Assessing Infectious 

Disease Emergence 

Potential in the U.S. 

Aquaculture Industry

Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture 

Industry Profile

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

Veterinary 

Services

Center for 

Emerging 

Issues

July 2007
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, 

color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative 

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

USDA/APHIS/VS/CEAH

NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E5 

2150 Centre Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117

970.494.7000

E-mail: cei/aphis/usda@aphis.usda.gov

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile i

Project Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of Factors Associated with Infectious Disease Emergence in Aquaculture . . . . 2

New Appearance and Evolution of Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Pathways for Transboundary Spread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Intracountry Spread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Project Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Phase 2: Infectious Disease Emergence Qualitative Risk Assessment Tool Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Phase 3: Infectious Disease Emergence Qualitative Risk Assessment Tool Application and Results . . . 5

Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sector-Specific Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Catfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Hybrid Striped Bass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Shrimp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Tilapia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix A: List of Acronyms for Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Background Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table of Contents

Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 1

Emerging infectious diseases are diseases that have 

newly appeared in a population or that have existed 

but are evolving or increasing in incidence or geographic range. Emerging infectious diseases have 

affected animal and human health in recent decades, 

demonstrated by bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 

variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), Hendra 

virus, and Nipah virus, among others. New diseases 

will continue to emerge and affect animal and public 

health, along with the economic well-being of countries throughout the world (Brown 2004; King, Marano, 

and Hughes 2004).

Disease emergence can occur through the evolution 

of pathogens or the introduction of existing pathogens 

to a new location, followed by establishment and 

spread. Pathogen evolution is driven by biological, 

ecological, environmental, and societal factors, such 

as those that put adaptive and selective pressure on 

microbes. Introduction of agents, hosts, or vectors into 

new settings (including intracountry spread as well as 

transboundary spread) is promoted through ecological, 

environmental, and societal changes, economic forces, 

migration, trade, and travel (Lederberg, Shope, and 

Oakes 1992; Morse 1995; Smolinski, Hamburg, and 

Lederberg 2003).

Current methodologies for pathways analysis and 

risk assessment focus on predicting the likelihood 

of movement of known diseases to new locations. 

However, to be able to prevent or decrease the frequency of emerging disease occurrence, a method to 

predict emergence and movement of novel or evolving 

diseases is needed. New approaches are needed to 

accomplish this. Numerous authors have suggested 

using the biological, ecological, environmental, and 

societal factors associated with disease emergence to 

improve prediction; however, interactions among these 

emergence factors can be complex, making modeling 

difficult (Linthicum, Anyamba, Tucker, Kelley, Myers, 

and Peters 1990; Wilson, Levins, and Spielman 1994; 

Myers, Rogers, Cox, Flahault, and Hay 2000). Attempts 

to date have focused on predicting the potential 

movement of known vector-borne diseases, such as 

Rift Valley fever, by examining climate and ecological 

factors (Linthicum et al. 1990; Myers et al. 2000).

The goal of this project was to develop a method that 

could assess disease emergence potential for an animal 

industry. The method used information on disease 

emergence risk factors. The focus of the project was 

to assess an industry’s overall likelihood of disease 

emergence rather than assessing the likelihood of emergence of a particular disease. Such a tool could be used 

by industry and government officials to identify vulnerable areas and to effectively target mitigation measures. 

The tool could be used to monitor how changes in the 

dynamics associated with an industry increase or could 

decrease the potential for disease emergence over time.

The U.S. food fish aquaculture industry was chosen for 

this project to provide focus and specificity during the 

development of the method. Aquaculture is defined as 

the farming of aquatic organisms in inland and coastal 

areas, involving intervention in the rearing process to 

enhance production and the individual or corporate 

ownership of the stock being cultivated (FAO, Glossary 

of Aquaculture, 2006). Food fish includes finfish and 

shellfish destined for direct human consumption. The 

food fish industry in the United States and globally 

has been developing rapidly. The U.S. and global 

industries have experienced serious disease outbreaks 

in recent years. For example, white spot disease, a 

viral disease of shrimp, first emerged in Japan in 1993 

and subsequently spread to many other countries 

in Asia, Central and South America, and the United 

States (OIE, International Database on Aquatic Animal 

Disease, 2006).

Project Approach
2 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Many identified drivers or factors are associated with 

the new appearance and evolution of aquaculture 

pathogens, and the spread of pathogens to new 

locations, including between countries (transboundary) 

and within countries (intracountry). These factors may 

overlap and interact with each other in complex ways.

New Appearance and 

Evolution of Pathogens

Some of the factors that can be associated with the 

new appearance of pathogens and the evolution of 

existing pathogens include pathogen and host factors, 

environmental factors, and the population dynamics 

of the pathogen and host (Antia, R., Regoes, R.R., 

Koella, J.C., and Bergstrom, C.T. 2003). An example 

of a pathogen characteristic related to the evolution of 

existing pathogens is the mutation of benign wild-type 

pathogens into more virulent strains, either before 

or after transmission to a farmed host. Infectious 

salmon anemia (ISA) is thought to emerge in farmed 

Atlantic salmon when mutated isolates are transmitted 

from wild salmonids or, following mutation of benign 

isolates in farmed salmon, after transmission of the 

benign isolates from wild salmonids (Nylund, Devold, 

Plarre, Isdal, and Aarseth 2003). Because pathogen 

evolution can lower the species barrier, pathogens that 

mutate more easily, such as RNA viruses, are at higher 

risk for species-crossing (Kuiken, Holmes, McCauley, 

Rimmelzwaan, Williams, and Grenfell 2006). Existing 

pathogens that are known to infect (either clinically 

apparent or inapparent infection) one host species 

may be new pathogens for another similar species. 

Infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN) was first identified 

as a pathogen of trout, but subsequently it was found 

to be pathogenic for a wide range of other fish species 

(Murray and Peeler 2005). Host characteristics that can 

play a role in the appearance of new pathogens and 

the evolution of existing pathogens include age, physiological state, genetic strain, and immunity (Murray 

and Peeler 2005). Another situation in which a disease 

can emerge in a new species occurs when a species of fish is introduced into a new geographic area. 

The newly introduced species may lack the immune 

defense mechanisms of endemic fish species and, 

therefore, be more susceptible to existing pathogens 

(Mauel and Miller 2002).

Environmental factors that reduce immunity in the 

host or reduce the geographical or behavioral barriers 

that limit contact and potential pathogen transmission 

may increase risk for new pathogens or increase the 

evolution of existing pathogens (Kuiken et al. 2006). 

High densities of fish, poor management, new rearing 

conditions, and exposure to infectious agents in aquaculture settings can cause stress on the fish, resulting 

in decreased resistance to opportunistic infections and 

favorable conditions for the adaptation and amplification of pathogens (Mauel and Miller 2002; Mjaaland, 

Hungness, Teig, Dannevig, Thorud, and Rimstad 

2002; Murray and Peeler 2005). Exposure to infectious 

agents on the farm can occur through the introduction 

of infected stock or contaminated water, feed, and 

equipment. When barriers between farmed fish and 

wild fish are broken, farmed fish will be exposed to 

pathogens infecting wild fish and vice versa. Climate 

change may affect the geographic range of fish species and of pathogens. For example, fish in Northern 

European countries are now at increased risk from two 

diseases, Lactococcus garviae and proliferative kidney 

disease, previously only found in warmer climates 

(Murray and Peeler 2005).

Species-crossing of a pathogen involves a pathogen 

donor host species and a pathogen recipient host 

species. The population dynamics of both the donor 

host species and the recipient host species, such 

Overview of Factors Associated with 

Infectious Disease Emergence in Aquaculture
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 3

as the population sizes and the degrees of mixing or 

interaction, influence the likelihood of a virus persisting in a new species (Kuiken et al. 2006). Three types 

of interactions influence the likelihood of a virus 

becoming endemic in a new (recipient) host species: 

(1) interactions between hosts of the donor and recipient species, (2) host-virus interactions within individual 

hosts of the recipient species, and (3) host-host 

interactions within the recipient species (Kuiken et 

al. 2006). Factors that affect these interactions will 

affect the likelihood of disease emergence. In addition 

to host population dynamics, pathogen population 

dynamics play a role in successful disease emergence. 

An example of pathogen population dynamics influencing the persistence of a pathogen is the population frequencies of different strains and their varying 

abilities to evade the host’s immune system (Gupta, 

Ferguson, and Anderson 1998).

Pathways for Transboundary Spread

The factors associated with the transboundary spread 

of emerging and existing aquaculture diseases from 

one country to another are primarily related to the 

introduction of the pathogen through a trade pathway, 

including trade of live fish, fish eggs, fish products, 

fish feed, and equipment. Although wild fish do not 

respect manmade boundaries, aquacultured fish 

typically have a more controlled environment. This 

is not true, however, in all situations. For example, 

international trade of live fish is believed to be one of 

the main mechanisms contributing to the rapid global 

spread of koi herpesvirus (KHV) (Gilad, Yun, Adkison, 

Way, Willits, Bercovier, and Hedrick (2003). Trade in 

live ornamental fish is thought to be responsible for the 

spread of emerging iridoviruses. Go, Lancaster, Deece, 

Dhungyel, and Whittington (2006) found that trade in 

ornamental fish was linked to an iridovirus epizootic of 

an economically significant farmed finfish in Australia. 

Imports of salmonid eggs to Japan since the 1950s are 

thought to have led to outbreaks of numerous diseases 

on fish farms in Japan, including IPN, infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN), and bacterial kidney disease 

(BKD) (Yoshimizu 1996). Frozen shrimp imported into 

the United States were found to contain infectious 

white spot shrimp virus (WSSV) and thought to be 

the cause of an outbreak of WSSV in farmed shrimp 

in Texas (Lightner, Redman, Poulos, Nunan, Mari, 

and Hasson 1997; Durand, Tank, and Lightner 2000). 

Imported contaminated fish feed and fishing equipment can lead to outbreaks in the importing country 

(Murray and Peeler 2005). Wild fish and birds are a 

pathway for the introduction of aquaculture pathogens 

across country borders. Ships can move microorganisms and live animals between countries in their 

ballast water, because they take up ballast water in 

one country and release it in another (Ruiz, Rawlings, 

Dobbs, Drake, Mullady, Huq, and Colwell (2000).

Intracountry Spread

Many factors associated with the establishment and 

intracountry spread of both emerging and existing 

diseases are similar to factors associated with the 

appearance of new pathogens and the evolution of 

existing pathogens. The similarities exist because 

the mixing of hosts and pathogens, and the stresses 

on each, play a key role in both processes. The rate 

and pattern of disease spread on a farm, between 

farms, and in the wild depend on the spatial distribution, movement, and mixing of the host population 

(Kuiken et al. 2006). The movement of live fish, including broodstock, fry, fingerlings, and fish eggs, is an 

important means of intracountry pathogen spread 

between farms, between wild fish and farmed fish, 

and between wild fish in different geographic areas. A 

qualitative risk assessment of the routes of transmission of the fish parasite Gyrodactylus salaris identified 

the anthropogenic movement of live fish as the most 

important route for the spread of the disease between 

two river catchments (Peeler, Gardiner, and Thrush 

2004). The spread of IHN in Europe was aided by the 

fact that broodstock may act as carriers and vertically 

transmit the virus. The disease was introduced to several European trout hatcheries through infected eggs 

(Ghittino, Latini, Agnetti, Panzieri, Lauro, Ciapelloni, 

and Petracca 2003). Aquaculture disease control programs rely heavily on the restrictions on the movement 

of live fish for success (Hastein, Hill, and Winton 1999).
4 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Host, pathogen, and environmental factors play 

important roles in intracountry pathogen spread. Host 

factors such as age, physiological state (stressed 

versus unstressed), and genetic strain influence the 

susceptibility of fish to infection and disease (Murray 

and Peeler 2005). Pathogen factors that affect 

disease spread include virulence, transmissibility, 

infective dose, and survivability in the environment. 

Environmental factors, such as the distance between 

farms, and biosecurity practices, such as treatment 

of incoming and outgoing water, and disinfection of 

vehicles, equipment, and personnel, have important 

effects on the local spread of disease (Murray and 

Peeler 2005). The release of untreated liquid and solid 

waste from fish processing plants into waterways or 

landfills is a mechanism for disease spread (Lightner 

et al. 1997). Scavenging animals such as wild birds 

can act as disease vectors (Peeler, Gardiner, and 

Thrush 2004). Severe weather events can lead to the 

movement of farmed and wild diseased fish. Water 

temperature can influence virus replication and onset 

and severity of mortality (Murray and Peeler 2005). The 

use of effective disease control and prevention methods on- farms, such as vaccination and rapid removal 

of sick or dead stock, affect the spread of disease. 

For example, Norwegian farms that removed dead 

salmon daily throughout the summer were three times 

less likely to experience an ISA outbreak compared 

with farms that removed dead salmon less frequently 

(Murray and Peeler 2005).
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 5

Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile

As a first step to building an infectious disease emergence risk assessment tool for the U.S. food fish 

aquaculture industry, it was necessary to develop an 

understanding of the dynamics associated with the 

industry and how those dynamics might affect disease 

emergence. Nine broad areas were examined: (1) 

agent, host, and vector biology; (2) climate, ecology, 

and the environment; (3) economics and industry; (4) 

health management; (5) international trade; (6) the 

political and regulatory climate; (7) production practices; (8) social and cultural issues; and (9) technology. 

Detailed information was gathered in each of these 

areas for the industry in general and for six specific 

aquacultured species that are important in the United 

States: catfish, hybrid striped bass, salmon, saltwater 

shrimp, tilapia, and trout. Once this initial information 

was gathered, the results were used for phase 2, the 

development and application of an infectious disease 

emergence risk assessment tool.

Phase 2: Infectious Disease 

Emergence Qualitative Risk 

Assessment Tool Development

Using the information about industry dynamics 

from phase 1, a tool was developed to help industry 

managers and government officials understand the 

“riskiness” of industry practices and the ecologic, 

economic, political, and social factors for disease 

emergence, and to identify potential opportunities 

to mitigate the identified risks. The risk assessment 

tool had to address three separate elements: disease 

emergence and evolution, pathways for transboundary 

spread, and intracountry spread. The tool is structured 

so that it can be used across the multiple sectors in 

the aquaculture industry, allowing comparisons to be 

made across sectors. The tool is applicable over time 

and capable of capturing changing industry conditions 

that might signal an increase or decrease in risk. Once 

the tool was developed, it was applied in phase 3 to 

four aquaculture sectors in the United States: catfish, 

salmon, saltwater shrimp, and tilapia.

Phase 3: Infectious Disease Emergence 

Qualitative Risk Assessment Tool 

Application and Results

The disease emergence risk assessment tool was 

applied to four aquaculture sectors in the United 

States: catfish, salmon, saltwater shrimp, and tilapia. A 

qualitative risk rank (high, medium, or low) was determined for each sector for each of the disease emergence elements (emergence and evolution, pathways, 

and spread). The results highlight areas in each sector 

in which risk mitigation efforts could be targeted to 

decrease risk.

Project Overview
6 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Overview

Worldwide, seafood provides approximately 16 

percent of the animal protein in the human diet. The 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United 

Nations estimates that 43 percent of all fish and 

shellfish consumed globally is produced from aquaculture (FAO, World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture 

2006). A tremendous mix of species is currently 

farmed, including 131 finfish, 42 mollusks, and 27 

crustaceans. In 2004, countries in the Asia and Pacific 

region accounted for 91.5 percent of food fish aquaculture production. Annual growth rates in the Islamic 

Republic of Iran, Myanmar, the Netherlands, Republic 

of Korea, Turkey and Vietnam exceeded 15 percent 

between 2002 and 2004. In much of the world, aquaculture is now seen as an engine for economic development and not as just an alternative food source.

In 2004, the $71.5 billion value of global fish and shellfish exports (wild-caught and farmed, including fresh, 

chilled, frozen, canned, dried, salted, and smoked fish, 

and shellfish) (FAO, World Review of Fisheries and 

Aquaculture 2006) greatly exceeded global exports of 

fresh, frozen, dried, canned, and prepared bovine meat 

($20 billion) or poultry meat ($15 billion) (FAOSTAT 

2007). Fish and shellfish products are predominantly 

traded in processed form; however, the share of live, 

fresh, or chilled fish and shellfish trade increased 

slightly from the 1990s to the early 2000s, reaching 

10 percent in 2004. Technological developments have 

allowed this increase in live, fresh, and chilled fish 

and shellfish trade. Developing countries continue 

to improve processing capabilities and increasingly 

export high-value live fish or value-added processed 

products.

Expansion of aquaculture production has been challenged by concerns about environmental impacts and 

sustainability. Standards for effluent discharge are 

being established in many countries. Improvements 

in feed and feeding efficiency have reduced nutrient 

loads emitted from fish farms. Research on additional 

or alternative feed sources could reduce dependency 

on fishmeal in diets of farmed fish.

Another challenge in aquaculture is the health care system. In general, the aquaculture industry does not rely 

on veterinarians to provide health management for their 

animals. The system has evolved without veterinarians 

because of several different factors. Historically, veterinarians were not trained to deal with aquatic animals. 

The use of veterinarians and health care experts varies 

by industry. Many of the industries use fish pathologists 

or manage many health problems mainly through husbandry techniques. Few approved drugs are available 

for use in the aquaculture field, which limits treatment 

options. There have been recent advances in this area, 

particularly given the passage in 2001 of the Minor Use 

and Minor Species Animal Health Act by the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA). This act allows a mechanism for “minor” species such as fish to be treated with 

FDA-approved drugs that are not specifically approved 

in that species. The FDA has designated certain drugs 

as having low regulatory priority in aquaculture species, 

which allows more flexibility in the treatment of aquaculture species. The lack of availability of approved 

drugs is a frequent issue brought up by the aquaculture 

industry. Aquaculture species must undergo drug withholding before slaughter.

Finfish have a functioning immune system, which 

enhances disease management. The skin of finfish, 

with fast-healing properties and a layer of protective 

mucus, is an important immune component. Some 

crustacean species have rudimentary immune capabilities. Environmental stressors such as temperature, 

pollutants, and handling can all affect the immune 

status of aquatic animals.

Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 7

The United States is the third largest consumer of 

fish and shellfish worldwide, although U.S. per capita 

consumption falls far below per capita consumption 

in many other parts of the world, including Asia and 

Oceania (NOAA 2004). On a per capita basis, fish 

and shellfish consumption within the United States 

has increased slowly over recent years, going from 

11.2 pounds (edible weight) in 1910 to 16.6 pounds in 

2004 (NOAA 2004). Unlike the situation for beef, pork, 

or poultry consumption, the United States relies on 

imports for much of its fish and shellfish supply (see 

figure 1). Nearly 70 percent of the fish and shellfish 

consumed in the United States is imported and, 

of those imports, it is estimated that more than 40 

percent is supplied through aquaculture.

Fish and shellfish aquaculture production in the 

United States grew at more than 3.6 percent annually between 1995 and 2004 (see table 1) with total 

production reaching nearly 900 million pounds in 

2004 (NOAA 2004). Catfish production accounted for 

72 percent of this total production in 2004. Annual 

growth rates between 1995 and 2004 were highest 

for shellfish, notably clams (38.5 percent) and shrimp 

(37.7 percent). Additional species farmed in the United 

States, but not included in the production statistics 

(table 1), include abalone, largemouth bass, red drum, 

sturgeon, yellow perch, and walleye.

In the next section of this document, detailed profiles 

are provided for U.S. production of catfish, hybrid 

striped bass, salmon, shrimp, tilapia, and trout.

