The growth and development of aquaculture around the world ultimately depends on whether it is economically feasible. Most aquaculture producers, scientists, and leaders recognize this and often make a reference in various ways to economics. Economic viability is also frequently included in various delineations of requirements for sustainability. Why is it, then, that the type of information needed by aquaculture producers, researchers, and policymakers to make sound decisions is in such short supply?

Engle (2016) discussed the need for and benefits of greater interdisciplinary efforts to address issues critical to the growth and development of aquaculture. Nevertheless, interdisciplinary work requires time commitment on the part of scientists from various disciplines to develop a sufficient understanding of foundational principles, approaches, and terminology of the other disciplines to develop a common language and begin to develop a productive working relationship.

There are several serious obstacles to collaborative work between aquaculture scientists and economists that often contribute to the lack of effective engagement. At the most generalized level, the problems begin with differences in the respective disciplinary approaches to science. Aquaculture biologists typically begin with observations and data from which patterns are sought that, through inductive reasoning, are eventually used to infer theories—essentially, beginning with the specifics and progressing to the general. Economists, on the other hand, tend to begin with the general theoretical framework and use deductive reasoning to predict the specifics that are then tested with data. Thus, at the outset, there are differing approaches to a given research problem among scientists trained in each discipline.

These differing approaches to research lead to differing choices in terms of what are viewed and defined as key problems that require solutions. From the aquaculture world, the key problems defined frequently stem from practical issues and questions. Examples might include: (a) Which feed is more “economical,” the one that is least expensive but has a greater feed conversion ratio or the more expensive one that has a better feed conversion ratio? or (b) Is it more “economical” to invest in new production systems that offer certain types of production advantages such as year‐round supply or production efficiencies (i.e., improved yield or feed conversion ratio) but require a great deal of capital? Many economists do not view these as research questions because economic theory already exists that explains the fundamental relationships among the relevant variables. To a producer, however, the answers to these questions require application of relevant economic theory to the collection and analysis of relevant data, the results of which are critical for economic success. Key research questions to an economist frequently relate to those that would advance general economic theory in new areas, with recent emphases on nonmarket valuation of ecosystem services, trade theory, and consumer preferences, among others. An aquaculture producer who is attempting to make a living raising fish, crustaceans, mollusks, or seaweed needs accurate, real‐world answers to specific questions, not generalized theory.

Thus, the many very good economists around the world mostly prioritize theoretical approaches and choose not to spend the often‐considerable amounts of time required to collect real‐world primary data. Such data are often highly variable and therefore challenging to work with, especially in the dynamic world of aquaculture. There are agricultural economics departments that no longer teach young economists how to collect accurate farm‐level, primary data. Farm Management, an agricultural economics course that was once required of all students of agricultural economics, is no longer taught in many agricultural economics programs. The Farm Management course was where young economists learned how to work with farm‐level data and how to apply economic concepts and theory to farm‐level decisions that ultimately affect the economic success of individual farms. The emphasis of many university programs on natural resource economics further distances economics students from the types of material and analytical approaches that are most useful and needed by aquaculture producers.

From the aquaculture side of this great divide, other obstacles emerge to effective interdisciplinary collaboration. How often have economists been brought in at the tail end of an aquaculture study and expected to produce results showing that what had been developed was, in fact, profitable? Economists who work diligently to gather primary, farm‐level data and who seek to generate results that are as accurate as possible often find themselves in the unenviable position of having to report that what their aquaculture colleague has worked to develop over 10 years or more is not economically viable. There is often strong pressure on economists to conclude that a specific practice is profitable or feasible when it is not. Worse yet is when aquaculture scientists do their own “economics” analysis without proper training and understanding. One example that occurs often enough to be of significant concern is that of a “partial” budget developed by simply omitting various costs that differ and are relevant to the analysis (often with the intent to make the preferred option appear to be economically feasible), not understanding that the partial budget technique developed for use in farm management excludes only those costs that are the same across the management options being evaluated to reduce duplication of calculations.

For aquaculture to grow and develop more rapidly, the above obstacles must be overcome. There are two options to achieve this. Either more aquaculture biologists and economists need to commit the time and effort together so that both overcome the obstacles described above, or more hybrids between aquaculture and economics need to be developed. For the first option, aquaculture scientists without in‐depth training in economics should refrain from making pronouncements about economics and from attempts at ad hoc economic analyses that often result in erroneous conclusions, causing more problems than are fixed. An economist needs to be involved early in the project, and the aquaculture scientist needs to be willing to adjust the study as needed, both at the initial experimental design stage and throughout the project. Economists who wish to contribute to aquaculture need to invest the time to learn about aquaculture businesses and understand how they have developed, the level of management required, and—most importantly—why those aquaculture producers who have been in business for many years currently do what they do. Successful aquaculture producers are those who have created viable business models and supply chains, often based on a combination of business intuition and trial and error in terms of farm practices that support the distribution and marketing strategies of the business model. Economists are unlikely to make real contributions to aquaculture problems without having spent time listening to successful aquaculture producers and learning the core reasons for their success.

