Review of Recirculation Aquaculture System Technologies and Their Commercial Application PDF

Review of Recirculation Aquaculture System
Technologies and their Commercial Application
Prepared for Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Final Report March 2014
Stirling Aquaculture
Institute of Aquaculture
University of Stirling
Stirling FK9 4LA
Tel: +44 (0)1786 466575
Fax: +44 (0)1786 462133
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.stirlingaqua.com
In Association with RAS Aquaculture Research Ltd.

RAS Technologies and their commercial application – final report Stirling Aquaculture Page i
Report authors: Francis Murray, John Bostock (University of Stirling) and David Fletcher (RAS Aquaculture
Research Ltd.)
Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the knowledge and opinions of the report authors at the time of
writing. Nothing in the report should be construed to be the official opinion of the University of Stirling or Highlands and
Islands Enterprise. The report is intended to be a general review of recirculated aquaculture systems technologies and
their potential impact on the Scottish aquaculture sector. No part of the report should be taken as advice either for or
against investment in any aspect of the sector. In this case, independent expert advice that examines specific proposals
on their own merits is strongly recommended. The report authors, the University of Stirling, RAS Aquaculture Research
Ltd. and Highlands and Islands Enterprise accept no liability for any use that is made of the information in this report.
Whilst due care has been taken in the collation, selection and presentation of information in the report, no warranty is
given as to its completeness, accuracy or future validity.
Copyright: The copyright holder for this report is Highlands and Islands Enterprise other than for
photographs or diagrams where copyright may be held by third parties. No use or reproduction for
commercial purposes are allowed.
RAS Technologies and their commercial application – final report Stirling Aquaculture Page ii
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Approach .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Historic development of RAS technologies .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Origins ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Commercial RAS performance in the UK ............................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Other regional commercial RAS Examples ........................................................................................................... 10
3 RAS technology and range of application ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Rationale for RAS ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 RAS Advantages ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2 Challenges of RAS technology ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 RAS typology and design considerations ................................................................................................................ 16
3.3 Current examples ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.4 Biosecurity and disease issues in RAS ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.4.1 General issues and approaches to biosecurity .......................................................................................... 22
3.4.2 Parasites in RAS ................................................................................................................................................. 24
3.4.3 Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in RAS ......................................................................................................... 24
3.4.4 Microbial pathogens .......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.4.5 Use of Chemical Therapeutants in RAS ...................................................................................................... 25
3.4.6 Alternative Treatments.................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.7 Non-chemical Control of Disease ................................................................................................................ 27
3.5 Developing technologies ............................................................................................................................................. 28
3.5.1 Diet density manipulation ............................................................................................................................... 28
3.5.2 Tank self-cleaning technology ........................................................................................................................ 28
3.5.3 Nitrate denitrification in RAS......................................................................................................................... 28
3.5.4 Annamox systems ............................................................................................................................................. 30
3.5.5 Automated in-line water quality monitoring .............................................................................................. 31
3.5.6 Tainting substances: Geosmins (GSM) and 2-methylisorboneol (MIB) contamination of
aquaculture water ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
3.5.7 Efficient control of dissolved gases ............................................................................................................... 33
3.5.8 Use of GMOs ..................................................................................................................................................... 33
4 Prospects for salmon farming in RAS operations ........................................................................................................ 35
4.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Current activity ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
4.3 Intermediate strategies ............................................................................................................................................... 37
4.4 Technical issues for salmon production in RAS ................................................................................................... 40
4.5 Economic appraisals and prospects ......................................................................................................................... 41
5 Potential for commercial RAS in HIE area .................................................................................................................... 44
5.1 Candidate species and technologies ........................................................................................................................ 44
5.2 Competitive environment .......................................................................................................................................... 46
5.3 Economic appraisal ....................................................................................................................................................... 46
5.3.1 Economics of RAS Production of Atlantic Salmon ................................................................................... 46
5.3.2 Economics of RAS production of other species ....................................................................................... 50
6 Implications for HIE area if RAS develop elsewhere .................................................................................................. 54
6.1 Potential scenarios ....................................................................................................................................................... 54
6.2 Market factors ............................................................................................................................................................... 54
RAS Technologies and their commercial application – final report Stirling Aquaculture Page iii
6.3 Economic impacts ......................................................................................................................................................... 57
7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 61
7.1 Summary of findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 61
7.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 63
References ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Annex 1: Example RAS technology suppliers
RAS Technologies and their commercial application – final report Stirling Aquaculture Page iv
Review of Recirculation Aquaculture System
Technologies and their Commercial Application
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) are designed to minimise water consumption, control culture
conditions and allow waste streams to be fully managed. They can also provide some degree of biosecurity
through measures to isolate the stock from the external environment. RAS technology has steadily developed
over the past 30 years and is widely used for broodstock management, in hatcheries and increasingly for
salmon smolt production. By comparison, the progress of RAS for grow-out to market size products has been
more restricted and there is a substantial track record of company failures both in the UK, Europe and
internationally. The reasons for this are varied, but include challenges of economic viability and operating
systems at commercial scales.
In spite of this history, several technology companies present a hard sales pitch and claim to have successfully
delivered numerous commercial RAS farms targeting a range of species, when in reality the farms may have
ceased to exist or production levels are quite insignificant (<100 tonne pa). Much of the RAS technology
available on the market and now promoted for marine fish production is based on early systems designed for
freshwater species including those that thrive happily in water quality that can be lethal to more sensitive
marine species. Some failed commercial RAS were based on experimental research projects producing
between 5-20 tonnes pa and then scaled up for commercial production by engineers lacking any credible
experience of industrial aquaculture. Without appropriate input, RAS technology providers may not appreciate
the potential risk of pathogen ingress to RAS farms and fail to include adequate disease control technology in
their RAS design. Equally, experienced aquaculturists do not necessarily have the experience for dealing with
industrial scale flows of farm water that requires purification to the high standard required for efficient re-use.
Even so, investment is continuing and RAS farms for a variety of species and scales are operating. Most
notably there is increasing activity and commercial investment targeted at producing market size salmon in
RAS. Key current examples are in the USA, Canada, China, UAE, Denmark and potentially Scotland.
This review considers the current status of RAS technology and its commercial application with particular
reference to its potential impact on Scottish aquaculture. With increased reliability and efficiency new
opportunities are open to the Scottish industry to both enhance salmon production and diversify to other
species. On the other hand, the greater flexibility in locating RAS farms could present a threat to some salmon
production in Scotland where production can move closer to key centres of consumption – either in the UK
or abroad. After all, one of the environmental advantages of RAS is to enable production in areas unsuited to
other forms of aquaculture and where promotion of sustainability is a key element. Consequently, farming
close to markets, thereby reducing food miles, may have benefits for both the retailer and consumer.
However, what proportion of caged salmon production might eventually be substituted by land based RAS is
debateable. This may depend on the economic advantage to some current salmon export markets farming
salmon in their own country using RAS technology developed in Europe or North America.
This report recommends a cautious but positive approach towards the adoption of RAS technology, based on
clear appraisal of technical and economic criteria. The UK cage salmon sector for instance might increase its
focus on optimising the use of RAS technology for smolt production and implementing head-starting methods
to optimise production processes (i.e. producing intermediate-sized salmon for cage-fattening) and to alleviate
pressure on sensitive coastal habitats where user conflicts are identified as significant.
RAS Technologies and their commercial application – final report Stirling Aquaculture Page v
The benefits of RAS, as an alternative to cage production of salmon, needs to be assessed based on business
economics while also taking into account the social and broad environmental (rather than selective) impact of
both production methods. If the UK is to increase its sustainable seafood supplies it might consider utilising
RAS technology to substitute some of the overseas imports rather than challenging another UK production
method to produce the same species. If cage and RAS production technologies try to out-compete each other
on sustainability criteria then imported seafood, with unknown environmental credentials, will likely be the
winner.
Drawing on the lessons from previous ventures, RAS businesses should not be overly dependent on expected
price premiums since these may only be secured for a small fraction of the production. This premium market
might weaken as increased RAS production develops close to the main markets within the UK or abroad.
Considering energy use is a major factor in RAS, investors promoting RAS technology for commodity species
like salmon might sensibly focus on securing a significant contribution to their energy supplies from sustainable
sources to prove their environmental credentials. Scotland might be strategically better placed than other
areas to address this objective.
RAS farms are able to better manage effluent waste and this is a key argument in the favour of this production
technology. Irrespective of whether the farm is marine or freshwater the waste has a real economic value and
an increasing range of recycling options is available. However, RAS investors rarely present properly
researched plans and investment for utilisation of farm waste which quickly becomes a management problem
as production expands.
While RAS technology has advanced significantly in recent years there remain several water quality treatment
and effluent management issues which remain incompletely understood. These particularly refer to RAS farms
using >90% water recirculation (< 10% replacement per day) which is really the minimal level required for
efficient operation. Equally, the technology available for monitoring the number and range of RAS water quality
parameters in real time requires significant improvement
RAS technology is developing and new water treatment processes are being tested, particularly with respect
to dissolved nitrogen, carbon dioxide and organic taint compounds. Properly designed and managed RAS are
increasingly commercially viable for high unit value species or life stages. The economic bar to the use of RAS
will gradually be lowered as technology improves and energy and other efficiencies are realised. This is likely to
include some scale economies both in capital and operating costs, although for the present, system design and
location appear to be more important.
The use of RAS technology is already increasing in the Scottish salmon industry and further investment in this
area will almost certainly be essential for the successful future of the industry. There is a long-term threat to
the industry from RAS technology being adopted closer to major markets, but this should be seen as an
incentive to continue to innovate for cost competitiveness and diversification using the natural resources
available in Scotland.
RAS Technologies and their commercial application – final report Stirling Aquaculture Page vi
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) are intensive, usually indoor tank-based systems that achieve high
rates of water re-use by mechanical, biological chemical filtration and other treatment steps. Precise
environmental control means aquatic species can be cultured out with their normal climatic range, allowing
operators to prioritise production goals linked to market, regulatory or resource availability criteria. For
example RAS technology can be useful where ideal sites are unavailable e.g. land or water space is limiting,
where water is in short supply or of poor quality, if temperatures are outside the optimum species range or if
the species is exotic. It can also be employed when environmental regulation demands greater control of
effluent streams and biosecurity (exclusion of pathogens and/or retention of germplasm) or where low-cost
forms of energy are available. The ability to maintain optimal and constant water quality conditions can also
bring animal welfare gains. Market benefits include increased ability to match seasonal supply and demand, to
co-locate production with consumer/processing centres and linked to this improved traceability and consumer
trust.
RAS culture is also compatible with many contemporary goals for sustainable aquaculture including the EU
strategy for sustainable aquaculture 20091. Many environmental groups support RAS over open-production
systems (e.g. marine or freshwater cage production) for the same reasons. Other proponents include
providers of equipment and technical services including universities with research and extension programs
focusing on RAS. Others attribute biosecurity and potential food-safety benefits to RAS2.
However investors in commercial RAS still face many challenges. High initial investment and operational costs
make operations highly sensitive to market price and input costs (especially for feed and energy). As table-fish
tend to have lower unit value compared to juvenile life-stages (e.g. smolts) or products such as sturgeon
caviar, their profitable production requires much higher operational carrying capacities. Despite ongoing
technological improvement, at these production levels challenges linked to filtration inefficiencies and
associated chronic sub-lethal effects of metabolic wastes (NH4, NO2 and CO2) remain key design challenges.
Consequently table-fish production in RAS still represents a high risk investment evidenced by their poor long-
term track record for lenders.
RAS systems are commonly characterised in terms of daily water replacement ratio (% system volume
replaced by fresh water over every 24 hours) or recycle ratios (% total effluent water flow treated and
returned for reuse per cycle). For a fixed water supply, increasing recycle ratios above 0% (open-flow)
corresponds with an exponential increase in production capacity with greatest gains achieved at rates above
90%. By convention ‘intensive’ or ‘fully-recirculating’ RAS are typically defined as systems with replacement
ratios of less than 10% per day. Conversely systems with higher replacement rates can be characterised as
‘partial-replacement’ systems. Partial replacement is commonly used to intensify rainbow trout production in
raceways and tanks. Such systems require limited, often modular water-treatment installations and therefore
much lower levels of capital investment compared to intensive-RAS. Management goals are also likely to differ;
partial-replacement may be most appropriate where water availability or discharge consents are limiting
whereas intensive-RAS offer greater scope for heat retention for accelerated growth, biosecurity and
locational freedom. For these reasons intensive RAS are also more likely to be established as fully contained
‘indoor systems’. As experience has demonstrated, pumping costs are generally likely to be prohibitive for
1
"Building a sustainable future for aquaculture, A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture"
2
SUSTAINAQ http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/food_quality/projects/181_en.html
RAS Technologies and their commercial application – final report Stirling Aquaculture Page 1
partially recirculating, pump-ashore salmon systems, the scope of this report is limited to intensive fully-
recirculating RAS options (whilst observing that increasing environmental regulatory pressure is also driving
progressive intensification of existing flow-through systems).
1.2 Objectives
The content of the study is set out in the terms of reference as follows:
• Historic development of RAS technologies

• Description of current range and variety of RAS operations
• Appraisal of short to medium term prospects of commercial viability of RAS operations for
production of Atlantic salmon for the table
• Appraisal of short to medium term prospects for commercially viable operation of RAS in the HIE
area producing one or more species (fin fish, shellfish, algae etc.)
• Appraisal of short to medium term implications for the HIE area in scenarios where commercially
viable RAS operations are established in the UK and/or overseas.
1.3 Approach
The report was based on

- A review of secondary literature
- telephone survey of key informants associated with the salmon and RAS sectors (Table 1)
- Case study research based on documentation and interviews with those directly involved with recent
as well as failed historic start-ups
- The authors direct experience of commercial culture of various species in RAS
Table 1: Summary of key informants by specialisation and species of interest

Specialisation Location Species No Respondents
Aquaculture RAS insurance under-writer International Salt& fresh water 1
RAS owner/operators UK & Europe Salt & fresh water 5
Aquaculture engineering company UK Salt & fresh water 2
Environmental certification UK Salmon 2
Fish genetics academic expert UK Salt & fresh water 1
Other academic and industry experts Europe Salt & fresh water 4
Total 15
2 Historic development of RAS technologies
2.1 Origins
The earliest scientific research on RAS conducted in Japan in the 1950’s focussing on biofilter design for carp
production was driven by the need to use locally-limited water resources more productively. Independently of
these efforts, European and American scientists attempted to adapt technology first developed for domestic
waste-water treatment (e.g. the sewage treatment activated sludge process, submerged and down-flow
biofilters, trickling and several mechanical filtration systems). These early efforts included work on marine
systems for fish and crustacean production. Despite a strong belief by pioneers in the commercial viability of
their work, most studies focussed exclusively on the oxidation of toxic inorganic nitrogen wastes derived from
protein metabolism to the exclusion other important excretion issues. Furthermore, most of early trials were
conducted in laboratories with very few at pilot scale. Their belief was buttressed by the successful operation
of public and home aquaria but overlooked the fact that because of the need to maintain crystal clear water,
treatment units in aquaria tend to be over-sized in relation to fish biomass; whilst extremely low stocking
levels and associated feed inputs meant that such over-engineering still made a relatively small contribution to
capital and operational costs compared to intensive RAS. Consequently changes in process dynamics
associated with scale-change were unaccounted for resulting in under-sizing of RAS treatment units in order to
minimise capital costs. As a result safety margins were far too narrow or none-existent.
Despite this partial understanding many companies sold systems that were bound to fail resulting in scepticism
amongst investors from the onset and delays in further technical improvement. Some simple but costly early
problems were relatively easy to redress whilst others have proved more intractable. Many operators knew
the volumes of their culture tanks, but not their systems, complicating basic mass-balance calculations required
for day to day operation. Sumps were also frequently mis-sized resulting in flooding or pumps running dry.
Some idea of the scale of the knowledge deficit during this early phase of development can be had by
comparing the upper operational biomass stocking densities achieved in experimental RAS (10 - 42kg/m3) and
commercial RAS (6.7 - 7.9kg/m3). By contrast, modern commercial RAS are expected to support densities of
50 to >300 kg/m3 contingent on species and limiting factors associated with design choices (e.g. aeration v
oxygenation). For reference, typical upper limits in public aquaria range from 0.16 - 0.48kg/m3, though as
indicated earlier, high stocking densities are not a management goal.
As many of the pioneering scientists had biological rather than engineering backgrounds, technical
improvements were also constrained by reporting inconsistencies and ad-hoc definitions resulting in mis-
communication between scientists, designers, construction personnel and operators. Development of a
standardised terminology, units of measurement and reporting formats in 19803 helped redress the situation,
though regional differences still persist. For example recycle ratio rather than replacement rate (Section 1.1)
remains the favoured term in the USA. As the former ‘ratio’ definition lacks a time dimension its
misapplication could result in serious under or over-estimation of treatment requirement estimates (as the
dimensioning of biological-filtration requirements and ultimately biomass limits are more directly linked to feed
input rather than stocking density, there is now also a growing tendency to specify water requirements in
relation to maximal feed input levels). Early researchers also envisaged steady-state operation i.e. whereby
rates of metabolite production and degradation would equilibrate. It was not until the mid-1980’s that cyclic
water quality phenomena well recognised in pond production (e.g. in pH, oxygen, TAN (total ammonia
3
EIFAC/ICES World Conference on Flow-through and Recirculation Systems, Stavanger, Norway 1980
and the 1981 World Aquaculture Conference, Venice, Italy.
nitrogen), NO2 (nitrate), BOD (Biochemical oxygen demand), COD (Chemical oxygen demand)) were
characterised in terms of their amplitude and frequency. Although the efficiency of many treatment processes
is concentration-dependent and therefore to some degree self-regulating, response times are highly variable
e.g. oxygen deficits improve aerator efficiency immediately whilst the lag-phase for bacterial nitrification
adaptation in response to elevated ammonia concentration is much longer. Understanding such variability as
interacting limiting production factors now plays a critical role in system design and operation.
The on-going faith of RAS researchers and engineers in narrow technical solutions to problems of commercial
viability going forward is illustrated by the strap-line: ‘for better profits tomorrow’ of Recirc Today, a short lived
1990’s industry Journal.
2.2 Commercial RAS performance in the UK
Despite considerable technical improvement, economic sustainability has remained elusive and is the greatest
challenge for long-term adoption of RAS for table fish grow-out. An objective historical assessment clearly
indicates that although the basic technology has now existed for over 60 years now, its application for
commercial table-fish production continues to exhibit a ‘stop and start’ trajectory with many ‘sunset’ ventures
collapsing after only 2-3 years of operation in sequential phases of adoption. Although new-starts, particularly
those for novel exotic species regularly make headline news in the aquaculture press, reasons for failures are
poorly documented, complicating objective assessments and recurrence of mistakes. This knowledge gap is a
consequence of sensitivity over costly failures, communication barriers associated with the fragmented nature
of the nascent sector and potential conflicts of interest between technology providers and producers e.g.
equipment providers are more likely to emphasise management problems rather than more fundamental
design or marketing constraints.
Factors contributing to a lack of profitability include vastly overestimated sales prices or growth rates, at other
times system design is fundamentally in error resulting in carrying capacities that are much lower than
originally projected. Often equipment is poorly specified or assembled rather than being inherently bad.
Unforeseen shifts in critical energy and feed input costs have also contributed to failure.
In the UK, juvenile rather than table-fish production provides the most sustained example of commercial
adoption, specifically for the production of juveniles in hatcheries and salmon smolts for cage/pond on-
growing. Smolts constitute up to 20% of table-fish whole live farm-gate price, making them a high-value
commodity; over three times the value of table-fish in weight terms. At the same-time their production in RAS
incurs a relatively small proportion of total salmon production costs. Consequently RAS have made a
considerable contribution to increased smolt yields. Sustained adoption of RAS technology elsewhere has been
predicated on farming higher-value species such as turbot, eel and sturgeon or production of value-added
products for niche markets e.g. production of live tilapia for the ethnic market in northern America.
Exotic tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) was also one of the first candidate warm-water species for commercial
scale table-fish culture in the UK. In the early 1990’s a joint venture with Courtaulds textiles used waste heat
that was a by-product of the manufacturing process to reduce culture costs, selling their stock to Tesco’s.
Other smaller-scale efforts were based on a similar integration strategy, for example using waste-heat and feed
ingredients from distillery operations. In addition to marketing difficulties these efforts eventually failed due to
over-reliance on third-party provision of these services; Courtaulds began to charge for waste heat and
maintenance schedules for the primary production processes were prioritised over aquaculture
Thereafter other than for hobby-scale efforts, interest in warm-water table-fish production receded until early
in the new Millennium when a sequence of commercial start-ups for three key species occurred; tilapia,
barramundi and sea bass (Fig. 1) which we will now consider in three case-studies. All were based on fully-
recirculating RAS located in England and Wales close to large prospective urban markets. Whereas the latter
two species were produced by just two sizeable individual joint ventures, the initial tilapia production figures
(Fig 2) include contributions from multiple small-scale start-ups. Nearly all were adopters of a franchise-
package offered by a British company called UK-tilapia based in Ely near Cambridge. This involved adopters
investing in turn-key production systems nominally capable of producing at least 100t/year designed and
installed by UK-tilapia, who also claimed to offer technical support, seed and feed provision and harvest buy-
back options. All adopters were individual small-scale investors, mostly mixed-arable and livestock farmers in
Eastern England (Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Durham) seeking diversification strategies for their businesses.
Unfortunately UK-tilapia’s principle experience lay in seafood marketing rather than RAS design and operation
(they had previously acquired a defunct RAS system with its own design problems near Ely). Consequently
designs were very basic, incorporating aerated fibreglass or concrete raceways, water and/or air heating,
commercial drum-filters and self-designed/constructed up-welling biological filters. All culture treatment units
were surface-mounted (i.e. no sumps or buried pipework) to minimise civil engineering costs but at the
expense of water-balancing ease and access for husbandry activities. There was also considerable variation in
the types and sizes of treatment units procured, and linked to this, apparently ad-hoc levels of modularisation
in different installations. Low-cost design simplicity was predicated in part on the resilience of tilapia to turbid
water quality conditions. However although capable of survival in ‘brown-water’, growth performance is
significantly compromised. For these reasons the installed systems achieved less than half their design
production capacity and most continued to fall far short of this figure even after significant remedial
investment.
Figure 1: Number of UK RAS farms for table-fish production 2002-2013 (adapted from Jeffries et al
2010)
4
Farm Numbers
-2
-4
-6
2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Closure -1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -2
Start-up 3 4 3 6 3 5 1
Year
Of a total 29 RAS farms registered for grow-out production (i.e. excluding hatchery and smolt production)
between 2000-2013, 18 (62%) were designed for tilapia production and most were UK Tilapia franchisees (Fig
1). The first wave of seven adopters (2005-2006) ceased production within 2-3 years (under-reporting in
Figure 1 is due to delays in formal reporting of closures). However in most cases movable plant was ‘recycled’
by UK Tilapia and passed on to successive waves of adopters in the region; thus the total number of adopters
over-estimates the amount of actual physical capital involved in this ‘boom’. The progressive south to north
axis of adoption along the English East coast suggests some degree of local communication and awareness of
these problems. However, wider knowledge of the failures remained remarkably contained, perhaps reflecting
the insularity of these farming communities as well as the aforementioned sensitivity regarding commercial
failure.
Farmers also adopted a range of collective and individual strategies to bring the struggling businesses to
profitability with varying degrees of success. This included investment in third-party or often self-implemented
design improvements. One farmer acquired refrigerated transport for value-added micro-marketing of his
produce and potentially that of neighbouring farms, though ultimately had to sell the bulk of his harvest to
Billingsgate market where it competed directly in the mainly ethnic market for low-cost imported tilapia.
Three of the later-adopters came up with the most enduring survival strategy forming the ‘Fish Company’ 4 to
collectively market their product at the volumes and supply-regularity required by supermarkets; successfully
contracting with Morrison’s and with M&J Seafoods who supply the restaurant sector. The total design
capacity of these farms was around 800t/yr most of this associated with one 500t farm, by far the largest of the
‘boom’. Faced with the same problems as other franchisees, the owner of this farm took the decision to
simultaneously re-design and significantly upscale the farm to produce more commercially realistic volumes for
the supermarket trade. Experienced professional management (from outside the UK) was also brought in and
steps taken to reduce production costs through energy-efficiencies through installation of solar panels and
biomass heating systems - also reinforcing a sustainable marketing message. Despite these efforts, sales-
volumes came nowhere near the anticipated levels (Fig. 2) leading to the recent closures of two of the Fish
Company farms leaving only one of the smaller units still trading at the time of this report.
Figure 2: UK RAS table-fish production 2002-2014 (adapted from Jeffries et al, 2010)
800
700
600
Live Weight (mt)
500
400
300
200
100
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Catfish Barramundi Tilapia Seabass
Note: 2011-2013 data and 2014 projections based on survey responses.
4
http://www.cookingtilapia.co.uk/http://aquaculturedirectory.co.uk/lincolnshire-home-to-sustainably-farmed-tilapia/
Parallels of this history can be observed in the demise of New Forest Barramundi which operated for just over
two years between 2006 and 2008. Located in a converted pizza factory in Lymington, Hampshire the farm
originally designed to produce 400t/yr for the UK market had a modular design intended to allow rapid
expansion to an estimated 1,200t once markets were developed. Although farmed in freshwater barramundi
(Lates calcifer) is a diadromous species also tolerant of brackish conditions. Due to its lack of bones, sweet-
buttery taste and high Omega 3 fatty acid profile it is highly popular with consumers in its native Australia.
Unlike tilapia, no alternative sources of imports were established; i.e. there were no direct substitutes. The
challenge of marketing a novel-species remained, though it shares many qualities with farmed Mediterranean
sea bass already firmly established in the UK market (barramundi is also known as Asian sea bass). Fortunately,
owners London-based Aquabella Group who raised £6.86 million in equity (87%) and debt (13%) capital 5 over
the life of the venture had considerable seafood marketing experience. They came to the market with firm
contracts through trial sales already established with Morrisons and Waitrose; Sainsbury's, France’s
Intermarche and wholesalers M&J Seafoods, Daily Fish, Macro cash & carry and Costco were subsequently
added. However, once again RAS production experience was lacking. An additional £4.58 million working
capital raised on top of the original £2.28million investment was used for the remediation of design defects and
to subsidise operational costs whilst the farm ran at significant under-capacity. Remediation included a new de-
nitrification plant, improved sludge management processes and an ozone injection system all aimed at
improving the quality of the fish –most seriously an ‘off-flavour’ taint associated with unfavourable biological
activity in the system. Aquabella also planned to shift its original focus of selling whole fish to value-added
gutted, filleted and smoked product. However, despite this considerable additional investment, it proved
difficult to recover the confidence of buyers once tainted fish had reached the market. Their troubles were
further compounded by the impact of low demand during winter months. Ultimately sales fell far short of
original projections resulting in production costs more than twice the farm-gate price and post-tax losses of
£2.64 million on revenues of £0.46 million in the second year.
Our third case-study is Anglesey Aquaculture6 located near Penmon on Anglesey, Wales, and the only marine
RAS currently producing table-fish (seabass; Dicentrarchux labrax) for the UK market. This one farm has
contributed more than three quarters of all such production in every year since 2009 (Fig 2). The farm was
developed by Selonda Aquaculture SA7, based in Greece, using water treatment technology supplied by the
specialist RAS engineering company IAT (International Aquaculture Technology) who had a proven track-
record in the design and construction of intensive smolt RAS for Scottish salmon producers. Pilot trials with
sea bass encouraged Selonada UK to commission a scaled-up RAS with a target production of 1,000t/yr. The
farm produced its first fish (approx. 320t) in 2009. Financial difficulties of the parent company in Greece, linked
to the international debt-crisis, were the predominant factor in the farm’s underperformance and near closure
in the following years. The company finally went into receivership in January 2012 with annual losses of £1.7 to
£1.8 million on a turnover of £1.9 to £2 million in 2009-2010 (the last two years of operation for which
accounts are available (FAME 2013)).
Tethys Ocean B.V., the aquaculture division of Linnaeus Capital partners B.V. (Linnaeus) immediately acquired
the assets, renaming the company Anglesey Aquaculture Ltd (AAL). Past production output has varied
between 300 and 500t (Fig 2). Following recent management changes the company predicts production will
increase to between 600-650t in 2014 and aims to achieve full operational capacity in 2015. It is possible the
company may then move into processing and value-added activities. No turnover figures are yet available for
the first year of operation although it reported a liquidity ratio (liquid assets/short-term liabilities) of 0.56
(compared to a value of 0.11 for Selonda UK in 2010) and a QuiScore 8 (the likelihood of a company failure in
5
http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/319/aquabella-is-struggling-with-barramundi-0319.html
6
http://www.angleseyaquaculture.com/index
7
With financing also from the Saudi Arabian Jazan Development Company (http://www.jazadco.com.sa/en/activity.htm)
8
http://portal.solent.ac.uk/mobile/library/help/eresources/using-fame-database.aspx
the next twelve months) of 67 placing the company midway between normal and stable credit assessment
bands (there are 5 bands: secure, stable, normal, unstable, and high risk). The AAL venture is clearly pioneering
and has benefited from a longer incubation period than the other case-studies. In addition to its interests in
major Mediterranean sea bass and sea bream cage aquaculture companies, Tethys Ocean B.V. also owns Israel-
based company Grow Fish Anywhere9 and expresses a strong belief in the future of land-based aquaculture. In
the short-term at least, it therefore appears likely to be more committed and able to fund any on-going
liabilities than investors in the previous tilapia and barramundi case-studies.
In several of the case studies the original RAS design required modification and (sometimes substantial) further
investment in light of operational experience. This in turn points to the bespoke nature of most of these
commissions and the corresponding lack of standardised installations with proven track-records in the UK. In
the case of AAL, problems were largely due to management and weak financial investment by the original
developers. However, even in instances where sufficient funding was available to address the design problems,
market factors clearly represented a further major underlying challenge to the economic sustainability of these
ventures especially the barramundi project where the products sent to market were deemed unpalatable. To a
significant extent all the longer surviving ventures adopted similar market strategies targeting premium market
sectors through promotion of sustainability traits variously associated with RAS production and the target-
species (Table 2). AAL has reported on its improved growth rates and expects to achieve market size fish of
450g in 50-60% of the time taken by cage fish in Greece or Turkey where winter temperatures suppress
production. With continued improvements in management and understanding of RAS technology operation
the company is confident of further improvements in growth performance.
Many if not all these claims are entirely credible and consistent with growing pressure to buy and eat
sustainable fish; however more problematical from an economic standpoint is the size of such premium market
sectors going forward and it’s potential for saturation should RAS production, or that of sustainable capture
substitutes, increase significantly. For example tilapias were promoted as a sustainable alternative to cod but
sustainably-certified cod (and pollack) harvests have since increased considerably. Although some top-end
restaurants have stocked tilapia the availability of low-cost imports also creates particular challenges in
positioning this species as a premium option. The largest existing demand comes from the ethnic market which
tend to ‘buy on price’ and are happy with cheap frozen imports typically also of larger individual size. As
indicated earlier the (limited) success of tilapia RAS in North America is associated with a sizeable niche ethnic
market for higher value live-fish sales.
Whilst sea bass (and sea bream) already tend to occupy a more premium niche they are also challenged by the
scale of Mediterranean production. Despite apparent sustainability contradictions linked to localness and air-
miles, Anglesey Aquaculture is targeting a much larger USA premium market as a key plank in its expansion
strategy. They have commenced regular air-freight deliveries to US-based ‘Whole Foods Market’ which brands
itself as ‘the world’s leading retailer of natural and organic foods’ with a global network of 340 stores (including
7 in the UK); the majority of seafood consumed in the U.S. is in restaurants. To this end, Anglesey Aquaculture
has also invested in achieving the ‘responsibly farmed’ seafood standard developed by Whole Foods Market
and required of their seafood suppliers. The Dansish Langsand Laks salmon RAS venture (section 4.2) is also
undergoing assessment against the same standard (as well as ASC certification) and seeking evaluation by the
Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program10, suggesting that it is also targeting the same USA segment
as part of its marketing strategy.
However reliance on overseas markets, particularly for fresh product with high transport costs also brings the
risk of competition from local RAS start-ups, particularly for premium market segments. In fact the Whole
9
www.GrowFishAnywhere.com
10
http://www.langsandlaks.dk/
Foods Market contract with Anglesey Aquaculture coincides with the failure of Local Ocean (Hudson, Lake
Michigan, 2009-2013) a prior supplier of saltwater-RAS marine fish to the company (sea bream, sea bass,
flounder and yellowtail)11. A patent lawsuit brought against the company by Tethys Ocean’s Israeli subsidiary
Grow Fish Anywhere contributed to Local Ocean financial difficulties. As with other highly capitalised start-
ups ($13 million was invested in Local Ocean along with substantial government support) there is a strong
possibility that the business will see further ‘reincarnations’ (e.g. processor Atlantic Cape Fisheries is
considering conversion to freshwater production)12. Assuming progressive standardisation of technology and
product quality in a maturing and economically viable RAS sector, there would also be decreasing scope to
differentiate similar species from different national RAS sectors other than by geographical indication. All three
UK case studies cited in this section do promote their regional location in their marketing mix (Table 2.)
particular the sea bass and barramundi farms sited in idyllic protected areas. This could potentially be
formalised as a protected geographical indication (TGI), but it is questionable whether this attribute alone
would secure a significant premium.
Table 2: Environmental and other quality product differentiation claims used by RAS producers to
target premium ethical markets
Marketing claims/ Unique Selling The Fish New Forrest Anglesey

