Feed sustainable: strategies to minimize risks and enhance the environmental and economic resilience of your zoo’s seafood choices

Citation

Abstract

Recently, the Seafood Watch program from Monterey Bay Aquarium downgraded capelin from “yellow” (good alternative) to “red” (avoid), prompting many zoos to seek alternatives with better sustainability ratings. Several crab taxa are also currently listed as “red.” In the past, the sustainability status of herring catches has been questioned. Additionally, some seafoods traditionally used by zoos have gained popularity in the human food market, driving prices so high that they become unaffordable for zoo feed purposes. These developments, among others, highlight the need for institutions to reassess their seafood management and risk mitigation strategies, especially as experts predict increasing volatility in seafood supply and sustainability.

The most important step toward ensuring seafood sustainability does not actually involve assessing seafood’s ratings. Instead, it begins with evaluating and managing seafood usage and waste within your institution. Even the most sustainably sourced seafood can undermine your economic and environmental goals if it is discarded without being fed to animals. Common sources of seafood waste include trimmings (such as head or tail removal, shelling), rejected items due to incorrect species or bycatch, poor quality resulting from handling errors during catching, processing, or transit, items discarded due to expiration, items lost to wildlife or filters, and excess thawed or prepared food beyond what animals consume in a day.

Conducting a seafood waste audit involves systematically logging and weighing waste over several days – often by collecting waste in a container in your freezer. This data provides a valuable foundation for discussions with your team on strategies to reduce waste. Although methods vary, this step can lead to significant cost savings and boost staff morale as teams see the tangible impact of their efforts.

The next step is to assess your animal diet diversity. Relying on only two species, such as capelin and herring, poses a significant risk – if one becomes unavailable, your animals could be left with an inadequately balanced diet, potentially lacking essential nutrients and behavioral enrichment. It is advisable to diversify diets to include at least three, ideally up to five, different seafood species. This approach ensures dietary resilience in emergencies and minimizes the impact if one or two fishery sources face collapse.

Additionally, collaborate with your vendors. Reputable suppliers should provide information about the origins and catch methods of their products and can suggest suitable alternatives that meet size, nutritional, or other specific requirements. They often have knowledge about certifications and can help you select options aligned with your institution’s sustainability criteria.

Even if some animals currently consume seafood rated as unsustainable, efforts can still be made. Fisheries Improvement Projects (FIPs) and Aquaculture Improvement Projects (AIPs) aim to transition fisheries with unsustainable practices toward sustainable methods. Purchasing seafood from these sources can lend financial support to their improvement efforts.

The final consideration involves evaluating your collection and institutional priorities. If your animals depend on seafood sources deemed unsustainable, weigh the ecological costs against your mission’s needs. Committing to seafood sustainability requires a comprehensive review of your entire program and collection strategy, beyond merely sourcing higher-rated items.

A genuine commitment to sustainability involves ongoing evaluation and adaptation – integrating environmental considerations into every aspect of your seafood management.

BissellFishSustainabilityZN2025S2.pdf     118 KB