There is an active discussion as to whether one should promote aquaculture in areas with active capture fisheries or active agricultural production. Pillay (1977) suggests marine capture fisheries environs for aquacultural potential whereas Pollnac (1982) describes a fisherman reacting to aquaculture by saying “That's not fishing, that's farming - I wouldn't like to do that” (page 38). Pedini (1982) supports the concept of aquaculture's similarities to agriculture. This section discusses, very briefly, both views.
The foundation of the capture fisheries argument is that the market and distribution network is established since capture fisheries exist. Moreover, the fishermen do have knowledge of fish and capture methods which might be transferable to aquaculture. The aquacultural production therefore can arise with the help of fishermen and can go into established marketing channels.
One major problem with the argument may be in the competition in the market place between cultured and captured fish. Because nature does the “work” in growing the captured fish and management agencies have been reluctant to charge an access price for use of capture stocks (Christy, 1973), the true social cost of production may be artificially low especially in marine fisheries. Capture fishermen therefore have an artificial competitive advantage and at least until nature collapses or the capture costs increase greatly, provide fish at a lower price.
There are other reasons to question whether capture fisheries complement aquacultural growth. Capture fishermen often perceive aquaculture as a threat to their way of life and attempt through legislation to impose barriers to prohibit aquacultural production. Finally, the nature of capture fishermen may be such that they are not interested in giving up the freedom of the seas for a pond.
Early in this study, a working general hypothesis emerged:
Conditions encouraging agricultural production generally favour aquacultural production. Conditions which discourage agricultural production generally discourage aquacultural production.
As various aquacultural production programme examples were reviewed they were subjected to this hypothesis. Interviews with various specialists include discussion of this hypothesis. In the review of various related studies, special attention was given to conclusions by others that would reflect on this hypothesis. Each of these activities tended to validate agriculture as a useful indicator of areas where aquaculture might flourish.
This hypothesis can be made a more useful indicator if it is expanded through the discussion of specific forms of aquaculture. Consider, for instance, domestic and export aquaculture (see definitions) in a typical form where a number of fairly large fish farms are located so as to serve urban and export markets through well-organized marketing channels. The water supply requirements for such ventures are typically fairly substantial as are the need for chemical fertilizers, pelleted feeds, and technical assistance. Shipment of the product requires a reliable transportation system and processing of the product requires special concern for public health. Suitable seed (fry, fingerlings, etc.) must be available in a timely manner at reasonable prices. Where taxes or price controls are imposed they must not remove the producer's incentive for operation nor must they cause buyers to favour competitive products. Technology must be available to support production, often at a fairly sophisticated level. The agricultural equivalent is, of course, domestic and export production both of plants and livestock. Each condition defined above as being desirable for the development of domestic aquaculture is also applicable to domestic agriculture.
Similar parallels can be drawn for subsistence agriculture and agriculture. The contrast here to the domestic forms is generally that subsistence activities require less physical infrastructure and are less influenced by disruptions of central authority. On the other hand, subsistence aquaculture may be more difficult to develop to a level of real contribution in areas where the care on feeding of livestock is not part of the farming tradition.
Clearly, there is also competition between agriculture and aquaculture for consumers, land, water, feeds labour and fertilizers.
What has emerged in our discussions and writing is a synthesis of the polarity expressed above. The capture fishery is important because it establishes a market and a network to get the fish to consumers. However, capture fishermen may have difficulty transfering to culture operations, unless very strong economic pressures induce the change.
Agriculture, on the other hand, tends to promote producer characteristics (e.g., animal husbandry) which may be instrumental to aquacultural growth. The market for fish, however, must exist and yield a price sufficient to cover both out-of-pocket and opportunity costs.
It is not possible, and probably neither necessary nor desirable, to suggest that either view is the “right one”. Rather each attempt to predict aquacultural development could benefit by considering both perspectives.