Points (USPs) Company13 Barramundi14 Aquaculture15
(tilapia) (sea bass)
Environmental
High water re-use rates Y Y
Energy minimisation/ recycling Y Y Y
Carbon neutrality/ reduced emission Y
Composting/ recycling of farm waste Y Y
Use of ‘sustainably sourced’ feeds Y Y Y
No negative impact on wild fisheries Y Y
Disease biosecurity (& no antibiotics) Y Y
Food safety and quality Y
Use of hormone and GM free feeds Y Y
Product traceability Y Y
Highly fresh/ local & never frozen Y Y
Low food miles Y Y Y
Year round availability Y
Improved taste over same imported fish Y
Farmed species USP claims
Minerals P, Se, Vit B12
Fats High omega 3&6 High omega 3 2 High omega 3 2
11
http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Fish-gone-at-shuttered-Local-Ocean-farm-4863291.php
http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Fish-in-this-story-didn-t-get-away-4746595.php
http://www.localoceans.com/
12
http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2013/09/26/group-in-talks-to-buy-us-based-zero-discharge-saltwater-fish-farm/
13
http://aquaculturedirectory.co.uk/lincolnshire-home-to-sustainably-farmed-tilapia/#sthash.HvhjVvV5.dpuf
http://www.cookingtilapia.co.uk/press-releases/Why_British_Tilapia_Makes_Sustainable_Sense.pdf
14
http://www.grocerytrader.co.uk/News/March_2008/G_aquabella.html
15
http://www.angleseyaquaculture.com/sustainability
http://www.fish2fork.com/en-GB/news-index/2013/Fish-farm-overcomes-Greek-tragedy-to-produce-sustainable-sea-bass.aspx
http://www.fishupdate.com/news/archivestory.php/aid/19684/Welsh_fish_farm_92s_green_credentials_are__perfect_fit_94_for_grocery_
chain.html
Marketing claims/ Unique Selling The Fish New Forrest Anglesey
Points (USPs) Company13 Barramundi14 Aquaculture15
(tilapia) (sea bass)
‘low in fats’ 1
Net protein producer Y
Third party certification
Organic Planned
Animal welfare Claim Planned
MCS sustainable fish guide Y (1 rating) Y (1 rating)
Whole Foods ‘Responsibly farmed’ Y
‘Exclusivity’ testimonials
High end supermarkets Y Y
High end restaurants Y Y
High end fishmongers Y
Geographical indication Y Y Y
1
Such claims are somewhat misleading as the ratio of PUFA’s to saturated fatty-acids in tilapia is relatively low – however total fat levels
are also low making tilapia a lean protein source.
2
Feed composition can also have a significant effect on fatty-acid profiles.
2.3 Other regional commercial RAS Examples

In this section we consider table-fish RAS grow-out ventures outwith the UK and the innovations that have
conferred longer-term economic success. Recent salmon start-ups are considered in detail in section 4.2.
Headquartered in Helmond, Holland, Fishion BV16 was established around 2003 as a Joint Venture between
ZonAquafarming BV and Anova Food BV17, later becoming part the aquaculture division of Dutch agricultural
company the Van Rijsingen Groep. Fishion is the trade name of a supply chain from feed supply, farmers and
processors to point of retail (as Anova branded products). Alliance partners co-ordinate production to closely
meet market requirements e.g. feed management and quality assurance are adjusted in real-time through
monitoring and telemetry systems installed along the value-chain. The company’s antecedents began RAS
production in 1985 successively producing a range of species including eel, sturgeon, salmon, tilapia and catfish.
Fishion initially concentrated on tilapia production until around 8 years ago when focus began to shift to a
hybrid catfish variety branded as Claresse 18 (a cross between two African catfish species: Heterobranchus
longifilis and Clarias gariepinus). Pure C. gariepinus has been farmed for over 30 years in Holland, being widely
adopted as a diversification strategy by intensive feed-lot pig farmers in response to increasingly strict
environmental controls on nitrate-discharge from slurry-wastes. The already low farm-gate price of C.
gariepinus subsequently collapsed due to over-supply. The Claresse hybridisation created advantageous
production and post-harvest value-addition attributes including firm fillet texture, low bone content and most
importantly white-pinkish colouration. The latter attribute was particularly important in differentiating Claresse
from C. gariepinus which can yield a lower-value yellowish grey fillet. A further economic attraction lay in the
ability to farm catfish at extremely high stocking densities (>300 kg/m3) over a short grow-out period (from
15g to 1400g in 7 months); far more favourable than the optimum level of 80kg/m3 achievable for comparably
priced tilapia in the same RAS systems.
16
http://www.fishion-aquaculture.com/en/fishion/
http://www.ngva.org/data/Fishion%20-%20The%20Way%20Forward.pdf
17
http://www.anovaseafood.com/page.asp?lStrLang=EN
18
http://claresse.eu/en/about.htm
Factors contributing to the businesses longevity include efficient and proven RAS design, the range of
experience and skills in the company and its business model. The directors included aquaculture graduates
with a broad technical and business knowledge. Production comes from a small number of nearby family
based-farms in Brabant – each requiring an investment of around Euro 2.5 million. The production systems
which can accommodate catfish or tilapia with little modification were designed and built in cooperation with
Danish company Inter Aqua19 with a track record in RAS engineering. Considerable attention was given to
mitigation of off-flavour problems in the design phase (e.g. elimination of anoxic ‘dead-spots’ that could
support problem bacteria) as well as husbandry and harvest requirements e.g. transport trailers with integral
weighing mechanisms can directly access bays between culture and harvest transfer raceways. To meet
environmental discharge limits, the farms also include de-nitrification systems developed in collaboration with
Wageningen University. This also results in extremely high recirculation levels and associated energy
efficiencies; there is no requirement for water heating to an outdoor temperature of 0º C.
Previous research with tilapia RAS adopters in the UK (Young et al. 2010) clearly demonstrated very few
adopters, especially small-scale farmers had the necessary mix of production and marketing skills required to
effectively target premium markets. Fishion farms through a franchise deal similar in concept to that offered by
UK tilapia, are clearly offering a credible combination of technical, fish-health and marketing support. This
example demonstrates that the franchise model can offer a sustainable route to adoption with the production-
orientation of small-family farms becoming a virtue in their cooperative alliance. The company provides the
farms with feed and 12-15g catfish juveniles originating from breeding subsidiary Zon Aquafarming BV. The
company ultimately aims to use a 100% vegetarian diet; though around 30% and 18% of the total feed currently
used for catfish and tilapia grow-out respectively is fishmeal and fish oil (supplied by Nutreco and Copens).
Processing is undertaken by Fishion affiliate Claresse Visverwerking BV. Stock is processed entirely in response
to confirmed demand (i.e. there is no storage on location) predominantly for distribution as chilled products in
modified atmosphere (MAP) packaging. The introduction of this processing-step corresponds with a
progressive shift from only 27% of production being destined for filleting in 2005 to 91% in 2009 on weekly
harvests of 11t and 86t Live Weight Equivalent (LWE) respectively (the balance being sold as whole round
product). Fishion distribution partner the ANOVA seafood group have a track record in product innovation
and have taken a key role in positioning and promoting the Claresse brand. The company also uses many of
the sustainability characteristics listed in Table 2 to differentiate their product - particularly from Vietnamese
Pangasius catfish the main low-cost imported (frozen) fillet substitute for their chilled product.
High production efficiencies (Table 3) also means the company can profitably sell to lower-price market
segments including institutional canteens as part of its market-mix. Figure 3 shows how continuous technical
innovation progressively reduced unit costs for tilapia production (catfish data not available) against a
background of increasing energy and feed-input costs. Of particular note are the relatively high levels of
inefficiency during the first 8-9 years of operation (major gains followed in labour productivity, feed conversion
and energy efficiency, juvenile and financing costs). Secondly the high contribution of feed costs which will also
increase as a percentage of operational costs with increasing farm-scale, points to the need for engineering of
feeds designed to optimise Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) in RAS (Section 3.5.1). Labour (not shown) and
energy costs - which will also exhibit positive economies of scale with increasing production capacity – fell to
only 5% and 23% of operational costs respectively in 2010. Increasing costs and poor energy efficiency was a
significant factor contributing to the failure of the recent UK tilapia start-ups.
19
http://www.interaqua.dk/ras_plants.php
Table 3: Comparison of production efficiency factors for catfish, tilapia and salmon in RAS
Company Langsand Fishion Fishion Traditional Open
20 1
Laks RAS’ Aquaculture
Species Atlantic Hybrid Tilapia Tilapia Various
salmon African catfish
Culture medium Salt water Fresh water Fresh water Fresh water SW & FW
Grow-out weight range (kg) 0.125 to 4.5 0.12 to 1.4 0.12 to 0.8 0.12 to 0.8 Various
Grow-out time (months) 7 to 8 6 to 7 6 to 7
Annual farm production 1,0003 1600 600
capacity (live-weight t)
Capital Investment (€ mill) 4.074 2.5 2.5
3
Max Biomass Density (kg/m ) 85-100 >300 80
Energy efficiency (kwh/kg)2 1.3 to 2.11 0.8 2 to 2.5
Main pumps 0.97
Other system pumps etc 0.25
Cooling, denitrification, light, 0.89
ventilation and other
Water efficiency (l/kg) 250 20 25 300 to 500 3,000 to
30,000
Economic feed conversion 1.05 to 1.4 <1 <1
efficiency
Production cost (€/kg LWE) 3.1 1.4
1
Tilapia RAS without de-nitrification
2
The energy efficiency of most industrial capture fisheries is typically >2.5 kwh/kg
3
700t production forecast in 2014
4
$3.5 million private investment and $2million Government grant
Figure 3: Cost price development of Fishion 600t tilapia farming systems (whole round ex farm)
20
http://tidescanada.org/wp-content/uploads/files/salmon/workshop-may-2012/D1-
4_Atlantic_Sapphire_%E2%80%93_1000_ton_Salmon_Production_in_Denmark_%E2%80%93_Langsand_Laks.pdf
3 RAS technology and range of application
3.1 Rationale for RAS
RAS technology has been introduced to the aquaculture sector to enhance environmental control of land
based operations, increase security of marine and freshwater hatcheries and more recently for the ongrowing
of seafood species to market size. The application of the technology to the latter sector is still in a state of
rapid evolution for a range of vertebrate and invertebrate species – freshwater and marine. RAS technology
for fattening farms does have several advantages as well as significant challenges:
3.1.1 RAS Advantages
 Longer average life of tanks and equipment (versus nets, boats) allowing for longer amortisation
periods. However, serious attention needs to be applied to building infrastructure for marine species
due to highly corrosive atmosphere that ensues when trying to maintain optimum temperatures in a
temperate / northern climate.
 Reduced dependency on antibiotics and therapeutants generate marketing advantage of high quality
‘safe’ seafood.
 Reduction of direct operational costs associated with feed, predator control and parasites.
 Potentially eliminate release of parasites to recipient waters.
 Risk reduction due to climatic factors, disease and parasite impacts provided the RAS design has fully
taken into account local climate, ambient air / water temperature conditions, incoming water
treatment and bio-security.
 Head-starting species like salmon where it could be beneficial to lengthen the amount of time young
salmon are raised in RAS before being transferred to cages. This reduces the amount of time the fish
are exposed to the risks of the ocean growing environment, as well as potentially reducing total
production times by optimizing the growing conditions.
 RAS production can promote versatility in terms of location for farming, proximity to market and
construction on brown-field sites. However, they still need to be in close proximity to source water
supplies and consideration needs to be given to local water quality and aesthetics since RAS farms
resemble industrial buildings.
 Enable production of a broad range of species irrespective of temperature requirements provided

costs of temperature control beyond ambient are energy efficient.
 Enable secure production of non-endemic species.
 Feed management is potentially greatly enhanced in RAS when feeding can be closely monitored over
24h periods. The stable environment promotes consistent growth rates throughout the production
cycle to market size – provided the operator and RAS design has taken into account the diverse range
of water quality management issues. Optimum environmental conditions promote excellent FCRs
with some high value marine species achieving market size in 50% of time taken in sea cages.
 The advantages of RAS in terms of feed management assumes the operator has the capability to
accurately control and record fish biomass, mortality rates and movements across the farm. Efficiency
in these tasks becomes increasingly important with increasing farm size.
 Due to increased growth rates and superior FCRs that can be secured in RAS farms energy savings
related to feed use may partially compensate for increased energy costs associated with pumping and
water purification.
 Exposure of stock to stress on RAS farms can be reduced for some factors such as adverse weather,
unfavourable temperature conditions, pollution incidents and predation. However, fish welfare can be
reduced and exposure to stressful situations increased in relation to stocking density, chronic
exposure to poor water quality and associated metabolic by-products due to inadequate water
treatment technology or inexperienced management.
 In the UK, economies of RAS farm size are important and the technology tends to favour higher value
seafood species rather than commodity species. This is a reflection of the relatively high labour and
energy costs in the UK. RAS operation allows full control over effluent waste, nutrient recycling into
value added products with limited energy production being feasible. However, the carbon footprint
generated by a closed containment facility drawing electricity, pumping in water, filtering waste,
among other actions, is significant. The source of the electricity, for example, hydro-generated or
coal-generated, would play a major factor in the perceived sustainability of RAS. That said, a full life-
cycle analysis of both cage aquaculture production and land-based RAS is needed. Dr Andrew Wright
(Quoted in Weston, 2013) notes that no accurate accounting has been done to measure the methane
releases caused by the decomposition of the wastes that accumulate on the ocean floor beneath open
net salmon farms.
3.1.2 Challenges of RAS technology
 Lack of suitably experienced RAS managers and operators. Former cage or hatchery managers are not
necessarily sufficiently well qualified to operate commercial scale RAS fattening farms without
minimum 6-10 months training on the job. Poor awareness in terms of the broad range of water
quality variables that require 24h in-line monitoring – especially in marine RAS.
 While RAS farms enable operators to avoid any release of particulate solid or dissolved nutrient
waste into recipient waters its questionable how many investors take this issue seriously or
appreciate the costs of implementing waste management into the production programme.
 Investors in RAS technology, even those with aquaculture experience, generally know little about
water quality control, sea water chemistry and waste management at the industrial scale. Equally, RAS
technology suppliers often know little about aquaculture and / or have a weak biological background.
 Investors fail to prepare adequately when identifying an appropriate RAS technology package – hence
the large number of commercial failures
 Conclusion about economic viability of a RAS project is often based on assumptions and variables
related to expected market price, utilization of the waste stream, product quality, optimal and
maximum densities achievable, energy costs and costs relating to depreciation and interest on loans.
Some of these criteria are subject to change and where assumptions are based solely on small pilot or
research projects then even greater caution is required.
 Production of species preferring warmer water (20-25oC) can be advantageous both from a growth
rate standpoint but also in terms of energy conservation. Maintaining optimum water temperatures
for species like sea bass or bream, as opposed to species like turbot or halibut, is likely to be less
energy demanding in the UK provided the farm buildings are properly insulated 21. Alternatively, if
reliable, consistent low cost methods of cooling can be assured then the options for farming a range
of temperate and cold water species alongside higher value Mediterranean or even tropical species
are broadened. Experienced technicians to work with these species will need to be recruited from
abroad.
 Species selection for UK RAS production is a critical issue. Irrespective of sustainability arguments for
RAS production, the farm still needs to make a profit. Production of a commodity species in RAS
which has to compete with the same product either imported or farmed using a lower production
cost method requires serious risk assessment. The development of commercial scale marine RAS in
the UK has focussed on the higher value seafood species such as European sea bass. However, this
production still has to compete with large volumes of low priced imported product from the
Mediterranean even though the latter is of inferior quality and not necessarily farmed with the same
degree of sustainability.
 Ironically, superior prices can be secured in overseas markets for UK RAS farmed sea bass which is
counter to the argument of building RAS close to the domestic market. Once effective RAS
production becomes more widely deployed then options for the export of UK RAS production
becomes more restricted and large scale farms producing in excess of 400-500 tonnes per annum will
struggle to secure a premium price in the UK market for their entire annual production unless they
can dominate the market with volume production and diversified value added products.
 Dependency on securing a premium price for a RAS farmed product justified by sustainability criteria
may not always hold true. This is particularly so in terms of energy demand, energy source and
associated carbon footprint.
 Reducing operational costs of RAS farms through utilisation of farm waste for value added products is
perfectly feasible but is often over-played by developers. RAS farm effluent takes the form of a mobile
sludge and dissolved nutrient streams which can be readily recycled into value added products such as
composts, micro-algae and polychaete worms. However, the argument that parallel production of
polychaete worms in RAS farm waste would be sufficient to totally substitute fish meal in feeds for
the farm requires very close scrutiny - even if the polychaetes were nutritionally adequate as fish meal
substitutes. The management of RAS farm sludge is a very real issue which few developers seem to
properly appreciate at the outset of the project.
 The utilisation of RAS farm waste for on-site energy production is also feasible and the potential
contribution in trial studies indicates this approach could be useful (Mirzoyan et et al., 2008; 2010).
However, the investment in anaerobic digesters and equipment for conversion of gases to usable
energy needs to be carefully balanced against the potential savings in power consumption. EU
research into the potential of RAS farm waste as an energy source is currently underway (BiFFio -
FP7: Research for the benefit of SME-AG) but this programme is focussed on the contribution of RAS
aquaculture waste to energy production off-site and in combination with the larger volumes of
agricultural waste. This approach will not necessarily benefit the RAS farm as it may still incur costs to
transport the waste off-site under license. Ideally, energy generation utilising RAS farm waste should
be implemented on site and this option should become increasingly attractive with larger farm sizes.
21
This is due to the heat produced within RAS which can be conserved for warmer water species, but will require cooling for cold water
species
3.2 RAS typology and design considerations
The basic principle of RAS is to re-use water though the application of suitable treatment processes. There can
be varying degrees of water reuse depending on the system design. A simple flow-through fish farm where a
water supply is diverted through ponds or tanks and then discharged has no water re-use. If aeration or
oxygenation is added to the ponds or tanks there is already some water re-use as more fish can be produced
using the same water flow. However, recirculation implies treatment of some or all of the discharge water and
returning this to the fish rearing system as shown in the figure below.
Figure 4: Basic concept of a recirculation system
Considering the above figure, a key design parameter is the ratio of recycled water to waste water (more
commonly quoted as percentage of recycled water in the fish tank inflow water). A useful boost to farm
productivity can be achieved by recycling say 50% of the water flow and using basic solids removal and re-
aeration technology for treatment. As the ratio of recycled to new water increases, more sophisticated and
efficient treatment processes are required with implications for capital and operating costs. If the drivers for
using RAS include biosecurity, full control over environmental conditions or minimal nutrient discharge to
nearby waters, then a high ratio of recirculated to replacement water is usually required (at least 95-99%).
A related measure of water re-use is the water replacement rate, which is usually quoted in percentage of the
system volume changed per day. If for instance a system has a 95% recirculated flow at a rate that effectively
replaces the full volume in the tanks once per hour; then over the course of 24 hours 1.2 times the volume of
the tanks will be needed in new inflow water (120% replacement rate). A 5% per day replacement rate on the
same system would translate to 99.8% of the tank discharge being treated and returned to the inflow. The
inverse of water replacement rate is the water retention rate, so for a replacement rate of 5% per day, the
retention of water within the system would be 95%. Somewhat confusingly, this is usually referred to as the
“Percent Recycle” (Timmons et. al. 2001) particularly in North American literature. This makes rather more
sense when the design of recirculated systems is considered, as very few employ a simple circuit as shown in
Figure 4. In practice, few systems achieve greater than 98% recycle as water is lost from the system mainly
through solids removal. Many experts in this area consider the term RAS to only apply to systems with greater
than 90% recycle (less than 10% water replacement per day).
The essential functions of a RAS are:

 Provide a suitable physical environment for the fish with respect to space, water flow conditions,
stock density
 Protect the stock from infection by disease agents
 Provide for the physiological needs of the fish (mainly oxygen and nutrition)
 Remove metabolic wastes from the fish (notably faeces, ammonia and carbon dioxide)
 Remove waste feed and breakdown products (solid and dissolved organic compounds)
 Maintain temperature and water chemistry parameters within acceptable limits
The latter target can be difficult to achieve in practice, as water quality parameters interact with each other in
complex ways, especially in seawater. Furthermore, the operating conditions of the system are changing on an
almost daily basis as fish grow, diets and feed rates change, and harvesting takes place.
The most common processes in RAS are shown in the diagram below.
Figure 5: Common unit processes used in recirculating aquaculture production systems (adapted from
Losordo et al, 1998)
Examples of technologies used in RAS are listed in Table 4
Table 4: Technologies used in high rate Recirculated Aquaculture Systems

Water quality factors to be Example technologies employed
controlled
Suspended solids Sedimentation (for coarser particles)
Self-cleaning screen filters
Pressurised sand filters
Bag and cartridge filters (for very fine solids)
Foam fractionation (marine systems)
Ammonia Biofiltration converts ammonia to nitrite and then nitrate.
Nitrate Denitrification (or dilution in lower rate recycle systems with less
sensitive stock)
Phosphate Chemical precipitation or biological processes in combination with
denitritfication
Dissolved organic compounds Biofiltration
(mainly carbon) Foam fractionation (marine systems)
Ozonation
Carbon dioxide and nitrogen gas Degassing – e.g. using vacuum degassers or forced air packed
column trickle filters
Oxygen Aeration at low saturation concentrations and oxygen injection at
high saturation concentrations
Water quality factors to be Example technologies employed
controlled
Temperature Heat exchangers with gas fired boilers or other appropriate heat
source or chillers for cooling; Heat pumps
Pathogens UV lamps
Ozone (+ deozonation using activated carbon and/or UV)
pH Chemical dosing (e.g. sodium bicarbonate);
Calcium or magnesium compound filters;
(Denitrification filters counteract alkalinity consumption)
Chlorine (e.g. if using a chlorinated Activated charcoal
supply) Degassing
Metals (e.g. iron, manganese in Special absorption filters;
supply water) Oxidation and/or chemical precipitation and filtration
Salinity Adjust with freshwater or seawater addition
Modern RAS tend to employ multiple treatment loops as it may not be necessary to treat all the water on
every cycle through the tanks and for some processes may be advantageous to prolong residence time in the
equipment (e.g. ozonation). On the other hand, pre-treatment may be desirable for other processes, e.g. UV is
more effective after fine suspended solids removal. Optimising the design with respect to minimising pumping
costs and providing effective treatment and control can be a major challenge.
In most cases it will be necessary to use a separate water treatment system for incoming water and probably
two or more separate systems for the farm itself. Whilst there are clearly scale related savings from using just
one set of treatment equipment, this creates a greater risk of total loss if something should go wrong. It can
also be desirable from the management perspective to have greater flexibility in operations and isolation
between stocks. The major design parameters for RAS are shown in the table below.
Table 5: Major design parameters for RAS

Parameter Comments
Salinity This will depend on the requirements of the species, but marine systems have
inherently more complex water chemistry and less efficient biofiltration.
However, foam fractionation is a useful treatment only available in seawater.
Biomass & feed rate These will generally be related, but the quantity of feed introduced to the
system each day is generally the most important factor for system sizing.
Further considerations are the variation in biomass and feed and in some
circumstances, changes to the composition of the feed during the culture
cycle
Stock density This is highly dependent on species, size range and other factors such as
water quality, tank dimensions and perhaps water flow dynamics. Higher
stocking densities generally imply more efficient utilisation of tank volume and
overall facilities
Production plan The system is designed around the production plan which determines the
expected length of time batches of fish will be in specific tanks, when they will
be graded and moved to other tanks and when they will be harvested or
moved out of the system. The use of multiple batches involving staggered
stocking and harvesting schedules is normal in RAS to optimise use of
resources and maintain reasonably stable biomass.
Water flow rates These may be calculated in relation to biomass so as to provide a consistent
replenishment of water per minute per kg or stock. However changes in
Parameter Comments
volumetric flow rate also normally changes water velocities, which can change
other parameters such as solids removal and energy expenditure by the fish.
Consideration of water velocities in relation to body length can be a useful
design parameter.
Temperature control and Maintaining optimum temperatures in RAS can be challenging, particularly
energy efficiency where ambient temperatures vary seasonally, or are substantially different to
the needs of the stock. The entire facility needs to be designed to minimise
energy requirements for heating or cooling. Similarly, the energy required for
pumping and gas exchange is probably the second major cost factor after
feed and therefore careful design to minimise requirements and maximise
efficiency is essential (e.g. through minimising pumping head, selecting wide
bore pipes and efficient pumps etc).
Feed system This will be specified based on volumes and feed rates required, the degree of
automation and appropriate methods of (bulk) feed handling and storage.
Biosecurity A risk assessment needs to be carried out that considers factors such as
species, potential pathogens, disease susceptibility, location and potential
routes of infection. This will lead to decisions on disinfection and other
biosecurity measures.
Water quality targets Target water quality criteria need to be set at the design stage to help define
performance requirements for treatment equipment. Typical parameters
include suspended solids, dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide, ammonia,
nitrite and nitrate, pH, alkalinity, salinity and temperature. Indicators of
dissolved organic matter such as BOD and DOC or turbidity and colouration
might also be set.
Monitoring & control Requirements for system monitoring will be based on design the criteria and
water quality targets set, together with a risk assessment of potential points
of system failure. Computerised control systems can both help to reduce
labour requirements and improve response to out of range conditions.
Fish movement and Designs should ensure that basic fish husbandry operations such as stocking
grading tanks, splitting and grading stocks, moving to different tanks, interim and final
harvests, vaccination and disease treatments can all be performed as efficiently
as possible. Fish pumps are commonly used, but there are implications for
tank design and layout and building design. Consideration must also be given
to the removal and management of mortalities
Waste treatment and The major waste stream from RAS is organic solids which frequently need
disposal dewatering and other treatment prior to disposal or utilisation elsewhere
3.3 Current examples
Some examples of recirculation configurations are shown below. These are taken from documents or websites
made public by the manufacturers or researchers concerned. No endorsement of specific approaches or
technologies is implied through the selection of examples.
The first example is a RAS for salmon smolt production marketed by the Norwegian company Akva (through a
buy-out of the Danish firm Uni-Aqua). This features a double loop which treats the full recycled flow with
solids filtration, UV disinfection and degassing, with only a proportion of the flow treated through moving bed
bio-reactors (MBBR). Oxygenation is carried out at the tanks using cone injectors.
Figure 6: Schematic of a modern RAS suitable for salmonids from AKVA 22
A second and fairly similar example is taken

from the Freshwater Institute in the USA,
which has influenced many developments in
recent years. It adds radial flow settlers to the
solids removal process and uses fluidised sand
biofilters rather than moving plastic media. As
with the Akva system, a partial (60% flow) is
passed through the biofilters.
Figure 7: Schematic of RAS design from the Freshwater Institute, Virginia USA 23 (experimental scale)
22
http://www.akvagroup.com/products/land-based-aquaculture/recirculation-systems)
23
http://0301.nccdn.net/1_5/2ec/317/07d/06-Summerfelt_Update-on-growout-trials.pdf
The third example is an experimental scale marine RAS designed at the Centre of Marine Biotechnology,
University of Maryland, USA. The system components include: (A) 0.3 m3 microscreen drum filter, (B) 0.4 m3
pump reservoir, (C) 0.9 m3 CO2 stripper, (D) 1.5 m3 protein skimmer, (E) 8 m3 nitrifying moving bed
bioreactor (MBB), (F) 1 m3 low head oxygenator, (G) 0.6 m3 pump reservoir, (H) 0.15 m3 conical sludge
collection tank, (I) 0.5 m3 sludge digestion tank, (J) 3 m3 denammox fixed-bed up-flow biofilter, (K) 0.02 m3
biogas reactor with gas collection. Tank water was used to backwash organic solids from the microscreen
drum filter (A).
Figure 8: Schematic of RAS design from the Centre of Marine Biotechnology, University of Maryland,
USA24
A somewhat similar system is used by Aquatec-Solutions, a Danish RAS technology supplier:
Figure 9: Schematic of RAS design from Aquatec-solutions in Denmark25
24
http://www.interfishexpert.com/environmentally-sustainable-land-based-marine-aquaculture/
The inclusion of an anaerobic circuit complicates the design, but with potential benefits discussed below.
3.4 Biosecurity and disease issues in RAS
3.4.1 General issues and approaches to biosecurity

Public demand for reduced impact on the environment in an industry where the market for seafood continues
to expand is pushing the aquaculture sector to develop new intensive technologies and approaches to
traceable and sustainable seafood production. RAS are expected to reduce the incidence of disease outbreaks,
lower dependency on medication and promote more stable production aimed at meeting the demands of the
seafood market.
Biosecurity includes any company policy and procedures used on a farm that reduce the risk of pathogen
introduction or spread through the facility if they are introduced. Delabbio et al. (2004) surveyed the trout
sector in the US and showed that RAS biosecurity was not homogenous. Overall, inexpensive and low-tech
biosecurity practices were utilized with the most common limited to record-keeping and dead fish collection.
66% of facilities reported prophylactic use of chemicals on fish while 81% reported therapeutic use.
Quarantine procedures on incoming fish and/or eggs were commonly employed in RAS facilities, with use of an
isolation area occurring more frequently (83%) than use of an isolated water supply (66%). These examples do
not represent the type of RAS technology that is relevant to enhancing seafood production or diversification
within the UK.
One of the primary advantages of RAS technology is that it provides the farmer with the opportunity to
reduce disease outbreaks and actually eliminate some diseases altogether. However, while RAS can create
optimum conditions for fish culture, inferior designs may inadvertently provide favorable conditions for disease
outbreaks or the reproduction of opportunistic pathogens (Delabbio et al., 2004; Timmons et al., 2002).
Where pathogens have already gained access to the RAS their potential impact on the stock can be influenced
by the quality of the system design but equally importantly the knowledge and experience of the RAS manager.
In RAS farms where the farmer has incomplete control over the ambient environmental conditions, such as
trout RAS located outside with weak biosecurity or in non-insulated buildings, the RAS system is exposed to
variable environmental conditions (variable temperature, ammonia removal rates) which leads to system
instability, favouring disease outbreak.
d’Orbcastel et al. (2009a,b) evaluated RAS trout farms and one of their main conclusions was that the
sedimentation system showed a good but highly variable removal efficiency (60±28%) such that the remaining
suspended solids are circulated and degraded in the system. This results in sedimentation areas in other
regions of the RAS and general water quality degradation. Equally, biofilter efficiency was also variable due to
lack of temperature control. Any deterioration in nitrification due to excessive suspended solids material can
lead directly to nitrite toxicity and mass mortality (Kroupova et al., 2008). Maintenance of stable
environmental conditions for the fish to minimize stress conditions and related susceptibility to any disease
organisms is paramount. Jørgensen et al. (2009) monitored parasite infections in several RAS trout farms in
relation to a range of environmental parameters such as temperature, pH, nitrite and ammonia-concentrations,
use of formalin, mortality and feed conversion ratio. They showed that the incidence and impact of disease
outbreaks varied according to the stability of the system. Unstable RAS environments lead to sub-optimal
conditions for maintaining stock health. The situation is not necessarily reflected by poorer growth and
survival of the stock but the fish may show reduced condition indices. Good et al. (2009a) observed a
25
http://www.aquatec-solutions.com
significant increase in splenic and skin lesions in trout exposed to a reduction in water quality in addition to
variable plasma chloride, blood urea nitrogen and greater fin erosion. This situation predisposed the trout to
disease outbreaks and underlined the frequent outbreaks of bacterial gill disease (BGD) noted in RAS trout
farms with insufficient control over water quality (Good et al., 2009b).
Once established in RAS, disease organisms can recycle with the rearing water and, because of low dilution
levels, pathogen infection rates can escalate. Once established in a RAS it can be extremely difficult to
eradicate disease organisms and parasites. Unlike flow-through systems, traditional treatments for common
trout diseases may simply not be practical in RAS due to the sensitivity of the important nitrification bacterial
colonies in the biofilters (Schwartz et al., 2000).
Opportunistic fish pathogens may accumulate in the water column, biofilm and in the fish, encouraged by the
prolonged water retention times, increased substrate concentrations, high fish densities, and continuous
production techniques. As the pathogen concentration becomes amplified in the RAS, the risk of disease and
epidemic loss increases. Obviously, strict biosecurity practices should be implemented to prevent introduction
of fish pathogens from contaminated feed, water supply, fish and eggs from suppliers, and microbes carried
into the fish culture facility by staff and visitors (Bebak-Williams et al., 2002). However, pathogens can access
RAS farms via water vapour droplets particularly when farms are located close to source waters. If biosecurity
barriers are breached and fish pathogens enter a fish farm, then the disease problem must be addressed
through disinfection techniques that are costly, time consuming and do not necessarily lead to the elimination
of the pathogen (Sharrer & Summerfelt, 2007). Once a parasite gains entry it must become part of the farm’s
overall management strategy alongside management of the biofilter bacterial populations and the farmed stock.
Husbandry practices that include regular tank cleaning and the flushing of sumps and pipes can reduce
pathogen reservoirs and thereby decrease potential epizootic outbreaks (Bebak-Williams et al., 2002). Well
designed RAS have a more stable microbial community structure with higher species diversity and a lower
fraction of opportunists (Attramadal et al., 2012). Achieving this stable situation is largely dependent upon the
efficient removal of suspended and dissolved solids. Any accumulation of nutrients and dissolved organics
originating from uneaten feed and fish faeces can create an environment favorable to a diverse range of
bacteria, protozoa, micrometazoa, dinoflagellates and fungi that can have a major impact on water quality
(Moestrup et al., 2014; Blancheton, 2000; Leonard et al., 2002; Sugita et al., 2005; Michaud et al., 2006) and
subsequently the stock.
The manner by which organic waste is processed and removed from the RAS is the area of greatest
deliberation among RAS technology suppliers. Some recommend rapid removal through ozonated protein
skimming while others prefer to mineralise the waste within the RAS, often using anaerobic, submerged
moving bed bioreactors to assist with denitrification. This latter approach can have some benefits since
reducing nitrate levels is also critical and cannot be controlled by dilution at high biomass levels. Certainly, the
efficient use of ozonation technology can deliver good results but has been most successfully applied in the
hatchery sector. Meanwhile, its application in high biomass on-grow facilities is much more of a challenge with
very few aquaculture managers having had experience of its application and even then – only at the hatchery
level. Installing or using ozone technology incorrectly has been the cause of several marine RAS failures in the
UK and internationally. The issue with ozone technology remains the potential for introducing ozonated
byproducts to the culture waters which can inflict subtle damage to the stock thereby reducing performance
or under serious misuse situations cause direct mass fish kills. Only a few RAS technology suppliers include
ozonation technology in their systems as significant expertise is needed to apply it at high biomass levels.
3.4.2 Parasites in RAS
Technology suppliers that claim their systems can never become contaminated with parasites are misleading
the client. Even the most efficiently operated farms may eventually become contaminated by a range of
monogenean, protozoan and dinoflagellate parasites. Both low and high tech RAS farms have become infected
with pathogens irrespective of the level of control over water quality and despite biosecurity precautions.
Equally, according to the design of the RAS farm and technology used, farms infected with parasites may still
have the potential to infect recipient waters according to the manner or efficiency of farm effluent
management.
In Europe, trout RAS farms have been contaminated with a vast range of parasitic organisms – some causing
very significant mortalities. Even in Denmark, which pioneered trout RAS the importance of biosecurity has
sometimes been overlooked. RAS infestations have included several ciliated protozoan species e.g. Trichodina
spp., Apiosoma sp., Ambiphrya sp., Epistylis sp., Chilodonella piscicola and Icthyobodo necator. Other more complex
parasites of trout include Spironucleus salmonis (Diplomonadida), Gyrodactylus derjavinoides (monogenean
platyhelminthe) and the eye fluke Displostomum spathaceum (digenean). Jørgensen et al. (2009) reported that
these parasites were introduced to the RAS farms by fingerlings supplied from traditional earth ponds. This
point emphasizes the simple fact that it is a waste of investment to construct a RAS farm and then stock it with
fry from an unrelated supplier or non-biosecure source.
RAS farms can offer a highly attractive environment for parasites and algal species that are directly parasitic or
have toxic products that can be released to the culture waters. Some dinoflagellate parasites have the potential
to bloom rapidly and cause catastrophic mortalities. Under these circumstances an efficient response needs to
be implemented but the ability of any RAS farm to manage such outbreaks is dependent upon the quality of the
farm design and RAS technology installed plus farm management experience.
Two recent cases in Denmark, involving rainbow trout and pike perch, were the first RAS farms in which
serious dinoflagellate related fish kills have been reported in the EU although such parasites are known to kill
up to 50% of stock in flow-through olive flounder farms in S Korea. In one Danish marine farm infested by
Luciella masanensis, fish mortality increased dramatically despite treatment of the water with peracetic acid and
chloramine-T. In another brackish water RAS farm infected by Pfiesteria shumwayae, the water was treated with
chloramine-T, which caused the dinoflagellates to disappear temporarily from the water column, apparently
forming temporary cysts. The treatment was repeated after a short period when the temporary cysts
appeared to germinate and the dinoflagellates reappeared in the water column (Moestrup et al., 2014). UV was
partially effective but both RAS farms closed. Very significant mass fish kills due to Amyloodinium ocellatum have
also occurred recently in fully marine RAS farms but these have not been officially documented.
Despite the issues with parasites, experience with some commercial marine RAS farms has demonstrated a
significantly lower incidence of some of the most common causes of mass mortality associated with culture of
the same species in sea cages.
3.4.3 Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in RAS

While some HAB species may be directly parasitic other species can impact stock through toxins released
within the RAS or indeed the source waters. HAB toxins are often grouped by the effects that they have on
aquatic organisms. These include paralytic shellfish poisons (PSP), neurotoxic shellfish poisons (NSP), amnesic
shellfish poisons (ASP), diarrhetic shellfish poisons (DSP), azaspiracid shellfish poisons (AZP), ciguatera fish
poisons (CFP) and cyanobacteria toxin poisons (CTP). This diverse group includes neurotoxins, carcinogens
and a number of other highly toxic compounds, many of which are well-characterized. The broad chemical and
structural diversity of algal toxins coupled with differences in intrinsic potency and their susceptibility to
biotransformation, account for many of the challenges associated with the detection of these compounds.
Technology capable of detecting HABs or toxic by-products would be a critical development for RAS holding
high biomass loads at elevated stocking densities. Equally, secure raw water treatment prior to entering the
RAS facility is a critical component of RAS design in farms exposed to potential HAB blooms.
3.4.4 Microbial pathogens

Bacteria, viruses and fungi are also significant potential pathogens and can be a particular problem in RAS that
do not have good disinfection (UV and ozone). Bacteria that increase in numbers in recirculating systems
include Aeromonas spp., Vibrio spp., Mycobacterium spp., Streptococcus spp., and Flavobacterium spp. (Yanong,
2009). Some UK tilapia producers suffered problems with Fransicella asiatica which were introduced through
imported fry (Jeffery et al, 2011). Most microbes are reasonably susceptible to disinfection with UV, although
some viruses such as IPNV require dose rates that are 7.5 times higher than most bacteria (Yoshimizu et al.
1986). The most effective defence against important viral disease is probably ensuring eggs, larvae or fry are
sourced from specific pathogen free facilities and implementing strict biosecurity measures. Fungal disease has
been a problem in freshwater systems, especially when fish are stressed or smolting. The use of up to 2 ppt
salinity in addition to UV or ozone disinfection has been found to help minimise this problem.
Even the well managed farms can have a breakdown in biosecurity since many pathogens have the potential to
spread by vapour droplets which are difficult to avoid where farms are located close to natural sources. In
these situations the RAS farm is obliged to use therapeutants.
Despite these putative risks, empirical evidence suggests that in well-designed and managed RAS, outbreaks of
pathogenic diseases and parasite infections have been mainly if not entirely due to the inadvertent transfer of
infected fish. For example the bacterial pathogen responsible for a recent outbreak of Francisellosis in two
tilapia farms (in the UK26 and Belgium), was introduced with infected juveniles thought to have originated from
SE Asia (this resulted in the culling of stock and full-disinfection of the farms). This was confirmed by a loss-
adjuster for a prominent aquaculture insurance under-writer with over 12 years international experience of
RAS ventures producing a wide range of fresh and saltwater species consulted as part of this report. He
observed that mechanical failure and inadequate emergency back-up and alarm systems were the principle
cause for concern. Disease problems on the other hand were very rare and in his experience ‘due exclusively
to transfers of infected fish’ mainly associated with ecto-parasites such as Ichthyobodo or Trichodina spp,
3.4.5 Use of Chemical Therapeutants in RAS

When chemical therapeutants are added to RAS water the biofilters are often exposed to a high concentration
of the chemical with a risk of impairing the nitrifying microbial population and hence reduce biofilter
performance (Schwartz et al., 2000). Occasionally, it can be necessary to close the farm, disinfect and sterilize
the entire production plant and start again. This is a hugely time consuming and expensive process which few
farms will be able to survive – particularly for species with small profit margins. The ability to manage disease
and reduce the risk of infection is therefore a critical component in the successful operation of RAS.
Chemicals remain an important tool to control fish pathogens in salmonid RAS (Jørgensen et al., 2009;
Rintamaki-Kinnunen et al., 2005). For instance, high mortality caused by infections with the skin parasitic
ciliated protozoan Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet, 1876 is a major problem in freshwater fish farming in most
climatic zones (Heinecke & Buchmann, 2009) and is certainly a disease commonly encountered in the EU
trout industry. I. multifiliis has a wide temperature tolerance (Aihua & Buchmann, 2001), a very low degree of
host specificity and causes disease in wild and cultured freshwater fish (Dickerson, 2006). Infections with I.
multifiliis cause extensive economic loss for both pond farmers as well as fish farmers using RAS technology
26
http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d091p161.pdf
(Jorgensen & Buchmann, 2008). Left untreated, infections can lead to high mortality in aquaculture production
(Valtonen and Keranen, 1981). The parasite infects gills and skin surfaces of the fish and the life cycle
comprises several morphologically distinct stages each fulfilling a discrete function in the life history of I.
multifiliis (Lom & Dykova, 1992).
Originally, I. multifiliis disease was treated using malachite green but due to the carcinogenic and genotoxic
potentials of this treatment (Srivastava et al., 2004) it has been prohibited for use in the production of
consumer fish in the European Union by the council regulation (EEC) No. 2377/90 of the European Council.
To control outbreaks of I. multifiliis, formaldehyde is most commonly used. It is an ideal chemical to add to
RAS, having high treatment efficiency, harming neither the fish nor the biofilter at the concentrations used for
treatment (Pedersen et al., 2007).
Formalin has been applied to marine (Keck & Blanc, 2002) and freshwater RAS (Schwartz et al., 2000), focusing
on chemical measurements of the removal of ammonia and nitrite across the biofilter. Some of the studies
showed significant impaired nitrification related to addition of the chemical. With formalin dosages above
100mg/L, it appears that nitrite-oxidizing bacteria were inhibited by the presence of formalin (Keck & Blanc,
2002). Pedersen et al. (2010) showed that nitrification rates were positively correlated to the amount and
frequency of formalin treatment. In systems with regularly low formalin dosage, the formaldehyde removal rate
increased up to tenfold from 0.19±0.05 to 1.81±0.13 mg/(Lh). Biofilter nitrification was not impaired in systems
treated with formalin on a daily basis as compared to untreated systems. In systems intermittently treated with
formalin, increased variation and minor reductions of ammonium and nitrite oxidation rates were observed.
Successful treatments typically include short-term repetitive topical baths with formalin at concentrations as
high as 100 mg/L (Pedersen et al., 2010). This treatment regime has been shown to control the extent of
infection, as formaldehyde (CH2O; the active component in formalin) destroys the infective free living stage of
I. multifiliis (Matthews, 2005). Formaldehyde is also effective against other ectoparasites such as the
monogenean Gyrodactylus (Sortkjær et al., 2008; Heinecke & Buchmann, 2009). There is concern on potential
environmental effects of excess formaldehyde discharge as well as worker safety issues. This has led to
demands for a gradual phasing out of the chemical (Wooster et al., 2005). Despite research on more
environmentally friendly chemicals, no valid substitutes for formalin have so far been implemented in RAS,
partly due to insufficient treatment efficacy and the risk of biofilter collapse (Schwartz et al., 2000; Rintamaki-
Kinnunen et al., 2005).
Hydrogen peroxide (HP) has been promoted as a substitute for formaldehyde and other chemicals to treat
diseases and parasites in RAS and flow through systems. However, its use is not so well understood. It
certainly has positive characteristics e.g. neutral byproducts, but it has been shown to have a significantly
negative impact on biofilter operation – both moving bed and fixed media. The negative impact varies
according to exposure time and level of HP used. However, it has also been shown to have very variable
negative impact on biofilter operation according to the organic loading in the RAS. This is a critical point since
RAS organic loadings can vary significantly according to system size, stocking levels, system volume, design
(poor design = higher organic loadings), feed quality and a range of other environmental variables that may
impact fish appetite (feed wasted) – and efficiency of feed metabolism.
3.4.6 Alternative Treatments