Within the United States, several steps have 

been taken to promote aquaculture. The National 

Aquaculture Act of 1980 provided a national policy 

to encourage the domestic aquaculture industry and 

established the interagency Joint Subcommittee on 

Aquaculture (JSA). The JSA is a statutory committee 

that reports to the National Science and Technology 

Figure 1: Import Share of Total U.S. Consumption

Poultry

0%

Poultry

1%

Fish/Shellfish

55%

Red Meat

10% Red Meat

9%

Fish/Shellfish

68%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1992-94 2000

Percent of Total Consumption

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service 2005.
8 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Table 1: Fish and Shellfish Aquaculture Production

U.S. Aquaculture Production (1,000 pounds)

1990 1995 2000 2004

Rate of Change 

1995–2004

Finfish:

Catfish 360,435 446,886 593,603 630,450 41%

Salmon 9,069 31,315 49,372 33,416 7%

Striped Bass 1,590 8,315 11,237 11,500 38%

Tilapia — 15,075 20,000 20,000 33%

Trout 56,816 55,934 59,164 54,976 –2%

Shellfish:

Clams 3,680 4,325 9,929 20,967 385%

Crawfish 71,000 58,146 17,025 70,383 21%

Mussels 607 410 424 593 45%

Oysters 22,192 23,221 16,822 26,214 13%

Shrimp 1,984 2,205 4,782 10,513 377%

Total 527,373 645,832 782,358 879,012 36%

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.

Note: — = not available.

U.S. Aquaculture Production (1,000 dollars)

1990 1995 2000 2004

Rate of Change 

1995–2004

Finfish:

Catfish 273,210 351,222 445,919 439,158 25%

Salmon 26,341 75,991 99,208 56,679 –25%

Striped Bass — 21,156 29,513 31,353 48%

Tilapia — 22,613 30,000 40,000 77%

Trout 64,640 61,447 63,690 57,082 –7%

Shellfish:

Clams 13,486 19,709 32,595 73,339 272%

Crawfish 34,000 34,714 27,626 42,836 23%

Mussels 1,173 1,221 525 3,956 224%

Oysters 77,949 70,628 42,419 80,075 13%

Shrimp 10,344 8,818 14,559 21,280 141%

Total 501,143 667,519 786,054 845,758 27%

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.

Note: — = not available.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 9

Council Committee on Science and serves as a 

Federal Government-wide coordinating group.

The JSA has commissioned a National Aquatic Animal 

Health Task Force, which includes representatives 

from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture), the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Department of 

Commerce). One of the assignments of this task force 

is to develop a National Aquatic Animal Health Plan 

(NAAHP) that provides for efficient, safe, and effective national and international commerce of aquatic 

animals; requires the protection of cultured and wild 

aquatic animals from foreign pests and diseases; 

calls for the U.S. Government to meet its legal trade 

obligations; and ensures the availability of diagnostic 

and certification services for public, private, and tribal 

entities (National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force 

2003). The task force has established a number of 

working groups to examine various components of the 

plan. It is anticipated that a draft of the full plan will 

be completed by 2007 and will cover a wide range of 

issues, including diseases of concern, disease prevention, surveillance, disease control and management, 

commerce, education and training, research and 

development, and roles and responsibilities of Federal 

agencies.

In summer 2005, the National Offshore Aquaculture 

Act was proposed by the Bush administration and was 

issued in response to the 2004 report from the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy, “An Ocean Blueprint for 

the 21st Century.” A revised version of this Act was 

introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and 

in the U.S. Senate in the spring of 2007. The National 

Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 would provide the 

necessary authority to the Secretary of Commerce for 

the establishment and implementation of a regulatory 

system for aquaculture in Federal waters, also known 

as the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The 

revised Act includes additional environmental requirements, changes to permits and the role of States, 

and provisions for research for all marine aquaculture, 

including research on alternative feed formulas to 

reduce the use of wild fish in aquaculture feeds. A 

number of offshore aquaculture demonstration projects are currently ongoing for blue mussels, cobia, 

moi, and cod/haddock.

Sector-Specific Profiles

This section provides brief summaries of the dynamics 

associated with six food fish and shellfish sectors in 

the United States (catfish, hybrid striped bass, salmon, 

shrimp, tilapia, and trout), including forces for change 

within each sector. These sectors were chosen to 

showcase the range of production taking place in the 

United States from catfish aquaculture, which is a 

relatively well-established industry, to hybrid striped 

bass, tilapia, and the freshwater segment of the shrimp 

industry, which are all younger industries.

Catfish

U.S. Production

Catfish culture is the most economically important 

food fish aquaculture sector in the United States. 

Catfish cultivation techniques were first developed in 

the early to mid-1900s when catfish were being propagated to stock U.S. waterways. Between 1970 and 

1990, catfish production for food grew rapidly with the 

quantity of processed farmed catfish increasing more 

than tenfold. The rate of growth in catfish production 

has slowed since 1990, but production has generally 

increased annually. Between 2000 and 2004, U.S. 

catfish production grew by approximately 6 percent 

(see figure 2).

Catfish prefer warm water, with optimal growth 

achieved at 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Most catfish 

production in the United States (98 percent) takes 

place in unheated earthen ponds. Given these current production methods, catfish cultivation is limited 

to southeastern areas of the United States with an 

appropriate climate. More than 90 percent of U.S. 

production of food-size catfish takes place in Alabama, 

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, with production of fingerlings concentrated in Mississippi (90 

percent of production). According to USDA:National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data for 2004, 
10 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

1,147 total farms were producing catfish in 13 states; 

35 percent of these farms were located in Mississippi. 

Acreage devoted to catfish has remained static or has 

dropped slightly in the four major production states, 

while acreage in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and North 

Carolina increased. Catfish farms averaged 160 acres 

in 2002, an increase of 25 acres over average size in 

1999.

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) is the most common species raised in the United States; other catfish 

species produced on a limited basis include the blue 

catfish and the channel-blue hybrid. Polyculture is used 

in the industry with approximately half of all operations 

maintaining catfish plus another species. Polyculture 

in this case is used to control algal species or aquatic 

weeds rather than to produce another marketable 

product. Grass carp, fathead minnows, and threadfin 

shad are some of the species currently being used in 

polyculture with catfish. Of these several species, grass 

carp is the only one that is actually harvested and marketed. Grass carp are sometimes grown with catfish for 

weed control; however, the use of grass carp and other 

carp in catfish production is prohibited in some states 

because of invasive species concerns.

Catfish production involves four stages. Catfish are 

spawned in specialized ponds, because they typically 

do not reproduce in growout ponds. The eggs are then 

collected and hatched in indoor tanks or troughs. After 

two weeks, the resulting fry are stocked in nursery 

ponds. Fingerlings are moved from the nursery ponds 

into growout ponds. The catfish industry includes 

producers who combine all stages of production within 

their operation and producers who specialize in fry, 

fingerlings, or food-size fish production. Specialized fry 

and fingerling producers are more common in western 

Mississippi and Arkansas.

Figure 2: U.S. Farmed Catfish Production

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Millions Pounds

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 11

Until recently, brood fish were sourced from food 

fish growout ponds or from existing high-performing 

broodstock. Efforts to improve genetics within the 

industry have led to more selectivity in broodstock. 

Most catfish produced are of an unknown breed, 

although the USDA:APHIS:National Animal Health 

Monitoring System (NAHMS) 2003 Catfish study 

reported that 40 percent of respondents stock at 

least some branded fingerlings. Additionally, the 

USDA Agriculture Research Service (ARS) released an 

improved strain of brood fish in 2001.

Traditionally, catfish producers have maintained growout ponds with fish of varying ages, enabling them to 

harvest fish year-round. In this manner, ponds were 

kept in production continuously for a number of years 

with a high stocking density. Catfish production in some 

areas is moving to all-in/all-out or single-batch production; however, according to the NAHMS 2003 catfish 

study, more than 80 percent of fingerlings stocked 

were placed in ponds already containing fish. In addition to single-batch production, some producers are 

using pond sorting. In pond sorting, fish are harvested 

multiple times to ensure that only the most desirable 

product is harvested and at the most profitable level. 

Current technology may limit the growth of pond 

sorting because the costs associated with sorting and 

movements of fish between ponds are still relatively 

high. Extension projects at research facilities continue 

to experiment with other production changes, such as 

varying pond depth, temperature, and chemical usage.

Catfish require a diet containing 28 to 30 percent 

protein in the growout phase. Fry require a diet with 

higher protein content. In the United States, this protein requirement is met largely with vegetable-based 

proteins, principally soybean meal. Fishmeal and fish 

oil account for an average of 2 percent of catfish diets. 

Although that percentage is declining, fishmeal is still 

an important component in the diets of fry. Worldwide, 

however, less than 1 percent of all fishmeal is fed to 

catfish. Meat and bone meal, blood meal, and poultry 

meal are sometimes used in catfish diets.

Biosecurity practices on catfish farms vary. Because 

catfish are raised in open water ponds, they are 

exposed to birds and other animals. Catfish have 

relatively little exposure to wild aquatic species and the 

pathogens they may carry, because the water used to 

fill the ponds is generally pumped from groundwater. 

The exception to this is that in some parts of Alabama 

ponds are constructed by initially damming small 

streams and diverting water into the pond. Water for 

hatchery facilities is often sourced from groundwater 
12 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

as well. Once filled, seepage from the clay-bottomed 

ponds is minimal and, in most production areas, 

rainfall is sufficient to maintain pond levels. Contact 

with pathogens can occur from water contamination, 

introduction of new stock, and agricultural effluent runoff during extreme weather events, and movement of 

equipment, personnel, and wildlife. Health certificates 

are required to move fish between some states.

A number of important diseases affect catfish production in the United States. In 2002, the most frequent 

disease problems reported by food-size catfish 

operations were as follows: enteric septicemia of 

catfish (ESC) (reported by 61 percent of operations), 

columnaris disease (50 percent), and winter kill (33 

percent). Additional disease issues reported by catfish 

producers in 2002 included the following: anemia (14 

percent of operations), proliferative gill disease (PGD) 

(13 percent), visceral toxicosis of catfish (10 percent), 

trematodes (4 percent), and Ichthyophthirius multifilis

(“ich”) (4 percent). Of the food-size catfish operations 

surveyed, 17 percent vaccinate for ESC.

Although catfish can accommodate a range of environmental conditions and crowding, catfish producers 

report significant losses over the production cycle. 

Annual losses are routinely between 15 and 20 percent 

of total fish stocked. Producers report that infectious 

diseases account for the largest percentage of losses, 

with catfish fry and fingerlings being especially vulnerable to infectious diseases. Approximately 65 percent 

of the fry and fingerlings lost during production are 

believed to be lost because of infectious diseases, 

especially ESC and columnaris.

The catfish industry utilizes veterinarians on a limited 

basis, and producers tend to provide much of their 

own health care. Three antibiotics are approved for 

use in catfish: ormetroprim (Romet-30), oxytetracycline 

(Terramycin), and florfenicol (Aquaflor). In addition, formalin, which is used to control protozoan parasites, is 

also approved for use in catfish production. Diagnostic 

laboratory support is readily available to producers, 

and 34 percent of producers reported submitting 

samples in the NAHMS catfish study. Two of the major 

laboratories supplying services to catfish farmers are 

located at the Thad Cochran National Warmwater 

Aquaculture Center at Mississippi State University and 

the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the University of 

Arkansas at Pine Bluff.

Research on catfish is funded collaboratively by 

the industry, State governments, and the Federal 

Government. In 2000, the catfish industry was the 

second largest beneficiary of USDA Cooperative State 

Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) 

aquaculture research funds (the shrimp sector received 

the most funding). The principal catfish research institutions in the United States include Auburn University; 

Mississippi State University; the USDA ARS Regional 

Aquaculture Center at Stoneville, Mississippi; and 

the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Issues being 

researched include emerging diseases, hybrids, genetics, and production.

Marketing

Between 2000 and 2003, catfish remained the fifth 

most consumed seafood in the United States with 

consumption at approximately 1 pound per person per 

year. Catfish is a popular fish with African-American 

and Asian populations.

More than 90 percent of catfish are marketed directly 

to large, year-round processing plants. The remaining 

small percentage of fish (less than 10 percent) are 

processed on-farm and sold directly to restaurants 

and grocery stores, or are sold live to stock fee-based 

fishing ponds. In 2004, 16 processors were listed on 

the Catfish Institute Certified Processor List.

In 2003, processors sold 60 percent of their product 

as fillets, 18 percent as whole dressed fish, and 22 

percent as other products. Catfish processors now 

require larger fish to meet increasing demand for portion control and standardized fillets.

Less than 40 percent of each individual catfish is 

used to produce the fillets and other primary products 

marketed to consumers. Currently, catfish by-products 

are used in fishmeal, fish oil, and pet food. Significant 
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 13

effort is under way, however, to develop additional 

uses for catfish by-products, including catfish mince to 

produce catfish nuggets, patties, and sausages.

International Production and Trade

Among all catfish species produced in 2005, the 

United States accounted for 18 percent of worldwide 

production (see table 2). Other major producing countries include China (32 percent), Vietnam (25 percent), 

Thailand (9 percent), Indonesia (7 percent), and India 

(3 percent). Between 2003 and 2005, production in 

Nigeria grew 234 percent while production in Vietnam 

grew 131 percent. China experienced a 50 percent 

growth over the same time period.

The United States is the principal producer of channel 

catfish worldwide; other catfish species are produced 

in numerous countries. Growers in Vietnam produce 

basa, swai, and tra (Pangasius spp.), which they 

began marketing as catfish in significantly increased 

quantities to the United States beginning in 1997 and 

peaking in 2001. U.S. catfish producers argued that 

the Vietnamese fish were not catfish and should not 

be allowed to be marketed as catfish. Producers also 

argued that the Vietnamese fish were being marketed 

in the United States at unfair prices, which amounted 

to dumping. The U.S. catfish industry received protection in 2002 from the International Trade Commission 

when it imposed tariffs on species imported from 

Vietnam. Nonictalurid fish are now prohibited from 

being labeled as catfish. Country-of-origin labeling 

has also gone into effect for food fish. In 2003, China 

began exporting catfish fillets to the United States. 

U.S. imports from China in 2003 and 2004 were 326 

and 347 metric tons, respectively. Guyana exports 

more than 100 metric tons of catfish fillets to the 

United States annually. No live catfish are imported 

into the United States.

Table 2: Top 10 Farmed Catfish-Producing 

Countries, 2005

Catfish

Country

Production in 

1,000 pounds

China 956,008

Vietnam 752,000

United States of America 551,508

Thailand 261,568

Indonesia 204,180

India 88,106

Nigeria 71,338

Malaysia 49,378

Netherlands 8,400

Brazil 7,464

World Total 3,026,644

Note: Catfish include the following species: African catfish, Amur 

catfish, Asian redtail catfish, Atipa, Bagrid catfish, Barred sorubim, 

Bayad, Black bullhead, Black catfishes nei, Blue Catfish, Catfish, 

hybrid, Catfishes nei, Channel catfish, Chinese longsnout catfish, 

Duckbill catfish, Flathead catfish, Freshwater siluroids nei, Hong 

Kong catfish, Naked catfishes, North African catfish, Pangas catfish, 

Pangas catfishes nei, Philippine catfish, Sampa, South American 

catfish, Striped catfish, Torpedo-shaped catfishes nei, Upsidedown 

catfishes, Wels(=Som) catfish, and Yellow catfish.

Source: FAO, Fishstat Plus, 2007.
14 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Hybrid Striped Bass

U.S. Production

Production of hybrid striped bass (HSB) began in the 

United States in response to restrictions placed in the 

1980s on the commercial harvest of wild striped bass 

because of declines in the wild populations. Initial 

efforts to farm striped bass proved unsuccessful, 

but a hybrid of the striped bass and the white bass 

(Morone chrysops) proved more adaptable to culture 

techniques. In addition to striped bass and white 

bass, HSB are stocked in waterways in many states, 

although some states are concerned about HSB 

hybridizing with wild species.

HSB production in the United States relies on wild 

fish for broodstock, although a national domestication 

program is under way. Wild fish, mostly white bass 

females, are collected, with the Lake Erie commercial 

fishery being a prime source location. Approximately 

one dozen hatcheries in the United States produce fry 

and fingerlings; however, one operation in Arkansas 

supplies half of the fry and fingerlings used in U.S. 

HSB aquaculture operations. Remaining fry and 

fingerling production takes place in Delaware, Florida, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina. Fingerling production is seasonal, taking place largely during the spring 

and summer.

In 2004, 61 total operations were farming HSB in the 

United States. Production grew from 1.6 million pounds 

in 1990 to 11.5 million pounds in 2004 (see figure 

3). The largest U.S. producer is located in California 

and produces approximately 30 percent of total U.S. 

production. Large producers located in Mississippi and 

Texas produce an additional 30 percent. Most of the 

remaining production takes place in Georgia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina, although many other 

states account for some relatively small-scale HSB 

production. A census of producers taken in the late 

1990s indicated production in 19 states.

U.S. HSB production has moved from mostly tanks 

to mostly pond culture, although a large California 

producer uses a semirecirculating tank system. Pond 

production surpassed tank production in 1998; in 

2004, tanks accounted for 38 percent of production, 

compared with 61 percent from ponds. Cage production is practiced by a few producers in the upper 

Midwest, but it remains a minor component of production. Pond sizes range from 1 acre to more than 500 

acres. Refinements continue to be made in production 

practices, allowing greater culture intensity. Water 

availability is the main limiting factor in HSB production, and several new technologies are on the horizon 

for HSB. Water reuse is one technology that is being 

explored, as are bacterial-based systems that will also 

decrease water use.

HSB are produced in three stages, with considerable 

numbers of fish lost at each stage. In the first stage, 

fry are stocked at 150,000 to 200,000 per acre with 

an expected survival rate of 20 percent. In the second 

stage, fingerlings weighing about 1 gram are stocked 

at 10,000 to 15,000 per acre, with an expected survival 

rate of 85 percent. After about six months, when the 

fingerlings weigh 0.25 pounds, the growout stage 

begins and fish are stocked at about 3,500 to 4,000 
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 15

fish per acre. Survival rates in the growout stage are 

about 80 percent. The entire production cycle takes 

approximately 18 to 24 months for the fish to reach 

a harvest weight of 1.5 to 2.5 pounds. Because HSB 

are carnivores, production systems must be careful 

to maintain stock of similar size within each pond to 

avoid cannibalism. Additionally, at the end of each 

production cycle, producers must ensure that all fish 

have been removed either by draining or treating the 

pond. The optimum temperature for growth is 77 to 

80 degrees Fahrenheit.

HSB diets are approximately 40 percent protein with 

10 to 20 percent of the protein supplied by fishmeal 

(down from more than 33 percent fishmeal fed in the 

mid-1990s). Experiments using poultry by-product 

meal as a replacement for fishmeal in HSB diets are 

being conducted. There has been some experimenting 

with administering recombinant bovine somatotropin 

to enhance phosphorus digestion in HSB.

HSB are considered to be disease resistant. Contact 

with potential pathogens can happen through water 

inflow, introduced stock, and predation. Health 

certificates are required to move fish between some 

states. The two most important disease issues facing 

HSB in the United States are photobacteriosis and 

Streptococcus iniae. HSB are also affected by columnaris, mycobacteriosis, vibriosis, fungal diseases, and 

parasites.

Some HSB producers must comply with the new 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concentrated 

Aquatic Animal Production regulations for water and 

waste discharge. These regulations apply to producers using flow-through or recirculating systems that 

Figure 3: U.S. Farmed Striped Bass Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Millions Pounds

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.
16 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

produce more than 100,000 pounds of fish per year. 

These regulations require that qualified producers 

obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit. The permit sets requirements on the discharged water to protect the quality 

of surface water. These regulations increase the need 

of the producers to manage pollution outputs and 

maintain records of this management. In August 2005, 

farmed HSB were ranked as a “Best Choice” by the 

Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch. The Seafood 

Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability 

of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in 

the U.S. marketplace.

