IDREEM: IMTA and aquaculture

IDREEM: IMTA and aquaculture
CULTURE PRACTICE VARIATIONS WITHIN
EUROPEAN CULTURED FISH SPECIES AND
EFFECTS ON MODELLING
R.A. Corner, D. Attwood, Roberto Cò, J. Johansen, D. Israel, C. Smith,
A Loukaidis and J.G. Ferreira.
EAS2014 San Sebastian
Outline
•
•
•
•
Context for modelling need in monoculture and IMTA.
Fish production in context of IMTA
Culture Practice data collection.
FARM model and outcomes
Context
• Aquaculture production in Europe has generally stagnated and indeed fallen
relative to growth in other regions.
• “Western style IMTA” could be a means to increase products and production.
• Dynamic models provide a screening mechanism to evaluate growth of species and
impacts from culture in fed fish species through monoculture (e.g. MOM,
Stigebrandt et al 2004) and monoculture & IMTA (e.g. FARM, Ferreira et al, 2012).
• Modelling may be the only approach to evaluate whether IMTA can increase
production “measure” environmental impacts of IMTA.
• But how does the differing production approaches within species affect model
outcomes?
Euro-aquaculture production needs to increase and models can support
this growth.
EAS2014 San Sebastian
Context
• Aquaculture production in Europe has generally stagnated and indeed fallen
relative to growth in other regions.
• “Western style IMTA” could be a means to increase products and production.
• Dynamic models provide a screening mechanism to evaluate growth of species and
impacts from culture in fed fish species through monoculture (e.g. MOM,
Stigebrandt et al 2004) and monoculture & IMTA (e.g. FARM, Ferreira et al, 2012).
• Modelling may be the only approach to evaluate whether IMTA can increase
production “measure” environmental impacts of IMTA.
• But how does the differing production approaches within species affect model
outcomes?
Euro-aquaculture production needs to increase and models can support
this growth.
IMTA – where finfish fits in...
Model for growth and
environmental effects:
FARM model
Finfish production is at the heart of IMTA.
Bioenergetic growth model components
Feeding processes
Wastes
Energy budget
Consumption
Temperature effects
Growth is based on feed input converted to energy, and bioenergetic
processes, contribution to and removal from environmental resources.
FARM model
FARM model uses underlying dynamic bioenergetic model, runs with site
specific parameterisation, as single species or as IMTA systems.
Approach to culture practice data
• A simple one! – ask fish farmers to describe
their production process!
• Using a standardized set of tables.
• Describing:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Culture infrastructure and layout
Culture period
Stocking practices and mortality
Feed use, type, composition, energy content
Culture density
Environmental conditions
FARM model – driver data
Units
Ireland
Norway
Central
Med.
South Med.
South East
Med.
Length of domain
m
255
280
192
409
400
Width of domain
m
53
80
72
77
50
5 cages
13 cages
12 cages
33 cages
17 cages
ind m-2
1304
20
Salmon
60
8385
20
Salmon
60
2724
10
Sea bream
625
9900
12
Sea bream
400
3740
7.5
Sea bream
136
Mortality
%
25
5
30
20
20
Seed weight
Harvest weight
Smolt first seeding day
Cultivation period
g
g
days
85
4000
330
540 - 600
60 or 120
5000
150
486 – 561
4
350 - 400
90
540 - 600
2.5
350 – 500
90
390 - 450
30
400
90
360 – 480
Peak spring current speed
ms-1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Peak neap current speed
ms-1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Parameter
Cages (distributed in FARM
sections)
Cage unit area
Net depth
Species
Stocking density
m2
m
FARM model – Environmental data
Julian day Temperature Salinity Chlorophyll a
31
59
90
120
151
181
212
243
273
304
334
365
(oC)
(-)
(ug L-1)
15
14
14
15
18
22
25
27
25
22
19
16
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.55
0.70
0.55
0.40
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.30
POM
TPM
(mg L-1) (mg L-1)
4
5
7
2
6
8
4
5
7
2
6
8
Central Mediterranean in this example.
15
12
16
20
25
15
15
12
16
20
25
15
Dissolved oxygen
DIN
(mg L-1)
(umol L-1)
10.08
10.31
10.31
10.08
9.47
8.74
8.26
7.97
8.26
8.74
9.28
9.87
10
9
4
1
7
8
10
9
4
1
7
8
Model outputs
No. of
Sections
Feed
Seed
TPP
FCR
Ind.
weight
Length
(n)
(ton)
(ton)
(ton)
(-)
(g FW)
(cm)
Ireland
1
2485.3
37.5
998
2.49
4524.30
73.56
Norway
2
7257.2
93.4
3203
2.27
4441.84
73.20
Central Med.
2
956
8.2
288
3.23
415.2
30.68
East Med.
3
3554.1
32.9
962
3.69
393.65
30.18
South East Med.
1
3377.2
280.0
835
4.04
353.54
29.19
Area
Example of type of data generated for management purposes.
FARM vs Production Comparisons
Area
Species
Declared
prod. (T)
Model
Prod. (T)
Diff (%)
Declared FCR
Model FCR
Ireland
Salmon
743
998
+25.6
1.4 - 1.6
2.49
Norway
Salmon
2940
3203
+8.2
1.07
2.27
Central Med.
Sea bream
240
308
+22.1
2.40
3.23
Eastern Med
Sea bream
1095
962
-13.8
1.8 - 2.1
3.69
South East Med. Sea bream
843
835
-1
2.30
4.04
Differences are variable and obvious, but need to go back and question
culture practice information and model use of these components.
Synthesis
• Modelling provides the means to evaluate monoculture and IMTA in
terms of growth and interacting effects.
• Modelling finfish growth, is a central focal point, in the context of IMTA.
• The FARM model requires a relatively simple set of driver data.
Underlying that is the state-of-the-art bioenergetic modelling approach.
• In use for screening, the FARM model can provide a good indication of
production but requires this detailed understanding of culture practices
to more fully represent what is actually happening with farms.
Thank you for listening 
EAS2014 San Sebastian