See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343407168

Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food

security: insights from organic agriculture

Article  in  Food Security · August 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s12571-020-01090-3

CITATIONS READS

10 575

3 authors:

Nesar Ahmed Shirley Thompson

Fisheries and Oceans Canada University of Manitoba
151 PUBLICATIONS   2,852 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   1,070 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Giovanni M Turchini
Deakin University
187 PUBLICATIONS   6,638 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Zero waste View project

Sperm Sorting using Membranes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nesar Ahmed on 26 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Organic aquaculture productivity,
environmental sustainability, and food
security: insights from organic agriculture

Nesar Ahmed, Shirley Thompson &

Giovanni M. Turchini

Food Security
The Science, Sociology and Economics
of Food Production and Access to Food

ISSN 1876-4517
Volume 12
Number 6

Food Sec. (2020) 12:1253-1267

DOI 10.1007/s12571-020-01090-3

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by International
Society for Plant Pathology and Springer
Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Food Security (2020) 12:1253–1267
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01090-3

REVIEW

Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability,

and food security: insights from organic agriculture
Nesar Ahmed 1,2 & Shirley Thompson 1 & Giovanni M. Turchini 2

Received: 13 February 2020 / Accepted: 16 July 2020 / Published online: 3 August 2020
# International Society for Plant Pathology and Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
Organic aquaculture originated from the organic agriculture movement. Organic fish farming is an ecosystem-based management
system, which was developed as a potential substitute to address environmental constraints faced by intensive aquaculture. However,
the transformation from conventional aquaculture to organic aquaculture is a multidimensional, complex, and expensive process. The
further development of organic aquaculture can be enhanced by establishing uniform organic aquaculture standards. Converting to
organic aquaculture brings a wide range of environmental advantages. Nevertheless, organic yields are significantly lower than those of
modern aquaculture, which will reduce its contribution to global food security. To meet global demand for fish and seafood from an
increasing human population, food production from aquaculture must be enhanced since production from capture fisheries has
remained stagnant. Because aquaculture is associated with various environmental constraints, a further increase in fish production will
encounter diverse environmental challenges. Greater use of organic aquaculture practices will help to diminish environmental footprints
of aquaculture. We propose that fish production could increase through the sustainable intensification of a combination of production
systems, including polyculture, integrated aquaculture, and organic aquaculture.

Keywords Aquaculture . Organic farming . Ecosystem . Food production . Environmental challenge

1 Introduction while both coastal and marine aquaculture1 produced 30.8

Globally, fish support about 3.3 billion people with 20% of
their animal protein consumption, and per capita fish intake
has risen from 9 kg in 1961 to 20.5 kg in 2018 (FAO 2020).
Aquaculture, the cultivation of aquatic organisms (e.g., fin-
fish, shellfish, and seaweed), is the fastest growing food pro-
duction sector worldwide, with an average growth rate of
5.3% per annum during the period 2001–2018 (FAO 2020).
Excluding non-food animal products and aquatic plants, world
aquaculture production has increased over six-fold, from 13
million metric tonnes (t) in 1990 to 82.1 million t in 2018.
Globally, inland aquaculture yielded 51.3 million t (62%),
million t (38%) in 2018 (FAO 2020). Asia dominated global
aquaculture production with a contribution of 89% in 2018.
Among aquaculture producing countries worldwide, China is
ranked first (58% of total production), followed by India,
Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Egypt, Norway, Chile,
Myanmar, and Thailand (FAO 2020).
In parallel with growing fish production, aquaculture has
been encountering a series of environmental challenges, such
as habitat destruction, mangrove deforestation, ecosystem al-
teration, water pollution, eutrophication, biotic depletion, and
disease outbreaks (Naylor et al. 2000; Hall et al. 2011; Ahmed
et al. 2019). Some of the most commonly known, and

* Nesar Ahmed
1
n.ahmed@deakin.edu.au Aquaculture is performed in three different types of water environments and
culture locations: (1) inland freshwater aquaculture, (2) coastal brackish water
aquaculture, and (3) off-shore marine aquaculture. Irrespective of various wa-
1
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, ter environments, fish cultivation can be categorized into: (1) single species
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M6, Canada monoculture, (2) multiple species polyculture, and (3) integrated aquaculture
2 with agriculture. Based on inputs (fry, feed, and fertilizer) as well as farming
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, intensity, fish production can be characterized into: (1) extensive, (2) semi--
Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia intensive, and (3) intensive.
 Author's personal copy
1254
debated, detrimental impacts of aquaculture on the environ-
ment are:
& Unregulated and unplanned coastal fish cultivation, in-
cluding brackish water shrimp production, which is one
of the main reasons for widespread destruction of man-
groves (UNEP 2014). About 1.89 million ha of global
mangrove forests have been lost by coastal fish cultiva-
tion, particularly shrimp farming (Valiela et al. 2001).
& The farming of wild-caught fish fry (e.g., eel, milkfish,
prawn, and shrimp) for capture-based aquaculture with
substantial bycatch (i.e., unwanted catch of different fish
species) has negative impacts on ecosystems and biodiver-
sity of wild fish populations (Naylor et al. 2000;
Ottolenghi et al. 2004; Primavera 2006; Ahmed and
Troell 2010).
& Aquaculture feed production is dependent on capture fish-
eries due to the use of considerable amounts of fish oil and
fishmeal from the harvesting of wild fish, which has been
criticized by some for its possible negative effects on wild
fish populations (Naylor et al. 2000; Ytrestøyl et al. 2015).
& The introduction of exotic fish species in aquaculture, in
case of escape, might cause serious threats to ecosystems
and biodiversity (Naylor et al. 2001; De Silva et al. 2009).
The regular escape of cultured native salmon also has been
reported to have negative effects on wild salmon popula-
tions through interbreeding and disease transmission
(Naylor et al. 2005; Olesen et al. 2011; Taranger et al.
2015).
& The intensive use of antibiotics in aquaculture has envi-
ronmental and health risks, including aquatic biodiversity
toxicity, the emergence of multi-antibacterial resistant
strains, and residue accumulation (Miranda et al. 2018;
Lulijwa et al. 2020).
Accordingly, it is clear that for the much-needed further
growth of aquaculture to fulfill its potentials as a key contrib-
utor to global food security, its overall environmental sustain-
ability and economic viability are pivotal, and specifically its
environmental footprints must decrease greatly. Following the
rapid development of organic agriculture, which was triggered
by similar issues, organic aquaculture is an alternative farming
approach to address the environmental constraints encoun-
tered by modern aquaculture2 systems, technologies, and ap-
proaches (Biao 2008; IFOAM EU Group 2010). The appear-
ance of organic fish culture is related to rising widespread
concerns about consumer acceptance, food safety and quality,
eco-labeling, animal welfare, and minimizing environmental
hazards (Aarset et al. 2004; Cottee and Petersan 2009;
Censkowsky and Altena 2013; Xie et al. 2013; Lembo and
2
High-input “intensive aquaculture” is also referred to as “modern aquacul-
ture”, and these terms are used interchangeably in this article.
Ahmed N. et al.
Mente 2019). The experience, knowledge, and preferences of
stakeholders on these key issues must be considered for the
further development of organic aquaculture (Lembo et al.
2018).
Despite environmental benefits, the roles of organic farm-
ing to meet the challenge of feeding an increasing world pop-
ulation are unclear (Kirchmann et al. 2008; Miller 2010).
Global human population is projected to increase from 7.7
billion in 2019 to 9.7 billion by 2050 (United Nations 2019).
Because of human population growth, it has been estimated
that world food production requires to increase by 60% (FAO
2018), with estimates ranging from 25% to 70% by 2050
(Hunter et al. 2017). Whether organic farming can be a solu-
tion to meet the demand for food from an increasing world
population, is a heated global topic that has attracted polarized
views. Some experts believe that organic agriculture can pro-
vide global food supplies (Badgley et al. 2007; Scialabba
2007; Reganold and Wachter 2016; Muller et al. 2017), while
others have the opposite view (Trewavas 2001; Cassman
2007; Connor 2008, 2013).
Like organic agriculture, organic aquaculture is a small but
growing reality in global food production (Willer et al. 2020).
Thus, the clear question arising is: “can organic aquaculture
produce enough fish to meet the global demand?” The basic
hypothesis of this study is that organic aquaculture is environ-
mentally friendly and should be supported and extended, but it
is unlikely that it could provide for all the global demand for
food fish. This article reviews current knowledge about the
productivity of organic aquaculture, its environmental sustain-
ability, and effects on food security.3 The ultimate goal of this
article is to focus on the potentialities and challenges of or-
ganic aquaculture to help meet the demand of global food
supply, and therefore to provide a contribution towards
achieving progressive improvements in the overall sustain-
ability of the aquaculture sector.
2 Organic aquaculture
2.1 Overview and global status
Organic aquaculture is a holistic approach to farm manage-
ment and food production that combines best environmental
practices, maintains biodiversity, conserves natural resources,
and requires high fish welfare with the preference of certain
consumers (Lembo and Mente 2019; Mente et al. 2019).
Organic aquaculture is rooted in four principles: (1) health,
(2) ecology, (3) fairness, and (4) care (Gould et al. 2019). It
should be a truly holistic system, based on living ecological
3
Although food security has four interrelated elements: availability, access,
utilization, and stability, this article focuses on food availability as well as
yields from organic farming.
 Author's personal copy
Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture 1255