Use of UV in combination with ozone has proven commercial application in marine RAS. Similarly, in
freshwater RAS, ozone and UV combined are effective in the management of pathogens (Summerfelt et al.,
2009), but to date this approach is not commercially applied in full-scale open Danish RAS trout farms
(Pedersen et al., 2009) possibly due to the additional investment costs required and lack of confidence in their
application.
Peracetic acid (PAA) and hydrogen peroxide (HP) are powerful disinfectants with a wide spectrum of
antimicrobial activity. PAA and HP degrade easily to oxygen and water and have potential to replace formalin
in aquaculture applications to control fish pathogens. Low PAA additions (1.0 mg L −1) caused only minor
impaired nitrification, in contrast to PAA application of 2.0 and 3.0 mg L −1, where nitrite levels were
significantly increased over a prolonged period. PAA has good antimicrobial activity and antiparasitic effects
over a wide temperature range, including temperatures below 10°C (Colgan & Gehr, 2001; Pedersen et al.,
2013). It is relatively stable at low organic matter content, and it is degraded into water. PAA does not cause
sublethal effects to the fish treated nor does it impair the nitrification process in the RAS biofilter at the
dosages applied.
Heinecke & Buchmann (2009) describe a process for establishing a preventive strategy against I. multifiliis in
fish farms involving filtration of free swimming stages (tomonts) so interrupting the parasite life cycle. When
combined with the use of an environmentally neutral compound (sodium percarbonate, SPC) (releasing
hydrogen peroxide) for eliminating the infective stages, the infection can be kept at an acceptable level. SPC
was tested and compared to formaldehyde (FA) and was found to have higher efficacy compared to FA but
temperature and concentration of the chemical had significant influences on parasite survival. For both
chemicals negative correlations were seen between survival of theronts and exposure time, temperature and
concentration. Micro-filtration studies demonstrated that it was possible to filter out 100% of the tomonts
using a mesh size of 80μm.
The feasibility of filtering small parasitical stages from large volumes of circulating water to maintain the
required removal rate might be a challenge. However, Heinecke & Buchmann (2009) did report that
mechanical filters (drum filters with nylon mesh with pore sizes of 70 μm) were effective in Danish RAS trout
farms which experienced severe white spot disease problems during the first two years of operation.
3.4.7 Non-chemical Control of Disease

Sharrer & Summerfelt (2007) promote the concept that trout RAS require an internal disinfection process to
control population growth of pathogens and heterotrophic bacteria. Although disinfection of recycled process
water adds to the fixed and variable costs of these systems, mitigation of potential disease occurrence has
been reported with ozonation by itself (Ritar et al., 2006) or just with ultraviolet (UV) irradiation (Sharrer et
al., 2005). Ozonation and ultraviolet (UV) irradiation are two technologies that have been used to treat
relatively large aquaculture flows, including flows within freshwater RAS. Sharrer & Summerfelt (2007)
evaluated the effectiveness of ozone application alone or followed by UV irradiation to reduce abundance of
heterotrophic and total coliform bacteria in a water reuse system. Results showed that when only ozone was
applied at dosages – defined by the product of the ozone concentration times the mean hydraulic residence
time (Ct) – that ranged from 0.10 to 3.65 min mg/L, the total heterotrophic bacteria counts and total coliform
bacteria counts in the water exiting the contact basin were reduced to 3–12 colony forming units per milliliter
(cfu/mL) and 2–18 cfu/100 mL respectively. Bacteria inactivation appeared to be just as effective at the lowest
ozone ct dosage (i.e., 0.1 mg/L ozone after a 1 min contact time) as at the highest ozone ct dosage (i.e., 0.2
mg/L ozone after a 16.6 min contact time). Sharrer & Summerfelt (2007) advise that RAS using UV alone
provide a selection process that favours bacteria that embed within particulate matter or form bacterial
aggregates that provides shielding from oxidation. However, when ozonation was followed by UV irradiation,
the total heterotrophic bacteria counts and total coliform bacteria counts in the water exiting the UV
irradiation unit were reduced to, respectively, 0–4 cfu/mL and 0–3 cfu/100mL. Consequently, combining ozone
dosages of only 0.1–0.2 min mg/L with a UV irradiation dosage of approximately 50mJ/cm 2 would consistently
reduce bacteria counts to near zero. These findings were orders of magnitude lower than the bacteria counts
measured in the system when it was operated without disinfection or with UV irradiation alone. Their
research shows that combining ozonation and UV irradiation can effectively disinfect recirculating water before
it returns to the stocked tanks. No chemicals are released to the environment. However, ozone production
does have a significant carbon footprint and if used incorrectly can be harmful to farm operators. Furthermore,
to achieve stable RAS operation a stable bacterial flora in the production tanks is optimal.
3.5 Developing technologies
3.5.1 Diet density manipulation

Feeds used in most RAS are essentially the same commercial diets produced in high volume for cage or pond
production systems, with minor or no adjustment. As solids separation is less of an issue in these systems
other formulation goals are prioritised which (particularly in the case of salmon) result in nutrient-dense diets
and what is effectively a perpetual state of diarrhoea in the fish consuming them. An alternative solution to the
inherent problem of density-dependent solids separation and removal in RAS involves the engineering of
denser RAS specific diets. For example this can be achieved through poorly digestible non-starch
polysaccharides (NSP) to increase the integrity and specific gravity of faecal material e.g. substitution of wheat/
corn COH sources with barely oats. Legumes also have high NSP levels e.g. chickpea, broad beans, field peas
which can be locally produced and are less susceptible to price fluctuations and environmental critique than
soy inclusion (which has relatively high starch levels). Small quantities of NSP (i.e. 1%) have negligible impact on
FCR though trade-offs will be incurred with increasing concentrations.
It might also be noted that the feed manufacturer Trouw, is marketing a specialised carrageenan based RAS
diets intended to help prevent pellet breakdown and be a better binder for faecal particles. The diet is also
designed to reduce phosphorus.
The EU funded ‘Feed and Treat’ 27 project (2012-2014) being undertaken by a consortium of researchers and
industry partners (including Lakeland Smolt in the UK) aims to improve recirculation efficiency through a range
of improvements in biological, mechanical filtration performance combined with feed optimisation. In addition
to developing and testing a salmon smolt feed for RAS, the project will also produce design-criteria and a
blueprint of future RAS and its commercial use.
3.5.2 Tank self-cleaning technology

Cleaning and disinfection of RAS tanks incurs significant labour costs but is essential for good fish health
especially for juveniles. CLEANHATCH 28 is an EU funded project implemented by AQUABIOTECH Ltd, a
Maltese SME has developed a retro-fittable ozone-based technology for reducing surface bacterial biofilms and
residues. The designers claim significant reduction in labour costs and growth rate gains for a range of species
including sea bream, sea bass, rainbow trout and turbot.
3.5.3 Nitrate denitrification in RAS
Nitrate toxicity
Several important publications have stated that NO3-N is generally non-toxic to fish at concentrations that
would be expected under typical culture conditions (Timmons et al, 2007; Colt, 2006). However, few specific
studies have been conducted to evaluate the toxicity of NO3-N to salmonids. Camargo et al. (2005) provided
27
EU (FP7-SME-2011-286143) http://documents.plant.wur.nl/imares/feedandtreat.pdf
28
http://cordis.europa.eu/result/brief/rcn/11692_en.htmlhttp://www.cleanhatch.net
an overview of nitrate toxicity studies conducted with freshwater fish including salmonids. Several of these
studies indicated that NO3-N can be chronically toxic to salmonid eggs and larvae at concentrations <200 mg/L
with sublethal effects occurring at <25 mg/L (Kincheloe et al., 1979; McGurk et al., 2006). However,
establishment of acute, chronic, and sublethal NO3-N levels depends upon life stage (Camargo et al., 2005).
Westin (1974) reported a 96-hr LC50 NO3-N/L of 1,364 mg NO3-N/L for rainbow trout fingerlings. Despite
the relatively high NO3-N/L and a 7-day LC350 of 1,068mg NO3-N/L levels reported for acute toxicity, Westin
(1974) recommended a maximum allowable concentration of approximately 57mg NO3-N/L for chronic
exposure and only 5.7mg NO3-N/L for optimal health and growth of salmonids. Several other studies have also
concluded that NO3-N concentrations could be a parameter of concern for various species cultured in RAS
that are operated with low water exchange rates, including Martins et al. (2009) - common carp; Hamlin
(2006) – Siberian sturgeon Acipenserbaeri; and Hrubec (1996) - hybrid striped bass Moronesaxatilis x M. chrysops.
More recent studies are highlighting the toxicity of nitrate to both freshwater and marine species cultured in
RAS (Schram et al., 2014; van Bussel et al., 2012) emphasising the need for its removal from RAS. Chronic
nitrate toxicity can impair growth rates, impact tissue structure and gross body composition. In synergy with
other chronic stressors it has the potential to increased susceptibility of stock to disease outbreaks.
Denitrification
In RAS trickling filter biofilms, denitrification activity was observed in distinct zones of the biofilm to a depth of
0.2–0.3 mm below the biofilm surface (Dalsgaard & Revsbech, 1992). Oxygen levels and organic matter
availability dictated the depth of the denitrifying zone. Ammonia lowered nitrate assimilation rates and
increased nitrate availability for denitrification (van Rijn et al., 2006). Oxidation of an organic carbon and
electron donor and subsequent reduction of nitrate to elemental nitrogen yields around 70% of the energy
gained with oxygen as the final electron acceptor (Payne, 1970). Under suitable conditions, high nitrate
removal rates can be accomplished with this process. However, van Rijn et al. (2006) noted that information
on denitrification in RAS is scarce and nitrate removal rates by denitrification reactors are reported in only a
few studies. These authors note that volumetric nitrate removal rates in commercial farms vary significantly
(1–166mg NO3-N/l/h) most likely due to differences in system design, farm operation, types of electron donor,
reduction states of the reactors, and the ambient nitrate concentrations at which the various reactors are
operated.
In industrial wastewaters, the removal of nitrogen is generally performed using standard techniques of
nitrification and denitrification processes. This procedure is suitable for the treatment of wastewaters with
high content of ammonia and rich in biodegradable carbon because of its low cost and high efficiency as
compared to physical and chemical treatment (van Dongen et al., 2001) but it is expensive for the treatment of
aquaculture wastewaters with low carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratios. The treatment of these effluents requires
significant amounts of dissolved oxygen for nitrification and because the available carbon in some wastewaters
is insufficient for the denitrification process, an external carbon source such as acetate, glucose, ethanol,
methanol or methane gas must be added. These external carbon sources are expensive and can substantially
increase fish production costs (Li et al., 2004; Noophan et al., 2008).
Denitrification in freshwater RAS

Studies on denitrification reactors in freshwater RAS were initiated in Germany by incorporating an activated
sludge tank in the system for common carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Meske, 1976). Similar experimental systems with
or without addition of external carbon sources were subsequently operated by a number of investigators with
different freshwater fish species (Schmitz-Schlang & Moskwa, 1992; Knosche, 1994). Denitrifying activity in
packed bed columns was studied by Abeysinghe et al. (1996) and Suzuki et al. (2003) with methanol as an
external carbon source. Denitrification using endogenous carbon sources was studied in a closed freshwater
RAS for tilapia (van Rijn & Barak, 1998; Shnel et al., 2002). In these studies, carbon compounds, released from
the breakdown of endogenous carbon, were used to fuel denitrification in an anoxic treatment step consisting
of a digestion basin and a fluidized bed reactor.
Denitrification in marine RAS
Gelfand et al., (2003) evaluated the feasibility of denitrification in a marine RAS comprising an anoxic digestion
basin and fluidized bed reactor for culture of gilthead seabream with endogenous carbon as the sole carbon
source. Nitrate removal in this system was mediated by both heterotrophic and autotrophic denitrification.
Chemical analyses of the sulphur transformations and microbiological analyses of the bacterial populations in
this treatment system revealed that sulphide, produced by sulphate reduction in the anaerobic parts of the
digestion basin, was reoxidized by autotrophic denitrifiers (Cytryn et al., 2003). Alkalinity lost in the nitrifying
treatment stage was fully regained in the anoxic treatment stage (Gelfand et al., 2003).
Additional evidence for the denitrification potential of nitrifying media was provided in a study on a moving bed
bioreactor (MBBs) in a RAS for culture of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) (van Rijn et al., 2006). Zohar et al.
(2005) and Morrison et al. (2004) reported innovative results demonstrating that the microbial consortia
present in MMBs have the potential to support different nitrogen transformation processes that enable closing
the nitrogen cycle and releasing nitrogen back to the atmosphere. Tal & Schreier (2004) combined an
anaerobic digestion unit (ADU) with the main biofiltration system in a two-stage biofiltration approach tested
in a pilot RAS in which adult seabream were grown at 40–50 kg/m3 and fed daily at 1% of their body weight.
This approach reduced 90–100% of the daily nitrate production of the nitrifying filter resulting in minimal
nitrate accumulation in the RAS. During a 4-month experimental period daily water exchanges averaged as low
as 1% of the tank volume significantly lower than the 7–10% achieved in earlier studies without denitrification.
3.5.4 Annamox systems

In the last decade microbial systems have been identified that bypass the formation of NO3- and convert NO2-
to N2 gas with NH4+ as the electron donor and NO2- as the electron acceptor under anaerobic conditions. The
process is called ANaerobic AMMonium Oxidation or Anammox. Strous et al. (1997) reported that both pure
and mixed ammonium oxidizing bacteria and Anammox bacteria under anaerobic conditions were able to use
nitrite as an electron acceptor and ammonium as an electron donor. Tal et al., (2008) report on the
development of a pilot land-based, marine RAS that is fully contained, claiming virtually no environmental
impact as a result of highly efficient biological waste treatment and water recycling system. Over 99% of the
water volume was recycled daily by integrating aerobic nitrification to eliminate toxic ammonia and, for the
first time, simultaneous, anaerobic denitrification and Anammox, to convert ammonia and nitrate to nitrogen
gas. Hydrogen sulphide generated by the separated endogenous organic solids was used as an electron source
for nitrate reduction via autotrophic denitrification and the remaining organic solids were converted to
methane and carbon dioxide. System viability was validated by growing gilthead seabream from 61 g to 412 g
for a total production of 1.7 tons in just 131 days with 99% fish survival. Ammonia nitrite and nitrate did not
exceed an average daily concentration of 0.8 mg/l, 0.2 mg/l and 150 mg/l, respectively. Food conversion values
were 16% lower than recorded levels for net-pen aquaculture and saltwater usage of less than 16 l/every kg of
fish produced. The system is claimed to be site-independent, biosecure, devoid of environmental contaminants
and species independent.
Applying the Anammox technology

The development of Anammox bioreactors as the major nitrogen removal process in RAS would be
advantageous due to the reduced oxygen demands and the autotrophic nature of the process, which allows
complete nitrogen removal without a need for organic carbon. Savings in fish production costs would be made
through reduced requirement for water buffering, lower oxygen costs, reduced pumping for water exchange
and increased growth rates / survival. However, whether Anammox could be applied to commercial RAS as a
means to control nitrogen load in lieu of conventional denitrification approaches remains to be determined.
With Anammox bacterial numbers doubling times of around 11 days (Strous et al., 1999) the potential of these
bacteria to replace conventional denitrification reactors is debateable and several researchers question their
potential application in RAS aquaculture (Tsushima et al., 2007). However, the successful application of
Anammox in municipal wastewater treatment plants (Schmidt et al., 2003; Van der Star et al., 2007) suggests
that further studies should be performed on the potential exploitation of this technology for aquaculture and
to some extent this has been justified (Tal et al., 2008). A 2 year EU Framework programme developing
Anammox technology has just been completed and an efficient bacterium was isolated and cultured in a
prototype reactor supporting an experimental stocked sea bass RAS. This technology will now be further
developed for commercial application.
3.5.5 Automated in-line water quality monitoring

The ability of RAS farmers to monitor water quality is generally limited to the essential parameters such as
temperature, oxygen levels, pH, nitrite and ammonia and occasionally some heavy metals. However, other
than temperature and oxygen levels most water quality parameters are monitored at spot points and at
various intervals during the working day. As EU aquaculture production scales up towards greater
intensification using RAS technology for hatcheries, head starting and fattening farms using lower water
replacement volumes, there is a concomitant need for the farmer to be more aware of a much larger range of
water pollutants derived from metabolic, bacterial and environmental sources. Furthermore, this data needs to
be made continually (24h) available on-line.
While numerous sensors are available on the market to monitor individual water quality parameters no single
instrument is available to provide multi-parameter analysis in real time and on a continual basis. This is a
serious weakness for large RAS farms with a standing biomass in excess of 2-3 hundred tonnes. In such
systems, the available reaction time (prior to stock loss / negative impact) due to a particular water quality
parameter moving outside the optimum range may be measured in under 1 minute.
A current EU Framework 7 programme proposes miniature mass spectrometer (MMS) technology combined
with orthogonal optical detection and is believed to be ideally suited to the measurement of multiple ion
species down to parts per billion levels in RAS. The approach, allows real time, constant monitoring of
potential toxins and substances that might taint or poison the fish, permitting corrective measures to be
applied when a problem is detected. The system may offer near real time (minute-by-minute) on-line,
detection of a wide range of substances but it can be reconfigured in software to “focus” on one part of the
scan spectrum to provide high resolution (sensitivity and time) measurement of a specific substance of interest.
The wide utility of the MMS extends beyond measuring potentially harmful substances, but can also be applied
to measuring substances that are more commonly measured – CO2, nitrogenous compounds and methane.
Importantly, the technology is capable of measuring these substances simultaneously and also offers an ideal
route for direct measurement of methanogenesis in anaerobic digestion. Other applications pertinent to
aquaculture include determination and monitoring the rates of Anammox and denitrification processes.
Parameters that require new sensor technology for continual monitoring in RAS include tainting substances,
hazardous algal blooms, hydrogen sulphide and a range of other gases:
3.5.6 Tainting substances: Geosmins (GSM) and 2-methylisorboneol (MIB) contamination of

aquaculture water
Producers of GSM and MIB include Streptomyces species or cyanobacteria (Izaguirre and Taylor, 1995).
Streptomyces species are also thought to be responsible for the synthesis and release of these compounds in
RAS (Guttman and van Rijn, 2009; Schrader and Summerfelt, 2010). These products once released into the
farm water are rapidly absorbed via the fish gills into the tissue fat conferring a distasteful ‘muddy’ flavour to
the fish. In the US, off-flavour problems in pond-based systems for the culture of channel catfish have been
estimated to cost producers as much as US$60 million annually (Tucker, 2000; Schrader et al., 2011). Catfish
that are determined to be off-flavour must be held in ponds until flavour quality improves. It has been
estimated that 30% of potential revenue is lost annually by the pond-raised catfish industry due to off-flavour
problems because of delays in harvest that result in additional feed costs, forfeiture of income from foregone
sales because producers are forced to delay restocking ponds, and loss of catfish during the holding period
from disease, water quality deterioration, and bird depredation (Engle et al., 1995; Tucker, 2000; Smith et al.,
2008).
The UK produces about 13,000 tonnes of trout, valued at £45 million using various production systems
common throughout mainland Europe. During a survey of UK trout farmers as to the incidence of tainting
issues 25% of the respondents surveyed stated that they had had problems associated with tainting, usually
persisting for several weeks over the summer months. The costs to farmers, who are unable to sell fish while
they are affected, can be conservatively estimated at many hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum and
involve loss of sales, utilisation of valuable pond and tank space as well as additional feed and water costs.
Farmers have no means of early detection of problems and thus must rely on reactive solutions once the
compounds have been detected in the fish. The EU produced some 205 thousand tonnes of trout in 2007
valued at €539 million. On this basis the potential cost saving of an early warning system for taint compounds
to EU trout farmers is very significant.
Several salmonid species such as rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpines) raised
in RAS have also been reported to possess earthy and musty off-flavors caused by GSM and MIB (Guttman and
van Rijn, 2008; Schrader and Summerfelt, 2010; Schrader et al., 2010; Houle et al., 2011). Off-flavours have
been reported to impact a number of other commercially important species, including Nile tilapia, Oreochromis
niloticus (Yamprayoon & Noomhorn, 2000), shrimp (Whitfield et al.,1988), Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar (Farmer
et al., 1995), rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri (From & Horlyck, 1984), catfish species (Lovell et al., 1986; Martin
et al., 1987) cultured largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, and white sturgeon, Acipensertrans montanus
(Schrader et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2008). All these species are cultured within the EU using RAS technology
ass attempts are made to diversify the species base for EU production, so will be exposed to taint issues if
conditions are suited to the growth of organisms that release GSM and MIB. One UK Asian sea bass RAS farm
failed in 2011 with significant financial losses due to GSM tainting of the flesh in products delivered to a UK
multiple.
Purging fish of taints

The taint threshold i.e. the level below which the majority of people will not be able to detect a musty/earthy
taint, is approximately 1 ppb (1 g/kg). Once GSM and MIB are released in water they will rapidly accumulate
in fish primarily entering via the gills. Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that GSM immediately begins
to accumulate in trout when they are exposed to tainted water and reaches a maximum level in less than a
day.
Taint is generally removed by depuration which can extend up to 15 days for salmonids. This is an inefficient
and costly method in terms of managing the depuration process. Issues include the logistics of regularly
depurating large volumes of fish, lost fish weight, reduced tissue fat content and condition factor. Neither is it a
secure method due to the variable depuration response of individual fish according to their original taint and
tissue fat levels. Purge times for salmonids were found to be directly related to initial taint concentration in fish
of similar mass and fat content, held at the same temperature (14.5oC). Depuration times in all experimental
groups were significantly increased when the time for a population of fish to purge clear was considered rather
than the period required for the arithmetic mean concentration to reach sensory threshold limit (Robertson
et al., 2005). Similarly, during depuration in pond raised channel catfish, the reduction of GSM and MIB levels
to provide an “on-flavor” product can take days, weeks, or even months in some cases and depends upon a
variety of factors including water temperature, adipose content of the flesh, and intensity of the initial off-flavor
(Perkins & Schlenk, 1997; Dionigi et al., 2000; Burr et al., 2012).
As might be expected it is difficult to control tainting in open earthen ponds but in RAS farms its efficient
detection and immediate removal should be feasible. Under laboratory conditions UV–TiO2 photocatalysis has
been demonstrated to cause a significant reduction of both 2-MIB and GSM using a packed bed reactor unit
(Pestana et al., 2014). Detectable levels were reduced by up to 97% after a single pass through the unit. When
the reactor was used to treat water in a fish farm where both compounds were being produced in situ a
reduction of almost 90% in taint compounds was achieved. These very encouraging results demonstrate the
potential of this UV–TiO2 photocatalytic reactor for water treatment in fish rearing systems. This is a far more
attractive proposition than the rather crude approach of determining depuration periods for RAS farmed
salmon as proposed by Burr et al. (2012). A belief in depuration is a simplistic approach considering the
investments involved with RAS and particularly when attempting to produce a quality product for sale at a
premium price.
3.5.7 Efficient control of dissolved gases
Gases of interest - Hydrogen Sulphide, Methane, Oxygen, Carbon dioxide

In RAS, hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is produced by bacteria in anoxic silts which can accumulate where tank
design and pipe runs enable the settlement of faecal and feed waste. Hydrogen sulphide exists in two forms in
the water, HS- (ionised sulphide ion) and H2S (unionised hydrogen sulphide); the H2S form is highly toxic to
fish. In well oxygenated waters, sulphide is rapidly oxidised to sulphate. Gases also routinely monitored include
oxygen and carbon dioxide. While these can generally be measured using inexpensive probes, the MMS
technology can also measure these gases in solution, illustrating its wide utility as a universal sensor.
Enhanced gas exchange systems

There is a significant energy consumption associated with either transferring oxygen into the culture water or
removing high levels of undesirable gas such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and if needed, chlorine. Efforts are
therefore ongoing to develop more efficient transfer technologies. For instance the company Coldep
Developpement in France have patented a vacuum airlift system that combines degassing with foam
fractionation and low head water pumping, with claimed savings in energy cost. In the UK, Pearlmax29 is aiming
to exploit a micro-bubble technology developed at the University of Sheffield. This is able to reduce the bubble
size produced in diffusers and claimed to increase aeration rates by three to four fold and reduce power inputs
by 18%. This is most likely to be used in aerations and oxygenation systems, but could be applicable in some
degassers or ozonation systems where a ten-fold reduction in power requirements is claimed. Another
technology that is so far restricted to specialist uses but has potential for aquaculture is membrane gas transfer
technology. These are often in the form of hollow fibres that are porous for the target gases. For a degasser, a
bundle of fibres would be positioned in the water stream to be degassed. Each fibre would have a small
vacuum applied such that gas is drawn from the water into the fibres for extraction. An oxygenation system
would work in reverse through applying a slightly higher gas pressure within the fibre. The major advantage is
high transfer efficiency with lower energy requirements than conventional bubble or agitation based techniques
(Yoon, 2012). The same technology can also be used to increase the efficiency of biofltration and other water
treatment processes (Martin & Nerenberg, 2012).
3.5.8 Use of GMOs