The most effective, although longer‐term, solution likely is for professionals to become hybridized through formal training in both disciplines. Economically successful aquaculture producers are most often those who have internalized hybridized concepts of biology and economics. Out of necessity, aquaculture producers must apply and integrate effects of water quality, nutrition, engineering, and economics seamlessly and interchangeably in their decision‐making. Many producers understand intuitively the concepts of opportunity cost (both in terms of revenue and or profits), as well as how annual fixed costs must be managed. Biologists and biologists‐cum‐aquaculture producers often fail to account for such concepts and realities, which leads to overly optimistic, misleading, and inaccurate economic estimates. Aquaculture producers need more research and extension professionals who can match their level of familiarity with both aquaculture and economics, bridge the gaps and obstacles between the two disciplines, and communicate equally well and effectively in both worlds.

For aquaculture students, this will likely mean earning one degree in one discipline and a second degree in another. For an aquaculture student to take only one or two courses in “aquaculture economics” is not sufficient and provides only enough familiarity with economics to perhaps make serious errors. Training is required in economic theory, in accounting, in farm management, and in marketing, as well as in quantitative analytical methods in economics. For an economics student, similarly, a single “aquaculture” course is not sufficient. The economics student needs to also understand water chemistry, fish nutrition, diseases, and aquatic animal health, as well as basic husbandry. An economics student interested in aquaculture should spend time working on an aquaculture farm or participate in the field work of aquaculture production trials. In this way, they learn critical skills from aquaculture farm owners and managers and begin to understand what it takes for an aquaculture farm to be successful. Greater efforts are needed to develop interdisciplinary opportunities to assist students to become hybridized aquaculture economists.

The Journal of the World Aquaculture Society (JWAS) is committed to advancing the growth and development of aquaculture worldwide. Hybridized aquaculture economics work that provides comprehensive guidance regarding the economic feasibility of practical, farm‐level advances is needed for the growth and development of aquaculture and fits well in the aims and scope of JWAS.

世界各地水产养殖的增长和发展最终取决于其经济可行性。大多数水产养殖生产者，科学家和领导人都认识到这一点，并经常以各种方式引用经济学。可持续性要求的各种描述中也经常包含经济可行性。那么，为什么水产养殖生产者，研究人员和政策制定者做出正确的决策所需的信息却如此短缺？

恩格尔（Engle，2016）讨论了跨学科努力解决水产养殖增长和发展关键问题的必要性和益处。尽管如此，跨学科的工作需要各学科的科学家投入一定的时间来充分理解其他学科的基本原理，方法和术语，以发展共同的语言并开始建立富有成效的工作关系。

水产养殖科学家和经济学家之间开展合作工作存在若干严重障碍，这些障碍常常导致缺乏有效参与。从最广义的角度来看，问题始于各个学科的科学方法的差异。水产养殖生物学家通常从观察和数据开始，从中寻找模式，通过归纳推理，最终将其用于推论理论-本质上是从具体细节开始，然后发展到一般。另一方面，经济学家倾向于从一般的理论框架开始，并使用演绎推理来预测具体细节，然后再用数据进行检验。因此，一开始，在各个学科受过训练的科学家中，针对给定的研究问题有不同的方法。

这些不同的研究方法导致在被视为需要解决的关键问题的定义方面有不同的选择。在水产养殖界，定义的关键问题经常来自实际问题。示例可能包括：（a）哪种饲料更“经济”，哪一种是最便宜的但具有更高的饲料转化率的饲料，还是更昂贵的那种具有更好的饲料转化率的饲料？或（b）投资具有某些类型生产优势的新生产系统是否更“经济”，例如全年供应或生产效率（即 提高产量或饲料转化率），但需要大量资金吗？许多经济学家并不将这些视为研究问题，因为已经存在解释相关变量之间基本关系的经济学理论。但是，对于生产者而言，要想回答这些问题，就需要将相关的经济学理论应用于相关数据的收集和分析，其结果对于经济成功至关重要。经济学家的关键研究问题经常与那些将在新领域推动一般经济学理论发展的问题相关，其中最近的重点是生态系统服务的非市场价值评估，贸易理论和消费者偏好等。试图靠养鱼，甲壳类，软体动物或海藻为生的水产养殖生产者需要准确，

