Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Modeling sea cage outputs for data-scarce areas: application to red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) aquaculture in Mayotte, Indian Ocean

  • Published:
Aquaculture International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robust and accurate prediction of fish farm waste is a first and crucial step in managing the cause–effect chain that leads to local environmental impacts of aquaculture. Since aquatic production is diversifying with new fish species and extending to new areas for which data can be scarce, it is important to develop parsimonious approaches with fewer data requirements and less scientific complexity. We developed the Farm productIon and Nutrient emiSsions (FINS) model, which simulates fish farm operation and estimates fish biomass, feed inputs, and waste emissions from sea cages using simple modeling approaches and a variety of data sources. We applied FINS to red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) culture in Mayotte by collecting relevant input data (growth, digestibility) from experimental trials. Three explorative farming scenarios—small, medium, and large—were defined from field survey data to examine and compare emissions of a range of potential commercial culture conditions and production scales (23, 299, and 2079 t year−1, respectively). Comparison of the three scenarios showed that waste emissions per ton of fish harvested during routine operations, and thus environmental impacts, were higher for longer culture cycles (medium farm) because of lower feed conversion efficiency. The FINS model is a simple alternative tool to assess and compare environmental impacts of different farming systems and practices for new aquaculture species and regions. It provides important drivers to assess local environmental impacts of fish farms and can therefore facilitate the process of licensing new farming systems for decision-makers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angel D, Edelist D (2013) Sustainable development of marine aquaculture off-the-coast and offshore—a review of environmental and ecosystem issues and future needs in tropical zones. In: Lovatelli A, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Soto D (eds) Expanding mariculture farther offshore: tec. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 24, Rome, pp 173–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Austreng E, Storebakken T, Thomassen MS, Refstie S, Thomassen Y (2000) Evaluation of selected trivalent metal oxides as inert markers used to estimate apparent digestibility in salmonids. Aquaculture 188:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(00)00336-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2005.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwman AF, Beusen AHW, Overbeek CC, Bureau DP, Pawlowski M, Glibert PM (2013) Hindcasts and future projections of global inland and coastal nitrogen and phosphorus loads due to finfish aquaculture. Rev Fish Sci 21:112–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2013.790340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brigolin D (2007) Development of integrated numerical models for the sustainable management of marine aquaculture. Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Venice

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigolin D, Pastres R, Tomassetti P, Porrello S (2010) Modelling the biomass yield and the impact of seabream mariculture in the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas (Italy). Aquac Int 18:149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-008-9232-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau DP, Gunther SJ, Cho CY (2003) Chemical composition and preliminary theoretical estimates of waste outputs of rainbow trout reared in commercial cage culture operations in Ontario. N Am J Aquac 65:33–38. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8454(2003)065<0033:CCAPTE>2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byron CJ, Costa-pierce BA (2013) Carrying capacity tools for use in the implementation of an ecosystems approach to aquaculture. In: Ross LG, Telfer TC, Falconer L, et al (eds) Site selection and carrying capacity for inland and coastal aquaculture. FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Expert Workshop, 6–8 December 2010. Stirling, UK. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 21, Rome, pp 87–101

  • Cahill MM (1990) Bacterial flora of fishes: a review. Microb Ecol 19:21–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02015051

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain GW, Miget RJ, Haby MG (1990) Red drum aquaculture. In: Symposium on the culture of red drum and other warm water fishes. p 240

  • Cho CY, Bureau DP (1997) Reduction of waste output from salmonid aquaculture through feeds and feeding. Prog Fish Cult 59:155–160. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8640(1997)059<0155:ROWOFS>2.3.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho C, Bureau D (1998) Development of bioenergetic models and the fish-PrFEQ software to estimate production, feeding ration and waste output in aquaculture. Aquat Living Resour 11:199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0990-7440(98)89002-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho CY, Kaushik SJ (1990) Nutritional energetics in fish: energy and protein utilization in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). In: World reviews in nutrition and dietetics. Karger Publishers, pp 132–172

  • Chowdhury MAK, Siddiqui S, Hua K, Bureau DP (2013) Bioenergetics-based factorial model to determine feed requirement and waste output of Tilapia produced under commercial conditions. Aquaculture 410–411:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2013.06.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conseil Départemental de Mayotte (2016) Plan strategique du developpement durable de l’aquaculture a mayotte (PSDDAM) 2014–2020. Mamoudzou

  • Corner RA, Aguilar-Manjarrez J (2017) Tools and models for aquaculture zoning, site selection and area management. In: Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Soto D, Brummett R (eds) Aquaculture zoning, site selection and area management under the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Rome, FAO, and World Bank Group, Washington, DC. 395 pp