HSB breeding programs have focused on fast growth, 

disease resistance, and development of complete 

diets for each phase of production. Research on 

intensive larval rearing is being conducted. Additional 

research needs include optimizing triploidy, licensing 

additional antimicrobials, and establishing procedures 

to control grubs in ponds through the use of snails. 

USDA:CSREES facilities and the ARS Stuttgart and 

Auburn laboratories provide research support for HSB 

producers on issues such as domesticating broodstock, genetic selection, nutrition, efficacy of therapeutic agents, and new vaccines.

Marketing

Cultured HSB were initially marketed to fill the niche 

left behind when the wild striped bass harvest 

declined. Although farmed HSB have filled these 

relatively limited markets, HSB are not among the top 

10 fish species consumed in the United States.

The majority of HSB (80 percent) is sold whole and 

fresh to wholesalers and retailers for the white tablecloth restaurant market. Most of the remaining 20 

percent of the HSB produced in the United States 

are sold at live markets, but there were large regional 

differences in live market sales. The proportion of total 

U.S. live market HSB sales in 2004 ranged from 4 

percent in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee to 59 percent 

in the States of Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina. These live markets cater mainly to Asian 

consumers. Demand for live HSB is growing in urban 

areas, including Baltimore, Boston, New York, and 

Philadelphia. A few producers market to recreational 

fish ponds. Prices for HSB are declining because of 

competition from other species, increasing commercial 

harvests of wild striped bass, and increased supply 

from farmed HSB production.

International Production and Trade

The United States is the world leader in HSB production, accounting for nearly 85 percent of worldwide 

production in 2002. HSB production is expanding in 

China, Israel, Italy, Spain, and Taiwan (China), often 

using fry purchased from the United States.

Approximately 20 percent of HSB fry raised in the 

United States are exported, as are 4 percent of the fingerlings. Import statistics for the United States do not 

separate HSB from other fish species, and therefore 

the quantity of HSB imports is unknown. It is believed 

that U.S. producers have been negatively affected by 

the rapid increases in imports of tilapia.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 17

Salmon

U.S. Production

Salmon (principally Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar) are 

raised in the United States for food and for enhancing 

or restoring wild fisheries. Commercial salmon farming for food is limited to Maine and Washington. The 

U.S. industry is highly concentrated with one principal 

producer in Maine and one firm owning all operations 

in Washington. None of the companies owning U.S. 

salmon farms are American, and all of the parent 

companies have production facilities in other countries 

and export to the United States.

Atlantic salmon production in the United States 

peaked in 2000 at nearly 50 million pounds and 

dropped to less than 34 million pounds by 2004 (see 

figure 4). Production in Maine declined nearly 60 

percent between 2000 and 2002 mainly because of 

ISA outbreaks; however, regulations restricting noise, 

site locations, and waste dispersal affected production capacity. Import price competition added further 

pressure on Maine production. The ISA outbreak in 

Maine in 2001 resulted in State regulations, industry 

best management practices (BMPs), and ISA program 

standards recommending lower stocking densities and 

mandated fallowing periods. During this same time, 

production in Washington remained steady. There have 

been no new leases approved for salmon farms in 

Washington since the early 1990s, and none for Maine 

farms since the late 1990s.

Salmon broodstock are generally selected from 

high-performing fish and kept separately in freshwater 

hatcheries as part of a breeding program. Eggs from 

each mated pair are incubated separately so that if a 

disease is found in the tissue samples or reproductive 

fluids of either parent, all of their eggs can be discarded. Fertilized eggs are incubated for seven to nine 

weeks in tanks at inland freshwater hatcheries, and the 

resulting fry remain in freshwater for up to 18 months 
18 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

before reaching the smolt stage. Fry are typically vaccinated for several bacterial and viral pathogens before 

stocking in saltwater. Vaccination of fry has been found 

to be generally effective against various Vibrio species 

and, to a variable extent, against furunculosis, which 

is caused by Aeromonas salmonicida. Vaccination 

is also occasionally used against enteric redmouth 

(ERM), BKD, and ISA. When smolts are about 80 to 

120 grams (about 7 inches long) they are moved to 

marine net pens for growout. The majority of these 

marine net pens are located in protected, inshore 

areas. Approximately 2.5 years after hatching, salmon 

are ready for market. Researchers in Canada have 

been experimentally manipulating salmon genetics 

to enhance growth and reduce time to market by 50 

percent. These genetically modified salmon are awaiting approval by the FDA before they will be allowed to 

enter the U.S. market.

Concerns about genetic dilution and competition 

for nesting sites are associated with the escape of 

farmed Atlantic salmon into the environment. The 

escape of farmed fish into the wild has occurred, but 

such escapes are infrequent and generally caused by 

equipment failure during storms, predators such as 

seals damaging nets, and occasional vandalism by 

humans. Use of triploid salmon (sterile salmon) could 

reduce some of these concerns, but problems have 

been reported with commercial production of triploid 

salmon, including deformities, slower growth, and 

higher mortality rates.

In net pen operations, water flow is managed passively. Thus, salmon production is currently limited to 

areas with good water flow and optimal culture temperatures. However, there has been some experimental 

production of salmon in ocean waters 3 to 200 miles 

Figure 4: U.S. Farmed Salmon Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Millions Pounds

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 19

off the coasts of Washington, New Hampshire, and 

Virginia. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) is currently developing an 

offshore aquaculture permit system that would oversee 

and regulate production in the EEZ (up to 200 miles 

offshore). New cage designs are being developed to 

allow production in these exposed waters. The advantage to moving salmon production further offshore 

is that it would be subject to less conflict with other 

users of inshore waterways and may help avoid harmful algal blooms.

Water for freshwater hatcheries is generally diverted 

from lakes, streams, springs, or wells. Salmon 

raised in marine net pens are in direct contact with 

the environment, including seawater, as well as fish 

(including wild salmon), mammals, and birds. Transport 

of fish-processing wastes from salmon farming in 

Eastern Canada into the Eastern United States for bait, 

composting, pet food, and rendering occurs regularly 

and currently is unregulated. Limited polyculture takes 

place with oysters, mussels, cod, and nori in Maine. 

Experiments in raising cod and halibut in a polyculture 

environment with salmon have been conducted in New 

Brunswick.

Biosecurity on salmon farms in Maine has improved 

greatly since the ISA outbreaks first occurred. 

Examples of new practices implemented that reduce 

contamination of the environment include piping all 

blood, water, and waste materials directly from the 

harvest ships into the processing plants. Another 

example is that carcasses from mortality surveillance 

are isolated, transported, and stored in leak-proof 

containers and disposed of through rendering or 

composting. In addition, bay management agreements 

are developed in which companies collectively agree 

on operating procedures for individual bodies of water 

constituting a unique tidal exchange. The purpose of 

these agreements is to break the disease cycle in the 

event of outbreaks. Health certificates are required to 

move fish between some states.

Farmed salmon consume a diet composed of 45 to 50 

percent protein, fishmeal being the principal source. 

Worldwide, in 2000, it was estimated that more than 

20 percent of fishmeal produced was used in salmon 

feeds. Salmon feeds are made using a cooking 

extrusion process that produces pellets. The current 

techniques allow the pellets to absorb and hold higher 

fat content; fat content has been found to be associated with feed palatability and protein utilization. With 

fishmeal supplies strained to meet growing demand 

worldwide, work is being done on using soybean meal 

to replace 50 percent or more of the protein in salmon 

diets. Additionally, mammalian blood meal is sometimes used as a protein source for salmon. Research 

has suggested that the inclusion of blood meal in 

salmon diets reduces the development of cataracts, 

which can lead to growth loss and secondary disease. 

Poultry meal, poultry fat, and feather meal are also 

used in some salmon feeds.

In addition to ISA, health concerns facing salmon 

production in the United States include BKD, sea lice, 

and a protozoan parasite (Kudoa thyrsites). Compared 

with other farmed food fish species, more health 

care and veterinary services are available for the 

salmon industry. Laboratory testing capacity appears 

adequate within the industry. As previously mentioned, 

a number of vaccines are available and used in salmon 

production. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

conjunction with the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval 

Partnership, has sponsored drug approvals for salmonids. Considerable research has been conducted on 

salmon production issues, including ISA vaccination 

and control, sea lice, basic and applied immunology, 

environmental factors, and genetics. CSREES funded 

$2.25 million of research in 2000 for salmonids.

The long-term viability of the farmed salmon industry 

in the United States is of concern. Import competition and negative press disseminated during the last 

few years regarding farmed salmon have hurt the 

industry. The regulatory and legal climate surrounding salmon-farming, including lawsuits based on the 

Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, is also 

of concern.
20 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Marketing

In 2001, salmon became the third most consumed 

fish in the United States, behind shrimp and canned 

tuna, a status it continues to hold. Since 1990, per 

capita salmon consumption has tripled, increasing 

from approximately 0.75 pounds to 2.2 pounds per 

year. Fresh fillets and salmon steaks are more popular 

than whole fish at the retail level. Increasing salmon 

consumption in the United States is related to consumers’ desire to obtain the health benefits associated 

with eating fish, increased availability of salmon, lower 

prices, and more processed products such as boneless fillets. Farmed salmon are not marketed live within 

the United States, although small quantities of wild 

salmon may be sold live. Salmon is not a preferred fish 

among Hispanic and Asian consumers. Retailers such 

as Costco and Sam’s Club sell the most popular cuts, 

including salmon filets and steaks. The large buying 

power of these retailers has influenced the structure of 

the salmon industry. Organic and eco-friendly salmon 

are more widely available in other countries.

The processing industry has been consolidating. 

U.S. farmed salmon are generally processed by large 

processors located in Maine and Washington and in 

New Brunswick, Canada, in the case of Maine salmon 

production. As processing facilities move to more 

value-added products, the plants require consistent, 

year-round production.

Less than 50 percent of each salmon produced in the 

United States is used to produce fillets and steaks. 

Development of products that use salmon by-products 

is under way. Product development includes salmon 

patties, burgers, and kabobs for human consumption 

and fishmeals made from salmon by-products for use 

in fish feed. Smoked salmon is an important commodity, and both actual and potential salmon and fish oil 

markets exist. Salmon by-products can be included in 

high-end compost and fertilizers.

International Production and Trade

Salmon-farming began in the 1970s in Norway, 

Scotland, and the United States, with production volumes quickly increasing dramatically in Norway. This 

success in Norway encouraged production in North 

America, both in Canada and the United States. Global 

production is currently dominated by Norway and 

Chile. These two countries together accounted for 75 

percent of production in 2005 (see table 3). The United 

Kingdom and Canada accounted for 9 percent and 7 

percent, respectively, of production in 2005. Between 

2003 and 2005, production in China increased by 42 

percent, while production in Japan grew by 38 percent 

and production in Chile grew by 27 percent.

Internationally, the number of companies producing salmon is declining as mergers continue. The 

largest company is a Dutch conglomerate, and the 

next four largest companies are Norwegian-owned. 

Three-fourths of salmon in international trade are 

farmed.

U.S. imports of salmon more than quadrupled between 

1990 and 2004 (see figure 5). Leading source countries for U.S. imports (in decreasing order by volume) 

in 2004 were as follows: Chile, Canada, China, the 

United Kingdom, and Norway. Chile and Canada 

Table 3: Top 10 Farmed Salmon-Producing 

Countries, 2005

Salmon

Country

Production in 

1,000 pounds

Norway 1,164,786

Chile 959,944

United Kingdom 260,306

Canada 196,882

Faeroe Islands 37,924

Australia 32,066

China 29,014

Ireland 27,528

Japan 25,458

United States of America 18,802

World Total 2,809,526

Note: Salmon include the following species: Arctic char, 

Atlantic salmon, Chars nei, Chinook(=Spring=King) salmon, 

Chum(=Keta=Dog) salmon, Coho(=Silver) salmon, European whitefish, Grayling, Huchen, Masou(=Cherry) salmon, Pacific salmons nei, 

Peled, Salmonids nei, Sea trout, and Sockeye(=Red) salmon.

Source: FAO, Fishstat Plus, 2007.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 21

together accounted for more than 80 percent of total 

U.S. imports. Imports from China have grown rapidly, 

increasing more than sevenfold between 2000 and 

2004. In 2004, the United States imported salmon 

from 39 countries. U.S. salmon imports consist of 

fillets and whole fish; live fish, other than fry or smolt, 

are not imported. Chile has been able to market fresh 

products to the United States; salmon imported from 

Europe are generally frozen. Most imports of whole fish 

are imported from Canada, but a substantial percentage of those are actually Maine-raised fish that were 

processed in Canada.

U.S. producers have filed antidumping cases against 

salmon imports in the past. U.S. producers won their 

case against Norway in the early 1990s and a duty was 

imposed that made it difficult for Norway to compete 

in the U.S. market. A case against Chile in the late 

1990s was also won by U.S. producers and resulted in 

a duty; however, the duty has not slowed imports from 

Chile.

Major U.S. trading partners have suffered from disease 

outbreaks in salmon. IHN outbreaks have occurred in 

British Columbia. Farmers in British Columbia have 

also suffered from sea lice and K. thyrsites. Chile has 

suffered outbreaks of BKD, IPN, and piscirickettsiosis. 

Western European producers have suffered losses 

from BKD, gyrodactylosis, IPN, ISA, piscirickettsiosis, infectious viral retinopathy and encephalopathy, 

and viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). Diseases 

believed to have occurred in China include IHN (1988), 

IPN (1988), and infectious viral encephalopathy and 

retinopathy.

Figure 5: U.S. Salmon Imports

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Thousand

P

ounds

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2006.
22 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Shrimp

U.S. Production

Shrimp farming in the United States includes production of marine shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and 

freshwater prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). 

Annual freshwater prawn production was approximately 100,000 pounds between 2001 and 2003, while 

production of marine shrimp is estimated to have been 

10.5 million pounds in 2004 (see figure 6). U.S. production of farmed shrimp grew rapidly between 1990 and 

2004 from 2 million pounds to 10.5 million pounds, a 

fivefold increase.

Farmed marine shrimp are produced in 11 states (up 

from three in 1993) and at more than 60 farms. Texas 

accounts for more than 60 percent of U.S. production. 

Florida, Hawaii, and South Carolina together account 

for an additional 25 percent. Production has been 

moving into new states, including Alabama, Arkansas, 

Kentucky, Michigan, and Florida. Freshwater prawn 

production takes place in 16 states in the South and 

Midwest. It is estimated that more than 500 small 

freshwater prawn farms are operating in the United 

States.

Modern shrimp farming began in the early 1970s. 

Farmed marine shrimp production in the United States 

was originally based in ponds located in coastal areas 

using brackish or inlet water. Since then, producers 

in Alabama, Arizona, and Texas have been able to 

take advantage of underground saltwater to establish 

ponds in inland locations; now, approximately 25 percent of marine shrimp production comes from inland 

farms. Although the majority of current marine shrimp 

production takes place in ponds, efforts are under 

way to move to more closed systems. Experiments 

Figure 6: U.S. Farmed Shrimp Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Millions Pounds

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 23

are taking place with biosecure raceway systems. 

Additionally, development of low-salinity production 

techniques are now allowing marine shrimp to be 

produced in indoor recirculating aquaculture systems 

(RAS). This is also allowing production in new areas, 

including states such as Kentucky, Michigan, and 

North Carolina.

Prawn farming techniques were developed in the 

1950s in Malaysia. Until the mid-1990s, freshwater 

prawn production did not seem economically viable 

in the United States, but improved management 

techniques have altered that assessment. Freshwater 

prawn production takes place in ponds. Because 

catfish ponds are adequate for production, some 

catfish producers are converting ponds to freshwater 

prawns or alternating catfish production with prawn 

production.

Within the farmed marine shrimp industry, there are 

specialized broodstock and seedstock producers. In 

the last decade, there has been significant effort to 

produce specific pathogen-free postlarvae (SPF PLs). 

These SPF PLs are guaranteed to be free from known 

viruses that cause disease, including baculovirus, 

infectious hypodermal hematopoietic necrosis virus 

(IHHNV), Taura syndrome virus (TSV), and WSSV. In the 

United States, broodstock producers are large-scale 

operations that use stock developed from extensive 

breeding programs. One large broodstock facility is 

located in Texas; other large facilities are located in 

Hawaii. By maintaining broodstock in tanks, seedstock can be produced year-round in these hatchery 

facilities. Fifty percent survival rates are common for 

seedstock. Between the hatchery and growout phases, 

postlarval shrimp undergo a nursery phase in ponds, 

raceway systems, or tanks lasting no more than 25 

days. Postlarval shrimp are moved from nursery ponds 

to growout operations (ponds or tanks). The growout 

period takes approximately 120 to 180 days.

In freshwater prawn production systems, broodstock 

are selected from the harvested crop and moved into 

indoor facilities. Suppliers dedicated to producing 

postlarvae and juvenile prawns have developed in the 

United States. Postlarval prawns undergo a nursery 

stage (45 to 60 days) before being placed in growout 

ponds. Within the United States, the nursery stage 

usually takes place in climate-controlled buildings. The 

growout period can last 110 to 140 days with 60 to 85 

percent survival rate. Well water is the preferred water 

source for prawn ponds.

Shrimp are carnivorous and require a high-protein 

diet. Shrimp feeds can contain more than 30 percent 

fishmeal by volume. Globally, shrimp farming is a 

significant user of fishmeal, accounting for more 

than 17 percent of all fishmeal used in aquatic feeds 

in 2000. In addition to fishmeal, feeds produced for 

shrimp and prawn may contain blood meal, feather 

meal, krill meal, meat and bone meal, and shrimp 

meal. Broodstock and larvae are generally fed live 

feeds such as Artemia, bloodworms, krill, and squid. 

Ongoing research continues to look for plant protein 

products that could be used to replace animal and fish 

protein in farmed shrimp diets. Probiotics are increasingly being used in shrimp diets.

Many notable diseases have occurred globally and 

in the United States during the last decade in marine 

shrimp farms. Among these diseases are those caused 

by IHHNV, hepatopancreatic parvo-like virus, TSV, yellowhead virus, WSSV, and necrotizing hepatopancre-
24 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

atitis bacteria. Disease spread within the United States 

on shrimp farms has been associated with waste from 

processing, bird depredation, and infected postlarvae. 

TSV is believed to have been spread as birds feed on 

ponds with diseased shrimp and then move to other 

ponds; TSV and IHHNV can survive in a bird’s digestive tract and be shed in its feces. An outbreak of TSV 

in Texas and South Carolina was caused by the use of 

infected postlarvae. Outbreaks of most of these diseases in the United States have been limited to localized areas. Disease has not been a problem to date in 

the freshwater prawn industry. Health certificates are 

required to move shrimp between some states.

In addition to the use of probiotics, shrimp producers 

globally are taking steps to reduce disease occurrences. These steps include fallowing ponds between 

shrimp crops; alternating shrimp production with crops 

of finfish, such as tilapia or milkfish (Philippines); and 

using disease-free, captive-bred postlarvae. U.S. 

marine shrimp producers have taken steps to improve 

biosecurity at their facilities to reduce contact with 

birds and other predators.

Veterinarians are not widely used by shrimp farmers. 

Two drugs are approved for use on shrimp: tricaine 

methanesulfonate (anesthetic) and formalin for treating 

protozoan parasites. No antibiotics are approved for 

shrimp. However, research on oxytetracycline (OTC) 

has been ongoing for many years, and the industry 

has submitted documentation to the FDA for approval 

of OTC to treat bacterial diseases in shrimp. Shrimp 

producers have access to laboratories for disease 

testing. The Aquaculture Pathology Laboratory at 

the University of Arizona is globally recognized for its 

shrimp disease diagnostic and certification services 

and is the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) 

reference laboratory for shrimp pathogens for North 

America.