systems and take care of the health of ecosystems, animals, aquaculture represents just 1.12% of aquaculture area,
and people (Gould et al. 2019). Organic fish culture is an returning 0.20% of total fish production. The highest volume
ecosystem-based management farming method, which aims of organic aquaculture production was found in Europe
at environmental sustainability and prohibits use of synthetic (56%), followed by Asia (mainly China) (Willer et al. 2020).
chemical inputs to reduce environmental impacts (IFOAM Specifically, the highest organic aquaculture production per
2014; Naturland 2020). According to Lembo and Mente country was found in China (44% of total), followed by
(2019), organic fish production is an alternative farming ap- Ireland, Norway, Rumania, Italy, Germany, Spain, Hungary,
proach driven by increasing interest in the sustainable use of Denmark, and Bulgaria (Table 1). These top 10 organic aqua-
resources. Aquaculture under organic management intends to culture producing countries represent 96.5% of world organic
generate fish, which are socially responsible, economically aquaculture production. A breakdown by species category
viable, and ecologically sustainable (Birt et al. 2009; Cottee was only available for less than 28% of the world organic
and Petersan 2009; IFOAM EU Group 2010). aquaculture production, of which mussels is the most pro-
Organic aquaculture derived from organic agriculture, by duced, followed by salmon, carps, trout, sturgeon, aquatic
translating its concepts, methods, and approaches from the plants, seabream, shrimps, seabass, oysters, bream, and bass
terrestrial to the aquatic environment (INFOFISH 2011); ac- (Table 2).
cordingly, the origins of organic aquaculture can be found
from the organic agriculture movement (IFOAM EU Group
2010). Globally, organic agriculture occupied 71.5 million ha 2.2 Organic aquaculture practices and challenges
of land (1.5% of total cropland) with 2.8 million organic pro-
ducers in 2018 (Willer et al. 2020). Unlike organic agriculture, Organic aquaculture can be practiced under different systems,
the growth of organic fish production has only recently re- including in tanks, ponds, net-pens, cages, raceways, and
ceived interest from researchers and industry (Perdikaris and recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) (Angel et al. 2019).
Paschos 2010; Censkowsky and Altena 2013). Nevertheless, Although RAS is incompatible with organic aquaculture stan-
as early as in 1995, the first certified organic cultured fish dards since it does not exhibit “closeness to nature” (Kerr and
(specifically carp) was approved and certified by the Potthast 2018), the suitable fish stocking density in RAS can
German-based agency Naturland4 (Potts et al. 2016). The be considered organic production because it provides friendly
Naturland standards for organic aquaculture existed long be- environment for most fish with regard to animal welfare and
fore that develop consistently to provide major supports, biosafety issues (Meisch and Stark 2019). According to
which has gained wide acceptance among farmers and con- Naturland (2020), extensive farming is preferred in organic
sumers. A decade later, the International Federation of aquaculture, which allows the integration of other components
Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) approved the final (e.g., livestock, rice, vegetables). Monoculture is permitted in
version of its organic aquaculture standard by the General organic fish production (Censkowsky and Altena 2013); how-
Assembly in 2005 (Auld 2014). Subsequently, the European ever, polyculture is recommended due to efficient utilization
Union initiated organic aquaculture regulations in 2007, of space and the food-web in ecosystems (IFOAM EU Group
which were revised in 2008 and 2009 (IFOAM EU Group
2010). At the same time, over 80 various organic aquaculture
Table 1 Major organic aquaculture producing countries in the world in
standards were developed in different countries worldwide 2018
(Bergleiter et al. 2009). Despite these promising activities,
the further growth of organic fish culture is likely to require, Rank Country Production Percent of world
in t production
and be complemented by, the development of more accepted
and uniform organic aquaculture standards. 1 China 71,667 44.00%
Globally, aquaculture covered 18.8 million ha of land5 in 2 Ireland 27,264 16.74%
2010 (Waite et al. 2014). However, only 209,900 ha of aqua- 3 Norway 16,696 10.25%
culture farms were certified organic, with a total production6 4 Rumania 10,756 6.60%
of 162,878 t in 2018 (Willer et al. 2020). Globally, organic 5 Italy 9608 5.90%
4
6 Germany 6596 4.05%
Naturland is a prominent organic certifying agency of Germany that intro-
duced the first international organic fish culture project in Ireland in 1995, 7 Spain 6330 3.89%
aiming to establish a standard for organic salmon aquaculture, based on prin- 8 Hungary 3240 1.99%
ciples of the IFOAM and the European organic regulations (IFOAM EU 9 Denmark 2966 1.82%
Group 2010).
5
There are no recent data on global aquaculture area.
10 Bulgaria 2000 1.23%
6 Total (with other countries) 162,878 100%
The actual production of organic aquaculture is higher than current estimates
due to unavailability of data from some countries, including Brazil and
Indonesia (Willer et al. 2020). Source: Willer et al. (2020)
 Author's personal copy
1256 Ahmed N. et al.

Table 2 Major organic aquaculture products in 2018 and environmental aspects, and socioeconomic issues (Xie
Rank Product Production in t Percent of world production et al. 2013; Ahmed et al. 2018), and a number of the key
challenges for transforming organic aquaculture are outlined
1 Mussels 18,313 11.24% in Table 3. In extensive and semi-intensive systems, fish pro-
2 Salmon 15,496 9.51% ductivity increases through the appropriate application of
3 Carps 4874 2.99% feeds and organic fertilizers to grow natural food (plankton).
4 Trout 2193 1.35% However, some feed additives (e.g., chemo-synthetic pig-
5 Sturgeon 1756 1.08% ments and synthetic amino acids) and growth substances are
6 Aquatic plants 722 0.44% not acceptable in organic aquaculture. Although plants from
7 Seabream 474 0.29% GMOs are utilized as aquafeed ingredients (Sissener et al.
8 Shrimps 421 0.26% 2011), they are not acceptable in organic fish production
9 Seabass 112 0.07% (Censkowsky and Altena 2013; Naturland 2020). Moreover,
10 Oysters 56 0.03% vaccines derived from GMOs are not permitted in organic
11 Bream 54 0.03% aquaculture (INFOFISH 2011). According to Naturland
12 Bass 44 0.03% (2020), GMOs and their derivatives are incompatible with
Others (no details)a 118,363 72.67% organic farming, and homeopathic treatment is permitted in
Total 162,878 100% organic fish culture. Nevertheless, GMOs derived medicinal
products as well as vaccines are allowed in organic aquacul-
Source: Willer et al. (2020) ture by the European regulation (EU Regulation 2018) and
a
Breakdown by species category was not available for about 73% of the Canadian organic aquaculture standards (CGSB 2018).
world organic aquaculture production Total productivity, and thus stocking density, is also consid-
ered and limited in organic aquaculture. For example, the pro-
ductivity of prawn and shrimps (e.g., Litopenaeus vannamie,
2010; Mente et al. 2011; Xie et al. 2013). Species diversifica- Macrobrachium rosenbergii, and Penaeus monodon) should
tion in aquaculture is recommended, which can be achieved not exceed 1600 kg/ha/year in organic aquaculture (Naturland
through polyculture (Naturland 2020). 2020). Similarly, the maximum allowed production of organic
A central objective for organic cultivation is that the man- carp has been set at 1500 kg/ha/year (Stanciu et al. 2015).
agement of organic aquaculture farms should not negatively Accordingly, because of this required low intensity of produc-
affect surrounding ecosystems. Accordingly, a series of prin- tion, one of the key concerns for the widespread development
ciples has been put in place addressing different aspects of of organic fish culture is the low scale of production
farming operations. Naturally occurring native species, with (EUMOFA 2017).
hatchery-produced organic fry, is the preferred stock Organic markets are highly regulated and around 90 countries
(Naturland 2020), and a shift from the use of wild broodstock have developed and implemented specific organic rules (Gould
to organically-farmed broodstock is recommended (IFOAM et al. 2019), and certification schemes, with effectively
EU Group 2010). Nevertheless, the capture of wild established organic labels, as key drivers for the growth of the
broodstock for fish and shrimp hatchery operation, and the organic fish market (EUMOFA 2017). As with organic agricul-
use of wild-caught shrimp postlarvae, are allowed in organic ture, a third-party certification is required to guarantee organic
aquaculture, if there is passive inflow when the ponds are aquaculture practices, along the entire production chain, from
refilled (Naturland 2020). The hatchery must also rely on nat- farm to markets. The certification process itself is an additional
ural reproduction, and thus, the use of pituitary gland hormone bureaucratic, logistic, and financial burden and is often signifi-
and antibiotics in hatchery operation is incompatible with or- cantly expensive for organic fish production, which present a
ganic aquaculture (INFOFISH 2011; Naturland 2020). central obstacle to the development of organic seafood markets
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including those (Biao 2008; Ha et al. 2012). Certification is costly in organic fish
used in compounded feed, should not be utilized in organic cultivation, and coupled with the fact that most producers aspir-
aquaculture (Naturland 2020). Stocking densities should not ing to be organic certified are typically small-scale producers, it
exceed the carrying capacities of the water body, which can results in being a substantial financial barrier (IFOAM EU Group
lead to diverse ecological effects (Censkowsky and Altena 2010; Ha et al. 2012). Moreover, third-party certification is based
2013). Ecological functions and water quality must be main- on techno-scientific values and norms of Western societies, and
tained for feeding, breeding, nursery, and grow-out operation thus, it has been proven to be difficult to implement in the Global
of fish (Naturland 2020). South, due to cultural and structural differences (Hatanaka 2010).
It is evident that transforming from conventional into or- In addition, organic farmers in developing countries have to
ganic aquaculture is a multidimensional challenging operation comply with the standards in countries where they intend to sell
involving animal welfare, consumer protection, ecological their products.
 Author's personal copy
Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture 1257

