On behalf of The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform · Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)). Geographically, these systems are found everywhere ... lobby governments to support

OnbehalfofTheCoastalAllianceforAquacultureReform

ii GlobalAssessmentofClosedSystemAquaculture

TableofContents1.Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

2.StudyOverview ...................................................................................................................................... 2

3.TrendsinAquaculture ........................................................................................................................... 3

4.TechnologiesandtheirDeployment ...................................................................................................... 6

5.SpeciesGrownUsingClosedContainmentAquaculture ..................................................................... 38

6.VolumeandValueofFishGrowninClosedSystemAquaculture ........................................................ 42

7.OverviewofFactorsInfluencingtheEconomicsofCSA....................................................................... 49

8.AssessmentofKeyEcologicalInteractions .......................................................................................... 52

9.EnvironmentalLifeCycleandEnergyIssues ........................................................................................ 59

10.Summary–AccountofStrengthsandChallengesofEachTechnology ............................................. 61

11.Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 64

12.Glossary.............................................................................................................................................. 66

13.CompanyDirectory ............................................................................................................................ 67

14.Referencesandweb‐pages ................................................................................................................ 71

1 GlobalAssessmentofClosedSystemAquaculture

1. IntroductionEcoPlan Internationalwas retainedby theDavidSuzukiFoundationandtheGeorgiaStraitAlliance toprovideareview of commercial closed system aquaculture (CSA) technologies throughout theworld, emphasizing thosetechnologies and speciesmost relevant to British Columbia. The focus of the report is on finfish, though it isacknowledgedthatconsiderableliteratureandsuccessfulexamplesexistfortheuseofclosedsystemaquaculturefor growing seaweeds, shellfish, crustaceans, and other invertebrate species, as well as for pharmaceuticalproduction.ThisreportwascompiledtoprovideinformationtoaidinassessingtheeconomicandtechnicalgrowthpotentialofaquacultureintheCSAsector.Itlooksatavarietyoftechnologiesandmethodsusedincommercialproductionaswellasseveralemergingtechnologies,highlightingsomeofthemajoradvantagesanddisadvantagesofeach.The study demonstrates that numerous examples exist around the world of commercially successful CSAoperationswherefinfisharegrowntoharvestsize. ThemajorfishareNiletilapia(Oreochromisniloticus),trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss), Arctic char (Salnelinus alpinus), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), turbot(Scopthalmusmaximus)1, barramundi (Lates calcarifer)2, seabream (Sparus aurata)3 and sea bass (Centropristisstriata)while other species are important in specific locations, such as eel (Anguilla anguilla) in Europe, andcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus)4intheUnitedStates.DeterminingproductionlevelsforfishrearedinCSAisdifficultastradedatadoesnotgenerallydisaggregatebetweenpenornetfarmedandCSAfarmedfish.WhileinEuropeindividual countrieswill place ‘eco‐labels’ to identify their CSA farmed fish, they arenot distinguished in tradeinformation. Some fish, such as trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and turbot (Scopthalmus maximus) are almostubiquitously farmed in CSA; however others, such as seabream, can be either. Also, countries such as theNetherlandsemployCSAforallfarmedfishregardlessofspeciesduetolegislationandenvironmentalregulations.Thereportwascompiledthroughaseriesofliteraturesearchesinacademicandprofessionaljournals;web‐basedanddatabasesearches,andthroughinterviewswithbothcommercialcompaniesandresearchers.Thestudywasalso restricted to literature thatwas available in English and interviews favoured those individualswho had acommercialperspectiveaswellas researchknowledge. This studycannot thereforebe takenasanexhaustiveaccount of CSA. To avoid confusion with respect to colloquial names, Latin names are provided alongsidecolloquialnames.Aglossaryhasalsobeenincludedinthereportforreference.InthecasethatLatinnamesarenotknown,thecolloquialnameisgivenwithreferencetothegeographiclocationofitsuse.Allunitshavebeenconverted tometric and all currency is inUS dollars, unless otherwise stated. Also, note thatUS currency hasfluctuateddramaticallyoverthepastyear.AllcostsinUSfiguresarethereforetakenasanaverageofthelocalUScurrencyconversionratefortheyearofpublicationusingwww.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory.

1NotethatthereseveraldifferentspeciesofturbotincludingthePacific,GreenlandandEuropean(Psettamaxima).ThePsettamaximaisthemostcommonandusuallyreferredtoasScophthalmusmaximusintradeliteratureandindustrypublications.2AlsoknownasAsianseabass.3Thereareover125speciesintheSparidaefamily.Themostcommonofthese“breams”forfoodfishistheGilt‐headseabream(Sparusaurata).4OtherwiseknownastheChannelcatfish.Otherspeciesofcatfisharereferredtointhisreport–seeglossary.


2. StudyOverviewTheobjectiveofthisstudyistoprovideanoverviewofthecurrentstatusofclosedcontainmentaquaculturewitha focus on technologies. This includes technical specifications of systems in commercial production as well asexperimental stages, economic statistics related to the volume and value of production, and ecologicalimplicationsaswellaslifecycledemandsassociatedwithclosedcontainmentsystems.Thisstudyconcentratesonfinfishwhereproductioncycles includeharvesting, though itnotesseveralwellknownspecies, suchasAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar),areraised inCSAuntilacertainpoint in theirdevelopmentwhentheyare transferredtonet‐cages or net‐pens. Particular emphasis was given to those examples most suitable to the physical,demographicandeconomicclimateofBritishColumbia.Consequently,focuswasgiventoexamplesfromothermembercountriesof theOrganization forEconomicCooperationandDevelopment (OECD),and inparticular inWesternEurope,Australia,andNorthAmerica.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,closedsystemaquaculture(CSA)isdefinedas:

‘Anysystemoffishproductionthatcreatesacontrolledinterfacebetweentheculture(fish)andthenaturalenvironment.’

TheUnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganisation (FAO) sees littlepossibility to increase supply fromwildcapturefisheriestomeetgrowingdemandforfishprotein(FAO,2006).Approximately,75%oftheworld’sfishinggroundsare fullyexploited,overexploitedor severelydepleted.Experience fromcatch fisheries showthat forbothpelagic anddemersal species almost allmajor fisherieshaveexperienceda shift fromhigh‐grade to low‐grade fish (Pauley, 1998). Even as wild fisheries productivity declines as a result of over‐fishing and otheranthropogenic stresses on the marine environment, the global demand for seafood continues to grow, andaquaculturecanmakeapositivecontributiontomeetincreasedmarketdemand(Tidwell,2001;Garcia,2005).


3. TrendsinAquacultureAquaculture has grown enormously over the last 50 years, producing 60millionMt of product in 2004with avalueofUS$70billion(FAO,2006).Overthelastthreedecades,aquacultureworldwideexperienced11%annualgrowth,andcurrentlyprovidesaboutonethird(40millionMt)ofglobalfisheriesproduction(Naylor,2005).AsiaandthePacificRegionaccountfor92%ofglobalproduction;Chinaalonebeingresponsiblefor70%(FAO,2006).Aquacultureisvariedthroughouttheworld;EastAsiabeingresponsibleforthemajorityofshellfish,crustaceans,andplantproduction;CentralandEasternEuropeforcarp(Cyprinuscarpio),WesternEurope,ChileandCanadaforsalmonids,andtheUSforcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus),(FAO,2006).Finfishaccountforapproximatelyhalfofall aquaculture yields, while algae and invertebrates account for a quarter each (FAO, 2001). Production isdominatedby freshwater fish andaquatic plants (FAO, 2006);marine anddiadromous fish species account foronly5.3%oftheworld’stotalproduction,butcommand14.2%oftheworldtotalfarmedvalues(FAO‐STAT,2007).OurfindingsshowthatthevastmajorityofcommercialproductionoffinfishinOECDcountriesisbasedonopensystems; the exact number is difficult to define as production and trade figures are generally not classified asopen‐systemorCSA.Whileaquaculturehasgrownrapidly,increasehasslowedinrecentyears(Funge‐Smith,2001).Therearegrowingopportunitiesto implementnewtechnologies,newspecies,anddevelopnewareas,suchasSouthAmericaandAfrica(Funge‐Smith,2001).Innovationsandproventechnologiesforclosedsystemsarebeingappliedinpartsoftheworld suchasBenin,whereHesyAquacutlurehas recentlybuiltanAfricancatfish (Clariasgariepinus) farm(Debon,2007a). An examination of existing CSA reveals a large and complex range of technologies andmethodswith no cleardistinction in terms of treatment for both incoming and effluentwaters. They all however, include a physicalbarrierbetween the culture (fish) and thenatural environment. These includeeverything frompondandditchsystems(possiblytheearliestformofclosedsystemaquaculture),toconstructedimpermeablesystems,suchasracewaysor tanks. CSA systems include thoseusing a one time flow‐throughofwaterwith varyingdegreesofinput andoutputwater treatmentmethods, to fully ‘recirculating’ systemswherewater is largely reused (alsoknownasRecirculatingAquaculture Systems (RAS)).Geographically, these systems are foundeverywhere fromland lockedurbancentrestosea‐basedtanks. Systemsmaydependonmunicipalwatersystems,groundwater,lakesorrivers,andtheocean.Thisrangeanddiversityofexistingandemergingtechnologiesisapromisingsignfor the possibility of closed systems to be successfully adapted to meet specific geographic conditions andrespondtosocialconditionssuchasconsumerdemand,policyandlegislation.ModernCSA,andRASinparticular,havebeenusedforcommercialproductionofeelsforover20yearsinEurope.However, ithasonlybeensincethe late1980’sthatresearchersandcivilsocietygroups inNorthAmericahaveincreasedtheireffortstolobbygovernmentstosupportthedevelopmentofappropriateaquaculturetechnologyincluding CSA for finfish in general. In North America, most commercial CSA for ‘grow‐out’ or ‘start to finish’finfishproductionisdedicatedtotrout,catfish,Arcticcharandmorerecently,tilapiaspecies.Because the technologies, species and local situations vary so markedly, it is difficult to ascribe definitivestrengthsandchallengesofCSAsystems.Clearly,twooftheubiquitousandparamountstrengthsofCSAaretheseparationof the fish culture from theenvironment, and thepotential for controlof inputs andoutputs.Withthese in mind the challenges and strengths must be balanced together to determine appropriate choices oftechnologyandspeciesforaquacultureproduction.Ingeneral,therefore,thestrengthsofCSAare:

• Potentialtocontrolgrowingconditions:includingtemperature,waterchemistryandturbidity,disease,etc.


• Stressreductionfromcontrolofpredation,disease,growingconditions(notemperatureorwaterchemistryfluctuations).

• Potentialtoinfluencegrowthcycles:includingshortenedtimetoharvest,sizeofthespecies,qualityofproduct,aswellasoptimumharvestpointsandabilitytoplanforharvest;betterfeedconsumptionandcontrolofmetabolicrates.

• BetterFeedConversionRatios(FCR):duetogreatercontrolofgrowingconditionsandlifecycles,aswellaswatermovement.Thismeanslessfeedislostandthusnutrientproductionformlostfeedisminimised.

• Greaterversatility:optionsforproductionlocation,nearnesstomarket,marginallands,etc.;productioncanbetailoredtotakeadvantageoflocalsituationssuchaswatertemperature,waterquality,skilledlabour;abilitytorespondtodemographicandconsumershifts(somesystemsarecapableofgrowingdifferentspecies–orcanbeeasilytransformed;potentialforenhancingtechnology.

• Controlofoutputsandeffluents:treatmentandthepossibilityofreuseasfertilizerorinputforotherfishsystems(inintegratedaquaculture).

• Riskreduction:includingclimate,infectionanddisease,predation,etc.

• Reductionincertaindirectoperationalcosts:associatedwithfeedanddiseasecontrolfromvaccinationsandantibiotics.

• Potentialfor‘cleanproduct’:producedwithouthormones,antibioticsetc.;producedinenvironmentallyfriendlyway;greenandorganiclabelling.

• Longeraveragelifeoftanksandequipment(versusnets)allowingforlongeramortisationperiods.Thegeneralchallengesare:

• Increaseincapitalcosts:researchanddevelopmentcanbecostly;systemstart‐upishigherthannet‐penoperations.

• Increaseincertaindirectoperationalcosts:usuallyahighercostassociatedwithcertaininputssuchasoxygenandmaintenancecostsassociatedwithchemicalbalancesofthewater(note:someflow‐throughsystemsbasedongroundwatersourcesdon’trequireanyinputsorwatertreatment),carefulwatermonitoring,energyrequirements(dependingonthetechnology),input‐outputwatertreatmentrequirements(theseareassociatedwithhighdensityfarming).

• Complexityoftechnology:particularlywithregardstomaintainingwaterenvironmentandwiththeuseofbio‐filtersinRAS.

• Risks:potentialforrapidchemistryalterations,dependencyonmonitoring(again,thisincreaseswithincreasedfishdensities).

WhileproponentsofCSAconsideritanadvancetowardssustainablefinfishaquaculture,theyacknowledgethereareenvironmentalandsocialissuessurroundingallformsofaquaculturesuchasthoserelatingtothecaptureofwild fisheries for feed,energyusageandtheassociatedgreenhousegasemissions,amongstothers. Thesocio‐ecological ‘footprint’ (or fish‐print), which is the overall material and energy throughput associated with fishproduction,needstobeconsideredandbalancedwhenexploringCSAoptions. Nevertheless,CSAdoesaddressmanyoftheenvironmentaleffectsofopen‐penfarminginthePacificNorthwestthathavebeenwelldocumentedandacknowledgedbypolicymakers(Phillips,2005;Brooks,2002;Buttner,1992;Naylor,2003).Manyaquacultureoperationsaroundtheworldhavecausedhabitatdestruction,waterpollution,parasitic infectionsofwildstock,andunintentional introductions of non‐native species. Increasingly, social concerns and environmental impactsassociated with the aquaculture industry have resulted in media campaigns discouraging the consumption offarmedseafood(Barrington,2005).


Partofwhat is likelytodrivetheincreaseduseofCSAisconsumerdemandandstakeholderawareness. IntheEU, regulationsare increasingly strong regardingwhat is acceptable,both in termsofenvironmental impactaswell as animalwelfare (van Eijk, 2007). Consumer trends indicate an increasing concern for health issues andenvironmentally sound raised seafood (van Eijk, 2004; Romuel, 2007). Speaking at the Profet AquacultureWorkshop in 2004, the General Secretary of the Dutch Association of Fish Farmers,Wim van Ejik commented“Fish farming isstilldevelopingandsowetake intoaccount ‘fromthebeginning’ thedemandsassociatedwithfood safety, animalwelfareand theenvironment” (vanEijk, 2004). In Europe,oneof themajordriving forcesbehind CSA is consumer demand for a product that contains no additives, hormones, antibiotics etc. and isproduced in a sustainable way (van Eijk, 2007). In the Netherlands, for instance, environmental and socialconcerns are reflected in policy and legislation such that 100% of aquaculture is CSA, and due to waterconstraints,basedonrecirculatingaquaculturesystems(Debon,2007a).ToencourageadoptionanddevelopmentofthesenewtechnologiestheEUhasassistedfinanciallywithgrants,subsidiesandtaxincentives(vanEijk,2007;Øiestad,2007a).Bio‐safety, in terms of controlling disease and maintaining genetic diversity in fish populations, is becomingincreasinglyprominentinpolicydevelopment,andemergedasamajorthemeatthe6thInternationalConferenceon Recirculating Aquaculture, Virginia (July, 2006).While this has always been an issue, the intensification ofaquacultureproductionmeansthatthisisbecomingofparamountimportance(Schipp,2006).CSAaddressesbio‐safetyconcernsthroughcontrolaspectsregardingbothinputandoutputandtheseparationforthefishculturefromthenaturalenvironment.Albright (2007), a small producer of fresh water Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)inLangley(BC),predictsthatswitchingfromconventionalsalmonfarminginocean‐basednet‐penstoenclosedinlandfreshwateroneswouldhavesignificantpositiveoutcomes:

• Disease‐andantibiotic‐free:Unlikeconventionalcommercialfishfarms,freshwaterfishfarmsrarelyuseantibioticsandotherchemicaltherapiesbecausetheirground‐basedwatersourcesdonothavecommonpathogens.

• Improvedpublicperceptionoffishfarming:Inlandandgroundwater‐fedfishfarmsarenotmiredinthecontroversythatshroudsocean‐basedfishfarming.RecentresearchdonebyscientistsatSimonFraserUniversityandelsewheredemonstratesthatocean‐basedfishfarmingbreedssealiceinnumbersthatkillnearbyjuvenilewildsalmon.

• Smallerecologicalfootprint:Whileocean‐basedfishfarmscoverseveralkilometresofseacoast,atypicalfreshwaterfarmoccupiesnomorethanfiveacresofland.


ControlElements MinorControl MajorControl

InputWater

EffluentWater

Cultureincontactwithnaturalenvironment

WaterTemperature

4. TechnologiesandtheirDeployment

Descriptionoftechnologyandterminology

ThereareavarietyofclassificationsystemsandnomenclatureregardingCSAtechnologies.For thepurposesofthis study,we have classified the spectrum of closed system aquaculture technologies based on: 1) degree ofcontroloverinputandoutputwaters;2)shape/layoutofsystem;and3)locationofinstallation.

1)Degreeofcontrolofinputandoutputwaters

WhileallCSAsystemshaveabarrierbetweentheculture(fish)andthenaturalenvironmentintermsofindividualfish,theyvaryintermsofcontrolwithrespecttoinputwatersandoutputwastes,andwithregardtowateruse(Figure1).

Figure1:Generalizedcontrolelementsinflow‐through()andRecirculatingAquacultureSystems()

Flow‐through systems allowwater flows to enter the system, through the tanks or holding areas, andexit thesystem. There is a possibility of complete control at both ends. Incomingwater is virtually always treated forbacteria,parasites,anddisease,andoutgoingwateristreatedtogreaterandlesserextents(Folke,1998;Miller,2002;Piedrahita,2003;BMP,2004).Often,treatedeffluentwaterisrecirculatedbacktointothesystem.Whilethere is no clear rule for nomenclature, when approximately 60‐70% of this water is recirculated, it becomesclassifiedasRAS(Blancheton,2000;Queensland,2007;Schuenhoff,2003;Troell,2003).Somesystemsrecirculate


more than 95%of theirwater, essentially replenishing for evaporation and leakage (Debon, 2007a;Desbarats,2007).

Pondsandchannelsareconsideredasclosedsystemsinthatwhilethefishandtheirholdingenvironmentsareincontactwithsoilandthegroundtheyarefreefromtraditionalpredators,cannotescapetomixwithwildspecies,andanydiseasesgeneratedintheirenclosurescanbecontained.Water,andthuscontaminantscanseepintothesoilandgroundwater(Boyd,1999).

2)Shape/layoutofthesystemCSAsystemsexistinamultitudeofdifferentshapesdependingonspeciesandscale.Differentphysicalstructuresdetermine hydrodynamic flow, area and volume, all of which may be species dependant. Tanks are largestructures,usuallyroundforstrength,andcanbeaboveground,belowgroundorsuspendedinoceansorlakes.Ahighwatervolumetocontainersurfaceareaisacommoncharacteristicoftanks.Pondsareanalogoustotanks,butduginthegroundwithnoimpermeablebarrier.Raceways are longer structures, sometimes hundreds of meters, where while water flows through them, theresidency time of water in any one spot being very small. A low water volume to container surface areacharacterizesthem.Thisisappropriateforcertainspecies,suchastrout,whichthriveinasimulatedstreamflow,andflatfish,suchasflounderorsole,whichneedlargesurfaceareas.Channelsareanalogoustoracewaysdugintheground.ThisisthemainmethodofproducingcatfishintheUS.Shapewillalsodeterminetreatmentmechanismswhileresidencetimeofwaterwilldemanddifferent formsoftreatment,aswillspecies.

Figure2:Seven‐levelshallowtanksforsole(Soleasolea)productionatSoleaBVinTheNetherlands(Photocredit:AlbertImsland,Akvaplan‐niva)


3)LocationonlandorinopenwaterCSAtechnologiescanbefoundinalmostanylocation.Mostareonlandastanks,ponds,raceways,andchannels.Othersareinopenwater,eitheroceanorfreshwater,andareflow‐throughtanks.Thereare,however,exceptionstotheseespeciallyasnewtechnologiescontinuetoemerge.Also,unlessexplicitlystated,allspeciesaregrownintheir native environments, for example Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) are generally river fish and thusraisedinfreshwater.

SummaryoffindingsforgeneraltypesofCSA

Table1:Descriptionoftechnologyandexamples

Systems/Description ExampleUse: Location/region:Land‐Based:Raceways(recirculatingorflow‐through)

Trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss) US,Spain,FranceTurbot(Scophthalmusmaxima) Spain,(Akvaplan‐Niva,

StoltSeaFarms)France,Denmark(UNI‐Aqva)

Seabass(Centropristisstriata) FranceChannelcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus)

USA

Modernracewaysystemsaremadefromavarietyofmaterials:concrete,plastic,steel;canbeeitheroutdoororindoor;gravityfedbyastream;partiallyorfullyrecirculating.

Sole(Soleasolea),Japaneseflounder(Paralichthysolivaceus)

Spain,Denmark

RecirculatingTanksTurbot(Scophthalmusmaxima) Netherlands(HESY)Tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus) ElSalvador,Israel(HESY)Eel(Anguillaanuilla) Denmark(produces20%

eelconsumedbyEuropeanMarket)5,CroatiaandNetherlands(HESY)

Barramundi(Latescalcarifer) Australia,USA,Russia,TheNetherlands,Israel,Denmark,UK

Jadeperch(Scortumbarcoo) Australia(Ausyfish)Goldenperch(Macquariaambigua)

Australia(Ausyfish)

Murraycod(Maccullochellapeeliipeelii)

Australia(HESY)

Sleepycod(Oxyeleotrislineolatus)

Australia(Ausyfish)

Tankscancomeinavarietyofforms.Circularformatshavebeenpreferredinmanycasesbecauseoftheself‐cleaningpropertiestheyprovide.Polygonshapes,however,haveadvantagesinbeingmorespaceefficient.Thesesystemsareoftenmodularandscalable,allowingproducerstoscale‐upsystemsattheirownpaceandwithouthavingtointerruptoperationstoaddgreatercapacity.Inlandrecirculatingtanksareoftenlocatedwherethereisbothlimitedlandandwateravailability,astheycanbelocatedinindustrialareasandachievehighdegreesofwaterreuse.

