Back To Search

Tilapia, U.S. farmed


Oreochromis spp.

Sometimes known as Cherry Snapper, Lemon Snapper, Nile Perch

This Species is Farm Raised

Summary

Tilapia require little fishmeal and fish oil in their feed. Most U.S. tilapia farms use low-risk re-circulating systems, which produce less pollution and minimize escapes compared to most foreign tilapia farms. Because tilapia are aggressive, non-native species, escapes that do occur contribute to the decline of freshwater fish populations.



CRITERIONPoints
Inherent Operational Risks3.00
Feed2.25
Pollution3.50
Risk to Other Species2.00
Ecological Effects3.50
Final Score 2.85
Color
Final ScoreColor
2.60 - 4.00
2.20 - 2.59
1.80 - 2.19
1.40 - 1.79
0.00 - 1.39

Inherent Operational Risks

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

General System Design: An aquaculture system's design is a good overall proxy measure for the likely effect of the operation on the environment. For example, open systems (e.g., net pens and net cages) are more likely to have pollution, disease, and escape issues than closed systems (e.g., recirculating tanks). With shellfish, which don't require supplemental food input, the more important question is whether they are harvested on or off of the bottom.

1.00This species is raised in a high risk system (e.g., net pens; net cages).

2.00This species is raised in a moderate risk system (e.g., most ponds; raceways; bottom culture of mollusks).

3.00This species is raised in a low risk system (e.g., re-circulating closed system; suspended culture of mollusks; zero-discharge ponds).

U.S. tilapia farmers generally raise tilapia in low-risk, closed re-circulating systems (Goldburg and Triplett 1997; Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006). Since tilapia are tropical fish, farms in colder regions must use water heated by geothermal processes or by the waste heat from industrial sources (USDA 1995; Boyd 2005).

In some southern states, some farmers raise tilapia in cages located in ponds (Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006). However, the great majority of U.S. tilapia farms use re-circulating systems, so we chose to award a high score of 3.00 points here.

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25Species is raised at a high stocking density; OR there is a high density of sites in the geographic region, with evidence of environmental impact.

Tilapia raised in re-circulating systems are stocked at high stocking densities (AU and USDA 2004).

-0.25Operations do not incorporate best-available, cost-effective technology to reduce environmental impact.

-0.25There are no effective zoning or permitting practices for siting of facilities.

-0.25Government programs encourage expansion of high-impact systems.

+0.25Species is raised at a low stocking density OR there is a low density of sites in the geographic region, which results in minimal impact to the natural ecosystem.

+0.25Operations incorporate innovative culture methods that limit environmental impacts (e.g., polyculture).

Some southern tilapia producers use polyculture techniques in their operations, in which they stock tilapia with catfish or with shrimp and algae (Williams 2000; Fitzsimmons 2001). Raising strategically selected species together can help reduce the amount of nutrients and waste in the system and in the effluent. Only a few farms, however, use this innovative method, because fish sorting at harvest requires more time and energy and raises production costs (Williams 2000). Therefore we chose to not award points for this factor.

+0.25There are effective zoning or permitting practices for siting and operation of facilities (e.g., mandatory consideration of hydrographic characteristics; requirements for site rotation).

States regulate the siting of farms (Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006).

+0.25Government programs preferentially encourage the expansion of low-impact systems over high impact systems.


3.00Points for Inherent Operational Risks

Feed

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Ecological Footprint of Feed: "Trash" fish, frequently used in developing countries, is an industry term used to refer to whole fish or fish parts fed to farmed fish without being processed into fish meal and fish oil. Twenty percent was selected as a cut-off because carnivorous species (e.g., salmon; eel; tuna; cobia; etc.) generally consume greater than twenty percent fish products (fishmeal, fish oil, or trash fish), while omnivorous or herbivorous species (e.g., catfish; tilapia; carps; etc.) consume less than twenty percent fish products.

1.00Typical aquaculture feed includes high levels of fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (i.e., >20% of the feed; e.g., salmonid feeds).

2.00Typical aquaculture feed includes moderate levels of fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (i.e., <20% of the feed; e.g., tilapia and catfish feeds).