In 2000, CSREES allotted more than $5 million to 

shrimp research. CSREES supports the U.S. Marine 

Shrimp Farming Program, which supports research on 

marine shrimp.

Marketing

In 2001, shrimp became the most consumed fish 

or shellfish in the United States, surpassing canned 

tuna. Since 1990, per capita shrimp consumption has 

almost doubled, increasing from 2.2 pounds to 4.0 

pounds per capita. Shrimp is a preferred seafood in 

the growing Hispanic and Asian populations in the 

United States.

Shrimp are not sold live in the United States, but 

they are often sold as fresh/frozen with the shell on. 

Shrimp processing generally does not take place on 

the farm. The number of shrimp processing plants in 

the United States has declined because of competition with imports. Research has shown that freshwater 

prawns can be live-hauled. Several shrimp farms 

have obtained organic certification from the USDA 

and are marketing organic shrimp. U.S. farm-raised 

shrimp have been rated as a Best Eco-Choice by the 

Environmental Defense organization.

Shrimp by-products have a number of uses. Chitin 

and chitosan are used in a number of human dietary 

supplement products. Shrimp meal (made from the 

heads and hulls) is used in livestock and fish feed, 

including shrimp diets. In diets for salmon and trout, 

shrimp meal can provide the pink coloration of the 

flesh. Shrimp meal or silage is also used in poultry and 

swine diets. Shrimp head waste is especially suitable 

for silage production.

International Production and Trade

China is the leading producer of farmed shrimp 

globally, having overtaken Thailand in 2001 (see table 

4). In 2005, Chinese production accounted for more 

than one-third of total global production. Thailand, 

Vietnam, and Indonesia are significant farmed shrimp 

producers; each produced approximately 14 percent, 

12 percent and 10 percent of world production, 

respectively, in 2005. Between 2003 and 2005 shrimp 

production in Myanmar grew 154 percent, while 

production in Mexico grew 58 percent, and production 

in Indonesia grew 46 percent. The processing sector 

is well-developed in many of these major producing 

countries. Thai shrimp processors are focusing on 
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 25

marketing value-added shrimp products, including 

ready-to-eat and cooked products. Freshwater prawn 

production worldwide is estimated to be around 

200,000 metric tons, with Bangladesh and China leading production.

Giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) have been the 

most common species farmed in Asia. They are native 

to the Indian Ocean and southwestern Pacific Ocean 

and are the largest and fastest growing of the farmed 

shrimp, but captive breeding can be difficult and they 

are susceptible to yellowhead disease and WSSV. 

Asian producers are switching to western white shrimp 

(L. vannamei), which is native to the Pacific coast of 

Central and South America.

International trade in shrimp accounted for 20 percent of the value of all seafood imports worldwide 

in 2000. U.S. imports of shrimp have risen steadily 

since the mid-1990s (see figure 7). Shrimp imports 

globally are increasingly from aquaculture compared 

with wild-caught (estimated at two-thirds). In 2004, 

the top five source countries for U.S. imports were (in 

decreasing order of import quantity): Thailand, China, 

Indonesia, India and Ecuador (see figure 8). Imports 

from these five countries accounted for approximately 

60 percent of total U.S. shrimp imports. In 2002, the 

United States imported shrimp from more than 60 

countries. Recent new source countries for shrimp 

include the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia. 

Shrimp imported into the United States are mostly 

whole, fresh/frozen. As a result of an antidumping 

ruling in 2004 by the International Trade Commission 

regarding Asian shrimp imports, U.S. processing plants 

may be negatively affected; however, U.S. producers 

could benefit from the new tariff structures.

The United States is an important exporter of 

SPF L. vannaemei seedstock.

Table 4: Top 10 Farmed Shrimp/Prawn-Producing 

Countries, 2005

Shrimp/Prawn

Country

Production in 

1,000 pounds

China 2,049,898

Thailand 750,640

Vietnam 654,400

Indonesia 559,078

India 286,340

Mexico 144,558

Brazil 126,268

Bangladesh 126,104

Ecuador 112,600

Myanmar 97,280

World Total 5,350,476

Note: Shrimp/Prawn include the following species: Akiami paste 

shrimp, Baltic prawn, Banana prawn, Blue shrimp, Brown tiger 

prawn, Caramote prawn, Eastern king prawn, Eastern school shrimp, 

Fleshy prawn, Giant tiger prawn, Greasyback shrimp, Green tiger 

prawn, Indian white prawn, Kuruma prawn, Metapenaeus shrimps 

nei, Natantian decapods nei, Northern white shrimp, Palaemonid 

shrimps nei, Penaeus shrimps nei, Redtail prawn, Southern white 

shrimp, and Whiteleg shrimp.

Source: FAO, Fishstat Plus, 2007.
26 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Figure 7: U.S. Shrimp Imports

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Thousand

P

ounds

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2006.

Figure 8: U.S. Shrimp Imports by Country, 2004 (1,000 pounds)

Mexico, 63,909

Ecuador, 82,691

Brazil, 20,343

India, 90,397

Bangladesh, 38,313

Thailand, 291,317

Vietnam, 81,788

Indonesia, 103,542

Philippines, 4,181

China, 145,450

Others, 219,207

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service 2005.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 27

Tilapia

U.S. Production

Tilapia were introduced into the United States in the 

1950s. The first uses of tilapia were for display in 

aquariums and for weed control. Commercial aquaculture production of tilapia for food began in the 1980s. 

In the United States, tilapia are no longer used for 

weed control, having been replaced by grass carp.

The only census of tilapia producers in the United 

States was conducted in 1998 as part of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Census of Aquaculture. 

That census identified more than 100 tilapia producers 

in the United States. Production was reported in many 

states, with California accounting for more than 25 

percent. Tilapia production is restricted or prohibited in 

many states because of concerns about tilapia becoming established in natural waterways.

In 2004, 20 million pounds of tilapia were produced in 

the United States with a value of approximately $40 

million (see figure 9). Leading producing states in 2005 

include California, Idaho, Florida, Delaware, Maryland, 

West Virginia, and North Carolina; one large producer 

is located in New York. About a dozen farms account 

for more than 90 percent of U.S. production. Tilapia 

production is clustered in areas such as the Coachella 

Valley and Snake River Valley in California and Idaho, 

respectively, around the Houston and San Antonio 

areas in Texas, and the Orlando area in Florida.

Tilapia are tropical fish and require warm water with 

optimal growth occurring in water between 77 and 

86 degrees Fahrenheit (25 and 30 degrees Celsius). 

The number of tilapia species being farmed is declining globally and in the United States. Nile tilapia 

(Oreochromis niloticus) and red tilapia (a hybrid) are 

Figure 9: U.S. Farmed Tilapia Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Millions Pounds

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.
28 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

the predominant species farmed because of their 

larger size and lighter flesh color. Tilapia reach market 

size in approximately 12 months. Tilapia require 25 to 

30 percent protein in their diets. Their diets contain 

fishmeal and fish oil. Experiments are under way using 

pelleted poultry meal to meet the protein requirements.

It is estimated that up to 90 percent of U.S. tilapia 

production takes place in RAS tanks; however, only 

about 60 percent of these facilities are enclosed. 

Tilapia production in Idaho takes place in a raceway 

system, and some pond production of tilapia takes 

place in southern Florida. Geothermal water is often 

used as the water source. Industrial waste heat and 

greenhouses are used in the United States to heat the 

water. Geothermal water use is common in the West, 

compared with the industrial waste heat sources used 

in the North and the greenhouses used in the South. 

Stocking rates for younger fish are high. Recirculating 

tank systems use specialized equipment for water 

filtration and oxygen infusion. Production is becoming 

more intensive as improvements are made in diets, 

aeration, water reuse, and disease control. The largest 

one-third of producers must comply with the new EPA 

Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production regulations, 

which established requirements for discharge of water 

and waste from the facility.

The opportunity for contact with pathogens occurs 

primarily from the introduction of new stock or inputs, 

such as feed, and water inflow. Research on biosecurity 

practices at recirculation facilities suggests that many 

of the facility managers are college educated with 10 

years of related work experience. More than 90 percent 

of the surveyed operations kept records. Eighty percent 

of producers have on-site hatcheries, but specialization 

is increasing within the industry, so the percentage of 

producers purchasing stock from hatcheries is also 

increasing. Some broodstock arrives internationally from 

Africa and Southeast Asia via the ornamental fish trade. 

Health certificates are required to move fish between 

some states. Studies indicate that when new fish are 

introduced they are quarantined in isolated areas of the 

tank sharing the water supply rather than sequestered

in isolated water supplies. Most operations use all-in/

all-out production and routinely collect mortalities. In 

the United States, polyculture with catfish, shrimp, and 

striped bass is limited (less than 10 percent of tilapia 

producers). In shrimp production systems, tilapia are 

thought to reduce disease. Other polyculture trials have 

taken place with perch and freshwater prawns.

Tilapia are a hardy species and can withstand poor 

water quality. Tilapia are not considered to be susceptible to any OIE-listed fish diseases. Most species 

of tilapia are susceptible to Streptococcosis iniae for 

which a vaccine is available, but this vaccine is not yet 

approved for use in the United States. Parasites have 

been a problem within the industry in the past, and S. 

iniae is currently a problem for the U.S. industry. Tilapia 

are susceptible to diseases affecting cichlids, which 

make up a large portion of the ornamental fish industry 

and many of which originate in the wild. Veterinarians 

are not widely used by the industry; studies indicate 

that 75 percent of producers used nonveterinary fish 

health specialists.

CSREES funded $1.25 million of research projects for 

tilapia in 2000. Research needs identified for tilapia 

include the following: drugs, genetics, hormone use, 

infectious diseases, and nutrition.

Marketing

Tilapia consumption is increasing steadily in the United 

States. Tilapia was the tenth most popular seafood 
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 29

consumed in the United States in 2001 and climbed to 

eighth in 2003. The American Tilapia Association reports 

that tilapia is currently in sixth place. Tilapia is gaining 

wider placement in supermarkets and food service 

establishments within the United States and competes 

with catfish and other fillets. Some experts have speculated that tilapia will eventually become one of the top 

three most consumed fish in the United States.

In the United States, tilapia are generally marketed live 

to restaurants and seafood markets in large urban areas 

that sell to ethnic populations, especially Asian and 

Hispanic. Surveys of U.S. tilapia producers in the late 

1990s indicated that only 5 percent of U.S. tilapia production was sold to distributors and processors; sales 

generally are from individual farms to retailers. Major 

markets for U.S. production are in Chicago, Dallas, 

Houston, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, 

and Vancouver. Past attempts in the United States to 

run a processing plant with contract growers failed.

International Production and Trade

Growing consumption of tilapia in the United States 

is being met largely through imports. In 2003, U.S. 

consumers accounted for approximately 11 percent 

of world tilapia production. U.S. imports of tilapia 

have increased rapidly, growing more than sevenfold 

between 1995 and 2004 (see figure 10). Imports 

dwarf U.S. domestic production of tilapia; in 2002, 

tilapia imports outpaced domestic production by a 

7-to-1 ratio.

In 2004, the United States imported tilapia from 29 

countries. In the mid to late 1990s, Taiwan (China) was 

the dominant supplier of tilapia to the United States, 

supplying approximately 80 percent each year from 

Figure 10: U.S. Tilapia Imports

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Thousand

P

ounds

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service 2005; USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2006.
30 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

1995 to 1998. China surpassed Taiwan (China) as the 

largest exporter to the United States in 2002. In 2004, 

China supplied more than half of the tilapia imported. 

Other important suppliers in 2004 included Costa Rica, 

Ecuador, Honduras, and Indonesia.

Frozen whole fish are the predominant form of tilapia 

imported (see figure 11), but imports of fresh and frozen fillets have been growing rapidly. Live fish are not 

imported. China and Taiwan (China) provide most of 

the whole frozen fish (99 percent in 2004). Fresh fillets 

are provided by Central and South American countries 

with Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Honduras leading (47, 

19, and 19 percent in 2004, respectively). Fresh fillets 

are being imported from China (9 percent in 2004). 

China is currently the largest supplier of frozen tilapia 

fillets (77 percent in 2004). Approximately one-third 

of each whole tilapia is processed into fillets. Formed 

fish products are made from the meat recovered after 

the fillets are removed. Tilapia by-products have been 

used in some poultry feeds.

Tilapia are farmed in more than 100 countries; however, China accounts for nearly 50 percent of worldwide production (see table 5). Other leading producing 

countries include Egypt, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

and Thailand (in decreasing order of production, 2005). 

Between 2003 and 2005, tilapia production increased 

by more than 20 percent in Honduras, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, Taiwan (China), and Malaysia. Brazilian 

tilapia production is currently used to stock fee-based 

fishing operations in Brazil.

Production in China, Taiwan (China), and Thailand is 

generally carried out in polyculture often with carp and 

sometimes shrimp. In Taiwan (China) and Thailand, 

production is often integrated with livestock production such as fish-chicken, fish-duck, and fish-pig 

systems. Reports indicate that human waste has been 

used to fertilize water in Asia, but details on the extent 

of this practice are not available.

Figure 11: Tilapia Import Breakdown 2004

Whole Frozen

50%

Fresh Fillets

19%

Frozen Fillets

31%

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service 2005.

Table 5: Top 10 Farmed Tilapia-Producing 

Countries, 2005

Tilapia

Country

Production in 

1,000 pounds

China 1,956,270

Egypt 434,038

Indonesia 379,140

Philippines 326,008

Thailand 219,484

Taiwan Province of China 166,870

Brazil 135,702

Malaysia 57,270

Honduras 56,752

Colombia 55,906

World Total 4,051,118

Note: Tilapia include the following species: Blackchin tilapia, 

Blue tilapia, Longfin tilapia, Mango tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, 

Nile tilapia, Redbelly tilapia, Redbreast tilapia, Sabaki tilapia, 

Three-spotted tilapia, and Tilapias nei.

Source: FAO, Fishstat Plus, 2007.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 31

Trout

U.S. Production

Farmed trout in the United States are produced for 

three primary markets: food, conservation and restoration, and recreational fishing. Because of these 

multiple market segments, trout are marketed or 

distributed in a variety of sizes. In 2004, 73 percent 

of food-size trout were sold to processors and 17 

percent to fee-based fishing operations (see table 6), 

while the remaining 10 percent went nearly equally 

to live-haulers, direct to consumers, other producers, retail, and government. For stocker-size fish, 

49 percent were sold to fee-based fishing operations, 

15 percent to government, and 12 percent to other 

producers. Trout farming is carried out by the private 

sector and the government (State and Federal). Many 

government hatcheries distribute fish for conservation 

and restoration or recreational purposes.

U.S. farmed trout production is characterized by a few 

very large facilities and many small operations. The 

largest 20 percent of private farms account for more 

than 85 percent of total sales. Many of the largest 

private facilities are in Idaho. Idaho produced nearly 

half of the trout (by value) in 2004. Other states with 

significant numbers of production facilities include 

Pennsylvania (202 facilities), North Carolina (72 facilities), California (52 facilities), New York (52 facilities), 

and Oregon (51 facilities). Rainbow trout are the 

predominant species farmed; however, eastern brook 

Table 6: Trout Food-Size Fish Sales, Percentage Sold by Point of First Sale for Selected States, 2004

Live 

Haulers

Fee/Rec 

Fishing

Other 

Producers Government

Direct to 

Consumer Processors

Restaurant 

& Retail Other

CA * 91 * * * * * *

CO * 59 - * - - * -

CT - * - - * - - -

GA * * - - * * * -

ID * * * * * 98 * *

ME * * - - * - * -

MA * 72 * * * - * -

MI 21 45 * * 6 7 * *

MO * * * * * * *

NC * * * * 7 83 3 *

NY * 48 - - 16 * 3 8

OR 8 12 * * 8 - * *

PA 2 71 17 1 2 * * -

TN - * * - * * * -

UT 14 47 - - 18 * * -

VA - 61 * - 19 * * -

WA * 4 * 4 - 89 - *

WV * 47 * * 6 * * *

WI * 14 * - 8 * 9 -

Other States 15 27 7 10 5 27 8 1

U.S. Total 2.3 17.4 1.8 1.5 2.1 73.4 1.4 0.1

* = Included in “Other States” to avoid disclosure of individual operations

- = Not available or zero

Source: USDA:NASS Trout Production, February 2005
32 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

trout and European brown trout are produced in limited 

numbers on some farms. Different species of trout can 

be cultured together.

The amount of trout produced for food in the United 

States has remained largely unchanged for more than 

a decade (see figure 12). Trout production peaked at 

60 million pounds in 1999. Trout compete with salmon 

and, to some extent, with newer species such as 

tilapia in the marketplace. Trout prices have been in a 

long-term price decline because of this competition.

Cultured trout production has existed in the United 

States since the late 1800s when Federal hatcheries were established to stock waterways. The trout 

industry expanded significantly in the 1970s and 1980s 

with the development of pelleted feeds. Today, more 

than 90 percent of the trout produced in the United 

States are produced in raceway systems. In these 

systems, water from lakes, springs, streams, or wells is 

diverted through concrete or earthen pens. Production 

in earthen ponds continues on a number of small 

farms, but additional trout production in freshwater 

and saltwater net pen systems is limited. Increases in 

production are limited by the availability of cold, clean 

water and waste management issues. Waste from 

raceway production is often returned to the surface 

water source. Trout produced in flow-through systems 

must comply with the EPA Concentrated Aquatic 

Animal Production regulation if more than 100,000 

pounds of fish are produced at the facility annually and 

the facility discharges waste directly into U.S. waters. 

The EPA regulation establishes substantial requirements for the treatment of waste and water discharged 

from the facility.

Some trout producers specialize in certain segments 

of the industry. Trout eggs are generally produced at 

dedicated broodstock operations and then are shipped 

to trout producers in the United States and internationally. In 2004, the State of Washington accounted for 96 

percent of the trout eggs sold. Once shipped to producers, the resulting fry are generally kept in indoor ponds 

or tanks before being transferred to raceways when 

they reach fingerling size. In the Southern United States, 

producers often purchase fingerlings from dedicated 
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 33

producers. In 2004, more than 50 percent of the fingerlings sold were from North Carolina. An additional 

13 percent were sold from California and Washington 

(combined total). New trends in production include the 

use of triploids (reproductively sterile fish). Triploids are 

preferred for aquaculture species in situations in which 

the potential exists for escape into wild waterways.

Trout require diets that are 45 to 50 percent protein. 

Fishmeal currently provides approximately half of 

this protein; soybean meal is sometimes used to 

meet these protein needs. Ongoing research is 

examining ways to replace fishmeal in trout diets with 

plant-based products.

Potential contact with pathogens occurs through feed, 

introductions of new stock, predators, and untreated 

water diverted into the facility. Water used in trout 

raceways is most often from aquifers and therefore 

does not need treatment. In spite of high-quality water, 

IHN virus, coldwater disease, and enteric red mouth 

disease have been important sources of loss. Health 

certificates are required to move fish between some 

states.

The use of veterinarians within the trout industry is 

higher than in some other fish industries. Laboratory 

testing is available. In raceway production, mortalities 

are removed on a daily basis and production records 

are kept. Despite the use of health professionals and 

management practices, production losses can be 

substantial. According to an Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service Agricultural Research Service Risk 

Management Agency study, producers report that two 

to three and a half eggs are required to get one fish to 

market. NASS data indicate that, in 2004, total losses 

Figure 12: U.S. Farmed Trout Production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Millions Pounds

Source: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service 2004.
34 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

of all trout intended for sale numbered 22 million. Of 

these 22 million, 73 percent were reported lost to 

disease, 12 percent to flooding, and 10 percent to 

predators.

