ReviewAn overview of the Brazilian frog farming
Introduction
Human population growth and the increase of individual income in many countries are intensifying the global consumption of animal food source (Godfray et al., 2018; Steinfeld et al., 2006; Vranken et al., 2014). Feeding a growing population and reducing the pressures of food production on the environment is a major challenge (Froehlich et al., 2018b; Herrero et al., 2015; Macdiarmid et al., 2016). The assessment of negatives impacts caused by animal production is generally centered on land use (Froehlich et al., 2018b). For instance, livestock uses about 80% of the planet's agricultural land, the vast majority of which are represented by extensive ruminant systems (Herrero et al., 2015). There are major differences on the impact level, which can vary according to the produced species, the type of product, and the applied production method (Hilborn et al., 2018). A more efficient and diversified food system, whether due to the number of species produced, places of production and/or feeding strategies is linked to resilience in the global food system (Troell et al., 2014).
The adoption of a diversified diet, consisting of small daily portions of different types of meat or other products of animal origin (Willett and Skerrett, 2005) implies in a reduction of the required areas of arable land and pasture (Stehfest et al., 2009). The land area required for food production will increase in all future scenarios, but millions of hectares could be spared by an increase in human diets based on a higher proportion of aquatic animal protein (Froehlich et al., 2018b). Human diets in which aquatic organisms are dominant when compared to livestock could reduce annual crop yield requirements by 34 million tons and decrease land areas for cultivation and grazing, saving ca. 750 million hectares (Froehlich et al., 2018b). Furthermore, while terrestrial food production is based on a limited number of species, aquaculture uses a wide range of cultured species and different production systems (Subasinghe, 2005). More than 330 species are farmed, including a variety of taxa, such as crustaceans, mollusks, fish, amphibians, and alligators (FAO, 2019; Metian et al., 2020).
Currently, aquaculture represents the fastest growing food production sector in the world, increasing its global production almost fivefold from 1990 to 2015, and it is expected to double by the middle of this century (Froehlich et al., 2018a; Ottinger et al., 2018; Tacon, 2020). In 2012 the cultivation of aquatic species exceeded the production of beef, which has always remained the main protein source in the world (Larsen and Roney, 2013). In 2017 aquaculture production was about 80 million tons, with over 66.7% represented by fish, followed by mollusks (21.7%), crustaceans (10.5%) and others, such as sea cucumbers, sea urchins, frogs, and turtles (1.1%) (FAO, 2019). Most of this production comes from developing countries (Subasinghe, 2005), especially in South America, which are recognized for their large production and high economic impact on local and global aquaculture (Valladão et al., 2018). In addition to extensive fish production, South American countries also produce a variety of aquatic organisms, including shrimp, shellfish, and frogs (Valladão et al., 2018).
Aquaculture systems require large amounts of good quality water sources to sustain the long-term growth and health of the produced species (Qing et al., 2021). Besides, environmental impacts are associated with aquaculture such as the degradation and contamination of water systems due to the increase in nutrient concentration in the aqueous medium, which relates to the accumulation of excretion and uneaten feed residues (Qing et al., 2021; Viegas et al., 2021). Organic and inorganic nutrients figure among the main contaminants, such as ammonia, nitrite, and phosphorus, as well as a diversity of microorganisms, including pathogens (Díaz et al., 2011; Rosa et al., 2020).
Frog production, frog farming, or ranaculture, has been recorded since the 20th century (Altherr et al., 2011; FAO, 2021), although frog consumption dates back at least to the 16th century (Neveu, 2004). Frog meat, especially frog legs, has white color, soft texture, and mild flavor (Herbst, 1995), being considered a delicacy in Europe (Tyler et al., 2007). In the 1980's, Asian countries had high exports, which had been accompanied a world consumption of 6500 tons of frog legs per year (Beebee, 1996). In recent years, it has attracted the attention of consumers who are increasingly concerned with health, due to its nutritional characteristics, such as low lipids percentage and high quality of proteins and amino acids (Oliveira et al., 2017; Paixão and Bressan, 2009). Frog production requires special facilities for different life stages (tadpole vs. post-metamorphic) and several specifications for breeding practices, such as temperature and water quality control, nutrition, and adequate sanitation (Cribb et al., 2013; Lutz and Avery, 1999). Prominent technological advances have maximized frog farming expansion, increasing the production under controlled conditions (Olvera-Novoa et al., 2007). Currently, the main frog producers are based in Asia (Taiwan and China) and Latin America (especially Brazil and Mexico) (FAO, 2019; Mello et al., 2016), while Europe and the USA represent the largest consumers and importers in the world (Altherr et al., 2011; FAO, 2019; Neveu, 2004).