  • Cromey CJ, Nickell TD, Black KD (2002) DEPOMOD—modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture 214:211–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00368-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerzbacher JF, Green AW, Matlock GC, Osburn HR (1988) A temperature compensated Von Bertalanffy growth model for tagged red drum and black drum in Texas bays. Fish Res 6:135–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-7836(88)90033-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas A, France J, Bureau D (2010) Modelling growth and body composition in fish nutrition: where have we been and where are we going? Aquac Res 41:161–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02323.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ervik A, Hansen’ PK, Aure J et al (1997) Regulating the local environmental impact of intensive marine fish farming I. The concept of the MOM system (Modelling-Ongrowing fish farms-Monitoring). Aquaculture 158:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falguière J-C (2011) L’ombrine ocellée, Sciaenops ocellatus: biologie, pêche, aquaculture et marché, Quae. Savoir faire

  • FAO (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018—meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome

  • Fernandes TF, Eleftheriou A, Ackefors H et al (2001) The scientific principles underlying the monitoring of the environmental impacts of aquaculture. J Appl Ichthyol 17:181–193. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0426.2001.00315.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira JG, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Bacher C, et al (2012a) Progressing aquaculture through virtual technology and decision-support tools for novel management. In: Subasinghe RP, Arthur JR, Bartley DM, et al (eds) Global Conference on Aquaculture 2010, Phuket, Thailand. 22–25 September 2010. FAO, Rome and NACA, Bangkok, pp 643–704

  • Ferreira JG, Saurel C, Ferreira JM (2012b) Cultivation of gilthead bream in monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Analysis of production and environmental effects by means of the FARM model. Aquaculture 358–359:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.06.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gan Y, Duan Q, Gong W, Tong C, Sun Y, Chu W, Ye A, Miao C, di Z (2014) A comprehensive evaluation of various sensitivity analysis methods: a case study with a hydrological model. Environ Model Softw 51:269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2013.09.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentry RR, Lester SE, Kappel CV, White C, Bell TW, Stevens J, Gaines SD (2017) Offshore aquaculture: spatial planning principles for sustainable development. Ecol Evol 7:733–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey B, Soto D, Carolsfeld J, et al (2017) Planning for aquaculture diversification: the importance of climate change and other drivers. In: FAO Technical Workshop, 23–25 June 2016, FAO Rome. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 47, Rome, p 166

  • Heijungs R, Sleeswijk AW (1999) Letters to the editor: comment and reply comment the structure of impact assessment: mutually independent dimensions as a function of modifiers. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:2–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillestad M, Åsgård T, Berge GM (1999) Determination of digestibility of commercial salmon feeds. Aquaculture 179:81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(99)00154-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills A, Spurway J, Brown S, Cromey C (2005) Regulation and monitoring of marine cage fish farming in Scotland—annex H—methods for modelling in-feed anti-parasitics and benthic effects

  • Jackson D, Drumm A, McEvoy S, Jensen Ø, Mendiola D, Gabiña G, Borg JA, Papageorgiou N, Karakassis Y, Black KD (2015) A pan-European valuation of the extent, causes and cost of escape events from sea cage fish farming. Aquaculture 436:21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2014.10.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffs AG (2013) A review on the technical constraints, opportunities and needs to ensure the development of the mariculture sector worldwide—tropical zone. In: Lovatelli A, Aguilar-Manjarrez J & Soto D (eds) Expanding mariculture farther offshore: technical, environm. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 24. Rome, FAO, pp 101–133

  • Jusup M, Klanjšček J, Petricioli D, Legović T (2009) Predicting aquaculture-derived benthic organic enrichment: model validation. Ecol Model 220:2407–2414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.06.033

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Katsanevakis S (2006) Modelling fish growth: model selection, multi-model inference and model selection uncertainty. Fish Res 81:229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FISHRES.2006.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM (1986) Energy budgets can explain body size relations. J Theor Biol 121:269–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(86)80107-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooijman SALM (2009) Dynamic Energy Budget Theory for Metabolic Organisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805400