Trout production in the United States has been 

affected by the following: (1) viral pathogens, including 

IHHNV, and IPN virus; (2) bacterial pathogens, including Flavobacterium psychrophilum, enteric Yersinia 

ruckeri, Flavobacterium columnare, Aeromonas salmonicida, and Flavobacterium branchiophilum; and (3) 

trematode and protozoan parasites such as Myxobolus 

cerebralis. Hatcheries often suffer severe losses from 

fungal diseases. The FDA has approved two antibiotics 

for use in salmonids: OTC and a potentiated sulfonamide (Romet). Treatment options for some diseases 

are limited, however, which makes vaccine development a critical need for trout producers. Several important pathogens of salmonids are not currently present 

in the United States, including the epizootic hematopoietic necrosis (EHN) virus, Oncorhynchus masou

virus, and the freshwater ectoparasite Gyrodactylus 

salaris. Disease outbreaks such as furunculosis, IPN, 

and trematode infestations have occurred in trout 

hatcheries because of avian and mammalian predators 

serving as mechanical and biological vectors.

USDA:CSREES invests significant funding in research 

for cultured aquatics. In 2000, research on trout represented 7 percent of total research funds. Research 

is generally focused on genetic selection and disease 

vectors ($2.25 million for all salmonids).

Marketing

Collectively, trout are not among the top 10 fish 

consumed in the United States. Trout compete with 

salmon in the restaurant market. Domestic trout 

(farmed and wild-caught) supply most of the U.S. 

market; imports represent only a small share of U.S. 

supplies. The wild-caught trout’s share of the domestic 

supply is unknown because numbers caught are not 

reported.

Idaho’s trout production supplies the retail trout market 

in the United States. In 2004, virtually all of the farmed 

trout sold in Idaho (98 percent) was sold to processors, 

while in California and Colorado, farmers sold most 

of their fish to fee-based fishing operations (see table 

6). In the Eastern United States, some producers also 

rely on direct sales and fee-based fishing operations; 

producers in North Carolina sell most of their trout to 

processors. Some large trout farms have on-farm processing facilities. Live transport of trout to restaurants 

and direct sales to consumers are limited.

The U.S. Trout Farmers Association established a Trout 

Producers Quality Assurance Program. Some organic 

trout is produced in the United States. The USDA is 

working to develop organic standards for farmed fish. 

Given the lack of such a program, only third-party certifications are available in the United States. Organic 

production is more prevalent in other countries.

By-product utilization is an important issue for all fish 

species. Research is under way to create value-added 

products for human food use from trout by-products, 

such as surimi and fish oil. To date, however, these 

products have not been cost-effective to produce.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 35

International Production and Trade

The United States imports live trout. Until 2000, these 

trout were almost exclusively imported from Canada. 

In 2002, live trout began arriving from Australia and, 

as of 2004, imports from Australia and Canada were 

equivalent on a value basis. The United States imports 

whole trout both fresh/chilled and frozen as well as 

frozen trout fillets. In 2004, imports of whole fish were 

slightly above imports of fillets (2,173 metric tons 

versus 1,719 metric tons). Canada is the principal supplier of fresh/chilled and frozen whole trout, supplying 

approximately 40 percent of each in 2004. Other major 

suppliers of fresh/chilled whole fish in 2004 include 

Colombia, Iceland, and Argentina (a combined 42 

percent of total imports, in descending order). Major 

suppliers of frozen whole trout (in addition to Canada) 

include Argentina, Chile, Denmark, and Norway (a 

combined 46 percent of total imports, in descending 

order). The United States also imports frozen trout 

fillets. Until 2001, Argentina was the leading supplier 

of frozen trout fillets. From 2002 to 2003, U.S. imports 

from Chile were more than double the quantities from 

Argentina. Imports from Chile in 2004 were reduced. 

Other important suppliers of frozen trout fillets include 

Guyana and Uruguay. In 2004, the United States 

imported trout fillets from China for the first time.

Recently, Chile has become the leading global producer of farmed trout, followed by Norway (22 and 

11 percent of global production in 2005, respectively) 

(see table 7). In 2005, the United States was the eighth 

largest farmed trout producer worldwide. Production 

in Iran grew 50 percent between 2003 and 2005, while 

production in Turkey increased 21 percent.

Table 7: Top 10 Farmed Trout-Producing Countries, 

2005

Trout

Country

Production in 

1,000 pounds

Chile 236,558

Norway 117,562

Turkey 98,564

Denmark 73,586

Iran (Islamic Rep. of) 69,520

France 64,824

Italy 61,116

United States of America 55,008

Spain 51,918

Germany 38,686

World Total 1,092,542

Note: Trout include the following species: Brook trout, Rainbow 

trout, and Trouts nei.

Source: FAO, Fishstat Plus, 2007.
36 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Agriculture Research Service (USDA) ARS

bacterial kidney disease BKD

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (USDA) CSREES

Exclusive Economic Zone EEZ

epizootic hematopoietic necrosis EHN

Environmental Protection Agency EPA

enteric redmouth (disease) ERM

enteric septicemia of catfish ESC

Food and Drug Administration FDA

hybrid striped bass HSB

infectious hypodermal hematopoietic necrosis virus IHHNV

infectious hematopoietic necrosis IHN

infectious pancreatic necrosis IPN

infectious salmon anemia ISA

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (United States) JSA

koi herpesvirus KHV

National Agriculture Statistics Service (USDA) NASS

National Animal Health Monitoring System (USDA) NAHMS

National Aquatic Animal Health Plan (United States) NAAHP

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (EPA) NPDES

oxytetracycline OTC

proliferative gill disease PGD

recirculating aquaculture systems RAS

specific pathogen-free postlarvae SPF PLs

Taura syndrome virus TSV

United States Department of Agriculture USDA

white spot shrimp virus WSSV

World Organisation for Animal Health OIE

Appendix A: List of Acronyms for Phase I
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 37

Antia, R.; Regoes, R.R.; Koella, J.C.; Bergstrom, C.T. 2003. 

The role of evolution in the emergence of infectious diseases. 

Nature 426: 658–659.

Brown, C. 2004. Emerging Zoonoses and Pathogens of 

Public Health Significance—An Overview. In: King, L.J., ed. 

Emerging zoonoses and pathogens of public health concern. 

Revue Scientifique et Technique 23: 435–442.

Durand, S.V.; Tank, K.F.J.; Lightner, D.V. 2000. Frozen 

commodity shrimp: potential avenue for introduction of 

white spot syndrome virus and yellow head virus. Journal of 

Aquatic Animal Health 12: 128–135.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations). 2004. World review of fisheries and aquaculture. 

The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fisheries 

Department. <http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.

asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5600e/y5600e00.htm>.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations). Glossary of aquaculture. <http://www.fao.

org/fi/glossary/aquaculture/>.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations). 2006. Fishstat Plus: universal software for viewing 

fishery statistical time series. <http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/fisoft/fishplus.asp>.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations). 2007. FAOSTAT. <http://faostat.fao.org/default.

aspx>.

Ghittino. C.; Latini, M.; Agnetti, F.; Panzieri, C.; Lauro, L.; 

Ciapelloni, R.; Petracca, G. 2003. Emerging pathologies 

in aquaculture: effects on production and food safety. 

Veterinary Research Communications 27 Suppl: 471–479.

Gilad, O.; Yun, S.; Adkison, M.A.; Way, K.; Willits, N.H.; 

Bercovier, H.; Hedrick, R.P. 2003. Molecular comparison of 

isolates of an emerging fish pathogen, koi herpesvirus, and 

the effect of water temperature on mortality of experimentally 

infected koi. Journal of General Virology 84: 2661–2668.

Go, J.; Lancaster, M.; Deece, K.; Dhungyel, O.; Whittington, 

R. 2006. The molecular epidemiology of iridovirus in Murray 

cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) and dwarf gourami (Colisa 

lalia) from distant biogeographical regions suggests a link 

between trade in ornamental fish and emerging iridoviral 

diseases. Molecular and Cellular Probes 20: 212–222.

Gupta, S.; Ferguson, N.; Anderson, R. 1998. Chaos, persistence, and evolution of strain structure in antigenically 

diverse infectious agents. Science 280: 912–915.

Hastein, T.; Hill, B.J.; Winton J.R. 1999. Successful aquatic 

animal disease emergency programmes. Revue Scientifique 

et Technique 18: 214–227.

King, L.J.; Marano, N.; Hughes, J.M. 2004. New partnerships 

between animal health services and public health agencies. 

In: King, L.J., ed. Emerging zoonoses and pathogens of 

public health concern. Revue Scientifique et Technique 23: 

717–726.

Kuiken, T.; Holmes, E.C.; McCauley, J.; Rimmelzwaan, G.F.; 

Williams, C.S.; Grenfell, B.T. 2006. Host species barriers to 

influenza virus infections. Science 312: 394–397.

Lederberg, J.; Shope, R.E.; Oakes, S.C. 1992. Emerging 

infections: microbial threats to health in the United States. 

National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Lightner, D.V.; Redman, R.M.; Poulos, B.T.; Nunan, L.M.; 

Mari, J.L.; Hasson, K.W. 1997. Risk of spread of penaeid 

shrimp viruses in the Americas by the international movement of live and frozen shrimps. Revue of Science and 

Technique 16: 146–160.

Linthicum, K.J.; Anyamba, A.; Tucker, C.J.; Kelley, P.W.; 

Myers, M.F.; Peters, C.J. 1990. Climate and satellite indicators to forecast Rift Valley fever epidemics in Kenya. Science 

285: 397–400.

Mauel, M.J.; Miller, D.L. 2002. Piscirickettsiosis and 

piscirickettsiosis-like infections in fish: a review. Veterinary 

Microbiology 87: 279–289.

References Cited
38 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Mjaaland, S.; Hungness, O.; Teig, A.; Dannevig, B.H.; Thorud, 

K.; Rimstad, E. 2002. Polymorphism in the Infectious salmon 

anemia virus hemaglutinin gene: importance and possible 

implications for evolution and ecology of infectious salmon 

anemia disease. Virology 304: 379–391.

Morse, S.S. 1995. Factors in the emergence of infectious 

diseases. Emerging Infectious Diseases 1: 7–15.

Murray, A.G.; Peeler, E.J. 2005. A framework for understanding the potential for emerging diseases in aquaculture. 

Preventive Veterinary Medicine 67: 223–235.

Myers, M.F.; Rogers, D.J.; Cox, J.; Flahault, A.; Hay, S.I. 

2000. Forecasting disease risk for increased epidemic 

preparedness in public health. Advances in Parasitology 47: 

173–215.

National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force. 2003, October 

20. Development of a National Aquatic Animal Health Plan. 

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. <http://www.aphis.

usda.gov/vs/aqua/pdf/elements_naahp.pdf>.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Fisheries of the 

United States 2004. <http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1>.

Nylund, A.; Devold, M.; Plarre, H.; Isdal, E.; Aarseth, M. 2003. 

Emergence and maintenance of infectious salmon anaemia 

virus (ISAV) in Europe: a new hypothesis. Diseases of Aquatic 

Organisms 56: 11–24.

OIE (Office International des Epizooties) Collaborating Centre 

for Information on Aquatic Diseases Web site. 2006. <http://

www.collabcen.net/about.htm>.

Peeler, E.J.; Gardiner, R.; Thrush, M.A. 2004. Qualitative 

risk assessment of routes of transmission of the exotic fish 

parasite gyrodactylus salaries between river catchments 

in England and Wales. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 64: 

175–189.

Ruiz, G.M.; Rawlings, T.K.; Dobbs, F.C.; Drake, L.A.; Mullady, 

T.; Huq, A.; Colwell, R.R. 2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature 408: 49.

Smolinski, M.S.; Hamburg, M.A.; Lederberg, J., eds. 2003. 

Microbial threats to health: emergence, detection, and 

response. Institute of Medicine, The National Academies 

Press, Washington DC.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. Setting a course 

for sustainable marine aquaculture. Chapter 22 in An Ocean 

Blueprint for the 21st Century, 330–336. Final report.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, National Aquaculture 

Program Web site. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/aqua/

index.html>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Regional 

Aquaculture Centers Web site. <http://www.msstate.

edu/dept/srac/theracs.htm>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

2001 Import’s Share of U.S. Diet Rises in Late 1990s. 

Global Food Trade. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

FoodReview/septdec01/FRv24i3c.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. 2005 March 29. Aquaculture Outlook. <http://usda.

mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1375>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Centers for 

Epidemiology and Animal Health, National Animal Health 

Monitoring System, Fort Collins, CO. 2003. Part I: Reference 

of Fingerling Catfish Health and Production Practices in the 

United States. #N406.1103.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 

2006. U.S. Trade Internet System. <http://www.fas.usda.

gov/ustrade/>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 2005, February 3. Catfish Production. 

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 2005 February 25. Trout Production. 

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp>.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2006. Minor Use Minor 

Species Act. <http://www.fda.gov/cvm/minortoc.htm>.

Wilson, M.E.; Levins, R.; Spielman, A. ., eds. 1994. Disease 

in Evolution: Global Changes and Emergence of Infectious 

Diseases. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 

New York.

Yoshimizu, M. 1996. Disease problems of salmonid fish in 

Japan caused by international trade. Revue of Science and 

Technique 15: 533–549
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 39

Abdelghany, A.E. 2003. Partial and complete replacement 

of fish meal with gambusia meal in diets for red tilapia, 

Oreochromis niloticus × O.mossambicus. Aquaculture 

Nutrition 9:145–154.

Agbayani, R.F.; Belleza, E.T.; Agbayani, E.C. 1997. 

Aquaculture economics in Asia and the Pacific: a regional 

assessment. In: Charles, A.T.; Agbayani, R.F.; Agüero, M.; 

Belleza, E.T.; González, E.; Stomal, B.; Weigel, J.-Y., eds. 

Aquaculture Economics in Developing Countries: Regional 

Assessments and an Annotated Bibliography. FAO Fisheries 

Circular No. 932 FIRI/C932. <http://www.sadl.uleth.

ca/nz/collect/faodocs/import/www.fao.org/docrep/w7387e/

W7387E04.htm>.

Agüero, M.; González, E. 1997. Aquaculture economics in 

Latin America and the Caribbean: a regional assessment. 

In: Charles, A.T.; Agbayani, R.F.; Agüero, M.; Belleza, E.T.; 

González, E.; Stomal, B.; Weigel, J.-Y., eds. Aquaculture 

Economics in Developing Countries: Regional Assessments 

and an Annotated Bibliography. FAO Fisheries Circular 

No. 932 FIRI/C932. <http://www.sadl.uleth.ca/nz/collect/

faodocs/import/www.fao.org/docrep/w7387e/W7387E03.

htm>.

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station; Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management; Auburn 

University; Alabama Fish Farming Center; and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 2004. Additional best management practices for 

Alabama aquaculture. Special Report No. 3.

Alabama Farmers Federation. 2005. Chapter 3, 

Environmental law, 32–42. In: Ag Law and You: Alabama 

Farmers Agricultural Law Guidebook, 2nd edition.

Allan, G. 1998. Fish meal replacement in aquaculture 

feeds: sub-program administration. Final report to Fisheries 

Research and Development Corporation, Project Number 

93/120, New South Wales Fisheries Final Report Series No. 

7.

Allshouse, J.; Buzby, J.C.; Harvey, D.; Zorn, D. 2003. 

International trade and food safety. In: Buzby, J.C., ed. 

International Trade and Food Safety: Economic Theory and 

Case Studies. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. 

AER828.

American Falls Fish Hatchery Web site. <http://imnh.isu.

edu/digitalatlas/geog/fishery/hatchery/af.htm>.

American Tilapia Association Web site. <http://ag.arizona.

edu/azaqua/ata.html>.

Amos, K.; Blair, M.; Rolland, J. 2004. Update on the 

National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force on aquaculture. 

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Veterinary Services

Anderson, J.L., ed. 2003. The International Seafood Trade. 

Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.

Aquaculture Network Information Centre Web site. <http://

www.aquanic.org>.

Aquafeed Web site. Glossary. <http://www.aquafeed.

com/glossary.php>.

Arsenault, M.; Beigbeder, T.; Johnson, N.; Pearce, K.; McVey, 

J.P. 2002. Current and future regulation of marine aquaculture. Report submitted to Prof. Susan Vernon-Gerstenfeld 

and Prof. Ronald R. Biederman, Washington Project Center.

Baker, A. 2001 May 15. Breakthrough in spawning of captive 

ling may benefit both aquaculture, recreational fishing. On 

Campus, The University of Texas at Austin, Vol 28(07).

Barton, J. 2004 March 26. Saltwater fish being raised outside 

ocean. Washington Post.

Bechtel, P.J., ed. 2003. Review of: Advances in seafood byproducts: 2002 conference proceedings. Alaska Sea Grant 

Publications.

Beem, M. No date. Permits and regulations affecting 

Oklahoma fish producers. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension 

Service Current Report No. CR-9203. Oklahoma State 

University.

Bell, J.G.; McEvoy, J.; Tocher, D.R.; McGhee, F.; Campbell, 

P.J.; Sargent, J.R. 2001. Replacement of fish oil with rapeseed oil in diets of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) affects 

tissue lipid compositions and hepatocyte fatty acid metabolism. The Journal of Nutrition 131: 1535–1543.

Background Sources
40 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Bennett, D. 2003. A different kind of fish story. <http://deltafarmpress.com/news/farming_different_kind_fish>.

BioMare Web site. Alien species in marine environment. 

<http://www.biomareweb.org/downloads/alien_sp.pdf>.

Bladholm, L. 2004. Glades farm bass popular with chefs. 

Gippsland Aquaculture Industry Network, Inc. <http://www.

growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentID=2493>.

Bluemink, E. 2004 July 15. Cod fishermen lose to farms. 

Juneau Empire State News.

Bondad-Reantaso, M.G.; Subasinghe, R.P.; Arthur, J.R.; 

Ogawa, K.; Chinabut, S.; Adlard, R.; Tan, Z.; Shariff, M. 

2005. Disease and health management in Asian aquaculture. 

Veterinary Parasitology 132: 249–272.

Boyd, C.E. 1999. Codes of practice for responsible shrimp 

farming. Global Aquaculture Alliance, St. Louis, MO.

Boyd, C.E. 2003a. Guidelines for aquaculture effluent management at the farm level. Aquaculture 226: 101–112.

Boyd, C.E. 2003b. The status of codes of practice in aquaculture. World Aquaculture 34(2): 63–66.

Boyd, C.E.; Hutcher, R. 2001 Fall. Setting standards: best 

management practices established for channel catfish 

farmers in Alabama. In: Highlights, the research magazine 

of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station at Auburn 

University.

Boyd, C.E.; Queiroz, J.F.; Whitis, G.N.; Hulcher, R.; Oakes, 

P.; Carlisle, J.; Odom, Jr., D.; Nelson, M.M.; Hemstreet, 

W.G. 2003. Best management practices for channel catfish 

farming in Alabama. Alabama Agricultural Experiment 

Station; Alabama Catfish Producers; Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management; Auburn University; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. Special Report No. 1.

Breck, O.; Bjerkås, E.; Campbell, P.; Arnesen, P.; Haldorsen, 

P.; Waagbø, R. 2003. Cataract preventative role of mammalian blood meal, histidine, iron and zinc in diets for Atlantic 

salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture Nutrition 9: 341–350.

Bridgman, G.K. 1998. Waterbird predation at four northern 

Minnesota aquaculture sites. Master’s thesis. Bemidji State 

University, MN.

Buck, E.H. 2003. Fishery, aquaculture, and marine mammal legislation in the 108th Congress. CRS Issue Brief No. 

IB10109.

Burden, D. 2005. Hybrid striped bass. Agricultural 

Marketing Resource Center. <http://www.agmrc.

org/agmrc/commodity/aquaculture/hybridstripedbass>.