Although tilapia are herbivorous and can survive on a plant-based diet, tilapia farms use feed that contains as much as 8% fishmeal (Boyd 2005). However, this high-fishmeal feed is reserved for fingerlings (Boyd 2005), while adults typically receive feed containing 5% or less fishmeal (Goldburg and Triplett 1997; Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006).

3.00No feed is used (e.g., mollusks and seaweeds) or typical aquaculture feed includes no fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (e.g., paddlefish; filter-feeding carps).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25When fish products are used, the major sources score low on the Wild-Caught Fisheries Ranking System.

-0.25Feed contains greater than 10% of fish products and public or private sectors are not working to reduce fish content in feed.

-0.25Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is high (i.e., >2.0; e.g., eel).

-0.25Government policy promotes research, development and commercialization of carnivorous or other highly fishmeal-dependent species.

+0.25When fish products are used, the major sources score high on the Wild-Caught Fisheries Ranking System; OR the source is innovative and ecologically sound (e.g., fisheries byproducts); OR no feed is used.

+0.25Feed contains less than 10% of fish products OR public and private sectors are working to reduce the fish content in feed; OR no feed is used.

Fish products constitute less than 8% of tilapia feed (Boyd 2005).

+0.25Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is low (i.e., <1.3; e.g., salmon); OR no feed is used.

Feed conversion ratios (FCRs) in tilapia aquaculture vary depending on several factors, including fish size, water temperature, and amount of fishmeal in feed (Boyd 2005; Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006). Typically, FCRs range between 1.7 and 1.9 for farmed tilapia (Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006). Since these ratios are higher than 1.3, we chose not to add here.

+0.25Government policy promotes research, development and commercialization of herbivorous species or other species not highly dependent on fishmeal.


2.25Points for Feed

Pollution

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Typical effluent treatment procedures:

1.00Effluent is not treated before discharge (e.g., salmon net pens).

2.00Effluent is partially treated before discharge (e.g., infrequently discharged effluent from catfish ponds).

3.00Effluent is substantially treated before discharge (e.g., recirculating shrimp systems; settling ponds; reconstructed wetlands); OR treatment is not necessary because supplemental feed is not used (e.g., molluscs or seaweeds).

Since tilapia are stocked at a high density and intensively fed, wastewater from tilapia farms is high in nutrients, organic matter, and suspended solids, making its treatment an important environmental concern (AU and USDA 2004). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires fish farms to hold National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits. These permits require them to minimize their discharge of chemicals and excess feeds, maintain water treatment systems, keep records of operations, and develop and implement best management plans (EPA 2004). Since tilapia farms in the U.S. typically use low-pollution re-circulating systems, which re-circulate water and release only small amounts of effluent (Goldburg and Triplett 1997; Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006), we chose to award a high score of 3.00 points here.

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25Operations have demonstrated negative impacts on water quality or sediment/benthic characteristics (e.g., elevated nutrient levels; algal blooms; altered benthic communities).

-0.25Pollutants (e.g., pesticides; parasiticides; antibiotics; plastic; nets; dead fish) are frequently discharged into the environment or otherwise not appropriately discarded.

-0.25Effluent regulations do not exist, are lax, or are poorly enforced, which allows for degradation of the aquatic environment.

-0.25Available technologies and practices to reduce or recycle waste (e.g., feed sensors; low-pollution feeds) are not used.

+0.25Operations generally improve water quality or sediment/benthic characteristics (e.g., oyster farms).

+0.25Chemicals (e.g., pesticides; parasiticides; antibiotics) are rarely or never used.

Tilapia are resistant to most diseases; therefore, farming tilapia species rarely, if ever, requires the use of antibiotics, drugs, and other chemicals (Boyd 2005).

+0.25Robust water quality regulations exist (e.g., permits required; discharge caps; strong enforcement), and regular monitoring occurs.

The Environmental Protection Agency strictly regulates wastewater treatment at tilapia farms with the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program (EPA 2004).

+0.25Innovative methods and practices to reduce or recycle wastes are used (e.g., integrated systems; effluent and solid wastes used as terrestrial fertilizer); OR innovative methods and practices are not needed because raising this species does not create waste.