After more than two decades of research, protracted public consultation and evaluation of the food-safety and
environmental impacts of AquaBounty’s genetically modified (GM) ‘AquAdvantage salmon’ (AAS), it now
29
www.perlemax.com
appears increasingly likely that America’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, a sub-body of the FDA, will grant it
pre-market approval; legalising the first commercial production of a transgenic animal anywhere in the world.
The AAS Atlantic salmon includes an ocean pout ‘antifreeze’ and a chinook salmon growth-hormone gene.
Atlantic salmon have evolved to reduce growth at lower water temperatures when prey organisms are likely
to be in low supply. The pout gene effectively over-rides this response allowing the growth-gene of the faster-
growing Chinook to confer accelerated growth even at low temperatures. Faster growth will also correspond
with significant improvement in food conversion efficiency.
Aquabounty claim double the growth rate of normal Atlantic salmon for ASS (though their trial data indicates
juveniles can reach a weight of 500g after only 250 days from first feeding compared to slightly over 400 days
for normal Atlantic salmon30 i.e. a 40% reduction in grow-out time).Verification of these claims still requires
independent benchmark comparisons of ASS with the products of leading conventional selective breeding
programmes under commercial RAS grow-out conditions (e.g. Aquacatch, Salmobreed or Landcatch natural
selection). Rates of non-GM trait improvement are also being accelerated through increased use of genetic
marker technology (e.g. X-select). Furthermore, extremely low genetic diversity associated with the very small
ASS founder population (probably a single family) reduce the potential for future desirable selective-breeding
gains for traits e.g. for post-harvest traits such as yield or fat content. The GMO (genetically modified
organism) mode of action also suggests greatest growth will be achieved at lower temperatures; however
water temperatures in RAS can be optimised to particular life-stages.
FDA rules require product labelling when there is a difference in nutritional value, composition, safety
(allergenicity) or processability of a food compared with its traditional counterpart 31. Aquabounty claim that
only regulatory biological processes are influenced and its eating qualities thereby unaffected. i.e. AAS
expresses Atlantic salmon protein making it ‘biologically and chemically indistinguishable from Atlantic Salmon’.
Nevertheless, Aquabounty have publically committed to voluntary labelling and accept labelling by exclusion
(i.e. for non-GMO fish)32, though it is not clear how far they would enforce such requirements on farmers
growing their product under licence.
To prevent any possibility of interaction with wild stocks all production will also be engineered to be sterile
females. However FDA licensing will restrict ASS production to physically contained land-based RAS. Similar
licensing in Europe or Canada is highly unlikely, certainly in the medium term. Although American consumers
are more accepting of plant-based GM foods than their European counterparts, it remains to be seen just how
far this attitude will translate to transgenic salmon and the premium it is likely to capture compared non-GM
salmon. Assuming ASS achieves FDA market approval, consumer acceptance is good and the grow-rate
differentials claimed by Aquabounty are justified, there would then appear to be a substantial comparative
advantage for ASS culture in RAS compared to imported cage-farmed produce. This is significant as some 97%
of the 200,000t of salmon annually consumed in the USA is imported, much of it destined for a sizeable
premium market segment (Section 2.3). Economic success in the USA and elsewhere may contribute longer-
term attitude shifts in more GMO adverse markets. Consumer attitudes are already likely to be more flexible
in SE Asia markets.
GMO ingredients (e.g. soy and corn) are already widely used in the formulation of aquatic diets. Although
some RAS producers restrict use of GMO ingredients as part of their sustainable-marketing strategy, this does
not fundamentally differentiate RAS from cage-production alternatives.
30
http://www.aquabounty.com/documents/press/2010/AquaBounty%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Corfin.pdf
31
“Food and Drugs” Title 21 U.S. Code. Pts. 343. 2007 ed.
32
http://www.aquabounty.com/PressRoom/#l3
4 Prospects for salmon farming in RAS operations
4.1 Background
Two main drivers can be discerned for salmon farming using RAS. Firstly, since the advent of salmon farming in
marine and freshwater cages, there has been a constant lobby of opposition from various interest groups; In
particular the salmon angling community, but also wider environmental and conservation groups. The main
issues raised against cage-based farming are:
 Farms create reservoirs for disease organisms, particularly sea lice, which could affect migrating wild
salmon
 Escapees from fish farms could compete with wild salmon, especially for spawning habitat
 Escapees that breed with wild populations could dilute their genetic integrity
 Solid organic wastes from the farms cause degradation of the local benthic habitats
 Dissolved nutrient wastes from the farms could contribute to eutrophication and increased risk of
algal blooms
 Chemical and pharmaceutical use by farms could have adverse effects on other organisms and the
local ecology
 Farms attract predatory animals (especially seals and sea birds) which can then be adversely impacted
by anti-predator measures adopted by farmers (e.g. deaths due to entanglement in anti-predator nets)
 The visual amenity and utility of ocean-spaces for other recreational and commercial uses can be
adversely affected by cage-farming.
Campaigners against cage-based farming argue that salmon should be reared in contained systems that do not
allow the kinds of environmental interactions outlined above (e.g. Ecoplan International Inc. (2008) or see
statements from the Atlantic Salmon Trust 33).
A separate and perhaps wider community concern is that fish farms detract from the natural scenic beauty of
an area and hence reduce value with respect to potential income from tourists etc.
A more general concern raised against salmon aquaculture is its use of fishmeal and fish oil in compounded
diets. As this is also an issue for RAS farms, it is not a major driver for RAS adoption.
The second major driver has been the potential advantages of RAS as outlined in the previous chapter. This
could be summarised as the technology driver. Potential users are attracted by the promise of control and
consistency and removal of dependence on wider environmental variables including disease, severe weather,
or predators etc. For others, the engineering challenge of developing self-contained systems which minimise
water use, control wastes and optimise production, is sufficient reason to engage with RAS farm development.
4.2 Current activity
Swift Aquaculture, in Agassiz, BC34, is a family operated business that farms Pacific salmon in RAS. The farm
raises coho salmon in freshwater tanks, and also operates as a multi-trophic aquaculture site, using the
33
http://www.atlanticsalmontrust.org/blogs/close-containment-the-plot-thickens.html
34
http://www.seafoodchoices.org/seafoodsummit/documents/Swift,Bruce.pdf
nutrient-rich water from the salmon tanks to grow watercress and wasabi, which in turn produces algae to
feed crayfish. The coho salmon from this farm is currently sold to high-end restaurants in Vancouver. Plans
exist to expand this site to a 1000 tonnes RAS operation.
Coho salmon are also raised by AquaSeed Corporation at their 100 tonnes land based RAS facility in
Washington State, as well as through a franchise with Teton Fisheries at two 160 tonnes facilities in Montana.
These coho are marketed under the brand "SweetSpring Salmon," which supplies Overwaitea Food Group
supermarkets in British Columbia and Alberta. Both Montana franchisees, established in 2011 ceased
production in 2013 due to lack of profitability35 whilst SweetSpring reportedly made losses of $3.7m over the
same period.
Despite the setback in Montana, investment in RAS farms for Coho is continuing with an announcement36 from
Holder Timmons Engineering and Aquacare (Aquatic Environment Inc.) that they are working on new
projects in British Columbia, Missouri and on Vancouver Island. The rationale for selecting coho salmon was
explained by John Holder at a meeting of the Canadian Parliament Fisheries and Oceans Committee meeting in
201137. Coho can be reared from first feeding to 3 kg harvest weight in 12 months with greater flexibility in
terms of year-round fry supply. This enables more efficient use of tanks and more regular harvesting than is
currently possible with Atlantic salmon. Furthermore, although it is a more niche species, prices are higher per
kg than for Atlantic salmon.
Danish Atlantic salmon farm Oceanus, located at Langsand Laks, is the first commercial RAS operation
destined to produce 1,000 metric tons per year of Atlantic salmon. Involving both fish farmers and scientists
the farm has sent its first salmon to market in January 2014. It is a DKK 100 million ($18.1m) investment with
the government contributing DKK 23.8m and DKK 1m from energy company Nord Energi. The project
involves seafood producer and distributor Aquapri, smoking house Polar Salmon, wild fish harvesters Sohn
Invest and RAS technology suppliers including Billund Aquaculture, who are cooperating on the project. The
product is targeted at markets in Japan, the US and Russia. Under full production the plant is designed to
harvest 45t of salmon each week. The facility recirculates 13,000 cubic meters of water an hour at a fish
stocking density of 80 to 90kg/m3.
Norwegian salmon farmer Atlantic Sapphire is also involved in Oceanus, and is planning a similar venture in
North America. It is also a partner in a proposed RAS salmon farm in Scotland “FishFrom”38. This is a
proposed £15 million investment at a site at Tayinloan, Argyll with a target production of 3,000t per annum.
Larger scale projects are anticipated after this in order to capture economies of scale and market share. The
proposed technology provider is Aquatec Solutions A/S.
A second large project in Denmark is Danish Salmon which has a target production of 2,000 t of 4-5 kg
salmon per annum. The farm is located in Hirtshals and is being constructed by AKVA group Denmark. It is
due to commence sales in September 2014 with output already sold to Nordic Seafood via the local
processor, OH Fiskeeksport. This company is one of the five investors in the company (20%), the others
being CAL Invest (30%), Medipure Invest (25%), S Frandsen Gladstone (20%) and Bent Urup (5%). It
utilises two units of four 16m diameter tanks and eight 6m diameter smolt tanks, each with separate water
treatment systems. There is also a hatchery and fry rearing system with separate water treatment using 4m
diameter tanks. The total treated water flow rate is 13,000 m3/hr.
35
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/sweetspring-salmon-calls-for-investors-to-keep-afloat-part-3-of-4/
36
www.intrafish.com 24/02/14
37
https://openparliament.ca/committees/fisheries/41-1/17/john-holder-1/
38
http://www.fishfrom.com/
The Xinjiang E-he Construction and Investment Company, owner of a RAS salmon farm being built in
China, hope production will start around April 2014, with an aim to expand the project in the next five years.
The farm is located in the Gobi desert, near to the border with Mongolia, with Billund Aquaculture involved
in design and construction. It is hoped that the farm will be able to expand from producing 1,000 metric tons
of salmon to 10,000t within the next five years (Undercurrent News 23 August 2013). Another RAS project in
Shandong Province China is the Yanai Salmon Farm owned by Shandong Oriental Ocean Sci-Tech Co.
This has been in production since 2012 and has an annual target of around 1,400 tonnes per year. Its initial
marketing strategy was to sell live fish at €25/kg, but sales were reportedly weak and more recent prices have
been in the region of €11/kg. This is still sufficient to provide a good profit margin 39.
The K'udas Project is a collaboration between the 'Namgis First Nation and the SOS Marine Conservation
Foundation to build a pilot-scale land-based RAS on the Cheslakees Indian Reserve, 5 km south of Port
McNeill on Vancouver Island. It has supporting funding from a variety of organisations including Tides Canada
(an environmental body), local oil-production interests, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
(SDTC), Department for Fisheries and Oceans’s (DFO) Aquaculture Innovation and Market Access
Programme, Coastal Sustainability Trust, Richie Foundation, and BC Hydro Power Smart. Opened in
March 2013 it should be harvesting its first fish in March 2014. It is a land-based RAS farm with an initial
production target of 470 tonnes per annum (with a density up to 90 kg/m3) and planned expansion to 2 – 3000
tonnes. The project has been designed such that, initially, only one module with an annual production capacity
of 260 tonnes to 500 tonnes will be installed. Data collected from pilot operations will then be used to refine
the design where necessary and to expand to a full-size. Initial investment, coming primarily from SDTC, Tides
Canada and the Coast Sustainability Trust, is around C$7.25 million. The project has been designed with a
number of innovative features intended to reduce operating costs and maximize revenues, including heat
recovery and heat pump technologies that are estimated to reduce energy costs by a factor of 10. The site is
also being designed to eventually accommodate aquaponics, whereby the nutrient-rich effluent water will be
used to grow plants in greenhouses.
Marine Harvest Canada is planning to undertake a pilot RAS project in order to document the actual costs
and benefits of commercial scale RAS production, and to contrast the collected information with the figures
for conventional net pen production. This preparatory work has been completed, and the cost of a 300 tonnes
per year pilot on the east coast of Vancouver Island was estimated at $8 million. Partial funding for the project
was committed by DFO and SDTC. Although Marine Harvest had intentions to proceed based on these
preliminary studies, a reduction in the world market price of salmon resulted in the required $5 million in
funding from Marine Harvest's parent company not being approved and the project was put on hold while
alternative funding sources were sought or until the market price of salmon improves.
An Abu Dhabi company, Asmak, is planning an Atlantic salmon RAS farm that can compete favourably with
imports flown in from Norway or Ireland which entails significant air freight costs ($4-5/kg) in a bid to provide
affordable alternatives to popular local fish such as grouper while substituting imports.
4.3 Intermediate strategies
Over the past ten years there has been increasing investment in RAS farms for salmon smolt production in
Scotland, Norway and Chile. These systems are reputedly cost competitive with alternative cage-based
systems. One scenario is that juvenile salmon could be reared to a larger size in land-based systems before
39
https://www.seafoodsource.com/en/news/aquaculture/13791-china-firm-cultivating-salmon-for-live-sales
being moved to sea for final growout. This is currently being tested in Norway in a joint industry research
project with Nofima (Terjesen et al, 2013). The rationale for this is:
 The highest losses during the marine farming stage is from post-transfer smolts (up to 20%)
 Post transfer smolts can have reduced feed intake and growth rates
 Lice problems are increased with longer growout periods
 Shorter growout at sea would enable farms to improve utilisation of sites and allowable biomass limits
The Norwegian government recently adjusted regulations that previously required all salmon over 250g 40 to be
cultured in sea cages to a new limit of up to 1 kg in tanks. Strategies are being tested with the fish smolting at
normal size and then being reared in seawater RAS or being maintained in freshwater, seawater or
intermediate salinities. Preliminary results indicate that a salinity around 12 ppt and a water flow velocity that
exercises the fish would produce the best results providing fish are maintainted to at least 800g. Between 400
and 700g the fish were very sensitive to handling and salinity changes. A lower salinity for rearing would have
the following benefits (compared with full salinity):
 Increased feed intake and growth rate

 improved skin health
 Improved removal efficiency of ammonia and carbon dioxide
 Improved overall survival rates
Problems of early maturation do not occur in low salinity RAS units up to 1 kg.
The same project in Norway is also testing the option of initial grow-out from 100 g to 1 kg in a floating closed
containment tank (in collaboration with Marine Harvest). This has a volume of 21,000 m3, with a pumped
water flow rate of 450 m3/min. Similar systems developed by Agrimarine Technologies Inc. are being tested in
Canada and China41. Initial designs draw water from around 30m depth to help avoid drawing in algal blooms
or parasites. Additional water treatment on the inlet might be considered in the future. The outflowing water
passes through a sedimentation process to reduce the discharge of solid waste. More substantial screen filters
will probably be installed if the system is adopted. There is no treatment for dissolved wastes. Floating tank
solutions are promoted by several conservation groups as an acceptable solution to containment (e.g. Pure
Salmon Campaign42), but also pose numerous challenges and are not considered further in this report as they
do not constitute recirculated systems. Based on their trials in China, AgriMarine estimated production costs
at C$4.56/ kg making favourable comparison with Marine Harvests estimate of C$4.50/kg for cage-production
in British Colombia. However other industry experts remain sceptical of this claim43. Like many other such
initiatives the project has benefited from considerable public sector (C$7.5m) and e-NGO funding support
AgriMarine reported losses of C$2.1m in the six-months to Oct 2010 by which time it had an accumulated
deficit of $14.5m. Their demonstration farm in Vancouver suffered considerable damage and loss of stocks
during a storm event in 2008 which left other conventional farms in the same area entirely unaffected 44. In its
2011 report leading salmon producer opined: “Closed-containment technology does not currently represent a viable
alternative, especially related to energy usage but also [fish] escapes remain a risk in closed containment farming.”45
40
Limits imposed as part of strategy to limit feed inputs into fresh water systems
41
http://agrimarine.com/
42
http://www.puresalmon.org/closed_containment.html
43
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-developer-touts-salmon-rearing-tank-over-fish-farms/article564701/
http://www.alaskasalmonranching.com/agrimarine-profits-and-fish-swim-away-literally/
44
http://responsibleaquaculture.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/2700-escapes-from-agri-marine/
45
http://www.seafoodintelligence.com/EditModule.aspx?tabid=1&mid=382&def=News%20Article%20View&ItemId=30750
Figure 10: An Agrimarine floating closed containment system being prepared for installation46
Figure 11: Diagram of floating closed containment system with key ancillary equipment 47
46
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/healthy-oceans-blog/2011/01/another-breakthrough-in-better-salmon-farming/
47
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5994887&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&File=84
4.4 Technical issues for salmon production in RAS
Promoters of RAS-based salmon production present recirculated systems as having highly controlled
environments which can therefore be adjusted to optimise growth and other performance parameters. With
the current status of technology however, especially in marine RAS, this cannot be taken for granted. The
systems are highly complex involving interactions of water chemistry, microbial flora and fauna and fish
physiology, not to mention feed components and waste products.
One solution advocated to remove some of the complexities of marine RAS is the complete grow-out of
salmon in freshwater. The Freshwater Institute in Virginia, USA conducted pilot trials in 2011 and 2012
(Summerfelt et al, 2013). They reported growth rates comparable with cage farming, indeed somewhat faster
than farms that have to over-winter the fish at low temperatures. This is illustrated in the figure below, which
needs to be interpreted with some care. Although the fish in the two trials were from the same basic genetic
stock, they were of different parents and early rearing was carried out in different facilities. Feed type and
management may also have differed significantly. Most importantly, the stock in the Freshwater Institute trial
contained a high proportion of grilse (80% of males, so 40% of total stock compared with 4-6% in the cage trial
(Wolters, 2010)), which were harvested early. The comparison is therefore biased by this large cull of slower
growing fish earlier in the production cycle. Unless a population is frequently graded there will be a significant
spread of sizes (usually with a normal distribution). For a stock with an average weight of 4.5 kg, the spread is
likely to be between 2.5 and 6.5 kg. Removing a smaller size grade from consideration can therefore have a
substantial impact on measured average size.
Figure 12: Growth data from Freshwater Institute trials with Atlantic salmon compared with cage site
in Maine (Source: Summerfelt et al, 2013)
Relatively little data is available from commercial salmon farms, but unpublished analysis of such data from a
wide variety of locations (Talbot pers. comm.) suggests that higher temperatures do not necessarily lead to
shorter times to harvest weight (in part due to adaptation mechanisms).
The problem of high grilse rates was faced in the cage-based salmon industry (although rarely as severe),
particularly in lower-salinity sites. This was addressed through selective breeding for late maturing males
and/or photoperiod manipulations. For freshwater RAS farms the use of all female (and perhaps triploid) stock
could be considered.
The feed conversion rate during the Freshwater Institute trial was 1.01which compares favourably with cage-
reared salmon. Mortality rates were also very low (below 5%). Stocking densities reached 100 kg/m 3. As with
other RAS for growout, off-flavour taints were reported as a problem, requiring depuration of 10-14 days.
Photographs included in the report suggest that the fish have less silver colouration than would be normal for
sea reared salmon and there may be other differences that would affect market value. The report does include
the results from a blind taste test which showed the panel preferred the RAS reared salmon to cage-reared
salmon. This appears to have been due to a higher fat content in the fillet for the RAS reared fish so may be
subjective and dependent on markets.
Good et al (2012) considered a range of operating conditions for salmonids in RAS. They found growth rates
somewhat higher for salmon reared under a regime of continuous light followed by a simulated winter of 12
hours light and 12 hours dark for six weeks before a return to continuous light. Investigations on the effects of
elevated CO2 levels showed no significant difference in growth or survival rates when concentrations were 10
or 20 mg/l. Small differences were found in feed conversion rates and some physiology indicators suggesting
some sub-lethal effects at higher CO2 concentrations.
The same study found increased growth, better feed conversion, less size variation at harvest, reduced
aggressive behaviour, improved disease resistance and improved flesh texture when exercise levels were
higher (current speeds of 2 body lengths per second compared with 0.5 body lengths per second). Greater
exercise is also related to higher oxygen consumption, making low oxygen concentrations more critical.
Experimental work comparing growth rates at 70 and 100% saturation concentrations showed growth rates
reduced at the lower oxygen levels.
Further work with juvenile rainbow trout comparing different rates of water exchange and hence different
dilution rates investigated the impact of higher concentrations of metabolites and other compounds. Fish in a
near zero exchange system were observed to have much higher incidence of “side swimming” and increased
incidence of spinal deformities. These were associated with elevated concentrations of nitrate nitrogen,
potassium and copper (Davidson et al, 2011). This underlines the need for higher levels of water monitoring
and treatment in very high rate RAS. Additional experimental work with systems maintained at 29 and 89mg/l
nitrate nitrogen found higher nitrate levels to significantly and adversely affect food conversion efficiency,
survival rates and percentage of side swimmers (Good et al. 2012)
4.5 Economic appraisals and prospects
This analysis focussed on the Danish Langsand Lax venture initiated in 2010, the first land-based RAS to begin
to produce table-salmon commercially. Although a production of 700t if forecast in the first year of operation
and there are plans to scale the operation up to 4000t/yr, this analysis is based on the current production
capacity of 1,000t growing fish to a mean harvest weight of 4.5kg. Justification for the development at the
Langsand site included proximity to existing engineering and farming skills, pre-existing environmental licenses
associated with a previous aquaculture operation, infrastructure and other pre-conditions good for a rapid and
on-cost build and availability of a generous government capital investment subsidy. Considerable thought was
also put into use of cost-effective materials (e.g. use of sectional concrete surface mounted tanks) and low-cost
procurement. Elements of the technology were also pre-tested by a sister company (Billund) in Chile.
A former 250t flow-through trout on the site was demolished and a co-located RAS eel farm converted to a
hatchery permitting concurrent preparation of smolts for immediate stocking whilst the grow-out ‘Oceanus’
RAS was under construction by partner Billund Aquaculture (established in 1986, Billund has built over 100
RAS for 25 kinds of warm, cold, salt and fresh water fish in 25 countries). The hatchery, capable of supporting
the planned production capacity of 4000t, yielded its first smolts in 2011 and the first salmon were harvested
in January 2014.The farm uses low salinity salt-water (15-20ppt) extracted from a nearby fjord and also
incorporates denitrication plant to increase recirculation rates. This modification was in part a response to
concerns regarding waste-discharges into the fjiord by national environmental and fishing lobbies.
Capital and operation costs were further reduced by installing relatively few grow-out tanks; 8x 10m diameter
tanks (used for smolt on-growing/ grading and depuration of the harvested fish) and 4x 17m grow-out tanks.
The post smolt-grow out period is around 10 months; with 5 months in each of the 10 and 17m diameter
tanks. The companies CEO Thue Holm estimated that costs of the investment could have been double, if
additional grading capacity had been installed for the grow-out phase48. The downsides of this compromise
include higher risk associated with failure of individual tanks and a wider range in the size of the harvested
product ranging from 3 to 6 kg (mean 4.5kg). Although markets exist for smaller and larger salmon – clearly
this does limit the ability for strategic market planning compared to cage-systems.
Production costs itemised in Table 6 are estimated at €1.65

per kg for basic operational costs rising to €3.10/kg (farm-
gate dressed head-on bled on ice) including financing,
depreciation and all other costs. This is slightly below the
current farm-gate price for Norwegian salmon (around NOK
30). Holm accepts that his costs are between 20 - 30% higher
than those of ‘the most efficient’ Norwegian salmon farm.
Profitability is therefore based on ability to secure a premium
and scalability. Holme estimates that his product can secure a
30-40% premium in the ‘high-end’ food service sector based
on sustainability attributes and a leaner product from
exercised-fish cultured in flowing water. However scaling up
to 4,000t clearly also risks saturation of this market. Initial
target markets for air-freighted fresh/chilled include the UK,
the USA and the Far-East. However, the company and its
associates are already involved in plans to develop similar
scalable installations in the USA (through a consortium called
Atlantic Sapphire; planning for 16,000t/yr) and China (Billund

Figure 13: Large tanks at Langsand
Aquaculture; planning for 10,000t/yr) in which Langsand’s role
Laks RAS salmon farm in Denmark
as an incubation unit may alone justify its investment.
(Source Atlantic Saphire)
Production costs of €3.10/kg for the Langsand 1,000t/yr compare with only €1.40/kg costs (against wholesale
prices around €2-2.50) for the 600t Fishion tilapia farm described in section 2.3 suggest that considerably
larger-scale salmon RAS will be necessary for profitable operation compared to requirements for freshwater
species such as tilapia and catfish.
The potential for scale economies in salmon RAS must also be evaluated in the context of developments in the
cage-sector. As part of a long-term consolidation trend, farms in Scotland, Norway and Chile and have been
growing larger in size with significant associated productivity gains, accompanied by the closure of smaller
farms in more enclosed and environmentally sensitive water bodies. Marginal costs for this kind of up-scaling
are likely to be considerably lower than for comparable increases in RAS scale. As there are no reliable
reports of any RAS system having produced more than 1,000 t/yr to date, any claims around the scaleability of
RAS systems remain largely a matter of supposition.
48
http://www.aquacircle.org/modules/default.aspx?pageid=8&newsid=797
A report on closed containment, commissioned by the Canadian Government49 concluded that Pacific salmon
can be raised profitably at scales of 1/5th to 1/10th of the ‘1,000t’ minimum for Atlantic Salmon as they are less
commoditised and ‘provide better opportunities for niche marketing’. However, the rise of Atlantic salmon is
also a consequence of fundamental product attributes suggesting even greater potential for saturation of the
niche-markets for these substitutes. The report finally concludes: ‘closed containment systems have proceeded
far enough along the innovation chain that government funding of commercial-scale demonstration projects is
now necessary before full commercial deployment can be expected by the private sector.’
Table 6: Estimated operational costs for production of 4.5kg salmon (LWE) from a 1,000t/year
capacity salt-water RAS – excluding labour and financing costs (source Langsand Lax)
Item Price € Units & unit costs

Smolts (including egg cost) 0.47 125g individual smolt weight
Feed 5.25 €1.15/kg smolt feed: (EFCR 1,05)
Oxygen liquid 0.31 €0.18/kg oxygen
Energy 0.71 €0.10/kg (kWh)
Heating and cooling 0.11 €0.10/kg (kWh - heat pump)
Carbon source 0.26 €0.4/ litre (alcohol)
Iron chloride 0.06 €0.54/ litre
Polymers 0.2 €2.68/ litre
Sludge 0.09 €13.5/ ton removed
Base buffers 0.08 €0.17/kg (lime)
Total 7.38 Per fish @ 4.5 kg mean harvest weight
Total 1.65 Per kg of fish LWE
49
Parliament of Canada 2012 Closed containment salmon aquaculture report
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5994887&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&File=84
5 Potential for commercial RAS in HIE area
5.1 Candidate species and technologies
As recirculation systems are expensive to purchase and operate it is usually only economically viable to farm
high value species or life-stages in these systems. Other species-specific determinants of profitability include
length of culture period from stocking to harvest and upper biomass stocking density limits (Table 7).
Table 7: Classification of candidate food-fish species for European RAS based on key culture
characteristics
Optimum Culture Upper Candidate species