Burtle, G.J.; Dorman, L.W.; Gray, D.L. 1987. Baitfish production in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Cooperative State Research Service, Extension Service 

and Land Grant University Cooperating Extension Services, 

Aquaculture Technical Series.

Business SA (South Australia), Environmental Services Unit; 

South Australian Environmental Protection Authority. 2004. 

Inland aquaculture: Improving economic and environmental 

efficiency. Inland Aquaculture Association of South Australia. 

<http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/inland_aquaculture.pdf>.

Buttner, J.K.; Soderburg, R.W.; Terlizzi, D.E. 1993. An 

introduction to water chemistry in freshwater aquaculture. 

Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center, Fact Sheet No. 

170–1993.

Cain, K.; Garling, D. 1993. Trout culture in the North Central 

Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Fact 

Sheet Series No. 108.

Canada Aquaculture Industry Alliance Web site. <http://www.

aquaculture.ca>.

Carlberg, J.M.; Massingill, M.J.; Chamberlain, R.J.; Van 

Olst, J.C. 2004. Current status and future trends of hybrid 

striped bass culture in the U.S. (1987–2004). Kent SeaTech 

Corporation. <http://aquanic.org/sbga/HSversion5.ppt>.

Carlberg, J.M.; Van Olst, J.C. No date. U.S. production 

and sales of hybrid striped bass (1987–2003): 17 years of 

commercial sales. Kent SeaTech Corporation. PowerPoint 

presentation. <http://aquanic.org/sbga/HSBversion5ppt>.

Carlberg, J.M.; Van Olst, J.C.; Massingill, M.J. 2000. 

Hybrid striped bass: an important fish in U.S. aquaculture. 

Aquaculture Magazine 26 (5): 26–31.

Carlberg, J.M.; Westerman, M.E.; Ostland, V.E.; Stannard, 

J.A.; Massingill, M.J.; Van Olst, J.C. 2004. Application of 

biotechnology to intensive hybrid striped bass aquaculture. 

Presentation given at the Plant and Animal Genomes XII 

Conference, San Diego, CA, January 10–14. <http://www.

intl-pag.org/pag/12/abstracts/W06_PAG12_20.html>.

Cascorbi, A. 2004. Farm-raised shrimp: worldwide overview. 

Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Shrimp, Vol. III. <http://

www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_

SeafoodWatch_FarmedShrimpReport.pdf>.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 41

Chea, T. 2002. Finally, fish oil to be added to baby formulas 

in U.S. <http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/26/fish_oil_formula.htm>.

Cheng, Z.J.; Hardy, R.W.; Blair, M. 2003. Effects of supplementing methionine hydroxyl analogue in soybean meal and 

distiller’s dried grain-based diets on the performance and 

nutrient retention of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss

(Walbaum)).Aquaculture Research 34: 1303–1310.

Chew, K. 2002. Serge Doroshov & sturgeon aquaculture. 

Waterlines, newsletter of the Western Regional Aquaculture 

Center, Winter, 11(2): 1–2.

Chien, Y.H.; Chiu, Y.H. 2003. Replacement of soybean 

(Glycine max (L.) Merrill) meal by lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) 

seed meal in diet for juvenile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus 

× O. aureus) reared indoors. Aquaculture Research 34: 

1261–1268.

CNN. 2004 April 14. Cows eat herring for new milk. Reuters. 

<http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/14/milk.herring.reut/index.html>.

Coastal Resources Management Council. 2002. Aquaculture 

in Rhode Island: 2002 (yearly status report).

Cohen, S. 2004. Raising salmon on a vegetarian diet. <http://

www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?contentid=1161>.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Whirling disease 

and Colorado’s trout. <http://wildlife.state.co.us/Fishing/

Management/WhirlingDisease.htm>.

Committee on Assessment of Technology and Opportunities 

for Marine Aquaculture in the United States, Marine Board, 

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National 

Research Council. 1992. Marine aquaculture: opportunities 

for growth. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Conklin, D.E. 2003. Use of soybean meal in the diets of 

marine shrimp. Department of Animal Science, University 

of California, Davis. Written in cooperation with the United 

Soybean Board and American Soybean Association.

Cozzolino, M.; Landoli, C. 2002. Increasing added-value 

on aquaculture seafood. In: Paquotte, P.; Mariojouls, C.; 

Young J., eds. Seafood Market Studies for the Introduction 

of New Aquaculture Products: 129–130. Zaragoza, Spain: 

CIHEAM-IAMZ. Summaries (En, Fr). (Cahiers Options 

Méditerranéennes; v. 59). Seminar of the CIHEAM Network 

on Socio-Economic and Legal Aspects of Aquaculture in the 

Mediterranean, 2001/06/21-22, Zaragoza.

Curtis, K.S.; Pitt, W.C.; Conover, M.R. 1996. Overview techniques for reducing bird predation at aquaculture facilities. 

Jack H. Berryman Institute, Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, 

UT.

D’Abramo, L.R.; Brunson, M.W. 1996a. Biology and life 

history of freshwater prawns. Southern Regional Aquaculture 

Center, Publication No. 483.

D’Abramo, L.R.; Brunson, M.W. 1996b. Production of 

freshwater prawns in ponds. Southern Regional Aquaculture 

Center, Publication No. 484.

D’Abramo, L.R.; New, M. 2000. Nutrition, feeds and feeding. 

In: New, M.; Cotroni, W., eds. Freshwater Prawn Culture: 

The Farming of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. London, UK: 

Blackwell Science Ltd.: 203–220.

D’Abramo, L.R.; Ohs, C.L.; Fondeen, M.W.; Steeby, J.A.; 

Posadas, B.C. 2003. Culture of freshwater prawns in temperate climates: management practices and economics. Bulletin 

No. 1138, Office of Agricultural Communications, Division of 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi 

State University.

Daley, B. 2004 January 25. Farmed salmon hit some snags 

in Maine. The Boston Globe. <http://www.boston.com/news/

local/maine/articles/2004/01/25/farmed_salmon_hit_some_

snags_in_maine>.

David Suzuki Foundation Web site. Ocean pollution from 

salmon farming. <http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Salmon_

Aquaculture/Benefits_and_Risks/Ocean_Pollution.asp>.

Department of Commerce, International Trade 

Administration. 2003 June 23. Notice of final antidumping duty determination of sales at less than fair value and 

affirmative critical circumstances: certain frozen fish fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (Final rule 68 FR 

37116–37121.)

Department of the Interior. 2002 October 4. 67 Injurious 

wildlife species: snakeheads (family Channidae). (Final rule, 

FR 62193–62204.)

Dersjant-Li, Y. 2002. The use of soy protein in aquafeeds. 

In: Cruz-Suárez, L.E.; Ricque-Marie, D.; Tapia-Salazar, M.; 

Gaxiola-Cortés, M.G.; Simoes, N., eds. Avances en Nutrición 

Acuícola VI. Memorias del VI Simposium Internacional de 

Nutrición Acuícola. 3 al 6 de Septiembre del 2002. Cancún, 

Quintana Roo, México.

Dialog NewsRoom. 2002 July 24. Reports of ill-fated waters 

often just another fish tale. Denver Rocky Mountain News.
42 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 1999. Interaction 

between wild and farmed Atlantic salmon in the Maritime 

Provinces. DFO Maritimes Habitat Status Report 99/1 E.

Duchene, L. 2004. Tilapia: expect prices to rise along with 

demand for this popular fish. Seafood Business 23: sec. 12, 

40.

Dunning, R.; Daniels, H. 2001. Hybrid striped bass production in ponds. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, 

Publication No. 3000.

Durborow, R.M.; Francis-Floyd, R. 1996 (revised). Medicated 

feed for food fish. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, 

Publication No. 473.

Ellestad, L.E.; Dahl, G.; Angel, R.; Soares, J.H., Jr. 2003. 

The effect of exogenously administered recombinant bovine 

somatotropin on intestinal phytase activity and in vivo 

phytate hydrolysis in hybrid striped bass, Morone chrysops × 

M. saxatilis. Aquaculture Nutrition 9(5): 327–336.

Elstein, D. 2004, April 13. Canine cure for catfish off-flavor. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research 

Service, News & Events Web site. <http://www.ars.usda.

gov/is/pr/2004/040413.htm>.

Emerson, C. 1999. Aquaculture impacts on the environment. 

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. <http://ca1.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php>.

Engle, C.R. 1997. Annual costs and returns of raising 

bighead carp in commercial catfish ponds. University of 

Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. <http://www.uaex.

edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/UAPB/FSA-9078.pdf>.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2004 August 23. Effluent 

limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the concentrated aquatic animal production point 

source category. (Final rule 69 FR 51892–51930.)

Epicore BioNetworks, Inc. Web site. Epicore in aquaculture. 

<http://www.epicorebionet.com/aqua.htm>.

European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection 

Directorate-General. 2003. The use of fish by-products in 

aquaculture. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal 

Health and Animal Welfare.

European Union., 2004. Factsheets for member countries 

on fisheries and aquaculture. <http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets_en.htm> and <http://ca1.csa.

com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php>.

Fish Diseases and Human Health in Aquaculture Web site. 

<http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/aqu/extension/diseases%2

0and%20human%20health.htm>.

Fish Information & Services Web site. <http://www.fis.com>.

FishBase Web site. <http://www.fishbase.org/search.php>.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Web site. <http://www.dfompo.gc.ca>.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada–Pacific Region Web site. 

2006 (updated). Biotechnology to help protect wild salmon 

stocks: the triploid approach. <http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.

gc.ca/aquaculture/topics/triploid_e.htm>.

Fisheries Research Services Scotland Web site. <http://www.

marlab.ac.uk/>.

Fishmeal Information Network. 2004. Sustainability dossier 

[updated annually]. <http://www.gafta.com/fin/finpublic.

html>.

Fisker, H. 2001. Food by-product recovery, an industry perspective. Presentation at the Institute of Food Technologists 

2001 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Session 82. <http://

ift.confex.com/ift/2001/techprogram/paper_6191.htm>.

Fitzsimmons, K. 2000. Future trends of tilapia aquaculture 

in the Americas. In: Costa-Pierce, B.A.; Rakocy, J.E., eds. 

Tilapia Aquaculture in the Americas: Vol. 2, 252–264. Baton 

Rouge, LA. The World Aquaculture Society.

Fitzsimmons, K. 2002. US & international trade in tilapia 

products: 2003 and beyond. PowerPoint presentation, 

personal communication.

Fitzsimmons, K. 2003. International production and markets 

for tilapia. Proceedings of the Tilapia 2003 International 

Technical and Trade Conference on Tilapia, Salvador, Brazil, 

September 3–7.

Fitzsimmons, K. 2005. Overview of global tilapia trade and 

U.S. markets. PowerPoint presentation.

Florida Cooperative Extension Service. 2002 (revised). Bird 

depredation in ponds. Wildlife Ecology and Conservation 

Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 

University of Florida, Publication No. SSWIS40. Original 

publication date June 1, 1991.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 

2005. Aquaculture best management practices manual. 

Division of Aquaculture, Tallahassee, FL.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 43

Florida Museum of Natural History Web site. 2002. 

Washington bans genetically engineered salmon. <http://

www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/innews/washsalmban2002.htm>.

Fraser, S. 2003. Aqua Bounty Technologies completes first 

tranche of $10 million financing. <http://www.aquafeed.

com/article.php?id=409§ionid=1>.

Gildberg, A. 2002. Enhancing returns from greater utilization. In: H. A. Bremner, ed. Safety and Quality Issues in Fish 

Processing. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited and 

CRC Press LLC.: 425–449.

Gima, C. 2003a February 23. Canadian company plans 

Big Isle butterfish farm. Honolulu Star Bulletin. In: Regional 

Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, The 

Oceanic Institute, University of Hawaii 14(1).

Gima, C. 2003b July 30. UH professor plans tuna farm. 

Honolulu Star Bulletin. In: Regional Center for Tropical and 

Subtropical Aquaculture, The Oceanic Institute, University of 

Hawaii 14(4).

Gippsland Aquaculture Industry Network, Inc. 2004a. Fish 

feed production captures foreign investors’ interest. <http://

www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentId=2073>.

Gippsland Aquaculture Industry Network, Inc. 2004b. 

Fishmeal and fish oil landings of 15.3 million tons. <http://

www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentId=3059>.

Glahn, J.F.; Dorr, B.; Harrell, J. B.; Khoo, L. 2002. Foraging 

ecology of depredation management of great blue herons at 

Mississippi catfish farms. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 

194–201.

Glahn, J.F.; Reinhold, D.S.; Sloan, C.A. 2000. Recent population trends of double-crested cormorants wintering in the 

Delta Region of Mississippi: Responses to roost dispersal 

and removal under a recent depredation order. Waterbirds 

23: 38–44.

Glencross, B.D.; Hawkins, W.E.; Curnow, J.G. 2003a. 

Evaluation of canola oils as alternative lipid resources in 

diets for juvenile red seabream, Pagrus auratus. Aquaculture 

Nutrition 9: 305–315.

Glencross, B.D.; Hawkins, W.E.; Curnow, J.G. 2003b. 

Restoration of the fatty acid composition of red seabream 

(Pagrus auratus) using a fish oil finishing diet after growout 

on plant oil based diets. Aquaculture Nutrition 9: 409–418.

Glencross, B.; Smith, M.; Curnow, J.; Smith, D.; Williams, K. 

2001. The dietary protein and lipid requirements of postpuerulus western rock lobster, Panulirus cygnus. Aquaculture 

199: 119–129.

Global Aquaculture Alliance Web site. <http://www.gaalliance.org>.

Goldburg, R.; Elliot, M. 2001. Marine aquaculture in the 

United States: environmental impacts and policy options. 

Pew Oceans Commission.

Government of Western Australia, Water and Rivers 

Commission. 2003. Water quality protection note: aquaculture projects.

Grant, J. 2001. Seston variation and its effects on modeling environmental impact of shellfish culture (abstract). 

Presented at Aquaculture Canada 2001, Halifax, Nova 

Scotia, May 6–9, 2001.

Great Lakes Directory Web site. <http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org>.

Great Lakes Information Network. 2001. Zebra mussels and 

other nonindigenous species. University of Wisconsin Sea 

Grant Institute. <http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/communications/greatlakes/GLnetwork/exotics.html>.

Griffin, B.R.; Schnick, R.; Gingerich, W.H. 2000. Update on 

the federal-state aquaculture drug approval partnership. 

Aquaculture Magazine 26(3): 56–58.

Gupta, M.V.; Acosta, B.O. 2004. A review of global 

tilapia farming practices. WorldFish Center, Penang, 

Malaysia. <http://www.enaca.org/modules/weblog/details.

php?blog_id=21>.

Harbor Branch Oceanographic, Aquaculture Division. 2005. 

Recent STARR study: effect of fish meal replacement with 

poultry meal in hybrid striped bass diets. Harbor Branch 

Oceanographic Institution, Inc., Fort Pierce, FL.

Hardy, R.W. 2003. Use of soybean meals in diets of salmon 

and trout. Aquaculture Research Institute, Hagerman Fish 

Culture Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Written in 

cooperation with the United Soybean Board and American 

Soybean Association.

Harper, C. 2002. Disease risks associated with importation of 

aquatic animals. Aquaculture Magazine 28(2): 62–66.

Harrell, R.M. 2004. The culture of striped bass and its 

hybrids in cages. Maryland Sea Grant Extension, Finfish 

Aquaculture, Fact Sheet No. 3.

Harvell, C.D.; Kim, K.; Burkholder, J.M.; Colwell, R.R.; 

Epstein, P.R.; Grimes, D.J.; Hofmann, E.E.; Lipp, E.K.; 

Osterhaus, A.D.; Overstreet, R.M.; Porter, J.W.; Smith, G.W.; 

Vasta, G.R. 1999. Emerging marine diseases: climate links 

and anthropogenic factors. Science 285: 1505–1510.
44 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Haskell, S.R.; Payne, M.A.; Webb, A.I.; Riviere, J.E.; 

Craigmill, A.L. 2004. Current approved drugs for aquatic species. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 

224(1): 50–51.

Heidinger, R. 2000, March 29. A white paper on the status 

and needs of largemouth bass culture in the North Central 

Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center.

Hernández-Rodríguez, A.; Alceste-Oliviero, C.; Sanchez, R.; 

Jory, D.; Vidal, L.; Constain-Franco, L.-F. 2001. Aquaculture 

development trends in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

In: Subasinghe, R.P.; Bueno, P.; Phillips, M.J.; Hough, C.; 

McGladdery, S.E.; Arthur, J.E., eds. Aquaculture in the Third 

Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on 

Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 

February 20–25, 2000. NACA, Bangkok, and FAO, Rome: : 

317–340.

Hill, T.K. 2003. Best management practices for prawn 

growers. University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Extension Service. <http://www.utextension.utk.

edu/aquafish/prawn/prawnbmp.htm>.

Hill, J.E.; Yanong, R.P.E. 2002. Freshwater ornamental fish 

commonly cultured in Florida. University of Florida, Institute 

of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension. <http://edis.

ifas.ufl.edu/FA054>.

Hiner, M.; Moffitt, C.M. 2001. Variation in infections of 

Myxobolus cerebralis in field-exposed cutthroat and rainbow 

trout in Idaho. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 13: 124–132.

Hiner, M.; Moffitt, C.M. 2002. Modeling Myxobolus cerebralis infections in trout: associations with habitat variables. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 29: 167–179.

Hinshaw, J.M. 1999. Trout production: feeds and feeding 

methods. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Publication 

No. 223.

Hinshaw, J.M. 2000. Trout farming: carrying capacity and 

inventory management. Southern Regional Aquaculture 

Center, Publication No. 222.

Hinshaw, J.M.; Fornshell, G.; Kinnunen, R. 2004. A profile of 

the aquaculture of trout in the United States. Funded project 

by the USDA Risk Management Agency through Mississippi 

State University.

Hodson, R.G. 1989.Hybrid striped bass: biology and life 

history. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Publication 

No. 300.

Hodson, R.G.; Hayes, M. 1989a. Hybrid striped bass: 

hatchery phase. Southern Regional Aquaculture, Publication 

No. 301.

Hodson, R.G.; Hayes, M. 1989b. Hybrid striped bass: pond 

production of foodfish. Southern Regional Aquaculture, 

Publication No. 303.

Hoffman, C. 2000 May–August. Mining fresh water for aquaculture. Appalachia Magazine, Journal of the Appalachian 

Regional Commission.

Howerton, R. 2001. Best management practices for Hawaiian 

aquaculture. University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension 

Service, Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, 

Publication No. 148.

Hughes, S. 2003. New potential feed for tilapia. Maryland 

Aquafarmer Online. <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/Extension/

Aquafarmer/Spring03.html#2>.

Hultin, H.O. 2001. New technology: high recovery of functional proteins from low value muscle sources. Presentation 

at the Institute of Food Technologists 2001 Annual Meeting, 

New Orleans, LA, Session 82. <http://ift.confex.com/ift/2001/

techprogram/paper_6189.htm>.

Infofish. 1991. Technical Handbook 4: Shrimp Waste 

Utilization.

Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service, Fishery 

Resources Division, FAO Fisheries Department. 2003. 

Review of the State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries 

Circular No. 886, Rev. 2, Rome.

International Aquaculture Web Ring. <http://members.

magnet.at/aquaculture/Webring.htm>.

International Trade Commission. 2003, February 12. Certain 

frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Investigation No. 731-TA1012. (Final rule 68 FR 7130–7132.)

Intervet Norbio Web site. <http://www.intervet.no/>.

IntraFish. 1997. Interactions with coastal mammals and 

other species. Salmon Aquaculture Review Final Report, 

Vol. 1, Chapter 8. Environmental Assessment Office, British 

Columbia.

IntraFish. 2001 January 24. New uses sought for by-products. <http://www.intrafish.com/print.php?articleID=9750>.