因此，世界各地许多非常优秀的经济学家大多优先考虑理论方法，并选择不花费通常时间来收集现实世界的原始数据。此类数据通常变化很大，因此很难使用，特别是在动态的水产养殖领域。有些农业经济学部门不再教导年轻的经济学家如何收集准确的农场一级原始数据。农场管理是一门农业经济学课程，曾经是所有农业经济学专业的学生都必须修读的课程，现在在许多农业经济学课程中都不再教授。在农场管理课程中，年轻的经济学家学习了如何使用农场一级的数据，以及如何将经济概念和理论应用于农场一级的决策，这些决策最终影响单个农场的经济成功。许多大学课程对自然资源经济学的重视进一步使经济学专业的学生远离水产养殖生产者最有用和最需要的材料和分析方法的类型。

在这种巨大鸿沟的水产养殖方面，有效的跨学科合作还面临其他障碍。经济学家在水产养殖研究的最后阶段多久被聘请一次，并预期产生的结果表明所开发的东西实际上是有利可图的？努力收集农场一级原始数据并寻求产生尽可能准确的结果的经济学家通常发现自己处于令人羡慕的地位，他们必须报告其水产养殖同事在过去十年或更长的时间里一直致力于发展什么。在经济上不可行。经济学家常常承受着很大的压力，要他们得出结论：某种特定的实践是有益的或可行的，而不是可行的。更糟糕的是，水产养殖科学家在没有适当培训和理解的情况下进行自己的“经济学”分析。

为了使水产养殖增长和发展更快，必须克服上述障碍。有两种方法可以实现此目的。要么更多的水产养殖生物学家和经济学家需要共同付出时间和精力，以克服上述障碍，要么需要发展水产养殖与经济学之间的更多混合体。对于第一种选择，未经经济学专业训练的水产养殖科学家应避免发表有关经济学的言论，也不应尝试进行经常性的经济分析，而这些分析往往会得出错误的结论，从而造成更多的问题。经济学家需要在项目的早期介入，水产养殖科学家需要愿意在最初的实验设计阶段和整个项目中根据需要调整研究。希望为水产养殖做出贡献的经济学家需要花费时间来了解水产养殖业并了解其发展方式，所需的管理水平，以及最重要的是，为什么那些已经从事多年经营的水产养殖生产者目前正在做什么？他们是这样。成功的水产养殖生产者是那些已经建立了可行的商业模式和供应链的生产者，它们通常基于商业直觉以及支持商业模式的分销和营销策略的农场实践中的反复试验。如果不花时间聆听成功的水产养殖生产者并了解其成功的根本原因，经济学家就不可能对水产养殖问题做出真正的贡献。

尽管是长期的，最有效的解决方案可能是使专业人员通过两个学科的正式培训而变得杂交。经济上成功的水产养殖生产者通常是那些将生物学和经济学混合概念内在化的人。水产养殖生产者在必要时必须在决策过程中无缝和互换地应用和整合水质，营养，工程和经济方面的影响。许多生产者直观地理解了机会成本的概念（无论是收益还是利润），以及如何管理年度固定成本。生物学家和生物学家兼水产养殖生产者常常无法解释这种概念和现实，从而导致过于乐观，误导和不准确的经济估计。

对于水产养殖专业的学生，​​这很可能意味着在一个学科中获得一个学位，而在另一学科中获得第二学位。对于水产养殖专业的学生而言，仅学习一门或两门“水产养殖经济学”课程是不够的，并且仅提供了足够的经济学知识，可能会犯严重的错误。需要进行经济学理论，会计，农场管理，市场营销以及经济学定量分析方法方面的培训。同样，对于经济学专业的学生来说，单门“水产养殖”课程是不够的。经济学学生还需要了解水化学，鱼类营养，疾病，水生动物健康以及基本饲养。对水产养殖感兴趣的经济学学生应花时间在水产养殖场工作或参加水产养殖生产试验的现场工作。通过这种方式，他们向水产养殖场所有者和管理者学习关键技能，并开始了解水产养殖场取得成功所需要的条件。需要加大努力来发展跨学科的机会，以帮助学生成为杂交水产养殖经济学家。

《世界水产养殖学会杂志》（JWAS）致力于促进全球水产养殖的增长和发展。杂交水产养殖经济学工作可为水产养殖的增长和发展提供实用的，农场一级发展的经济可行性的综合指导，并且完全符合JWAS的目标和范围。