Table 3 Key challenges for transforming from conventional to organic aquaculture

Feature Challenge in organic aquaculture

Culture species Native species are preferred as exotic species may have adverse ecological effects
Farming system Monoculture is allowed, but polyculture is recommended
Farming intensity Extensive farming is suggested, not intensive farming
Hatchery operation Application of antibiotics and hormones are prohibited
Fish stocking Not exceed carrying capacities, maximum stocking densities: salmon and tropical
freshwater fish 10 kg/m3, shrimp 15 postlarvae/m2
Fertilization Using synthetic fertilizers are incompatible
Feeding Application of certain feed additives are not allowed
Disease treatment Antibiotics and chemo-therapeutic treatments are not permitted
Productivity Annual carp and shrimp productivity should not exceed 1500 kg/ha and 1600 kg/ha, respectively
Certification Cost of certification is high for small-scale producers

Source: Adapted from IFOAM EU Group (2010); Censkowsky and Altena (2013); Stanciu et al. (2015); Naturland (2020)

According to Marschke and Wilkings (2014), aquaculture
standards may be not appropriate for small-scale producers, as
they face significant challenges. In order to overcome difficulties,
“group certification” for smallholders in developing countries
has been suggested (IFOAM Organics International 2017).
Accordingly, group certification for small-scale farmers in organ-
ic aquaculture should be allowed, to reduce certification costs as
well as administrative burdens, strengthen local networks, ensure
a level playing field in third countries, and contribute to better
market outlets (EU Regulation 2018). Nevertheless, better under-
standing and implementation of group certification process with
major stakeholder commitment, organizational support, and pri-
vate sector sponsorship are required.
3 Environmental sustainability of organic
aquaculture
3.1 Environmental benefits
Organic aquaculture brings a wide range of environmental ad-
vantages (Fig. 1). Organic fish culture plays a key role in reducing
environmental impacts related to intensive production (IFOAM
EU Group 2010), and it is an ecological management system
approach to foster and maintain biodiversity (Bergleiter et al.
2009). In comparison with conventional cultivation, organic
management also aims at favorable effects on biodiversity
(Tuck et al. 2014). Consistently, it has been shown that, com-
pared with conventional farming, organic management has ben-
eficial effects on biotic abundance and richness (Smith et al.
2019); on average 50% higher abundance of organisms and
30% higher species richness (Bengtsson et al. 2005).
Biodiversity must be sustained and maintained in organic aqua-
culture, to the best of the producers’ capability (Naturland 2020).
For example, organic fish culture requires green-pond dikes by
trees and shrubs, which directly benefit local biodiversity
(Censkowsky and Altena 2013).
Organic farming provides a wide range of ecosystem services
(Kremen and Miles 2012; Reganold and Wachter 2016), as it has
been shown to enhance soil fertility,7 water quality, nutrient man-
agement, and to reduce fossil energy, compared with convention-
al cropping (Mäder et al. 2002; Pimentel et al. 2005; Lori et al.
2017). Accordingly, it reduces environmental externalities, and
thus, broadly, it is more sustainable than conventional farming
(Kremen and Miles 2012; Reganold and Wachter 2016). For
example, organic agriculture has been shown to allow for a de-
crease in the use of fertilizers and energy by 34% to 53% and
pesticides by 97% (Mäder et al. 2002). Decreasing fertilizer and
pesticide applications in organic farming clearly reduce its over-
all environmental impacts, which in turn enhance environmental
conditions (Pimentel et al. 2005; Tuomisto et al. 2012; Meier
et al. 2015). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit land area
seem to be lower under organic cropping compared with con-
ventional farming (Tuomisto et al. 2012; Skinner et al. 2014;
Meier et al. 2015). On average, in Spain, GHG emissions per
unit area decreased by 56% and per unit product by 39% in
organic management compared with conventional farming
(Aguilera et al. 2015a); and it has been reported that enhancing
organic matter inputs in organic cropping systems can increase
carbon sequestration (Aguilera et al. 2015b). Similar benefits
have been shown for organic aquaculture too. For example, in
Vietnam, integrated mangrove-shrimp8 farms under organic
7
Soil fertility in aquaculture can increase pond productivity by reducing nu-
trient loss as well as water seepage through enhancing physical and organic
matter that influence soil structure.
8
Organic aquaculture does not allow mangrove deforestation for shrimp
cultivation. Nevertheless, shrimp farms occupying former mangrove areas
can be modified to organic fish culture, if mangrove deforestation does not
cover 50% of the total aquaculture area. The converted mangrove area under
shrimp cultivation must be reforested by at least 50% within five years
(Naturland 2020).
 Author's personal copy
1258 Ahmed N. et al.

Biodiversity Maintaining Disease Enhance Maintain

conservation ecosystem protection soil fertility water quality

Ecosystem Environmental
Human services and awareness and Food
rights benefits performance quality

Environmental
Social enhancement Health
justice safety

Producer Consumer
awareness and awareness and
performance performance
Organic
aquaculture
Animal Consumer
welfare acceptance

Producer Consumer
benefits protection
Sustainable Economic Eco-
management benefits and labeling
significance

Sustainable Reduced High market Increased Export

livelihoods input costs price income earning
Fig. 1 Organic aquaculture provides three interlinked benefits: (1) producers, (2) consumers, and (3) environment