Blackrockfish(Sebastesschelegeli)

Korea(Schipp,2006)

5http://www.1planet1ocean.org/html/sustainable‐aquaculture.html


Pikeperch(Sanderlucioperca) NetherlandsSeabass(Centropristisstriata) Greece(HESY)Seabream(Sparusaurata) Greece(HESY)

Trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss) Chile(HESY)Africancatfish(Clariasgariepinus)

Benin(HESY)

Sturgeon(Acipensertransmontanus)

Greece(HESY)

Flow‐throughTanksArcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus) Canada(IcyWaters),

Iceland.Flow‐throughtankscomeinsimilarformatsasrecirculatingtanks.Thesehoweveraremorecommonlyfoundwherereliablewatersourcesareavailableandusedtoharvestspeciesthatrequirecertainconditions(i.e.trout).

Trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss) Europe,N.America,Chile,LatinAmerica

InlandPondsandchannelsChannelcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus)

USA

Tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus) Belize,ElSalvador,USA,Australia

Trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss) Europe,AustraliaandN.America

Salmon(Oncorhynchusnerka) Canada(AquaFarms)Barramundi(Latescalcarifer) Australia(Ausyfish)Jadeperch(Scortumbarcoo) Australia(Ausyfish)

Ponds‐analogoustotanksbutdugintheground(natural).Channels–analogoustoracewaysbutintheground(natural).Occasionally,thesecanbelinedwithmembranesormudbutthisisgenerallynotthecase.

Goldenperch(Macquariaambigua)

Australia(Ausyfish)

PrimarilyExperimentalorDevelopmentStage:Flow‐throughTanks:Open‐WaterSystems

Oceantrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)

WesternAustralia(McRobert)

Rainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)(exp.)

NovaScotia(SEA)

Yellowtailkingfish(Seriolalalandilalandi

WesternAustralia(McRobert)

Mulloway(SciaenaAntarctica) WesternAustralia(McRobert)

Barramundi(Latescalcarifer) WesternAustraliaCohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)(exp.)

BritishColumbia(SEAandSARGO)

Bluefintuna(Thunnusthynnus)(exp.)

Australia(UNI‐Aqua)

Gilt‐headseabream(Sparusaurata)(exp.)

Baltimore,US(COMB)

Chinooksalmon(Oncorhynchustshawytscha)(exp.)

BritishColumbia(SEAandSARGO)

Thesecanbefoundmadefromarangeofmaterials,incircularaswellassquareshapes.Hardwalledsystemsaregenerallymadefromreinforcedplastic,concrete,aluminium.Softwalledaremadefromplastic.

Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus) Canada(SEA,andSARGO)


(exp.)Blackcod(Nototheniamicrolepidota)(exp.)

Canada(SEA)

Walleyedpike(Sandervitreusvitreus)(exp.)

USA(Michigan–SARGO)

Yellowfintuna(Thunnusalbacares)(exp.)

Panama(SARGO)

Cod(Gadusmorhua)(exp.) Denmark(UNI‐Aqua)Flow‐throughTanks:Land‐BasedSystems

Atlanticsalmon(Salmosalar)(exp.)

BritishColumbia(Agri‐Marine)

Cohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)(exp.)


Tanksystemsonlandpumpingseawater.

Chinooksalmon(Oncorhynchustshawytscha)(exp.)


RecirculatingRacewaysBlackspottedseabream(Pagellusbogaraveo)(exp.)

Norway

Cod(Gadusmorhua)(exp.) Norway

Recirculatingracewaysareoperatedasland‐based(inland)systems.Thesecanbecomposedofasinglelevelorcanbestackedtoincreaseproductionperfloorareaofagivenoccupiedspace.

Californiahalibut(Paralichthyscalifornicus)(exp.)

Spain

StatusofdevelopmentanddeploymentoftechnologiesA survey of existing and emerging technologies indicates that this is a sector with a vibrant research anddevelopment component. The increasing global demand for seafoodproducts coupledwith increasing concernover aquaculture’s impact on natural ecologies (manifest as tightening regulation and consumer trends) isencouragingcompaniestoinvestinresearchanddevelopmentofclosedsystemtechnologies.Insomecasessuchas intheEU,governmentsarerespondingwithsubsidiestoexploreandhastenthedevelopmentanduptakeofthesetechnologies.Aswithmanynewtechnologies,earlyadoptersofCSAcontinuetoworktoovercomeboththetechnical and financial challenges. To date, themost consistent and notable successes to date in commercialscaleclosedsystemaquacultureforfoodfishproductionhavebeenachievedbysystemsusingspeciestolerantofhighdensityconditionsandthosewhichcommandapremiummarketprice(Lazur,2007).InCanadaandtheUnitedStates,CSAtechnologiesareemployedtocultureawidevarietyofbothwarm‐waterand cold‐water fish in both saltwater and freshwater situations. Currently, most commercial CSA productionsystemsintheUnitedStatesaresmall, lessthan45Mt(45,000Kg)ofproductionperyear,providingfreshhighquality product at premium prices to niche markets (Harvey, 2005; Lazur, 2007). In Europe, commercialproductionfacilitiesusingrecirculationaremuchlarger,suchasUNI‐Aqua’srecentlycompleted8000‐10,000Mt/yearturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)farm(Urup,2007)inDenmark.The following section describes technologies currently used in commercial operations as well as severaldemonstration projects. This includes operators as well as the actual developers and manufacturers of thetechnologies. The bulk of the information from this section has been derived from interviews and proponentwebsitesasindicated.


Land‐BasedSystems:

Race‐ways–Recirculating

NAME: Akvaplan‐Niva,ShallowRacewaySystemNorway(Øiestad,1999;Øiestad,2007b)

SPECIES: 11specieshavebeentestedforcommercialdevelopment,includingAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar).STATUS: Akvaplan‐Nivasystemshavebeenimplementedincommercialoperationsusingturbot

(Scophthalmusmaximus)inGalicia,SpainandPortugalandDoversole(Soleasolea)inTheNetherlands.Ongoinglab‐scale/pilotscaleexperimentaldevelopmentwithAtlantichalibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus),Spottedwolfish(Anarhichasminor),Senegalsole(Soleasenegalensis),Giltheadseabream(Sparusaurata),Californiahalibut(Paralichthyscalifornicus)andJapaneseflounder(Paralichthysolivaceus).

DETAILS:

Thisisahyper‐intensivesystemdesignedtodrasticallyreducespacerequirementsbystackingracewaysoneontopoftheother.Theoutcomeisareported5‐10timeshigherproduction/m2ofsurfaceareamakingthissystemidealforuseinareaswithlowlandavailability(Øiestad,2007b).Recently,thissystemhasbeenstudiedasapossibilityforinstillationinindustrialparksforaquaculture(IPA).Thisisproposedasaneconomicopportunitytocaptureeconomicefficienciesgainedthroughverticalintegration“clustering”,forinstance,landings,processing,andtransportationtomarket(Øiestad,2007b).

Thedesignofthesystemisalmostastandardracewaybutwithaverylowwaterlevel(1cmfor100mgfish(suchasturbot,halibut&seabream)increasingto20cmforfishabove2kg).Othercharacteristicsinclude:highfishdensity(often100‐500Kg/m3),nocountercurrentinthelevelledraceways(nojetcurrent),adjustmentofwaterintakewiththemostremotefishinmindandfeedingwithfloatingpellets(pelletedfeedssignificantlyreducescostofproductionbyeliminatingtheneedtopreparefeedsonsite)(Øiestad,1999).Thissystemhasbeentestedforawidesizerangeofraceways(7–80m2)andfishsizes(upto10kg),normallywithgrowthandsurvivalratesasgoodaswithtraditionalrearingsystems.Theresultsindicatethatavarietyoffishspeciescanbeproduced.Sofar11specieshavebeentested,includingAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar)(Øiestad,2007a).NOTABLEFEATURE:

Highfishdensitiesandlowenergycosts.

PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure3:StackedRacksintheShallowRacewaySystematTustnaKveiteASFacilityinTustna,Norway(Photocredit:KurtOterhals)


NAME: AgassizAquaFarmsManitoba(www.agassizaquafarms.com)

SPECIES: Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus),trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),Yellowperch(Percaflavescens)STATUS: Arcticchar–Commercialproduction;Rainbowtrout‐hasbeencommercialinthepast,currently

notraisinganysignificantvolumeforcommercialproduction;Yellowperch–experimentalstage.DETAILS:

Thisfacilitywasstartedinthe1970’sasaresearchcentrefortheDepartmentofFisheriesandOceans(DFO).6ArcticcharfromthisfacilityisbeingsoldacrossCanadaatacurrentvolumeof30Mt/year.Fisharetypicallygrownto1Kgbuttheyalsoproduceseveralcustommarketsizesforvariousclients.Raisingafishto1Kgrequiresabout24to30months.Theyarenowtryingtoexpandtoacapacityof150Mt/yrofArcticcharperyearaswellasdevelopingabrood‐stockYellowperch(Percaflavescens)line.Watercomesfromalimestoneaquifer,40metersunderground.Waterexchangeoccursevery72hours.Thecompanyhighlightstheproductasbeingantibioticfree.Thehatcheryhasbeencertifieddiseasefreefor12years.Whilefingerlingsandbrood‐stock379l/minoffreshwater,waterrecirculationusedforgrow‐outstagesreducesthewaterrequirementto76l/min.Effluentanddischargetreatedinaman‐madewetland(whichhasbegunattractingmigratorybirds).Solidsareseparatedthroughdrumfiltrationandsettlingchamberthencomposted(thecompanyislookingintopossibilitiestoprepareandsellcompostcommercially).Thecompanyisalsolookingintooptionstousegreenhousecomponentstocapturepassivesolarheatingtoheatwatertotheappropriatetemperature(dependingonspecies).Recently,thecompanyhasdoneworkwithotherfarmerstosetupanewoperationinaconvertedhogbarn.Thisfacilitywillproduceapproximately50Mt/yearinahighrecirculationfacility(76l/min).NOTABLEFEATURE:

Longperiodwherefishhavebeenfreeofdisease,andcombinedcommercialandresearchfacilityfordevelopingnewtechnology.

PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure4:ViewofeffluentpondsatAgassizAquaFarms(PhotocourtesyofAgassizAquaFarms)

6Thefollowingistakenfromwww.agassizaquafarms.comandconversationswithJohnBottomley,PresidentofAgassizAquaFarms(seeBottomley,2007).


Tanks–Recirculating

NAME: AquacultureDevelopmentsLLCPittsburgh,Pennsylvaniabased.ExclusivelicenseesofUNI‐Aqua(Denmark)andFishProtech,Pty.(Australia)inNorthAmerica.

SPECIES: Barramundi(Latescalcarifer),salmon,trout,turbot,sole,cod,halibut,Jadeperch,Murraycod(Maccullochellapeeliipeelii),Sleepycod

STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

AquacultureDevelopmentsisanengineeringconsultancybuildingland‐basedcirculatingaquaculturesystems.Theyclaim97‐99%waterre‐useandfeedconversionthatis10timesmoreefficientthatinopenpondsorflow‐throughsystems.7Noantibiotics,hormonesorotheradditivesarerequired.Thistechnologyhasbeenusedinfarmsthathavebeencommerciallysuccessfulovera15‐yearperiod.

NOTABLEFEATURES:

LongtermeconomicviabilityandverygoodFeedConversionRatios.

PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure5:InteriorofbarramundifacilityinAustralia(PhotocourtesyofAquacultureDevelopmentsLLC)

7Thefollowinginformationistakenfromwww.aquaculturedevelopments.com.


NAME: AquaOptimaNorwayASNorway(www.aquaoptima.com)

SPECIES: Rainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus),tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus),Europeanseabass(Centropristisstriata),seabream,halibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus),Atlanticcod(tojuvenilestageonly),Japaneseflounder(Paralichthysolivaceus),Tigerpuffer(Takifugurubripes),barramundi(Latescalcarifer),Blackseaturbot(Psettamaxima).


AquaOptimawasstartedin1993.Itisasystemdevelopment,experimental,consultingcompany.8Ithasbuiltcommercialrecirculatingandflow‐throughsystemsin16countriesforbothcoldandwarmwaterspeciessuchasRainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus),tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus),Europeanseabass(Centropristisstriata),seabream,halibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus),Atlanticcod(tojuvenilestageonly),Japaneseflounder(Paralichthysolivaceus),Tigerpuffer(Takifugurubripes),barramundi(Latescalcarifer),Blackseaturbot(Psettamaxima).

AquaOptimahasdesignedandpatentedapieceofequipmentcalledtheEco‐trap.Thetrapisamodifiedcentredrainforafishtankthatisdesignedtoremoveupto90%solidsfromthetankusingasmallamountofwater.TheEcoTrapcomesinavarietyofsizesrangingfrom110to400mmbutcanbedesignedlargerifrequired.WastecollectedbytheEcoTrapisdivertedtoan‘Eco‐Sludge’collector,locatedonthesideofthetank.The‘Eco‐Sludge’isasmallswirlseparator.TheinstallationoftheEco‐Trapsystemclaimstoallowfora50%reductioninthesizeofmechanicalfiltrationinasystem.Itsotheradvantagesarethatitisapassive,non‐mechanicalsystemwithlittletonochanceoffailureandreducedenergyneeds.

Recently,AquaOptimaassistedwiththeinstallationofalargerecirculationsystemforbarramundiintheUK.TheAquaBellafarmlocatedinNewForest,Englandwasconstructedin2004andisdesignedtoproduce400Mtofbarramundiperyear.HarvestingfromthefacilitycommencedinMarch2006.Itisafullyrecirculatedsystemcomprisingof48tanksmaintainingwaterat28Cwhilsttreatingthreemillionlitresofwateraday.Newwaterisaddedattherateof5%perday.InMarch2006facilityanticipatedexpandingitsfacilitytoa1000Mt/yrproduction.9TheAquaBellafarmnearSouthampton,claimstobeenvironmentallyfriendlyasnowildstocksaredepletedbecausetheyalsohaveahatchery,therearenoadditives,andthefeedcomesfromsustainablesources(See:www.aquab.com).

AquaOptimahaverecentlydevelopedasimplemethodfortheconstructionoflargeoctagonaltanks.Theuseoflargeplasticformed,lockinplacepanelsthatcanbecorefilledwithconcreteoffersaneasilytransportableandcosteffectivesolutiontotankconstruction.

NOTABLEFEATURES:

Efficientandrapidwastedisposalsystemforsolids.Thisisimportantasifthesolidscanberemovedbeforetheybegintobreak‐downthereislessneedforwatertreatment.Greatvarietyoftypesandspecies,dealingwithcoldandwarmwaterspeciesrequiresdifferenttechnology.Modularconceptallowsforexpansionasmarketgrowsetc.TheAquaBellafacilityhasusedtheirtechnologyandhasproveneconomicsuccessintheUK.

8Thefollowinginformationhasbeentakenfromwww.aquaoptima.com.9See.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5245/is_200704/ai_n19860493


NAME: AquatechSolutionsDenmark,withofficesinChileandtheMiddleEast(www.aquatec‐solutions.com)

SPECIES: Eel(Anguillaanguilla),trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),salmon(Salmosalar),Pike‐perch(Sanderlucioperca),sturgeon(Acipensertransmontanus),seabass(Centropristisstriata),seabream(nospeciesreferenceprovided),turbot(Scophthalmusmaximus),cod(nospeciesreferenceprovided),Halibut(nospeciesreferenceprovided)

STATUS: Commercialproductionforeel(Anguillaanguilla),trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),turbot(Scophthalmusmaximus),Pike‐perch(Sanderlucioperca);experimentalforothers.

DETAILS:

AquatechSolutionsisadevelopmentandinstallationconsultancy,andhasbeeninoperationfor20years.10Theydesignandinstallarangeofrecirculatingtanktechnologies:fromflow‐throughtosemi‐closedandfullyclosedsystems.Theirprojectsinclude:1)A700Mt/yearpansizerainbowtroutproductionforDanishAquacultureA/SinDenmark.2)A250Mt/yearPike‐perch(Sanderlucioperca),productionforAmhedegaardAaledambrugA/S,Denmark,3)Are‐circulationsystemforexistingsalmon/troutincubationsystemforPatagoniaSalmonFarminginChile,4)Installationof3individualrecirculationsystemsforpartlyexistingandnewfishtanksystemforsmoltproductionofAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar),Cohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)andtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)atSuperSalmoninLosFiordos,ManoNegra,Chile.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Long‐termeconomicallysuccessfullarge‐scaleproductionfacilities.

10Thefollowingistakenfromwww.aquatec‐solutions.com.


NAME: BaltimoreUrbanRecirculatingMaricultureSystem

UniversityofMarylandBiotechnologyInstitute,CenterofMarineBiotechnology.(www.umbi.umd.edu),(Romuel,2007;Zohar,2007;Zohar,2005)

SPECIES: Gilt‐headSeabream(Sparusaurata).STATUS: Currentlyexperimental,commercializationisanticipatedin2008.Also,experimentationwith

Atlanticsalmon(Salmosalar)forout‐growth(fullcycle)isscheduledfor2008.DETAILS:

TheBaltimoreUrbanRecirculatingMaricultureSystemisarecirculating,fullycontainedmarineaquaculturesystem.11Thecoreofthesystemincludesbiologicalfiltrationunitsthatincorporatenaturallyoccurringmicrobialprocesses(nitrificationheterotrophic/autotrophicdenitrification,sulfatereductionandanammox)tocontrolanddegradewastecompoundsproducedbyfish(Zohar,2005).Thesystemcollectsanddigestssolidwasteproductsthatarederiveddirectlyfromthefishorbytheaccumulationofuneatenfeedtofueladditionalmicrobialprocesseswhoseactivitiesresultintheproductionofmethanegas,whichcanbecapturedandusedasasourceofenergy.Overallthisachievesa99%containmentofeffluents(Romuel,2007;Zohar,2007;Zohar,2005).

Thesystemwasdesignedtoproducehigh‐valuemarinefish,tousepre‐existingmunicipalinfrastructureandservices,tohavetheabilitytolocateanywhere,andtomaximizethere‐useofwater.Usingthissystem,twostrainsofGilt‐headseabreamweregrownfrom0.5to400gcommercialsizein268days(firststrain)andto410gin232days(secondstrain).Survivalratesareclaimedtoexceed90%andfoodconversionratesvaryfrom0.87to1.89.Growingdensitiesrangedfrom44to47Kg/m3at7–10%dailywaterexchangerates.Totalammoniaandnitritelevelsremainedsignificantlybelowstressfulconcentrations(Zohar,2005).Theentirefacilityoccupies1700squaremetres.Thetotaltankwatervolumeofthefacilityis205m3.Saltusedforproducingseawateraccountsforabout25%ofthetotalproductioncost(basedonadailydischargeandrenewalof10%ofthetotaltanksaltwatervolume)(Zohar,2004).

Thefactthatseabream(Sparusaurata)isanon‐indigenousspeciesinNorthAmericameansthatitwillbeallowedtobegrownonlyinfullycontainedandbiosecuresystems(Romuel,2007).Consequently,futureproductionofthisspeciesinNorthAmericausingRASwillnotfacecompetitionfrompondornet‐penproduction(Romuel,2007).

Basedonexperimentstodate,itisthoughtthatthesystemwillbesuitableforAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar)production.Testsonthisspeciesareprojectedtobeginatthestartof2008(Romuel,2007).NOTABLEFEATURE:

Higheffluentcleansingandabilitytolocateininnercityenvironments.

11Muchoftheinformationincludedinthissectionwastakenfromwww.umbi.umd.edu,andfrominterviewswithitsproponents.


PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure6:ExperimentalBaltimoreRecirculatingMaricultureSystem(Takenfromhttp://www.umbi.umd.edu.Numberedsystemscomponentsare:1)fishtank,2)particleremoval,3)sump[left]andpump[right],4)pHdoser,5)temperaturecontrol,6)biofiltration,7)proteinskimmer,8)oxygendelivery)

Figure7:SeabreamrearingtanksattheBaltimoreRecirculatingMaricultureSystem.(Takenfromhttp://www.umbi.umd.edu)


NAME: AustralisAquacultureLtd.(www.australis.us)

SPECIES: Barramundi(Latescalcarifer)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

TheAustralisAquaculturefacilityinTurnerFalls(Mass.)isthelargestindoorfishfarmintheUS.12Thefacilityisarecirculationtanksystem.Currentproductioninontheorderof1000Mt/yranddeliversitsproducttoBoston,butitishopingtoincreasethisto5000Mt/yrwiththepotentialtoexporttoEuropeaswell.

NOTABLEFEATURE:

Highvalueexoticspecies,bio‐safety,andlargestindoorfishproducerintheUS.

12Thefollowingistakenfromwww.australis.us;andpersonalcommunicationwithJoshGoldman.


NAME: BillundAquacultureServiceApS

Denmark(Schipp,2006)

SPECIES: Eel(Anguillaanguilla),tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus),barramundi(Latescalcarifer),seabass(nospeciesnameprovided),salmonsmolt(Altlantic)(Salmosalar),trout(nospeciesnameprovided)andsturgeon(nospeciesnameprovided)

STATUS: Allcommercial–producersoffishproductDETAILS:

BillundAquaculturehasbeensuccessfullyproducingeelsfor22years.13Theyoperateinco‐operationwithDanishresearchers.Thefarmsarebuiltonamodularconcepttobeaddedontowithoutmajordisruptiontoproduction.Themodulesareisolatedfromeachotherwhichincreasesdiseasecontrol(Schipp,2006).Billundhasdesignedtwomainsystems,highintensiveandintensive,toaccommodatedifferentspecies.

Highintensive:Thisdesignisusedforspecieslikeeelandtilapiaandalsohatcheryandfingerlingunitsforbothfreshwaterandsea‐waterfish.Thesystemhasaverylowexchangeofnewwater(approx.130‐260litres/Kgfish/day).Therequiredinvestmentlevelisapproximately$12,000perMtproduction.Acomplete100Mtunit,includingequipmentandbuildingswouldcost$1,200,000.Electricityconsumptionisestimatedat4‐5kW/Kgfish.