Temp range period Biomass
Life stage (oC) (months) (kg/m3) Fresh water Salt water
1. Juveniles 10-18 4-8 60 - 70 Salmon parr/ smolts Turbot, halibut, cod,
Dover sole, seabass,
sea bream
2. Table-fish Temperate 12 - 24 50 - 70 Sturgeon1, Arctic char, Turbot, Dover sole,
(& caviar) 12-20 perch Senegalese sole,
Salmon
3. Table-fish Intermediate 8 - 12 European eel, rainbow Seabass, seabream,
16-24 trout yellowtail
kingfish/amberjack
4. Table-fish Warm-water 6-8 60 - >300 Barramundi, African Red drum
24-28 catfish2, tilapia2 (Cobia, grouper)
1
Given the high value of caviar, achieving high stocking density is a lower management priority for sturgeon
2
Although fast growing and tolerant of high stocking density, these fresh species command low prices
Table 8 Commercially important species for RAS culture by region
Europe Other
Salmon (smolts) Murray Cod
Eels Jade Perch
Seabass/ bream Silver perch
Barramundi Cobia
Turbot Shrimp
Sole (mainly Senegalese) Abalone
African catfish Seahorses
Tilapia Grouper
Sturgeon Red Drum
Ornamentals
The most viable finfish species are likely to be fast-growing and higher unit-value warm water species such as
European sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax; gilthead sea bream, Sparus aurata; Senegal sole, Solea senegalensis, and
yellowtail, Seriola lalandi. Several other seafood species such as abalone are feasible but ideally these species
should be developed in conjunction with a more established RAS projects using a proven RAS technology
approach and farming a species whose culture technology is well established.
Sea bass and gilthead bream are key farmed Mediterranean species and as such HIE production would
sometimes need to compete with low priced product being imported to the UK by Greece and Turkey.
However, the large scale production (3-5 thousand tonnes pa) of these species in HIE encompassing hatchery
and value added processing might be worth consideration. RAS technology for producing sea bass has been
established in the UK in a single project, and provided stable management continues then the farm is on course
to become profitable during 2014.
The Yellowtail Kingfish, Seriola lalandi (and the related amberjack, Seriola dumerii) are subtropical species
distributed worldwide preferring warm water between 18–24oC. Culture techniques are established and 1.5 –
2.5kg fish can be achieved in 12 months. These are high value species marketed as whole, cutlet, steak or
filleted form but also regarded highly as sashimi and used in teriyaki and zoni (soup). They are already farmed
commercially in Europe using RAS technology and can be considered as an alternative to tuna.
The commercial production of sole currently takes place mainly in Spain and Portugal with Solea senegalensis
being the preferred species. Production levels of this species increased from 110 tons in 2008 to 500 tons per
year in 2010 (Howell et al., 2011). However disease control, particularly Pasteurellosis, and feed related
problems such as poor growth rates and feed conversion ratios are the main factors affecting production
performance. Most companies have reported problems of poor growth, disease in the nursery and ongrowing
stages, and difficulties in spawning of F1 and F2 stocks. Feed formulation and management of production
systems were also reported as problem areas. The majority of producers are now based on the Atlantic coast
of Spain and Portugal with one producer in the Canary Islands and one farm producing Dover sole in Holland.
Most production is from on-shore tank systems, either shallow raceways or conventional tanks, often in
conjunction with recirculation systems. Requiring an optimum temperature of 19 – 20oC (García & García,
2006) S. senegalensis would be an ideal species for HIE once the technology becomes better established.
Alternatively, it could be produced as a follow-on species alongside a better established species such as sea
bass where the technology for production in RAS is far more advanced.
Despite the reported difficulties with sole some research has indicated high growth rates of S. senegalensis in
shallow raceway systems at relatively high densities (up to 60 kg/m2). The lack of density effect on growth was
thought to be due to improved water quality in the micro-environment surrounding the fish, food distribution
patterns that prevent dominance of the food supply by larger fish and reduced interaction between individuals
forced to orientate and maintain position against a current (Howell et al., 2011). While higher densities may
impact disease susceptibility of this species, RAS technology has been clearly shown to result in a very
significant decline in disease outbreaks of species like sea bass farmed in UK RAS. This species is highly
susceptible to viral and bacterial diseases under cage production and if proven RAS technology was applied to
S. senegalensis culture, then progress is more likely. Several researchers working with S. senegalensis note that
stable water temperatures and water quality is a critical requirement of this species (Howell et al., 2011). This
is hardly a surprising conclusion and poor quality RAS design has perhaps been an issue with establishing the
precise culture requirements of sole species under different research initiatives.
Good RAS technology has already been developed for other sole species such as the half-smooth tongue sole
(Cynoglossus semilaevis) (Huang et al., 2013). The RAS system was operated at approximately 95% reuse.
Compared to two conventional flow-through systems, the RAS improved survival, growth, and feed
conversion ratio, and also maintained a five-fold greater stocking density. During the 8-month commercial
production cycle, no catastrophic losses occurred, and 41.5 metric tons of fish were harvested with 97%
survival.
5.2 Competitive environment
Apart from feed and labour the key production cost of UK RAS farms will be energy costs related to
purification and circulation of water and some temperature control according to RAS design quality and target
species. Consequently, while RAS design is critical to minimising energy costs, the selected target species for a
RAS farm in the HIE is also very important to maximise opportunities of a financial return. Where a farmed
RAS species has significant competition from a national or imported source of the same product, with lower
production costs, then the economic risk escalates. Claims of greater sustainability do not always translate into
a premium price for RAS production in the market place. Neither should RAS technology be viewed as
resolving all potential parasite and disease issues inflicting farmed fish species.
Ideal seafood species for RAS production in HIE should already have high value markets in the UK preferably
with an option for expansion. Ideally, they may be warm water species so as to shorten the production cycle
(<12 months) which will also reduce the initial capital investment required and lower energy costs associated
with cooling. Target species should preferably be secure from competition by supplies from capture fisheries
or high volume cage production. Competing against high volume imports of the same species is more
challenging but then there could be an economic advantage for larger scale production of such species in
excess of 3000 tonnes per annum - possibly even targeting more than one species with similar production
demands. Such large scale RAS production benefits from economies of scale and could support the business
argument for developing a purpose built hatchery so that fry production is controlled from within the UK. For
instance, a former failed UK RAS project producing Asian Sea Bass was dependent on fry imported from Israel
or Australia. This presented both economic and bio-security issues. The situation was further complicated by
the fact that the species was unknown in UK markets and had to compete directly with European sea bass
supplies. In Scotland, large scale RAS farm production of species like bass and bream could also support value
added processing enabling the farm to diversify product range and marketing strategy while simultaneously
enhancing its sustainability image as opposed to the imported products.
To some extent, provided suitable water supplies are available, RAS production enables location closer to the
main markets. In Scotland, development of industrialised RAS production would be most suited to the larger
towns of the east coast such as Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee and Edinburgh. If RAS is to truly represent
sustainability criteria then the opportunity to reduce transport miles associated with processing or delivery of
product to market should be promoted. Equally, such industrialised units should not impact sensitive
environmental areas or areas of outstanding national beauty otherwise they fail to fulfil the objectives of
sustainable aquaculture technology.
5.3 Economic appraisal
5.3.1 Economics of RAS Production of Atlantic Salmon

Two economic feasibility studies (Wright & Arianpoo, 2010 & Boulet et al., 2010) both demonstrate that at
least under certain circumstances, closed containment could show positive returns. The Boulet et al (2010)
feasibility study demonstrated that a 2,500 tonnes per annum RAS farm would require an initial capital
investment of $22.6 million and annual operating costs of $7.2 million in order to generate an annual net profit
of $381,467. This corresponds to a rate of return of 3.4%. The study also showed that a similar capacity cage
operation would require an initial capital investment of only $5 million and would generate an annual net profit
of $2.6 million (for an expected rate of return of 40.3%). In contrast, Wright & Arianpoo (2010) suggest that a
1000 tonne pa RAS farm could be significantly more profitable than the above study. This is unexpected since
economies of scale seem not to work in favour of the larger farm. The smaller farm analysis resulted in
required capital costs of approximately $12 million for a net annual income of at least $5.1 million (or up to
$8.2 million if a 25% sustainable premium is factored in). Furthermore, net annual income was reported to
climb to between $9 and $13.1 million if the nutrient waste stream is utilized for aquaponics and compost
(although it is not clear how the cost of production and marketing are taken into account for these additional
products).
Another report from the Norwegian research institute NOFIMA (Iversen et al, 2013) compared unit
production costs across the range of technologies. It found land-based recirculating system costs were likely to
be around 27.6% higher than inshore cages (used as the baseline). However, land-based RAS would be only
13% higher than offshore farming and 9.3% lower than offshore contained systems (floating tanks). A costing
for land-based RAS in a lower-cost country was also developed. It is not specified what country this might be
and it seems unlikely that many countries would be able to achieve lower costs across the full range of input
factors. However, a possible example might be China, if large-scale development was to take place there.
These assumptions lead to a cost of production that is actually 2% lower than the baseline production cost in
cages in Norway.
Table 9 Comparative cost of production of Atlantic salmon per kg in different systems (NOK/kg)
Baseline Landbased Offshore Contained Contained Low-cost
(inshore recirculating cage farm offshore inshore country
cage) RAS
Smolts 2.19 1.94 2.19 2.06 2.06 1.00
Feed 11.19 9.77 11.19 10.66 10.21 9.77
Insurance 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.05
Salaries 1.61 1.97 3.22 2.82 2.42 0.98
Depreciation 1.09 2.78 1.67 5.71 3.13 1.88
Lice 0.66 0.66
treatments
Fish health & 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.5 0.50 0.20
medications
Administration 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Electricity 1.68 0.84 0.84 1.68
Oxygen 0.77 0.77
Sludge 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.14
pH control 0.07 0.07
Other 2.01 3.02 2.01 2.51 2.51 1.51
Capital 2.27 5.71 5.71 6.00 4.06 4.36
Slaughter 2.53 2.53 2.78 2.78 2.53 1.27
TOTAL 24.36 31.09 27.51 34.28 28.65 23.87
Source: Iversen et al, 2013 (Note NOK 10 is approximately £1)
The variance in these predictions was examined, indicating a high degree of confidence in the difference in cost
between inshore cages and land-based RAS, although the difference between Offshore cages and inshore
contained systems was much closer.
Figure 14: Probability distribution of production costs for the various system options
(Source: Iversen et al, 2013)
As shown in the table below. This comparison does not compare systems of comparable scale (i.e. the
contained systems are 3,300 tonnes per year and the cage systems are 10,000 tonnes per year) however, this
is probably a reasonable assumption in terms of achievable scales based on currently available technologies.
Some assumptions may also need modification for the Scottish context (for instance stock insurance premiums
are currently likely to be higher in RAS than in conventional cage farms).
Table 10 Assumptions used in the above analysis

Baseline Landbased Offshore Contained Contained
(inshore recirculating cage farm offshore inshore
cage)
Production (t/yr) 10,000 3,300 10,000 3,300 3,300
Productivity (kg/m3/yr) 30 180 30 70 80
3
Investment (NOK per m ) 219 10,000 500 4000 2500
Current assets (NOK/kg) 23 20.6 23 23 23
Depreciation (years) 6.7 20 10 10 10
Mortality (%) 20 10 20 15 15
Smolt price (NOK) 8.75 6 8.75 8.75 8.75
Economic FCR 1.26 1.1 1.26 1.2 1.15
Feed price (NOK/kg) 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88
Stock insurance 0.5% 0.25% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
Equipment insurance 0.15% 0.10% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15%
Oxygen (kg/kg feed) 0.35
Price oxygen (NOK/kg) 2
Sludge (kg/kg feed) 0.25
Price sludge (NOK/kg) 0.50
Alkalinity (kg/kg feed) 0.25
Price of alkalinity (NOK/kg) 0.25
Employees 10
Employee cost (NOK/person) 650
Source: Iversen et al, 2013
In a further comparative financial assessment of RAS and caged farmed Atlantic salmon performed by the US
Freshwater Institute and SINTEF, Norway, (Rosten et al., 2013), a constant production capacity of 3,300
tonnes was assumed for both cage farm and RAS. This defined an investment cost of US$ 32 million (~£20
million) for the RAS farm and US$ 12.3 million (~£7.7 million) for the cage farm. Operating costs however
were estimated at US$ 3.98/kg for RAS and US$ 4.24/kg for the cage farm, in part due to substantially lower
electricity prices in the USA (US$0.05/kWh compared with $0.17/kWh in Norway).
Figure 15: Comparative operating costs for similar scale land-based RAS and cage farm
(Rosten et al, 2013)
Overall the study concluded that:
1. Production cost in RAS was not higher than in cage farms

2. The RAS farm would provide a lower rate of return on investment if a premium price was not
secured.
3. RAS production of Atlantic salmon has a higher CO2 footprint unless a significant proportion of
energy comes from a sustainable source.
4. Feed efficiency is the dominating parameter of the carbon footprint of the salmon production
5. Construction of the production facility and equipment is not an important contributor to the total
carbon footprint of salmon production, but the ability to produce closer, or choose transport to the
market is potentially important.
The key issue regarding all these studies is that they incorporate a large number of assumptions – and there
lies the weakness. Interestingly, Danish RAS salmon farming operation at Langsand Laks has just released its
first salmon production to the market. The company intends to market 15 tonnes per week eventually
increasing production from 1,000 metric tons to 4,000t, selling to the US, Scandinavia and the UK. In 2014,
target production is 700t but the facility should produce 1,000t. Langsand focuses its selling around creating a
brand of its sustainable credentials; no sea lice, no impact on the seas, and a leaner, more controlled product.
The company applies a 30 – 40% price premium on its salmon, as it sells to high-end foodservice customers.
The production costs of the Oceanus system are 20 – 30% higher than those of the most efficient Norwegian
cage salmon farmer (Ramsden, 2014). Operator Thue Holm argues that it makes more sense to invest
NOK40m in a land based RAS farm than NOK50m for a cage license in Norway. Furthermore, with an FCR
<1 Holm suggests that the savings in feed will balance out the energy costs of production (Fischer, 2014).
The production costs noted for Danish Salmon is based on actual commercial scale production within a
modern design RAS farm does lead to some questioning of the assumptions and conclusions of the Sintef /
Freshwater Institute study (Rosten et al., 2013) which appear rather optimistic. Further problems might arise
in terms of the volume of such product that can be sold at a premium price – should sufficient market demand
for a premium product even exist. Furthermore, given the high stocking densities (up to 100kg/m3) required to
reduce production costs, it may be argued by consumers that RAS production does not take animal welfare
into account irrespective of the farms ability to optimize water quality conditions within the production tanks.
Investment in RAS production still tends to favour species that can naturally secure a higher market price in
their own right without hypothetical premiums. In the UK, it is debateable if this includes commodity species
already farmed at commercial levels using low production cost systems. Even species perceived to be a higher
value product like sea bass can struggle in the face of imported product. The only commercial scale UK sea
bass RAS farm operating at 95% recirculation at stocking densities of up to 70kg/m3 has taken longer than
expected to enter into profitability. The delay in achieving this goal has largely been due to the early
management of the project during development rather than any major design or technology issues related to
the water treatment plant. Furthermore, weak market prices of European sea bass during the recession
combined with the off-loading of cheap product from Mediterranean suppliers have all served to impact
progress of the farm.
5.3.2 Economics of RAS production of other species
Data on the economics of RAS production is generally limited and will clearly be partially dependent on scale
and location and heavily dependent on species and system design. The following table can only be taken as a
sample of theoretical and actual systems
Table 10: Example RAS investment and production cost data (salmon data for comparison)
System/Reference Annual Capital cost* Capital cost Annual Operating
production per tonne operating cost * per kg
(t) (and capacity cost* production**
3
kg/m /yr)
Tilapia (STAQ 500 (334) £1.0 million £2,000 £1.366 million £2.79
Feasibility study)
Barramundi (Inter 600 £2.1 million £3,500 £1.2 million £2.00
Aqua Advance
feasibility study†)
Turbot (Seafish 100 £1.1 million £11,000 £770,000 £7.70
feasibility study†)
Aquafarms, Canada, 100 £0.77 million £7,770/t £333,333 £3.33
Steelhead trout
Yellowtail, Pilot 100 (250) £0.56 million £5,580/t £1 million £10.00
farm, Netherlands
Salmon, Namgis 470 (180) £5.375 million £11,4365/t £1.156 million £2.50
Farm, Canada
Salmon (based on 3300 (180) £19 million £1,000 per m3 £10.26 million £3.06 (£2.45
data from £5,757/t projected by
Freshwater Institute Freshwater
and Nofima study) Institute)
*Where appropriate, the following exchange rates have been used £1 = $1.6, NOK 10, CAD 1.8, Euro 1.2
**Approximate – generally head-on, gutted in boxes. † Inflated to current prices
It is interesting to note that the actual cost of the Namgis farm in Canada was $9.6 million including cost of
building delays, compared with an original budget of below $7 million (around 20% increase). This confirms the
findings of Jeffery et al (2011) that a 15-40% overspend on budget is common. The same study found it difficult
to obtain cost of production data, but quoted one tilapia producer (which had gone out of business) as
achieving £1.50/kg and a turbot facility (also closed) at £7.70/kg. Most farms in the survey had failed to reach
their projected selling price. One farm had projected £16/kg, but the best price achieved was £3.20/kg and the
average only £2.40. Sites producing tilapia or catfish indicated £3/kg would provide a viable business, but were
struggling to achieve £2.20 - £2.80. Although feed is generally the largest component of operating costs, energy
was also found to be a major contributor (15-20%). The cost of energy could therefore be a factor in
influencing the location of RAS farm developments. At present the lowest prices are probably in some Gulf
States. The UK does not have the highest energy prices in Europe, but is above average.
Figure 16: International energy cost comparison (2012)
Source http://www.kraftaffarer.se/meralasning/2012E&GSurvey.pdf
The investment cost of RAS becomes a more critical element when loan financing is required. In addition to
adding interest payments to operating costs, any major delays in achieving full production creates cashflow
problems that may require further financing, making profitability even more challenging.
So far there has been relatively little opportunity to consider potential economies of scale in recirculated
systems. This is gradually changing with investment in the first 1000t+ farms. Key design targets to maximise
economies of scale might include (adapted from Summerfelt, 2013):
 Fewer but larger tanks

 Smaller footprint buildings
 Octagonal tanks with shared walls
 Centralisation of treatment to minimise duplication
 Multiple cohorts and weekly harvests
Economies of scale can be seen to operate in many elements of an aquaculture operation. With respect to
capital costs, construction cost per cubic meter of tank volume generally reduces with increasing volume. This
is because the ratio of tank wall area to volume decreases with increasing diameter and depth as shown in the
figure below. There are significant limits to this effect however, as tank construction also need to be stronger
to support the weight of the water contained.
3500 3.5
Surface area (m2) or volue (m3)
3000 3
2500 2.5
Area:Volume Ratio
2000 2
Total area
1500 1.5
Volume
1000 1 Area:Vol
500 0.5
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Tank diameter
Figure 17: Relationship between tank surface area and volume (where depth = radius)
Similar relationships can be seen with other components such as pumps, where capital cost per unit of power
(capacity) reduces with increasing size.
7000
6000
5000
Price per kW (AU$)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1.5 2.2 3 4 5.5 7.5 11 15 18.5
Pump power (kW)
Figure 18: Relationship between pump power and price per kW 50
50
Developed from http://www.cnppump.com.au/downloads/Price-List/2011-CNP-Pump-Pricelist-AUS.pdf
Another factor could be the number of RAS farms that are developed. The greater the number individual
suppliers build, the better they will be able to spread design and development costs and invest in manufacturing
technology for lower cost specialist components.
Probably more important than economies of scale for capital costs are economies of scale on operating costs.
The largest single cost is feed. Feed efficiency is unlikely to change with scale (indeed may deteriorate), but
there will be discounts that can be obtained through bulk purchasing and overall volume. Transport costs will
also reduce to a point if delivery sizes are as large as can be accommodated by the supplier. Electricity costs
can also be reduced through bulk purchase. Better documented is the savings that are possible in labour costs.
With mechanisation, the number of staff required to manage a farm does not increase in direct proportion to
production volume. This is well illustrated by the Scottish aquaculture statistics 51. In 2012 the average trout
farm produced 166 tonnes and productivity per person employed was 53 tonnes. In the salmon industry there
were 100 active sites with a mean production of 1,622 tonnes and a productivity of 153.2 tonnes per person.
This has risen from 92.3 tonnes per person in 2000 when the average site was only 372 tonnes of production.
Scotland is still some way behind Norway however, where productivity was 329 tonnes per person in 2012 on
a lower average production per site (1,318 tonnes)52. Greater opportunities for the economic utilisation of
waste from RAS farms should also develop with increasing point source production and overall volume.
The importance of scale economies in relation to other means of reducing production costs (e.g. through
technological advances) is less certain. In an economic study of the development of the Norwegian salmon
industry, Asche et al (2013) found no evidence of scale economies, whilst an earlier study (Vassdal & Holst,
2011) considered the main impact of horizontal integration was better sharing of expertise and consequent
improvements in management.
An examination of the limited data available (actual and planned) projects indicates some evidence for
economies of scale in respect of capital cost although with very large variability (Figure below). At this stage
there is little indication of economies of scale with respect to operating costs. It is likely that scale
relationships will be better defined by logarithmic or power functions, but at this stage other factors such as
location and system design appear to be more important.
Figure 19: Plot of Salmonid RAS capital and operating cost data against annual production volume
51
Data from Annual Fish Farm Production Surveys, e.g. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/09/9210
52
Calculated from data at http://www.fiskeridir.no/english/statistics/norwegian-aquaculture/aquaculture-statistics/atlantic-salmon-and-
rainbow-trout
6 Implications for HIE area if RAS develop elsewhere
6.1 Potential scenarios

Immediately, RAS production of salmon would unlikely make any significant indent to the volume of caged
salmon production in Scotland. However, it’s worth considering that 2-3 UK RAS farms collectively producing
5-6 thousand tonnes of sea bass could substitute around 60-70% of imported supplies from Greece and
Turkey.
In order to be competitive in the international marketplace, RAS producers could be inclined to locate their
operations where input costs were the lowest (such as energy, transportation, water and land costs). If inland
locations were economically more attractive, and companies were to relocate, there could be a negative
impact on employment in remote coastal regions that currently rely on cage farming for employment.
If RAS salmon production proves to be economically viable then a) pressure will increase on cage sector to
further improve sustainability of its production methods b) where feasible RAS production of salmon will move
nearer to the main markets whether these are in the UK or abroad. This approach is already being promoted
by Norwegian and Danish RAS technology suppliers with RAS production of salmon planned in Abu Dhabi and
China – both markets for salmon farmed in Europe. Naturally, RAS production of salmon in these countries, as
opposed to Scotland, would benefit from lower energy (critical for pumping and water cooling) and labour
costs.
If RAS salmon production expands then UK caged salmon farming may contract in the long term just as it
would in other regions of Europe where the product is exported to overseas markets. To protect businesses
in national countries, HIE might experience a more severe reduction of salmon production where cage
production is owned and operated by non-UK companies. Meanwhile, seafood production in HIE would
continue possibly targeting higher value markets and reflecting a greater focus on species diversification to
supply national and EU demand.
However, this scenario would still take decades and if RAS technology is to make any real significant inroads
into UK cage salmon production then energy costs will need to stabilise while the RAS technology becomes
significantly more energy efficient and user friendly for lower value commodity species. Perhaps the caged
salmon sectors greatest protection from RAS production is its relatively low market price and the current high
capital investment cost of initiating RAS production.
6.2 Market factors
The drivers for salmon production in RAS are far clearer for markets that are some distance from the current
major centres of production. Iversen et al (2013) suggests that RAS based production is between NOK 5 and
10 (£0.50 to £1.00) per kg. This translates to between £0.83 and £1.66 per kg of fillet. However as air freight
costs are between £1 and £2 per kg for fresh fillets (depending on routes and quantity), the cost advantage of
cage-aquaculture is eliminated and local RAS production would have a significant advantage for freshness. This
helps to explain the interest and investment that has been noted in China and UAE.
An important question is then whether there is any differentiation between locally (RAS) produced product
and imported product from Scotland (or other users of cage technology such as Norway and Chile. It is
probably too early to determine this with any certainty. At the present time, more trust is placed in imported
foods than in locally produced foods in China due to a long history of contamination and adulteration scandals.
Chinese consumers are also increasingly responding to brands and are likely to value a produced in Scotland
label. On the other hand, Chinese consumers are used to very fresh product (fish are frequently purchased
live) and would probably favour locally produced food if assured of its quality.
A wider issue is how consumers will respond if clearly offered the choice between cage-produced and RAS
produced salmon. Although environmental lobby groups appear to be supporting RAS farming, it is clearly
closer to “factory farming“ than cage-based production with higher densities, smaller volumes for fish to swim
in and less “natural” conditions. Whilst it might be tempting for both cage and RAS producers to seek to
promote the benefits of their technology and seek to obtain a premium price over the other, the reality may
be that salmon sales overall would be damaged as consumers would more easily pick up on the negative
messages of both production methods. The major multiple retailers may also discourage differentiation on the
basis of production system so as to maintain maximum flexibility on sourcing options.
That said, under pressure from green lobby groups, especially in North America, supermarkets are developing
sustainable seafood policies which could impact cage salmon production. The Overwaitea Food Group in
Canada are substituting the amount of cage reared salmon available in their stores with as much closed-
containment reared salmon as possible. Overwaitea Food Group came top of Greenpeace Sustainable Seafood
Rankings in 2012 for its commitment and efforts in sourcing and selling sustainable seafood. The closed
containment coho salmon producers in British Columbia and Washington are currently obtaining a significant
price premium for their product by virtue of their ability to market it as an environmentally sustainable
product. 'Namgis’ farm has secured direct-to-market place contracts with grocers who verify the premium
price at 25 to 30%. However, this is only for relatively small scale production and as RAS production grows
these price premiums may diminish. If RAS Atlantic salmon production grows quickly and overseas markets
also secure near market supplies through national based RAS production then it is inevitable that any premium
price secured by RAS farmers in Europe during the early days of RAS development will come under pressure.
A student research project carried out in Canada (Yip, 2012) found consumers willing to pay an average
premium of 3.9% for CCA (Closed Containment Aquaculture) produced salmon over conventional farmed
sources. However, the same study found a willingness to pay an average of 9.8% for salmon from IMTA
(Integrated Multitrophic Aquaculture) systems involving the use of marine cages. The same study found a
substantial preference for wild over farmed salmon (64.6% compared with 4.2% preferring farmed salmon
whilst 31% either had no strong preference or didn’t know). However, when the benefits of IMTA and CCA
were explained 44.3% of respondents preferred that adoption of IMTA compared with 16.3% preferring the
adoption of CCA over conventional methods.
Furthermore, the sustainability of RAS farmed Atlantic salmon in contrast to cage production very much
depends on the environmental criteria that are considered. Rosten et al. (2013) reported the greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) associated with various production criteria for both RAS and cage salmon (Figs. 20 & 21).
Clearly, although the results are still based partly on assumptions, the source of power, location of production
and final market destination for the RAS farmed product can have a significant impact on its sustainability
profile.
Danish Salmon has clearly stated that it intends to export its first RAS salmon to the US, Canada and the EU
which rather weakens the environmental credentials of the RAS farmed salmon. This perhaps explains why the
company also intends to build farms in these countries such that they avoid the CO 2 emissions associated with
air freight.
Figure 20: Carbon emissions per kg of salmon produced
Source: Rosten et al., 2013.
Figure 21: Emissions associated with transport to retailers in the US
Source: Rosten et al., 2013.
RAS production also assumes that the product will be of at least the same quality as cage salmon if not
superior. Unfortunately, in the rush to make claims of the potential improved fish quality from RAS farms
investors are not always fully aware of all the issues that need to be considered when operating RAS at
commercial stocking density levels.
Certification
Third-party certification schemes provide an opportunity to enhance the credibility of environmental claims
made by RAS operators. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) has struggled to implement their salmon
standards due to industry resistance to the requirement for closed-containment production of smolts. A
confederation of the largest producers (accounting for 70% of global production) known as the Global Salmon
Initiative (GSI) have negotiated a 5yrs transition period, but this will clearly provide a greater economic
incentive for smolt RAS production going forward. Also, many standards are not necessary for RAS e.g.
requirements for benthic monitoring required for cage grow out. CO2 emissions is one the few areas where
RAS environmental performance is worse than cage-production. However the ASC standards (and those of
the other two largest certifiers; Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and GLOBALGAP) stipulate that
monitoring should be used to support continuous improvement – but no limits are stipulated. Although some
organic standards permit RAS production of juveniles, it is highly unlikely that this possibility will be extended
to grow-out production in RAS.
6.3 Economic impacts
In the short term (5-10 years) it might be the case that the development of RAS technology for salmon farming
might be of economic benefit to Scotland if investment takes place here. Potential advantages of locating in
Scotland at the present time might include:
 Ready access to juvenile stock (smolts)

