The Potential for Shortening the Pen-Based Phase of the Salmon On-growing Cycle: Strategic Implications Keith Jeffery 16 th March 2016 Oceanology, Excel 2016.
Outline of presentation 1. Overview of Scottish Salmon farming Industry 2. Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF) & Centre Environment Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas) 3. Rationale for integration of net pens with RAS 4. Project (SP008) and approach taken 5. Development of bio economic model 6. Pros & cons 7. Summary & Strategic Implications
Overview of Scottish Salmon farming Industry Successful model for other open ocean aquaculture developments[1] Worth 580 million in 2011[2]= 40% total export Current production 170,000 tonnes Target = 210,000 tonnes p.a. by 2020[3] Global multi national companies. [1] Forster & Cobin (2010). What can U.S. Open Ocean aquaculture learn from salmon fa rming. J of Marine Technology Society Inc. Volume 44 Issue 3 68-79. [2] http://www.gov.scot/topics/marine/fish-shellfish/factsandfigures [3] Marine Scotland (2014) An Assessment of the Benefits to Scotland of Aquaculture: Research Summary.
Overview of Scottish Salmon farming Industry Current net pen model Sustainability important Planning, Modelling, Impacts Rural / Social value Hatcheries changes in recent years (Movement to RAS systems for smolts) time availability of smolts Global reputation for quality
Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF) & Centre Environment Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas) SARF Set up by Scottish Gov to achieve aims of strategic framework. To promote, encourage and support scientific research and development in aquaculture and related areas. Cefas - UK s most diverse centre for applied marine and freshwater science and research (Breadth knowledge) UK and international governments, public and private sector organisations, educational and research institutions Fisheries, aquaculture, aquatic animal health, offshore renewable energy, nuclear energy, international government capability. Research advice, consultancy, laboratory services and analysis, modelling, surveys, training & programme management. http://www.sarf.org.uk/ https://www.cefas.co.uk/
Rationale for integration with RAS If Industry is successful why change? (Capital and operating costs are lower in net pen culture systems) Difficulty of obtaining new sites (Semi-enclosed sea lochs) (Concerns over environmental pressures, vet medicines, nutrients, sea lice etc.) Despite mitigation, improvement and Scottish government guidance (still no guarantee of success of obtaining new sites - 16 new sites in 10 years) Growth of hatchery RAS systems for environmental/performance reasons Successful (now producing smolts 70g to 150g available almost all year)
(SARF SP008 Project ) and approach taken Scottish Government - interested in reducing time salmon spend in net pens by use of an intermediate land based system. Can the grow-out period in sea be reduced to < 12 months? 1. What would this mean for biological and economic efficiency? 2. Options, RAS, Floating contained, Flow through, partial recirc. 3. Development of a bio economic model that predicted the performance in combinations of systems. 4. Review implications for industry for adopting such scenarios SARF Contracted Cefas to deliver the above project
Development of bio-economic model Spreadsheet based model -built using field checked values RAS & PAS (flow through) modelled as intermediate systems before stocking pens with 1 kg fish. This provided five possible production scenarios 1. RAS only 2. Pump ashore (PAS) only 3. Net pen only 4. RAS to net pens 5. PAS to net pens INPUT Sea-time minimisation Harvest weight (g) * 1000 Model choice Model Allows industry and policy to enter their own biological and economic data RAS only Details Freshwater production phase Starting DOY 14 Hatching survival * 1 Days in smolt production system 0 Smolt weight 100 RAS Days spent here (manual) * Relative Growth Index (RGI) * 1 Temperature 14
Development of bio-economic model User enters own data into yellow cells and then clicks optimize Data field for biological data included Feed Conversion ratio (FCR) Mortality rates x 2 ( movement & per annum) Temperature (& temperature profile in sea) Specific Growth Rate (SGR) based on Skretting tables Relative Growth Index (RGI) scalar for SGR Time of entrance into intermediate system Default values provided based on research (but user can over-ride & enter their own data).
Development of bio-economic model Data field for Economic data included Capital Costs Land / buildings / equipment Storage / connection / monitoring / backup Operating Costs Feed Costs (Type of feed) Transportation costs (Well boat, Road, Helicopter) Electricity costs / Oxygen / bicarb Labour costs/ Maintenance / management Finance costs / Depreciation Default values provided for some cells based on research but user can enter their own data.
Development of bio economic model Model can provide answers to many questions FW nursery FW nursery to RAS to net-pen Duration under two different scenarios FW nursery to net-pen Jan Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Feed Weight change (kg) FCR Cost per fish Total Smolt production 0.10 1 0.00 0.00 RAS 0.90 1 1.06 951,750.00 PAS 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 Net Pens 0.00 1.1 0.00 0.00 Total Feed costs 951,750.00 Feed costs Transport Costs Transport Road Boats Helicopter Other Hatchery -> RAS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hatchery -> PAS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hatchery -> Net Pen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAS -> Net Pen 0.00 727,940.96 0.00 0.00 PAS -> Net Pen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Transport costs 0.00 727,940.96 0.00 0.00
Development of bio economic model The model can provide answers to many questions Times from egg to 4.5kgs A: S0 smolt based production PAS +NP RAS +NP NP PAS FW RAS PA NP RAS Jan 00 Mar 00 Jun 00 Sep 00 Dec 00 Mar 01 Jun 01 Sep 01 Dec 01 Mar 02 Jun 02 Difference in costs between systems
Worked example (from best available data) To provide clarity for industry and stakeholders Assumptions 3,300 tonnes per year of 1 kg fish 3,600,000 smolts stocked at 100g Smolts stocked four times per year (900,000) UK electricity double cost of USA CAPEX & OPEX based on 3 papers and adjusted for UK values. But stressed importance of Industry s own data! Boulet D, Struthers A, Gilbert E (2010) Feasibility Study of Closed-Containment Options for the British Columbia Industry. Dekhtyarev V (2014) Comparison of Atlantic salmon net pen and recirculating aquaculture systems : economical, technological and environmental issues. Vinci B, Summerfelt S (2014) Basic Economics of Land-Based Water Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Aquac. Innov. Work. No. 6, Vancouver, Br. Columbia Oct. 27-28, 2014. pp 1 24
Pros (Potential positive benefits) Financial Reducing to <12 months appears feasible which enables production of additional biomass from current sites efficiency of licensing regime. Operating costs may be reduced < medicine costs < mortalities Use of a single net size < operational time & investment in net pen stage Environmental <12 months cycle allows better co-ordination of farm management. Better spatial and temporal separation from wild salmonid migrations < emissions of nutrients & vet meds per tonne of fish produced < escapees and mortalities < risk from Jellyfish & HABS
Pros (Potential positive benefits) Industry development Removes short term constraint to growth of industry Risks to developing offshore may be managed longer term RAS experience enables Scotland / UK generate further opportunities Opportunity for safer working Environment / Disabled workers Vaccination teams have larger window of opportunity
Cons (Potential negative implications) Financial RAS system requires significant up front capital investment Sites also require supporting infrastructure (Piers & Jetties) RAS 1 kg post-smolt may cost > net pen 1kg fish (but increased production) Environmental Requires > co-ordination and whole area approaches Average biomass would increase in Category 1 areas RAS unit > visual impact than net pens Cleaner fish require smaller net sizes
Cons (Potential negative implications) Industry development cost per/kg may lead to competition problems Intensification and SD could affect accreditation / labelling RAS often need to operate at peak biomass New Industry problems and mistakes may occur during development (mechanical failure)
Summary Biological Performance If the Hatchery -> RAS -> Net pen model was adapted On-growing period in net pens could be reduced to less than 12 months 100g to 1kg in approx. 4.5 months in RAS 1kg to 4.5 kg s in approx. 10 months in net pens Potential for net pens to produce two crops instead of one (in two year window) Timings of stockings are significant. Click to edit
Summary Economic Performance To achieve target of an extra 50,000 production per year Capital investment appears large 40-70 million pounds investment would be required. Footprint for land is not significant Three large units occupying approx. 7.5 hectares in total Each could provide 3,300 tonnes of 1kg post smolt per annum. Site requirements 6m depth of water, HT electricity lines. Worked example showed cost of 1kg post-smolt delivered to cage side to be 3.34 pence. Economic potential additional cage production estimated at being 55 million p.a. (net)
Recommendations for Industry 1. Use model with own biological & economic figures 2. Consider implications on scheduling & planning 3. Consider if increased well boat capacity is available 4. RAS investment should be longer term (20 years) 5. ID potential vacant lots 6. Establish procedures to minimize stress at movement of larger fish 7. Ensure new RAS only stocked with smolts from bio-secure hatcheries 8. Model any changes in production costs associated with a new strategy
Recommendations for Research 1. Establish evidence about vulnerable stages of transfer 2. Different salinities and success rates at transfer 3. Assess possibilities of treatments in RAS should health problems arise 4. Review welfare issues when growing fish to 1 kg at densities of c.80kg m3 5. Establish best methods for disposal of solids for marine systems 6. Extend bio-economic model to include large marine-reared rainbow trout
Recommendations for Policy & Regulators 1. Regulators to manage changed nutrient emission profile 2. In longer term, designate areas for single year class production 3. Scottish Gov & Local authorities to consider investing in infrastructure for well boats 4. Ensure availabilities of adequate suitable discharge points for well boats 5. Clarify best practice for managing waste streams from saline RAS 6. Revise Crown Estate rental charges for sea bed lease
Thank You Any questions? Keith Jeffery, Cefas Acknowledgments SARF, Crown Estate, Industry Consultees, Nicola McPherson, David Verner Jeffrey, Tim Ellis, Neil Auchterlonie. Keith.Jeffery@cefas.co.uk https://www.cefas.co.uk/ http://www.sarf.org.uk/sarf-sp008.php