3.50Points for Pollution

Risk to Other Species

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Frequency and Impact of Escapes:

1.00Farmed species regularly or intermittently escape into the wild AND escapes are non-native to the area or otherwise pose a risk to native populations or ecosystems (e.g., most non-native fish raised in outdoor facilities).

2.00Escape frequency is not known OR farmed species is native to the area where it is raised and poses minimal risk to native populations or ecosystems (e.g., channel catfish in the US; most native mollusks).

Tilapia are not native to the U.S. and are a threat to native freshwater fish. They reproduce quickly, eat the eggs and juveniles of other fish species, and caused the endangerment of native fish species in the lower Colorado River, where they were intentionally introduced to control aquatic vegetation (Fitzsimmons 2001).

Because of this apparent risk of tilapia farming, the majority of tilapia farms in the U.S. use closed re-circulating systems and are located in areas where tilapia have already become established in nearby rivers and lakes or where cold winters kill escapees (Boyd 2005; Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006). Some tilapia farmers in southern states raise tilapia in cages located in ponds, however. We chose to award a medium score of 2.00 points to account for tilapia being non-native and for the higher-risk pond operations for tilapia aquaculture.

3.00Farmed species never (or virtually never) escape to the wild (e.g., species is raised in bio-secure facilities).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25This farmed species has been known to survive in the surrounding ecosystem if it escapes; OR would likely survive given its physiological requirements.

The establishment of non-native tilapia in the rivers and lakes of the U.S. is well documented (Canonico et al. 2005). Tilapia can survive in poor water conditions, moderate salinities, and are resistant to disease. In addition, they mature as early as 2 months old and reproduce year-round. These characteristics enable tilapia to thrive in environments in which they are not native (Boyd 2005).

Prior to tilapia aquaculture in the U.S., tilapia were imported to control aquatic weeds in irrigation canals. They escaped from these canals and now dominate the fish fauna of the lower Colorado River system, endangering native fish species (Fitzsimmons 2001; Boyd 2005).

-0.25This farmed species is known or is likely to compete with wild species for food or habitat if it escapes; OR this species is known or is likely to compromise the genetic integrity of the wild species (e.g., through spawning disruption, genetic introgression or establishment of feral stocks) if it escapes.

Tilapia are voracious eaters and compete with native fish species for food (Fitzsimmons 2001). Although generally herbivorous, tilapia also feed on the eggs and young of other fish species native to an area (Boyd 2005; Canonico et al. 2005).

-0.25This farmed species is known or is likely to amplify and transmit disease or parasites to wild populations (e.g., infectious salmon anemia or sea lice infestations) if it escapes.

-0.25Regulatory authorities are not adequately addressing the risks of escape or spread of disease associated with farming this species.

+0.25Rescore This farmed species has not been known to survive in the surrounding ecosystem if it escapes; OR would not likely survive given its physiological requirements; OR farmed species is a native mollusc.

+0.25Operations employ management protocols and techniques to limit the ecological impacts of escaped farmed fish (e.g., triploidy; sterilization); OR it's unlikely that escaped individuals will either compete with wild species for resources, or compromise the genetic integrity of wild species.

+0.25Operations employ effective disease and parasite management protocols (e.g., fallowing of pens; retaining water when disease outbreak occurs); OR incidence of disease or risk of retransmitting disease is low.

Incidence of disease in tilapia farms is low (Boyd 2005).

+0.25Regulatory authorities are addressing the risks of escape and spread of disease associated with farming this species.

Open-pond tilapia farms are banned in much of the U.S. due to the ability of tilapia species to establish breeding populations in new environments (USDA 1995; Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006). For this reason, most U.S. tilapia production occurs at farms using closed re-circulating systems (USDA 1995). In addition, states regulate site locations for new farms, as well as and stocking practices for tilapia (Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006).


2.00Points for Risk to Other Species

Ecological Effects

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Ecological sensitivity of site used for operations:

1.00Operations are generally located in areas of high ecological sensitivity (e.g., coastal wetlands; mangroves).

2.00Operations are generally located in areas of moderate ecological sensitivity (e.g., coastal and nearshore waters; rocky intertidal or subtidal zones; river or stream shorelines).

3.00Operations are generally located in areas of low ecological sensitivity (e.g., land that is less susceptible to degradation such as land formerly used for agriculture or land previously developed).