 Access to established distribution networks for salmon
 Access to aquaculture expertise and supporting supply services
 Access to good quality fresh and seawater resources
 Lower land rates and labour rates than say SE England
 Potential for regional development funding support
 Potential use of the “Scottish brand”
 Access to renewable energy
 Within the EU
If Scotland becomes independent it is feasible that there will be a differential in prices of water and energy
compared with England, with prices likely to be lower in Scotland. This could potentially be enough to offset
the extra distance to major English markets. In any case, it is possible that the Scottish salmon industry will
move towards the production of larger fish in RAS prior to shorter growout periods in larger and more
offshore cage sites, resulting in increased RAS investment.
Whether RAS farms would substantially replace cage farms in Scotland is more doubtful. Taking an optimistic
investment cost of £5,000 per tonne of production capacity; replacing the current Scottish production of
salmon (162,223 tonnes in 2012) would require a capital investment of £811 million. There are few existing
companies in the sector that could contemplate a rapid investment of this scale unless regulatory and market
forces combined to make this necessary. Planning permission could also be an issue. Based on the Langsand
Laks design an area of 4m2 per tonne of production capacity is required, which would translate to about
650,000 m2 or 65 ha of building. For marine systems this will preferably be on coastal land to provide low cost
access to clean seawater. A low elevation above sea level would generally be preferred to minimise pump cost
for replacement water. However, with very high rate recycle systems this is a small contribution to total pump
costs, so higher elevations e.g. to avoid potential flood risks would not be a major constraint.
For reasons already discussed, it seems likely that in the long term, most investment in RAS salmon
aquaculture will take place closer to markets and/or processing capacity and hence probably outside Scotland.
This could certainly limit Scottish export potential from existing cage farms, especially to more distant
markets. The figure below illustrates the current patterns of global production and trade for salmon (albeit
from a Norwegian perspective). This shows the major import markets to be Asia, Russia and the USA. If
demand were to stay the same and regional supply increase in these countries, the greatest impact would
probably be on Norway, as it is already a much larger supplier to these markets than Scotland. However,
without an adjustment in production on the part of Norway, this would put further downward pressure on
prices as the European Economic Area (but not the EU) has surplus salmon production. This would certainly
affect Scottish producers. A further factor however, is that Norwegian companies are currently the largest
shareholders in the Scottish salmon industry, so it is speculation whether they would wish to protect that as a
strategic investment, or whether they might start to divest themselves of that investment.
Figure 22: Global salmon markets and trade flows. Source: Marine Harvest, Salmon Farming Industry
Handbook 201353 (Data from Kontali Analyse)
The largest market for Scottish producers is the UK at around 60,000 tonnes per annum. However, around
60% is exported to other European countries and further afield. Data from the Scottish Salmon Producers’
Organisation (Table below), shows that the most important export markets are the USA (46% of exports in
2011) and France (23% of exports in 2011).
With the current level of interest and investment activity in salmon RAS in the USA, the development of this
sector there could have a significant impact on Scottish salmon exports, particularly if it is perceived as
“greener” than cage-based production. However, the increase in exports to the USA in 2011 was probably
more associated with reductions in exports from Chile than due to a decision by North American consumers
to choose Scottish salmon. As Chile recovers from severe problems with ISA and increases investment in
53
marineharvest.com/PageFiles/1296/2013%20Salmon%20Handbook%2027-04-13.pdf
efficient production capacity, the North American market will probably become more competitive again in the
relatively near future.
Table 11: UK (Scottish) salmon exports 2010 and 2011
Source: Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation54
Exports to Asia have been relatively small, but a political agreement in early 2011 55 led to several Scottish
salmon products being awarded AQSIQ56 certificates allowing them to be imported to China. This led to an
increase in exports to China from 11 tonnes in 2010 to 4,942 tonnes in 2011 and reached 8,675 tonnes in the
first 10 months of 201257. It is the expectation of the Scottish Government and the industry that this can be
further increased. In the long term, the development of RAS salmon farming in China could substantially limit
the scope for Scottish exports. However, as China is such a substantial potential market, it is also likely that
some market will remain for Scottish products providing a premium brand image can be retained.
The development of RAS salmon production in continental Europe (particularly France) would be a threat to
Scottish salmon producers (although arguably more to Norwegian producers). Assuming production methods
do not allow a significant overall premium for either approach, then prospects depend very much on the
relative costs of production and distribution which could be significantly different in ten or twenty years’ time.
If RAS production becomes the most economic approach then within the UK, it might be expected that
centres of production would develop around major processing and distribution hubs such as Humberside, or
other strategic locations with large accessible markets.
The Scottish Government has commissioned a study to examine the current and future economic value of the
Scottish aquaculture sector which is due to report shortly. Indicators of current value include the farmgate
value of production which was £548.7 million in 2012 58, estimated to be worth over £1 billion at retail 59 .
54
http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/
55
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/01/12082252
56
General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
57
http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/media/news/2013/far_east.aspx
58
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2012/09/salmonproduction10092012
59
http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/facts_figures/index.aspx
Expenditure by the industry on local goods and services was estimated to be £212 million in 2010/11 60. The
number of people directly employed in salmon farming is around 2200 with a further 6,200 jobs reliant on
salmon farming within the wider economy 61. Some of these numbers might be expected to increase if the
salmon industry’s current expansion continues. However, cost-competitive growth elsewhere might also be
expected to increasingly impact and lead at least to the loss of some of this economic activity.
60
http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/facts_figures/economic_value.aspx
61
http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/facts_figures/index.aspx
7 Conclusions
7.1 Summary of findings

Although RAS technology has been in use for over 30 years, is still at a relatively early stage of development
with respect to large-scale commercial grow-out, particularly of marine species. However, the potential of this
approach continues to attract investment and technology is gradually improving. The salmon farming industry
is increasingly adopting RAS for smolt production such that within the next 5 years almost all commercial
growout will be reliant on smolts from RAS farms. This investment and build-up of expertise in RAS is likely
to lead to the extension of the land-based freshwater stage to produce (approximately) 1 kg juveniles for
stocking to sea cages. Whilst the industry will not wish to rush into this investment, it could be a logical step if
the technology proves reliable and cost effective as it would shorten the growout time at sea and make the
use of more offshore sites feasible. Factors might include lower exposure to diseases risk, avoidance of the
need to change nets on large cages during growout, shorter overall production cycles, greater flexibility with
respect to site fallowing, and an overall improvement in feed conversion efficiency. It would also help address
environmental and conservation concerns which are most focused on the use of inshore sites in the path of
salmon migrations or for instance, near to seal haul outs or sensitive marine habitats. Fewer but larger
offshore sites would also enable the industry to increase operational efficiency and capitalise on scale
economies.
At the present time, successful and economically competitive RAS farms for salmon growout look some way
off and will require further technology development. Business plans that rely on product achieving premium
prices or operating at planned capacity without major incident in the first two years should be treated with
caution given the long history of failed projects in this area. There are potential game-changers with respect to
technology. For instance, if genetically modified salmon are accepted by the market and duly authorised but
only for production in RAS. If the performance of such fish were substantially better than selectively bred
strains used in the cage sector, then an economic advantage might be seen. However, this is considered
unlikely at least in the near term.
In the short term, RAS for salmon production is most likely to be cost effective close to markets where
premium prices can be obtained for very fresh (or even live) product. This includes parts of Asia, possibly Gulf
States and perhaps places in North America. If RAS production becomes cost competitive with cage
production then more substantial growth in this area might be seen closer to key markets and distribution
hubs. In the long term this could have an impact on the Scottish production sector as overall competition will
increase.
If RAS technology improves to enable the production of salmon closer to overseas markets, it would also
enable the production of a wider range of species in Scotland. A range of potential species have been
identified in Section 5.1. Since the Scottish market is relatively small, it is unlikely that a substantial industry
could develop for any of these species. However, there might be scope for a limited number of projects. These
could be competing with RAS projects in England, which would have the benefit of being closer to larger
markets. On the other hand, Scotland may be able to offer lower prices on (especially renewable) energy and
water. For the near to medium term it seems likely that lower-cost production overseas (especially the
potential for developments in Latin America and Africa) will provide strong competition for UK-based RAS.
However, in the longer-term, increasing demand for high quality fish in Asia particularly, might discourage
exports and reduce competition for UK/EU producers.
Key findings from this study include:
 RAS technology is well developed in the freshwater and marine sectors specifically for hatcheries
supplying fingerlings to net pen farms for grow out.
 Table-fish RAS remain far more sensitive to market prices and rising (feed and energy) input costs
than conventional production systems. However, despite a poor track record for lenders, selected
case studies suggest an improved outlook for longer-term economic sustainability potential.
 Unit production costs are higher for saltwater than freshwater systems, though market prices are also
higher in most cases.
 Some RAS technology suppliers continue to avoid highlighting the outstanding technical and economic
issues relating to the performance of RAS leaving the investor to embark on a road of discovery.
 RAS technology for land based fattening farms to produce market size fish is more advanced in the
freshwater sector although success with species such as eel, tilapia and even salmon smolts is not an
indication of appropriate technology for grow out production.
 RAS technology has demonstrated the advantages of fish production under controlled environmental
conditions in terms of fish quality, superior growth rates and feed conversion ratios, reduced disease
outbreaks, lower use of therapeutants and site flexibility.
 While several RAS technology suppliers claim to have constructed a number of marine RAS farms it
remains that globally there are very few such farms that exceed 200 tonnes production per annum
and where the system is over 90% recirculation i.e. representing a definition of RAS farm technology
which enables close environmental control of all water quality parameters.
 It remains that for commercial fattening scale RAS farms in excess of 500 tonnes pa the economic
viability is yet to be proven in either the marine or freshwater sectors.
 Economic projections of commercial RAS profitability and production costs based on small pilot
research projects and desk studies give limited guidance to the viability of financial investment in
commercial scale RAS technology for different species, markets, countries and location.
 To be profitable RAS farmers must target higher premium market segments as part of their market-
mix, and seek to exploit appropriate scale economies. However, the potential for saturation of
relatively small niche premium markets suggests that there may be a contradiction between this
strategy and the scale-economy strategies of current start-ups
 RAS production of salmon or any other seafood species should be based on hard economic analysis
that takes into account the environmental, socio-economic and production costs using different
farming systems.
 A range of credible sustainability attributes linked to RAS production can be used to differentiate RAS
from ‘open’ production systems.
 Environmental drivers for RAS production should take into account credible Life Cycle Analysis
assessment of the different seafood production methods including all aspects of cage and RAS
production.
 The argument of RAS sustainability over cage production should be defined by a range of criteria
including efficiencies of feed utilisation, energy source, target species, actual ability of the RAS farm to
avoid disease and parasite transmission to recipient waters and the distance and mode of transport to
market for final product.
 According to management of a RAS farm, its design and standard of RAS technology they can remain
exposed to infestation by parasitic organisms.
 Europe has the most active programme of research into RAS technology but there remain several
areas where the technology requires improvement in terms of effectiveness and operating costs.
 The UK presents a business challenge to successfully farm any species using RAS technology where
the target species faces market competition from mass production of that species using low cost
production methods, sustainable supplies from the capture fishery or imported product.
 The first European RAS farmed salmon to be delivered to market had a 20-30% higher production
cost compared to the most efficient cage farm in Norway.
 The USA, which relies almost entirely on imports to meet its demand for salmon, also has one of the
largest markets for premium seafood products. China and SE Asia also represent important emergent
markets. Recent European salmon and sea bass RAS start-ups are already targeting these markets and
this is central to their business plans. Based on our economic analysis there is some risk that these
ventures may ultimately serve as incubation projects for establishment of local co-located RAS sectors
that could provide high value fresh products to these markets. This will preclude the need for costly
and environmentally sensitive air freighting.
 A further potentially significant threat to the establishment of a Scottish RAS table-fish sector is
associated with the on-going attempt to license a fast-growing transgenic Atlantic strain in the USA.
European consumer antipathy to GMO’s means this could hand a significant comparative advantage to
a co-located RAS sector in the United States.
In summary, RAS technology is developing and is commercially viable for high unit value species or life stages
(e.g. juveniles), or to some extent for lower value species that can be reared at high density in less demanding
water quality conditions. The economic bar to the use of RAS will gradually be lowered as technology
improves and scale economies are realised. The use of RAS technology is already increasing in the Scottish
salmon industry and further investment in this area will almost certainly be essential for the successful future
of the industry. There is a long-term threat to the industry from RAS technology being adopted closer to
major markets, but this should be seen as an incentive to continue to innovate for cost competitiveness using
the natural resources available in Scotland.
7.2 Recommendations
There should be no presumption against RAS technology as it is likely to play an important role in the future
development of the Scottish salmon industry and in the future provide some further opportunities for small to
medium sized enterprises.
A policy that strongly favours RAS farms to the detriment of cage farms would be likely to damage the Scottish
industry unless strong incentives can be introduced to attract local investment rather than location closer to
end markets
RAS technology is still at an early stage of development, so any projects proposing commercial grow-out for
low value commodity species facing competition from lower cost production methods should be considered
very high risk.
Any public funding of RAS projects should include detailed scrutiny of plans by a multidisciplinary team of
independent (and appropriately experienced) experts.
There should be a mechanism in place for RAS projects that have public funding and which subsequently fail to
lodge full details of lessons learned in a publicly accessible database.
Support for research and pilot-scale projects should be encouraged.
References
Anon, 2013 Namgis closed containment salmon farm: Project backgrounder
http://www.namgis.bc.ca/CCP/Documents/Project%20Backgrounder%202013-04-17.pdf
Abeysinghe, D.H., Shanableh, A. & Rigden, B., 1996. Biofilters for water reuse in aquaculture. Water Sci. Tech.
34, 253–260.
Aihua, L. & Buchmann, K., 2001. Temperature- and salinity-dependent development of a Nordic strain of
Ichthyophthirius multifiliis from rainbow trout. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17, 273–276.
Asche, F., Guttormsen, A.G. & Nielsen, R. 2013. Future challenges for the maturing Norwegian salmon
aquaculture industry: An analysis of total factor productivity change from 1996 to 2008. Aquaculture 296-399:
43-50
Attramadal, K.J.K., Salvesen, I., Xue, R., Øie, G., Størseth, T.R., Vadstein, O. & Olsen, Y., 2012. Recirculation as
a possible microbial control strategy in the production of marine larvae. Aquacultural Engineering, 46: 27-39.
Badiola, M.; Mendiola, D.; Bostock, J. 2012. Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) analysis: Main issues on
management and future challenges. Aquacultural Engineering vol. 51 November, p. 26-35
Bebak-Williams, J., Noble, A., Bowser, P.R., Wooster, G.A., 2002. Fish health management. In: Timmons, M.B.,
Ebeling, J.M., Wheaton, F.W., Summerfelt, S.T., Vinci, B.J. (Eds.), Recirculating Aquaculture Systems, 2nd Edition,
NRAC Publication No. 01-002. Cayuga Aqua Ventures, NY, pp. 427–466.
Bergslien, M. & Drengstig, A. 2011. Report from the 3rd conference on land-based production of salmonids in
Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RASs). 01 – 2011 . Blue Planet project no 047_conference. 13pp
http://www.blueplanet.no/doc/Prosjekter/Dialogkonferanse%20RAS/047%20-
%20Dialogkonferanse%20RAS%20-%2020111010%20-%20Rapport.pdf
Blancheton, J.P., 2000. Developments in recirculating systems for Mediterranean fish species. Aquacultural
Engineering 22, 17–31.
Boulet, D., Struthers, A. & Gilbert, E., 2010. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Feasibility Study of Closed-Containment
Options for the British Columbia Aquaculture Industry, September 2010.
Burr, G,S., Wolters, W.R., Schrader, K.K. & Summerfelt, S.T., 2012. Impact of depuration of earthy-musty off-
flavors on fillet quality of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, cultured in a recirculating aquaculture system.
Aquacultural Engineering 50: 28– 36.
Camargo, J.A., Alonso, A., Salamanca, A., 2005. Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals: a review with new data for
freshwater invertebrates. Chemosphere 58, 1255–1267.
Colgan, S., Gehr, R., 2001. Disinfection.Water Environment and Technology 13 (11), 29–33.
Colt, J. 2006. Water quality requirements for reuse systems. Aquacultural Engineering 34: 143–156.
Cytryn, E., Gelfand, I., Barak, Y., van Rijn, J., Mintz, D., 2003. Diversity of microbial communities correlated to
physiochemical parameters in a digestion basin of a zero-discharge mariculture system. Environ. Microbiol. 5,
55–63.
Dalsgaard, T. & Revsbech, N.P., 1992. Regulating factors of denitrification in trickling filter biofilms as measured
with the oxygen/nitrous oxide microsensor. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 101, 151– 164.
Davidson, J., Good, C., Welsh, C., Summerfelt, S.T., 2011. Abnormal swimming behaviour and increased
deformities in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss cultured in low exchange water recirculating aquaculture
systems. Aquacultural Engineering 45 (3), 109–117.
Defra 2012. Planning for sustainable growth in the English Aquaculture Industry. England Aquaculture Plan
Consultation Group, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.
Delabbio, J., Murphy, B.R., Johnson, G.R. & McMullin, S.L., 2004. An assessment of biosecurity utilization in the
recirculation sector of finfish aquaculture in the United States and Canada. Aquaculture 242: 165–179.
Dickerson, H.W., 2006. Ichthyophthirius multifiliis and Cryptocaryon irritans (Phylum Ciliophora). In: Woo, P.T.K.
(Ed.), Fish Diseases and Disorders. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Dionigi, C.P., Bett, K.L., Johnsen, P.B., McGillberry, J.H., Millie, D.F., Vinyard, B.T., 1998. Variation in channel
catfish (Ictaluris punctatus) flavor-quality and its quality control implications. J. World Aquaculture. Society 29,
140–154.
Dionigi, C.P., Johnson, P.B., Vinyard, B.T., 2000. The recovery of flavour quality bychannel catfish. N. Am. J.
Aquaculture 62, 189–194.
d’Orbcastel, E.R., Blancheton, J-P. & Belaud, A., 2009a. Water quality and rainbow trout performance in a
Danish Model Farm recirculating system: Comparison with a flow through system. Aquacultural Engineering
40: 135–143.
d’Orbcastel, E.R., Le Ruyet, J.P., Le Bayon, N. & Blancheton, J-P., 2009b. Comparative growth and welfare in
rainbow trout reared in recirculating and flow through rearing systems. Aquacultural Engineering 40: 79–86
Dunning, R.D., Losordo, T.M. and Hobbs, A.O. 1998. The Economics of Recirculating Tank Systems: A
Spreadsheet for Individual Analysis. SRAC Publication No. 456, 8 p
Ecoplan International Inc. 2008 Global assessment of closed system aquaculture. Report prepared for The
David Suzuki Foundation and The Georgia Strait Alliance on behalf of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture
Reform. 78pp http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ClosedSystemAqua-
FINAL.pdf
EIFAC. 1986. Report of the working group on terminology, format and units of measurement as related to
flow-through and recirculation system. European Inland Fisheries Advisory commission. Tech. Pap., 49. 100 pp.
Engle, C.R., Pounds, G.L., van der Ploeg, M., 1995. The cost of off-flavor. J. World Aquac. Soc. 26, 297–306.
Epsilon Aquaculture Ltd. 2001 A Study of Low Cost Recirculation Aquaculture (SR 485) – Final Report.
Commissioned by the Seafish Industry Authority Jul 2001.
www.seafish.org/media/publications/sr485_recirculation.pdf
European Commission (2009) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council: Building a sustainable future for aquaculture. A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable
Development of European Aquaculture. COM(2009) 162 Final, Brussels.
FAME, 2013. Financial Analysis Made Easy. Online database, Bureau Van Dijk. http://www.bvdinfo.com/en-
gb/products/company-information/national/fame
Farmer, L., McConnell, J.M., Hagan, T.D., Harper, D.B., 1995. Flavour and off-flavour in farmed and wild
Atlantic salmon from locations around Northern Ireland. Water Sci. Technol. 31, 259–264.
FAO 2013 Fishstat Database http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en
FAO Globefish Market Reports http://www.globefish.org/homepage.html
Fischer, E., 2014. First land-farmed salmon hits Danish market, is ready to expand. Fish Farming International,
February, p.10.
From, J., Horlyck, V., 1984. Sites of uptake of geosmin, a cause of earthy-flavor, inrainbow trout (Salmo
gairdneri). Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 41, 1224–1226.
Gelfand, I., Barak, Y., Even-Chen, Z., Cytryn, E., Krom, M., Neori, A., van Rijn, J., 2003. A novel zero-discharge
intensive seawater recirculating system for culture of marine fish. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 34, 344–358.
Good, C.M., Thorburn, M.A., Ribble, C.S., Stevenson, R.M.W., 2009a. Rearing unit-level factors associated with
bacterial gill disease treatment in two Ontario, Canada government salmonid hatcheries. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 91: 254–260.
Good, C., Davidson, J., Welsh, C., Brazil, B., Snekvik, K. & Summerfelt, S., 2009b. The impact of water
exchange rate on the health and performance of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in water recirculation
aquaculture
Good, C., Davidson, J., Waldrop, T., Snekvik, K., Kenney, P.B., Mazik, P., McCormic, S., Sheperd, B., Wolters,
W., Baeverfjord, G., Takle, H., Jerjesen, B. & Summerfelt, S. 2012. Research on the effects of NO 3-N, CO2, O2
x swimming speed and strain x photoperiod on salmonid performance, health and welfare. Salmon Closed-
Containment Workshop, St. Andrews, NB, Canada, 10-11 Oct, 2012.
http://0301.nccdn.net/1_5/31e/19a/1ce/04-good-effects.pdf
Guttman, L., & J. van Rijn. 2008. Identification of conditions underlying production of geosmin and 2-
methylisoborneol in a recirculating system. Aquaculture 279:85–91.
Guttman, L. & van Rijn, J.,2009. 2-Methylisoborneol and geosmin uptake by organic sludge derived from a
recirculating aquaculture system. Water Research 43: 474 – 480.
Hamlin, H.J., 2006. Nitrate toxicity in Siberian sturgeon (Acipenserbaeri). Aquaculture 253: 688–693.
Heinecke, R. D. & Buchmann, K. 2009. Control of Ichthyophthirius multifiliis using a combination of water
filtration and sodium percarbonate: Dose response studies. Aquaculture 288: 32-35.
Heldbo, J. (Tech. Ed.) & Klee, P. (Ed.in C.), 2014. Rethinking aquaculture to boost resource and production
efficiency. Sea and land-based aquaculture solutions for farming high quality seafood The Rethink Water
network and Danish Water Forum White Papers, Copenhagen. Available at www.rethinkwater.dk
Houle, S., Schrader, K.K., Le Franc， ois, N.R., Comeau, Y., Kharoune, M., Summerfelt, S.T., Savoie, A.,
Vandenberg, G.W., 2011. Geosmin causes off-flavour in arctic charr in recirculating aquaculture systems.
Aquacult. Res. 42: 360–365.
Howell, B., Pricket, R., Cañavate, P., Mañanos, E., Dinis, M.T., Conceição, L., Valente, L., 2011. The cultivation
of soles. Report of the 5th Workshop: EAS Spec. Publ., 36, p. 3.
Huang, Z.T., Song, X.F., Zheng, Y.X. Peng, L., Wan, R., Lane, T., Zhai, J.M., Hallerman, E. & Dong, D.P. 2013.
Design and evaluation of a commercial recirculating system for half-smooth tongue sole (Cynoglossus semilaevis)
production. Aquacultural Engineering, 54:104-109.
Hutchinson, W. Jeffrey M. O‟Sullivan, D. Casement, D and Clark, S. 2004. Recirculating Aquaculture System
Minimum Standard for Design, Construction and Management. South Australia Research and Development
Institute.
Iversen, A., Andreassen, O., Hermansen, O., Larsen, T.A., & Terjesen, B.F. 2013. Oppdrettsteknoligi og
konkurransepoisisjon. Nofima Rapport 32/2013
Izaguirre, G. & Taylor,W.D., 1995. Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol production in a major aqueduct system.
Water Sci. Technol. 31 (11), 41–48.
Jeffery, K., Stinton, N & Ellis, T. 2011. FES220: A review of the land-based, warm-water recirculation fish farm
sector in England and Wales. CEFAS, Contract report C3529.
Jeffery, K.R., Stone, D., Feist, S.W., Verner-Jeffreys, D.W. 2010 An outbreak of disease caused by Francisella sp.
in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus at a recirculation fish farm in the UK. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. Vol.
91: 161–165
Jørgensen, T.R., Buchmann, K., 2008. Stress response in rainbow trout during infection with Ichthyophthirius
multifiliis and formalin bath treatment. Acta Ichthyol. Pisc. 37, 25–28.
Jørgensen, T.R., Larsen, T.B. & Buchmann, K., 2009. Parasite infections in recirculated rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) farms. Aquaculture 289: 91–94.
Keck, N., Blanc, G., 2002. Effects of formalin chemotherapeutic treatments on biofilter efficiency in a marine
recirculating fish farming system. Aquatic Living Resources 15, 361–370.
Kincheloe, J.W., Wedemeyer, G.A., Koch, D.C., 1979. Tolerance of developing salmonids eggs and fry to
nitrate exposure. B. Environ. Contam. Tox. 23, 575-578.
Krause, J., Kuzan, D., DeFrank, M., Mendez, R., Pusey, J. & Braun, C. 2006. Design guide for recirculating
aquaculture systems. Rowan University, NJ, USA.
Kroupova, H., Machova, J., Piackova, V., Blahova, J., Dobsikova, R., Novotny,L. & Svobodov, Z. 2008. Effects of
subchronic nitrite exposure on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
71: 813–820.
Leonard, N., Guiraud, J.P., Gasset, E., Cailleres, J.P., Blancheton, J.P., 2002. Bacteria and nutrients – nitrogen
and carbon – in a recirculating system for sea bass production. Aquacult. Eng. 26, 111–127.
Li, X., Zen, G., Rosenwinkel, K.H., Kunst, S., Weichgrebe, D., Cornelius, A. & Yang, Q. 2004. Start up of
deammonification process in one single SBR system. Water Science and Technology, 50 (6):1–8.
Lom, J., Dyková, I., 1992. Ichthyophthirius Fouquet, 1876 Protozoan Parasites of Fishes. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 253–258.
Losordo, T.M., M.R. Masser, and J. Rakocy. 1998. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems: An
Overview of Critical Considerations. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. Publication No. 451. 6 pp.
Lovell, R.T., Lelana, I.Y., Boyd, C.E., Armstrong, M.S., 1986. Geosmin and musty-muddy flavors in pond-raised
channel catfish. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 115, 485–489.
De Llano Massino, A. &