aquaculture recorded reduced GHG emissions, when compared
to non-certified farms (Jonell and Henriksson 2015).
In conventional intensive aquaculture, the utilization of an-
tibiotics and fertilizers contributes to water pollution (Hall
et al. 2011), and risks associated with antibiotic resistance
(Alderman and Hastings 1998; Brunton et al. 2019). Within
this context, organic cultivation is superior to conventional
production as it minimizes water pollution and maintains wa-
ter quality (Reganold and Wachter, 2016; Seufert and
Ramankutty 2017). However, chemical-free organic fish pro-
duction relies on unpolluted water, and so results in fewer
adverse effects on water quality (IFOAM EU Group 2010).
Organic fish culture intends to defend fish from injury, envi-
ronmental hazards, parasite infestations, and disease out-
breaks through low stocking of fish, with resulting benefits
on animal welfare, but also on maintaining and enhancing
water quality (Censkowsky and Altena 2013; Bergleiter and
Meisch 2015). Low stocking density is considered suitable
because of its implications for fish welfare, which also favor
the maintenance of good water quality (Lembo et al. 2018). It
has been shown that maintaining fish welfare in organic aqua-
culture is possible, through regular monitoring (Seibel et al.
2018). Indeed, high stocking density in aquaculture is one of
the most detrimental factors to fish welfare and water quality
(Carbonara et al. 2015), and consumers have become increas-
ingly concerned about fish welfare (Aarset et al. 2004).
According to Olesen et al. (2011), the physiology and behav-
ior of fish are welfare indicators that could be affected by
production techniques, such as stocking densities.
Organic management practices also prohibit fish escape, as
a precaution to limit the risk of spreading diseases and para-
sites to wild fish populations (Censkowsky and Altena 2013).
This is particularly challenging for some aquaculture systems,
for example salmon farming in floating cages, where escape
of cultured salmon can occur and lead to the transmission of
disease and parasites to wild salmon populations (Naylor et al.
2005; Olesen et al. 2011; Taranger et al. 2015). Additionally,
organic fish culture practices accomplish a greater level of
disease and parasite resistance (Ötles et al. 2010). Organic
cropping provides greater potential for biological control of
pests compared with conventional farming (Muneret et al.
2018), which is applicable for integrated aquaculture-
agriculture (e.g., rice-fish farming) that produce “more crop
per drop” (Ahmed et al. 2014). Overall, pest management, soil
 Author's personal copy
Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture
fertility, disease control, and nutritional quality of crops
through the wider adoption of organic management practices
enhances sustainability of such systems (Fess and Benedito
2018). Even the adoption of a few traditional organic cropping
methods can help conventional farming to be more ecologi-
cally sound and sustainable (Pimentel et al. 2005).
3.2 Confronting environmental challenges
Farmers in developing countries frequently engage in non-
certified organic aquaculture production without the use of
chemicals, but then engage in environmental degrading activ-
ities due to inadequate knowledge of other ecosystem restric-
tions (FAO 2019). For example, farmers in Vietnam are often
involved in organic management of integrated mangrove-
shrimp cultivation, but without official certification.
Although farmers might shift to the utilization of shrimp
postlarvae collected from certified organic sources, and thus,
potentially initiate the process for transforming from non-
certified organic farming to certified organic production, that
alone does not automatically improve aquaculture practices
and resulting impacts on the environment (Jonell and
Henriksson 2015). Additionally, some organic aquaculture
standards (e.g., in salmon farming) could not improve envi-
ronmental impacts with respect to marine aquatic ecotoxicity,
eutrophication, and acidification (Pelletier and Tyedmers
2007). Indeed, organic carp aquaculture in Germany may even
lead to higher eutrophication and acidification than conven-
tional farming (Biermann and Geist 2019). It is evident that
greatly improved harmonization of accepted organic aquacul-
ture standards and reinforced coordination among producers,
market actors, and consumers may help to drive further
growth of organic aquaculture (Mente et al. 2011). Thus, at-
tention should be given to enhance organic aquaculture stan-
dards for improving environmental conditions with producer
benefits and consumer protection (Fig. 1).
Feed is also central to organic certification. An analysis
applying life cycle assessment suggests that organic salmon
aquaculture is often unsuccessful to diminish the environmen-
tal impacts derived from aquafeed production, including fish
oil, fishmeal, and other organic crop ingredients (Pelletier and
Tyedmers 2007). Because of environmental concerns, the use
of alternative feed for organic aquaculture is a high priority
(Mente et al. 2019). Due to limited resources of marine
fishmeal and fish oil, vegetable protein and oil can be applied
in salmon farming (Olesen et al. 2011). The diet for carnivo-
rous fish (salmon) must contain a balanced amount of amino
acids, fatty acids, and lipids. Essential amino acids (e.g., his-
tidine) can be obtained by fermentation of natural substances
of microbial non-GMO origin or other similar procedures,
which is currently allowed by the European regulation (EC
889/2008) and Naturland (EGTOP 2013; Naturland 2020).
Single Cell Protein (SCP), i.e., protein produced in algal and
1259
microbial (bacteria, fungi) cells, and soluble fish protein con-
centrate of organic origin, is an option to be used as feed in
organic aquaculture (Ritala et al. 2017; Mente et al. 2019).
New organic alternative protein ingredients that are species-
specific, such as “processed animal protein (PAP)” that has a
considerably higher protein value (45–90%), produced from
organic agriculture, as well as organic insect-based diets, can
be applied in organic aquaculture (EGTOP 2013; Mente et al.
2019). Thus, opportunities are available to manufacture feeds
that would be certifiable, although their production costs will
be higher, and their availability is currently lower, compared
to traditional, non-organic certified feed.
Organic farming has beneficial impacts on the cropping
environment on a per unit area basis, but not per unit of prod-
uct (Tuomisto et al. 2012), which may be applicable for inte-
grated aquaculture-agriculture. The absence of use of synthet-
ic pesticides and fertilizers in organic farming does not neces-
sarily lead to safe and healthy food production in an environ-
mentally sustainable manner (Pacanoski 2009). Compared
with conventional farming, there are some limitations to the
wider application of organic farming due to require additional
land and labor to produce food for human consumption
(Floros et al. 2010). Widespread transformation to organic
farming will lead to less land being available for non-
agricultural uses (e.g., wildlife habitats and ecosystems) to
match conventional yields, resulting in further deforestation
and biodiversity concern, diminishing the environmental ad-
vantages of organic farming (Trewavas 2001; Pacanoski
2009). Thus, widespread conversion of more land to organic
agriculture may lead to wider environmental degradation and
be undesirable; the incorporation of organic agriculture prin-
ciples into conventional agriculture to transform it may be the
way to go for most situations.
Although organic farming in terrestrial agriculture has sig-
nificantly higher carbon stocks and sequestration than conven-
tional farming (Gattinger et al. 2012; Skinner et al. 2014), the
widespread expansion of organic methods would likely re-
duce global crop production, because of lower production
per unit land area. Thus, to fulfil global food demands from
a growing population, and additional conversion of high soil-
carbon-content land to cropland, leading to more carbon emis-
sions, would be required, and thus, carbon sequestration in
soils through organic farming will not be able mitigate climate
change (Leifeld et al. 2013). Accordingly, it has been sug-
gested that in the context of human population growth and
climate change, agricultural systems need flexibility and prag-
matism, not strict organic farming (Trewavas 2001).
However, the intrinsic differences between terrestrial agricul-
ture and aquaculture, and how organic farming methods are
applied, might lead to different considerations and outcomes
for aquaculture. Further assessments of the consequences of
fish habitat modification with land-use change in relation to
 Author's personal copy
1260
organic aquaculture, carbon emission and sequestration, and
climate change adaptation are needed.
4 Organic productivity and food security
4.1 Yields in organic farming
Yields in terrestrial organic agriculture are typically 20–25%
lower than yields in conventional agriculture (Mäder et al.
2002; de Ponti et al. 2012; Seufert et al. 2012; Tuomisto
et al. 2012; Ponisio et al. 2015). Thus, organic farming needs
additional land and labor to produce a similar quantity of food
as conventional methods (Trewavas 2001; Muller et al. 2017).
Accordingly, it has been estimated that a hypothetical 100%
conversion to organic agriculture would require 16–33% more
land to meet global food demands (Muller et al. 2017). In
another study, it was assessed that in England and Wales, a
100% conversion to organic farming would reduce overall
food production, equating to 64% of that achieved by
conventional farming (Smith et al. 2018). Similarly, in
Bhutan, a 100% conversion to organic agriculture would
result in considerable reduction in gross domestic prod-
uct, due to 24% lower yields than conventional farming
(Feuerbacher et al. 2018).
Like organic agriculture, yields in organic fish culture are
generally lower than modern aquaculture. Although yields in
organic fish production are often higher than in traditional
forms of aquaculture, they are considerably lower compared
to those from semi-intensive and intensive farming.9 Organic
aquaculture of prawn (M. rosenbergii) and rice in rotational
systems in India decreased rice yields by 23%, from 5690 kg/
ha in conventional cropping to 4376 kg/ha in organic farming,
but improved prawn yields by 10%, from 360 kg/ha in con-
ventional farming to 396 kg/ha in organic farming (Nair et al.
2014). Compared with conventional farming, the net return
was 11% lower for organic rice, but 117% higher for organic
prawn, and therefore jointly organic farming enhanced net
revenue by 20% (Nair et al. 2014). In other instances, it has
been shown that, in Vietnam, certified organic shrimp
(P. monodon) farms with mangroves have higher shrimp pro-
duction (360 kg/ha) than non-certified farms (229 kg/ha)
(Jonell and Henriksson 2015). Nevertheless, the annual yield
of shrimp (P. monodon) is 1783–4178 kg/ha in semi-intensive
cultivation systems (Ramaswamy et al. 2013) and 4366 kg/ha
in intensive production (Ha et al. 2012). In organic aquacul-
ture, the maximum annual production of shrimp is limited,
and should not exceed 1600 kg/ha (Naturland 2020), which
9
Yields in aquaculture vary greatly due to differences in farming systems,
such as: traditional, extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive. Extensive farm-
ing is a slightly modified version of traditional methods with low-inputs,
whereas a semi-intensive method uses greater inputs, but lower than intensive
cultivation.
Ahmed N. et al.
indicates that organic shrimp productivity is 11–161% lower
than semi-intensive farming and 173% lower than intensive
farming.
The maximum annual production of carp in organic aqua-
culture is 1500 kg/ha (Stanciu et al. 2015), whereas the annual
productivity of carp is 12,500 kg/ha in semi-intensive farming
and 15,000 kg/ha or more in intensive cultivation (Waite et al.
2014). According to Miao and Yuan (2007), the production of
intensive carp polyculture in China can be as high as 30,000–
40,000 kg/ha/year. Yield differences between organic and
conventional aquaculture could be even higher if fish produc-
tion under RAS is considered, which produce 400,000–
500,000 kg/year (Murray et al. 2014; Bregnballe 2015). In
Vietnam, super-intensive monoculture of striped catfish
(Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) generates 300,000 kg/ha/
crop (Phan et al. 2009). These findings suggest that organic
fish productivity is significantly lower than in modern con-
ventional aquaculture. However, the yield differences be-
tween conventional intensive and organic aquaculture may
convert differently into physical and economic productivity,
and the actual gap could decrease, as high stocking densities in
intensive farming increase water pollution, disease outbreaks,
and eventually reduce profit margins (Lembo and Mente 2019).
In order to meet the global demand for food from an in-
creasing human population, fish and seafood production
through aquaculture must be increased (Fig. 2), as production
from capture fisheries has remained stagnant. Global capture
fisheries produced 96.4 million t in 2018, and that will stabi-
lize at around 96 million t in 2030 (FAO 2020). To meet
projected demand for food fish as well as seafood, aquaculture
production would require to reach 109 million t in 2030 (FAO
2020), and 140 million t in 2050 (Waite et al. 2014). However,
environmental challenges will have to be considered and fac-
tored in, for any possible further aquaculture growth to in-
crease fish production. Despite higher production in intensive
aquaculture, there are various environmental constraints
which must be not underestimated. In fact, any additional
growth in fish production via intensification of conventional
methods will have to face various environmental challenges,
including eutrophication, water pollution, habitat destruction,
ecosystem alteration, biotic depletion, and disease transmis-
sion (Naylor et al. 2000; Hall et al. 2011; Ahmed et al. 2019).
According to Troell et al. (2014), aquaculture has both envi-
ronmental benefits (e.g., food production, ecosystem services)
and costs, such as the degradation of aquatic ecosystems,
which may in turn undermine food production, particularly
for low-income populations. Thus, the growth of aquaculture
with fish and seafood production must increase considerably,
while at the same time its environmental footprints must di-
minish greatly.
Although organic farming is an environmentally friendly
sustainable food production system (Eyhorn et al. 2019), its
environmental sustainability per unit product is often
 Author's personal copy
Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture
Increase fish production
Stagnate capture fisheries
Aquaculture
production:
82 million t
in 2018
7.7 billion
in 2019
Fig. 2 Global aquaculture production needs to increase from 82 million t in 2018 to 140 million t in 2050 due to human population growth and the
stagnation of capture fisheries
questioned due to lower yields. The main criticism of organic
farming is relative to the significant yield gap compared with
modern aquaculture. Accordingly, in this study we suggest
that although organic aquaculture is environmentally friendly,
it cannot boost global fish production to meet the present and
future demand. Consistently, Halberg (2012) indicated that
environmental sustainability in organic farming is not enough
to meet the demand and solve the challenges of world food
production. In recent years, there has been an interest in in-
creasing yields of organic production methods, to provide for
growing demand of such foods (Röös et al. 2018). For exam-
ple, crop diversification could reduce the yield gap between
conventional and organic farming (Ponisio et al. 2015).
However, increase yields are likely to increase risks, including
animal health and welfare, biodiversity, GHG emissions, hu-
man health, nutrient loss, and farm profitability (Röös et al.
2018). Indeed, increased production in aquaculture through
intensification has generally been accompanied by environ-
mental concerns (Hall et al. 2011).
Sustainable intensification is a process to increase crop
production from the equivalent amount of water and area of
land while decreasing environmental impacts, which can help
to achieve global food security (Godfray et al. 2010; Godfray
1261
Projected
aquaculture
production: 140
million t in 2050
Environmental challenge
Population growth
9.7 billion
in 2050
and Garnett 2014). The same must apply to aquaculture. A
paradigm shift is that global demand for food needs sustain-
able aquaculture production through a combination of various
culture methods, and the organic method is just one of the
possible systems. To meet the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals by 2030, agricultural practices need to
change and organic farming is an effective element in such a
strategy (Eyhorn et al. 2019). Nevertheless, besides organic
farming, sustainable ecological aquaculture systems, includ-
ing integrated farming and polyculture are other options that
can potentially increase fish yields (Costa-Pierce 2010).
Consistently, it has been reported that ecologically intensive
organic farming can produce sufficient yields of quality food
to help promote food security and sustainability (Smith et al.
2019). For example, the integration of fish in rice fields could
increase productivity and environmental sustainability
(Ahmed et al. 2014). In fact, the diversification and intensifi-
cation of integrated aquaculture are features of integrated re-
sources management to improve farm productivity and envi-
ronmental sustainability (Nhan et al. 2007; Dey et al. 2010).
Similarly, modern polyculture of 6–8 ecologically and eco-
nomically important fish species can contribute to increased
productivity with less environmental impacts (Edwards 2015).
 Author's personal copy
1262 Ahmed N. et al.