  • Kupka Hansen P, Ervik A, Schaanning M et al (2001) Regulating the local environmental impact of intensive, marine fish farming II. The monitoring programme of the MOM system (Modelling–Ongrowing fish farms–Monitoring). Aquaculture 194:75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazard J, Baruthio A, Mathé S, Rey-Valette H, Chia E, Clément O, Aubin J, Morissens P, Mikolasek O, Legendre M, Levang P, Blancheton JP, René F (2010) Aquaculture system diversity and sustainable development: fish farms and their representation. Aquat Living Resour EDP Sci 23:187–198. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2010018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazo JP, Holt JG, Fauvel C et al (2010) Drum-fish or croakers (family: Sciaenidae). In: Le François N, Jobling M, Carter C, Blier P (eds) Finfish aquaculture diversification, 1st edn. CABI, Wallingford, pp 398–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung KMY, Chu JCW, Wu RSS (1999) Nitrogen budgets for the areolated grouper Epinephelus areolatus cultured under laboratory conditions and in open-sea cages. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 186:271–281. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps186271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mateus M, Franz G (2015) Sensitivity analysis in a complex marine ecological model. Water 7:2060–2081. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7052060

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard LA, Loosli JK (1969) Animal nutrition. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesplé F, Troussellier M, Casellas C, Legendre P (1996) Evaluation of simple statistical criteria to qualify a simulation. Ecol Model 88:9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(95)00033-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy MD, Taylor RG (1990) Reproduction, growth, and mortality of red drum Sciaenops ocellatus in Florida waters. Fish Bull 88:531–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Neill H (1990) Environmental requirements of red drum. In: Chamberlain G, Miget R, Haby M (eds) Red drum aquaculture. Texas A & M University Sea Grant, Galveston, pp 105–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Neill WH, Scott Brandes T, Burke BJ et al (2004) Ecophys.Fish: a simulation model of fish growth in time-varying environmental regimes. Rev Fish Sci 12:233–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641260490479818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paquotte P (1998) Red-drum (Sciaenops ocellata) farming in Martinique: a new prospect for Caribbean marine aquaculture? In: IIFET Conference. Tromso, pp 1–7

  • Pauly D (1979) Gill size and temperature as governing factors in fish growth: a generalization of von Bertalanffy’s growth formula. Kiel, Germany

  • Pilati A, Vanni MJ (2007) Ontogeny, diet shifts, and nutrient stoichiometry in fish. Oikos 116:1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15970.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porch C, Wilson C, Nieland D (2002) A new growth model for red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) that accommodates seasonal and ontogenetic changes in growth rates. Fish Bull 100:149–152

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  • Reid GK, Liutkus M, Robinson SMC, Chopin TR, Blair T, Lander T, Mullen J, Page F, Moccia RD (2009) A review of the biophysical properties of salmonid faeces: implications for aquaculture waste dispersal models and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquac Res 40:257–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.02065.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross JL, Stevens TM, Vaughan DS (1995) Age, growth, mortality, and reproductive biology of red drums in North Carolina waters. Trans Am Fish Soc 124:37–54. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1995)124<0037:AGMARB>2.3.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandifer PA, Hopkins JS, Stokes AD, Smiley RD (1993) Experimental pond grow-out of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in South Carolina. Aquaculture 118:217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(93)90458-B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto D, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Brugère C et al (2008) Applying an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture: principles, scales and some management measures. In: Soto D, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Hishamunda N (eds) Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture. FAO/Universitat de les Illes Balears Expert Workshop. 7–11 May 2007, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings, Rome, pp 15–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa T, Domingos T, Poggiale J-C, Kooijman SALM (2010) Dynamic energy budget theory restores coherence in biology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 365:3413–3428. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigebrandt A, Aure J, Ervik A, Hansen PK (2004) Regulating the local environmental impact of intensive marine fish farming. Aquaculture 234:239–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.11.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strain PM, Hargrave BT (2005) Salmon aquaculture, nutrient fluxes and ecosystem processes in southwestern New Brunswick. In Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Aquaculture, Handbook Environmental Chemistry; Hargrave, B. T., Ed.; Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: New York, 2005; p 29

  • Sun M, Hassan SG, Li D (2016) Models for estimating feed intake in aquaculture: a review. Comput Electron Agric 127:425–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.06.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantikitti C, Sangpong W, Chiavareesajja S (2005) Effects of defatted soybean protein levels on growth performance and nitrogen and phosphorus excretion in Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer). Aquaculture 248:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2005.04.027

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer J (2006) An introduction to dynamic energy budget (DEB) models with special emphasis on parameter estimation. J Sea Res 56:85–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2006.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L (1957) Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Q Rev Biol 32:217–231. https://doi.org/10.1086/401873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Olsen L, Reitan K, Olsen Y (2012) Discharge of nutrient wastes from salmon farms: environmental effects, and potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquac Environ Interact 2:267–283. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Lin X, Lin Q, Yang Y, Wang Y (2007) Nitrogen, phosphorus, and energy waste outputs of four marine cage-cultured fish fed with trash fish. Aquaculture 263:130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUACULTURE.2006.10.020