Gudmundsson, E. 2004.Financial and biological model for intensive culture of tilapia.Project Report, Akureyri
University, Iceland.
Malone, R. 2013. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems; A Review of Current Design Practice.
Southern Regional Aquaculture Centre.Publication No. 453.
Martin, J.F., McCoy, C.P., Greenleaf,W. 7 Bennett, L., 1987. Analysis of 2-methylisoborneol in water, mud, and
channel catfish (Zctalurus punctatus) from commercial culture ponds in Mississippi. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44,
909–912.
Martins, C.I.M., Pistrin, M.G., Ende, S.S.W., Eding, Ep.H.& Verreth, J.A.J., 2009. The accumulation of substances
in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) affects embryonic and larval development in common carp
Cyprinuscarpio. Aquaculture, 291: 65–73.
Martins, C.I.M., Eding, E.H., Verdegem, M.C.J., Heinsbroek, L.T.N., Schneider, O., Blancheton, J.P., Roque
d’Orbcastel, E. &Verreth, J.A.J. 2010. New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A
perspective on environmental sustainability. Aquacultural Engineering, 43(3), 83-93.
Masser, M.P., Rakocy, J. and Losordo, T.M. 1999. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production Systems:
Management of Recirculating Systems. SRAC Publication No. 452, 12 p.
Matthews, R.A., 2005. Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Fouquet and ichthyophthiriosis in freshwater teleosts. In: Baker,
J.R. (Ed.), Advances in Parasitology. Academic Press, pp. 159–241.
McGurk, M.D., Landry, F., Tang, A., Hanks, C.C., 2006. Acute and chronic toxicity of nitrate to early life stages
of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25 (8),
2187-2196.
Meske, C., 1976. Fish culture in a recirculating system with water treatment by activated sludge. In: Pillay,
T.V.R., Dill, W.A. (Eds.), Advances in Aquaculture. Fishing News Ltd, Farnham, U.K, pp. 527–531.
Michaud, L., Blancheton, J.P., Bruni, V., Piedrahita, R., 2006. Effect of particulate organic carbon on
heterotrophic bacterial populations and nitrification efficiency in biological filters. Aquacult. Eng. 34, 224–233.
Mirzoyan, N., Parnes, S., Singer, A., Tal, Y., Sowers, K. & Gross, A., 2008. Quality of brackish aquaculture
sludge and its suitability for anaerobic digestion and methane production in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB) reactor. Aquaculture 279: 35–41.
Mirzoyan, N., Tal, Y. & Gross, A., 2010. Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive recirculating aquaculture
systems: Review. Aquaculture 306: 1–6
Moestrup, Ø., Hansen, G., Daugbjerg, N., Lundholm, N., Overton,J., Vestergard, M., Steenfeldt, S.J., Jose´
Calado, A. & Juel Hansen, P., 2014. The dinoflagellates Pfiesteria shumwayae and Luciella masanensis cause fish
kills in recirculation fish farms in Denmark. Harmful Algae 32: 33–39
Morrison, M.M., Tal, Y. & Schreier, H.J., 2004. Granular starch as a carbon source for enhancing denitrification
in biofilters connected to marine recirculating aquaculture systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture, Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,
Virginia, pp. 481–488.
Martin, K.J., & Nerenberg, R. 2012 The membrane biofilm reactor (MBfR) for water and wastewater
treatment: Principles, applications, and recent developments, Bioresource Technology, Volume 122, October
2012, Pages 83-94, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.110.
Noophan, P. (Lek), Sripiboon, S., Damrongsri, M. & Munakata-Marr, J., 2008. Anaerobic ammonium oxidation
by Nitrosomonas spp. and anammox bacteria in a sequencing batch reactor. Journal of Environmental
Management. 1–6.
Parliament of Canada 2012 Closed Containment Salmon Aquaculture Report. Select Committee report for the
Parliament of Canada.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5994887&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses
=1&File=84
Pedersen, L.-F., Pedersen, P.B., Sortkjær, 2007. Temperature-dependent and surface specific formaldehyde
degradation in submerged biofilters. Aquacultural Engineering 36, 127–136.
Pedersen, L-F., Pedersen, P.B., Nielsen, J.L. & Nielsen, P.H., 2009. Peracetic acid degradation and effects on
nitrification in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 296: 246–254.
Pedersen, L-F., Pedersen, P.B., Nielsen, J.L. & Nielsen, P.H., 2010. Long term/low dose formalin exposure to
small-scale recirculation aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering 42: 1–7.
Pedersen,L.F., Meinelt, T. & Straus, D.L., 2013. Peracetic acid degradation in freshwater aquaculture systems
and possible practical implications. Aquacultural Engineering 53: 65– 71
Perkins, E.J., Schlenk, D., 1997. Comparisons of uptake and depuration of 2-methylisoborneol in male, female,
juvenile, and 3MC-induced channel catfish Icatlurus punctatus. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 28, 158–164.
Pestana, C.J., Robertson, P.K.J., Edwards, C., Wilhelm, W., McKenzie, C. & Lawton, L.A., 2014. A continuous
flow packed bed photocatalytic reactor for the destruction of 2-methylisoborneol and geosmin utilising
pelletised TiO2. Chemical Engineering Journal 235: 293–298.
Ramsden, N., 2014. First ‘on-land salmon brand’ targets market growth, expansion.
http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/01/22/first-on-land-salmon-brand-targets-market-growth-expansion/
Rintamaki-Kinnunen, P., Rahkonen, M., Mannermaa-Keranen, A.L., Suomalainen, L.R., Mykra, H. & Valtonen,
E.T., 2005. Treatment of ichthyophthiriasis after malachite green. I. Concrete tanks at salmonid farms. Diseases
of Aquatic Organisms 64, 69–76.
Ritar, A.J., Smith, G.G. & Thomas, C.W., 2006. Ozonation of seawater improves the survival of larval southern
rock lobster, Jasus edwardsii, in culture from egg to juvenile. Aquaculture 261, 1014–1025.
Robertson, R.F., Jauncey, K., Beveridge, M.C.M., Lawton, L.A., 2005. Depuration rates and the sensory
threshold concentration of geosmin responsible for earthy-musty taint in rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus
mykiss. Aquaculture : 245(1-4):89-99
Rosten, T.W., Henriksen, K., Hognes, E.S., Vinci, B. & Summerfelt, S., 2013. Land Based RAS and Open Pen
Salmon Aquaculture: Comparative Economic and Environmental Assessment. http://tidescanada.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/salmon/workshop-sept-2013/NEWD1-11TrondRostenandBrianVinci.pdf
Schmidt, M., Walsh, K., Webb, R., Rijpstra, W.I.C., Van De Pas-Schoonen, K., Verbruggen, M.J., Hill, T., Moffett,
B., Fuerst, J., Schouten, S., Sinninghe Damst´e, J.S., Harris, J., Shaw, P., Jetten, M. & Strous, M., 2003. Candidatus
“Scalindua brodae”, sp. nov., Candidatus “Scalindua wagneri”, sp. nov., two new species of anaerobic ammonium
oxidizing bacteria. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 26, 529–538.
Schmitz-Schlang, O. & Moskwa, G., 1992. Design characteristics and production capacity of a closed
recirculating fish culture system with continuous denitrification. In: Moav, B., Hilge, V., Rosenthal, H. (Eds.),
Progress in Aquaculture Research. Publ. no. 17, Europ. Aquacult. Soc., Bredene, Belgium, pp. 79–90.
Schnel, N., Barak, Y., Ezer, T., Dafni, Z., van Rijn, J., 2002. Design and performance of zero-discharge tilapia
recirculating system. Aquacultural Engineering 26, 191–203.
Schrader, K.K. & Summerfelt, S.T., 2010. Distribution of Off-Flavor Compounds and Isolation of Geosmin-
Producing Bacteria in a Series of Water Recirculating Systems for Rainbow Trout Culture. North American
Journal of Aquaculture 72:1–9.
Schrader, K.K., Acuña-Rubio, S., Piedrahita, R.H., Rimando, A.M., 2005. Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol as
the cause of earthy/musty off-flavors in cultured largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and white sturgeon
(Acipenser transmontanus). North American Journal of Aquaculture 67, 177–180.
Schrader, K.K., Davidson, J.W., Rimando, A.M. & Summerfelt, S.T., 2010. Evaluation of ozonation on levels of
the off-flavor compounds geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol in water and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
from recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering 43: 46–50.
Schrader, K.K., Green, B.W. & Perschbacher, P.W., 2011. Development of phytoplankton communities and
common off-flavors in a biofloc technology system used for the culture of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus).
Aquacultural Engineering 45:118–126.
Schram, E., Roques, J.A.C., van Kuijk, T., Abbink, W., van de Heul, J., de Vries, P., Bierman, S., van de Vis, H. &
Flik, G. 2014. The impact of elevated water ammonia and nitrate concentrations on physiology, growth and
feed intake of pike perch (Sander lucioperca). Aquaculture 420–421: 95–104
Schwartz, M.F., Bullock, G.L., Hankins, J.A., Summerfelt, S.T. & Mathias, J.A., 2000. Effects of selected chemo-
therapeutants on nitrification in fluidized-sand biofilters for coldwater fish production. International Journal of
Recirculation Aquaculture 1, 61–81.
Sharrer, M.J., Summerfelt, S.T., Bullock, G.L., Gleason, L.E. & Taeuber, J., 2005. Inactivation of bacteria using
ultraviolet irradiation in a recirculating salmonid culture system. Aquacultural Engineering 33, 135–149.
Sharrer, M.J. & Summerfelt, S.T., 2007. Ozonation followed by ultraviolet irradiation provides effective bacteria
inactivation in a freshwater recirculating system. Aquacultural Engineering 37: 180–191.
Smith, J.L., Boyer, G.L. & Zimba, P.V., 2008. Review: A review of cyanobacterial odorous and bioactive
metabolites: Impacts and management alternatives in aquaculture. Aquaculture 280: 5–20
Sortkjær, O., Henriksen, N.H., Heinecke, R.D. & Pedersen, L-F. 2008: Optimizing treatment efficacy in
aquaculture. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet. 124s. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 659. [In
Danish; English abstract] http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR659.pdf.
Srivastava, S., Sinha, R. & Roy, D., 2004. Toxicological effects of malachite green. Aquat. Toxicol. 66, 319–329.
Strous, M., Gerven, E. V. Zheng, P. Kuenen, J. G. & Jetten, M. S. M., 1997. Ammonium removal from
concentrated waste streams with the anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) process in different reactor
configurations. Water Res. 31:1955–1962.
Sugita, H., Nakamura, H. & Shimada, T., 2005. Microbial communities associated with filter materials in
recirculating aquaculture systems of freshwater fish. Aquaculture 243, 403–409.
Summerfelt, S. 2013. Updates on land-based closed-containment systems for salmon growout. Aquaculture
Innovation Workshop No. 5, Shepherdstown, WV, USA. 4-6 September 2013.
Summerfelt, S. 2012. Global update on land-based closed-containment systems for salmon. Aquaculture
Innovation Workshop No. 3., Seattle, Washington, USA. 15-16 May 2012. http://tidescanada.org/wp-
content/uploads/files/salmon/workshop-may-2012/D1-8_Global_Update_re_Closed-
Containment_Production_of_Salmon.pdf
Summerfelt, S.T., Sharrer, M.J., Tsukuda, S.M. & Gearheart, M., 2009. Process requirements for achieving full-
flow disinfection of recirculating water using ozonation and UV irradiation. Aquacultural Engineering 40 (1),
17–27.
Summerfelt, S., Waldrop, T., Good, C., Davidson, J., Backover, P., Vinci, B. & Carr, J. 2013. Freshwater
growout trial of St John River strain Atlantic salmon in a commercial-scale land-based, closed-containment
System. The Conservation Fund, 52pp.
Suzuki, Y., Maruyama, T., Numata, H., Sato, H., Asakawa, M., 2003. Performance of a closed recirculating
system with foam separation, nitrification and denitrification units for intensive culture of eel: towards zero
emission. Aquacultural Engineering 29, 165–182.
Tal, Y. & Schreier, H.J., 2004. Dissimilatory sulfate reduction as a process to promote denitrification in marine
recirculated aquaculture systems. In: Proceedings 5th International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture,
Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 379–384.
Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., Sowers, K.R., Stubblefield, J.D., Place,A.R. & Zohar, Y., 2009. Environmentally sustainable
land-based marine aquaculture, Aquaculture 286(1–2): 28-35.
Terjesen, B.F., Ytrestøyl, T., Kolarevic, J., Calabrese, S., Rosseland, B.O., Teien, H-C, Åtland, Å., Nilsen, T.O.,
Stefansson, S., Handeland, S.O., Schoordik, J., Takle, J.H. 2013 Effects of water salinity and exercise on Atlantic
salmon performance as postsmolts in land-based closed-containment systems. Aquaculture Innovation
Workshop No. 5, Sheperdstown, West Virginia, USA, 4-6 September, 2013.
Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., Wheaton, F.W., Summerfelt, S.T. & Vinci, B.J. 2007. Recirculating Aquaculture,
2nd Edition. NRAC Publication No. 01-002. Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca. 948pp.
Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., Wheaton, F.W., Summerfelt, S.T. & Vinci, B.J. 2002. Recirculating Aquaculture
Systems, 2nd Edition. NRAC Publication No. 01-002. Cayuga Aqua Ventures. 769pp.
Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., Wheaton, F.W., Summerfelt, S.T. & Vinci, B.J. 2001. Recirculating Aquaculture
Systems. NRAC Publication No. 01-002. Cayuga Aqua Ventures. 650pp.
Tucker, C. S. 2000. Off-flavorp roblems in aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8:45–88.
Tsushima, I., Ogasawara, Y., Kindaichi, T., Satoh, H. & Okab, S., 2007. Development of high-rate anaerobic
ammonium-oxidizing (anammox) biofilm reactors. Water Research, 41: 1623 – 1634.
Valtonen, E.T. & Keranen, A.L., 1981. Ichthyophthiriasis of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., at the Montta
hatchery in Northern Finland in 1978–1979. Journal of Fish Diseases 4, 405–411.
Van Dongen, U., Jetten, M.S.M. & Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2001. The SHARON®–Anammox® process for
treatment of ammonium rich wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 44, 153–160.
van Rijn, J. & Barak, Y., 1998. Denitrification in recirculating aquaculture systems: from biochemistry to
biofilter. In: The Second International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture, Cooperative Extension/Sea
Grant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, pp. 179–187.
Van Rijn, J., Tal, Y. & Schreier, H.J., 2006. Denitrification in recirculating systems: Theory and applications.
Aquacultural Engineering 34: 364–376.
van Bussel, C.G.J., Schroeder, J.P., Wuertz, S., Schulz, C., 2012. Short communication: The chronic effect of
nitrate on production performance and health status of juvenile turbot (Psetta maxima). Aquaculture 326–
329:163–167
van der Star, W.R.L., Abma, W.R., Blommers, D., Mulder, J-W., Tokutomi, T., Strouse, M., Picioreanu, C. & van
Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2007. Startup of reactors for anoxic ammonium oxidation: Experiences from the first full-
scale anammox reactor in Rotterdam. Water Research, 41: 4149 – 4163.
Vassdal, T., Holst, H.M.S., 2011. Technical progress and regress in Norwegian salmon farming: a Malmquist
index approach. Marine Resource Economics 26, 329–341.
Westin, D.T., 1974. Nitrate and nitrite toxicity to salmonoid fishes. Prog. Fish-Cult. 36, 86–89.
Weston, R (Chairman), 2013. Closed containment salmon aquaculture. Report of the Standing Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans, 41st Parliament, First Session, March 2013. House of Commons, Canada
Whitfield, F.B., Last, J.H., Shaw, K.J., Tindale, C.R., 1988. 2,6-Dibromophenol: the cause of an iodoform-like off-
flavour in some Australian crustacean. J. Sci. Food Agric. 46: 29–42.
Wolters, W.R. 2010. Sources of phenotypic and genetic variation for seawater growth in five North American
Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, stocks. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society. 41 (3): 421-429
Wooster, G.A., Martinez, C.M. & Bowser, P.R., 2005. Human health risks associated with formalin treatments
used in aquaculture: initial study. North American Journal of Aquaculture 67, 111–113.
Wright, A. & Arianpoo, N., 2010. Technologies for Viable Salmon Aquaculture: An Examination of Land-Based Closed
Containment Aquaculture, Report submitted to the SOS Solutions Advisory Committee, May 2010.
http://www.saveoursalmon.ca/files/May_draft_05-04-10.pdf
Yamprayoon, J. & Noonhorm, A., 2000. Effects of preservation method on geosmin

content and off-flavour in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology 9,
95–107.
Yanong, R.P.E., 2009. Fish health management considerations in recirculating aquaculture systems – Part 2:
Pathogens. University of Florida IFAS Extension Circular 121. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FA/FA10000.pdf
Yip, WWY. 2012. Assessing the willingness to pay in the Pacific Northwest for salmon produced by Integrated
Multi-Trophic Aquaculture. MRM Research Project, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
http://summit.sfu.ca/item/12249#310
Young, J.A., Little, D.C., Watterson, A., Murray, F.J., 2010 “Growing green: the emergent role of non-tilapia
attributes in marketing tilapia,” Aquaculture Economics and Management, vol. 14, no.1, pp. 63–79.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13657300903566886
Yoon, S. 2012 Membrane oxygenation. http://onlinembr.info/Miscellaneous/Gas%20transfer%20overview.htm
Yoshimizu, M., Takisawa, H., & Kimura, T. 1986. UV susceptibility of some fish pathogenic viruses. Fish
Pathology 21: 47-52.
Zohar, Y., Tal, Y. Schreier, H. J. Steven, C. R. Stubblefield, J. & Place, A. R., 2005. Commercially feasible urban
recirculating aquaculture: addressing the marine sector, p. 159–171. In B. Costa-Pierce, A. Desbonnet, P.
Edwards, and D. Baker (ed.), Urban aquaculture. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Annex 1: Example RAS Technology Suppliers
AquaSystems UK Ltd (UK – Scotland) http://www.aquasystems.co.uk/
International Aqua-Tech (UK – Wales) http://www.iat.uk.com/
Llyn Aquaculture (Wales) http://www.llyn-aquaculture.co.uk/
Billund Aquaculture (Denmark) http://www.billund-aqua.dk/
Aquatec Solutions (Denmark) http://aquatec-solutions.com/
Inter Aqua Advance (Denmark) http://www.interaqua.dk/
Krùger Kaldnes http://www.krugerkaldnes.no/
OCEA (ex-Hydrogest) (Norway) http://www.ocea.no/
AKVA Group (Norway/Denmark) http://www.akvagroup.com/
Akvaplan Niva http://www.akvaplan.niva.no/
Hesy Aquaculture (Netherlands) http://www.hesy.com/
Aqua EcoSystems (Netherlands) http://www.aqua-ecosystems.com/
Aquacultur Fischtechnik GmbH (EMF) (Germany) http://www.aquacultur.de/
Aquabiotech (Malta) http://www.aquabt.com/
Grow Fish Anywhere (Israel) http://growfishanywhere.com/
Holder Timmons Engineering (North America) http://www.holdertimmons.com/
AquaCulture Enterprises (USA) http://www.aquacultureenterprises.com/
PRAqua (Canada) http://www.praqua.com/
Atlantech Companies (Canada) http://www.atlantech.ca/
INACUI S.A. (Chile)
Cell Aquaculture (Australia & Malaysia) http://www.cellaquaculture.com.au/
NB: This list is intended to illustrate the range of technology supply companies active in recirculated
aquaculture. Inclusion in the list in no way implies endorsement of the company by the report authors and
equally, omission of any company does not imply any adverse opinion of them.
www.aqua.stir.ac.uk

Review of Recirculation Aquaculture System Technologies and Their Commercial Application PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Recirculation Aquaculture System Technologies and Their Commercial Application PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Recirculation Aquaculture System Technologies and Their Commercial Application PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Recirculation Aquaculture System

Technologies and their Commercial Application

Prepared for Highlands and Islands Enterprise

Final Report March 2014

In Association with RAS Aquaculture Research Ltd.

Annex 1: Example RAS technology suppliers

• Historic development of RAS technologies

The report was based on

Table 1: Summary of key informants by specialisation and species of interest

2.2 Commercial RAS performance in the UK

Catfish Barramundi Tilapia Seabass

Note: 2011-2013 data and 2014 projections based on survey responses.

Marketing claims/ Unique Selling The Fish New Forrest Anglesey

2.3 Other regional commercial RAS Examples

3.1 Rationale for RAS

3.1.1 RAS Advantages

 Potentially eliminate release of parasites to recipient waters.

 Enable production of a broad range of species irrespective of temperature requirements provided

 Enable secure production of non-endemic species.

3.1.2 Challenges of RAS technology

Figure 4: Basic concept of a recirculation system

The essential functions of a RAS are:

Examples of technologies used in RAS are listed in Table 4

Table 4: Technologies used in high rate Recirculated Aquaculture Systems

Table 5: Major design parameters for RAS

3.3 Current examples

Figure 6: Schematic of a modern RAS suitable for salmonids from AKVA 22

A second and fairly similar example is taken

A somewhat similar system is used by Aquatec-Solutions, a Danish RAS technology supplier:

Figure 9: Schematic of RAS design from Aquatec-solutions in Denmark25

3.4 Biosecurity and disease issues in RAS

3.4.1 General issues and approaches to biosecurity

3.4.3 Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in RAS

3.4.4 Microbial pathogens

3.4.5 Use of Chemical Therapeutants in RAS

3.4.6 Alternative Treatments

3.4.7 Non-chemical Control of Disease

3.5 Developing technologies

3.5.1 Diet density manipulation

3.5.2 Tank self-cleaning technology

3.5.3 Nitrate denitrification in RAS

Denitrification in freshwater RAS

3.5.4 Annamox systems

Applying the Anammox technology

3.5.5 Automated in-line water quality monitoring

3.5.6 Tainting substances: Geosmins (GSM) and 2-methylisorboneol (MIB) contamination of

Purging fish of taints

3.5.7 Efficient control of dissolved gases

Gases of interest - Hydrogen Sulphide, Methane, Oxygen, Carbon dioxide

Enhanced gas exchange systems

3.5.8 Use of GMOs

4.2 Current activity

4.3 Intermediate strategies

 Increased feed intake and growth rate

4.5 Economic appraisals and prospects

Production costs itemised in Table 6 are estimated at €1.65

Atlantic Sapphire; planning for 16,000t/yr) and China (Billund

Item Price € Units & unit costs

Optimum Culture Upper Candidate species