Integrated cropping and polyculture are sustainable intensifi-
cation options to increase fish production through the efficient
utilization of resources. Organic farming, integrated cropping,
and polyculture might be difficult to be implemented simulta-
neously from a logistic and practical viewpoint, but they can
coexist in different realities, and together contribute to food
security.
4.2 Challenges of food security
There has been discussion about the role of organic farming in
contributing to feeding a growing global population. Some
experts believe that organic cropping has the potential to con-
tribute substantially to world food supply (Badgley et al.
2007; Reganold and Wachter 2016; Muller et al. 2017), and
organic farming has been suggested to be a paradigm shift
towards food security (Scialabba 2007). Under certain circum-
stances, organic cropping has been proven to be a viable op-
tion to enhance food security of small-scale farms by increas-
ing yields, income, and reducing input costs (Peramaiyan et al.
2009). Interestingly, in terms of economic returns and profit-
ability, organic cropping was estimated to be 22–35% more
profitable than conventional farming (Crowder and Reganold
2015).
Many scientists argue that organic agriculture could not
feed the global population as there is no way to increase pro-
duction without using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and
GMOs (Trewavas 2001; Cassman 2007; Connor 2008, 2013).
The father of the green revolution and Nobel Peace Prize
laureate (1970) Norman Borlaug suggested that feeding a
planet of 10 billion human population needs biotechnology,
fertilizer and pesticide application, and would require the use
of GMOs (Borlaug 2002). According to Floros et al. (2010),
scientific and technological advancements, including biotech-
nology and nanotechnology could help to improve crop pro-
duction for feeding the global population today and tomorrow.
To feed the growing global population sustainably, organic
agriculture could support only 3–4 billion people (Connor
2008), assuming that human populations continue to eat more
on the food chain and waste the similar quantity of food.
Certified organic agriculture is a minor production, contribut-
ing <1% of global food production, but uncertified organic
agriculture has much higher production volumes.
Accordingly, it has been suggested that the solution to feeding
growing global population must be achieved through greater