Tilapia farms in the U.S. are most often located in areas currently or formerly used for agriculture (Williams 2000).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25Farming this species causes substantial damage to surrounding habitat, ecosystem or other resources (e.g., groundwater depletion; stream diversion; saltwater intrusion; soil salinization; loss of habitat for juvenile fish; loss of flood control; dredging hard bottoms; etc.).

-0.25Harmful or lethal predator deterrents are used (e.g., bird/seal shootings; acoustic deterrent devices); OR operation otherwise harms wildlife (e.g., dolphin/seal entanglement; disrupting migration routes; bird/animal shooting).

-0.25If seed is collected from wild sources, the intensity of collection is high enough to result in depletion of brood stock, wild juveniles, or associated non-target organisms (e.g., collection of postlarvae shrimp).

-0.25Government policy encourages aquaculture operations to locate or expand in areas of high ecological sensitivity.

+0.25Operations enhance habitat structure or function (e.g., constructed wetlands).

+0.25Predator deterrents are not used OR predator deterrents are used but are not harmful or lethal (e.g., predator exclusion nets), AND operation does not otherwise harm wildlife.

Re-circulating systems isolate tilapia from potential predators; therefore, predator deterrents are unnecessary at the majority of U.S. tilapia farms.

+0.25Seed comes predominantly from hatcheries or on-farm sites (e.g., seed for trout); OR if seed is collected from the wild, it does not deplete brood stock, wild juveniles, or associated non-target organisms (e.g., collection of oyster or mussel spat).

Hatcheries that use domesticated stocks supply seed to all U.S. tilapia aquaculture operations (Fitzsimmons 2001; Fitzsimmons, pers. comm., 2006).

+0.25Government policy encourages the growth of aquaculture operations in areas of low ecological sensitivity; OR protects sensitive habitats from aquaculture operations (e.g., prohibitions on cutting mangroves).


3.50Points for Ecological Effects

Reference

American Tilapia Association website. Available at: http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ata.html.

AquaSol, Inc. 2003. Tilapia farming. Available at: http://www.fishfarming.com/tilapia.html.

Auburn University and USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (AU and USDA). 2004. Alabama Aquaculture Best Management Practice (BMP) Managing Systems for Tilapia Culture. Available at: http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/aquaculture/pdf/G17ManagingSystemsforTilapiaCulture.pdf.

Boyd, C.E. 2005. Farm-Level Issues in Aquaculture Certification: Tilapia. WWF-US.

Canonico, G.C., A. Arthington, J.K. McCrary, and M.L. Thieme. 2005. The effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. (15): 1-21.

Fitzsimmons, K. 2006. Personal Communication. Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Arizona.

Fitzsimmons, K. 2001. Environmental and Conservation Issues in Tilapia Aquaculture. In: Subasinghe, R. and T. Singh, eds., Tilapia: Production, Marketing, and Technological Developments. FAO Infofish, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett. 1997. Murky Waters: Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in the U.S. Environmental Defense Fund.

USDA Centers for Epidemiology & Animal Health (USDA). 1995. Overview of Aquaculture in the United States. Available at: www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/ nahms/aquaculture/AquacultureOverview95.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Effluent Guidelines: Aquatic Animal Production Industry Final Rule ¨C Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/aquaculture/fs-final.htm.

Williams, K. 2000. Tilapia Culture in Cages and Open Ponds. Langston University. Available at: http://www2.luresext.edu/aquaculture/tilapia%20culture.htm.

Fish Key

Species is relatively abundant, and fishing/farming methods cause little damage to habitat and other wildlife.
Species has medium to high levels of abundance, or fishing/farming methods cause some damage to the environment.
Some problems exist with this species' status or catch/farming methods, or information is insufficient for evaluating.
Species abundance is generally low, or fishing/farming methods typically have large environmental impact.
Species has a combination of problems such as overfishing, high bycatch, and poor management; or farming methods have serious environmental impacts.
A fishery targeting this species has been certified as sustainable and well managed to the Marine Stewardship Council's environmental standard. Learn more at www.msc.org.
These fish contain levels of mercury or PCBs that may pose a health risk to adults and children. Please refer to http://www.edf.org/seafood for more details.