Economic Sustainability of Seabass/Seabream Production in the Mediterranean Sea by European Firms

European seabass and gilthead seabream are two economically important cultured fish species along the Mediterranean coast. Both species represent respectively 10.9% and 13.5% of the total value of the European aquaculture sector (Eurostat, 2013). The EU is one of the largest producers of seabass and seabream in the world, being Greece the largest producer within the EU, followed by Spain. However, the Turkish seabass and seabream industry has been steadily increasing production volumes for the last decade to the point where Turkey is now the world’s major producer of seabass, competing with European producers with lower prices (Globefish, 2015). As consequence, during this period of time, European firms have been struggling to maintain profitability of their farms. The main aim of this work, which is part of the MedAID project funded by the EC (H2020, GA727315), is to carry out a break-even analysis (BEA) of seabass/seabream European producers in the Mediterranean Sea. Calculation of break-even point is important for every business because it tells business owners and managers how much sales are needed to cover all fixed as well as variable expenses of the business or the sales volume after which the business will start generating profit. To perform this analysis, we have used an unbalanced panel of data composed of a sample of 16 seabass/seabream producers’ firms in the Mediterranean Sea from 7 European countries (Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain) during a period of 10 years (2005-2014). Economic data for this analysis was obtained from the Amadeus and Eumofa databases

Estimating the economic performance of the EU aquaculture sector

Despite the growing importance and high priority assigned by the EU policy makers to the development of aquaculture, little attention has been given to analyze the economic performance of the sector at EU level. Recently, the profitability of the EU aquaculture sector has been estimated by the European Commission’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). However, the few studies that have estimated the profitability of the EU aquaculture sector show sometimes divergent results. In this paper, the economic performance of the EU aquaculture sector is analyzed by country, segment and main species for the years 2006, 2009 and 2010 using financial and accounting data extracted from the Amadeus database and results are compared to other studies. This analysis helps to understand the methodological differences between the diverse sources. Moreover, this alternative methodology offers a simpler and faster alternative to the STECF’s profitability estimates of the aquaculture sector. The analysis indicates that after the economic downturn, companies started to recover profits in 2010 in almost all segments and countries, and that the highest profitability is recorded by companies in the marine segment as compared to freshwater and shellfish

Aquaculture subsidies in the European Union: Evolution, impact and future potential for growth

Through its structural funds the European Union (EU) has invested €1.17 billion in the aquaculture sector over the period 2000–2014. In addition, the EU plans to spend a further €1.72 billion on the sector over the period 2014–2020 through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Despite this support, EU aquaculture production has not taken off. Indeed, EU production volume in 2016 was 8% less than in 2000, while global production increased by more than 150%. These investments aim to make the EU aquaculture sector more successful and competitive by focusing on quality, health and safety, as well as, eco-friendly production to provide consumers with high-quality, highly nutritional and trustworthy products. This study provides the first comprehensive overview on the allocation of the different structural funds in the aquaculture sector and across EU Member States from the year 2000–2020. The importance of these subsidies is put into perspective by comparing their evolution within and across the development of the different EU countries’ aquaculture sectors.publishedVersio

Comparative genomics of Ceriporiopsis subvermispora and Phanerochaete chrysosporium provide insight into selective ligninolysis

Efficient lignin depolymerization is unique to the wood decay basidiomycetes, collectively referred to as white rot fungi. Phanerochaete chrysosporium simultaneously degrades lignin and cellulose, whereas the closely related species, Ceriporiopsis subvermispora, also depolymerizes lignin but may do so with relatively little cellulose degradation. To investigate the basis for selective ligninolysis, we conducted comparative genome analysis of C. subvermispora and P. chrysosporium. Genes encoding manganese peroxidase numbered 13 and five in C. subvermispora and P. chrysosporium, respectively. In addition, the C. subvermispora genome contains at least seven genes predicted to encode laccases, whereas the P. chrysosporium genome contains none. We also observed expansion of the number of C. subvermispora desaturase-encoding genes putatively involved in lipid metabolism. Microarray-based transcriptome analysis showed substantial up-regulation of several desaturase and MnP genes in wood-containing medium. MS identified MnP proteins in C. subvermispora culture filtrates, but none in P. chrysosporium cultures. These results support the importance of MnP and a lignin degradation mechanism whereby cleavage of the dominant nonphenolic structures is mediated by lipid peroxidation products. Two C. subvermispora genes were predicted to encode peroxidases structurally similar to P. chrysosporium lignin peroxidase and, following heterologous expression in Escherichia coli, the enzymes were shown to oxidize high redox potential substrates, but not Mn2. Apart from oxidative lignin degradation, we also examined cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic systems in both fungi. In summary, the C. subvermispora genetic inventory and expression patterns exhibit increased oxidoreductase potential and diminished cellulolytic capability relative to P. chrysosporium

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Methods: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22–1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84–1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51–8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69–4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24–0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Interpretation: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. Funding: Bayer and Janssen