More fish Reduce Fish protein Nutritional Human

on dish fish waste intake benefit health

Human Consumption

Organic Integrated
farming farming Physical Social

Farming
systems Productivity

Ecological Economic
Polyculture

Aquaculture Production

Fig. 3 Linkages among farming systems and productivity factors to increase aquaculture production for human consumption towards nutritional and
health benefits
 Author's personal copy
Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture
yields (Connor 2013), and high yields are key issues to pro-
vide sustainable food security in the world (Godfray et al.
2010; Foley et al. 2011).
Currently, there is no indication nor evidence that organic
aquaculture contributes substantially to global food supply;
this would not be possible since organic aquaculture is less
than 1% of global aquaculture production. Thus, organic fish
production is a relatively minor element in human food con-
sumption. Nevertheless, there is an increasing demand for
organic foods in international markets, as large population in
high-income countries eat organic food at least occasionally
(Seufert et al. 2017). Over 80% of households in the USA buy
organic food regularly at least a few items (OTA 2017), while
58% of Canadians consume organic food every week (COTA
2013). In Europe and the USA, consumers particularly
“foodies”, younger people, and women are more likely to be
interested in organic foods. In Europe, per capita organic food
consumption between 2005 and 2014 has increased by 110%
from €22.4 to €47.7 (Stolze et al. 2016). In fact, customers are
willing to spend 15–30% more money for buying organic
foods (Aschemann-Witzel and Zielke 2017). The premium
cost of organic salmon is 20–25% greater than that from con-
ventional farming (Asche et al. 2015; Ankamah-Yeboah et al.
2016). Thus, a certain portion of organic production is needed
to meet consumer demands.
In conclusion, to achieve global food security, a combina-
tion of various farming systems, including integrated, modern,
and organic farming, as well as agriculture, aquaculture, and
capture fisheries are needed, which can provide a sustainable
and pragmatic solution for feeding the global population
(Seufert et al. 2012; Reganold and Wachter 2016; FAO
2020). In aquaculture, a combination of sustainable intensifi-
cation of polyculture, integrated, and organic farming can po-
tentially increase fish production (Fig. 3). The food value of
fish as well as seafood is considerably higher than agricultural
crops in terms of nutrient and protein content. Fish are a per-
fect source of protein, vitamins, and minerals, and thus, con-
sidered as healthy and nutritionally valuable part of the human
diet (Béné et al. 2015; Tilami and Sampels 2018).
Accordingly, we expect there will be continued increased de-
mand for aquaculture products in general and particularly
those from organic aquaculture to meet more of our food
security needs.
5 Conclusions
To meet the demand for food from an increasing human pop-
ulation, global fish and seafood production must be increased
through aquaculture as production from capture fisheries has
remained stagnant. However, aquaculture is associated with
various environmental problems and further increases in fish
and seafood production will face diverse environmental
1263
challenges. Organic aquaculture has emerged as an alternative
to address environmental constraints faced by modern aqua-
culture. Organic fish culture is an ecosystem-based holistic
management approach, based on living ecological systems,
that aims to take care of the health of ecosystems, animals,
and people. Converting to organic aquaculture brings a wide
range of environmental benefits, including biodiversity con-
servation, maintaining ecosystems, better nutrient manage-
ment, soil fertility, water quality, and disease resistance.
However, transforming from conventional to organic aquacul-
ture is a challenging operation that brings a series of limita-
tions. The further growth of organic aquaculture could be
enhanced by establishing more uniform performance-based
organic aquaculture standards for reducing certification costs
and administrative burdens.
Despite the environmental benefits, yields in organic aqua-
culture are considerably lower than in modern conventional
aquaculture, which may undermine the ability of the sector to
contribute to global food security. Accordingly, the role of
organic fish production to feed the growing world population
is likely to remain minor. Nevertheless, despite the yield ben-
efits, environmental degradation associated with intensive
aquaculture may get worse into the future, reducing its contri-
bution to global food production and food security. Thus, the
future of aquaculture must involve sustainably increasing pro-
duction while decreasing its environmental impacts. To re-
duce environmental degradation, increased fish production
must be through a combination of sustainable intensification
of polyculture and integrated farming with organic aquacul-
ture. Empirical research is required to understand and assess
alternative feed applications, reducing feed-related environ-
ment impacts, minimizing certification costs and administra-
tive burdens. The aim will be the provision of quality food
products from highly productive organic aquaculture, with
benefits to environmental sustainability and food security.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by the Natural
Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Canada and the
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University,
Australia. The opinions and views expressed in this article are
exclusively those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of any organization. We thank two anonymous reviewers
and the editors for their insightful comments and suggestions.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Aarset, B., Beckmann, S., Bigne, E., Beveridge, M., Bjorndal, T.,
Bunting, J., McDonagh, P., Mariojouls, C., Muir, J., Prothero, A.,
Reisch, L., Smith, A., Tveteras, R., & Young, J. (2004). The
 Author's personal copy
1264
European consumers’ understanding and perceptions of the “organ-
ic” food regime: The case of aquaculture. British Food Journal, 106,
93–105.
Aguilera, E., Guzmán, G., & Alonso, A. (2015a). Greenhouse gas emis-
sions from conventional and organic cropping systems in Spain. II.
Fruit tree orchards. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35,
725–737.
Aguilera, E., Guzmán, G., & Alonso, A. (2015b). Greenhouse gas emis-
sions from conventional and organic cropping systems in Spain. I.
Herbaceous crops. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35,
713–724.
Ahmed, N., & Troell, M. (2010). Fishing for prawn larvae in Bangladesh:
An important coastal livelihood causing negative effects on the en-
vironment. AMBIO, 39, 20–29.
Ahmed, N., Ward, J. D., & Saint, C. P. (2014). Can integrated
aquaculture-agriculture (IAA) produce “more crop per drop”?
Food Security, 6, 767–779.
Ahmed, N., Thompson, S., & Glaser, M. (2018). Transforming organic
prawn farming in Bangladesh: Potentials and challenges. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 172, 3806–3816.
Ahmed, N., Thompson, S., & Glaser, M. (2019). Global aquaculture
productivity, environmental sustainability, and climate change
adaptability. Environmental Management, 63, 159–172.
Alderman, D. J., & Hastings, T. S. (1998). Antibiotic use in aquaculture:
Development of antibiotic resistance – Potential for consumer health
risks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 33,
139–155.
Angel, D., Jokumsen, A., & Lembo, G. (2019). Aquaculture production
systems and environmental interactions. In G. Lembo & E. Mente
(Eds.), Organic aquaculture: Impacts and future developments (pp.
103–118). Cham: Springer.
Ankamah-Yeboah, I., Nielsen, M., & Nielsen, R. (2016). Price premium
of organic salmon in Danish retail sale. Ecological Economics, 122,
54–60.
Asche, F., Larsen, T. A., Smith, M. D., Sogn-Grundvåg, G., & Young, J.
A. (2015). Pricing of eco-labels with retailer heterogeneity. Food
Policy, 53, 82–93.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Zielke, S. (2017). Can’t buy me green? A re-
view of consumer perceptions of and behavior toward the price of
organic food. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 51, 211–251.
Auld, G. (2014). Constructing private governance: The rise and evolu-
tion of forest, coffee, and fisheries certification. Connecticut: Yale
University Press.
Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M. J.,
Avilés-Vázquez, K., Samulon, A., & Perfecto, I. (2007). Organic
agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems, 22, 86–108.
Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino,
G., Hemre, G.-I., & Williams, M. (2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050
– Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security, 7, 261–274.
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., & Weibull, A.-C. (2005). The effects of
organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 261–269.
Bergleiter, S., & Meisch, S. (2015). Certification standards for aquacul-
ture products: Bringing together the values of producers and con-
sumers in globalised organic food markets. Journal of Agricultural
and Environmental Ethics, 28, 553–569.
Bergleiter, S., Berner, N., Censkowsky, U., & Julià-Camprodon, G.
(2009). Organic aquaculture 2009 – Production and markets.
Munich: Naturland and Organic Services GmbH.
Biao, X. (2008). The development of and prospects for organic aquacul-
ture worldwide. Outlook on Agriculture, 37, 255–260.
Biermann, G., & Geist, J. (2019). Life cycle assessment of common carp
(Cyprinus carpio L.) – A comparison of the environmental impacts
of conventional and organic carp aquaculture in Germany.
Aquaculture, 501, 404–415.
Ahmed N. et al.
Birt, B., Rodwell, L. D., & Richards, J. P. (2009). Investigation into the
sustainability of organic aquaculture of Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua). Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 5(2), 4–14.
Borlaug, N. E. (2002). Feeding a world of 10 billion people: The miracle
ahead. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology: Plant, 38, 221–
228.
Bregnballe, J. (2015). A guide to recirculation aquaculture: An introduc-
tion to the new environmentally friendly and highly productive
closed fish farming systems. Denmark: FAO and EUROFISH
International Organisation.
Brunton, L. A., Desbois, A. P., Garza, M., Wieland, B., Mohan, C. V.,
Häsler, B., Tam, C. C., Le, P. N. T., Phuong., N.T., Van, P.T.,
Nguyen-Viet, H., Eltholth, M.M., Pham, D.K., Duc, P.P., Linh,
N.T., Rich, K.M., Mateus, A.L.P., Hoque, Md. A., Guitian, J.
(2019). Identifying hotspots for antibiotic resistance emergence
and selection, and elucidating pathways to human exposure:
Application of a systems-thinking approach to aquaculture systems.
Science of the Total Environment, 687, 1344–1356.
Carbonara, P., Scolamacchia, M., Spedicato, M. T., Zupa, W., McKinley,
R. C., & Lembo, G. (2015). Muscle activity as a key indicator of
welfare in farmed European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax, L.
1758). Aquaculture Research, 46, 2133–2146.
Cassman, K. G. (2007). Editorial response by Kenneth Cassman: Can
organic agriculture feed the world – Science to the rescue?
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22, 83–84.
Censkowsky, U., & Altena, A. (2013). Scoping study on organic aqua-
culture in 5 east African countries. Bonn: International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements.
CGSB. (2018). Organic production systems: Aquaculture – General
principles, management standards and permitted substances lists.
Gatineau: Canadian General Standards Board.
Connor, D. J. (2008). Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field
Crops Research, 106, 187–190.
Connor, D. J. (2013). Organically grown crops do not a cropping system
make and nor can organic agriculture nearly feed the world. Field
Crops Research, 144, 145–147.
Costa-Pierce, B. A. (2010). Sustainable ecological aquaculture systems:
The need for a new social contract for aquaculture development.
Marine Technology Society Journal, 44, 88–112.
COTA. (2013). Canada’s organic market: National highlights, 2013.
Ottawa: Canada Organic Trade Association.
Cottee, S. Y., & Petersan, P. (2009). Animal welfare and organic aqua-
culture in open systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 22, 437–461.
Crowder, D. W., & Reganold, J. P. (2015). Financial competitiveness of
organic agriculture on a global scale. PNAS, 112, 7611–7616.
de Ponti, T., Rijk, B., & van Ittersum, M. K. (2012). The crop yield gap
between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems,
108, 1–9.
De Silva, S. S., Nguyen, T. T. T., Turchini, G. M., Amarasinghe, U. S., &
Abery, N. W. (2009). Alien species in aquaculture and biodiversity:
A paradox in food production. AMBIO, 38, 24–28.
Dey, M. M., Paraguas, F. J., Kambewa, P., & Pemsl, D. E. (2010). The
impact of integrated aquaculture-agriculture on small-scale farms in
southern Malawi. Agricultural Economics, 41, 67–79.
Edwards, P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present
and likely future trends. Aquaculture, 447, 2–14.
EGTOP. (2013). Final report on aquaculture (part A). Brussels: Expert
Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production.
EU Regulation. (2018). Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European
Parliament and of the council. Official Journal of the European
Union, 150/92.
EUMOFA. (2017). EU organic aquaculture. Brussels: European Market
Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products.
Eyhorn, F., Muller, A., Reganold, J. P., Frison, E., Herren, H. R.,
Luttikholt, L., Mueller, A., Sanders, J., Scialabba, N. E. H.,
 Author's personal copy
Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture
Seufert, V., & Smith, P. (2019). Sustainability in global agriculture
driven by organic farming. Nature Sustainability, 2, 253–255.
FAO. (2018). Food loss and waste and the right to adequate food:
Making the connection. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.
FAO. (2019). Organic agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (www.fao.org/organicag/oa-
faq/oa-faq/en/), Accessed on 10 Jan 2019.
FAO. (2020). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: Sustainability
in action. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Fess, T. L., & Benedito, V. A. (2018). Organic versus conventional