Intensive:Thissystemissuitableforspeciessuchasbarramundi,seabass,salmonsmolt,troutandsturgeon.Ahigherexchangeofnewwaterisrequiredatarateofaround800‐1000litres/Kgfish/day.Therequiredinvestmentlevelisapproximately$9,000/Mtproduction.Acomplete100Mtunit(includingequipmentandbuilding)wouldcost$900,000.Theestimatedelectricalconsumptionis1.5‐2kW/Kgfish.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Lowelectricityconsumption,designsaccommodateavarietyoffishspecies,modulardesignforbio‐safety(diseasecontrol)andforincreasedproductionovertimeasmarketdevelopsetc.

PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure8:InsideBillundAquaculture’ssturgeonfarm(PhotocourtesyofBillundAquaculture,2008)

13ThefollowingistakenfromSchipp(2006).


NAME: CellAquacultureSystemsEuropeTheNetherlands(Schipp,2006)

SPECIES: Barramundi(Latescalicarifer)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

CellAquacultureisanAustraliancompanystartedin1999inWesternAustralia.Theyareanengineeringconsultancywithexperimentalandcommercialprojects.14OverthepastsevenyearstheyhaveresearchedanddevelopedtheEcoCell‘HatchtoDispatch’recirculatingsystem.Thisisdesignedtobeusedasalowcostmodularsystemthatcanbeplacedclosetolargepopulationcentres.TheyarecurrentlytargetingbothAmericanandEuropeanmarkets.Oneoperation,locatedintheNetherlands,consistsof16modularsystemslocatedinsidealargeshedthatwaspreviouslyachickenfarm.Thesystemiscapableofproducing66Mtofbarramundi(Latescalcarifer),whichtheybelieveistheminimumamountrequiredtomakebarramundiproductioneconomicallyviable.Systemsaredesignedtohandlestockingdensitiesofupto75Kg/m3.

Thefollowingaredetailsofthecompany’smodular‘cell’systemforbarramundiproduction.Eachmodularsystemcomprises:

‐ 2x10000litretanksand1x4000litreHDPEtank‐ Amechanicalfilter,whichisahome‐madebeltfilterfittedwitha63µmscreen.Screensare

attachedbyVelcroandareremovedandcleaneddaily.‐ Amovingbedreactorbio‐filter.‐ Oxygenstones,suppliedfromanoxygengenerator.Oxygencontrolledmanuallytoalltanks–no

automaticcontrol.‐ 2x1Hppumps

Otherfeatures:

‐ Theyaregoingtouseozonetomaintainanoxygenredoxpotential(ORP)of120‐200mV.‐ Allfeedingisdonebyhand.‐ Thefarmisdesignedtoberunby2‐3people.‐ Theproductioncycleconsistsofkeepingthefishfortwomonthsinthenursery,twomonthsinthe

4000litretankandthentwomonthsinthe10,000litretanks.‐ Wasteiscollectedandtruckedoff‐site(potentialforuseasfertilizer).

NOTABLEFEATURE:

Lowoperationdemandonstaff,deploymentclosetourbancentres,modularsystemmeansproductioncanincreaseovertime,anduseofaparticularspeciesthatgrowsrapidly.

14ThefollowingmaterialistakenfromSchipp(2006).


PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure9:CellAquacultureTanks,Terengganu,Malaysia(PhotocourtesyofCellAquaculture,2008)


NAME: HesyAquacultureBVBovendijk35‐2City,RvKwintsheul,Ambachtstraat16‐B2861,Netherlands(Schipp,2006,Debon,2007)(http://www.hesy.com)

SPECIES: Barramundi(Latescalcarifer),Murraycod(Maccullochellapeelii),eel(AnguillaAnguilla),Whitesturgeon(Acipensertransmontanus),trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),Atlantichalibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus),salmonsmolts(Salmosalar),Pike‐perch(Sanderlucioperca),seabass(Centropristisstriata),seabream(Sparusaurata),Europeancarp(Cyprinuscarpio),cobia(Rachycentroncanadum),Amberjack(Seriola),15aswellasvariouscatfish,tilapiaandgrunter(atypeofAustralianperch–seeAusyFishbelow).

STATUS: AllcommercialDETAILS:

HesyAquacultureisaprivatecompanywithover20yearsofexperienceinthedesignandoperationofintensiverecirculatingfishfarms,theyareanengineeringconsultancy.16Theyhavedevelopedsystemsinover11countries,includingChina,Bulgaria,MoroccoandRussia.Thesmallestsystemdesignedproduces2Mt/year,thelargestisgreaterthan1000Mt/year.Theyoffertraining,operationmanualsaswellason‐goingsupportasrequired.Theyhavesetupover85commercialproductionunits(Table2).Basedonthisexperience,theyareconfidentthatrecirculatingsystemsarecost‐effectivecomparedtocagefarming.Theirsystemsaredesignedtorelyongravityflowfromacentralpoint,soonlyonepumpingstationisneeded(Debon,2007).Thewatersavingsarehuge,insteadofafewhundredm³perkilogramfishproducedinflow‐throughsystemstheyneedonly50to300litresofnewwaterperkilogramfishproduced.Theyusenoantibioticsfortheirsystemsasincomingwateristreated.Theirenergyconsumptionisbetween7‐8kW/Kgfish,andintheNetherlandstheyusetheirsludgeforfertilizerwithhighsalinitytolerantvegetables.

InEuropetheyhaveestimatedthefollowingcostsofproduction(Schipp,2006):Eels(Anguillaanguilla):$8.25/KgoffishproducedTilapia(S.Oreochromis):$1.5‐3/KgoffishproducedSeabream(Sparusaurata):$10.5‐12/KgoffishproducedNOTABLEFEATURES:

Alargevarietyofspeciesproducedcommerciallyinmanygeographicandsocio‐economicsettings.

PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Table2.SummaryofrecentHESYcommercialproductionunits.Country Farms SpeciesCroatia 1farms EelsGreece 3 Trout,sturgeon,

seabass,seabream,mullet

Israel 2 Tilapia,seabass,seabream

Australia 3 MurraycodNetherlands 14 Pike‐perch,

turbot,sturgeon,eel

15Exactspeciesnotcertain–itmaybebothGreaterandLesserAmberJack,asthereareseveralfacilitiescurrentlyoperatingintheUSA.16Muchofthefollowingisfromwww.hesy.com,andfrominterviewswithitspresident,Mr.Debon.


sturgeon,eelChile 2 Salmonand

troutBenin 1 Africancatfish

NAME: RedfishRanchTilapiaFarmBC

(http://www.redfishranch.com//)

SPECIES: Tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

RedfishRanchTilapiaFarmandHatcheryistheonlylicensedtilapiaFarminBritishColumbia.17Itproduceslivetilapia,primarilyfortheAsianmarketsinVancouver.Thecurrentproductioninjustover100Mt/yr.Itisarecirculationfacilitywith95%waterreuse.Theyareabletoincreaseproductioninstagesbyincreasingthenumberoftanks.Wastegoesthroughdrumfilterswheresolidsareextractedtosepticsystems.Theeffluentwateristreatedinbio‐filtersbeforegoingthroughCO2stripersandbeingoxygenatedforrecirculation.Theentirefacilityisona10,000sqfootarea.Becausetilapiaisatropicalfish,temperaturesneedtobemaintainedat28‐30C.Waterisheatedprimarilybypropanebutpassiveheatingisalsobeingdeveloped.Monitoringisdonethroughsensors.TheyreceivetheirbroodstockfromIdaho.Thefishtake6‐8monthstoreach0.5kgharvestsize,wheretheyaretruckedlivetomarket.TilapiaimportsareincreasinginBCandhaverisenfromnothingin1990,to340Mt/yrin1996,to680Mt/yrin2006.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Useofanexoticspeciestohelpdevelopanichemarket.

17Thefollowingistakenfromhttp://www.redfishranch.com/


NAME: ScotianHalibut,NovaScotia(http://www.halibut.ns.ca/)

SPECIES: Halibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

ThefacilityinWoodsHarbour,NovaScotiaisland‐based,fullycontainedrecirculationfacilityforhalibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus)grow‐out.18Theoperationbeganin1998throughapartnershipbetweentheIcelandiccompanyFiskeyandCanadianinvestors.ScotianHalibutcoordinatesthisgrow‐outfacilitywithanearbyhatcherytheyoperateusingflowthroughsystems,asfishatthesestagesaremoresensitivetochangesinwaterquality.Thetimerequiredforthefishtoreachmarketsizeisapproximately2.5years(notethisisasimilartimeneededasthatforhalibutasdescribedbyUNI‐Aqua,below).TheWoodHarbourfacilityharvests15‐302‐3lb(0.8‐1.3Kg)fishperweek.Theirtargetforannualproductionis227to250Mt.Mostoftheirproductgoestorestaurantsforsaleashighquality,freshfish.OneclientrestaurantinTorontosellsthefishasliveproduct.

‐ Modulartanks–eachmodulecomprisedof6‐7mdiam.x1.4mhighSwede‐styletanks,eachwithwaterdepthof1.2m

‐ Designcapacityofeachmodule=50Mt‐ Maximumstockingdensity(achievedtodate)is60Kg/m2(measuredperm2ashalibutstackontopof

oneanother(3deepinthiscase))‐ Temperaturesinthetanksarereducedasthehalibutgrow:from11‐14Cwhenthefisharebetween2‐

25gtobetween7‐11Concethefishsurpass1Kg‐ Fluidizedsandbedbio‐filtersforfilteringwastewater‐ Dissolvedoxygenisinjectedat15psig

NOTABLEFEATURE:

ThecommercialproductionofHalibutissignificantasanewspeciestoaquaculture,andalsointhatitisalocalspeciestotheregion.

18Muchofthefollowingisfromhttp://www.halibut.ns.ca/


NAME: UNI‐AquaDenmark(www.uni‐aqua.com)

SPECIES Halibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus)–commercial(asof1year)Trout(Oncorhynchusspp.)–commercialTurbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)–commercialJapaneseFlounder(Paralichthysolivaceus)–commercialSole(Soleasolea)–commercialAbalone(Haliotisspp.)–commercialCod(Gadusmorhua)–experimental(withgoodpotential)BluefinTuna(Thunnusthynnus)–experimental(entirelifecycle)


UNI‐Aqua,ofDenmark,isanengineeringconsultancyandproducer,constructingavarietyofrecircultingtanksforavarietyofspecies.TheyhavedeployedtheirtechnologyincommercialsystemsinNorway,Spain,ChinaandAustralia(Urup,2007).Becauseofthehighlevelofrecirculatedwater,RAScanbelocatedsomedistanceawayfromtheactualshore(importantifshorelocationiscostly).19A500Mtflow‐throughsystemwillneed12,000m3/hrbutactualexchangeisonly60m3/hr(1000L/min)(Urup,2007).Controlofoptimalwaterchemistry:O2,NH4,CO2‐bicarbonatemeansthataspectsofthelifecyclecanbecontrolledandmaturationcanbeavoidedasinsomespecies,suchasturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus),maturingresultsinpoorfeedconversionratios(www.uni‐aqua.com).Thisalsocausesfluctuationsinmeatquality.Becauseoftemperatureandinputcontrol,therecirculationsystemperformsbetterthancomparableopenairflowthoughsystems(Seefigure10).Theyhavebuilta8‐10,000Mt/yearsystemforturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)runbyStoltSeaFarmsinSpain(Urup,2007).UNI‐Aquahasconstructedalargeturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)farminChinausingwesterntechnologyandadaptingittothelocalChinesecontext.Theyusemanualfeedingandpumpedseawater(Urup,2007).NOTABLEFEATURES:

ThissystemclaimstogrowBluefintunafortheirentirelifecycle(www.uni‐aqua.com).Useofwastes:typically,saltfromsolidwastesisaproblemashighsalinityispoisonoustocropsmakingitdifficulttouseasafertilizer.However,inDenmarksolidwastesfromtheirmarinespeciesareusedasfertilizerasitismixedwithotherwaste(fromconventionalanimalfarms)toreducesaltandspreadoveralargearea(Urup,2007).4000Mt/yrfishproductionsystem:willgenerate12000m3/yrofsludge–3‐4%drymatter.Itishighinphosphorousandlowinnitrogenandthefarmerslikeitassomeofthesaltscontainmicro‐nutrients(Urup,2007).Intheirexperimentaltestswithhalibut,theywereabletoraisemarketsizedfishin2‐2.5years(Urup,2007)(notethisissimilartoScotianHalibut,above).

19Muchofthefollowingistakenfromwww.uni‐aqua.com,andfrominterviewswithitsprincipal,Mr.Urup.


PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure10:Comparisoningrowthofhalibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus)betweenFlow‐throughandRecirculationSystems(PhotocourtesyofAquacultureDevelopmentsLLConbehalfofUNI‐Aqua)

Figure11:HalibutrecirculationsysteminDønna,NorwaybuiltbyUNI‐Aqua(PhotocourtesyofAquacultureDevelopmentsLLConbehalfofUNI‐Aqua)


Raceways–Flow‐through

NAME: RushingWatersTroutFarmWisconsin,US(http://www.rushingwaters.net/)

SPECIES: Trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

TroutattheRushingWatersTroutFarmaregrowninpaired,steel‐reinforcedconcreteracewayswith15‐20cmwallsandfloors.20Racewayshaveanapproximatelengthtowidthratioof6:1andholdwateratadepthofabout1m.Thisisagravity‐fedflow‐throughsystemwithlargevolumesofcold(<20oC)waterflowviagravitythroughaseriesofterracedracewaysandaredischargedintoareceivingstream.Aerationoccursbetweenracewaysasthewaterflowsoverascreenedoutfallandpoursintotheheadoftheracewaybelow.Theentirewatervolumeisexchangedapproximatelyeveryhour.

Nitrogenouswastesmustberemovedfromtheracewaysbyflushinganddilutionbeforetoxiclevelsofun‐ionizedammoniagasconcentratesinthewater.Totalalkalinity(>100mg/L)andpH(>7.5)limitstheserialreuseofKentucky’slimestonespringwaterto6‐8racewaypasses.WatersthatarelowerinpHandtotalalkalinitymayundergomorereusesbeforetoxicconcentrationsofun‐ionizedammoniaarereached.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Gravityfedwatersystemtokeepelectricalcostslow,andthebenefitofusinglocalalkalinewaterswithalowpHfordealingwithammonia.

20Thissectionhasbeentakenfromhttp://www.rushingwaters.net/.


Tanks‐Flow‐Through

NAME: IcyWatersLtdWhitehorse,Yukon(http://www.icywaters.com/)

SPECIES: Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

IcyWatersisacommercialproducerofArcticchar.Theaquaculturefarmhasbeeninoperationfor20yrs.21Theysellbothfishfortheconsumermarketandovaasbrood‐stock,andhavebredamixofwildanddomesticfishtoproduceagoodfishforaquaculture.Productionis200Mt/yr.Theyemploygravityfedflow‐throughsystemsusingspringsandstreamsasawatersource.Drumfilters,settlingpondsandwetlandsareusedtoremoveparticulatematter.Wastesludgeisgiventofarmer’sfields,wastefromprocessingisprovidedtolocaldogmushersashighoilfoodortocompost.

NOTABLEFEATURE:

Useoflocalconditionstogrowlocalvarietyforinternationalexport,andinparticularbrood‐stock.Specializationinasinglespecies.Gravityfedflow‐throughminimizespumpingcosts.Innovativeuseofwasteproducts.

NAME: SilfurstjaranFishFarmIceland(Gíslason,2003;Gústavsson,2007a)

SPECIES: Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus),turbot(Scophthalmusmaximus),halibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus),


Establishedin1988,theSilfurstjarnanFishFarmisaland‐basedproductionsystemwherefisharerearedinanumberofindividualtanksofvarioussizesandwhereenvironmentsarecreatedforspecificspecies.22Itisasemi‐recirculatingsystemwithupto40%ofwaterreuse.Forseveralyearstheyharvestedabout200Mt/yrofAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar);however,thisgavewaytoArcticcharwhichhassimilargrowingtechnologybutcommandsahighermarketprice.Theynowproduceontheorderof300Mt/yrofArcticchar.Oneofthemostimpressiveaspectsofthefarmisitsuseofthermalwaterstoreduceenergycosts.Afterthermalwaterhaspassedthroughalocalpowergeneratingplant,thecooledwaterflowstothefishfarmwhereitisusedasaheatsource.Theyrelyonmixingfreshwater,seawaterandwarmthermalwatertoprovideoptimalgrowthconditionsforthefish.Arcticchar(Salvelinusaplinus),forexamplethriveat16‐18Cwaterswithsalinitylevelsof10‐15‰(Gíslason,2003)

NOTABLEFEATURE:

Useofgeo‐thermalheatasanenergysource,useofmixingseawater,groundwater,andthermalwatertoprovideanoptimaltemperature‐salinitymixtureforfishgrowth.IcelandisgreatlyremovedfromthemarketsofEurope;nevertheless,theyareabletomaintainacommerciallyviablesystem.

21Thissectionisfromwww.icywaters.com,andconversationswithIcyWatersproponents.22ThefollowingisbasedonpersonalcommunicationwithMr.Gústavsson(2007a)andreportsofMr.Gíslason(2003).


Inland–Ponds(Flow‐Through

NAME: SwiftAquafarmsAgassiz,BritishColumbia

SPECIES Cohosalmon(rearedinfreshwater)

STATUS: Commercial(smallscale)DETAILS:

SwiftAquafarmshavebeenrearingsalmonforovertenyears;andCohoinparticularforthreeyearsinenirtelyinfreshwater.23Theyemployaseriesof14ftdiameterflow‐throughtanks.Thetreatmentofwastewaterisextremelyinnovative.First,waterispassedthroughaselfcleaning60micronfilterwheresolidsareremoved.Theeffluentisthenusedtogrowwatercressandhighvaluewasabiplants.Theyhavealsolookedatgrowinghybridpopularfortoiletpaperandalgaethatcanbeusedaspartofthefeed.Theyhavealsoexploredusingeffluenttogrowlocalcrayfishwhichcanweighasmuchas½pond(200g).Theyareexpandingtodeveloprecirculatingsystems.NOTABLEFEATURES:

UseoffreshwaterforraisingCohoandtheintegratedapproachtoaquaculturewithprofitablebyproductsfromeffluentandwaste.Also,valueaddedproductsassmokingthefish,ornichemarketsuchasrestaurants.

23ThefollowingistakenfromtheMinutesoftheSpecialCommitteeonSustainableAquacultureheldonOctober18,2006;availablefromwww.leg.bc.ca/cmt/38thparl/session‐2/aquaculture/hansard/W61018a.htm#25:1130


NAME: AquaFarmLangley,BC(Albright,2007)

(http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/news_releases/archives/news10190601.htm)

SPECIES: Rainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss);freshwaterSockeyesalmon(Oncorhynchusnerka)STATUS: Commercial(both)DETAILS:

Thissysteminvolvestankandpondproductionoftrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)andSockeyesalmon(Oncorhynchusnerka),withtroutproductionbeing20Mt/year.24Sockeyeproductionisless.ProductiongoestorestaurantsintheVancouverareathatwantfreshfish(nichemarket).Sockeyemalescangrowupto2.3Kg,andhavebeencultivatednowforfoursuccessivelifecyclesinfreshwateronly.HistestsshowthatallPacificsalmon,includingCoho(Oncorhynchuskisutch),Chinook(Oncorhynchustshawytscha),Chum(Oncorhynchusketa)andPinksalmon(Oncorhynchusgorbuscha)canbeculturedthroughouttheirentirelifecycleinfreshwater.

Mostfisharecultivatedinflow‐throughpondswithnorecirculationinanareaoffiveacres.Pondsaredewateredatintervalsandthesidesexcavatedforsolidwasteremovalthatisusedasfertilizer(lowinnitrogen,buthighinphosphorusandmicro‐nutrients).Incomingwaterisprincipallyfromgroundwaterwells.Effluentisscreenedtoensurenoescapes,andistreatedinawetlandthroughbio‐remediation.Therearenoantibioticsoradditivesgiventothefish.Thefeedcomesfromalocalproducer,‘UniFeed’,25andthefeedconversionratio(FCR)isapproximately1.3‐1.5.

Albrightobtainsabout$10/Kgfortroutand$14/KgforSockeyesalmon(Head‐ondressed).AlthoughtheSockeyehavewhitefleshhesuggeststhatdemandishighforecologicallyrearedsalmon.AquaFarms,WestcreekTroutFarm,Silverbrook,Timms,DurielandN’quatkafarmshavejoinedtogethertocreatean‘Eco‐certificate’fortheirtroutproductioninthelowermainlandofBC.

Albrightestimatesthatthecostofcommerciallyfarmingsalmoninfreshwaterwouldbe1.3timeshigherthanthecostofcommerciallyfarmingtroutinfreshwater.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Sockeyesalmon(Oncorhynchusnerka)rearedentirelyinland‐basedCSAinfreshwater.Lowpumpingandwastetreatmentcosts.Groundwatersourcesmeanthatthereislittletreatmentnecessarybeforeentryintotheponds.

24Theinformationinthissectionisderivedfrominterviewswiththeprinciple,Dr.Albright(2007),andfromtheabovelistedwebsite.25Seewww.agricoreunited.com/cgi‐bin/bvsm/AU2/Farmer/LSS/Unifeed/index.jsp


NAME: Ausyfish.Pty.Ltd

Australia(www.ausyfish.com)

SPECIES: Goldenperch(Macquariaambigua)26,Silverperch(Bidyanusbidyanus),MurrayCod(Maccullochellapeeliipeelii),Baramundi(Latescalcarifer),JadePerch‐BarcooGrunter(Scortumbarcoo),andSleepyCod(Oxyeleotrislineolatus)inrecirculatingsystems(allfreshwaterspecies)


Thecompanyhasbeenproducingcommercialfishsince1988.27Theyhave127ponds,withthreestoragedamsforwatersupply,andthesystemsaremostlygravityfed.TheyspecialiseinAustralianspecies,forlocalconsumptionandbroodstockforexportabroadaswell.Eachspecieswillhaveitsspecificbenefits.TheyclaimthatalmostallGoldenperchforconsumptionarenowsuppliedbyaquaculturepondswheregrowingtemperaturesshouldnotgobelow12C;FCRof0.8to1.7;upto98%survivalrates;andfishfeedonplanktoninweaningstagereducingfeedcosts.JadeperchgrowtwiceasfastaSilverperch,generallyneedtemperaturesof27C,andnotbelow18C,andgrowsonwidevarietyofdiets.Sleepycodcanbegrownathighdensitiesandcancapturemarketvaluesof$30/Kg.AsSleepycodtendnottomovemuchthereislowproductionofCO2andthuslowercostsforaeration,anditalsomakesthemeasiertotransportlive(accountingforhighmarketvalue).Theyalsogrowmanyornamentalvarietiesoffish.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Thefocusisonpromotinglocalspeciesanddevelopingsufficientsupplytocreatenewmarkets(Jadeperch).Diversecommercialinterests,forinstancetheornamentalfishaswellasconsumerfish.