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken as a part of a Ph.D. thesis in the CAPAMAYOTTE project, Phase 2 (2015–2018), supported by the Natural Marine Park of Mayotte and the Mayotte County Council. The authors gratefully acknowledge the members of UM Ifremer Martinique for helping collect experimental data. We also thank Paul Giannasi for his involvement in the survey work and all the fish farmers who participated in this study. The authors thank Dr. E. Roque d’Orbcastel and Dr. T. Laugier for reading and editing the manuscript prior to submission and Dr. M.S. Corson for careful revision of the English.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Killian Chary.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

Sizes of feed pellets simulated in three red drum farm scenarios (small, medium, and large), expressed as percentages of total annual feed inputs (PPTX 50 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1 Description of the digestibility trial with red drum

The commercial diet tested in this study was composed mainly of soybean, fish meal, wheat, and fish oil and contained 48% protein and 13% lipids. The pellets were first coated with yttrium oxide (yttrium oxide and cod oil at 1% of feed weight each) as an inert tracer to determine apparent digestibility coefficients. The animals were 124-day-old (84 g mean body weight, BW) laboratory farmed red drum, originating from captive broodstock. On day 42 (D42), fish (mean BW 83–85 g) were individually weighed and randomly divided into 3 treatment groups of 30 fish, each group placed in a tank to become acclimated to the experimental environment. Beginning on D20, fish (mean BW 145–156 g) were fed with NUTRImarine 4.5 pellets. On D0, initial individual fish weighed 206–216 g (mean 211 g), and each group was adjusted to 26 individuals. Each group was reared in a 1-m3 indoor tank supplied with 1 m3 h−1 of filtered seawater in a flow-through system. Water salinity was 37.0. PSU, and oxygen concentration always exceeded 80% saturation. Temperature was 27.5 ± 0.5 °C with artificial lighting of 160 lx at the water surface (12 h:12 h L:D cycle, lights on at 6:00 a.m.).

Feed was manually delivered once a day at 8:30 a.m. to each group until satiation. Feed intake of each group was calculated daily as a percentage of each group’s biomass. A sediment trap (150 l each) located at the outlet of each tank was checked for uneaten pellets, and feed loss was considered nil during the experiment.

Feces were collected twice a day (4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.) in the sediment trap via a siphon system for 9 days (D73–D75, D78–D82, and D85) and frozen. Fish scales were removed from samples, and then feces were concentrated by centrifugation and freeze-dried before analysis.

At D0, D21, D42, D63, and D85 (last day of the trial), feeding was stopped for 24 h, and then fish were individually weighed. A representative sample of whole fish (n = 6) was withdrawn from each treatment group at D0 (initial) and D91 (final) and kept frozen (− 20 °C) until analysis of body composition. Whole fish bodies were pooled, ground, and freeze-dried before chemical analysis.

Red drum whole-body samples, feed pellets, and feces were analyzed following standard procedures: dry matter after drying at 105 °C for 24 h, protein (N × 6.25) by the Kjeldahl method after acid hydrolysis, lipids after extraction with petroleum ether by the Soxhlet method, sugar by the Luff–Schoorl method, starch by the Ewers polarimetric method, fiber from fraction analysis by the Van Soest method, and ash by ignition. Yttrium contents were measured in feed and fecal samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry using a nitrous oxide–acetylene flame, after acid digestion (2% nitric acid and 2 g l−1 KCl).

Appendix 2

Table 4 Daily feeding rate (DFR) and pellet diameter used to calculate feed inputs for red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) culture in a warm water environment (25–31 °C) in the Farm productIon and Nutrient emiSsions (FINS) model and obtained from surveys of farms feeding using commercial Nutrima® feed (2.2, 3.2, 4.5, 6.0, and 9.0 mm)
Table 5 Proximate compositions of commercial feed (Ni feed) by pellet diameter and red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) (Ni fish) used in the Farm productIon and Nutrient emiSsions (FINS) model. Raw values were obtained by analysis and then recalculated for 100% of dry matter assuming that total dry weight (DW) was the sum of protein, lipid, sugar, starch, fiber, and ash fractions
Table 6 Values of key parameters used in the Farm productIon and Nutrient emiSsions (FINS) model for three scenarios of red drum farming: small, medium, and large

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chary, K., Fiandrino, A., Covès, D. et al. Modeling sea cage outputs for data-scarce areas: application to red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) aquaculture in Mayotte, Indian Ocean. Aquacult Int 27, 625–646 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-019-00351-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-019-00351-z

Keywords

Navigation