cropping sustainability: A comparative system analysis.
Sustainability, 10(1), 272.
Feuerbacher, A., Luckmann, J., Boysen, O., Zikeli, S., & Grethe, H.
(2018). Is Bhutan destined for 100% organic? Assessing the
economy-wide effects of a large-scale conversion policy. PLoS
One, 13(6), e0199025.
Floros, J. D., Newsome, R., Fisher, W., Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V., Chen,
H., Dunne, C. P., German, J. B., Hall, R. L., Heldman, D. R., Karwe,
M. V., Knabel, S. J., Labuza, T. P., Lund, D. B., Newell-
McGloughlin, M., Robinson, J. L., Sebranek, J. G., Shewfelt, R.
L., Tracy, W. F., Weaver, C. M., & Ziegler, G. R. (2010). Feeding
the world today and tomorrow: The importance of food science and
technology. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety, 9, 572–599.
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J.
S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West,
P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda,
C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D.,
& Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature,
478, 337–342.
Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A.,
Buchmann, N., Mäder, P., Stolze, M., Smith, P., Scialabba, N. E.-
H., & Niggli, U. (2012). Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under
organic farming. PNAS, 109, 18226–18231.
Godfray, H. C. J., & Garnett, T. (2014). Food security and sustainable
intensification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,
369, 20120273.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence,
D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin,
C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people.
Science, 327, 812–818.
Gould, D., Compagnoni, A., & Lembo, G. (2019). Organic aquaculture:
Principles, standards and certification. In G. Lembo & E. Mente
(Eds.), Organic aquaculture: Impacts and future developments
(pp. 1–21). Cham: Springer.
Ha, T. T. T., Bush, S. R., Mol, A. P. J., & van Dijk, H. (2012). Organic
coasts? Regulatory challenges of certifying integrated shrimp-
mangrove production systems in Vietnam. Journal of Rural
Studies, 28, 631–639.
Halberg, N. (2012). Assessment of the environmental sustainability of
organic farming: Definitions, indicators and the major challenges.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 92, 981–996.
Hall, S. J., Delaporte, A., Phillips, M. J., Beveridge, M., & O’Keefe, M.
(2011). Blue frontiers: Managing the environmental costs of
aquaculture. Penang: WorldFish Center.
Hatanaka, M. (2010). Governing sustainability: Examining audits and
compliance in a third-party-certified organic shrimp farming project
in rural Indonesia. Local Environment, 15, 233–244.
Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W., &
Mortensen, D. A. (2017). Agriculture in 2050: Recalibrating targets
for sustainable intensification. BioScience, 67, 386–391.
IFOAM. (2014). The IFOAM norms for organic production and
processing. Bonn: International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements.
1265
IFOAM EU Group. (2010). Organic aquaculture: EU regulations (EC)
834/2007, (EC) 889/2008, (EC) 710/2009: Background, assess-
ment, interpretation. Brussels: IFOAM EU Group.
IFOAM Organics International. (2017). Smallholder group certification
for organic production and processing. Bonn: IFOAM Organics
International.
INFOFISH. (2011). Handbook on organic aquaculture. Kuala Lumpur:
INFOFISH.
Jonell, M., & Henriksson, P. J. G. (2015). Mangrove-shrimp farms in
Vietnam – Comparing organic and conventional systems using life
cycle assessment. Aquaculture, 447, 66–75.
Kerr, M., & Potthast, T. (2018). ‘As close as possible to nature’:
Possibilities and constraints for organic aquaculture systems. In S.
Springer & H. Grimm (Eds.), Professionals in food chains (pp. 450–
455). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Kirchmann, H., Bergström, L., Kätterer, T., Andrén, O., & Andersson, R.
(2008). Can organic crop production feed the world? In H.
Kirchmann & L. Bergström (Eds.), Organic crop production –
Ambitions and limitations (pp. 39–72). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically di-
versified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externali-
ties, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 40.
Leifeld, J., Angers, D. A., Chenu, C., Fuhrer, J., Kätterer, T., & Powlson,
D. S. (2013). Organic farming gives no climate change benefit
through soil carbon sequestration. PNAS, 110, E984.
Lembo, G., & Mente, E. (Eds.). (2019). Organic aquaculture: Impacts
and future developments. Cham: Springer.
Lembo, G., Jokumsen, A., Spedicato, M. T., Facchini, M. T., & Bitetto, I.
(2018). Assessing stakeholder’s experience and sensitivity on key
issues for the economic growth of organic aquaculture production.
Marine Policy, 87, 84–93.
Lori, M., Symnaczik, S., Mäder, P., De Deyn, G., & Gattinger, A. (2017).
Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity – A
meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS One, 12(7), e0180442.
Lulijwa, R., Rupia, E. J., & Alfaro, A. C. (2020). Antibiotic use in aqua-
culture, policies and regulation, health and environmental risks: A
review of the top 15 major producers. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12,
640–663.
Mäder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U.
(2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science,
296, 1694–1697.
Marschke, M., & Wilkings, A. (2014). Is certification a viable option for
small producer fish farmers in the global south? Insights from
Vietnam. Marine Policy, 50, 197–206.
Meier, M. S., Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., &
Stolze, M. (2015). Environmental impacts of organic and conven-
tional agricultural products – Are the differences captured by life
cycle assessment? Journal of Environmental Management, 149,
193–208.
Meisch, S., & Stark, M. (2019). Recirculation aquaculture systems:
Sustainable innovations in organic food production? Food Ethics,
4, 67–84.
Mente, E., Karalazos, V., Karapanagiotidis, I. T., & Pita, C. (2011).
Nutrition in organic aquaculture: An inquiry and a discourse.
Aquaculture Nutrition, 17, e798–e817.
Mente, E., Jokumsen, A., Carter, C. G., Antonopoulou, E., & Tacon, A.
G. J. (2019). Nutrition in relation to organic aquaculture: Sources
and strategies. In G. Lembo & E. Mente (Eds.), Organic aquacul-
ture: Impacts and future developments (pp. 141–188). Cham:
Springer.
Miao, W., & Yuan, X. (2007). The carp farming industry in China – An
overview. In P. S. Leung, C.-S. Lee, & P. J. O’Bryen (Eds.), Species
and system selection for sustainable aquaculture (pp. 373–388).
Iowa: Blackwell Publishing.
 Author's personal copy
1266
Miller, H. (2010). Can organic farming feed the world? Perspectives on a
food movement’s place in world food security. HOHONU, 8, 35–
38.
Miranda, C. D., Godoy, F. A., & Lee, M. R. (2018). Current status of the
use of antibiotics and the antimicrobial resistance in the Chilean
salmon farms. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, 1284.
Muller, A., Schader, C., Scialabba, N. E.-H., Brüggemann, J., Isensee, A.,
Erb, K.-H., Smith, P., Klocke, P., Leiber, F., Stolze, M., & Niggli,
U. (2017). Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with
organic agriculture. Nature Communications, 8, 1290.
Muneret, L., Mitchell, M., Seufert, V., Aviron, S., Djoudi, E. A., Pétillon,
J., Plantegenest, M., Thiéry, D., & Rusch, A. (2018). Evidence that
organic farming promotes pest control. Nature Sustainability, 1,
361–368.
Murray, F., Bostock, J., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Review of recirculation
aquaculture system technologies and their commercial application.
Scotland: University of Stirling.
Nair, C. M., Salin, K. R., Joseph, J., Aneesh, B., Geethalakshmi, V., &
New, M. B. (2014). Organic rice-prawn farming yields 20% higher
revenues. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, 569–581.
Naturland. (2020). Naturland standards for organic aquaculture.
Gräfelfing: Naturland.
Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge,
M. C. M., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H., & Troell,
M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature,
405, 1017–1024.
Naylor, R. L., Williams, S. L., & Strong, D. R. (2001). Aquaculture – A
gateway for exotic species. Science, 294, 1655–1656.
Naylor, R., Hindar, K., Fleming, I. A., Goldburg, R., Williams, S., Volpe,
J., Whoriskey, F., Eagle, J., Kelso, D., & Mangel, M. (2005).
Fugitive salmon: Assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen
aquaculture. BioScience, 55, 427–437.
Nhan, D. K., Phong, L. T., Verdegem, M. J. C., Duong, L. T., Bosma, R.
H., & Little, D. C. (2007). Integrated freshwater aquaculture, crop
and livestock production in the Mekong delta, Vietnam:
Determinants and the role of the pond. Agricultural Systems, 94,
445–458.
Olesen, I., Myhr, A. I., & Rosendal, G. K. (2011). Sustainable aquacul-
ture: Are we getting there? Ethical perspectives on salmon farming.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24, 381–408.
OTA. (2017). For immediate release. Washington DC: Organic Trade
Association.
Ötles, Y., Ozden, O., & Ötles, S. (2010). Organic fish production and the
standards. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Technologia Alimentaria,
9, 125–131.
Ottolenghi, F., Silvestri, C., Giordano, P., Lovatelli, A., & New, M. B.
(2004). Capture-based aquaculture: The fattening of eels, groupers,
tunas and yellowtails. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.
Pacanoski, Z. (2009). The myth of organic agriculture. Plant Protection
Science, 45(2), 39–48.
Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2007). Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic
better? Aquaculture, 272, 399–416.
Peramaiyan, P., Halberg, N., & Hermansen, J.E. (2009). Organic agricul-
ture in relation to food security of developing countries. In: Can
organic feed the world? 1st Nordic Organic Conference, 18–20
May, Göteborg, Sweden.
Perdikaris, C., & Paschos, I. (2010). Organic aquaculture in Greece: A
brief review. Reviews in Aquaculture, 2, 102–105.
Phan, L. T., Bui, T. M., Nguyen, T. T. T., Gooley, G. J., Ingram, B. A.,
Nguyen, H. V., Nguyen, P. T., & De Silva, S. S. (2009). Current
status of farming practices of striped catfish, Pangasianodon
hypophthalmus in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Aquaculture, 296,
227–236.
Ahmed N. et al.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005).
Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic
and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55, 573–582.
Ponisio, L. C., M’Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C., Palomino, J., de Valpine,
P., & Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to
conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282,
20141396.
Potts, J., Wilkings, A., Lynch, M., & McFatridge, S. (2016). State of
sustainability initiatives review: Standards and the blue economy.
Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Primavera, J. H. (2006). Overcoming the impacts of aquaculture on the
coastal zone. Ocean and Coastal Management, 49, 531–545.
Ramaswamy, U. N., Mohan, A. B., & Metian, M. (2013). On-farm feed
management practices for black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) in
India. In M. R. Hasan & M. B. New (Eds.), On-farm feeding and
feed management in aquaculture (pp. 303–336). Rome: FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 583.
Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the
twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2, 15221.
Ritala, A., Häkkinen, S. T., Toivari, M., & Wiebe, M. G. (2017). Single
cell protein – State-of-the-art, industrial landscape and patents
2001–2016. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 2009.
Röös, E., Mie, A., Wivstad, M., Salomon, E., Johansson, B., Gunnarsson,
S., Wallenbeck, A., Hoffmann, R., Nilsson, U., Sundberg, C., &
Watson, C. A. (2018). Risks and opportunities of increasing yields
in organic farming – A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 38, 14.
Scialabba, N. E.-H. (2007). Organic agriculture and food security.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Seibel, H., Weirup, L., & Schulz, C. (2018). Aspects of animal welfare in
fish husbandry. In S. Springer & H. Grimm (Eds.), Professionals in
food chains (pp. 439–443). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic
Publishers.
Seufert, V., & Ramankutty, N. (2017). Many shades of gray – The
context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Science
Advances, 3(3), e1602638.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields
of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485, 229–232.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Mayerhofer, T. (2017). What is this thing
called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations.
Food Policy, 68, 10–20.
Sissener, N. H., Sanden, M., Krogdahl, A., Bakke, A.-M., Johannessen,
L. E., & Hemre, G.-I. (2011). Genetically modified plants as fish
feed ingredients. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 68, 563–574.
Skinner, C., Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Mäder, P., Flieβbach, A., Stolze,
M., Ruser, R., & Niggli, U. (2014). Greenhouse gas fluxes from
agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management – A
global meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 468–469,
553–563.
Smith, L. G., Jones, P. J., Kirk, G. J. D., Pearce, B. D., & Williams, A. G.
(2018). Modelling the production impacts of a widespread conver-
sion to organic agriculture in England and Wales. Land Use Policy,
76, 391–404.
Smith, O. M., Cohen, A. L., Rieser, C. J., Davis, A. J., Taylor, J. M.,
Adesanya, A. W., Jones, M. S., Meier, A. R., Reganold, J. P., Orpet,
R. J., Northfield, T. D., & Crowder, D. W. (2019). Organic farming
provides reliable environmental benefits but increases variability in
crop yields: A global meta-analysis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food
Systems, 3, 82.
Stanciu, S., Radu, R. I., & Vîrlănuță, F. O. (2015). The development of
the organic aquaculture – Case study: Rumania. SEA – Practical
Application of Science, 3(9), 99–107.
Stolze, M., Zanoli, R., & Meredith, S. (2016). Organic in Europe:
Expanding beyond a niche. In S. Meredith & H. Willer (Eds.),
 Author's personal copy
Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture 1267