Few frog species are used as meat source, including the European green frog [Pelophylax ridibundus (Pallas, 1771)], the East Asian bullfrog [Hoplobatrachus rugulosus (Wiegmann, 1834)], and other Rana spp. However, the North American bullfrog (Aquarana catesbeiana; hereafter bullfrog), is the most farmed amphibian globally (FAO, 2021) (Fig. 1A). Due to its ease of handling, rapid growth, prolificacy, large size, and fleshy legs, it is favored by producers (Cribb et al., 2013; Lutz and Avery, 1999). As a result, it has been introduced in more than 40 countries for frog farming (FAO, 2021; Frost, 2021; García et al., 2020).
Frog production has either increased or maintained stable over the years. We observed an increase of over 100% in world production in 2018 when compared to 2010. From 2010 to 2018 the world average production was approximately 3200 tons of bullfrog per year, led by Taiwan, but with great contributions from Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, Ecuador, and Mexico (FAO, 2021) (Fig. 1B and C). Even though bullfrog production is still not as representative as other aquatic species, its worldwide production is growing and has contributed to the global economy with an average of 11 million USD per year movement from 2010 to 2018, reaching its peak in 2013, with 14.5 million USD (FAO, 2021) (Fig. 1B). The bullfrog production is ecologically relevant as well, as the increase in its consumption could reduce beef's and add resilience to the food system (Froehlich et al., 2018b; Troell et al., 2014). On the other hand, it represents one of the worst invasive species in the world, a condition directly related to the development of frog farming and its (in)consequent introduction in several countries, including Brazil (Ficetola et al., 2007; Govindarajulu et al., 2006; Kraus, 2015; Lowe et al., 2000; Lutz and Avery, 1999).
Bullfrogs are well adapted to Brazilian climatic conditions, where numerous feral populations were reported (Both et al., 2011). In addition, a model predicted high likelihood rates of occurrence and success in the establishment of bullfrog populations in Brazilian regions, especially in the south and southeast (Giovanelli et al., 2008). Invasive species play an important role in the global amphibian crisis and can directly or indirectly affect native amphibian fitness, population size and dynamics, and community structure (Carpenter et al., 2014; Falaschi et al., 2020; Fisher and Garner, 2007; Manenti et al., 2020). Bullfrogs can prey on native anurans (Boelter et al., 2012; Leivas et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2011; Toledo et al., 2007), interfere on native amphibian acoustic communication (Both and Grant, 2012; Forti et al., 2017; Medeiros et al., 2017), and act as pathogens carriers (Brunner et al., 2019; O'Hanlon et al., 2018). Therefore, frog farmers must avoid accidental bullfrog releases into the surrounding environments.
Brazil was one of the first countries to import live bullfrogs (FAO, 2005; Schloegel et al., 2010b), and since then it represents one of the largest contributors and suppliers of technology for frog farming (Pahor-Filho et al., 2019). Brazilian bullfrog farms have promising infrastructure, environmental conditions, and a potential market in several regions of the country (Feix et al., 2006; Rodrigues et al., 2010; Sousa and Maltarolo, 2019). However, the slow process of environmental licensing and producer registration and the laboriousness in products transportation (Cribb et al., 2013) has led to the sector instability, lack of production and trade data, or even the difficulties to access them. As a result, there is great complication in carrying out studies and research for innovations, improvements in the activity, and consequently, in the development of action plans aimed at the conservation of native species. Hence, we here present an updated data on the number and distribution of bullfrog farms in Brazil, as well as economic and environmental aspects of the Brazilian frog farming, with perspectives for the sustainable development of this activity.