26Notetheygrowallthreestrains:Macquariaambiguaambigua;Macquariaambiguassp.;andMacquariaambiguaoriens.27Thefollowingwastakenfromwww.ausyfish.com.


NAME: FreshCatchBelizeLtd.

Belize(http://www.aquaculture.co.il/Projects/Belize.html)

SPECIES: Niletilapia(Oreochromisniloticus)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

AquacultureProductionTechnologyofIsraelbuiltthefacility.28Thisoperationproducestilapia(Oreochromisniloticus),supplying1,300Mt/yrmainlytoUSandMexicanmarkets.29Thesystemuses380m2oflandandpumpswaterfromtheSibunriver.Theprojectisbasedonearthenpondswithmechanicalaeration,andminimalpumpingfromtheriverforcompensationagainstseepageandevaporationlosses.ThedesignoftheTilapiaFarmisbasedon‘green‐water’re‐circulation.Inthegreen‐watersystemfishwasteistreatedthroughnaturaldecompositionbybacteriaandalgaethatliveinthenaturalponds.Ammoniaisconvertedtonitriteandnitratebybacteria(seewastedisposalinsection7below),thenitratethenbeingtakenupbyalgae,thealgaeisconsumedbyzooplanktonwhichinturnprovideasupplementtothefish.Addingwatertothefishfarmisonlyrequiredtocompensateagainstlossesduetoseepage,evaporationandoperationaluses.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Thecomplete‘integrated’cycleofwastetofeedforthefishmeanslesswastetreatment,lessfeed,morerobustsystem,photosynthesisofthealgaehelpsmaintainoxygenbalance(asnetO2producers),muchlesswaterconsumption,andthereforelesspossibilityfor‘interaction’inthesystemreducingthepotentialfordiseaseentry.ThesystemhasbeencommerciallyreplicatedinElSalvador–seeAquacoporaciondeElSalvadorS.A.30

28Seewww.aquaculture‐israel.com29Thefollowingistakenfromwww.aquaculture.co.il/Projects/Belize.html.30Seehttp://www.aquaculture.co.il/Projects/El_Salvador.html


Sea‐BasedSystems

FlexibleTanks

NAME: Aqua‐SphereClosedContainmentSystem.DevelopedbyNeptuneIndustriesinFloridaCity,FL(Papadoyianis,2007)(www.neptuneindustries.net)

SPECIES: Stripedseabass(Moronesaxatilis)STATUS: ExperimentalDETAILS:

TheAqua‐Cellisafloating,closed‐containmentseafoodproductionsystem,andisthefirstarticulatedtanksystem.31‘Disruptivetechnology’isdesignedtoprovideaneco‐friendly,energyefficientalternativetocagesandnet‐pens.ThisprototypesystemdesignedforStripedBasshasbeendevelopedover8yearsinFlorida.Aqua‐Cellisscalableandmodular,andcomposedofarigidpolyethylenematerialwithneoprenejointsbetweencellsthatallowflexibilityinresponsetotide,stormsurges,etc.Thecurrent,firstgenerationprototypeis4.57m.indiameterwithplansfortwomoregenerationsofprototypesasthecompanymovestowardsacommercialscalesystem.Someothernotablefeatures:

‐ Solidwasteispumpedtoananaerobicdigestertobeconvertedtomethanethatisusedtoruntheairliftblowerstopumpwater.

‐ Sludgeisusedasafertilizerforahydroponicgreenhouse,andwastecollectedfromthebottomoftanksisusedtogrowedibleseaweed.

‐ Thesystemisveryenergyefficientasitrunsoffairlifts(notpumps)–accommodatingtheuseofalternativeenergy.

‐ Thetankssystemiscomposedofcellsthatareinterconnectedwithareinforcedneoprenejoint,allowingthesystemtoflexuponimpactfromwaves.

‐ Individualcellshaveinterconnectedfishpassagewaysmadeofflexibletubingorpiping.Aseriesofgatevalvescanbeusedtomovefishfromonetanktoanotherwithouthavingtonetthemtherebyreducingstressandincidenceofdisease.

‐ NeptuneIndustrieshasregisteredasubsidiaryinCanadanamedAquaBiologicsofCanadaLtd.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Modularcomponentstoconstructavarietyofsides,articulationforstabilityinwavemotion,andeasymobilityoffishbetweenadjacentenclosures.

31InformationinthissectionistakenfrominterviewswithNeptuneIndustryPresident,Mr.Papadoyianis,andfromwww.neptuneindustries.net.


NAME: FutureSEATechnologies(SEASystem™)(www.futuresea.com)SPECIES: Chinooksalmon(Oncorhynchustshawytscha),Cohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch),Arcticchar

(Salvelinusalpinus),Blackcod(Nototheniamicrolepidota),Rainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)STATUS: CommercialDETAILS:

TheSEASystemisafullrecirculatingsystemcomprisingasea‐basedflexiblebag.32ThissystemhasbeeninstalledforuseinBritishColumbia,NovaScotia,NewBrunswick,Tasmania,Chile,Japan.InB.C.thissystemhasbeentrialledbyMarineHarvestonSaltSpringIsland33andiscurrentlyinusebyMiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstitute.Thebagsare15mindiameterandrangeindepthfrom7mto12m(foratotalvolumerangeof1000m3–2000m3).Highefficiencypumpsreducetheamountofenergyrequiredforpumping.Otheradvantagesofthesystemincludeease(andaffordability)oftransportationfromonelocationtoanother.Salmonspeciescanberaisedinthissystematanaveragedensityof30Kg/m3.AnoperationraisingRainbowtroutinNovaScotiaachieveddensitiesof60Kg/m3whileArcticcharinOntariohavebeenraisedat40Kg/m3.Thiscanbecomparedwithnet‐penswhichgenerallymaintaindensitiesofbetween10and15Kg/m3forsalmonspecies.

NOTABLEFEATURE:

Flexiblebagsystem,highefficiencypumps,beingtestedforsalmonrearing

32InformationinthissectionisbasedonpersonalcommunicationwithAndyClark,presidentofFutureSEATechnologies,andwww.futuresea.com33InformationfromthistrialcanbefoundontheBritishColumbiaMinistryofAgricultureandLandswebsiteathttp://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/technology/marine_harvest.htm


NAME: McRobertAquacultureGroup

WesternAustralia(http://www.mcrobert.com.au/)

SPECIES: Oceantrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),34Yellowtailkingfish(Seriolalalandilalandi)andmulloway(SciaenaAntarctica)

STATUS: Commercial(since2006)DETAILS:

McRobertAquacultureGroupinitiallydevelopedtheSemi‐IntensiveFloatingTankSystem(SIFTS)asaproducttoimprovefinfishproductionintheinlandsalinewaterwaysofAustralia,andaddressmanyofthecurrentproblemswithincagefarmingindustries.35AtthecoreoftheSIFTSdevelopmentaretheMcRobertfishhandlingandwasteremovalprocesses.FisharestockedinSIFTSatdensities4to5timeshigherthaninsea‐cages(>80Kg/m3)andsustainedbyconstantlyaeratedwaterbeingpumpedthroughatthehighrateofuptofourcompleteexchangesperhour.Theimperviouslinerspreventescapesoffish,eliminatepredationandfacilitatethecaptureofsolidwastes.Thewaterenvironmentisconstantlymonitoredviaacomputer‐controlledsystem.Aprototype50m³SIFTSdeployedintotheOceanFarmssiteinFremantleHarboursinceNovember2006hascapacitytoproduceupto50Mt/yroffish,includingoceantrout,yellowtailkingfishandmullowayforthelocalmarket.Thesystemisnotsuitedtotropicalwaterswithlargetidalmovementbuthaspotentialinpondsandshelteredwaters.

WhereasSIFTSisdesignedtogrowa“local”productsuitedtotheclimateofaparticularregion,theMcRobertAquacultureGroupalsodesignsandinstallsfullyrecirculatingsystemswhicharebiosecure(diseasecontrol),intensive,land‐basedindoortank‐basedsystemsthatallowhighvaluespeciestobegrowninanyclimaticregion.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Theuseoflocalspecies,highdensitiesoffish,andhighturnoverofwater.Althoughpumpingcostsmustberelativelyhigh(comparedtoopennet)theseseemtobeoutweightedbyproductionvolume.

PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure12:RotationallymouldedSIFTS(PhotoprovidedcourtesyofMcRobertAquaculure)

34NotethatTasmanianOceantroutarealsoknownmorecommonlyasRainbowtroutandSteelheadtrout.35Thefollowingistakenfromhttp://www.mcrobert.com.au/.


SeaBased‘Hard’Tanks

NAME: MaricultureSystems(SARGO™)USA(http://www.sargo.net/)

SPECIES: Coho(Oncorhynchuskisutch)andChinooksalmon(Oncorhynchustshawytscha),Yellowfintuna(Thunnusalbacares),Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus)andWalleyedpike(Sandervitreusvitreus)

STATUS: ExperimentalDETAILS:

ThebasicelementoftheSARGOfishrearingsystemisafloating,rigid‐wallreservoirwithacontinuous,externalsupplyofwaterpumpedfromanydesireddepth.36Sixfish‐rearingreservoirsassembledaroundaserviceplatformcompriseaPOD.Eachserviceplatformcontainsthepumps,controls,feedingequipment,oxygensupply,wastehandlingsystemandothersupportequipmentforitsPOD.Nosystemisincommercialoperation,butthereareseveralinexperimentalphase.MajortestinghasbeenconductedonCohoandChinooksalmon(saltwater),andArcticchar(freshwater);aswellasYellowfintunainPanamaandWalleyedpikeinfreshwaterlakesinMichigan.MaricultureSystemsisalsoworkingwithYellowIslandAquacultureonQuadraIslandtoinstallasystemtoraiseChinooksalmon.Theyareprojectingthisfacilitytobeoperationalbythespringof2008.Thesystemisexpectedtobeabletoproducemarketsize3.6‐3.9Kg(8–8.5lbs)inapproximately15monthsatacostthattheyclaimiscompetitivewithnet‐penproduction.Theyhavealsopreviouslyharvested2cyclesofAtlanticsalmoninPugetSound(2001–2002).Thesegrewtomarketsize3.6‐3.9Kg(8–8.5lbs)in10.5months,outpacingaveragenet‐penproductionforAtlanticsalmon.

Theirnew2ndgenerationtanksare20mindiameterand11.5mdeepwithatotalof2500m3usablespace.Thereisa5fthighlevelbarrierfromtheopenwatertotopoftanktominimiseliquidtransfer.Fabricishighdensitypolyethylenewithsteelreinforcementandfibreglassbottom,whichhastheparticularadvantageofverylowgrowthoforganismsonsidessothereislessdragcomparedtonets.Itisdesignedtowithstandwindsofupto160km/h.

Waterispumpedinlocally(eitheroceanorlakewater)andisfilteredtoremoveparticulatesoranyorganismsbeforegoingintothetank.Theirintakepipecanreachdepthsof280mwithvarioussectionsofintaketocontroltemperatureandsalinityandevenwaterquality.ThecurrentwastetreatmentsystemisaTypeIIImarinesanitationdevice(designedfortheshippingindustry).Theyarealsoexploringanaerobicdigesterstocreatemethaneandwave‐energygeneratorsforlowcostenergygeneration.Ultimately,thepodsshouldbeentirelyselfsufficientfor‘farfromshore’openoceandeployment.Inteststheyhavehadfairlygoodfeedconversionratiosof1.15.NOTABLEFEATURE:

Smallenergyrequirementsforpumping,andcontrolofincomingwatersthrough280mdeepintakepipe,goodfeedconversionratios,potentialforoffshoredeploymentasitisabletostanduptohighwindsanwaves(notetheMcRobertCSAsystemisspecificallydesignedforinlandoceanandlowtides).Plasticsidesreducebarnaclegrowth,reducingtidalandcurrenteffectsaswellasincreasinglongevityoftanks.

36ThefollowinginformationwascollectedfromaninterviewwithD.Meihan,ofMaricultureSystems,andfromwww.sargo.net.


PICTURES/DIAGRAMS:

Figure13:SARGOsystem(Takenfromhttp://www.sargo.net/)

NAME: MiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstituteCampbellRiver,BritishColumbia(http://www.sustainable‐aquaculture.ca/)(Walker,2007)

SPECIES: Chinooksalmon(Oncorhynchustshawytscha)STATUS: ExperimentalDETAILS:

ThesystembeingdevelopedatMiddleBayhasevolvedfromtheAgriMarinedemonstrationprojectinCedar,BC.37Thissystemiscomposedsolidwallsmadefromfibreglassreinforcedplasticoverhighdensityfoam(initiallyitwasconcrete).Theplanistoinstall4tanks–eachwithauseablevolumeof5500cubicmeters.Eachtankisprojectedtobecapableofproducing100,000fishatasizeof3.5Kg/fish.Thetimerequiredforthisgrow‐outisexpectedtobeapproximately16‐18months.Currently,MiddleBayisraisingChinooksalmon,thoughthesystemwillbeadaptabletootherspecies(suchasseatrout,blackcod(sablefish),halibut)andproducersmaylookintotheseinthefuture.ProducersatMiddleBayhaveemployedtheuseofFutureSEATechnologiesSEASystem™tohousefishstockintheinterimwhiletheycontinuetodeveloptheirowntechnology.

NOTABLEFEATURE:

Highproductionlevelsof200Mt/yrforeachtank,andharvestingoflocalspecies.

37TheinformationinthissectionwasderivedfrompersonalcommunicationwithRobWalker,ofMiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstituteandfromhttp://www.sustainable‐aquaculture.ca/


5. Species Grown in Closed System Aquaculture The following section contains an overviewof characteristics pertaining to someof themore common speciescurrentlybeingharvested(commerciallyorexperimentally)inCSAsystems.Abalone(Haliotisspp.)Abalone is susceptible toa rangeofparasitesand requires specificwater conditions suchas constantand lowlevelsofammoniaatahighpH;lowlevelsofCO2;constantlevelsofoxygenaround100%saturationinthetanks;andverylowturbidity.Becauseofadvantagesrelatedtotheabilitytopreventectoparasitesandthecontrolofincomingwater,abaloneisespeciallywellsuitedforCSA.ArcticChar(Salvelinusalpinus)Arctic char tolerate high‐density culture conditions, have an excellent fillet yield, are amenable to nichemarketing,andaresuitableforproductionwithinsuper‐intensiverecirculatingsystems(Summerfelt,2004).Arcticcharareraisedpredominantlyinland‐based,closedsystemswithrecirculatingwater(Summerfelt,2004).Thereissomelimitedproductioninflow‐throughsystemsandnet‐pens.Arcticcharhavebeenshowntobemorediseaseresistantthanothersalmonids(Marsh,2006).Barramundi(Latescalcarifer)Barramundiisatropicalspeciesrequiringwatertemperaturesbetween20°Cand30°C.Commercialgrowthratesrequiretemperaturesabove25°C.Beingeuryhaline(abletotolerateawiderangeofsalinities),barramundicanbegrowninsalt,brackishorfreshwaterenvironments.Barramundiaretypicallyraisedat75Kg/m3(Schipp,2006).Theyare rearedondry, pelleteddiets; andmaximum intakes (andbest feed conversion ratios)occurbetween27°C to 29°C. The amount of feed consumed by the fish decreases rapidly as the water temperature drops.Barramundi are very robust and hardy and disease is generally not a problem, providing good husbandrytechniquesareemployed.Itisahighquality,whitefleshedfish,withahighyieldofmeattobodyweight(around45%)andishighinOmega3oils.Thedevelopmentofhatcherytechnologyhasprovidedthemajorimpetustothebarramundiindustry’sdevelopmentinrecentyears.Cod38(Gadusmorhua)and“Black”(Nototheniamicrolepidota)Codisarelativelynewspeciesinaquaculture.Thetotalproductionvolumeofcodisstillrelativelylow,however,it is a species that could have the potential to grow into a production volume equivalent to that of salmon(www.uni‐aqua.com).Codcanbe farmedatveryhighdensitiesbuta tankdesignadapted forcod isnecessaryand the vaccination program is different from the one used in flow‐through systems (Urup, 2007). MarineHarvesthasbeenexperimentingwithacod(Gadusmorhua)hatcheryinNorway.In2005theyproduced2million10gfishatacostof$1.26each(Shipp,2006).Notethatcodrequirehighlevelsoffishoilintheirdiet.Halibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus),“California”(Paralichthyscalifornicus)Halibut is a new species in aquaculture. It is highly valued, although only well knownmainly in Scandinavia,Britain, USA and Canada. Generally, halibut has been grown in containment as juveniles and subsequentlytransferredtoopenwatercages.Recently,anoperationinNorwayhasbegunperformingtheentireproduction‐cycleonland,withrecirculationtechnology.Usingthistechnology,theproductiontimerequiredforamarketsizefishcanbereducedfrom6years(cage)toapprox2½years(recirulatingsystem)(Urup,2007).Furthermore,theoverall production costs, including capital costs, of halibut production can be reduced by approximately 30%

38NotethatGadusmorhuareferstotheAtlanticcods,amarinespeciesandsimilarto“Black”codofNewZealand.Other‘cods’suchas“Murray”(Maccullochellapeelii)and”Sleepy”(Oxyeleotrislineolatus)arefreshwaterAustralianvarietiesandareofnorelation.


using recirculating technology as comparedwith cage operations (Urup, 2007). Note that halibut require highlevelsoffishoilintheirdiet.ResearchersattheNorwegianInstituteofWaterResearch(NIVA)havealsobeenexperimentingwithhalibut.Oneexperimentaimedtocontrolthematurationprocessinordertomaintainsomatic(muscle)growthinthefishandimprove theFCR.Todo this, researchers trialleda feeding regimewhere fishwere starved then fed in5weekcyclerotations(halibutcanliveuptooneyearwithoutfeed)(Shipp,2006).Salmon,Atlantic(Salmosalar)OneofthemostgrownspeciesinaquacultureinWesternEurope,NorthAmericaandChilebutpredominantlyinopen,net‐pensystems.Atlanticsalmonaremainlygrowninrecirculationsystemstosmoltandpost‐smoltstages.The AgriMarine farm in Cedar, BC grew two cycles of Atlantic salmon in 2002 and 2003. The Atlantic salmonraisedinthesecondcyclethisoperationhadbetterfeedconversionrates(1.34)andpeakdensities(36Kg/m3)comparedtoaverageAtlanticsalmonharvestsinnet‐pensystems(densityof16Kg/m3)(AgriMarine,2004).TheSargo™systemwasalsousedtogrow2cyclesofAtlanticsalmoninPugetSoundbeforetheleaseforthepropertyexpired.Salmon,Chinook(Oncorhynchustshawytscha)Chinooksalmon is currentlybeing raisedatexperimental facilities inBritishColumbia.Trialsat theMiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstitutehavedemonstratedthatthisspeciescanberaisedinCSAfacilitiesatcostsonparwiththoserequiredfornet‐penproduction(Walker,2007).FutureSEA™aswellasSargo™technologieshavealsobeentestedforChinookfarming.Theycanbestockedonaverageatadensityof30Kg/m3(Clark,2007)andtypicallygrowto3‐3.5Kgin16‐18monthsinCSAfacilities(Walker,2007).In2002,theAgriMainetestfacilityinCedar,BC,grewChinooktoaharvestsizeof1.6Kg(3.11/lb)after13months(however,theywereharvestearlytomakeroomforothertrials)(AgriMarine,2003).Salmon,Coho(Oncorhynchuskisutch)TwoproductioncyclesofCohoweregrownattheAgriMarinetestfacilityinCedar,BCin2002and2003.Inthefirstgeneration,thegrowthrates(fishreaching2‐3Kg(4.5‐6.8lbs)in15months),survivalrates(87%)andfeedconversion rates (1.2) were comparable to the performance of net‐pen production (Atlantic) salmon. Thedensities tested (42Kg/ m3) were more than twice that of net‐pen production (max 20 Kg/ m3). These wereproducedatacostofCDN$7/Kg(CDN$3.22/lb)(includingtransportationcoststoVictoria)whilemarketvaluein2002wasCDN$4.9/Kg(CDN$2.25/lb)(AgriMarine,2003).Feedbackfromconsumersatthetimeindicatedtherewouldbeopportunitiestosellthisproductataprofit (AgriMarine,2003).Thesecondgenerationharvestagainshowed favorable conditions forCoho. The feed conversion ratewashigher (FCR1.6 –believed tohavebeenaffectedbya longergrowthperiodandoverfeeding).Thepeakdensity,at32.5Kg/m3,was lowerthanthefirstgenerationbutremainedhigherthantypicalnet‐penproduction.Salmon,Sockeye(Oncorhynchusnerka)Aqua Farm in Langley, BritishColumbia, has raised four generationsof Sockeye salmonentirely in freshwater,withouttheinputofanitibioticsofchemicals.Thespeciesrequiressimilargrowingconditionstotrout.Thefleshiswhiteandaveragesizetomarketis5Kgwhichissimilartowildcaughtsalmonwhichaveragebetween3–5.5Kgatmaturity(Albright,2007).Sole(Soleasolea)InEurope, sole isgrownprimarily in recirculationracewaysystems.Solecommandsahighmarketpriceand isbecomingincreasinglyimportantspeciesinaquaculture(Øiestad,2007a;Øiestad,2007b).