Organic in Europe: Prospects and developments (pp. 12–19). received his PhD from the Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, UK
Brussels: IFOAM European Group. through a Department for International Development (DFID) UK scholarship
Taranger, G. L., Karlsen, Ø., Bannister, R. J., Glover, K. A., Husa, V., and won the Endeavour Fellowship of the Australian Government for
Karlsbakk, E., Kvamme, B. O., Boxaspen, K. K., Bjørn, P. A., Postdoctoral Research at Charles Darwin University in Australia. His current
Finstad, B., Madhun, A. S., Morton, H. C., & Svåsand, T. (2015). research focuses on aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability,
Risk assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic and food security issues.
salmon farming. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72, 997–1021.
Tilami, S. K., & Sampels, S. (2018). Nutritional value of fish: Lipids,
proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Reviews in Fisheries Science and
Aquaculture, 26, 243–253.
Trewavas, A. (2001). Urban myths of organic farming. Nature, 410, 409–
410. Sh irl ey Th omp son is an
Associate Professor at the Natural
Troell, M., Naylor, R. L., Metian, M., Beveridge, M., Tyedmers, P. H.,
Resources Institute, University of
Folke, C., Arrow, K. J., Barrett, S., Crépin, A. S., Ehrlich, P. R.,
Manitoba, Canada. Her current re-
Gren, Å., Kautsky, N., Levin, S. A., Nyborg, K., Österblom, H.,
search focuses on food sovereignty
Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Walker, B. H., Xepapadeas, T., & de
combines food security and sustain-
Zeeuw, A. (2014). Does aquaculture add resilience to the global
able livelihoods in relation to repa-
food system? PNAS, 111, 13257–13263.
triate natural resources and land in
Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A., &
ancestral territories. She engages in
Bengtsson, J. (2014). Land-use intensity and the effects of organic
participatory research projects
farming on biodiversity: A hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of
where action plans for food security
Applied Ecology, 51, 746–755.
are being developed with communi-
Tuomisto, H. L., Hodge, I. D., Riordan, P., & Macdonald, D. W. (2012).
ties considering implementing
Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? – A meta-
country food programs, community
analysis of European research. Journal of Environmental
gardens, land use, fisheries co-oper-
Management, 112, 309–320.
atives, and the access to food through Northern stores and hunting/gathering.
UNEP. (2014). The importance of mangroves to people: A call to action.
Built environment (infrastructure and management of resources including
Cambridge: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
waste management and sustainable energy) is also the focus of her
United Nations. (2019). World population prospects 2019: Highlights.
research at the nexus of food security, environment, and health in
New York: Population Division, United Nations.
Indigenous communities. She is also involved in research on ecosystem health
Valiela, I., Bowen, J. L., & York, J. K. (2001). Mangrove forests: One of and environmental justice that considers the human dimensions of natural
the world’s threatened major tropical environments. BioScience, 51, resource management.
807–815.
Waite, R., Beveridge, M., Brummett, R., Castine, S., Chaiyawannakarn,
N., Kaushik, S., Mungkung, R., Nawapakpilai, S., & Phillips, M.
(2014). Improving productivity and environmental performance of
aquaculture. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Willer, H., Schlatter, B., Trávníček, J., Kemper, L., & Lernoud, J. (Eds.). Giovanni M. Turchini is a
(2020). The world of organic agriculture – Statistics and emerging Professor of nutrition and food sci-
trends 2020. Frick and Bonn: FiBL and IFOAM. ence and is based at the Faculty of
Xie, B., Qin, J., Yang, H., Wang, X., Wang, Y.-H., & Li, T.-Y. (2013). Science, Engineering and Built
Organic aquaculture in China: A review from a global perspective. Environment, Deakin University,
Aquaculture, 414–415, 243–253. Melbourne, Australia, where he
Ytrestøyl, T., Aas, T. S., & Åsgård, T. (2015). Utilisation of feed re- holds the position of Associate
sources in production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway. Dean Research. At Deakin,
Aquaculture, 448, 365–374. Giovanni founded the Nutrition
and Seafood Laboratory
(NuSea.Lab), led the marine, fisher-
ies, and aquaculture research and
Nesar Ahmed is a Research teaching activities of the School of
Fellow at the School of Life and Life and Environmental Sciences
Environmental Sciences, Deakin and held different leadership roles
University in Melbourne, within the university. As a biochemist nutritionist, with key interest on food
Australia. Prior to joining Deakin, quality and sustainability, Giovanni’s research interests span from fish to hu-
Nesar worked at the Natural man nutrition, aquaculture, fatty acid metabolism, fishmeal and fish oil re-
Resources Institute, University of placement, and ethical issues encountered in the fisheries and aquaculture
Manitoba, Canada. He was also a sectors.
Georg Forster Fellow supported by
the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation at the Leibniz Center
for Tropical Marine Research in
Bremen, Germany. Moreover,
Nesar obtained the Fulbright
Fellowship at the School of
Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, USA. Nesar

View publication stats