IntraFish. 2001 August 9. BioMar launches new feed. <http://

www.intrafish.com/print.php?articleID=14922>.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 45

IntraFish. 2001 September 25. North Sea—Predators: 

fishermen’s biggest enemy: fish!

IntraFish. 2002 April 5. Omega-3 enhanced products a hit 

with European shoppers. <http://www.intrafish.com/print.

php?articleID=22015>.

IntraFish. 2002 June 5. Fish waste turned into food 

and health products. <http://www.intrafish.com/print.

php?articleID=23862>.

IntraFish. 2003 January 28. UK launches consultation on new 

animal by-products rules. <http://www.intrafish.com/print.

php?articleID=31405>.

IntraFish. 2003 July 11. Making fish by-products pay for 

Spanish processors. <http://www.intrafish.com/print.

php?articleID=36272>.

IntraFish. 2003 September 16. New group set up to add 

value to fish by-products in Ireland. <http://www.intrafish.

com/print.php?articleID=38240>.

IntraFish. 2003 December 18. Vegetable protein replacing animal protein in salmon feed is only a matter of time. 

<http://www.intrafish.com/print.php?articleID=40562>.

IntraFish. 2004 May 20. Paraguay to export lupine to Chile. 

<http://www.intrafish.com/print.php?articleID=44435>.

IntraFish. 2004 May 24. Extract from Chilean tree could 

improve alevine growth. <http://www.intrafish.com/print.

php?articleID=44481>.

IntraFish Web site. <http://www.intrafish.com>.

Ishikawa, S. 2002 July 31. Ocean fish farming thriving. 

Honolulu Advertiser. In: Regional Notes–Center for Tropical 

and Subtropical Aquaculture, The Oceanic Institute, 

University of Hawaii, 14(4).

Jennings, S.; Kaiser, M.J.; Reynolds, J.D. 2001. A role for 

aquaculture. In: Jennings, S.; Kaiser, M.; Reynolds, J. D. 

Marine Fisheries Ecology. Blackwell Science, Ltd.: 310–326

Jensen, G.L. 1990a. Transportation of warmwater fish: equipment and guidelines. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, 

Publication No. 390.

Jensen, G.L. 1990b. Transportation of warmwater fish: loading rates and tips by species. Southern Regional Aquaculture 

Center, Publication No. 393.

Jensen, G.L. 1990c. Transportation of warmwater fish: procedures and loading rates. Southern Regional Aquaculture 

Center, Publication No. 392.

Johnson, H. 2002. Market outlook in the international fish 

and seafood sector: alternative products/uses and food 

safety issues. <http://www.salmonfarmers.org/resources/

Studies11.pdf>.

Johnson, M. 2003. Great Lakes report: a fish story. Mackinac 

Chapter of the Sierra Club Web site. <http://michigan.sierraclub.org/mackinac/2003may/greatLakesReport.html>.

Johnston, D.J.; Calvert, K.A.; Crear, B.J.; Carter, C.G. 2003. 

Dietary carbohydrate/lipid ratios and nutritional condition in 

juvenile southern rock lobster, Jasus edwardsii. Aquaculture 

220: 667–682.

Jonsson, B. 1997. A review of ecological and behavioural 

interactions between cultured and wild Atlantic salmon. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 54: 1903–1103.

Kaushik, S.J. 2003. Some recent research on fish meal and 

fish oil replacement. PowerPoint presentation at 29th Fish 

Feed & Nutrition Workshop (FFNW), Davis, CA, June 22–25. 

<http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/events/special/fnw/2003/

materials/InvitedSpeakers/Sachi%20Kaushik.pdf>.

Kellison, G.T.; Eggleston, D.B.; Tanka, M. 2002. Densitydependent predation and implications for stock enhancement with Japanese flounder. Journal of Fish Biology 60(4): 

968–980.

Kentucky State University Aquaculture Program. 2002. 

Prawn production manual. <www.ksuaquaculture.org/Shrimp

Manual%20text%20Apr2.pdf>.

Khan, M.A.; Jafri, A.K.; Chadha, N.K.; Usmani, N. 2003. 

Growth and body composition of rohu (Labeo rohita) fed 

diets containing oilseed meals: partial or total replacement 

of fish meal with soybean meal. Aquaculture Nutrition 9: 

391–396.

Kling, L.J.; Dalton, T. 2003. Atlantic salmon aquaculture in 

Maine: current status and challenges. Series 4: Issues in 

Maine’s Natural Resource Industries, College of Natural 

Sciences, Forestry, and Agriculture White Papers. The 

University of Maine.

Kohler, C.C. 2000a. A white paper on the status and needs of 

hybrid striped bass aquaculture in the North Central Region. 

Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, prepared for the 

North Central Regional Aquaculture Center.

Kohler, C.C. 2000b. A white paper on the status and needs 

of tilapia aquaculture in the North Central Region. Southern 

Illinois University-Carbondale, prepared for the North Central 

Regional Aquaculture Center.
46 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Krantz, D., and Kifferstein, B. No date. Water pollution and 

society. <http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/waterpollution.htm>.

Larkin, S.L.; Adams, C.S.; Degner, R.L.; Lee, D.J. 1999. 

1999 U.S. tropical fish wholesalers survey: results and 

implications. National Sea Grant Library. <http://nsgl.gso.uri.

edu/flsgp/flsgps01004.pdf>.

Larsson, B. 1994. Three overviews on environment and 

aquaculture in the tropics and sub-tropics. FAO Project 

reports (not in a Series) No. 27, AD002/E, 1994.1. <http://

www.fao.org/docrep/005/ad002e/ad002e00.HTM>.

Leiner Health Products. 2003. Leiner Health Products’ fish 

oil pills beat competition hook line and sinker with most 

rigorous quality standards. Press release. <http://www.leiner.

com/fishoi1102003.htm>.

Leffler, M. 1998. Aquaculture and restoration. Maryland 

Marine Notes Online Web site. <http://www.mdsg.umd.

edu/MarineNotes/Jan-Feb98/side1.html>.

Li, P.; Wang, X.; Hardy, R.W.; Gatlin, D.M. III. 2004. Nutritional 

value of fisheries by-catch and by-product meals in the 

diet of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Aquaculture 236: 

485–496.

Lindley, S.T.; Mohm, M.S. 2003, April 1. Modeling the 

effect of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) on the population 

viability of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Dialog NewsRoom.

Loru, P. 2003. Production of fishmeal based bread is now 

possible. Fish Information and Services Web site. <http://fis.

com/fis/techno/newtechno.asp?id=9736&1=e&ndb=1>

Losso, J.N.; Ogawa, M.; Moody, M.W.; Portier, R.J.; McMillin, 

K.W.; Day, D.F.; Bell, J.; Schexnayder, M. 2002. Two valueadded products from Louisiana seafood processing facilities. 

Louisiana Agriculture 45(4): 11–12.

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. 1998. 

Greenhouse tilapia production in Louisiana. Louisiana 

Cooperative Extension Service, Publication No. 2705.

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. 2005. 

Aquaculture production best management practices. 

Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, Publication No. 

2894.

Ludlow, M.E. 2001. World applications of chitin and chitosan: 

a review. Presentation at the Institute of Food Technologists 

2001 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Session 82. <http://

ift.confex.com/ift/2001/techprogram/paper_6190.htm>.

Ludwig, G.M. 2004. Hybrid striped bass: fingerling production in ponds. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center 

Publication No. 302.

Lugg, A. 2000. Fish kills in NSW. NSW Department of 

Primary Industries Web site. <http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.

au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/5057/fish_kills_nsw.pdf>.

Lupatsch, I.; Katz, T.; Angel, D.L. 2003. Assessments of the 

removal efficiency of fish farm effluents by grey mullets: a 

nutritional approach. Aquaculture Research 34: 1367–1377.

Lutz, C.G. 1999. Red drum: a re-emerging aquaculture species. Aquaculture Magazine 25(4): 38–41.

Lutz, C.G.; Sambidi, P.; Harrison, R.W. 2003 September. 

Tilapia industry profile. Agricultural marketing Resource 

Center, Iowa State University.

MacDonald, B.A. 2001. Feeding biology of the sea scallop, 

Placopecten magellanicus: a comparison with other bivalves 

(abstract). Presented at Aquaculture Canada 2001, Halifax, 

Nova Scotia, May 6–9.

MacMillan, J.R. No date. Perspectives on aquaculture and 

the environment. Clear Springs Foods, Inc. <www.idea.

iastate.edu/aqua/pub21.pdf>.

Maine Department of Marine Resources Web site. Maine 

finfish aquaculture harvest 1988–2002. <http://www.maine.

gov/dmr/aquaculture/lease_inventory_2004/finfish_harvest_chart_files/finfishharvestchart.htm>.

Malison, J. 2003 November 21. A white paper on the status 

and needs of yellow perch aquaculture in the North Central 

Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (draft).

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Web 

site. 1995a. Massachusetts Aquaculture white paper on fish 

health. <http://www.mass.gov/czm/wpfshlth.htm>.

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Web 

site. 1995b. Massachusetts Aquaculture white paper on 

water quality. <http://www.mass.gov/czm/wpwaterq.htm>.

Masser, M.P. 1997 (revised). Cage culture: handling and 

feeding caged fish. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, 

Publication No. 164.

Masser, M.P.; Lazur, A. 1997. In-pond raceways. Southern 

Regional Aquaculture Center, Publication No. 170.

Masuda, R.; Ziemann, D.A. 2003. Vulnerability of Pacific 

threadfin juveniles to predation by bluefin trevally and 

hammerhead shark: size dependent mortality and handling 

stress. Aquaculture 217: 249–257.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 47

McClure, P. 2003. The U.S. Federal Government approach 

to managing invasive species: clearer focus and greater 

commitment needed to effectively manage the problem. 

Presentation at the 12th International Conference on Aquatic 

Invasive Species, Windsor, Canada, June 2003.

McGinty, A.S.; Rakocy, J.E. 1989. Cage culture of tilapia. 

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Publication No. 281.

McKenzie, C.H.; Parrish, C.C.; Thompson, R.J. 2001. 

Seasonal algal food quality at two Newfoundland bivalve 

aquaculture sites (abstract). Presented at Aquaculture 

Canada 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 6–9.

McVicar, A.H. 1997. Disease and parasite implications of 

the coexistence of wild and cultured Atlantic salmon. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 54: 1903–1103.

Miller, O.; Cipriano, R.C. (technical coordinators). 2002. 

International response to infectious salmon anemia: prevention, control, and eradication. Proceedings of a symposium, 

New Orleans, LA, September 3–4. Washington, DC: USDA, 

APHIS, USDOI, USGS, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NMFS, Technical Bulletin No. 1902.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Web site. No date. 

Aquaculture and water pollution control. <http://www.pca.

state.mn.us/water/pubs/fishfarm.pdf>.

Mississippi State University Extension Service. 1996. A practical guide to nutrition, feeds, and feeding of catfish. Bulletin 

No. 1042. <http://msucares.com/pubs/bulletins/b1041.htm>.

Mississippi State University Extension Service. 2003. 

Economic impact of the Mississippi farm-raised catfish 

industry at the year 2003. Publication No. 2317. <http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2317.htm>.

Mitchell, Hugh. 2006. Novartis Animal Health, Aqua Health.

Mock, G.; White, R.; Wagener, A. 2001 (revised). Farming 

fish: the aquaculture boom. EarthTrends 2001, World 

Resources Institute.

Moffitt, C.M. 2004. The implications of aquaculture production and development on sustainable fisheries. In: Knudsen, 

E.E.; MacDonald, D.D.; Yvonne, K.; Muirhead, Y.K., eds. 

Fish in Our Future: Perspectives on Fisheries Sustainability. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 43: 243–255.

Morris, J.E.; Kohler, C.C.; Mischke, C.C. 1999. Pond culture 

of hybrid striped bass in the North Central Region. North 

Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Fact Sheet Series No. 

107.

Morrissey, M.T. 2001. An overview of seafood byproducts 

and waste utilization. Presentation at the Institute of Food 

Technologists 2001 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 

Session 82. <http://ift.confex.com/ift/2001/techprogram/

paper_6188.htm>.

Muzinic, L.A.; Thompson, K.R.; Webster, C.D. 2003. 

Replacing fish meal with soybean meal and brewer’s grains 

with yeast in diets for Australian red claw crayfish, Cherax 

quadricarinatus. PowerPoint presentation at 29th Fish Feed & 

Nutrition Workshop (FFNW), Davis, CA, June 22–25. <http://

animalscience.ucdavis.edu/events/special/ffnw/2003/materials/Session1/Ken%20Thompson-1.pdf>.

Myrland, O.; Dong, D.; Kaiser, H.M. 2003. Price and quality 

effects of generic advertising: the case of Norwegian salmon. 

National Institute for Commodity Promotion, Research and 

Evaluation, NICPRE 03-02.

National Fisheries Institute Web site. <http://www.aboutseafood.com>.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New 

Zealand. 2003. Beauty trade offers new scope for seafood 

industry. Press release. <http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/

SC0307/S00083.htm>.

National Invasive Species Act. <http://www.ucsusa.org/invasive_species/the-national-aquatic-invasive-species-act.

html>.

National Oceanographic Data Center Web site, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <http://www.nodc.

noaa.gov/General/getdata.html>.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Aquaculture quick facts. <http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs>.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. World Review of fisheries 

and aquaculture. <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/

aquaculture/docs/11_global%20AQ%20Statistics.pdf>.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. NOAA Releases Offshore 

Aquaculture Bill. Press release. <http://www.nmfs.noaa.

gov/mediacenter/aquaculture/>.

National Public Radio. 2004. Privatizing the high seas. Living 

on Earth series, aired March 19. <http://loe.org/shows/

shows.htm?programID=04-P13-00012>.

National Research Council. 1996. Stemming the tide: 

controlling introductions of nonindigenous species by ships’ 

ballast water. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
48 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Natural Products Insider Web site. 2003. Washington state 

bans biotech fish. <http://www.naturalproductsinsider.

com/articles/331gmonws2.html?wts=20060208030503&hc=

116&req=biotech+and+fish>.

Naylor, R.L.; Eagle, J.; Smith, W.L. 2003. Salmon aquaculture 

in the Pacific Northwest: a global industry with local impacts. 

Environment 45(8): 18–39.

Naylor, R.L.; Goldburg, R.J.; Primavera, J.; Kautsky, N.; 

Beveridge, M.C.M.; Clay, J.; Folke, C.; Lubchenco, J.; 

Mooney, H.; Troell, M. 2001. Effects of aquaculture on world 

fish supplies. Issues in Ecology (8): 2–12. Ecological Society 

of America. <http://www.esa.org/science/Issues/TextIssues/

issue8.php>.

Nease, T.; Tedman, P. 2003. Advances in aquatic feed 

manufacturing. <http://www.extru-techinc.com/ArticlesAdva

ncesInAquaticFeed.htm>.

Network of Aquacentres of Asia Pacific Web site. <http://

www.enaca.org>.

Nicholson, B.L. 2000. Fish diseases in aquaculture. 

University of Maine, Orono. <http://www.umaine.edu/

mainesci/archives/MolecularBiology/salmon-diseases.htm>.

Noakes, D.J.; Beamish, R.J.; Kent, M.L. 2000 March 15. On 

the decline of Pacific salmon and speculative links to salmon 

farming in British Columbia. Aquaculture 183(3): 363–386.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Aquaculture and Natural Resources. 2001. 

Aquaculture in North Carolina–Catfish: inputs, outputs and 

economics. Rural Economic Development Center, Raleigh, 

NC. <http://www.ncagr.com/Aquacult/Catfish01.pdf>.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Aquaculture and Natural Resources. 2002. 

Aquaculture in North Carolina. Tilapia: inputs, outputs and 

economics. Rural Economic Development Center, Raleigh, 

NC.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services. 2001 June. Aquaculture in North Carolina–Hybrid 

striped bass: inputs, outputs and economics. Rural 

Economic Development Center, Raleigh, NC. <http://www.

ncagr.com/Aquacult/Bass01.pdf>.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services. 2001 July. Aquaculture in North Carolina–Rainbow 

trout: inputs, outputs and economics. Rural Economic 

Development Center, Raleigh, NC. <http://www.ncagr.

com/Aquacult/Trout01.pdf>.

North Central Regional Aquaculture Center. No date. 

Aquaculture contacts, transport regulations, BMPs, and 

approved aquatic species—State of Indiana. <http://ag.ansc.

purdue.edu/aquanic/ncrac/actr/index.htm>.

Northeast Midwest Institute. 2003. National Aquatic Invasive 

Species Act of 2003 (NAISA). <http://www.nemw.org/biopollute.htm#laws>.

Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center. 2003. A review of 

open-water production systems, engineering and technology. NRAC Publication No. 03–001 (September): 10.

O’Hara, F.; Lawton, C.; York, M. 2003. Economic impact of 

aquaculture in Maine. Report by Planning Decisions, Inc. for 

The Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center.

OIE Fish Disease Commission Web site. <http://www.oie.

int/fdc/eng/en_fdc.htm>.

O’Neill, B.O. 2005. U.S. farmed hybrid striped bass. Seafood 

Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Owens, J. 2003, June 16. Salmon farm escapees threaten 

wild salmon stocks. National Geographic News. <http://

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0616_030616_

farmsalmon.html>.

Parr, L.D. 2002. Water discharge models, seasonal effluent 

mass loading, and best management practices for crawfish 

ponds. Master’s thesis. Louisiana State University.

Pereira, T.G., and Oliva-Teles, A. 2002. Preliminary evaluation 

of pea seed meal in diets for gilthead sea bream (Sparus 

aurata) juveniles. Aquaculture Research 33: 1183–1189.

Pernet, F.; Tremblay, R.; Bourget, E.; Roussy, M. 2001. 

Biochemical indicator of quality of scallop larvae 

Placopecten magellanicus (abstract). Presented at 

Aquaculture Canada 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 6–9.

Pescod, M.B. 1992.Wastewater use in aquaculture. FAO 

irrigation and drainage paper 47. <http://www.fao.org/

docrep/T0551E/t0551e09.htm>.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003, June. America’s living 

oceans: charting a course for sea change. <http://www.

pewtrusts.org/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_

id=1635&content_type_id=8&issue_name=Protecting%200

cean%201ife&issue=16&page=8&name=Grantee%20Repor

ts>.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 49

Pfeiffer, T.; Riche, M.; Webb, J.; Davis, M.; Wood, D. No date.

Recent STARR study: effect of fish meal replacement with 

poultry meal in hybrid striped bass diets. Harbor Branch 

Oceanographic Institution, Aquaculture Division Web site. 

<http://www.hboi.edu/aqua/engsub1.html>.

Pike, A.W.; Wadsworth, S.L. 1999. Sealice on salmonids: 

their biology and control. Advances in Parasitology 44: 276.

Pinfold, G. October 2003. Maine aquaculture: viability of 

selected species and culture systems. Prepared for Maine 

Department of Marine Resources.

Poff, N.L.; Brinson, M.M.; Day, J.W., Jr. 2002. Aquatic 

ecosystems and global climate change: potential impacts 

on inland freshwater and coastal wetland ecosystems in the 

United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Powell, K. 2003. Fish farming: eat your veg. Nature 

426(6965): 378–379.

Prinyawiwatkul, W.; Suvanich, V.; Harrison, R.W.; King, J.M.; 

Sathivel, S.; Pacheco, K.; Rout, S.K.; Nadarajah, K.; Sonti, 

S. In Purdue University News. 2004 March 15. Genetically 

modified fish could damage ecology. <http://www.vetsite.

org/publish/items/001724/index.html>.

Prinyawiwatkul, W.; Suvanich, V.; Harrison, R.W.; King, J.M.; 

Sathivel, S.; Pacheco, K.; Rout, S.; Nadarajah, K.; Sonti, 

S. 2002. Value-added from crawfish and catfish. Louisiana 

Agriculture 45(4): 20–21.