SpottedWolfish(Anarhichasminor)AttheInstituteofMarineResearch,AustevollResearchStationinNorway,researchersareinvestigatingthehighintensitycultureofspottedwolfish,inshallowraceways.Thesefisharebeingculturedatthehighdensityof600Kg/m3(Schipp,2006).Tilapia,Nile(Oreochromisniloticus)While there are also the blue tilapia and theMozambique tilpia, the Nile tilapia is the most commonly usedspeciesforaquaculture.Thisspeciescanbegrownatextremelyhighdensities(Schipp,2006;Holder,2007),andthrives in saline, brackish or fresh water. Originally from the Middle East and Africa, tilapia require hightemperatures (27‐20 C). Theymature quickly (approximately 6‐8months) and grow between 170 g to 2.2 Kg(Gíslason,2003)Theyareaveryrobustfishwithrespecttodiseaseandhighdensitynumbersandaccountforthemajorityofpondsystemaquacultureforfinfishworldwide(FAO‐STAT,2007).TilapiaareraisedinBCat100Kg/m3(RedFish, 2007). They are a herbivorous species,meaning they can survive on a plant‐based diet (Boyd 2005).Adults do however typically receive feed that contains on average 5% or less fishmeal (Goldburg and Triplett1997).Trout,Rainbow(Oncorhynchusmykiss)Rainbowtroutarenotableforthehighdensitiesatwhichtheycanbestocked.Typically,theyaregrownatarateof3‐5Kg/Lperminuteofwater flow. Inraceways,stockingdensitiesaretypically .3 to .7Kgof fishper litreofwater(measuredbyKg/litre/flow/min.)(Hardy,2000).Farmsthataeratetheirracewaysandpondscanstockandproduceupto1.2to1.8Kgoffishperlitreofwater(Hinshaw,2004).Rainbowtroutareveryefficientatconvertingfeedtobiomass(Hardy,2000).Advancementsinfeedformulationsinrecentyearshaveledtoimprovedfeedconversionratiosandthereforelessuseofmarineresources.Insomerecirculationsystems,RainbowTroutrequirerelativelylittlewaterinthegrow‐outstage.Waterboundtosludgein the system (and subsequently removed)and that volumewhichevaporatesare theonlywater losses in thesystem.Water consumption has been found to be as low as 10‐20 L ofwater per Kg of fish produced. This issignificant for the fact that it allows the flexibility to locate wherever there is an economical and sustainablesupplyofproductionqualitywater.Troutis,onaverage,raisedatadensityintherangeof150‐180Kg/m3incommercialRASproduction(Urup,2007)whileflow‐throughpondsoperatewithdensities intherangeof20‐30kg/m3m.Peaklevelsat+300Kg/m3havebeen seen in RAS systems,without the onset of disease problems, though some fin deformities are observedabove300Kg/m3(Urup,2007).TheSIFTSrecirculatingtanksystemusedbytheMcRobertAquaculturegroup inAustraliaraisedtroutatdensityof47Kg/m3(McRobert,2007).Tuna,Bluefin(Thunnusthynnus)Tuna has been grown in cage culture for many years using wild caught juveniles. However, withdecreasingwildstocks,interestinusingcaptivebroodstocksandhatcheriesforproducingjuvenilesforgrow‐out is becoming particularly attractive. UNI‐Aqua has been active in Tuna aquaculture (Urup,2007).Tuna,Yellowfin(Thunnusalbacares)There are attempts underway to grow Yellowfin tuna in CSA open water flow‐through systems inPanama.Thisisverymuchattheexperimentalphase(Meihan,2007).Notetunarequirehighlevelsoffishoilinfeed.


Turbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)Flatfish species such as turbot and halibut are passive fish, and will have similar activity pattern,whetherincaptivityorinthewild.Thismakesthemexcellentchoicesforaquacultureastheyexhibitlessstressthanotherspecies(Urup,2007;Øiestad,2007a).


6. VolumeandvalueoffishgrowninCSA

AquacultureProductioninClosedSystemsIt is difficult to determine production volumes and values for CSA species as trade data does not generallydisaggregate data to reflect the distinction between open and closed system aquaculture. Research revealedsomegeneralfindingswhicharehelpfulinunderstandingthemarketforCSA(i.e.thefactthatapproximatelyhalfofallthefishconsumedintheNetherlandsisfarmed;somespeciessuchastrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),turbot(Scophthalmusmaximus),andArcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus)arealmostubiquitouslyfarmedinsomeformofCSA(Gíslason, 2003); several species are typically reared in CSA until they are smolts or juveniles and then aretransferred to open cages or pens for grow‐out stages). The following section, therefore, contains piecemealinformation that is relevant in determining the value and volume of fish currently being or proposed forproductioninCSAsystems.Fororganizationalpurposes,thishasbeenbrokendownbyspeciesand/orcountry.

SalmonApproximately200Mtofsalmon(Salmosalar)wereproducedinland‐basedsystemsinIcelandinthelate1990’sbefore switching to Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) to capture highmarket prices associated with this species(Gústavsson, 2007b). In BC, Sockeye salmon is being produced in fresh water CSA and then sold to localrestaurants in theBC lowermainland (Albright, 2007).Atlantic (Salmo salar), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) andChinooksalmon(Oncorhynchustshawytscha)wereraisedfortwogenerations inanexperimentalCSAsysteminCedar, BC in 2002and2003. They required the followingproduction costs (AgriMarine, 2003): Coho: $6.75/lb(plus packaging, delivery and dressing = $8.80) and Atlantic salmon: $5.98/lb (plus packaging, delivery anddressing=$7.28).

Trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)In2004, salesofU.S. farmed food‐size trout (note thatsalesof trout forstocking, fingerlings,andeggsarenotincluded) reached over 24 million Kg ranking trout second in terms of volume for U.S. finfish aquacultureproducts,behindfarmedcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus)(Harvey2005).TheU.S.,however,accountsforonlyasmallamount of overall global farmed trout production which was recorded as 511,000Mt (FAO‐STAT, 2007). Themajorproducingcountries for trout includeFrance,Chile,Denmark, Italy,andNorway (Hardy,2000;FAO‐STAT,2007).90%ofRainbowtroutraisedintheUSannuallycomesfromflow‐throughracewaysystemsfacilities(Hinshawetal.2004;Bosticketal.2005),whilefarmsinCanadaandChileraiserainbowtroutinopenoceannet‐penorcagesystems(Bosticketal.2005).

Turbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)Turbot (Scophthalmusmaximus),asanaquacultureproduct, is rearedexclusively in land‐basedsystems.FranceandSpainproducethemajorityofturbotonthemarket,accountingfor85%ofglobalproduction.Anincreaseinthevolumeof turbotaquaculturebetween1990and1994 lead toa25%decrease in itsmarketpriceover thesameperiod (Gíslason,2003).While thepricehas stabilizedover the lastdecade,production is still increasing.Notethatthepricereflectedhereistoillustrateatrend.Theexactfiguresintermsoffreshfillets,frozenorhead‐on dressed are not categorised in the FAOdatabase. Moreover, formany species prices per Kgwill also varydependingonthesizeofthefish,furtherobfuscatingtheinformation.


Figure14:Productionandpriceofturbot,1990–2005(TakenfromFAO‐STAT)39

-1234

5678

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005Years

-2.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.0016.0018.00

ProductionPrice

Prod

uctio

n ('0

00 t) Price (U

S$/t)

Table4:Productionofturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)inEurope(Mt/year)(Gíslason,2003)

39ProductioncostsarenotdetailedintheFAOsiteastheyarereportedbycountries.Itisassumedtobefor‘total’production,includingtransporttomarket–alsothesearethuscostsaveragedoutovernumerousfacilitieseachwithauniquesetofproductioncosts.


Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus)Arcticcharaquacultureispredominatelybasedonland‐basedrecirculatingsystems.InIceland,charisexclusivelyproducedinland‐basedsystems(Gústavsson,2007b).IcelandisthelargestproducerofarcticcharwithCanadathesecondlargestproduceratabout400Mt/yr(Gíslason,2003).Table5:Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus)productionforselectedcountries(Mt/yr)(Gíslason,2003)

Table6:Arcticchar(Salvelinusalpinus)priceUS$perKgfishinselectedcountries(Gíslason,2003)

ThepriceperKgoffishwasoriginallytakenfromFAOstatistics(Gíslason,2003).Notethatthepricereflectedhereistoillustrateatrend.Theexactfiguresintermsoffreshfillets,frozenorhead‐ondressedarenotcategorisedintheFAOdatabase.Moreover,formanyspeciespricesperKgwillalsovarydependingonthesizeofthefish,furtherobfuscatingtheinformation.Tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus)Tilapia isbecoming increasinglypopular inNorthAmerica,where theyareproducedentirely in land‐basedCSAsystems.Table7showstheimportationoftilapiaintotheUSoversevenyears.


Table7:TilapiaimportsintotheUS–byproductform(Mt)(TakenfromFAO‐Globefish,2005)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Wholefrozen

19,122 21,534 27,293 27,781 38,730 40,748 49,045 57,299

Frozenfillets

2,499 2,696 4,971 5,186 7,372 12,253 23,249 36,160

Freshfillets

2,823 3,590 5,310 7,502 10,236 14,187 17,951 19,480

Total 24,444 27,820 37,575 40,469 56,337 67,187 90,246 112,939

US&CanadaIn 2005, Harvey found that catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), which are typically reared in flow‐through ponds andraceways and are the largest production CSA fish in US (Harvey, 2005). Based on the 1998 US Census ofAquaculture, thebulkofallaquaculture is fromflow‐throughpondsystems,withonlyabout8%ofaquacultureproductionbeingconductedinrecirculatingunits(RAS).A2001surveyofrecirculation(RAS)facilitiesintheUnitedStates and Canada growing finfish indicated that the number and pounds of fish produced is quite variable,including presence of small, medium and large‐sized farms with operations in warm and cold water in bothsaltwaterand freshwaterenvironments.The four fishmostcommonlygrown in recirculationunits (RAS) in theUnitedStatesandCanadaareAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar)smolts,tilapia(Oreochromisniloticus),hybridStripedbass(Moronesaxatilis)andornamentalfishes(Delabbio,2003).Table8:MethodsUsedforAquacultureProductionintheUnitedStates:1998(DerivedfromUSDA‐NASS1998CensusofAquaculturehttp://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htmAccessedAugust12th,2007‐USDA‐NASS,1998)

MethodUsed NumberofFarmsPonds‐natural 2,878

Flow‐throughRacewaysorTanks

617

Cages 117Net‐Pens 50

ClosedRecirculationTanks 328Ponds‐ChannelswithPrepared

Bottoms338

OtherMethods 231TotalFarms 4.028

SuccessstoriesandfailuresWhileCSAposeschallengesintermsofstart‐upandproductioncosts,thereisnoshortageofsuccessstories.CSAoperations have been installed in numerous countries for a variety of species that continue to be producedcommercially.ThissectionhighlightsnumerousexamplesofcommerciallyviableCSAsystems.


A number of factors are helping to improve the feasibility of CSA systems. The advancement of relevanttechnologiesforCSAispredictedtocontinuetohelpimproveproductionefficiencies.Simultaneously,themarketprice of CSA produced fish could be expected to increase (Holder, 2007). In Europe, for example, food safetyconcernsandenvironmentalawarenesshaveresultedinsomeconsumerswillingtopayapremiumforsafeandenvironmentallyfriendlyproducts(vanEijk,2007). InCanada,salmonproducedin land‐basedsystemsinCedar,BritishColumbiahassuccessfullybroughtapremiumprice,beinglabelledas‘Eco‐salmon’anddistributedtosomerestaurantsandseafoodstoresaroundVancouverandVancouverIsland(AgriMarine,2003).Furthermore,policyandregulatorychanges,suchasthoseputforthbytheBCSpecialCommitteeonSustainableAquaculturehavethepotential to encourage, facilitate and/or mandate CSA through the imposition of fines, taxes and monitoringschemesrelatedtowastedischarge,escapement,diseasespread,etc.

SpotlightonSuccessfulOperationsAkvaplan‐niva.Norwegian(Øiestad,2007a)RacewaysystemforDoversole(Soleasolea),seabream(Sparusaurata)andturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)usingtheShallowRacewaySystem.(Note:TheAkvaplan‐nivaShallowRacewaySystemisbeingusedincommercialoperations,Akvaplan‐nivaisindependentofthecompaniesusingtheirsystemincommercialoperations)

• AquacriaArousahasbeenoperatinga500Mtturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)facilityusingAkvaplan‐niva’sShallowRacewaySysteminGalicia,Spainforseveralyears.

• Feedfortheturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)generallywillbeabout20‐30%oftheoperationalcosts.Feedconsistsof50%protein,15%lipidsandtherestmixandbinder.

• Totalforoperatingcostswere$7.5/Kgoffish(includingtransportationtomarket),whilethesalevalueforturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)is$12‐18/Kg

• OperatingcostsforthefarmwereestimatedbyMr.Øiestad(2007a)(Table9)

Table9:EstimatedpercentageoperatingcostsforAquacriaArousa’sturbotsystem(Øiestad,2007a)

Item %productioncostJuveniles 13%Feed 23%Security(sensorsandmonitoringequipment)

8%

Salary 13%Processingcosts(preparationformarket)

18%

O2 4%Others:admin,maintenanceandenergy

14%

StoltSeaFarm(Norway)StoltSeaFarms,abranchofStolt‐NielsenS.A.Norway,hasa4000Mtturbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)productionfacilityinGalicia,Spain.TheyarealsoexploringpotentialwithCaliforniasturgeon(S.acipenser)(Øiestad,2007a).


InterAquaAdvanceApS(Denmark)(www.interaqua.dk)InterAquaAdvancewasestablishedin1978andwasoneofthefirstcompaniesintheworldtoofferrecirculationwatertreatmentsystems.Asacompany,theirfocushasbeenonthehighestpossiblewaterquality,lowenergyconsumptionanduser‐friendlydesigns.Theirsystemdesignisnowuptoitsthirdgenerationofdevelopment.Theyhaveacontinuingdevelopmentprogramandaimtowardkeepingthesystemsatalevelthatiscompetitive–andcheaperinproductioncostandmanagementthanconventionalsystems.

• Lowheadsystem~1.5mvs.2.5m• Highrecirculationrateof3000litres/second• Apatentedlowheadoxygenationsystem.• ThebiomediadevelopedbyInterAqua,‘curleradvance’isclaimedtobesuperiortootherplastic

mediabecauseofitsopendesignwhichpreventscloggingandgivesimprovednitrificationperformance.

• Curleradvancebiomediaisusedinthecompany’sClearwaterlow‐spacebioreactor.Thisbioreactorisdesignedwithaninternalairliftsystemtomaintainoxygen,off‐gasCO2andtokeepthebiomediamovingandoperatingwithathin,healthybiofilmforimprovednitrificationperformance.

• RecentlyInterAquahasdevelopedanew,non‐mechanicalfiltrationsystem.Termed‘contactfilters’theyconsistoflongracewaysfilledwithsinkingplasticmedia.Themediaslowstheflowoftherecirculatedwater,causingsolidstofalloutofsuspension.Theracewaysareflushedperiodicallytoremoveaccumulatedwastes.

• ContactfiltersarealreadyoperatingsuccessfullyinlargetroutfarmsinDenmark.• Simplecostestimate(2005)foraplantproducing600Mtoffishperyear:

– $4.35millionfortheplant– $0.6millionfortheshed– $2.85millionproductioncostincluding:

• Feed$1,386,000• Electricity€184,960• Labour€431,575• BroodStock€295,537(speciesdependent)• Maintenance,insurance,ancillarycostsetc€123,307

SpotlightonFailedRecirculationSystemsThefollowinglistpresentsexamplesoffailedrecirculationsystems.Thesearevaluableinhighlightingdistinctionsbetween issues related to technology, management and policy in influencing the success or failure of a CSAventure.This learning isnecessarytomaintainoradvancethe implementationof technologieswhichmayhavebeenassociatedwitha failedventurebuthavethepotential tobesuccessfulwhen installedwithotherproventechnologies,whenimplementedinanimprovedmanagementcontextand/orpolicyenvironment.40

1. Idaho‐basedJ.R.SimplotCo.closedthedoorsonitstwo‐yearold,intensivetilapiaoperation,losingmorethan$20millionintheprocess.Reason:inadequatebiofilter.

2. BodegaFarmsshutdownits$9.5millionsteelhead,Cohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)andabalone(Haliotisspp.)farmnearBodegaBay,CA.Reason:StateofCAwouldnotallowtwomillionfingerlingsacrosstheborder,andtheyhadnoplaceelsetogo(nofish,nocash).

40ThefollowinglististakenfromTimmons(2002)whowasparaphrasingandarticlewrittenbyPeterRedmayne(EditorofSeafoodLeader,January/February–1992).


3. AquacultureTechnologiesofLouisiana(ATL)wentbankruptabandoning8squarekilometresofcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus)pondsinSt.LandryParish.Alsotheyleftsome$9millionindebtstosome300creditors.Reason:badmanagement.

4. NAIADCorp,largestcatfishfarmingandprocessingventureinTexasfiledChapter11(Augustof1991)afterstartingprocessingitsowncatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus).Reason:lackofoperatingcashrelatedtopoorcashflowmanagement.

5. BlueRidgeFisheries(Marinsville,VA)thelargestindoorcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus)operationintheworld(atthattime,1991)lostitsassetstobankforeclosure.Reason:theRASwasnotcoasteffective.ThisfacilitywasresurrectedasatilapiafacilityandiscurrentlyamajorproducerintheNortheastUS,essentiallyunderthesamemanagementstructure).

6. Fish&Dakotalostseveralhundredthousandpoundsoffishanddidnotreopenitsdoors.Reason:Newmanagementeliminatedsomeofthe24hourcoverageandapoweroutageandfailureofthe“automatic”stand‐bygeneratorkilledthefish.

7. NorthernFreshFishCooperative(centralNY),lastmembertolosefishwasbecausehisdialerhadnotbeenhookeduptoalertthemofalackofwater(hadleftadrainopenduringacleaningoperation);the2ndtolastmemberwentoutofbusinesswhenhiswellwentdry.

8. PerchoperationinWesternPennsylvaniaclosedtheirdoorswhentheirnewsystemhadfinallyreachednearfulldesigncarryingcapacityandthenthelinerintheculturevessel“broke”.

9. SouthernPennsylvaniaperchgrowerfinallygaveupaftertheirinitialstockingofperchshowedgrowthratesafractionofwhatwasanticipated.


7. OverviewofFactorsInfluencingtheEconomicsofCSAThefollowingsectioncontainsasummaryofsomefactorsfoundtobeinfluencingtheeconomicfeasibilityofCSA.Thisisneitheranexhaustivelistnorcomprehensiveanalysis;rather,itserversasabriefoverviewandisintendedtoprovidedirectionforfurtherresearch.

Long‐termanalysisSomeproponents of closed containment systemsmaintain that the short‐term capital investment required forthese systems will be offset by gains associated with being able to control losses suffered in open net‐penproductions systems due to predation, escapement, etc. Furthermore, over the long‐term these systemsmayrequirelessoperationcostwhereasnet‐pensystemsfacecostlylabourinputssuchasdivers.Anotherlong‐termconsideration affecting the economic viability of closed containment systems is the increasing tightening ofregulationwhich could eventually force larger investments on all sectors of the aquaculture industry (Meihan,2007;Papadoyianis,2007).

DiversificationSeveralofthetechnologieslistedinsection3ofthisreportareadaptabletoanumberofdifferentspecies.Thisallowsproducerstocapturemarkethighs,rearingfishthatatagiventimearecommandinganattractivemarketprice,whileprotectingthemselvesfromthelows.Asthemarketforseafoodingeneralincreases,opportunitiestoprofitoffofnewspecieswillexpand,benefitingfarmerswhoareabletoenternewmarkets(Quéméner,2002).

RegulationRegulationregardingwastedisposalisincreasinglyheadingtowardstighterrestrictions.Forexample,theEUhasrecently implemented policies affecting waste disposal (Romuel, 2007). Growing consumer awareness andenvironmental restrictionshave ledproducers in thedirectionof re‐circulationaquaculture technology (Debon,2007b).InDenmark,freshwaterfarmsarerequiredtousetheirwasteasfertiliser(Schipp,2006).

SubsidiesTheEuropeanUnionprovidessubsidiestoencouragefishermentotakeonaquaculture(Schipp,2006).Asmuchas50%start‐upfinancing isavailabletoencouragesafeandenvironmentallysoundproduction(Øiestad,2007).Other fiscal and tax mechanisms are available to encourage start up of new, environmentally preferableindustries.

LicensingManycountriesintheEuropeanUnionhaveimprovedefficienciesaroundlicensingsystemswhichcanseefarmsup and running in a matter of months and therebymaking investments in this infrastructuremore attractive(Schipp, 2006). The processing time required for approvals and licensing in the Netherlands and Denmark inparticularhasbeensignificantlyreduced(Schipp,2006).

LabellingandCertificationIncreasingly,consumersaredemandingtoknowhowtheir food isproduced(vanEijk,2004) .AccordingtoFAO(2006),countriesactivelyproducingandcertifyingorganicaquacultureproductsincludeAustralia,Canada,Chile,Ecuador,Indonesia,NewZealand,Peru,Thailand,andVietNam.


InMarch 2007 the Livestock Committee of theUSNationalOrganic Standards Board recommended to theUSNational Organic Program that aquatic species be included, but cautioned that more dialogue is needed todetermineappropriatefeedsandwhetheropenwaternet‐penrearingshouldbeincludedfororganiclabels.41Increased consumer awareness regarding the environmental impact of net‐pen aquaculture could easilycontribute to the creation of opportunities for producers using closed system to capture a niche market. Anexamplewouldbethepriceassociatedwith‘fair‐trade’coffee.ThesamemightapplytoOrganiccertificationorGreenlabellinginNorthAmerica.

EconomiesofscaleEconomiesofscalemaybeachievablebymovingtolargediameter,deeptanks.Tanksof600m3toone1000m3havebeencitedasastandardforprofitability(Schipp,2006).

ImprovementsinfeedutilisationinCSAFeed technology has improved dramatically over the last decade (Bodvin, 1996; Hardy, 2001; Shpigel, 1993;Tacon, 2004; Tlusty, 2000). In 1994, researchers associated with the North Carolina State Universitydemonstration project created a computer simulation of tilapia production in a small recirculating productionsystem.Theresultsofamodelsensitivityanalysisindicatethatwhileimprovementsintheperformanceefficiencyofsystemcomponentsdidnotgreatlyaffectfishproductioncosts,reductionsinfeedcostsandimprovementsinthe feed conversion ratio caused the greatest reduction of production cost of all of the operational variablesinvestigated (Losordo, 2003). Many CSA, particularly RSA, systems show improving FCR due to control of thewatercirculation (betteruptake),andcontrolof fishenvironmentandability tocontrolmetabolic rates (betterinternalconversion).

PumpingcostsNumerous companies are designing systems specifically to reduce energy issues associated with pumping.Physicaldesignforalowhead(InterAquaAdvance,SARGOetc.)oracentralpumpingsystemwiththerestgravityfed(HESY),aresomeofthemeansofcostreduction.Clearly,itwilldependonlocationandproximitytothewatersource. Alternatives for energy production are also being examined such as the generation of energy throughwaveactionandmethanecapturefromwaste.

