ancient Egypt indicate the existence of tilapia culture ponds. Additionally, Korean seaweed cultivation dates back to the 15th century.
There were not any major shifts noticed in the practice of aquaculture until the late 19th century, catalyzed by a United States Congressional demand for an increase in fish supply. In 1871 Congress authorized the creation of the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries to increase fish stocks in waters that were beginning to show signs of overfishing. One of the first things done by the Commission was “to hire fish culturalists to develop the technology required to mass produce, transport and stock various marine and freshwater fishes and shellfishes in the nation’s waters”. Although this showed the promise to incubate a great Aquacultural Revolution of its own, relatively little progress was made. The primary focal point of national and international attention was centered around wild fisheries.
In many ways, this lack of progress has been beneficial to the health of our oceans, as well as advantageous to the position that we find ourselves in today. Aquaculture’s current tenor consists of qualities from each major stage of agricultural revolution; we can draw astute insight from these examples as precursors to expansionary dilemmas.
For one, the ratio of wild vs. farmed fish is far more balanced than the respective production ratio of agriculture post-First Agricultural Revolution. Today more than 50% of fish are farmed. Still, there is just under 50% of fish that are wild-caught and a persisting demand remains in tact. Although several studies have deemed aquaculture a more responsible method of harvest, there are both environmental and developmental pressures alleviated from the dual nature of sourcing. In many ways, because there are two main sources of supply, aquacultural development is not rushed in a reactive way as agriculture once was. Rather, aquaculture has some room to evolve proactively, with comparatively more room for precautionary planning.
However, it is what we do with this leveraged potential in the next few years that will shape the trajectory of this entire industry. From what we can deduce from agriculture’s developmental flaws, a more successful order of operations marries research, environmental consideration, and allocation of funding towards science, human welfare, and consumer awareness. All of these inputs are imperative pieces of the pie to ensure an equitable and responsible future for the industry and the planet.
The industry is entirely dependent upon the environment. Thus, there is a direct correlation between the health of the environment and the health of aquaculture. Although people may be blissfully ignorant in the short-term, prioritizing lucrative yields as a sole measure of success, this is only temporary. Instant gratification only leads to future volatility. In harming the ocean for immediate benefit, we are biting the hand that feeds us. Alternatively, if people take the proper consideration in the immediate future, the potential for a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship between aquaculture and the planet is infinite.
Another hard-learned lesson from the agricultural revolutions pertains to monoculture. When people discovered they could substitute farming a diversity of native crops for higher-yielding crops, the practice of monoculture was born. These monocultures grew to be detrimental to natural ecosystems; they limit native plant and animal variety, creating a ripple effect throughout the larger biome. The crops that are grown are also vulnerable to disease and pest outbreaks. Because farmers grew accustomed to the machinery and efficiency of growing a single crop, they combatted these issues by introducing pesticides and other temporary fixes. These “solutions” only masked an escalating problem. Although costly in the short-term, reintroducing a diversity of native plants to an ecosystem would exemplify a stabilizing solution to incubate health and longevity.
Fortunately in the case of aquaculture, we haven’t yet reached the same levels of destruction; we are at an opportune moment to be proactive stewards of industry and the environment. Two major inputs influenced the trajectory of monocultures that can help inform how we proceed: 1.the intensification of farming as the world became more interconnected, and 2. the rise of concentrated animal feed operations to accommodate the demand for specific animals being bred in larger numbers.
In order to remedy these problems before mirrored trends take root in aquaculture, we need to consume biodiverse species, promote regenerative aquaculture models through research, education, and financial incentives, and enforce feed regulations to ensure sourcing quality and diversity.
Seafood demand continues to grow increasingly homogeneous, with shrimp, salmon, and cod as the globally-recognized favorites. In some regions and seasons, where these species are native and prevalent, this is okay. However, we cannot let accessibility make us lazy in our consumption habits. Without the responsibility of serving a local community, fishermen are driven to respond to global consumer demand for production. In demanding a more biodiverse supply of fish as a consumer, we are able to help drive fishermen and fish farmers to match that; biodiverse consumption propels biodiverse production.
Another major opportunity for future success lies in regenerative aquaculture. Regenerative aquaculture, also known as restorative aquaculture, utilizes ocean resources to grow food and other products while simultaneously restoring the ecosystem. “Nearly all continents and most coastal countries have the potential for restorative aquaculture in marine environments, accounting for sensitivities to local environmental, socio-economic and human health factors.” In structuring aquaculture habitats in regenerative ways, fish are able to withstand the stress of changings seas, water quality is substantially better, and carbon can be sequestered through seaweed production. Through an emphasis on research, education, and financial incentives for these methods of farming, best-practice models can be pushed as a cross-industry standard. The model has also been proven advantageous from a business perspective when done correctly.
A third relevant application from agriculture to aquaculture starts in the feed sourcing and production. At the macrocosmic level, farming represents a lifecycle. To analyze the cycle holistically, it is essential to look at its conception or starting point. For agriculture this is represented in the fertilizer and the health of the land. For aquaculture, this is the health of the marine habitat and the feed. What you put in is what you get out; garbage in, garbage out, and vice versa. A mistake learned from agriculture is a hyper-fixation on the end product, regardless of how it arrived at the finish line. This ideology catalyzed a spare-no-expanse mentality in regards to the quality of fertilizer and the environment; whatever input would produce the maximum yield prevailed. We are now suffering the implications of this mentality and being forced to clean up the mess we’ve made from both health and environmental standpoints. As we begin to shape standards for aquaculture evolution, a strong emphasis on the input of what is being harvested, i.e. the feed, will pay dividends.
The Greek philosopher Plutarch said “To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future.” Herein lies our opportunity moving forward. There are a myriad of lessons to be learned from what is arguably the most central societal revolution of our species. We have no shortage of actionable steps that are directly informed by past mistakes. The only mistake we can make moving forward is to choose to ignore that which we have already suffered. Aquaculture is molding the nature of human consumption in real time, and we yield all the power to combat its environmental vicissitudes for generations to come.