Pynn, L. 2002 February 25. Fish farms accused of biological 

pollution. Vancouver Sun. <http://www.canada.com>.

Rakocy, J.E. 1989, September. Tank culture of tilapia. 

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Texas Cooperative 

State Research Service and Texas Extension Service, 

Publication No. 282.

Rakocy, J.E.; McGinty, A.S. 1989. Pond culture of tilapia. 

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Publication No. 280.

Redmayne, P. 2002 March 22. Chemical chaos. Seafood 

Business [serial online].

Regenstein, J.M. 2001. Fish gelatin and fish hydrolisate. 

Presentation at the Institute of Food Technologists 2001 

Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Session 82. <http://ift.

confex.com/ift/2001/techprogram/paper_6192.htm>.

Riche, M.; Garling, D. 2003. Feeding tilapia in intensive recirculating systems. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, 

Fact Sheet Series No. 114, in cooperation with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, FL.

Robinson, E.H.; Li, M.H.; Brunsin, M.W. 1998 (revised). 

Feeding catfish in commercial ponds. Southern Regional 

Aquaculture Center, Publication No. 181.

Rode, R.; Stone, N. No date. Small-scale catfish production: holding fish for sale. University of Arkansas, Division 

of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agriculture/

Fisheries Center.

Rottmann, R.W.; Shireman, J.V.; Chapman, F.A. 1991. 

Capturing, handling, transporting, injecting and holding brood fish for induced spawning. Southern Regional 

Aquaculture Center, Publication No. 422.

Rubin, K., 2004. Ask-An-Earth-Scientist Web site. <http://

www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/askanerd.html>.

Sargeant, F. 2003 October 26. Pesky aquatic bird now on 

nation’s hit list. Tampa Tribune, Outdoors column.

Schering–Plough Animal Health Aquaculture Web site. 

<http://www.myfishpharm.com>.

SeaFood Business. 2001 November. Buyer’s guide: basa 

catfish. <http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/buyguide/issue_

basa.htm>.

SeaFood Business. 2004 March 1. Domestic offshore 

aquaculture has a promising future: industry must overcome 

a few obstacles before it flourishes.

Seafood Choices Alliance Web site. <http://www.seafoodchoices.com>.

Sealey, W.M.; Barziza, D.E.; Davis, J.T.; Gatlin, D.M. III. 1999. 

Characterization and management of effluents from aquaculture ponds in the southeastern United States. Southern 

Regional Aquaculture Center, Publication No. 470.

SeaWeb. 2001. Aquaculture is “gateway” for exotic species’ 

says study. Ocean Update.

Secretan, P.A.D. 2003. The availability of aquaculture crop 

(stock mortality) insurance. Aquaculture Underwriting and 

Management Services, East Sussex, UK.

Shrimp News International. 2004a. About shrimp farming. 

<http://www.shrimpnews.com/About.html>.

Shrimp News International. 2004b. Farmed species. <http://

www.shrimpnews.com/Species.html>.

Sing, T. 2002 July 19. Canadian venture to farm halibut in 

Hawaii. Pacific Business News.
50 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Sloan, A.E. 2004 April 13. Top ten functional food trends for 

2004. In: Food Technology 58(4). <http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/ffnet/2004/4-2004/ffnet_april_13-2.htm>.

Smearman, S.C.; D’Souza, G.E.; Norton, V.J. 1997. 

External costs of aquaculture production in West Virginia. 

Environmental and Resource Economics 10: 167–175.

Smith, D.M.; Williams, K.C.; Irvin, S.; Barclay, M.; Tabrett, S. 

2003. Development of a pelleted feed for juvenile tropical 

spiny lobster (Panulirus ornatus): response to dietary protein 

and lipid. Aquaculture Nutrition 9: 231–237.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. No date. Hybrid 

striped bass. <http://www.msstate.edu/dept/srac/bass2.

htm>.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1989 July. 

Hybrid Striped Bass Pond Production of Foodfish. SRAC 

Publication No. 303.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1993. Channel 

catfish production: impacts of diet composition and feeding 

practices. SRAC Publication No. 187.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1997–2000. 

Verification of recommended management practices for 

major aquatic species: catfish yield verification trials, 1997-

2000, final report—Arkansas. University of Arkansas, Division 

of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1998a. 

Characterization and management of effluents from aquaculture ponds in the southeastern United States. SRAC Final 

Project No. 600.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1998b. Improving 

feeds for hybrid striped bass. SRAC Publication No. 304.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1999. 

Characterization and management of effluents from aquaculture ponds in the southeastern United States. SRAC 

Publication No. 470.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. 2005. Species profile: 

Cobia. SRAC Publication No. 7202.

State of Alaska. 2005. The Alaska Statutes. Title 16, Chapter 

16.05, Article 01, Section 16.40.100. Aquatic farm and 

hatchery permits.

State of Colorado, Division of Wildlife Web site. <http://wildlife.state.co.us>.

State of Florida. 2005. Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 

5L-3, aquaculture best management practices, p. 323–324.

State of Georgia, State Soil and Water Conservation 

Commission. 1994. Agricultural best management practices 

for protecting water quality in Georgia. Supported by the 

Georgia Environmental Protection Division and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

State of Idaho, Division of Environmental Quality. No date. 

Idaho waste management guidelines for aquaculture 

operations.

State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. 

Decision analysis report: national pollutant discharge elimination system program review.

State of Illinois, Department of Natural Resources. 

Administrative Rule 17 Ill. Adm. Code 870.60. Restricted 

species transportation permit procedures.

State of Iowa. 2005. Iowa Code, Section 481A.143: Licensed 

aquaculture units—requirements.

State of Kentucky. 2005. Kentucky Administrative 

Regulations. 301 KAR 1:120. Live fish sales and handling: 

licensure.

State of Wisconsin. 2005. Wisconsin Administrative Code. 

ATCP 11.58: fish imports.

State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources, 

Cooperative Environmental Assistance Bureau. 2002. Getting 

started in aquaculture: environmental concerns and regulations. Publication CO-292.

Steeby, James, 2006. Personal communication. Area 

Extension Agent for Aquaculture, Mississippi State 

University.

Stoskopf, M.K. 1993. Fish Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. 

Saunders & Co.: 149–159.

Stomal, B.; Weigel, J.-Y. 1997. Aquaculture economics 

in Africa and the Middle East: a regional assessment. In: 

Charles, A.T.; Agbayani, R.F.; Agüero, M.; Belleza, E.T.; 

González, E.; Stomal, B.; Weigel, J.-Y., eds. Aquaculture 

Economics in Developing Countries: Regional Assessments 

and an Annotated Bibliography. FAO Fisheries Circular 

No. 932 FIRI/C932. <http://www.sadl.uleth.ca/nz/collect/

faodocs/import/www.fao.org/docrep/w7387e/W7387E02.

htm>.

Subasinghe, R.P. 1997. Fish health and quarantine. 

In: Review of the State of World Aquaculture Health 

Management. FAO Fisheries Department. <http://www.fao.

org/docrep/003/w7499e/w7499e23.htm>.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 51

Subasinghe, R.P.; Curry, D.; McGladdery, S.E.; Bartley, D. 

2003. Recent technological innovations in aquaculture. In: 

Review of the State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries 

Circular No. 886, Rev. 2. <http://www.fao.org/documents/

show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y4490E/Y4490E00.

HTM>.

Summerfelt, R. 2000, March 29. A white paper on the status 

and needs of walleye aquaculture in the North Central 

Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center.

Surfrider Foundation Web site. 2003. Cruise ship pollution. 

<http://www.surfrider.org/a-z/cruise.htm>.

Suvanich, V.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. 1999. Consumer acceptability of value-added seafood nibblets developed from catfish 

frame mince. Poster presentation at the Proceedings of the 

5th Joint Meeting, Atlantic Fisheries Technology Conference 

& Tropical and Subtropical Seafood Science and Technology 

Society of the Americas New Partnerships for Sustained 

Growth in Fisheries, Atlantic Beach, Florida, November 

10–14. <http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu/24thAnn/file30.pdf>.

Swann, L.; Riepe, J.R.; Brown, P.B. 1993. Analyzing the profitability of hybrid striped bass cage culture. Illinois–Indiana 

Sea Grant Program, Aquaculture Extension, Fact Sheet 

AS–487.

Swanson, L. 2004. Firm turns fish into fertilizer and feed. 

Business 26(1): 24.

Swecker, D. 2002. History of farmed salmon in Washington. 

Washington Fish Growers Association. <http://www.wfga.

net/history.asp>.

Swick, R.A.; Cremer, M.C. 2001. Livestock production: a 

model for aquaculture? Guest Lecture. In: Subasinghe, 

R.P.; Bueno, P.; Phillips, M.J.; Hough, C.; McGladdery, S.E.; 

Arthur, J.R., eds. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, 49–60. 

Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in 

the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, February 20–25, 

2000. NACA, Bangkok, and FAO, Rome.

Tacon, A.G.J. 1997. Aquafeeds and feeding strategies. In: 

Review of the State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries 

Circular No. 886 FIRI/C886, Rev. 1, Rome.

Thad Cochran National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, 

Mississippi State University. No date. Summary: water quality, 1994–2004. Southern Extension and Research Activity 

Information Exchange Group 9. <http://msstate.edu/dept/

tcnwac/Seraieg/WATER%20QUALITY.htm>.

The Washington Fish Growers Association Web site. 2002 

June 11. Heritage salmon part of historic settlement. <http://

www.wfga.net/print.asp?a=news&printid=1735>.

The Washington Fish Growers Association. 2004 January 25. 

Company produces grain-based fish feeds. WFGA News. 

<http://www.wfga.com/articles/0803/aquatic_feed.html>.

The Water Farming Initiative. 2002. Heads or tails? A 

water farming handbook. Oldways Preservation and 

Exchange Trust, Boston, MA. <http://www.e-guana.

net/organizations/org/_Heads_Tails3_1.pdf>.

Tidwell, J.H.; Allan, G.L. 2001. Fish as food: aquaculture’s 

contribution. EMBO Reports 2 (11): 958–963.

Trout Unlimited Web site. <http://www.tu.org>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. No date. Abstract of research project: aquaculture and livestock feed supplements from fish processing 

waste. <http://ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.

htm?ACCN_NO=403200>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. No date. Abstract of research project: feed ingredients from fish processing waste. <http://ars.usda.gov/

research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=405213>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. 2002. Fish Processing Byproduct Utilization Project. 

Conference agenda: 2nd International Seafood Byproduct 

Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, November 10–13. <http://

www.uaf.edu/seagrant/Conferences/byproduct-prog.html>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 

Service. 2004. Improving sunshine bass production. <http://

www/ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jun04/bass0604.htm>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. No date. 

Development of a national aquatic animal health plan. 

Prepared by the National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force, 

sub-committee on aquaculture. <http://www.aphis.usda.

gov/vs/aqua/pdf/elements_naahp.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. 1997. Aquaculture 

industry report. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/

aqua0897.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. 2003. Part I: 

Reference of Fingerling Catfish Health and Production 

Practices in the United States. #N406.1103. Centers for 

Epidemiology and Animal Health, National Animal Health 

Monitoring System, Fort Collins, CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

2004 October. Agricultural Outlook.
52 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

2004 March. Agricultural Outlook.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

2004 October. Aquaculture Outlook (released October 6, 

2005).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service 

Web site. 2002. Country of origin labeling. <http://www.ers.

usda.gov/Features/FarmBill/analysis/cool.htm>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Aquatic Animal 

Health Task Force. 2004 January 30. Meeting of Work Group 

1, final draft. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/aqua/pdf/

wg1_rpt_1-3-04.pdf> and <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/

aqua/pdf/elements_naahp.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistical Service. 2002. Census of Aquaculture.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2001 September. Conservation practice standard: drainage water management. Code 554.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Erosion control on watersheds 

and pond embankments. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 3. 

Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Feed management. Alabama 

Aquaculture BMP No. 7. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Fish mortality management. 

Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 13. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Reducing storm runoff into 

ponds. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 1. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Managing ponds to reduce 

effluent volume. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 2. Auburn 

University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Pond fertilization. Alabama 

Aquaculture BMP No. 8. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Managing ponds to improve 

quality of overflow effluent. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 9. 

Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Managing ponds to improve 

quality of draining effluent. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 

10. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Therapeutic agents. Alabama 

Aquaculture BMP No. 11. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2002. Water quality enhancers. 

Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 12. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2003 October. Conservation practice 

standard: waste treatment lagoon. Code 359.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2004. Managing flow-through systems. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 20. Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2004. Managing ponds for inland 

culture of marine shrimp. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 16. 

Auburn University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2004. Managing systems for tilapia culture. Alabama Aquaculture BMP No. 17. Auburn 

University.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

1996. Mississippi Delta management systems evaluation 

area. Open file report 96–342.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002, August. Draft 

guidance for aquatic animal production facilities to assist in 

reducing the discharge of pollutants. Office of Water (4303T), 

Washington DC. <http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/

aquaculture/guidance/section1.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002 August. Effluent 

guidelines, aquatic animal production industry: proposed rule 

development document. <http://epa.gov/guide/aquaculture/

tdd/tdd.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002 September. 

Effluent guidelines, aquatic animal production industry: 

proposed rule economic and environmental analysis. <http://

epa.gov/ost/guide/aquaculture/ea/ea.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Aquatic 

biodiversity: air pollution (update). <http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/aquatic/airpoll.html>.
Phase 1: U.S. Aquaculture Industry Profile 53

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Cuyahoga 

River area of concern (update). EPA Web site, Great Lakes, 

Areas of Concern, Cuyahoga River. <http://www.epa.

gov/glnpo/aoc/cuyahoga.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Assessment 

and monitoring: which atmospheric deposition pollutants pose the greatest problem (update). EPA Web site, 

Assessment and Monitoring, Air Pollution & Water Quality, 

Pollutants. <http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/aquatic/pollution.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Aquatic 

biodiversity: pollution (update). <http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/aquatic/pollution.html>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Agriculture 

Compliance Assistance Center. 2005. Aquaculture operations. <http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/anaquidx.html>.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site., 2007. Drugs 

approved for use in aquaculture. <http://www.fda.gov/cvm/

drugsuseaqua.htm>.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. Import alerts. 

<http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_alerts.html>.

U.S. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. No date. The 

shortest yard. National Coordinator for Aquaculture, New 

Animal Drug Applications. <http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/jsa/aquadrugs/projects/shortest-yard.htm>.

U.S. Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. 2002. Aquatic 

animal production industry effluent guidelines. Aquaculture 

Effluents Task Force. <http://www.aquanic.org/jsa/effluents/

EPA%20Fedsession.ppt>.

United Nations Atlas of the Oceans Web site. <http://www.

oceansatlas.org/index.jsp>.

Van Wyk, P.; Davis-Hodgkins, M.; Laramore, R.; Main, K.L.; 

Mountain, J.; Scarpa, J. 1999. Farming marine shrimp in 

freshwater systems: an economic development strategy 

for Florida: final report. FDACS Contract No. 4520. Harbor 

Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc., Fort Pierce, FL. 

<http://www.hboi.edu/aqua/downloads/pdf/shrimpmanual_

final.pdf>.

Virginia State University Extension. 2003. Aquaculture. 

<http://msstate.edu/dept/tcnwac/Seraieg/2004VSU.pdf>.

Wabnitz, C. 2003. From ocean to aquaria: the trade in marine 

ornamentals worldwide. Ornamental Fish International 

Journal 43 (October).

Wageningen University, The Netherlands, Cell Biology and 

Immunology Group Web site. <http://www.zod.wau.nl/ceni/

index.htm>.

Ward, L.R.; Carter, C.G.; Crear, B.J.; Smith, D.M. 2003. 

Optimal dietary protein level for juvenile southern rock 

lobster, Jasus edwardsii, at two lipid levels. Aquaculture 217: 

483–500.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Commercial 

production of Atlantic salmon: escapes and recoveries in 

Washington State. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/atlantic/comcatch.htm>.

Washington Post. 2003 April 13. Good fat, healthier heart.

Watanabe, T. 2002. Strategies for further development of 

aquatic feeds. Fisheries Science 68: 242–252.

Weaver, D.E. No date. Importation of diseases with ornamental fish: problem and risk analysis. <http://www.scientifichatcheries.com/Importation.HTML>.

West Hawaii Today. 2003 December 5. Hilo company plans 

ahi pens.

Western Regional Aquaculture Center. 2001 November. 

WRAC Industry Situation and Outlook Report 6. <http://

www.fish.washington.edu/wrac/annualrpt.html>.

Whirling Disease Web site. Frequently Asked Questions. 

<http://www.whirling-disease.org/FAQ.html>.

White, K.; O’Neill, B.; Tzankova, Z. 2004. At a crossroads: 

will aquaculture fulfill the promise of the blue revolution? 

SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse Report. <http://www.

seaweb.org/resources/documents/reports_crossroads.pdf>.

Wikfors, G.H. 2001. Feeding strategies for the nursery culture 

of bivalve mollusks (abstract). Presented at Aquaculture 

Canada 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 6–9.

Williams, C.J.; Moffitt, C.M. 2001. A critique of methods of 

sampling and reporting pathogens in populations of fish. 

Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 13: 300–309.

Williams, C.J.; Moffitt, C.M. 2003. Bayesian estimation of 

fish disease prevalence from pooled samples incorporating 

sensitivity and specificity. In: Williams, C.J., ed. American 

Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 659, Bayesian 

Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and 

Engineering: 22nd International Workshop, Moscow, Idaho, 

2002.
54 Assessing Infectious Disease Emergence Potential in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry

Williams, K. 2000. Tilapia culture in cages and open ponds. 

Langston University, Agricultural Research and Extension 

Programs, Langston, OK.

Williams, K.C.; Barlow, C. 1996. Nutritional research in 

Australia to improve pelleted diets for growout barramundi, 

Lates calcarifer (Bloch). In: Kongkeo, H.; Cabanban, 

A.S., eds. Workshop on Aquaculture of Coral Fishes and 

Sustainable Reef Fisheries, Tuaran, Sabah, Malaysia, 

December.

Wilson, R.P. 2003. History of FFNW and some suggestions 

for future fish nutrition research. PowerPoint presentation 

at 29th Fish Feed & Nutrition Workshop (FFNW), Davis, CA, 

June 22–25. <http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/events/special/ffnw/2003/materials/InvitedSpeakers/Bob%20Wilson.

pdf>.

World Aquaculture Society Web site. 2006. <http://www.was.

org/main/FrameMain.asp>.

World Organisation for Animal Health. 2003a. Aquatic Animal 

Health Code, 6th edition (online edition). <http://www.oie.

int/eng/normes/fcode/A_summry.htm>.

World Organisation for Animal Health. 2003b. Manual of 

Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals, 4th edition (online 

edition). <http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/fmanual/A_summry.

htm>.

Wurts, W.A. 2004. Organic fertilization in culture ponds. 

World Aquaculture 35 (2): 64–65.

Wynne, F. No date. Use of liquid oxygen for the transportation of live catfish. Kansas State University Extension 

Service. <http://ces.ca.uky.edu/westkentuckyaquaculture/>.

Wynne, F.; Webster, C. 2000. Hybrid striped bass production 

in Kentucky.” <http://aquanic.org/publicat/state/ky/hsbmanual.htm>.

Yeh, S.-P. No date. The aquaculture status and its sustainability in Taiwan. Aquafind Aquatic Fish Database. <http://

aquafind.com/articles/taiwan.php>.

Zaldivar, M.J. 2004. Review of the commercial situation of 

fishmeal and fish oil and the new requirements imposed on 

them. Paper presented at Tecnica Aqua Sur, Chile, 2005. 

<http://www.iffo.org.uk/tech/TecnAqua.htm>