InfrastructureScalable,modularsystems,suchasthosebeingdesignedbytheMcRobertAquacultureGroup,amongstothers,allowproducerstoincrease(ordecrease)productionvolumeattheirownpace,therebyreducingriskassociatedwithovercapitalisation.TheAquaOptimasystem isanotherexampleof this.Using largeplastic formed, lock inplacepanelsfilledwithconcrete.Furthermore,withtheoptiontolocatesystemscloseroradjacenttoprocessingfacilities andmarkets, CSA can capture benefits by lowering the economic and environmental costs associatedwithtransportation.

WaterAcresWateracresisaconceptthatconsidersthevalueofnearshoreversusfarfromshoreareasofwaterinassessingopportunities for locating industrial activity. Both Neptune Industries and Mariculture (Sargo) Systems areexploring the potential for using CSA in the ‘far from shore’ open water to achieve production efficiencies.Scarcity, cost and permitting issues around land, especially land adjacent to coasts reduces an operation’s

41Seehttp://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/CommitteeRecommendations/March_07_Meeting/Livestock/AquacultureRec.pdffordetailsoftherecommendations


competitive advantage (Papadoyianis, 2007;Meihan, 2007). This could improve the financial feasibility of CSA,however,thefullimpact,includingecologicalsustainability,ofthistypeofoperationrequiresfurtherresearch.

WeatherIncreasingunpredictability intheweather,andinparticularwatertemperatures,havecausedproducerstolooktowardsgreatercertaintyinproductionassociatedwithCSA,andRASinparticular(Debon,2007b).


8. AssessmentofKeyEcologicalInteractionsThis section is intended to provide an assessment of the ecological implications of CSA technologies; mainly,interactionsbetweenthefishstockandthenaturalenvironment;theecologicalconditionswithinthetank;andconsiderations regarding the life‐cycle requirements of CSA systems. Clearly, treatment of incomingwaterwilldepend upon its quality and thus the location of the facility and its availablewater sources. Some farms usegroundwater sources, others rain, river, lake or oceanwater. Consequently, there is no ‘standard’ in terms oftreatingincomingwater.Moreover,thespeciesanddensityoffishwillalsodeterminethenecessary‘quality’ofincoming water, and thus the treatment required. Correspondingly, all these factors influence the issues ofparasite and disease control, waste production and treatment, amongst others. Bearing this in mind, thefollowingsectionisneitherexhaustivenorconclusive.

Parasite&diseasecontrolThere aremore than 100 known fish diseases,manybrought on by organisms such as fungi, viruses, bacteria,protozoa,crustaceans,andworms,amongstothers(Masser,1999b,1999a).BecauseCSAsystemscreateabarrierbetweenthecultureandthenaturalenvironmentthereiscontroloverthepossibilityforparasitesanddiseasetoenterintotheholdingareasfromnaturalwatersystemsdirectly.Theexceptionisinnaturalpondsandchannels,where the sides are treated periodically with various bactericides and pesticides when they are periodicallycleaned(Boyd,1999).Nevertheless,diseasecanenterfromhumaninterventionthroughthebroodstock(whenapplicable) via the equipment, the nets, gloves, and feed etc. The chosenwater source is also a considerablefactor in disease control as pathogens can enter with water sourced from wild marine environments. Oftenparasites, such as lice, when introduced can cause stress which makes the fish susceptible to opportunisticinfections (Blancheton, 2000; Chatain, 1997; Delabbio, 2003; Lasordo, 2003;Masser, 1999b; Rach, 2000). Theactualmaterialoftheenclosurecanalsoinfluencethetypesofdiseaseandthepotentialmethodsoftreatment.Fortunately,CSAprovidestheopportunitytotreatbothincomingwaterandwastewatersandisthusoptimalfordiseasecontrolwithminorneedsforantibioticuse;indeedasnotedinsection2numerousfarmsuseabsolutelynoantibiotics.Allproducersensurethattheirinflowwaterisclean,eitherbychoosingacleansourceorthroughtreatment.However, it isnotthecasethatall flow‐throughsystemstreattheirexitwaters,andthustheriskofparasites generated in the tanksorponds couldenter thenatural environment. There is noubiquitous systemregardingtreatmentofwaterforpathogenreductionandremoval.Thechoiceoftreatmentisinfluencedby:

• Species• Fishdensity• Tankmaterial• Waterhydraulics(residencetimeandmixing)• Incomingwaterquality• Legislationandregulations• Costoftreatment

A survey of 139 recirculating operations in North America (including 38 in Canada, and including salmonhatcheriesandsmoltproducers)in2003helpstoillustratehowtheuseofprophylacticsindiseasemanagementvaries according to species being harvested and has decreased over time. This showed that 17% of producersemployedvaccinesasopposedto30%severalyearsearlier.Sixty‐sixpercentoffacilitiesreportedprophylacticuseofchemicalsonfishwhile81%reportedtherapeuticuse(chemicaltreatmentsincludingtheuseofsalt)(Delabbio,2003).Sixty‐onepercentofrespondentsgrowingAtlanticsalmon(Salmosalar)currentlyusevaccines,whileonly4%oftilapiagrowers,7%ofornamentalfishgrowersand8%ofhybridStripedbassgrowersusevaccinesontheir


fish. All of the abovementioned finfish growers reported using vaccinesmore frequently in the past. Possibleexplanations for this change of behaviour include: perceived effectiveness of vaccination, cost considerations,changeinmanagementandachangeinperceptionofpathogenrisk.Thehighrateofvaccineuseinsalmonfarmsis likely due to a culture of use as well as support in vaccine development from both governments andmanufacturers forsalmonoidproducts (Samuelsenetal.,1989;Lillehaug,1990;Lillehaugetal.,1990,Delabbio,2004). Certain species, such as abalone, may be extremely sensitive to ectoparasites, and therefore requiregreatercontrolofcontainerwater(Urup,2007).Others,suchastilapia,areknowntobeveryrobust,andArcticcharhavebeenshowntobemorediseaseresistantthanothersalmonids.(Marsh,2006).In certain circumstances, the source water for flow‐through systems is very clean. Some land based farmsoperate on ground water sources (Redfish, 2007; Albright, 2007), while open water systems can usually takewater from varying depths tominimise parasites and poorwater quality associatedwith surfacewater on theocean(Meihan,2007).TheFutureSEATechnologies’bagsystemdoesnothaveafilter,but inarecenttrialhasshownuptoa10‐foldreductionintheamountofsealiceinsideitspenscomparedtoopennetcages(Pendleton,2005).OzoneisbeingincreasinglyusedtohelpmanagewaterqualityinfreshwaterRAS.Itsuseinmarinesystemsisalsogrowing inpopularitybut indiscriminateusagecanbeproblematic.Ozone isachemicalthatmustbeusedwithextremecautionasitishighlytoxicbothtohumansandtofish.Ozonegeneratedby‐productssuchasbrominescanalsohavepotentially toxicsideeffectswhenused inmarinesystems.However,correctusageofozonecanleadtoanincreaseinthereliabilityofproductionfromhatcherysystems(Schipp,2006).HESYAquacultureisoneofthesystemsthatusesozone;however,theyhaveobservedthatcertainspeciesareverysensitivetoozoneandevenmoderatelevelscanresultinburnstofishgills(Debon,2007a).Insomeracewayfacilitieswherethewaterisin thetanks fora longerperiod, incomingwaterwillbe treatedusingaseriesofbio‐filterswithsupplementaryperiodictreatment,suchasformaldehyde,withhighfishdensitiesensurethatpathogenbuildupdoesnotoccur(Øiestad,2007a)Interestingly,Ballenwrasse,whichhavebeenusedincommercialnet‐penstocontrolsealice,arebeingexploredinNorwayforuseinaquaculturetanks(Schipp,2006). ItshouldbenotedthatWrasseisaspeciesthat isexoticoutsideoftheNorthEastAtlanticandthisisacrucialfactorindeterminingtheappropriatenessofitsuseinthecontextofdiseasecontrol.While recirculatingaquaculture systemscreateoptimumenvironments for fish, theymay inadvertentlyprovidefavourable conditions for disease occurrence or the reproduction of opportunistic pathogens (Noble, 1996;Timmons, 2002). Disease organisms in recirculation systems recycle with the rearing water, and because nodilutionof thepathogensoccurs, as in the caseof flow‐through systems, the rates of infection canbe greater(Bullock,1994)Onceapathogenhasbecomeestablishedinarecirculationsystemitisoftenextremelydifficulttoeradicate a disease; the fish rearing system itself becomes an incubator for the disease. In addition, manychemicalcontroltreatmentscommonlyusedtotreatdiseaseproblemsinflow‐throughsystemsarenotpracticalinapplicationwithrecirculationsystemsbecausetheyaffectbacteriathatarebeneficialandnecessarytothebio‐filtersystemsaswellasthetargetedpathogens(Heinen,1995;Noble,1996).

FeedCompositionandConversionRatesFeed is an importantelementof fish farming. It generally represents a largeportionof the costs, 20‐40%, andinfluenceshowfastandwellthefishdevelop.Thereisgrowingconcernregardingtheamountwildfishneededtoproducequalityfishfeed(Cho,1997;Folke,1989;Hardy,2001;Naylor,2000;New,2002;Tacon,2004;Tuominen,2003).Ameasurementof feed ‘efficiency’ is thefeedconversionratio (FCR),which is theKgof feedneededto


raise1Kgoffish.ReducingtheFCRisbeneficialasitmeansthatfewerinputsareneeded,andlesscontaminationisgeneratedtoraiseaKgoffish.Therearetwoprinciplewaysofachievingthis:

1. Increasetheuptakeofthefeed(reducefeedloss)2. Increasetheconversionratewithinthefishitself

Generally,therearebetterfeedconversionratios(FCR)forCSAsystemsascomparedtonet‐penswherefeedislost into the natural environment (Hardy, 2001). Furthermore, better designs in the hydraulics of CSA systemsallowforfeedpelletstoremaininsuspensionlonger.Inshallowraceways,forexample,waterdepthshaverangedfrom7mmto25cmdependingonfishsize.Asaresult,foodparticlespassthevisionfieldofanyfish,eventhoserestingonthebottom.Tomakefoodmoreeasilyavailablealongthelengthoftheraceway,floatingformulatedpelletshavebeenusedas themain staple food.With small juveniles (wetweight from2 to100mg), live foodorganismshavebeenused,suchasnaturalzooplankton,brineshrimp(Artemiasalina),naupliiandyolk‐saclarvaeofcod.Thesefoodorganismswilldriftslowlyintothevisionfieldofthejuveniles(Øiestad,1999).RAS,inparticular,providestheopportunitytocontrolthefishenvironment(temperature,salinity,etc.)andthusismetabolicrateofthefishtoIncreasetheconversionratewithinthefishitself.

On‐farmchemicaluseDifferent systems in different locations will require different inputs and chemical balances. In general flow‐through systems usemuch less chemical inputs than recirculated systems. The high volume of water in flow‐throughsystemsreducestheneedforchemicalapplications.However,whenapplied,systemsmustbeinplacetofilterortreatchemicalflow‐throughsoitdoesn’taffectwildspeciesdownstream.Becauseofthelargevolumeofwaterwithinthesystem,itiscostlytodesignfullwastewaterinthesesystems(Kamps,1999);nevertheless,someflow‐through systems have effluents discharged intowetlands for assimilation into the environment providingcheaptreatmentaswellashabitatfornaturalspecies.Combiningthebenefitsofgoodintakewatercontrolswithtreatmentsystemsdesignedonlytooperateinemergenciesmaybeonewaytoaddressthisissue.Environmentalmonitoringofflow‐throughsystemswithlimitedtreatmentwillbenecessarytojudgetherealimpacts.Bycontrast recirculationsystemsdependuponagreaterchemicaluse,principally tomaintainwaterchemistry,this is for the benefit of the bacteria in the biofilters asmuch as for the fish. Because of high fish densitiesdissolvedoxygencandecreaserapidly,particularlyduringfeedingwhenthemetabolicratesofthefish increaseanduneatenfeedwithdecomposerequiringoxygen. Thusconstantsupplytoboththefishandbacteria inthebio‐filtersareimportanttomaintainfishhealthandshouldbeatapproximately5ppm.Thisisusuallyachievedbyintroducing water super saturated with oxygen in lower levels of the tank, or along parts of the raceways.Becausecarbondioxideisaby‐productoffishrespirationitmustberemovedeitherphysicallyorchemically.Theincrease in carbon dioxide levelsmeans that the pH of thewater is likely to drop. OptimumpH levelswill bespeciesdependent,butshouldgenerallybemaintainedbetween6and9.5formostfish.Bacteriainbio‐filtersaregenerally much more sensitive and require pHs around the 7‐8 range. Alkaline buffers, such as sodiumbicarbonateandcalciumcarbonatearetypicallyused.Otherchemicalinrecirculationsystemsmayincludesalts,includingchlorides to reducenitrate toxicity (Blancheton,2000;Chatain,1997;Delabbio,2003; Lasordo,2003;Masser,1999b;Rach,2000).Fertilizers and limingmaterials are themost common substancesused in pondaquaculture systems; however,oxidants, coagulants, osmoregulators, algicides, herbicides, piscicides, probiotics, heavy metals and pesticideshaveallbeenusedtolesserextents(Boyd,1999).


UsingfeedwithgoodFCRisimportanttohelpmaintainwaterquality.ObtainingagoodFCRisimportantnotonlyfromthedesiretohavemorefishfor lessfeed.Thefeedingrate,feedcomposition,fishmetabolicrateandthequantityofwastedfeedaffectthetankwaterquality.Aspelletfeedsareintroducedtothefish,theyareeitherconsumedor left todecomposewithin thesystem.Theby‐productsof fishmetabolism includecarbondioxide,ammonia‐nitrogen, and faecal solids. If uneaten feeds and metabolic by‐products are left within the culturesystem, theywill generateadditional carbondioxideandammonia‐nitrogen, reduce theoxygen contentof thewater,andhaveadirectdetrimentalimpactonthehealthoftheculturedproduct(Lasordo,2003;Masser,1999a;Miller,2002;Piedrahita,2003).

PredatorkillsBecauseCSAsystemsseparatethefishculturefromthenaturalenvironmentpredatorkillsarenegligible,inallthedifferentforms(mammals,birds,fish,others). Inopenairsystemsbirdpredationisthehighestconcern(Bevan,2002;Littauer,2003;Miles,2007).InCanada,heronsandcormorantsposethegreatestthreatandhavehadthehighestimpactonfishstocks(Bevan,2002).Predationbringsaboutbothdirect(kills)andindirect(psychologicalstresses)damages.Theindirectimpactsarethoughttobringabouttheeconomiclossbutarethemostdifficulttoisolateandestimate.Commondeterrentmethodsforbirdsinclude:exclusionsandbarriers(nets,wires),acousticdevices, alarms and distress calls, lights, water spray devices, scarecrows and reflectors, silhouettes, humanactivity,traineddogsanddesignoptions(i.e.increasewaterdepthinthetank)(Bevan,2002).Also,becauseoftheseparationbetweenfishcultureandthenaturalenvironment,itisreasonabletoassumethatopenwatersystems(bothmarineandfreshwater)willnotneedtoemployharmfuldeterrenteffortsonmammalsorotherwildfishspeciesseekingtoaccessthefishculture.

Wastedisposal&nutrientloadingThe principle wastes generated by all aquaculture are ammonia, nitrates, phosphates, organics (creating highbiological oxygen demand), and suspended solids (Cho, 1997; G3‐Consulting, 2000; Lee, 2004;Masser, 1999b;Miller, 2002; Piedrahita, 2003). In CSA systems the waste is divided between effluent water and the sludgeassociatedwithsolidmaterialthatdoesnotremaininsuspension,suchasfecalmatter.Belowisaschematicshowingthemajorwastesandtheirtreatmentassociatedwithrecirculatedsystems.Flow‐through systems will produce the same type of wastes, although inmuch reduced concentrations (Table 10),consequentlytheirtreatmentmayvary.


Figure15:Fishwastesandtheireffectsonbacterialandchemicalinteractionsinarecirculatingsystem(Masser,1999b)

EffluentThewastesintheeffluentwaterfromCSAsystemsaresimilarincomposition;howeverdiffergreatlyintermsofconcentration(Table10)andthustreatmentmethods.

Table10:Effluentwastesbydifferentsystems(fromPiedrahita,2003)

Hypotheticaleffluentconcentrationsfordifferenttypesofculturesystemsassumingthatnotreatmenttakesplacewithinthesystemsandtheconstituentsareuniformlydistributedintheeffluent.Thetotalconstituentproductionisusedregardlessofwhetheritisinthesolidordissolvedform.

WaterUse CalculatedeffluentconcentrationaSystemtypeKgfish/year(l/min)b l/Kgfishc mgN/ld mgP/le MgTSS/lf

ColdwaterfishSinglepass 1.4 375,000 0.2 0.02 1.3Serialreuse 6 88,000 0.7 0.08 5.7Partialreuse 50 10,500 5.7 0.67 48Fullyrecirculating 160 3,300 18 2.1 152WarmwaterfishSerialreuse 16 33,000 2.4 0.8 42Ponds 294 1,800 44 15 780Recirculatingthroughwetlands

145 3,600 22 7.8 390

Fullyrecirculating 5,500 105 760 27 13,000a)Effluentconcentrationscalculatedas:(Constituentproduction,(Kgconstituent)/(Kgfeed))X(Feedconversionratio,(Kgfeed)/(Kgfish))/(Wateruse,(l/Kgfish))X(106(mgconstituent)/(Kgconstituent)).Feedconversionratiosare1.0and2.0forcoldandwarmwaterfish,respectively.b)AfterChenetal.(2002).c)Calculatedassuminga365‐dayyear.


d)Nproduction.Forcoldwaterfish:0.06KgN/Kgfeed,assuminga50%proteinfeedand30%Nretentionasfishbiomass.Forwarmwaterfish:0.04KgN/Kgfeed,assuminga35%proteinfeedand30%Nretentionasfishbiomass.e)Pproduction.Forcoldwaterfish:0.007KgP/Kgfeed,assuminga1%Pfeedand30%Pretentionasfishbiomass.Forwarmwaterfish:0.014KgP/Kgfeed,assuminga2%Pfeedand30%Pretentionasfishbiomass.f)TSSproduction.Forcoldwaterfish:0.5KgTSS/Kgfeed(Chenetal.,1997).Forwarmwaterfish:0.7KgTSS/Kgfeed(Chenetal.,1997).Inrecirculatingsystems,waterisgenerallycleanedthroughacombinationofbio‐filterswithdenitrifyingbacteria,nitrosomonasandnitrobacter,andthroughphysicalaeration.Flow‐throughsystemsremovethemajorityofsolidwastesfromthewastestreamandrelyondifferenttypesoftreatmentforeffluentwaters(ammoniabeingthemost significant waste). Some rely on environmental assimilation for removal of waste and nutrients, whileothers,liketheSARGO™system,usestandarddisposaltechniquessuchasthoseusedonships.Assimilationcanbe achieved either through direct release into receiving waters, settling ponds, or through biological means,includingtheusealgae,plantsetc.inartificialwetlandsattheoutflow(Miller,2002).AquaFarmsinLangley,BCisan example of a facility that uses this method. Bioremediation involves co‐cultivation of finfish with speciescapable of metabolizing effluent within a contained or semi‐contained aquaculture system. Culturing of theseaweedporphyraforinstance,hasbeenusedsuccessfullyinnet‐pensalmonaquaculture(Chopin,1999;Chung,2002b). Bioremediation techniques have also been demonstrated to be feasible with sponges (Fu, 2006;Milanese,2003,GracilariaZhou,2006),polychaetes(Licciano,2005)andbivalves(Gifford,2004).IntheUS,sometilapiaproducershavebegunusingco‐culturewithcatfish,shrimporalgae(Williams2000;Fitzsimmons2001).Inaddition to dealing with aquaculture effluents, the co‐cultured species are often also economically viable –allowingprofitstobemaximizedwhilelesseningdetrimentaleffectsofuntreatedwastesontheenvironment.In landbased flow‐through systems suspendedparticulatematter anddissolved solids flowout theendof theracewayortanks intheeffluent.Thefastertheexchangeofwater,the lesssuspendedsolidsare intheholdingarea (Øiestad,1999).Prior to release into theenvironment it is common thateffluent in flow‐through systemsincludes some form of sedimentation to produce clarified effluent and to concentrate bio‐solids or sludge(ViaderoJr,2005).Therearemanystandardtechniquesassociatedwithremovingsuspendedanddissolvedsolidsfrom effluent water, such as flocculation, settling or filtration. Outflow water can also be treated prior todischarge,thoughitislesscommonpracticeinflow‐throughsystems(Miller,2002).