Section snippets
Material and methods
We used a database provided by FAOSTAT, accessed in June 2020, to estimate the proportion of frog species produced in the world, the volume of global bullfrog production, and the sale value between 2000 and 2018. Regarding Brazilian frog farming, we carried out an extensive search to compile information about the number and distribution of bullfrog farms from February 2019 to January 2020. We searched for bullfrog farms available on the internet (Google, YouTube, and diverse social media),
Production processes and bullfrog trade
Some native large-sized frog species have been suggested for commercial farming, as the pepper frog [Leptodactylus labyrinthicus (Spix 1824)], smoky jungle frog [Leptodactylus pentadactylus (Laurenti, 1768)], and the butter frog [Leptodactylus latrans (Steffen 1815)] (Cribb et al., 2013; Ferreira et al., 2002; Lima et al., 1987; Lima and Agostinho, 1992; Weigert et al., 1998). However, currently Brazilian frog farming consists of the production in captivity of a single species, the
Types of bullfrog production workflow
We classified the farms regarding their production phases and products marketed: i) complete production farms, those that present all three phases, from reproduction to marketing live frogs, meat and/or co-products; ii) first-stage production farms, which deals only with the reproduction, eggs development, and tadpoles raising phases, selling live tadpoles and/or metamorphic to other farms; iii) growth production farms, where producers acquire tadpoles and/or metamorphic from other farms and
Distribution of bullfrog farms in Brazil
The pathways of bullfrog introductions in Brazil are not a consensus in the literature yet (e.g., Jorgewich-Cohen et al., 2020). Some authors mention that the first bullfrog introduction came from the United States of America (Sousa and Maltarolo, 2019), while others suggest that the origin is Canada (Cribb et al., 2013). Indeed, the first 300 bullfrog couples were brought from North America to Brazil in 1935 by a Canadian technician (Ferreira et al., 2002). Shortly after, the first commercial
Quantitative and economic aspects of the bullfrog production
Production is estimated based on the number of individuals that reach slaughter weight, the weight of these individuals (gross weight), or the weight of bullfrog meat produced (net weight). Due to these divergences, we standardized and calculated all production volume data based on live bullfrogs and bullfrog meat and expressed this data in (gross and net, respectively) tons per year. For this, we established that the slaughtered bullfrogs would weight 275 g each, which is an ideal average
Commercial routes and marketed products
We recorded 190 commercial routes and classified them as follows: i) intrastate, when the product is commercialized within the state of origin (n = 113); ii) interstate, when the product is commercialized between different states (n = 72), and iii) international, when the product is commercialized between Brazil and other countries (n = 5) (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3). In addition, we categorized the products marketed for each route as live bullfrogs, meat or co-products, and both. The
Concluding remarks
A worldwide growth of aquaculture could be beneficial to the environment, with Brazil being the country that would spare the greater area of land by reducing its dependency on livestock (Froehlich et al., 2018b). Brazil has great potential for expanding frog farming, not only because of the infrastructure and techniques employed by the farmers (Pahor-Filho et al., 2019), but also due to the adaptation of the bullfrog to Brazilian climatic conditions (Both et al., 2011; Rodrigues et al., 2010).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We thank all bullfrog producers for their collaboration and for providing information about their farms. We thank Rolando Mazzoni and André A. Muniz for the information provided. We thank Diego Moura Campos and João Afonso Martins do Carmo for English revisions. Cléber Venturelli, Guilherme Moreira, and Paulo Troiano for pictures of bullfrog dishes. This work was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP #2016/25358-3, #2018/23622-0, #2019/18335-5); the National Council for Scientific
References (150)
- et al.
Daily frequency of water changes in flooded pens during initial bullfrog rearing
Aquaculture
(2020) - et al.
Economic inefficiency and environmental impact: an application to aquaculture production
J. Environ. Econ. Manag.
(2009) - et al.
Electrooxidation for simultaneous ammonia control and disinfection in seawater recirculating aquaculture systems
Aquac. Eng.
(2016) - et al.
Kinetics of electrooxidation of ammonia-N, nitrites and COD from a recirculating aquaculture saline water system using BDD anodes
Water Res.
(2011) - et al.
The relationship between the emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the international trade in amphibians and introduced amphibian species
Fungal Biol. Rev.
(2007) - et al.
Eating like there’s no tomorrow: public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet
Appetite
(2016) - et al.
Frog tail: a source of protein to feed the future
Bol. do Inst. Pesca
(2017) - et al.
Indução à ovulação pelo uso de LHRH análogo e fertilização artificial em rã-touro (Rana catesbeiana)
Rev. Bras. Zootec.
(2000) - et al.
Time interval from ovulation to extrusion in female bullfrog in different photoperiods
Rev. Bras. Zootec.
(2011) - et al.
Diagnóstico do produtor familiar: desenvolvimento local pelo associativismo em ranicultura no município de Itaguaí no estado do Rio de Janeiro
Semioses
(2017)
Canapés to extinction - the international trade in frogs’ legs and its ecological impact
Effects of temperature and food quality on anuran larval growth and metamorphosis
Funct. Ecol.
Tracking viral particles in the intestinal contents of the American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus, by transmission electron microscopy
Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec.
Crescimento heterogêneo de girinos de rã-touro alimentados com diferentes rações
Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras.
Ecology and Conservation of Amphibians
A evolução da avicultura industrial brasileira e seus efeitos territoriais
Rev. Percurso
Invasive bullfrogs as predators in a Neotropical assemblage: what frog species do they eat?
Anim. Biol.
Characterization of effluents from bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus, Shaw, 1802) grow-out ponds
Acta Limnol. Bras.
Uma abordagem do associativismo: O estudo de caso da ranicultura em Guaratiba/RJ
Polêmica
Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs
Biol. Lett.
Widespread occurrence of the American bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw, 1802) (Anura: Ranidae), in Brazil
S. Am. J. Herpetol.
Influência da temperatura ambiente no desempenho da rã-touro, Rana catesbeiana (Shaw, 1802) na fase de recria
Rev. Bras. Zootec.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hídricos e da Amazônia Legal. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis. Portaria no 93, de 7 de julho de 1998. Regulamenta a importação e a exportação de espécimes vivos, produtos e subprodutos da fauna silvestre brasileira e da fauna silvestre exótica
Regulamento da Inspeção Industrial e Sanitária de Produtos de Origem Animal (RIISPOA)
Ranavirus infection dynamics and shedding in American bullfrogs: consequences for spread and detection in trade
Dis. Aquat. Org.
A review of the international trade in amphibians: the types, levels and dynamics of trade in CITES-listed species
Oryx
Ranicultura: Um bom negócio que contribui para a saúde
Rev. FAE
Avaliação de rações comerciais nas fases de crescimento e terminação da recria de rã-touro
Bol. do Inst. Pesca
Effects of stocking density on performance of bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) in the post-metamorphic phase
Rev. Bras. Zootec.
Qualidade da água em tanques de girinos de rã-touro, Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802, cultivados em diferentes densidades de estocagem
Rev. Bras. Zootec.
Sorption of organic pollutants by humic acids: a review
Molecules
CITES Trade Database
Caracterização e situação atual da cadeia de produção da piscicultura no Vale do Ribeira
Inform. Econ.
Perfil dos consumidores alegrenses quanto à carne de rã
Anais Congr. Brasil. Zoo.
O consumo de carne de rã: Caracterização, tendências e perspectivas
Manual técnico de ranicultura
Introdução da rã-touro, Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw, 1802): Uma revisão. SaBios Rev
Saúde e Biol.
Distribution and host range of ranaviruses
Invasive species and amphibian conservation
Herpetologica
International Introductions of Inland Aquatic Species
Rana catesbeiana. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme
FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2017/FAO Annuaire
The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action
Global Aquaculture Production 1950–2018. Fishery Statistical Collections
Resultado econômico da criação de rã em regiões de clima temperado, Brasil
Inform. Econ.
Desempenho e parâmetros metabólicos de rã-touro, Rana catesbeiana, alimentada com diferentes rações comerciais
Acta Sci. Anim. Sci.
Introdução à ranicultura
Bol. Técnico do Inst. Pesca
Prediction and validation of the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive species - the American bullfrog
Divers. Distrib.
Efeito da temperatura e do fotoperíodo sobre o desenvolvimento do aparelho reprodutor de rã-touro (Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802)
Rev. Bras. Zootec.
Chytrid fungi and global amphibian declines
Nat. Rev. Microbiol.
Cited by (13)
High prevalence and concomitant infection of Ranavirus and Eustrongylides sp. in the invasive American Bullfrog in Brazil
2024, Parasitology InternationalEnvironmental DNA survey does not detect additional populations of a critically endangered leaf frog, but reveal another threat to the species
2024, Journal for Nature ConservationHuman impact modulates chytrid fungus occurrence in amphibians in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
2022, Perspectives in Ecology and ConservationCitation Excerpt :We argue that the two processes may act together, as transportation can bring the pathogen and human alterations in the environment can make hosts more susceptible to infection, both leading to a perceived increase in importance for HFI in explaining pathogen occurrence. This might be exacerbated in highly modified environments such as the Atlantic Forest, especially in south-eastern Brazil, where most of our data collections points are, there are many bullfrog farms (Ribeiro and Toledo, 2022) which are likely to impact susceptible native species through the release of Bd zoospores into the environment (Ribeiro et al., 2019). Our findings challenge the expected effect of factors influencing species distribution, because climatic factors supposedly should prevail at larger spatial scales (Ricklefs, 1987; Willis and Whittaker, 2002), even though the scale in which anthropogenic effects influences biodiversity has not been widely tested (Cohen et al., 2016).