top | item 18004707

The Future of Fish Farming May Be Indoors

65 points| extarial | 7 years ago |scientificamerican.com | reply

33 comments

order
[+] quietriot|7 years ago|reply
I'm passing this along from Michael Timmons mentioned in the article, a former professor of mine.

"""

Hello everyone (I was quoted in the article). The use of the term 'indoor' is actually not relevant. A RAS can be located indoors or outdoors. The key on the RAS is that the water is recycled (in a loop) that returns 99% of the water to the system instead of discharging the water from the system into a receiving body of water (or sewer system). Placing indoors in a 'cold' environment is beneficial for heat loss control.

HOpe that helps.

MBT (Cornell Univ)

"""

[+] mawburn|7 years ago|reply
I'm confused why this keeps saying indoor, when it just seems to be talking about a more modern "raceway" system that has been used since at least the 80's, that I know of. Everything it described sounds exactly like the farm my dad used to run, except inside. The "indoors" part just sounds like a more expensive way to do raceways and probably isn't needed in most cases.

Can anyone explain the difference? Or is "indoor" just a buzzword here?

I'm all for more fish farming. Raceways are extremely efficient. During harvest season we were harvesting around 30,000lbs of hyrbid striped bass every 2 weeks off half an acre, with just my dad running the farm and me helping with the grunt work. We also had a few of the unused raceways dedicated to Tilapia as a side income, which were basically self sustaining and just needed to be fed. They bred faster than we harvested them.

[+] Brajeshwar|7 years ago|reply
I'm guessing the implication of "indoor" is that is it climate-controlled, and external variations of outdoors are reduced entirely or as much as possible.

I'm yet to learn about fish but I know the binary difference of "outdoor" and "indoor" when it comes to crop farming.

[+] justinsb|7 years ago|reply
The article suggests that the difference is the water recirculation - that the "waste" water is cleaned rather than being removed. Is that how your farm's raceway worked?
[+] AnimalMuppet|7 years ago|reply
What were the economics of that operation? Cost, profit (or loss), time required to operate it?
[+] mabbo|7 years ago|reply
> Water in RAS tanks flows through a bubbling container called a bio-filter, in which bacteria consume fish urine and convert it into a form of nitrogen that is safe for the fish and environment

I wonder if a system like this might be instead kept clean (in part or full) with the help of an Aquaponics[0] system. In that design, you filter the water by growing food hydroponically. The fish waste acts as a nutrient for the plants, which clean the water for the fish. Food out of both ends of the equation.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics

[+] etrevino|7 years ago|reply
They seem to be combining several steps here (though maybe I'm wrong). In a comparable aquarium build the bubbling helps to oxygenate the water and to support the protein skimmer. You have things like bioballs with a large surface area to contain the bacteria and that acts to process the waste.

But, to answer your question: I think it can probably be done on an industrial scale. Many larger fish tank setups have refugiums, where the water is processed. Some people set those up with plants which, in my experience, grow really well. I've only used underwater plants, but it makes sense that you could use others.

[+] beerlord|7 years ago|reply
I find animal farming fascinating because they are basically just miniature bio-factories - converting feed and other additives into a higher-value food product. Of course, each different animal converts feed at a different rate of efficiency and over a different timeframe, in different controlled environmental conditions.

I think there is a huge appetite out there for tasty, cheap, nutritious food. Fast food mega-companies are ignoring a huge opportunity here - imagine if McDonalds (or equivalent) was a food choice your could healthily eat for every meal? They would be better off thinking as their food as part of daily nutrition, instead of a meal out. They could adjust their operations and menus accordingly - with a significant increase in revenue.

[+] asciimo|7 years ago|reply
When you put plants through an animal to concentrate the nutrients, you're going to get 10% efficiency. In these controlled systems, if you care about efficiency, it's always better to eat the plants. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level).
[+] cheeko1234|7 years ago|reply
>Tasty, cheap, nutritious

Pick two.

[+] Retric|7 years ago|reply
Salmon are predators making the '100 kilograms of fish feed' line misleading. We basically feed fish to fish.

Resulting in a fraction more fish we like at the cost of vast amounts of fish we like less.

ex: "Freshwater feeds contain 45–54 percent protein and 16–24 percent lipid." http://www.fao.org/fishery/affris/species-profiles/atlantic-...

[+] jernfrost|7 years ago|reply
I would have been interesting to hear more about ideas for how to feed the fish. I think a lot of the fish feed today is from land based agriculture which is not very sustainable.

There has been experiments with using bio reactors to grow algae based food instead.

[+] thinkcontext|7 years ago|reply
Actually, a lot of fish feed is made from fish meal, arguably even less sustainable than ag. The best solution I've seen is raising insects like black soldier flies on waste.
[+] pvaldes|7 years ago|reply
Replace indoors by closed and you'll have it. Complex systems to maintain at long term, but we are learning still.
[+] luisramalho|7 years ago|reply
Sad. The future should be sustainable lab-grown fish meat.
[+] cageface|7 years ago|reply
Or better still, just get the nutrition you need from plants. There's nothing essential in fish you can't get from plant sources, with a much lower environmental footprint.

And before somebody jumps in to say Omega-3, not only can you easily get that from plants but fish also get it from algae. They don't produce it themselves.

[+] jernfrost|7 years ago|reply
That is what the future of any food production is. Organic and traditional food production is terrible for the environment because it consumes far too much land. We are destroying far too much wildlife to produce food using traditional methods.

Indoor food production either as mentioned here or as in bio reactors and hydroponics systems use something like 100-700 times less land for the same food production.

Think how much land could be given back to nature if we use these more efficient methods and managed to stabilize our population growth.

Forests and fields could be populated by wild animals again.

[+] yesenadam|7 years ago|reply
Hmm with this talk of 'lab-grown meat', is lab-grown human meat going to be a thing? (OK, it needs a better marketing term. 'Cow meat' isn't great either. Well, 'long pig' wasn't bad..)