SludgeTherearetwosourcesofsludge.Oneisproducedintheholdingareas,thesecondisproducedbysuspendedanddissolved solids of the effluentwater. In tank systems the greater of the two accumulates in the tank, and inracewaysitaccumulatesfromseparatingtheeffluent(Øiestad,1999).Theportionofpelletfeedsnotassimilatedbythefishisexcretedasahighlyorganicwaste(faecalsolids).Whenbrokendownbybacteriawithinthesystem,faecalsolidsanduneatenfeedwillconsumedissolvedoxygenandgenerateammonia‐nitrogen.Forthisreason,wastesolidsshouldberemovedfromthesystemasquicklyaspossible.Wastesolidscanbeclassified intofourcategories:thosethatsettletothebottom(sludge),suspended,floatableanddissolvedsolids(Losordo,2003).Thereareamultitudetodifferentmethodsassociatedwithcollectionofthesolidsanddependuponthesysteminplace. Virtually all the companiesdevelopingaquaculture technologieshavedeveloped theirown collectionsystemsforsludgewaste.Atlantech Companies (www.aquatech.ca), of Charlottetown PEI, have set up numerous finfish aquacultureinstallationsinChileandNorthAmerica.Whiletheydesignandinstallcompletesystems,bothflow‐throughandrecirculating, they have a large variety ofwater treatment componentswhich they claim can be assembled tomeet the requirements ofmanywater quality situations. These include a variety of intake filters and intake


screens,sandfilters,rotarydrums(forremovalofsolidwastes),microscreens,staticsievescreens,bothUVandOzonefortreatmentofintakewater,chlorinationsystemsforeffluentwater,numerousbio‐filterswhichcanbedesignedtorunongravityforenergysavings,andaspeciallydesignedseparatorforsludgeremoval.42The treatment of sludge depends on local environmental conditions and policy restrictions. Generally, sludgefromfreshwaterfarmscaneasilybeusedasfertilizerasitishighinnitrogenandmicro‐nutrients.Whilethereissomeconcernoversludgecomingfromfarmswithmarinewaterregardingsaltcontent(Schipp,2006),thishasbeenovercomebymixingitwithotherfertilizer(Urup,2007;vanEijk,2007).LegislationhasassistedinDenmarkwhereitisrequiredthatfishwastesludgebeusedasfertilizer(Schipp,2006).Spotlight:Integratedculturingand“Greenwater”recirculating.Integratedmulti‐trophic level aquaculture (IMTA) is apromisingareaof researchbecause it takes intoaccountinterspecies interactions and uptake of nutrients and wastes by integrating filter feeders, finfish, and variousmacro‐andmicroalgaeintoaquaculturesystems(Dolmer,2004;Neori,2004).Multi‐trophicaquaculturesystemsgenerally involve the addition of extractive species (i.e. requiring no exogenous food input) to existing fedaquaculturesystems(e.g.finfishfarms).Inthecontextoffinfishproduction,IMTAcontributestoenvironmentalsustainabilityprimarilybyremediatingthenutrientoverloadingassociatedwitheffluent(Bennett,2006.;Chung,2002a;Nunes,2003).ThistypeofsystemhasalreadyprovensuccessfulwithCSAandtilapia(seetheprofileonFreshCatchBelizeinsection4).Anoffshootofthispracticeare‘green‐water’recirculatingsystems,suchasthatdevelopedbyAquacultureProductionTechnology(seesection4).Thewasteproducedbythefishistreatedbybacteriaandalgae,whichthriveinthereservoirsandearthenponds(hence‐'green‐water').Nitratesarereadilyassimilatedbythealgae,andenterthenaturalfoodweb.Thereservoiractsasa‘sun‐litrumen’,andisreferredtoasa‘green‐lung’,convertingtheorganicwastesintosinglecellprotein.Algaeencouragessecondaryproductivity(e.g.zooplankton),whichsupplementsthedietofthefish(Schipp.2006).

42Seewww.atlantec.cafordetailsonthevarioustreatmentunits.


9. EnvironmentalLifeCycleandEnergyIssues

Choicesmadeaboutwheretosettheboundarieswhenassessingthesustainabilityofaquacultureoperationswillhavea significant effecton the rangeof policyoptionsneeded.Aswith all industrial activity, thematerial andenergyrequirementsforCSAaredependentonotherindustrialprocesseseachofwhichhaveassociatedmaterialandenergyrequirements.AlthoughitisbeyondthescopeofthisreporttoassessthefulllifecycleanalysisissuesforCSAaquacultureitisimportanttonotethosefactorsrelatingtothemainmaterialandenergyrequirementsforCSA.Theseinclude:

• thefuelsourceandassociatedemissionsforrunningthefarm,• energyassociatedwiththetransportationoftheproducttomarket,• fuelconsumedincatchingandprocessingwildfishusedforproteininfeedaswellastheeffectof

capturefisheriesontheecology,• energyimplicationsofgrowingsoyaorothervegetableoilsforuseinthefeed• embodiedenergyconsumedinthemakingofmaterialsusedinconstructingthephysicalinfrastructureof

thefarmAgooddealofresearchandresultingliteratureisdevotedtoassessingthevariousaspectsofaquacultureanditsimpacts(Anderson,2002;Asche,2006;Black,1997;Brooks,2001;Bunting,2001;Folke,1989,1992;Folke,1998;Folke,1994;Folke,1997;Garcia,2005;Gardner,2003;Hardy,2001;Haya,2001;Langdon,2004;Lindbergh,1999;Naylor, 2005; Naylor, 2000; New, 2002; Pauly, 2002; Pauly, 2001; Tacon, 2004; Talberth, 2006; Tidwell, 2001;Tuominen,2003;Wu,1995).TheamountofenergyusedtocreateaKgoffishcanbeseenasaroughmeasureofefficiency.ThekW/Kgusedwillobviouslybedependentonanumberoffactorssuchasdensityoffish,thetypeoffishandhowfastthefishgrow(wecouldassumetilapiawouldrequirelessenergythantroutfor instance),thelevelofrecirculation,tonameafew.EachfarmwillthereforehavedifferentkW/Kgvalues,evenbetweensimilarfishspecies.Consequently,comparisonbetweenvaluesneedstobecautioned.Nevertheless,knowingthekW/KgvaluehelpstogiveandideaofenergycostsassociatedwithCSAsystems. HesyAquaculturesuggeststhattheirrecirculatingsystemsoperateatapproximately7‐8kW/Kg.BillundAquaService’shighintensitysystemsrunat6.5kW/Kgand their low intensityat3.2kW/Kg. According toSchipp (2006)average recirculating systems runonapproximately8.3kW/Kg.Spotlight:Mega‐Flow(Israel)(Schipp,2006)TheMegaFlowsystemhasbeendevelopedinIsraelandinvolveslargevolumesofwaterbeingmovedaroundthefishholding systemby air. Thedevelopers claim it is extremely cost effective tooperate. The SouthAustralianGovernmentisinvestinginasmallsystematthemoment.Theyclaimthatfortheproductionofseabream,MegaFlowuses5.2KWhperKgwhiletheaverageforrecirculatingsystemsis8.3kW/Kg(Schipp,2006).Inmostsystemsthelargestenergyneedsareforpumpingwaterandpreparingsaltwater(frommunicipalwatersource, if required (Romuel, 2007). Thus anything that can either directly reduce the pumping needs or offsetotherenergycosts,suchasheating,willhelpwithenergysavings.Manydifferenttechniqueshavebeenemployedorbeingexploredtoreduceenergyneedsand/orincorporatealternativesources.Theseinclude:

‐ Systemsdesignedtoharnessgravityforwaterflow(HesyAquaculture).‐ Airlifts(NeptuneIndustries)‐ Methanecapture(NeptuneIndustries,COMB,SARGO™)‐ Waveenergy‐ Solarsystems‐ Passiveheating(RedfishFarm)


‐ Dewateringsludgeanduseasbio‐fuel‐ Geo‐thermalheating(SifurstjarnenFarm).

Anotherissueofconcern,particularlyinaridcountries,iswaterconsumption.Thiscanbemeasuredinm3/Kg,orl/Kg,offishproduced.Waterusecanvaryconsiderablyfrom105l/KgforRASsystemsto130,000l/Kginsinglepassflow‐throughsystems.Somesystemsclaimrequirementsaslowas50l/Kg(Ebon,2007).


10. SummaryofstrengthsandchallengesThe variety and versatility of the different CSA technologies is encouraging. It demonstrates that CSA can bepracticed almost anywhere as it can be adapted tomany socio‐economic and ecological situations. Clearly, ifwatersavingsareaprimeconcernthenRAScouldbeapplied,ifwaterflowisnotanissuethentheremaybecostsavingsassociatedwithflow‐throughsystems.Belowisasummaryofthemajoradvantagesofthevarioussystemsreviewedinthisreport,ascomparedtoopennet‐pensorcages.

Table11:AdvantageanddisadvantagesofCSAsystems(comparedwithpens)

InGeneral

Advantages:

• Control of growing conditions: including temperature, water chemistry andturbidity,disease,etc.

• Growthcycles:includingshortenedtimetoharvest,sizeofthespecies,qualityofproduct,aswellasoptimumharvestpointsandabilitytoplanforharvest.

• BetterFeedtoBiomassratios:duetogreatercontrolofgrowingconditionsandlifecycles.

• Greater versatility: options for production location, nearness to market,marginal lands, etc.; ability to respond to demographic and consumer shits(some systems are capable of growing different species – or can be easilytransformed.

• Control of outputs and effluents: treatment and the possibility of reuse asfertilizerorinputforotherfishsystems(inintegratedaquaculture).

• Riskreduction:includingclimate,infectionanddisease,predation,etc.• Reductionindirectoperationalcosts:associatedwithfeedanddiseasecontrol

fromvaccinationsandantibiotics.• Greaterfishintensity:betterfeedconsumptionandcontrolofmetabolicrates,

lessnutrientdevelopmentfromlostfeed.• Potential for ‘Clean product’: produced without hormones, antibiotics etc.;

producedinenvironmentallyfriendlyway;GreenandOrganiclabelling.• Potential fornichemarkets: eitherbyspecies,availability (live tomarket),or

size.• Lessareausedandabilitytousemarginalisedlands.• Optionsforvariablewatersources

Disadvantages:

• Increaseincapitalcosts:researchanddevelopmentiscostly,systemstart‐upishigherthannet‐pen.

• Increase in direct operational costs: oxygen inputs andmaintaining chemicalbalancesof thewater, carefulwatermonitoring,energy requirements, input‐outputwatertreatmentrequirements.

• Complexityoftechnology.• Risks: potential forrapidchemistryalterationsresulting inquickandmassive

die‐offs,dependencyonmonitoring.


BelowisatablecomparingtherelativeadvantagesanddisadvantagesassociatedwithvariousCSAtechnologiesascomparedtooneanother.

Table12:ComparativeadvantagesanddisadvantagesbetweenCSAtechnologies

Raceways

Advantages:

• Stackableforoptimumuseofspaceandforuseofgravityflowtoreducepumpingcosts

• Designedforspecies• Lesslabourintensivetocleaningandfeeding• Easymonitoringoffish

Disadvantages:

• Iftheyareverylong(200m)waterqualitycandeterioratesomoremonitoringandgreatervolumesofwaterareneeded.

• Additionalcleaningofwatermaybeneeded• Requiresspecialpelletstoensurefoodgetstheendofraceway

Tanks

Advantages:• Largevolumetotankarea• Easierfeedingandgoodfeedconversionratios• Goodcontrolandeasymonitoringoffishhealthandwaterquality

Disadvantages:• Needcleaning–highalgaegrowthifflowisinsufficient.Moredifficulttoclean

astheyareusuallydeeperandhardertoaccessthanraceways.Flow‐through

Advantages:• Lesswatertreatmentforintakewater• Lesstreatmentforeffluent• Simpletechnologiesforwaterchemistry

Disadvantages:• Highwateruse• Lesscontroloverwaterchemistryandtemperature

RecirculatingSystems

Advantages:

• Goodcontrolofwaterchemistryandtemperature• Lowwateruse• Highdensitiesandproductivity• Goodcontrolofwastes

Disadvantages:• Highercostsforpumpingandtreatment• Technicallycomplex• Highriskofcatastrophicdie‐offduechemistryalterations

Openwatersystems

Advantages:• Greateravailablespace• Constanttemperature• Lowpumpingcosts

Disadvantages:

• Weatherandclimatedependent• Accessibility• Difficulttomonitorfish(becauseoftherelativesizeanddepthofthetanksitis

difficulttomakedetailedmonitoringofthehealthofthefish)• Difficulttocleanastheyaredeepandunderwater,andthereforeharderto

accessthanland‐basedsystems.NaturalPondsandChannels

Advantages:• Simpletechnology• Lowcapitalcosts

Disadvantages: • Highchemicaluseoffungicides,herbicides,etc.


• Competitionfornutrientsfromotherorganismsthatenter• Seepageofwaterintoground


11. ConclusionsThenumberofsustainedcommercialoperationsillustratesthatCSAisaviablemeansofcommerciallyproducingfish for harvesting. The diversity, in terms of location, species and socio‐economic conditions, where theseoperationsare found indicate theversatilityand innovationassociatedwithCSAtechnology. Producersof fishanddevelopersofCSAtechnologyarecreatingcommercialoperationsincountriesasvariedasIceland,MoroccoandChina, in rural areasand in semi‐urban zones,usingoceanwater, groundwaterandevenmunicipalwatersupplies. Practical examples exist for the use of closed system aquaculture for growing finfish, seaweeds,shellfish,crustaceans,andotherinvertebratespecies,aswellasforpharmaceuticalproduction.WhilemanyCSAoperations associatedwith finfish are hatcheries for fish smolts and juveniles for on‐growing in net‐pens andcages, increasingdevelopment isoccurring forraisingavarietyof finfish fully toharvestsize.At thispoint, themost common species currently being harvested to full size are Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss), Arctic char (Salnelinus alpinus), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), turbot(Scopthalmusmaximus),barramundi(Latescalcarifer),severalvarietiesofAustralianperch(Macquariaambigua,Scortum barcoo, Sander lucioperca, Bidyanus bidyanus), seabream (Sparus aurata, Pagellus bogaraveo) andseabass(Centropristisstriata),Moronesaxatilis).Also,thereareseveralspecieshavinglocalimportancesuchaseel(AnguillaAnguilla)inEurope,andcatfish(Ictaluruspunctatus)intheUS.Thedifferent technologiesemployedarealmostequallyas varied.While thebasicprinciplesbehindwaterandwastetreatment,feeding,andmonitoringareconsistent;themethodstoachievethemarenot.Companiessuchas Atlantech Group and UNI‐Aqua, amongst others, have unique designs and products to accommodate localneedsforallstepsoftheoperation.Indeed,onecansaythattherearealmostasmanydifferentsystemsasthereareoperations,eachoperationbeing tailored to specificneeds. WhatallCAS systems share,however, is theirability to separate the culture of fish from the natural environment, control their inputs to reduce disease,optimizegrowthandminimizemortality,andcontroltheiroutputstolimitexternalcoststotheenvironment.Atthisjunctureintheevolutionofaquaculture,considerabledebateremainsastotheadaptabilityofCSAtotherangeofcommodityspecies.Technologicaladvancements,regulatorydevelopmentsandtheselectionofspecieswillcontinuetointermingleoverthecomingyears.Localvariablessuchasclimate,wateravailability,alternativeenergies,access, socio‐economicconditions,amongstothers,willhelpdetermineof the local suitabilityofCSA.Other factors, such as improvements in energy efficiencies, are already impacting the economic viability andecologicalappropriatenessofthesetechnologies.Thereisconvergenceamongtheresearchersandproducersinterviewedandtheliterature,indicatingthatCSAiscommerciallyviablefornichemarketfish,suchaslivetilapiaorbarramundi.Thereisalsogrowingconsensusthat‘organically’and‘environmentallyfriendly’producedfishareabletocommandhigherpricessuchthatcommodityfish could be moved into a niche market. As evidenced in Europe, environmental and health concerns areincreasinglydrivingconsumerdemandsaswellaspromptingtighterregulatoryconditionsforfoodproductioningeneral. While this has been sufficient to move the industry rapidly in Europe, additional measures may benecessarytoincreasethepaceofCSAinNorthAmerica.TheOpenOceanAquacultureBillintheUSisproposingadded costs for open net‐pen production (Walters, 2007). This line of action has been echoed byrecommendationsfromtheBCSpecialCommitteeonSustainableAquacultureaskingforacompletetransitiontoclosedcontainmentaquaculture,andtheWorldBankcallfortheinternalizationofaquaculturecosts.Combinedsocio‐environmentalconcerns,increasingefficienciesofproductionandregulatorychangesarelikelytomakeCSAan increasingly interesting option for future fish production (Walters, 2007;Gústavsson, 2007,Øiestad, 2007a;vanEijk,2007).


Whatisclearisthataquaculturewillremainanimportantmeansofprovidingfishfortheglobalfoodsupplyandthatnewtechnologies,trade,consumerdemandsandregulatorychangeswillinfluencethedevelopmentofCSA.


12. GlossaryMajortermsusedinthisreportareasfollows:CSA ‐ Closed system aquaculture is defined as: ‘Any system of fish production that creates a controlled interfacebetweentheculture(fish)andthenaturalenvironment.’FCR‐FeedconversionratioistheKgoffeedneededtoraise1Kgoffish.Clearly,thelowertheratiothebettertheconversion.RAS‐RecirculatingAquacultureSystemsTermsforfishusedinthisdocumentarethefollowing:Abalone(Haliotisspp.)Barramundi(Latescalcarifer)Catfish“Channel”(Ictaluruspunctatus),”African”(Clariasgariepinus)Carp,European(Cyprinuscarpio)Char,Arctic(Salvelinusalpinus)Cod(Gadusmorhua)“Murray”(Maccullochellapeelii),”Sleepy”(Oxyeleotrislineolatus),“Black”(Nototheniamicrolepidota)Eel(Anguillaanguilla)Flounder,Japanese(Paralichthysolivaceus)Halibut(Hippoglossushippoglossus),“California”(Paralichthyscalifornicus)Mulloway(Sciaenaantarctica)Perch,Golder(Macquariaambigua)Perch,Jade(Scortumbarcoo)Perch,Pike(Sanderlucioperca)Perch,Silver(Bidyanusbidyanus)Perch,Yellow(Percaflavescens)Pike,Walleyed(Sandervitreusvitreus)Puffer,Tiger(Takifugurubripes)Salmon,Atlantic(Salmosalar)Salmon,Chinook(Oncorhynchustshawytscha)Salmon,Coho(Oncorhynchuskisutch)Salmon,Sockeye(Oncorhynchusnerka)Seabass“European”(Centropristisstriata),“Striped”(Moronesaxatilis)Seabream“Gilt‐head”(Sparusaurata),”Blackspotted”(Pagellusbogaraveo)Sole(Soleasolea)SturgeonWhite(Acipensertransmontanus),Tilapia,Nile(Oreochromisniloticus)Trout,Rainbow(Oncorhynchusmykiss)Turbot(Scophthalmusmaximus)NotethatthereseveraldifferentspeciesofturbotincludingthePacific,GreenlandandEuropean(Psettamaxima).ThePsettamaximaisusuallyreferredtoasScophthalmusmaximusintradeliteratureandindustrypublications.Tuna,Bluefin(Thunnusthynnus)Tuna,Yellowfin(Thunnusalbacares)Wolfish(Anarhichasminor)Yellowtailkingfish(Seriolalalandilalandi)


13. CompanyListingsAgassizAquaFarms(p34)

WEB:www.agassizaquafarms.comPHONE:204‐785‐8410EMAIL:[email protected]:CanadaCONTACT:JohnBottomley

AgriMarineIndustries(seealsoMiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstitute)

WEB:www.agrimarine.comPHONE:604‐683‐7966COUNTRY:CanadaCONTACT:RichardBuchanan(rbuchanan@sustainable‐aquaculture.ca)

Akvaplan‐Niva(p12)

WEB:www.akvaplan.niva.noPHONE:+47‐77‐75‐03‐00EMAIL:[email protected]:Norway/SpainCONTACT:Øiestad,V

AquacultureDevelopmentsLLC(p14)

WEB:www.aquaculturedevelopments.comEMAIL:[email protected]:US

AquacultureProductionTechnologyLtd.(p40)

WEB:www.aquaculture.co.ilPHONE:972‐5‐870‐4585EMAIL:info@aquaculture‐israel.comCOUNTRY:Israel

AquaOptima(p15)

WEB:www.aquaoptima.comPHONE:+47‐73‐56‐11‐30EMAIL:[email protected]:Norway

AquatechSolutions(p16)

WEB:www.aquatech‐solutions.comPHONE:+45‐7588‐0222EMAIL:ole@aquatec‐solutions.comCOUNTRY:DenmarkCONTACT:OleEnggardPedersen,ManagingDirector


AquaFarms(p37)

PHONE:604‐626‐6747EMAIL:[email protected]:CanadaCONTACT:LarryAlbright

Atlantech(p69)

WEB:www.atlantech.caPHONE:902‐368‐7500EMAIL:[email protected]:CanadaCONTACT:A.Desbarats

AusyfishPty.Ltd.(p38)

WEB:www.ausyfish.comPHONE:+69‐010‐810‐670EMAIL:[email protected]:Australia

BaltimoreUrbanRecirculatingMaricultureSystem(p18)

(UniversityofMarylandBiotechnologyInstitute,CenterofMarineBiotechnology)

WEB:www.umbi.umd.eduPHONE:410‐234‐8800EMAIL:[email protected]:USCONTACT:Dr.YonathanZoharBillundAquacultureService(p21)

WEB:www.billund‐aqua.dkPHONE:+45‐75‐33‐87‐20COUNTRY:DenmarkCellAquacultureSystemsEurope(p23)

WEB:www.cellaqua.comPHONE:+61‐8‐9336‐7122EMAIL:[email protected]:Australia(HeadOffice)

FutureSEATechnologies(p42)

WEB:www.futuresea.comPHONE:250‐618‐0968EMAIL:[email protected]:CanadaCONTACT:AndyClarkCOUNTRY:Canada


HESYAquacultureBV(p25)

WEB:www.hesy.comPHONE:+31‐174‐220140EMAIL:[email protected]:TheNetherlandsCONTACT:A.DebonHolarUniversity,DepartmentofAquacultureandFisheries(p33)

WEB:www.holar.isPHONE:4544556300EMAIL:[email protected]:IcelandCONTACT:ArnþórGústavsson

IcyWaters(p32)

WEB:www.icywaters.comPHONE:867‐668‐7012COUNTRY:Canada

JHLConsulting(p27)

PHONE:250‐897‐[email protected]:CanadaCONTACT:JohnHolder

MaricultureSystems(SARGOSystem)(p45)

WEB:www.sargo.netPHONE:425.778.5975EMAIL:[email protected]:USCONTACT:DavidMeilahn([email protected])McRobertAquacultureGroup(p42)

WEB:www.mcrobert.com.au/PHONE:+61‐0‐8‐9433‐2900COUNTRY:Australia

MiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstitute(p47)

WEB:www.sustainable‐aquaculture.caPHONE:250‐286‐0019EMAIL:rwalker@sustainalbe‐aquaculture.caCOUNTRY:CanadaCONTACT:RobWalker


RushingWatersTroutFarm(p31)

WEB:www.rushingwaters.netPHONE:262‐495‐2089EMAIL:[email protected]:US

ScotianHalibut(p28)

WEB:www.halibut.ns.caPHONE:902‐471‐1113EMAIL:[email protected]:CanadaCONTACT:BrianBlanchardSwiftAquafarm(p36)

PHONE:604‐796‐3497COUNTRY:CanadaCONTACT:BruceSwiftNeptuneIndustries(p41)

WEB:www.neptuneindustries.netPHONE:561‐482‐6408EMAIL:[email protected]:USCONTACT:ErnestPapadoyianisUNI‐Aqua(p29)

WEB:www.uni‐aqua.comPHONE:+45‐7551‐3211EMAIL:bur@uni‐aqua.comCOUNTRY:DenmarkCONTACT:BentUrup


14. References

AgriMarine(2003).MarinePilotProjectTechnologiesInitiative:CedarClosedContainmentLand‐basedSalmonCultureFacility.MinistryofAgricultureFoodandFisheries,Cedar,BC

AgriMarine(2003b).PerformanceEvaluationofaPilotScaleLand‐BasedSalmonFarm.MinistryofAgricultureFoodandFisheries,Cedar,BC.

Albright,L.(2007)AquaFarms.PersonalcommunicationAugust15,2007([email protected])

Anderson,J.(2002).Aquacultureandthefuture:Whyfisherieseconomistsshouldcare.MarineResourceEconomics.17(2):133‐151

Barrington,K.,N.Ridler,T.Chopin,S.Robinson,F.Page,B.MacDonaldandK.Haya(2005).Socialperceptionsofintegratedmulti‐trophicaquaculture.OMRNConference,Ottawa.

Bennett,A.T.,B.A.MacdonaldandF.H.Page(2006.).Howefficientisthebluemussel(MytilusedulisL.)atfilteringexcessparticulatematerialatanintegratedaquaculturesite?JournalofShellfishResearch.25(2)

Bevan,D.,K.ChandrooandR.Moccia(2002).PredatorControlinCommercialAquacultureinCanada.UniversityofGuelph,

Black,E.,R.Gowen,H.Rosenthal,E.Roth,D.StechyandF.Taylor(1997).Thecostsofeutrophicationfromsalmonfarming:implicationsforpolicy‐acomment.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement.50(1):105‐109

Blancheton,J.(2000).DevelopmentsinrecirculationsystemsforMediterraneanfishspecies.AquaculturalEngineering.22(1):17‐31

BMP(2004).ManagingFlow‐ThroughSystems.AuburnAquacultureBestManagementPractice,AuburnUniversityandUSDA‐NaturalResourcesConservationService,

Bodvin,T.,M.Indergaard,E.Norgaard,A.JensenandA.Skaar(1996).Cleantechnologyinaquaculture—aproductionwithoutwasteproducts?Hydrobiologia.326(1):83‐86

Bottomley,John(2007).AgassizAquaFarms.PersonalcommunicationOctober26,2007([email protected])

Boyd,C.andL.Massaut(1999).Risksassociatedwiththeuseofchemicalsinpondaquaculture.AquaculturalEngineering.20(2):113‐132

Brooks,K.,C.MahnkenandC.Nash(2002).EnvironmentaleffectsassociatedwithmarinenetpenwastewithemphasisonsalmonfarminginthePacificNorthwest.(InRrStickneyandJpMcvey(Eds.)ResponsibleMarineAquaculture(pWallingford,UK:CABInternational)p159‐205

Brooks,K.M.(2001).AnEvaluationoftheRelationshipbetweenSalmonFarmBiomass,OrganicInputstoSediments,PhysicochemicalChangesAssociatedwithThoseInputsandtheInfaunalResponse‐‐‐withEmphasisonTotalSedimentSulphides,TotalVolatileSolids,andOxidation‐‐‐ReductionPotentialasSurrogateEndpointsforBiologicalMonitoring.MinistryofEnvironment,LandsandParks,Nanaimo,BC


Bunting,S.(2001).Appropriationofenvironmentalgoodsandservicesbyaquaculture:areassessmentemployingtheecologicalfootprintmethodologyandimplicationsforhorizontalintegration.AquacultureResearch.32(7):605‐609

Buttner,J.(1992).AquacultureSystemsfortheNortheast.NRACFactSheet,NortheasternRegionalAquacultureCenter,UniversityofMassachusetts,Dartmouth,

Chatain,B.(1997).Developmentandachievementsofmarinefish‐rearingtechnologyinFranceoverthelast15years.Hydrobiologia.358(1):7‐11

Cho,C.andD.Bureau(1997).Reductionofwasteoutputfromsalmonidaquaculturethroughfeedsandfeeding.ProgressiveFish‐Culturist.59(2):155‐160

Chopin,T.,C.Yarish,R.Wilkes,E.Belyea,S.LuandA.Mathieson(1999).DevelopingPorphyra/salmonintegratedaquacultureforbioremediationanddiversificationoftheaquacultureindustry.JournalofAppliedPhycology.11(5):463‐472

Chung,I.,Y.Kang,C.Yarish,G.KraemerandJ.Lee(2002a).Applicationofseaweedcultivationtothebioremediationofnutrient‐richeffluent.Algae.17(3):187‐194

Chung,I.,Y.Kang,C.Yarish,G.KraemerandJ.Lee(2002b).Applicationofseaweedcultivationtothebioremediationofnutrient‐richeffluent.Algae,17(3):187‐194.8

Clark,A.(2007)FutureSEATechnologies.PersonalcommunicationOctober22,2007.([email protected])

Debon,A.(2007a)HESYAquacultureBV.PersonalcommunicationAugust10,2007([email protected])

Delabbio,j.,B.R.Murphy,G.R.JohnsonandE.Hallerman(2003).CharacteristicsoftherecirculationsectoroffinfishaquacultureintheUnitedStatesandCanada.4June

Desbarats,A.(2007)EngineeratAtlantech.PersonalcommunicationAugust3,2007([email protected])

Dolmer,P.andK.Geitner(2004).IntegratedCoastalZoneManagementofculturesandfisheryofmusselsinLimfjorden,Denmark.Palaegade,InternationalCouncilfortheExplorationoftheSea,Copenhagen

FAO(2001).IntegratedAgriculture‐Aquaculture:APrimer.FA0FisheriesTechnicalPaper.,FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,Rome

FAO(2006).StateoftheWorldAquaculture2006,(Rome:FAO)

FAO‐Globefish(2005).TilapiaMarketReportApril2005,USA.retrievedOctober1,2007fromwww.globefish.org/index.php?id=4282

FAO‐STAT(2007).FoodandAgriculturalOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,FisheriesandAquacultureDepartment,FisheriesStatisticsProgramme.retrievedJuly14,2007fromhttp://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=FIDI_STAT_org.xml&xp_nav=3,1,1

Folke,C.andN.Kautsky(1989).Theroleofecosystemsforasustainabledevelopmentofaquaculture.AmbioStockholm.18(4):234‐243


Folke,C.andN.Kautsky(1992).Aquaculturewithitsenvironment:Prospectsforsustainability.Ocean&CoastalManagement.17(1):5‐24

Folke,C.,N.Kautsky,H.Berg,A.JanssonandM.Troell(1998).TheEcologicalFootprintConceptforSustainableSeafoodProduction:AReview.EcologicalApplications.8(1):63‐71

Folke,C.,N.KautskyandM.Troell(1994).Thecostsofeutrophicationfromsalmonfarming:implicationsforpolicy.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement.40(2):173‐182

Folke,C.,N.KautskyandM.Troell(1997).Salmonfarmingincontext:response.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement.50(1):95‐103

Fu,W.,L.Sun,X.ZhangandW.Zhang(2006).PotentialofthemarinespongeHymeniacidonperleveasabioremediatorofpathogenicbacteriainintegratedaquacultureecosystems.BiotechnolBioeng.93:1112‐1122

Funge‐Smith,S.andM.Phillips(2001).Aquaculturesystemsandspecies.(InRpSubasinghe,PBueno,MjPhillips,CHough,SeMcgladderyandJrArthur(Eds.)AquacultureintheThirdMilleniumBangkok,Thailand(p1290135)NACAandFAO)

G3‐Consulting(2000).SalmonAquacultureWasteManagementReview&Update.Environment&ResourceManagement,PollutionPrevention&RemediationBranch,BCMinistryofEnvironment,LandsandParks,Burnaby,BC

Garcia,M.S.andR.J.R.Grainger(2005).Gloomanddoom?Thefutureofmarinecapturefisheries.PhilosophicalTransactionsofRoyalSocietyofBiology.360:21‐48

Gardner,J.andD.Peterson(2003).MakingSenseoftheSalmonAquacultureDebate:AnalysisofIssuesRelatedtoNetcageSalmonFarmingandWildSalmoninBritishColumbia.PacificFisheriesResourceConservationCouncil,Vancouver,BC

Gifford,S.,R.Dunstan,W.O'Connor,T.RobertsandR.Toia(2004).Pearlaquaculture‐‐profitableenvironmentalremediation?ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment.319(1):27‐37

Gíslason,A.(2003).FishFarminginHusavik‐Iceland.HolarUniversity,Iceland.Gústavsson,A.(2007)DepartmentofAquacultureandFisheries,HólarUniversity,Iceland.Personalcommunication(a)July20and(b)August19,2007([email protected])

Harvey,D.(2005).AquacultureOutlook.UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgricultureEconomicResearchService,WashingtonDC

Haya,K.,L.BurridgeandB.Chang(2001).Environmentalimpactofchemicalwastesproducedbythesalmonaquacultureindustry.ICESJournalofMarineScience.58(2):492‐496

Holder,J.(2007)JHLConsulting.PersonalcommunicationAugust8,2007([email protected])

Kamps,R.andW.Neill(1999).AquaculturalEffluents:DirectiveSignalstotheSystemDownstream?JournalofChemicalEcology.25(9):2041‐2050

Langdon,C.,F.EvansandC.Demetropoulos(2004).Anenvironmentally‐sustainable,integrated,co‐culturesystemfordulseandabaloneproduction.AquaculturalEngineering.32(1):43‐56


Lasordo,T.,M.MasserandJ.Rakocy(2003).RecirculatingAquacultureTankProductionSystems:AnOverviewofCriticalConsiderations.AquaKEAquacultureDocumentsLibrary.2003(724):7240140

Lazur,A.(2007)Aquculturespecialist‐NationalSeaGrantProgram.PersonalcommunicationAugust14,2007([email protected])

Lee,J.,D.Rodriguez,A.Neori,O.Zmora,A.SymonsandM.Shpigel(2004).Nutrientstudyforthetransitionfromearthensedimentationpondstooneslinedwithpvcinintegratedmariculturesystems,whatneedstobedone?JournalofAppliedPhycology.16(5):341‐353

Licciano,M.,L.StabiliandA.Giangrande(2005).Clearencerateoftofilterfeedingpolychaetescandidateforbioremediationinaquaculture.WaterResearch.39:4375‐4384

Lindbergh,J.(1999).SalmonfarminginChile:Dothebenefitsexceedthecosts.AquacultureMagazine.25(2):33‐45

Littauer,G.,J.Glahn,D.ReinholdandM.Brunson(2003).ControlofBirdPredationatAquacultureFacilities:StrategiesandCostEstimates.AquaKEAquacultureDocumentsLibrary.2003(724):7240010

Losordo,T.,M.MasserandJ.Rakocy(2003).RecirculatingAquacultureTankProductionSystems:AnOverviewofCriticalConsiderations.AquaKEAquacultureDocumentsLibrary.2003(724):7240140

Marsh,J.(2006).SeafoodWatch,SeafoodReport:FarmedArcticcharSalvelinusalpinus.NortheastRegionFinalReport,MontereyBayAquarium.

Masser,M.P.,J.RakocyandT.M.Losordo(1999a).RecirculatingAquacultureTankProductionSystems:AReviewofComponentOptions.SRACPublication,SouthernRegionalAquacultureCentre

Masser,M.P.,J.RakocyandT.M.Losordo(1999b).RecirculatingAquacultureTankProductionSystems:ManagementofRecirculatingSystems.SRACPublications,SouthernRegionalAquacultureCentre

McRobert(2007).McRobertAquacultureGroup.retrievedAugust12,2007fromwww.mcrobert.com.au

Meihan,D.(2007)MariCultureSystems.PersonalcommunicationJuly25,2007([email protected])

Milanese,M.,E.Chelossi,R.Manconi,A.Sara,M.SidriandR.Pronzato(2003).ThemarinespongeChondrillanuculaSchmidt,1862asanelectivecandidateforbioremediationinintegratedaquaculture.BiomolecularEngineering.20(4):363‐368

Miles,T.,E.CryerandJ.Colt(2007).Recentexperiencewithhigh‐intensityflow‐throughsystemsinUtah.(In(Eds.)Aquaculture2007SanAntonio,Texas

Miller,D.andK.Semmens(2002).WasteManagmentinAquaculture.AquacultureInformationSeries,UniversityofWestVirginia

Naylor,R.andM.Burke(2005).AquacultureandOceanResources:RaisingTigersoftheSea.AnnualReviewofEnvironmentandResources.30:185‐218

Naylor,R.,J.EagleandW.Smith(2003).SalmonAquacultureinthePacificNorthwest:AGlobalIndustrywithLocalImpacts.Environment(WashingtonDC).45(8):18‐39


Naylor,R.,R.Goldburg,J.Primavera,N.Kautsky,M.Beveridge,J.Clay,C.Folke,J.Lubchenco,H.MooneyandM.Troell(2000).Effectofaquacultureonworldfishsupplies.Nature.405:1017‐1024

Neori,A.,T.Chopin,M.Troell,A.Buschmann,G.Kraemer,C.Halling,M.ShpigelandC.Yarish(2004).Integratedaquaculture:rationale,evolutionandstateoftheartemphasizingseaweedbiofiltrationinmodernmariculture.Aquaculture.231(1/4):361‐391

New,M.andU.Wijkström(2002).Useoffishmealandfishoilinaquafeeds:Furtherthoughtsonthefishmealtrap.FAOFisheriesCircular.975

Nunes,J.,J.Ferreira,F.Gazeau,J.Lencart‐Silva,X.Zhang,M.ZhuandJ.Fang(2003).Amodelforsustainablemanagementofshellfishpolycultureincoastalbays.Aquaculture.219(1‐4):257–277

Øiestad,V(1999).Shallowracewaysasacompact,resource‐maximizingfarmingprocedureformarinefishspecies.AquacultureResearch.30(11‐12):831‐840

Øiestad,V.(2007a)ManagerofAkvaplan‐NivaGalicia,Spain.PersonalcommunicationAugust1and5,December9,2007(vØ[email protected])

Øiestad,V.andT.Bjørndal(2007b).IndustrialParksforAquaculture.(In(Eds.)TheInternationalSymposiumonIntegratedCoastalZoneManagementArendal,Norway

Papadoyianis,E.(2007)NeptuneIndustries.PersonalcommunicationAugust12th,2007([email protected])

Pauly,D.,V.Christensen,S.Guénette,T.Pitcher,U.Sumaila,C.Walters,R.WatsonandD.Zeller(2002).Towardssustainabilityinworldfisheries.Nature.418:689‐695

Pauly,D.,P.Tyedmers,R.FroeseandY.Liu(2001).Fishingdownandfarmingupthefoodweb.ConservationBiologyinPractice.2(25)

Phillips,S.(2005).EnvironmentalImpactsofMarineAquaculture‐IssuePaper.PacificStatesMarineFieheriesCommission

Piedrahita,R.(2003).Reducingthepotentialenvironmentalimpactoftankaquacultureeffluentsthroughintensificationandrecirculation.Aquaculture.226(1):35‐44

Queensland(2007).RecirculationSystems.retrievedAugust1,2007fromhttp://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/2701.html

Rach,J.andR.Ramsay(2000).AnalyticalVerificationofWaterborneChemicalTreatmentRegimensinHatcheryRaceways.NorthAmericanJournalofAquaculture.62(1):60‐66

Romuel,T.(2007)BiotechnologyInstitute,UniversityofMaryland.PersonalcommunicationAugust11th,2007([email protected])

Routeledge,R.,P.GallaugherandC.Orr(2007).SpeakingfortheSalmon:SummitofScientistsonAquacultureandtheProtectionofWildSalmon.SimonFraserUniversity,Vancouver

SAR(1997).SalmonAquacultureReview,(Victoria,BC:EnvironmentalAssessmentOffice)


Schipp,G.andD.Gore(2006).RecirculatingMarineAquaculture.DESTOverseasFellowship,ISSInstitute,

Schuenhoff,A.,M.Shpigel,I.Lupatsch,A.Ashkenazi,F.MsuyaandA.Neori(2003).Asemi‐recirculating,integratedsystemforthecultureoffishandseaweed.Aquaculture.221(1):167‐181

Shpigel,M.,A.Neori,D.PopperandH.Gordin(1993).Aproposedmodelfor"environmentallyclean"land‐basedcultureoffish,bivalvesandseaweeds.Aquaculture.117(1):115‐128

Summerfelt,S.,G.Wilton,D.Roberts,T.RimmerandK.Fonkalsrud(2004).DevelopmentsinrecirculatingsystemsforArcticcharcultureinNorthAmerica.AquaculturalEngineering.30(1/2):31‐71

Tacon,A.(2004).Useoffishmealandfishoilinaquaculture:aglobalperspective.AquaticResources,CultureandDevelopment.1(1):3–14

Talberth,J.,K.Wolowicz,J.Venetoulis,M.Gelobter,P.BoyleandB.Mott(2006).TheEcologicalFishprintofNations.RedefiningProgress,Oakland,California

Tidwell,J.(2001).Fishasfood:aquaculture'scontribution:Ecologicalandeconomicimpactsandcontributionsoffishfarmingandcapturefisheries.EMBOReports.2(11):958‐963

Tlusty,M.,K.Snook,V.PepperandM.Anderson(2000).Thepotentialforsolubleandtransportlossofparticulateaquaculturewastes.AquacultureResearch.31(10):745‐755

Troell,M.,C.Halling,A.Neori,T.Chopin,A.Buschmann,N.KautskyandC.Yarish(2003).Integratedmariculture:askingtherightquestions.Aquaculture.226(1/4):69‐90

Tuominen,T.andM.Esmark(2003).FoodforThought:theUseofMarineResourcesinFishFeed,(Norway:WorldWildlifeFund)

Urup,B.(2007)PresidentUNI‐Aqua,Demark.PersonalcommunicationAugust8,2007(bur@uni‐aqua.com)

USDA‐NASS(1998).CensusofAquaculture1998.retrievedAugust12,2007fromhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm

vanEijk,W.(2004).Futurepossibilitiesofsustainablefreshwaterfishfishfarming.(In(Eds.)ProfetWorkshop,Budapest,20thFebruary,2004(p

vanEijk,W.(2007)PersonalCommunication.PersonalcommunicationAugust13,2007([email protected])

ViaderoJr,R.,J.Cunningham,K.SemmensandA.Tierney(2005).Effluentandproductionimpactsofflow‐throughaquacultureoperationsinWestVirginia.AquaculturalEngineering.33(4):258‐270

Walker,Rob.(2007)MiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstitute.PersonalcommunicationOctober22,2007(rwalker@sustainalbe‐aquaculture.ca)

Wu,R.S.S.(1995).Theenvironmentalimpactofmarinefishculture:Towardsasustainablefuture.MarinePollutionBulletin.31(4):159‐166

Zhou,Y.,H.Yang,H.Hu,Y.Liu,Y.Mao,H.Zhou,X.XuandF.Zhang(2006).BioremediationpotentialofthemacroalgaGracilarialemaneiformis(Rhodophyta)integratedintofedfishcultureincoastalwatersofnorthChina.Aquaculture.252(2):264‐276


Zohar,Y.(2007).DevelopingaNewGenerationofEnvironmentallySustainableMarineAquaculture:Contained,Bio‐SecureandContaminant‐Free.retrievedJuly20,2007fromhttp://www.umbi.umd.edu/~comb/programs/aquaculture/RAS.html

Zohar,Y.,Y.Tal,H.Schreier,C.Steven,J.StubblefieldandA.Place(2005).Commerciallyfeasibleurbanrecirculatingaquaculture:addressingthemarinesector.(In(Eds.)UrbanAquaculture2005(p159‐171)Wallingford,UK:CABIPublishing)


WebsitesAgassizAquaFarms,retrievedJuly25,2007fromwww.agassizaquafarms.com

AquaFarm,retrievedAugust5,2007,fromhttp://www.sfu.ca/pamr/news_releases/archives/news10190601.htm

AquabellaFarms,retrievedAugust4,2007fromwww.aquab.comAquacultureDevelopmentsLLC,retrievedJuly26,2007fromhttp://www.aquaculturedevelopments.com/AquaOptimaNorwayAS,retrievedAugust2,2007fromwww.aquaoptima.comAqua‐SphereClosedContainmentSystem,retrievedAugust5,2007fromwww.neptuneindustries.netAquatechSolutions,retrievedAugust5,2007fromwww.aquatec‐solutions.comAusyfish.Pty.Ltd,retrievedAugust12,2007fromwww.ausyfish.comBritishColumbiaMinistryofAgricultureandLandswebsite,retrievedOctober22,2007fromhttp://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/technology/marine_harvest.htmDavidSuzukiFoundationwww.davidsuzuki.orgFarmedandDangerouswww.farmedanddangerous.orgFreshCatchBelizeLtd.,retrievedAugust1,2007fromhttp://www.aquaculture.co.il/Projects/Belize.htmlFutureSeaTechnologies,retrievedOctober22,2007fromwww.futuresea.comGeorgiaStraitAlliancewww.georgiastrait.orgHESYAquaculture,retrievedAugust2,2007fromhttp://www.hesy.comIcyWatersLtd,retrievedAugust2,2007fromhttp://www.icywaters.com/McRobertAquacultureGroup,retrievedAugust11,2007fromhttp://www.mcrobert.com.au/MiddleBaySustainableAquacultureInstitute,retrievedOctober11,2007fromhttp://www.sustainable‐aquaculture.ca/Queensland(2007).RecirculationSystems.retrievedAugust1,2007fromhttp://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/2701.htmlRecommendationsfromLivestockCommitteeoftheUSNationalOrganicStandardsBoard,fromretrievedAugust11,2007,fromhttp://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/CommitteeRecommendations/March_07_Meeting/Livestock/AquacultureRec.pdfRedfishRanchFarms,retrievedAugust1,2007fromwww.redfishranch.com


RushingWatersTroutFarm,retrievedAugust4,2007fromhttp://www.rushingwaters.net/SargoSystems,retrievedAugust11,2007fromhttp://www.sargo.net/USDA‐NASS1998CensusofAquaculture,retrievedAugust12,2007fromhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htmUNI‐Aqua,retrievedAugust1,2007fromwww.uni‐aqua.comUniversityofMarylandBiotechnologyInstitute,CenterofMarineBiotechnology,retrievedJuly31,2007fromwww.umbi.umd.edu.USDA‐NASS(1998).CensusofAquaculture1998.retrievedAugust12,2007fromhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm