Farming The Deep Blue

Deep Blue report 10 9/27/04 1:20 PM Page 1
Contents
Preface i
Executive Summary ii
Foreword iv
Chapter 1: Introduction p1
The introduction sets the scene for the required development of

offshore aquaculture and outlines the report focus.
1:1 Definition of offshore aquaculture

1:2 Fish farming worldwide
1:3 Fish farming in Ireland today
1:4 Report Focus
Chapter 2: Offshore aquaculture:

The context p7
Chapter 2 assesses the projected global demand for increasing

production of farmed marine fish,particularly from the offshore zone.
2:1 Introduction
2:2 The Supply/Demand outlook for fishery products
2:3 The future of marine finfish aquaculture
2.4 The case for offshore fish farming
Chapter 3: Aquaculture technologies p10
Chapter 3 reviews offshore farming technologies currently

available, and those in development.
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Containment systems
3.2.1 Gravity cages
3.2.2 Anchor tension cages
3.2.3 Semi-rigid cages
3.2.4 Rigid cages
3.2.5 Tension-leg cages
3.2.6 Other cage designs
Contents
3.3 Supporting technologies
3.3.1 Feed systems
3.3.2 Appetite monitoring systems
3.3.3 Other core activities
3.4 Net Cleaning
Contents
Author: James Ryan
Co-editors: Gillian Mills and Donal Maguire
Contents
Contents... cont
Chapter 4: Global status of Offshore 6.2.7 Monitoring/control
Finfish Farming p23 6.2.8 Methods of data handling and transfer`
6.3 Infrastructure
Chapter 4 reports on offshore farming activities around the world. 6.4 People and Offshore Finfish Farming
6.5 Surface or submerged operations?
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Australia Chapter 7: Operational Issues and
4.3 Canada Potential Obstacles p52
4.4 Canary Islands
4.5 Caribbean and South America Chapter 7 assesses what problems might be encountered in the set-up
4.6 Faeroe Islands and operation of offshore farms, and suggests possible solutions.
4.7 Iceland
4.8 Ireland 7.1 Introduction
4.9 Mediterranean 7.2 Operational and technical issues
4.10 Mexico 7.3 Fish Genetics and Health Issues
4.11 Norway and Chile
4.12 Scotland 7.4 Other Key Elements to Developing an Offshore
4.13 United States Aquaculture Strategy
4.14 Western Pacific 7.4.1 Licensing/site availability
4.15 Worldwide trends 7.4.2 Managing the risk in offshore operations
7.4.3 Justifying the investment in specialist
Chapter 5: Environment p33 equipment and stocks
Chapter 5 examines the benefits for fish welfare in the offshore Chapter 8: Can Offshore Finfish Farming
zone through high levels of water exchange and a more stable be Profitable? p58
husbandry environment. The possible environmental effects of
offshore finfish farming are also assessed. Chapter 8 looks at the economics of offshore aquaculture, and presents
a theoretical financial model for a large offshore operation.
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Husbandry Benefits 8.1 The Scenario
5.3 Seabed or Benthic Effects:Irish Case Study 8.2 What Scale of Production
5.4 Other Environmental Considerations 8.3 The Advantages of Going Offshore
8.4 The Art of the Possible
Chapter 6: The next step p37
Chapter 9: The Vision: A Blueprint for a
Chapter 6 outlines how a large offshore finfish farm might be ‘Blue Revolution’ p64
operated,and examines the options with regard to:cage type;
fish feeding systems;supporting technologies;harvesting methods Chapter 9 draws conclusions, proposes a new international strategy of
and required infrastructure. cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by large-scale offshore
aquaculture, and outlines a progressive R&D strategy.
6.1 Introduction
Contents
6.1.1 Wear and tear 9.1 Introduction
6.1.2 Feeding 9.2 Getting there
6.1.3 Harvesting 9.3 The vehicle for getting there
6.1.4 Other issues
Appendix I: Health benefits of fish
6.2 The Next Step as human food v
6.2.1 Understanding the site
6.2.2 Which species? Appendix II: Aspirational catalogue of desirable
Contents
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.2.6
Offshore site:technologies required
Feeding
Harvesting
Operating plan
Contents
R&D topics in offshore finfish operations
Bibliography
vi
viii
Acknowledgements x
Author’s
Preface throughout the Wild Oats retail chain in the United States. I believe
that the high quality end product is largely attributable to the offshore
location of the farm,supporting the theme of this report that offshore
is better.
But the offshore environment is a challenging one for people. We

must,therefore, apply more sophisticated technology in order to
make offshore farming easier. And,not only easier, but safer. It is
deeply shocking to remember that the Clare Island farm lost its site
manager, Tom Ryan,some years ago in a tragic bad weather accident.
The process of preparing this report forced me to look up, out and
James Ryan, Author
away, from my own securely held notions. Consultations with farmers,
equipment suppliers and industry technical advisors from every corner
I have vivid memories of my first encounter with offshore aquaculture. of the world’s oceans and with particular assistance from Andrew Storey
Back in the mid 1980s when I was operating a salmon farm in who acted as technical consultant,have resulted in my ideas and
sheltered waters off the west coast of Ireland,I was asked one day preconceptions undergoing radical change.
to assist a sister-company with its smolt transfer. Their site is located
about 6 kilometres off the mainland and is only partially sheltered by I began this project convinced that we would be confined to farming
Clare Island to the southwest.It may well be one of the world’s most with surface structures for many years to come and that a commercially
exposed sites using surface cages. viable submerged approach was a far-off pipe dream. Now I believe
that submerged is the only way to go - avoiding as it does the worst
We arrived with our 12-metre workboat to the appointed mainland effects of wind and wave action,therefore being better for fish,
pier, transferred the smolts from a truck to deck-mounted tanks, and and people.
headed west towards Clare Island against a stiff Force 6 and a swell
that increased dramatically as we entered exposed waters. I am aware that submerged technologies require much further
development,but my point is that partaking in debate across the
On arrival at the farm it took some time to tie our ‘rocking and rolling’ world educates, stimulates, changes views and leads to progress.
boat to the undulating hexagonal rubber collar Bridgestone cage. We This is why I hope and pray that the principal outcome of this report,
began offloading the smolts into the cage, while to me the swell and of the ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference, will be a new strategy
assumed enormous proportions. of international co-operation towards making offshore aquaculture
easier and safer.
Within minutes, the heavy mooring lines from the boat to the cage
were threatening to break and I was feeling decidedly seasick. I also hope that this document will serve as a kind of celebration of
The farm foreman grinned at my discomfort and assured me: the strivings and achievements of many visionary lovers of the oceans
“We have weather like this most days.” over the last few decades.
It is a source of amazement and encouragement to me that 17 years James Ryan, Westport, Ireland, September 2004.
later, the Clare Island farm is still operating and going from strength
to strength,although both its technology and operating methods
have changed considerably since those early years. The farm’s
crowning achievement is the quality of its fish,which is renowned
worldwide and is marketed under its own brand as ‘organic salmon’
Farming the Deep Blue i

Executive
Summary
This report was jointly commissioned by BIM (Bord Iascaigh Mhara - The • Thus the shortfall in production capacity will have to be made up
Irish Sea Fisheries Board) and the Irish Marine Institute in order to assess by developing the technologies required to farm offshore. This will
the potential for the further development of offshore farming of finfish pave the way for aquaculture to fulfill its potential as the ‘Blue
in Ireland and internationally. It has been produced to coincide with an Revolution’ in food production following on from the agricultural
international conference in Ireland on offshore finfish aquaculture on ‘Green Revolution’.
October 6&7 2004 entitled ‘Farming the Deep Blue’,organised by BIM.
• This report concentrates on offshore finfish farming as that will
The Need undoubtedly be the lead sector in offshore aquaculture development.
• The case for the urgent development of offshore finfish farming Further, because this drive into the open ocean will,in the first
is overwhelming,both from a commercial and food security instance, be based on high value carnivorous species the report
perspective. The FAO has carried out a study of future trends in focuses on this area of marine fish farming.
the supply/demand balance of fishery products to 2030.On the
demand side, a combination of two factors - the world’s growing • Following analysis of the figures for the marine finfish sector,
population,and the increasing per capita consumption of fishery the report reliably concludes that the potential increase in annual
products - will push the overall requirement for fishery products production by 2030 is 3.15 million tonnes, valued at €9.5 billion
to a total of 180 million tonnes by 2030. This represents a 40% in the Atlantic and 3.85 million tonnes, worth €11.5 billion in the
increase on the 130 million tonnes available in 2001 from the Pacific. There is without doubt a major market opportunity. These
capture and aquaculture fisheries. levels of increased production can only be achieved by developing
offshore finfish farming at a large scale.
• On the supply side, the capture fishery at best will remain static,
with output expected to remain at 100 million tonnes. It is therefore The Benefits
predicted that this will lead to what is becoming known as the ‘FAO • A key finding of the report is that there are major environmental
Gap’,which is simply the gulf between expected demand and benefits to be gained from a move offshore. The scientific evidence
expected supply from the capture industry. The conclusion is that shows that benthic impacts are reduced,if not eliminated,from
aquaculture production will have to increase even further in order offshore or exposed sites. Potentially negative interactions with
to meet demand.Production levels in 2001 of 37 million tonnes migratory fish stocks and any significant visual impacts are also
will therefore need to increase to approximately 80-90 million minimised.In addition,from the farming perspective, conditions
tonnes by 2030,or 50% of the world’s total fish requirements. offshore are conducive to the production of healthier and faster-
growing fish,with significantly lower mortality rates. Fish grown
• Only a portion of this required increase in aquaculture output can at offshore sites are also known to have firmer flesh and lower
come from the freshwater sector or from the inshore zone of the fat levels, resulting in a higher quality end product.
marine. Freshwater is becoming an increasingly valuable resource
as world population levels grow, aquaculture output from it will be • The report shows that at the current level of technology, it is feasible
limited as a result.A global mega trend that will also impact on this to envisage large scale offshore farms being developed in the near
situation is that human populations are increasingly aggregating on future in Class 3 (or semi-exposed) sites. It postulates that these
the coastlines of the major continents. The competition for space in operations will serve as the next generation technology incubators
the coastal zone is going to intensify and this will constrict output for a further move out into open ocean locations, described as
increases from inshore fish farms. Class 4 type sites. A financial analysis of a 10,000 tonne model
operation demonstrates its potential economic viability and a
detailed discussion is presented on how the required ancillary
technologies might be developed to make such an operation
a reality.
ii Farming the Deep Blue

• From an Irish perspective, the report concludes that if the next ICOAD’S mission statement might read as follows:
steps in offshore finfish farming development were taken to make ICOAD will promote and facilitate, through all means possible, the
the operation of Class 3 sites economically viable, Ireland could development of suitable technologies and methodologies for successful
potentially increase its current output by 150,000 tonnes, with aquaculture operations in the offshore zone. The ultimate aim is the
a first sale value of 500 million per annum. Such an increase creation of a major offshore aquaculture industry, which produces a
in raw material supply would support downstream processing and significant proportion of the total world fish requirements in an
ancillary activity, creating a further 250 million per annum and economically and environmentally sustainable manner.
supporting approximately 4,500 extra jobs. All of this wealth
creation and employment would be located in Ireland’s most Detailed proposals for the formation of ICOAD will be presented to
vulnerable peripheral coastal communities. Irelands finfish farmers delegates at the ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference in October 2004.
already lead the way in operating in exposed conditions and it is These proposals have been developed by leading experts in the field
proposed that this expertise be built upon. of building Virtual Communities from the University of Limerick,Ireland.
• A key conclusion of the analysis is that due to the high fixed costs ICOAD would lead the way for aquaculture moving offshore, thus
associated with this type of activity, offshore farming must be carried fulfiling its potential as the new ‘Blue Revolution’ and providing
out on a large scale. A minimum level of 10,000 tonnes per annum, a means of increasing and enhancing the ocean’s bounty.
per operation,would be required in the case of Atlantic salmon,
for example. Due to the quantum leap in the scale of offshore
operations, the report emphasises the importance of an early
engagement with industry regulators and the public.
• An exciting prospect arising from the scale of the envisaged offshore

farms is that the establishment of even one of these units would
form a significant node of development for a coastal community.
The proposed offshore farms would become major engines of wealth
creation via employment in processing and ancillary services ashore.
How should it be done?

• The report concludes that the multifaceted technological challenge
of successfully moving finfish farming offshore is too great for any
single company or indeed any single country to address. Finding the
right development model for the offshore industry is proving to be
elusive. The failure rate in technology trials has been high and
valuable information has been lost because of the piecemeal
nature of experimental work to date. The necessarily long lead
time, high cost and lack of an existing end user market have
discouraged many would be developers. The solution proposed is
the formulation of a coordinated international strategy that will
embrace all previous initiatives.
• The key recommendation of this report is that an international body

should be formed as quickly as possible, which would exist primarily
in the form of a global community operating in a high-tech virtual
environment. That body would serve as an international focal point
for the development of offshore aquaculture and it would seek to
accelerate and galvanise the process through coordination and the
provision of financial and knowledge capital.
The author suggests that it be called: The International Council

for Offshore Aquaculture Development (ICOAD).
Farming the Deep Blue iii

Foreword
As a food marketer with many years experience and most recently as
managing director of Salmon of the Americas (SOTA),I have come to
realise the absolute importance of good communications in the food
production sector.
Very often,the consumers of our product know little or nothing about

how it has been produced,and it is vitally important that the true
and positive image of modern fish farming is communicated
effectively to them.
This report,and the upcoming ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference,

will serve a vital purpose in explaining this exciting new chapter in
aquaculture development to the public at large. It will get a good
message to the consumer about offshore fish farming right For the past 22 years, Alex Trent
from the start. has been involved in production
agriculture and commodity
Equally, it will serve as the beginnings of what I hope will be a fruitful association promotions. His firm’s
international dialogue between all the parties interested in bringing commodity group has included
forward the development of offshore finfish aquaculture. organising and providing ongoing
programme management services for
I am particularly pleased to see the publication of this report at this the American Soybean Association’s
time, when the world demand for high quality fish products is marketing programme in Europe.
growing rapidly.
Other commodity group work has
The market urgently needs the extra fish that can only come from these included evaluations for various
offshore farms, and I am convinced that the long-term future of finfish programmes funded by the United
aquaculture lies in the open ocean,built on the firm foundation of States Foreign Agricultural Service,
today’s excellent inshore industry. the US Feed Grains Council and the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
The common sense approach of this report really appealed to me. He is currently the managing director
It is realistic in that it faces up to the many problems that will be of Salmon of the Americas.
encountered in a move to the open ocean.At the same time, it
offers practical solutions and most importantly, a workable strategy
for encouraging international offshore finfish farming development.
Read it,think about it,and play your part in the evolution of the
‘Blue Revolution’.
Alex Trent
Managing Director, Salmon of the Americas
iv Farming the Deep Blue

Chapter
Introduction
1
This report was jointly commissioned by BIM (Bord Iascaigh Mhara -
The Irish Sea Fisheries Board) and the Irish Marine Institute in order to
assess the potential for the further development of offshore farming of
finfish in Ireland, and internationally. It has been produced to coincide
with an international conference in Ireland on offshore finfish aquaculture
on October 6&7, 2004 entitled ‘Farming the Deep Blue’, organised by BIM.
The initiative was inspired by a number of key drivers, which include: The shellfish farming industry is experiencing similar pressures and
• The need for aquaculture to fulfil its role in world food production is also taking tentative steps towards moving offshore, particularly in
and truly become a ‘Blue Revolution’ to succeed the agricultural the case of suspended mussel cultivation.While there are potential
‘Green Revolution’,which has largely run its course. The urgent synergies between the finfish and shellfish culture industries such as
requirement to provide more high-grade protein to the world’s polyculture and joint marketing,which may emerge in the future, finfish
growing human population is explored in Chapter 2. cage farming is seen as a discreet industry with available technologies
having cross-species applicability.
• The fact that the existing world capture fisheries, even when
combined with all of the globe’s freshwater and inshore aquaculture Thus, new technology developed in Norway for salmon farming can
resources, will not be sufficient to meet future demand. The reasons also be transferred directly to Mediterranean waters for use in sea-bass
why are set out both in this Chapter and in Chapter 2. or sea-bream farming. There is, therefore, a definable global community
of finfish cage farmers and their technology suppliers, and it is this
• The shortage of suitable sites inshore for large-scale aquaculture sector that is the focus of this report.A review of the currently
operations and competition for space. These issues are outlined in available technologies is set out in Chapter 3.
Chapters 2 & 5.
Furthermore, it may appear that this report has a ‘Western bias’.
• The twin pressures to reduce the unit cost of production through This simply reflects the reality that most finfish cage farming currently
achieving economies of scale, and to take advantage of the more targets carnivorous species that require feeds made from fishmeals
suitable husbandry environment offshore. These issues are examined and fish-oils from the capture fishing industry. These species are
in Chapters 5 & 8. expensive to produce, and markets for them are therefore confined
to Western industrialised nations and a few wealthy Eastern nations
• The global experience to date that initiatives to develop offshore such as Japan. Thus to date, the progress in marine cage farming
finfish technologies have largely failed to reach their potential techniques has largely been spearheaded by developed countries such
because the current model for progress is too fragmented and as Norway, Scotland and the U.S. The global status of offshore finfish
under-resourced.Experiences in this regard are detailed in development is reviewed in Chapter 4.
Chapters 4,6 & 7.
A number of international meetings on the topic of offshore
These pressures apply equally to the Irish situation and in the wider aquaculture have occurred in recent years. In 1997 and again in
international context.Such trends are having the effect of making 2004,the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic
offshore aquaculture a reality ever more urgent,in spite of the many Studies (CIHEAM) organised workshops on Mediterranean Offshore
issues that have to be faced in moving out into this challenging Aquaculture at Zaragoza,Spain.Again in 1998,the Faculty of
operating environment. Mediterranean Engineering,Haifa, Israel, ran a workshop entitled
Offshore Technologies for Aquaculture.
Farming the Deep Blue 1

The best-known meetings on offshore aquaculture were probably the four The Norwegian government has introduced a new classification system
international conferences on Open Ocean Aquaculture held respectively in for fish farm sites using significant wave height. This system however
Maine (U.S.) in 1996,Hawaii in 1997, Texas in 1998 and New Brunswick does not take into account other factors critical to the correct selection
(Canada) in 2001. The U.S. Sea Grant Programme was the main sponsor of equipment such as wave period and water current speed. (Fig 1.1)
of the first three events, and the World Aquaculture Society ran the
fourth conference.
Site Class Significant Degree of
These conferences and workshops focussed primarily on the technical Wave Height Exposure
issues central to offshore operations, and served to act as forums for (Metres)
the presentation of academic papers on possible solutions to very specific 1 <0.5 Small
problems. In contrast,however, the theme of the upcoming conference 2 0.5-1.0 Moderate
‘Farming the Deep Blue’,is more of an overview of offshore aquaculture, 3 1.0-2.0 Medium
to assess current trends and to examine possible directions for the future. 4 2.0-3.0 High
5 >3.0 Extreme
In particular, the ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference will address
the concern that offshore aquaculture is failing to reach its potential. Fig 1.1 Norwegian Aquaculture site classification scheme.
A principal outcome would therefore be a consensus to establish an
integrated international strategy aimed at injecting vigour into the In the absence of a more sophisticated classification system and for the
sector on a global basis, thus accelerating the pace of development. sake of simple illustration in this report,the adoption of a conventional
Recommendations in this regard are proposed in Chapter 9. system based more on geography than wave energy is proposed.
This comprises four site classes with Class 1 being sheltered inshore
and Class 4 being offshore. (Figs 1.2 & 1.3) The classes of site that
Report approach are the focus of this report are Class 3 and Class 4,i.e. exposed and
offshore respectively.
The report includes a snap-shot of current worldwide trends in offshore
aquaculture. It also reflects discussions with many industry experts, and
Class 3 sites are of particular interest in the Irish context given the
suggests routes to a viable and dynamic future. It is, therefore, a discussion
number of unexploited locations that fall into this category along the
document,not an exhaustive academic treatise, and relies in the most part
west coast. This situation is mirrored in other countries such as Canada,
on information and opinion from fish farmers, their technical advisors and
Scotland and Norway. These sites, despite being close to the open ocean,
technology suppliers. The report is also intended to act as a companion
benefit from the shelter provided by proximity to nearby headlands, islands
document to the ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference, and serves to set
or subsurface features and can accommodate the use of conventional
the agenda for the event.
technologies albeit with some adaptations and new methodologies.
1.1 Definition of offshore aquaculture Other countries such as Italy, the Canary Islands and the U.S. have little
option but to operate in Class 4 or offshore locations and are of necessity
Critical to this discussion is the development of a clear understanding trailblazing the use of novel technologies. Inevitably as production
of what is meant by ‘offshore aquaculture’.Within the finfish farming expands, most countries will want to avail of offshore sites.
community it is generally accepted to mean the execution of activities
in sites that are subject to ocean waves. This increased exposure to This site-classification system needs to be used cautiously. For example,
higher wave energy is linked to distance from shore or lack of shelter it is commonly accepted that a cage system that may be adequate in a
from topographical features such as islands or headlands, which can Mediterranean setting would not survive on a site off the west coast
mitigate the force of ocean and wind-generated waves. of Ireland,although both locations might have similar proximity to
the nearest land.
In order to understand the issues associated with developing offshore
aquaculture in earnest,this broad definition needs further refinement so Further development of an universally acceptable offshore site
that technology capabilities can be better matched with site characteristics. classification system is urgently required to bring about a more refined
approach,which adequately describes and quantifies all the significant
A site classification system based on the sea state spectrum or energy sources of energy that impact on offshore farm structures and stock.
spectrum of the local wave climate therefore needs to be devised and Recommendations on these issues are detailed in Chapter 9.
cross referenced to cage and equipment capabilities. It is possible to
conceive of up to four, or possibly five site classes within this system. The report therefore focuses in particular on the technologies used and
Traditional surface-based cages might be deemed suitable for Class 1 the problems being encountered by operators in Class 3 sites, and
and Class 2 and probably Class 3 sites, with submersible cages or proposes solutions and new strategies to enable development of
other novel technologies being preferred for the more extreme large-scale offshore operations. Class 4 sites are also of great interest
conditions characteristic of Class 4 and Class 5 sites. but being open ocean,they require long-term development strategies
using novel technologies such as submersible cages.
2 Farming the Deep Blue

Fig 1.2 The site classification scheme proposed for the purpose of this document.
Class 1 2 3 4
Conventional Sheltered Semi-Exposed Exposed Open Ocean Offshore Site
Description Inshore Site Inshore Site Offshore Site
(In relation to
site exposure)
Cage Type Used Surface Gravity Surface Gravity Surface Gravity, Surface Gravity, Surface Rigid,
Anchor Tension Anchor Tension,Submerged
Gravity, Submerged Rigid
Fig 1.3 Cage types likely to be found in sites of Classes 1 to 4. For an explanation of cage types referred to here go to Chapter 3.
1.2 Fish farming worldwide Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, intensive fish farming in the sea
has mushroomed,resulting in worldwide marine finfish production of
While finfish aquaculture has been carried out for thousands of years, three million tonnes in 2000.
it has been largely confined to freshwater and brackish water locations.
This type of farming is generally carried out on an extensive or subsistence For the most part,this type of farming is based in developed countries
basis. For example, it is used to augment food production on a family and is generally characterised as being ‘industrial-scale farming’.Indeed,
farm and is also characteristic of fish farming in developing countries. Atlantic salmon farming in north Atlantic countries and in Chile accounts
for about half of this intensive output,with a large portion of the rest
Exceptions to this are trout in Europe and North America,and tilapia being sea-bass and sea-bream in Mediterranean countries. Warm water
in several Latin American and Asian countries. Nevertheless, the species such as cobia, various types of snapper, and Pacific threadfin,
output of individual operations is small compared to those of plus cold-water marine fish species such as cod,halibut and haddock,
seawater-based farming. are also in the pilot stages of intensive farming.

Whilst freshwater farming still accounts for 85 per cent of total global Depending on the surface area enclosed within each collar and the
finfish production,farming in the sea is increasing at a faster rate and depth of the net enclosure, individual cages can contain between 50
is considered to be ‘high value’,currently worth approximately €8 and 1,000 tonnes of finfish,with the principle operating challenges
billion annually. Also, the freshwater resource is limited and is the centred on feeding,net changing and harvesting.In the past twenty
subject of increasing competition for usage as the world’s population years, the industry has made great strides towards solving these issues
continues to grow. through advances in technology and research. For instance, most feeding
is now carried out by automatic feeding systems, and routine operations
Seawater-based farming conforms to a fairly standardised format are performed with the assistance of highly specialised workboats
worldwide. Sites are generally located in sheltered or semi-sheltered equipped with powerful cranes. Harvesting procedures have also
inshore waters, and the cages used consist of either a steel or plastic been greatly enhanced and are now carried out by purpose-designed
floating collar with net enclosures hanging beneath. These can be well-boats that have pumps for delivering live harvest fish from the
described as ‘gravity cages’ because they depend on weights hanging cage into the well. (Fig 1.7)
from the nets to keep them open and have no underwater structural
framework.Gravity cages are extremely successful and have supported Typical seawater farming sites for salmon have annual production
the development of fish farming for the past 30 years. (Fig 1.4) levels ranging from 1,000 to 4,000 tonnes. At a current world value
of approximately €3.50 per kilo, a 4,000-tonne ocean farm would
Steel collar cages are usually square in plan view and are configured turnover in the region of €14 million.Mediterranean sea-bass and
within a framework comprising four to 24 individual units. (Fig 1.5) sea-bream rearing sites have lower production levels ranging from
Plastic or rubber collar cages are usually circular in plan view and 400 to 2000 tonnes, but with a higher selling price than salmon,
can be assembled in groups within a grid work of rope and chain can achieve annual turnovers in excess of €10 million.
moorings. (Fig 1.6)
1.3 Fish farming in Ireland today

Ireland has had a relatively long involvement with offshore aquaculture,
making the Irish experience an interesting model in the context of
this report.
Ireland’s current National Development Plan (2000-2006) envisages

that salmon and trout production has the potential to increase to
33,432 tonnes by 2008.Furthermore, with increasing knowledge
of the requirements for commercial cultivation of alternative species,
steps are now being taken towards diversification into cod,halibut,
and turbot.Developments in Ireland have generally mirrored those of
the rest of the world.Seawater farming of finfish began there in the
early 1970s with the rearing of salmon and rainbow trout in cages of
between two and five tonnes capacity.
Fig 1.4 Square plastic collar gravity cage in rough conditions, Norway.
Polarcirkel, Norway.
Fig 1.5 Steel collar cages, Ireland. Fig 1.6 Rubber collar cage, Clare Island, Ireland.
Marine Harvest, Ireland.

Fig 1.7 Highly specialised work boat with lifting crane and feed cannon feeding a 120-metre circumference plastic collar cage, Norway. Aqualine, Norway.
Since then the industry has grown,and production peaked at 25,000

tonnes in 2001. Twenty-nine sites owned by 13 separate companies
currently contribute to the annual turnover of approximately
€54.2 million (2003).
Where Ireland differs from much of the rest of the world is in its
pioneering work in offshore fish farming. This has been necessitated
by the lack of suitable Class 1 and Class 2 farming sites. More than
30% of Ireland’s production comes from Class 3 sites. These are
located at Bantry Bay, Co Cork; Kenmare Bay, Co Kerry;Galway
Bay;Clew Bay, Co. Mayo and Donegal Bay. (Fig 1.8)
In moving out to these zones, fish farmers have tended to rely on traditional
technologies and have used reinforced versions of the gravity cage and
conventional feeding equipment in the absence of gear and methodologies
designed specifically for the much more hostile offshore environment.
The result is that ocean swells have caused difficulties for maintenance
schedules, work programmes and staff morale. Operating costs can
therefore be significantly higher than at inshore sites. The offshore farm
at Clare Island in Clew Bay, Co. Mayo, has successfully addressed this FINFISHSITE
problem by producing organically reared fish and selling it at a premium
price. Given that this is a niche market,however, the premium would soon
be eroded if all producers turned to organic farming. Fig 1.8 Location of offshore aquaculture sites, Ireland.

Notwithstanding the above, experience to date indicates that significant conservatively that there are at least 15 potential Class 3 sites
husbandry and environmental benefits will be gained from developing around the Irish coast,which could be exploited if the required
an offshore industry. It is widely accepted that environmental impact, offshore technology is developed.
fish quality and growth rates would all be greatly improved in the
offshore environment. These potential benefits are explored in Chapter 5.
Benefit for Ireland
There is, therefore, general agreement amongst fish farmers in Ireland
Thus, if the next steps in offshore finfish farming development were
and elsewhere that although operating outside the inshore zone using
taken as detailed in Chapters 6 & 7,making the operation of Class 3
conventional approaches has been somewhat marginal to date, there is
sites economically viable, Ireland could potentially increase its current
an urgent need to crack this technology challenge.
output by 150,000 tonnes, with a first sale value of 500 million per
annum. Such an increase in raw material supply would support
In this regard,operational difficulties need to be resolved in existing
downstream processing and ancillary activity, creating a further
offshore sites so as to encourage operators to consider expanding their
250 million per annum and supporting approximately 4,500
production.Increased confidence brought about by successful offshore
extra jobs. All of this wealth creation and employment would be
operations should result in the establishment of many new offshore
located in Ireland’s most vulnerable peripheral coastal communities.
sites around the Irish coast. The author of this report estimates
1.4 Report focus Relying on individual fish farming or equipment supply companies is
unlikely to bring sufficient investment in research and development
Because of burgeoning market demand for more fish and the (R&D) in offshore fish farming technology as the commercial risks
constraints on supply from capture fisheries, the opportunity now involved are too high to yield a reasonable return in the short-term.
exists for the aquaculture industry to engage in large-scale production. A new paradigm is required,which will bring to bear a much higher
In many countries however, there is serious opposition to further level of resources on a long-term basis. This report will conclude by
expansion inshore because of both competition for space with other making recommendations in this regard,and the topic will be explored
stakeholders such as the marine leisure sector and public opposition in depth at the ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference.
to new cage farming projects located close to land. There is also the
trend of increasing scale by individual operations, brought about by Bearing in mind the increasing consumption of fish and the projected rise
the drive for reduced production costs. Indeed,some farms are becoming in demand of approximately 30% by 2030 (Chapter 2),there is little doubt
so large as to outgrow the capacity of their location inshore in terms of that the markets for farmed finfish will continue to grow. The marine cage
both space and adequate water exchange. farming industry will then find itself tasked with supplying this growing
demand and in order to do so, farmers will need access to both offshore
Forward thinkers in the industry are therefore looking towards the offshore sites and to appropriate technologies.
zone;however, due to the destructive effects of wave action,aquaculture
operations in these areas must cope with ongoing wear and tear and As a vehicle for systematically examining the proposition of creating
occasional failure of nets and equipment. an economically viable offshore finfish farm,this report postulates a
model 10,000 tonnes operation. The assumptions and logic behind
Nonetheless, some farmers have faced down these challenges so that this proposed venture are set out in Chapter 8,while the practical
in Ireland and indeed worldwide, farms are managing to survive in the and logistical considerations, which have to be borne in mind,are
offshore zone, particularly in Class 3 sites. Many of these have experienced detailed in Chapters 6 & 7.
better fish rearing conditions offshore. This report therefore focuses on the
art of the possible whilst mapping out a strategic route to future success. In taking this approach,this report examines the technical feasibility
of what is possible now, and what developments are required to
It is therefore apparent that offshore aquaculture is indeed feasible; successfully exploit open ocean locations in the years to come.
however progress has been sporadic because the equipment and
methodologies used have been based on what has been successful in This report proposes that the technological challenge of successfully
the inshore zone. Thus for almost 20 years, offshore farmers have had moving finfish farming offshore is too great for any single company or
to improvise with poorly adapted equipment and operating systems that indeed any single country to address. The solution is for a coordinated
do not take full advantage of the benefits which properly tailored modern international strategy that will embrace all previous initiatives which,
technology could provide. so far, have been piecemeal and insufficient in scale.
Some equipment supply companies have attempted to address this A radical new model for the development of offshore finfish farming
problem by applying resources to design and development of is urgently needed if it is to fulfil its requirement in the ‘Evolution of
technologies specifically intended for the offshore zone (Chapter 3). the Blue Revolution’.A recommended approach is set out in Chapter 9.

Chapter
Offshore Aquaculture -
2 The Context
2.1 Introduction
Over the past 15-20 years, commercial offshore farms have been established
around the globe, and operators have been able to avail of improvements to
gravity cage technologies and operating methodologies. Novel or alternative
technologies however are also being developed, and there is a trend towards
using submerged systems, particularly in open ocean (Class 4) situations.
Although progress in offshore aquaculture has been somewhat sporadic Between 1979 and 1999,world population increased from 4.4
to date, there are indications of a gathering momentum in mankind’s billion to 5.9 billion, and the FAO is forecasting a further increase to
determination to harness the oceans for large-scale production of food. 8.2 billion by 2030 with some stability being reached by the end of
For example, a recent European Commission policy statement on the twenty-first century. (Fig 2.2)
aquaculture states: ‘Fish cages should be moved further from the coast,
and more research and development of offshore cage technology must The second trend relates to increasing per capita fish consumption as
be promoted to this end. Experience from outside the aquaculture sector, indicated by the following excerpts from the FAO report, The State of
e.g. with oil platforms, may well feed into the aquaculture equipment World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2002:
sector, allowing for savings in the development costs of technologies’.
The total food fish supply for the world excluding China, has been
growing at a rate of about 2.4% per annum since 1961, while the
In addition,a report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
population has been expanding at 1.8 % per annum. Since the late
entitled The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2002,
1980s, however, population growth outside China has occasionally
states that aquaculture in general (not offshore aquaculture) is growing
outpaced the growth of total food fish supply, resulting in a decrease
more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors: ‘Worldwide,
in per capita fish supply from 14.6 kg in 1987 to 13.1 kg in 2000.
the sector has increased at an average compound rate of 9.2% per year
since 1970, compared with only 1.4% for capture fisheries and 2.8%
for terrestrial farmed meat production systems’. (Fig 2.1) Contribution of Aquaculture to
World Fisheries Landings - 1970 - 2000
This growth story has been described as the ‘Blue Revolution’,and puts
aquaculture development on the same scale as the advances made in
agriculture during the ‘Green Revolution’ over the second half of the
twentieth century.
Before assessing the strategies required to develop offshore aquaculture

in earnest, a critical question must be addressed:Will there be sufficient
demand for additional fish to justify this major new departure?
2.2 The Supply/Demand Outlook for

Fishery Products
Between 1970 and 2001,the world supply of fish has doubled from
approximately 65 million tonnes to more than 130 million tonnes. Fig 2.1 Production increases for aquaculture, capture fisheries and terrestrial meat
That this astonishing rise was met by matching demand can largely 1970-2000. After FAO.
be explained by two strong trends:increasing population and
increasing per capita consumption.

Fig 2.2 World Population Growth 1981-2050. After FAO. Fig 2.3 The FAO Gap. Aquaculture will need to at least double its current production
in order to fill the supply gap arising from increased demand in 2030.
The report adds: Gap’,which is simply the gulf between expected demand and expected
In industrialized countries, where diets generally contain a more supply from the capture industry. The conclusion is that aquaculture
diversified range of animal proteins, the supply increased from 13.2 production will have to increase even further in order to bridge the gap.
million tonnes in 1961 to 25.4 million tonnes in 1999, implying a Production levels in 2001 of 37 million tonnes will therefore need to
rise in per capita provision from 19.9 to 28.3. increase to approximately 80-90 million tonnes by 2030,or 50% of the
world’s total fish requirements. (Fig 2.3)
The report goes on to forecast that world per capita consumption will
increase from 16kg in 2002 to 19-22kg by 2030.
2.3 The Future of Marine Finfish Aquaculture
Increases in per capita consumption of fish can largely be attributed Out of the total 2001 aquaculture production of 37 million tonnes,
to two developments: finfish accounted for 23 million tonnes and the balance consisted
(a) Health: Throughout the world,fish is perceived as a healthy food mostly of molluscs and crustaceans. Of these 23 million tonnes,
option,and this perception is backed up by numerous research however, only three million tonnes was marine finfish,with the rest
findings and health reports. It is now an accepted medical fact being freshwater finfish produced primarily in China and southeast Asia.
that eating fish is good,if not essential,for both brain and body.
(See Appendix 1 for discussion and examples.) If it is assumed that marine finfish aquaculture production will increase at
the same rate as projected for aquaculture as a whole i.e. 3%,an annual
(b) Increased Supply:Due to modern,sophisticated technologies, the production level of seven million tonnes will be reached by the year 2030.
supply of fish from capture fisheries continued to rise until the mid A number of factors exist,however, which may result in the marine finfish
1990s. Since then capture fishery output has been more or less stable, sector growing at a higher rate than other aquaculture sectors:
with aquaculture output supplying an ever-increasing proportion of (1) While the world’s oceans offer almost unlimited capacity for
the world’s seafood requirements. In 2001 it was estimated that growth,freshwater resources are likely to face escalating pressure
aquaculture produced close to 30% of total fish supply. from competing users, making it increasingly difficult for freshwater
aquaculture production to sustain its past level of growth.
Furthermore, the FAO carried out a study of future trends in the In fact,the noted economist,Professor Lester Brown,at the second
supply/demand balance of fishery products to 2030.On the demand AquaVision conference predicted that the next major world conflict
side, a combination of two factors - the world’s growing population, will be fought over freshwater resources as the world’s human
and the increasing per capita consumption of fishery products - will population continues to grow. Major growth in finfish aquaculture
push the overall requirement for fishery products to a total of 180 output will have to take place in the sea.
million tonnes by 2030. This represents a 40% increase on the
130 million tonnes available in 2001 from the capture and (2) Although freshwater finfish yields 62% of all aquaculture output,
aquaculture fisheries. freshwater fish from both capture and aquaculture sources tend to
be consumed locally, have relatively low yields of edible meat and low
On the supply side, the capture fishery at best will remain static, per unit values. In addition,freshwater finfish husbandry practices are
with output expected to remain at 100 million tonnes. It is therefore generally more extensive and require larger amounts of water and
predicted that this will lead to what is becoming known as the ‘FAO surface area for production.

Anadromous (salmonids, eels etc) and marine finfish species 3.8 million tonnes by 2030.Given this outlook,offshore farming is
are, on the other hand,suitable for large-scale intensive culture. a compelling and logical continuation of the ‘Blue Revolution’ to
They have both high yield and high value, and can therefore be fill the FAO ‘gap’ in marine finfish production. (Fig 2.4)
targeted towards processing and marketing in more affluent
western countries. Thus, they have significant potential for The case for the urgent development of offshore finfish farming is
growth in their contribution to aquaculture finfish output. overwhelming,both from a commercial and food security perspective.
Given that it will be a long-term undertaking,the first steps in this vital
(3) Husbandry knowledge and practices for producing marine finfish process need to be taken immediately.
species are developing rapidly. Of equal importance is the mounting
sophistication in current feed processing technology, which enables
increased substitution of vegetable proteins and oil for ocean-sourced
feed ingredients. There is also exciting potential for the cultivation
of marine fish that are more or less herbivorous, such as milkfish.
In contrast with freshwater aquaculture, marine finfish farming
depends almost entirely on the culture of carnivorous fish whose
diet must include supply-limited fishmeal. The development of
herbivorous species would therefore be highly welcomed.
Taking these and other factors into account,marine finfish aquaculture

can be predicted to grow at a faster rate than the 3% estimated for
aquaculture as a whole. Therefore, projecting a moderately increased
growth rate of 4% would result in a forecast for annual marine finfish
production of 10 million tonnes by 2030. This represents a seven million
tonne increase over today’s production level of three million tonnes.
If this increase is divided between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on

the basis of the current ratio of 45%:55% respectively (1.35m tonnes
in the Atlantic and 1.65 million tonnes in the Pacific),the potential for
production increase in marine finfish aquaculture by 2030 is 3.15 million
tonnes in the Atlantic and 3.85 million tonnes in the Pacific.
2.4 The Case for Offshore Fish Farming

Following the analysis and assumptions presented so far, marine finfish
aquaculture production in the Atlantic region will need to increase by
some 230% from its current 1.35 million tonnes to 4.5 million tonnes
by 2030 in order to meet projected world demands. Similarly, production
from the Pacific region will need to increase from 1.65 million tonnes to
5.5 million tonnes.
Chapter 1 refers to constraints on expansion within inshore aquaculture

areas and to the high costs associated with pump-ashore systems.
It is unlikely that these methods alone will produce enough marine
finfish to meet the demand forecasted.A global mega trend that will
also impact on this situation is that human populations are increasingly
aggregating on the coastlines of the major continents. Thus, competition
for space in the inshore zone, characterised by Class 1 and Class 2 type
sites, is set to intensify, forcing expansion in marine finfish farming further
and further offshore.
Assuming that production in the Atlantic inshore zone increases to

2.7 million tonnes (1.35 million tonnes doubled),and that pump-ashore
tank systems will account for a further 100,000 tonnes, this leaves a
production shortfall of 1.7 million tonnes (4.5 million tonnes minus 2.8
million tonnes).A similar exercise for the Pacific indicates a shortfall of
approximately 2.1 million tonnes. Offshore finfish aquaculture will
therefore need to increase its global production to approximately Fig 2.4 Possible fish supply scenario in 2030.

Chapter
Aquaculture Technologies
3
3.1 Introduction
To date, growth in offshore farming has lagged behind that of inshore farming
because of the significant gap in knowledge, technology and experience that
exists regarding cage systems, ancillary equipment and the husbandry practices
required for reliable, large-scale offshore farming. This gap exists for a variety of
reasons and is mostly related to the sheer cost of designing, developing, testing
and marketing the technology.
If one were to follow the model pursued in the inshore sector, 3.1.1 Consideration of the necessary
development of offshore technology could only take place where characteristics in offshore projects
there was a robust offshore farming sector capable of sustaining the
necessary R&D costs. The irony is, however, that the sector is having The hostile, high-energy environment that characterises the offshore
great difficulty evolving in the absence of any significant level of zone requires that a number of key considerations be catered for in
output.It is in fact a classical ‘chicken and egg’ situation. order to make finfish farming operations both feasible and economical.
Therefore, a central tenet of this report is that this scenario must be Firstly, and most obviously, the structures and moorings envisaged
addressed by a new approach encompassing both state and private must be capable of tolerating the loads to which they will be subjected.
funding of the long-term R&D costs necessary to make offshore finfish Therefore, stronger versions of conventional inshore technologies or
farming a viable reality in the public interest. alternative concepts altogether will be necessary.
Finding a successful infrastructure development model for the offshore Secondly, it must be assumed that because of weather and sea conditions,
industry has proven to be elusive to date. In addition to high technology access will often be difficult if not impossible. Highly specialised,remote
development costs, there are the unknowns relating to growing - not control and monitoring capabilities via leading-edge telemetry systems
just new species but also existing species in the high-energy offshore must therefore be a major component of the operating methodology.
environment.Several generations of fish will therefore need to be raised In particular, it must be feasible to feed and observe the fish regardless
before a concept is proven,commercialisation can occur and cash flow of whether staff are present on site. Large feed storage capacity will also
is generated.Such a scenario would be unattractive to a commercial be an essential feature.
investor acting alone.
A third consideration must be the higher capital and other fixed costs that
These issues combined bear out the author’s view that it is difficult for need to be offset by economies of scale. For this reason,cage structures
any one company or entity to take on the challenge and that a new with operating volumes and output far higher than those currently found
paradigm is required.Notwithstanding the above, a number of inshore will be required. This will require a change in mindset on the part
development initiatives have taken place around the world. of industry regulators.
Whilst most equipment suppliers and operators will admit that adequate Finally, the planning of offshore aquaculture operations requires an holistic
offshore technologies do not yet exist,the industry has developed a approach,which must take into consideration all aspects and components
wealth of knowledge and experience, which the right model could capture, of the proposed operating system.In this respect,far more rigorous
forming the basis for the successful development of this sorely needed management and forward planning regimes will be required than are
technology. Prior to reviewing these initiatives, a consideration of the currently the norm at inshore locations.
essential criteria necessary for success is presented below.

These four criteria must be included in any meaningful assessment of The netting,which is made of traditional twine based materials, or in
available technologies and they are employed as the backdrop to the some cases rigid materials such as galvanised steel,is attached to the
following review of equipment currently in use or at development stage rigid components to maintain net shape. Examples of this type of cage
for offshore finfish aquaculture. are the semi-submerged platforms produced in Spain and the Norwegian
concept cage, the Byks OceanGlobe. (Figs 3.5)
For clarity, existing offshore technologies are firstly examined in terms of
containment systems or cages and secondly, in terms of the supporting Examples of project employing these four cage types are reviewed
equipment necessary to carry out essential aquaculture operations. in the next section.
3.2 Containment Systems 3.2.1 Type 1: Gravity cages

In order to understand much of the progress to date, some knowledge of Much of the offshore industry experience to date has been with
containment systems is required.In a report published in 1998,Loverich gravity cages that are either reinforced versions of existing plastic
and Gace ‘attempted to establish sea cage classifications based upon the and steel cages or somewhat specialised variations of the gravity
structural means used to fix the growing volume’, and proposed four sea cage. Companies such as Fusion Marine (UK); Polarcirkel (Norway);
cage types, namely:gravity cages, anchor-tension cages, semi-rigid cages Aqualine (Norway);Corelsa (Spain) and Plastic Fabrications (Australia)
and rigid cages. all have plastic pipe products targeting the offshore farming sector.
Within this classification system,type 1 or gravity cages are by far the In the mid-1980s and early-1990s, Bridgestone (Japan) and Dunlop
most widely used containment technology in the fish farming industry, (now Bonnar Engineering, Ireland) adapted components from the
accounting for the vast bulk of marine and freshwater-farmed output. offshore oil and gas industry to use in place of plastic pipe for offshore
Gravity cages rely on the force of gravity to maintain net volume, by conditions. Cages such as the Farm Ocean (Sweden) (Fig 3.6) and
providing a surface buoyancy element and an underwater weighting the Storm (Norway) (Fig 3.7) are very different approaches but are
system for the net. The surface buoyancy element is usually incorporated variations of the gravity cage.
into some sort of surface structure that doubles as a work platform for
operators. Over the years, wood,plastic, rubber and steel have all been An intrinsic characteristic of the gravity cage in conventional
used in many variations for the surface element. (Fig 3.1,Fig 3.2a&b) (i.e. not tuna,see discussion below) configuration is its susceptibility
to net deformity and volume loss in currents and wave action,which
The only type 2 or anchor-tension cage currently manufactured is the is a result of a lack of support structure for the net.In certain types
Ocean Spar cage, which relies on a tensioned mooring system to maintain of gravity cage, much of the wave activity is transferred through the
the growing volume of the net as there is no rigid framework. (Fig 3.3) water to the net,causing excessive motion and leading to wear and
tear. Indeed in some cases, more work has probably gone into net design
Similarly, the Sea Station cage is currently the only example of a type 3 or to overcome the wear and tear factor than into the cage collar. (Fig 3.8)
semi-rigid cage. This classification comes from the fact that it uses ropes to
connect rigid steel components in order to maintain volume. (Fig 3.4) Whilst the gravity cage is the favoured type of cage in almost all
commercial offshore operations, this situation has arisen both because
Finally, type 4 or rigid cages are those where net volume is maintained of a tendency to use familiar technologies when moving from the
by rigid structural components made of steel and other materials. inshore zone, and the perception that there is no viable alternative.
The results, however, have been mixed,with operators being challenged

to stay apace with essential repairs and maintenance arising from inherent
design flaws. Occasionally a cage can suffer catastrophic damage from
wave action,resulting in the loss of most or all of the fish. These events
have been explained through computer modelling of gravity cage designs,
indicating an inadequacy in coping with wave conditions in offshore sites.
(Fredriksson et al.2000)
Despite these issues, however, significant amounts of fish are produced

from gravity cages in offshore sites in Mediterranean countries, the Faeroe
Islands, Shetland,the Canary Islands, Norway and Ireland amongst others.
Of particular interest is the apparent ‘overnight success’ of the tuna

industry. Of all of the offshore aquaculture sectors, tuna farming is one
of the more successful when measured by output value. Over the past
Fig 3.1 Plastic collar cage, Marine Construction, Norway.

Fig 3.2(a) Sadco Shelf cages awaiting launch. Sadco Shelf, Russia.
Fig 3.3(a) Ocean Spar cage, Net Systems Inc.
Fig 3.2(b) Sadco Shelf cage concept. Sadco Shelf, Russia.

Fig 3.3(b) Ocean Spar cage, Net Systems Inc. Fig 3.6 Farm Ocean cage. Farm Ocean, Sweden.
Fig 3.4 Sea Station Cage, Net Systems Inc. Fig 3.7 Storm cage. Marine Construction. Norway
Just ten years ago, tuna fishermen began experimenting with gravity
cages to fatten wild fish and experienced an almost instant success
using adapted gravity cage technology. (Fig 3.9)
The tuna industry relies almost exclusively on floating plastic collar cages
for both towing across oceans and farming operations. Most of the tuna
on-growing sites are either Class 3 or Class 4 and are located anywhere
from exposed near shore to three or four miles offshore.
The industry has developed a collapsible cage collar for transportation

to the fishing grounds where it is assembled for the return trip to the
farm.In some cases, the fishing grounds are hundreds of kilometres
from the on-growing sites, and gravity cages with live fish must
therefore be towed across open ocean for periods of up to 30 days.
With this mix of success and failure of offshore gravity cages in mind,
Fig 3.5 Semi-submerged platform behind plastic collar cage, Spain. J Ryan photo. Bonnar Engineering,supported by funding from the Irish Government
and the insurance company Sunderland Marine, is currently running a
five years the industry has grown significantly to a harvest in 2003 of research project off the west coast of Ireland aimed at establishing the
approximately 34,000 tonnes, with values ranging from US$20 to $50 loadings on a rubber collar cage in an offshore site. Load cells have
per kg.In Japan,over 30% of the tuna supply comes from farmed been attached to key points on the net and on the mooring lines, and
sources. Other countries farming tuna include Australia,Mexico, Spain, the results to date indicate that certain computer models, which have
Malta and Croatia. hitherto been used to predict the loadings on fish cages, are inadequate.

Fig 3.8 Illustration of wave and current effects on a conventional gravity cage. Sadco Fig 3.9(b) Tuna cage under tow with dive boat in attendance, Mexico. Ted Dunn,
Shelf, Russia. Paula Sylvia.
3.2.2 Type 2:Anchor-tension cages

Of all of the alternatives to gravity cage systems, the anchor-tension cage
has possibly the greatest capacity for up-scaling. For example, Ocean Spar
Technologies has installed four of these cage types in Ireland since 1998,
three of which have a 20,000m3 capacity (Fig 3.11) and a fourth has a
15,000m3 capacity. These cages are hexagonal in plan view with a vertical
steel pipe (or spar) at each of its six corners. The company has indicated
that larger volume cages up to 60,000m3 could be supplied.Because the
Ocean Spar cage has steel spars and no flotation collar, it has the potential
to be more ‘transparent’ to wave action than gravity class cages. Also, the
high-tension framework ensures that the net retains its full volume in
strong currents and severe conditions.
Development and commercialisation of the Ocean Spar cage system

Fig 3.9(a) Fresh caught wild tuna swimming into tow cage. Ted Dunn, Paula Sylvia. represents a classic case study of the difficulties that can be encountered
when developing novel cage designs and supporting technologies for
Of the other types of gravity cages, the Farm Ocean was one of the offshore farming.While somewhat adaptable to existing handling and
pioneering attempts to develop a cage for more exposed conditions; husbandry practices, the system is different enough from traditional
however high capital cost,low volume and difficult access for harvesting gravity cages that a number of new operating practices related to net
render them unlikely candidates for farming lower value fish species such cleaning,fish handling,harvesting and mortality collection are required.
as cod or salmon.Nevertheless, the cage design has shown promise in a Although none of the issues are insurmountable, tackling them requires
variety of situations, particularly in offshore Mediterranean sites farming time, money and commitment.
sea-bass and sea-bream.A significant advantage of this cage type is the
integrated feed silo, which facilitates computer controlled feeding For example, as the Ocean Spar is not fitted with a floating collar, one
regardless of operator access being prevented by sea conditions. (Fig 3.6) problem to emerge at an offshore Irish site related to the conventional
feeding method whereby workboats convey feed via a cannon. The work-
The SADCO Shelf is another variation on the gravity cage theme, having boat therefore had nothing to lie against and was in danger of being
a heavy top framework from which hangs a net and weight ring. This cage forced onto the net by wave action. This had the effect of discouraging
again suffers from the drawbacks of small volume, (4,000m3 maximum); regular feeding of the fish.
however it has proven successful as a submersible cage and has survived
in extreme conditions. It also has the advantage, similar to the Ocean Farm Furthermore, the requirement of staff to keep up with all the other
cage and unlike the Sea Station, of having an integrated automatic feeding chores on the farm,plus a shortage of resources meant that the problem
system,but it does require resurfacing at intervals for filling. SADCO Shelf was never adequately addressed.Ultimately the project failed,largely
has plans to increase cage sizes to 8,000m3 and 12,000m 3. (Fig 3.10) because of the poor performance of the fish,and the cage was taken
out of the water.

Fig 3.10 Submerged cage, diver servicing feed system. Sadco Shelf, Russia.
3.2.3 Type 3: Semi-rigid cages

The Sea Station consists of a single central spar of steel pipe inside a
circular steel collar. These two elements are joined by non-stretch rope
under tension,and the netting is fitted around this framework. (Fig 3.12)
The scope of the Sea Station is currently limited to relatively small

volumes of 3,000m 3 although with more development this could be
increased to 6,000m 3. It is one of the very few cage types that has
endured totally submerged operations in Class 4 sites.
Similar to the Ocean Spar, the Sea Station requires further development
of its methods for fish handling,feeding,net cleaning and harvesting.
These issues, however, are more challenging in this case because the
cages are deployed in open ocean and submerged conditions.
Fig 3.11(a) Brother of the author, Abdon Ryan, on the taut top net of an Ocean Spar
cage, Killary Harbour, Ireland.
3.2.4 Type 4: Rigid cages
This occurred in spite of indications that the new concept had potential,
thus highlighting the need for an holistic approach involving careful Rigid cages comprise a solid framework of steel or other suitable
consideration of all issues ahead of installing new technology. It is material to which the fish containing net is attached.Rigid cages
also necessary to ensure that the proper monetary, material and can be surface-based,as in the case of those constructed by Marina
human resources are in place once the project is embarked upon. System Hibernica in Spain. Trials of surface-based rigid cages in exposed
water, however, have resulted in nets being destroyed due to the rigidity
of the framework.

Fig 3.11(b) Diagrammatic representation of the 20,000 cubic meter Ocean Spar cage Fig 3.12 Top of semi-submerged Sea Station cage, Net Systems.
installed in 3 sites in Ireland. At harvest the net is raised and the fish swim through an
unzipped panel and net tunnel into a waiting transport cage. Net Systems Inc, USA.
Rigid cages therefore show far more promise in submerged situations During recent trials in Cadiz,this issue was addressed by opting for
and a rigid submersible cage that as yet is only at the concept stage is slack netting in the top section at low tide and maintaining net shape
the OceanGlobe from Norwegian company, Byks. The OceanGlobe by adding extra flotation buoys. An alternative approach would be to
comprises a plastic framework configured in a spherical shape and develop self-correcting tension legs but this may be introducing
has an optional landing platform pivoting on the main axis of the cage. unnecessary complications. (Fig 3.15)
The promoters assert that units capable of retaining up to 1,000 tonnes
of fish can be built,and that the cage can be either submerged or
surface-based. (Fig 3.13) 3.2.6 Other cage designs
Other cage concepts exist but are difficult to categorise. These include:
3.2.5 Proposed Type 5:Tension-leg cages • Enclosure systems

This is simply a single panel of net hanging from surface buoys
The Loverich and Gace cage classification scheme allocates the and weighted to the seabed.It has no flotation collar or bottom
RefaMed tension-leg cage to the gravity cage category on the basis horizontal panel,and the overall shape is maintained by flotation
that having a ring on the bottom to keep the tension legs properly buoys and mooring tension.Advantages of this system include
spaced, they resemble an inverted gravity cage. Tension-leg cages, the potentially large rearing volume that can be enclosed and
however, are so radically different to conventional gravity cages, and its flexibility in high waves. The disadvantages are that it has no
have so much potential for offshore applications, that in the opinion jump net and that it needs a smooth,level seabed.
of the author, an additional fifth category is justified.
• Untethered cages
By having only a small flotation collar at the surface with no mooring This cage type drifts at the behest of the currents across the
lines attached,the RefaMed tension-leg cage avoids the high loadings world’s great oceans as the fish are fed and fattened inside.
suffered by conventional gravity cages in extreme wind and wave Such cages would be very large, incorporating crew quarters
conditions. In strong current situations, whether caused by high winds and massive feed storage capacity. They would also be fitted
or tidal movement,the cage is deflected sideways to assume a position with their own propulsion system,thereby allowing the crew to
of least resistance. Although the largest cage to date is only 4,000m3, have some control over the direction of drift and so as to ensure
RefaMed is confident that cages up to 15,000m3 could be produced. adequate water exchange through the cage. It may be possible
Sizes beyond this would need further development. (Fig 3.14) to locate these cages in circulating currents that are relatively
local in extent so that the drift area would be confined to more
A factor that needs consideration in the case of tension-leg cages is manageable proportions than entire oceans.
that most oceanic areas outside the Mediterranean have tidal ranges
anywhere from 2 to 10 metres. In those locations, a tension-leg cage, The advantages of this system include minimal licence and
because its depth is fixed by being vertically attached to the seabed, compliance requirements plus remoteness from other farms
is either completely submerged at high tide or has a lot of slack and consequent protection from infectious diseases. Another
netting near the top at low tide. important benefit would be the absence of any attachment
to mooring lines, which would significantly reduce the loadings
on the cage, thus allowing for a lighter, cheaper structure than
might otherwise be the case.

Fig 3.13(a) Oceanglobe submersible cage. Byks, Norway. Fig 3.14(b) Looking up through a tension-leg cage. RefaMed, Italy.
Fig 3.13(b) Oceanglobe submersible cage. Byks, Norway. Fig 3.15 Tension-leg cage adapted for tidal waters. Refamed, Italy.
Fig 3.14(a) Tension-leg cage. RefaMed, Italy. Fig 3.16 The untethered cage concept, Ocean Drifter. Net Systems Inc. US.

The design envisages conventional plastic collar cages moored in

flotillas of six or eight.An aspect of this concept,however, which is
far from conventional,is that there are no mooring lines attached
to the cage collars. Instead,the cage net bottoms are attached to
an extensive rigid framework located beneath the nets.
(Figs 3.17 & 3.18)
The front end of the framework is attached via a vertical

component to a custom-designed hexagonal feed barge, which
in turn is attached to a single point mooring. Thus, the cage collars
can flex freely without shock loadings, and the entire system is able
to adopt the mode of least resistance to wind, waves and currents.
Fig 3.17, 3.18 A novel mooring system for conventional cages. Aquaculture
Engineering Group, Canada.
The collars also have minimal positive buoyancy so that in
Untethered cages contd. storm conditions they sink below the surface. The feed pipes
• The best-known example of this concept is the Ocean Drifter cage and monitoring cables are completely submerged and attached
designed by Gary Loverich and Clifford Goudey. (1996) The Ocean to the subsurface framework.In addition,the feed,which is
Drifter is a scaled-up version of the Ocean Spar Sea Station and carried by water rather than air, is delivered through a unique
has two rings and a 64,000m3 capacity. (Fig 3.16) spreading system to the fish.
• A further novel approach to large-scale offshore aquaculture is being AEG intends to deploy a trial system comprising six 100-metre
developed by the Canadian Aquaculture Engineering Group, (AEG). circumference cages plus a feed barge in an exposed site in the
The three company principals are experts respectively in exposed Bay of Fundy over the winter of 2004-2005.
aquaculture, engineering design and custom metal fabrication,
and their intention is to develop an entire offshore system,
including feeding and monitoring technologies.
Fig 3.19 Semi-submersible tuna ship. Izar Fene, Spain.

The test site will be monitored and findings will be published on the 3.3 Supporting Technologies
firm’s website throughout the trial.
(www.aquacultureengineeringgroup.com) As outlined at the beginning of this chapter, an holistic or systems
approach is critical to successfully operating in the offshore zone. It is
• Semi-submerged structures therefore necessary to briefly review the supporting technologies that
One of the most spectacular concepts regarding novel approaches can be matched with the offshore cage types considered above.
to offshore aquaculture is being promoted by Spanish shipbuilding
company, IZAR FENE. This involves a semi-submersible ship - 189
metres long and 56 metres wide - with fish tanks in the hold and
3.3.1 Feeding systems
rigid cages attached beneath the hull. The idea is that the ship Apart from the cages themselves, the most important component of the
travels to the tuna fishing grounds in any of the world’s oceans, entire offshore operation is the feeding system.As feed cost can amount
collecting live tuna as they are caught and then fattening them to 50%-70% of total running costs, the feed delivery method must ensure
up while transporting them to market in Japan.Another proposed adequate supply as required,and wastage must be kept to a minimum
use for the same vessel is to rear juvenile fish for restocking or be non-existent.(See Chapter 7 and the paragraph on ‘High Cost of
depleted capture fisheries. (Fig 3.19) Technology’,which highlights the significant savings that can be made
with efficient feeding.)
Izar Fene is also promoting a concept based on a large
semi-submerged platform.A giant cage net hangs beneath the The types of feeding systems currently employed in the sector are
platform whilst on deck there are hatchery and rearing facilities critically reviewed below:
for juvenile fish. (Fig 3.20)
• Cannon feeders
As previously outlined,feed delivery to the fish in offshore sites
It may be seen from the above review that whilst many concepts are
is often by means of a workboat tying up alongside the cage and
being explored,the perfect ‘mouse-trap’ has not yet been developed
spreading the feed across the surface via a deck-mounted feed
for offshore finfish farming.Undoubtedly, the type 1 gravity cage
cannon. The principal disadvantage of this system is that it is
approach has been the most successful to date.
critically dependent on operator diligence in order to avoid waste.
(A bored or uncomfortable operator has the option of speeding
The jury is still out as to which of the other cage types, if any, may
up feed delivery beyond the consumption capability of the fish).
ultimately succeed the type 1 systems. The most likely future scenario
In addition,this system relies on workboats having daily access
is that there will be a ‘horses for courses’ approach,depending on
to the cages, and this is not realistic for many offshore situations.
the nature of the location and the chosen fish species to be farmed.
The next section of this report reviews the required supporting technologies
• Centralised feeding system
that will have to be deployed in tandem with the chosen containment system.
This can address the shortcomings of cannon feeders. It usually
consists of a permanently moored feed barge with feed storage
capacity of up to 400 tonnes and a computer-controlled feeding
system that delivers the feed to the fish via compressed air in
floating plastic hoses to each fish cage. (Figs 3.21, 22,23)
Normally the operator sits in a control room in the feed barge

and adjusts the amount of feed going to each cage according to
sonar-based or video-based monitoring of fish appetite and feed
Fig 3.20 Semi-submersible platform. Izar Fene, Spain. Fig 3.21 Feed barge in steel with high storage capacity. Akvasmart, Norway.

3.3.2 Appetite monitoring systems

The cost of feeding finfish in marine farms is the single biggest operating
overhead,and a major concern in this regard is matching the rate of feed
delivery as closely as possible to appetite so as to eliminate waste.
There are many systems available for monitoring the amount of feed
that fish consume. These include:
• Submerged camera
This is the most straightforward and probably the most popular
appetite-monitoring method. The camera is located beneath the
feed delivery outlet allowing the operator to observe feeding
behaviour and feed wastage via a boat or barge-mounted monitor.
The disadvantages of using the currently available camera systems
is that proper application requires a high level of operator diligence
Fig 3.22 Feed barge control system. Note monitors for cameras, appetite, and feed
administration. Akvasmart, Norway. and a reasonable level of visibility in the water column.
consumption.While this would appear to be a better solution Whilst camera systems for appetite monitoring, as currently
than the feed cannon workboat visiting each cage, the problems available, will require further development for use in the offshore
associated with this system include: zone, there is no doubt that this type of technology will play a crucial
role. Refinements in data transfer via radio linkages, together with
• unsuitability of many feed barge designs for safe offshore use improved optics and durability will be the key technology elements
• frequent damage to floating feed hoses by wave action that need to be upgraded in this regard. (Fig 3.24)
• the necessity to get an operator on board the barge on a daily
basis and • Feed pellet counting systems
• the relatively small feed storage capacity of many barge types These reduce the need for operator diligence by automatically
counting uneaten feed pellets and adjusting the feeding rate
The ideal system for offshore aquaculture should be independent of accordingly. Well-known examples of these kinds of systems are
operator access for up to three weeks at a time and should be capable of the AkvaSensor CAS and the Storvik ‘Appetite Feeding System’,
storing enough feed to supply the entire site for a period of this duration. which use a subsurface in-cage funnel to concentrate waste feed
pellets, sending them through an electronic pellet counter. A potential
One feed barge type that appears to be proving itself for offshore use drawback with funnel-based systems is that they can be clumsy and
is the Gael Force Sea Cap (Scotland).It is a vertical concrete cylinder difficult to deploy and operate in exposed conditions. (Fig 3.25)
with a feed storage capacity of up to 250 tonnes. These barges are
an appropriate design,both in terms of shape and weight distribution, • Doppler hydro-acoustic system
and are thus more stable and have a more sea-kindly motion than The AkvaSensor Doppler is located beneath the feed outlet and
the conventional rectangular steel box barges. Gael Force also has a senses uneaten feed pellets. Accuracy of this system in high-
design for a Sea Cap barge, which has feed storage capacity of 600 energy offshore sites is questionable, however, as strong
tonnes. This has not yet been built but the concept goes some way currents can sweep uneaten food out of the cage before it
towards what might be ideal for a large offshore farm. is detected.A solution might be the AkvaSensor current meter,
which can be used to automatically switch off the feeding system
A potentially ideal solution for offshore feeding is to have the feeding when the current becomes too strong.
system integrated into the cage structure. Both the Farm Ocean and
Sadco Shelf cages have this feature incorporated into their designs. It may be that the ultimate solution with regard to appetite monitoring
Maximum feed holding capacity is only five days, which means that systems in the offshore zone will include a bundled approach employing
frequent operator access to the site is required.In the case of the elements of all of these technologies. Bespoke systems specially modified
submerged Sadco Shelf, the cage must be resurfaced at regular to allow efficient data transfer via radio telemetry to the shore base and
intervals to replenish stored feed. featuring a high degree of automated interactivity between themselves
and the feed delivery system will be required.
Thus, it may be seen that existing solutions are all,to a greater
or lesser extent,deficient in comparison to what will be required
3.3.3 Other core activities
for efficient offshore finfish farming operations. Having critically
reviewed the feeding system types, consideration is now given to Not only is it necessary to develop effective containment,feeding and
appetite monitoring and control,which must be a component of feed monitoring systems, approaches to dealing with other core farming
feed delivery systems if cost efficient operations are to be achieved. activities must also be carefully thought out and planned for in the design
of an offshore finfish farming installation.Consideration must be given
to the following:

Fig 3.23 Workboat moored to concrete cylinder feed barge, Shetland Islands.
Note floating feed pipe to each cage. Gael Force, Scotland.
• Harvesting regular changing of nets before fouling becomes too heavy. Both of
Harvesting at offshore sites is generally difficult.Given the vagaries these methods present enormous logistical challenges, particularly to
of weather, it is often impossible to guarantee continuity of fish the offshore farmer who is dependent on fine weather windows to
supply to the market. Well-boats can be used to pump live fish apply either control method.
out of the cage into a water-filled hold or alternatively, the fish
can be loaded onto the deck of a workboat and killed as they Currently available and permitted marine anti-fouling paints are not
come aboard.Both of these methods require large boats to be effective. Approaches that may bear fruit in this regard include the
berthed for long hours beside the fish cages, often in conditions development of new and effective eco-friendly net coatings, remotely
that threaten the well-being of the fish and/or the integrity of the controlled cleaning robots or net systems that rotate.
equipment.An increasingly popular solution is to tow cages to
sheltered inshore sites for harvesting.
It may certainly be concluded that a working solution to the

harvesting of fish offshore will involve a system whereby good
weather windows can be exploited,moving large volumes of
harvest-size fish quickly and efficiently to an all-weather holding
station of some description.
• Net-cleaning
Net fouling by sessile marine organisms such as mussels, hydroids
and seaweed is a major logistical problem for cage farmers, both
inshore and offshore. There are currently only two control methods:
divers or site operatives that manually wash the nets in situ,and/or

Fig 3.24(a) Submersible camera for monitoring fish appetite Fig 3.24(c) Submersible camera and feed control monitors.
and behaviour. Akvasmart, Norway. Akvasmart, Norway.
Fig 3.24(b) Data transmission system for submersible camera Fig 3.25(a) Funnel with sensor for counting uneaten feed pellets.
and doppler system. Akvasmart, Norway. Akvasmart, Norway.
Fig 3.25(b) Monitor for uneaten feed pellet counter.

Akvasmart, Norway.

Chapter
Global Status of Offshore
4
Finfish Farming
4.1 Introduction
Countries such as Spain, Italy, the U.S. and Ireland, although having strong
fishing traditions and burgeoning aquaculture industries, do not have the
fjords of Norway and Chile or the sea-loughs of Scotland. Thus, by necessity,
these countries are having to locate many of their fish farms in exposed
waters and are as such spearheading the adaptation of technologies and
methodologies for operations in the offshore zone.
The following is a brief review of the status of offshore aquaculture in a

number of key countries around the world.
4.2 Australia
in Class 2 environments. (Fig 4.2) Although New Brunswick saw the
The main offshore farming activity in Australia is tuna farming out of Port first commercial installation of Ocean Spar cages in 1997,these new
Lincoln. The industry catches a wild quota of 5,300 tonnes. The living fish sites generally use large circumference (90m-120m) plastic circle cages
are towed back to Port Lincoln in plastic cages, covering distances of over within reinforced grid systems, and rely on automatic feeding barges.
300km within 14 days. The on-growing sites are up to 12km offshore,
however being located within the Spencer Gulf, they are only exposed Recognising the need to venture out into more exposed sites, the New
to the open ocean from the south and are thus probably Class 3 rather Brunswick Salmon Growers Association recently commissioned a study
than Class 4. (Fig 4.1) to determine a development strategy for Class 3 sites in the Province with
regard to site selection,suitable technology and the economics of offshore
The fish are on-grown over the following five or six months in farming. (Bridger 2004)
conventional plastic circular cages - usually large single ring versions
of 125-metre circumference with heavy-duty 150mm mesh nets. At the While still in draft form,one of the more significant conclusions from the
end of this period up to 10,000 tonnes are harvested,achieving a total study is that for New Brunswick at least,an adequate offshore cage and
export value of Aus$250m. associated technology system does not yet exist. The study suggests that
the industry would be best served by investing in a programme that
would provide better understanding of conditions at potential offshore
4.3 Canada sites. This programme would,in parallel,assess the suitability of
available technologies through modelling and tank tests, and
New Brunswick on the east coast and British Columbia on the west
propose appropriate modifications.
coast account for 90% of Canada’s farmed finfish output. Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland also contribute tonnage. Most of this output is
While British Columbia does not have the same geographical
Atlantic salmon although there are the beginnings of a cod industry
limitations as found in New Brunswick,it suffers from many of the
in Newfoundland and New Brunswick.In New Brunswick,most of the
symptoms described earlier with regard to public perception.In the
industry is currently contained within traditional Class 1 farm sites.
late 1990s, several attempts were made in more exposed locations
The industry, however, is very constrained geographically, and there
using large catamaran-type steel cages from Norway. Although early
are no new sheltered sites available.
results were encouraging,the very challenging financial environment
has curtailed further development activity.
Consequently, there is very little room for expansion,and the majority of
new site approvals over the past few years have been for sites operating

Fig 4.1(a) Harvesting Tuna, Port Lincoln, Australia. Chris Kennedy, Sunderland Fig 4.2 Plastic collar cages, Grand Manaan Island, Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick,
Marine Mutual Insurance. Canada. Nell Halse.
Fig 4.1(b) Feeding Tuna, Port Lincoln, Australia. Chris Kennedy, Fig 4.3(a) Sea-bass and sea-bream farm, Class 4 site, Canary Islands. ADSA,
Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance. Gran Canaria.
4.3 Canary Islands Bahamas using submerged Sea Stations. Demonstration projects in
both Brazil and Argentina are also scheduled for the near future.
A sea-bass and sea-bream farm in Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands
installed two 6000m 3 Ocean Spar cages some years ago. These were
recently taken out of the water for various reasons. The proprietor, 4.5 Faeroe Islands
however, still has faith in the concept and is prepared to try again,
provided trials are adequately resourced.Meanwhile, the farm carries A number of exposed sites have been trialled in the Faeroe Islands.
on with conventional plastic collar cages. (Fig 4.3) One particular farm on the south coast is so exposed that it may be
a candidate for Class 4 classification. This farm uses large plastic
circular cages and a Gael Force Sea Cap barge. In 2000,an Ocean
4.4 Caribbean and South America Spar anchor-tension cage was tested in a high current location and
while the cage performed adequately, the current proved far too strong
Dominated by island nations with significant tourism activities, there is a for the fish,resulting in mortalities and poor growth. (Fig 4.5)
lot of interest in developing submerged offshore culture in the Caribbean,
particularly with a view to operating with reduced visual impact.Snapper
Farms Inc.has been using two submerged Sea Stations for the past two 4.6 Iceland
years at its farm in Puerto Rico. The company has aggressive expansion
plans for up to 40 cages at this site, which is several miles offshore. Farms in Iceland are currently located in relatively sheltered waters,
The company is focusing its efforts on cobia and red snapper, and has however, the industry is in expansion mode and is keen to persuade
already harvested its first crop to great acclaim in the marketplace. its government to allow new operations to be installed in more
(Fig 4.4) An experimental teaching operation is underway in the exposed waters.

4.7 Ireland By the late 1980s, however, problems had been experienced with the
metal corners connecting the rubber flotation tubes. This created an
‘Ireland leads the world in open ocean aquaculture production and opening for an improved design by Irish company Bonnar Engineering,
has gained the greatest amount of experience with technological using rubber hoses from Dunlop (UK).Since 1990,the favoured offshore
development/innovation and logistics mitigation’ (Bridger, 2004). cage has been the Dunlop octagonal cage, each of the eight sides being
Because of its gently sloping continental shelf, most of Ireland’s sheltered 16 metres long. (Fig 4.8)
inshore waters are too shallow for finfish cage farming and nearly all of
the farming companies operate a mixture of inshore and offshore sites. In 1988,Carrols Seafoods installed two Farm Ocean cages at one of their
Thus, Irish farmers are only too familiar with the unsuitability of inshore exposed Connemara sites;however, manufacturing flaws in the steelwork
technologies for offshore use, and were amongst the earliest to test resulted in major structural damage after a short period at sea,rendering
cages specifically designed for use in exposed sites. These were rubber them unusable.
collar cages assembled by the Japanese company, Bridgestone, from
pipes originally designed for the offshore oil industry. (Fig. 4.6) 1999 was a busy year for innovation in offshore technologies in Ireland
when a giant 20,000m 3 Ocean Spar cage was installed at a sheltered
In 1984,Emerald Fisheries at Ardmore, Connemara,installed the first site in Connemara,and Bonnar/Dunlop successfully tested a submersible
Bridgestone cage. This was quickly followed by additional Bridgestone version of a hexagonal rubber collar cage.
installations by Salmara in counties Donegal and Cork. Timar and Carrolls
Seafoods continued the trend when they set up Bridgestone-only sites at The technology transfer trial involving Ocean Spar cages is worthy of
Clare Island,Co. Mayo and Bertraghbuoy, Co. Galway in 1987 and 1988 more detailed consideration as a particular case study, given that many
respectively. (Fig 4.7) of the problems encountered were generic to such trials worldwide.
Thus, a number of valuable lessens for future development work may
be gleaned from this example.
Case study cooperation between fish farmer, equipment supplier and the State
development agency, BIM,(the Irish Sea Fisheries Board).
The Ocean Spar installation was the first stage in a two-part plan to
apply this novel technology. The intention was that management Nevertheless, despite overcoming this particular difficulty and being
techniques would be developed over a 12-month period at the able to transfer the fix in advance to the offshore site, the system was
sheltered site and that a second similar cage would then be installed not successful in the exposed location for a number of other reasons.
at an offshore site nearby;the crew at the offshore site benefiting from These included difficulties in feeding the cage and a wholly avoidable
experience gained at the sheltered site. The second cage was eventually error in the mooring set up whereby dissimilar metals were mixed in
installed but for reasons that will be explained here and in Chapter 3, the mooring components causing failure due to electrolytic corrosion.
this part of the project was not totally successful. As a result,the exposed site operator lost confidence in the system
and did not pursue the trial at a full commercial scale.
Interestingly, because of economies of scale and the encouraging
performance of the fish (750 tonnes of 4.9kg fish) achieved with the In effect,the extremely promising results were not translated from one
large cage in the original sheltered site, the management subsequently site location to the other, and the system’s reputation was tarnished for
installed a second Ocean Spar cage of similar dimensions but of a the wrong reasons. The phrase ‘giving a dog a bad name’ could be
different shape. The new shape has flattened, rather than pointed ends applied to this situation. The other key observation to emerge from this
so that the access portals are perpendicular to the current rather than trial was the all-too common situation whereby a piece of equipment or
oblique. During stocking and harvesting,this greatly assists the process system is sold as being fully operational.Whereas in fact,it was still at
of encouraging the fish to swim into or out of the cage through the an early stage of development in the context of the holistic approach
portals as required. (Fig 4.9) required for successful offshore finfish farming operations.
A very successful innovation on these cages was the addition of rings With regard to the submersible Dunlop cage, the methods for submersion
and rollers that could slide up and down the spars. When the floor of and resurfacing were successfully developed but funding ran out before
the net is tied to the rings it can be raised with relative ease using yacht management issues such as feeding and fouling of the top net could
winches installed on top of the spars. This system is a further aid to the be addressed.
operator during harvesting. (Fig 4. 10)
Both of these projects illustrate yet again the central problem of developing
The requirement to develop this novel solution arose from difficulties technologies and methodologies for the offshore zone:the will and the
experienced by farm staff trying to carry out the first harvest.It took three spirit of innovation are there;however, unless an adequate development
weeks of frustrating trial and error to empty the cage. What started as an period has been built into the project planning,it is likely that commercial
embarrassing experience for the fish farmer not being able to catch his pressures will overwhelm such innovative projects .
own fish,culminated into a classic example of the benefits of close

Fig 4.3(b) Another view of same farm, Canary Islands. ADSA, Gran Canaria. Fig 4.6 Crane lowering rubber pipe section for assembly of Bridgestone cage,
Clew Bay, Ireland, 1987. Marine Harvest, Ireland.
Fig 4.4 Sea Station cage, Puerto Rico. Snapperfarm, US. Fig 4.7 First Bridgestone cage at Clare Island, Ireland, 1987.
Marine Harvest, Ireland.
Fig 4.5 Ocean Spar, 20,000 cubic meters, Faeroe Islands.

Net Systems Inc.
Fig 4.8 Octagonal Dunlop cage, with Clare Island behind, Ireland, 2004. John
Costelloe, Aquafact International Services.

Most other Mediterranean countries are not so well endowed with

sheltered inshore areas, and the bulk of cage farming takes place in
offshore locations, many of which would qualify as Class 3 sites.
Due to a vibrant tourism industry in both Malta and Cyprus and the
need for low visual impact,almost all sites are located in the offshore
zone. Many Maltese farmers are in the process of changing from
sea-bream and sea-bass farming to tuna farming,and are therefore
graduating from 70 metres to 150 metre circumference plastic cages.
One farmer in Malta worked with four Farm Ocean cages over an
extended period;however these are now not being used due
to various logistical difficulties.
Most of the sites in Spain might also be classified as Class 3 or even

Class 4. The favoured cage for sea-bass and sea-bream is a 70-80 metre
Fig 4.9 Ocean Spar, 20,000 cubic meters, with flat (not pointed) end, Killary plastic circle supplied by local manufacturer, Corelsa.Many farms in Spain
Harbour, Ireland. Note feed pipe and solar powered transmission system for sub-
surface video camera signal. Abdon Ryan photo. have experienced severe storm damage from time to time, particularly
those located north of Alicante. Government-assisted trials have been
4.8 Mediterranean carried out in the Bay of Cadiz to compare the performance of a Corelsa
plastic cage, a RefaMed tension-leg cage and a submerged Sea Station.
The bulk of offshore farming in the Mediterranean is for sea-bass and The results are not yet available but will be of great interest due to this
sea-bream and the remainder for bluefin tuna. The industry has tested area’s open Atlantic location. (Fig 4.11)
most types of offshore cage including Bonnar cages, plastic circles from
various suppliers, Sadco Shelf, Farm Ocean, Sea Station, Ocean Spar, Italy is working towards self-sufficiency in sea-bass and sea-bream
and RefaMed tension legs. The favoured feeding method is by hand or supplies. The favoured farming area is off the coasts of Sicily and
feed cannon,with Greece being the only country relying extensively on Calabria where a number of new sites are being developed.Fusion
centralised feeding systems. For various logistical and husbandry reasons, Marine of Scotland is currently building a heavy-duty tuna cage for
smaller cages ranging from 70-80 metres circumference are favoured one of these sites. It measures 150 metres in circumference and has
for sea-bass and sea-bream. three rings of plastic piping,450mm in diameter. The entire structure
weighs 27 tons. (Fig 4.12)
The principal marine cage farming countries in the Mediterranean are
Greece and Turkey. Both of these are fortunate to have heavily indented The RefaMed tension-leg cage is particularly popular in these areas
coastlines so that farming is generally carried out in sheltered waters. and in Sardinia.A total of 42 units are currently in use in what are
Given that tourism is a major industry in both countries and because ostensibly Class 3 sites by four different farming companies. This
of increasing opposition to aquaculture, it is likely that most future represents full commercial use of a novel cage system and is possibly
development will have to be offshore. the first case of widespread adoption of an alternative to the gravity
Fig 4.10 Underwater view of rolling ring on spar of Ocean Spar cage. Fig 4.11 Open sea bass and bream farm off the coast of Barcelona, Spain.
Net Systems Inc. On the seaward side of this farm the nearest land is Corsica, 600 kms away.
J. Ryan, photo.

Fig 4.12 Fusion cages of the type being installed in Sicily. Fusion Marine, Scotland. Fig 4.14 Tuna farm facing open ocean, Mexico. Ted Dunn, Paula Sylvia
This similarity has had a further fundamental effect on the rate of

development of offshore fish farming as the market for the supply
of finfish farming equipment has largely centred on these two countries,
as they are the pre-eminent practitioners. Thus, the equipment suppliers
have naturally concentrated their efforts on developing technologies to
service the needs of Class 1 and Class 2 operations, rather than having
to fund the R&D costs of developing true offshore farming techniques.
Thus, the commentary and conclusions drawn below with regard to the
Norwegian industry are also broadly applicable to Chile.
According to a survey carried out in 2000,only 17% of marine cage

farming licences in Norway are located in sites with significant wave
height of over 1.5 metres. There are no licences in open water. As both
scale and production levels increase, however, a trend is emerging towards
Fig 4.13 Tension-leg cage farm with centralised feeding system in open water off moving beyond the mouth of the fjords to more exposed areas amongst
Salerno, Italy. Refamed, Italy.
the islands and reefs just off the coast.
cage. Only one of the farms using tension leg cages has a centralised
In these areas, plastic collar cages are greatly favoured over steel cages.
feeding system. The remainder are fed by hand or by cannon. (Fig 4.13)
Collar cages are generally 90 to 120 metres in circumference with double
rings of heavy-walled pipe 400mm in diameter. Nets are up to 30 metres
In Libya, Tunisia and Morocco on the north-African coast,small offshore
deep. Trials are currently underway using a 156-metre circumference
projects are under way growing sea-bass, sea-bream and tuna.Again,
cage, and the results are encouraging. (Fig 4.15) Similar trials have been
these are ostensibly Class 3 sites with plastic circular cages being the
carried out before using large circular cages but these have generally failed
favoured system.
due to a lack of adequate net handling equipment and methodologies.
4.9 Mexico It is interesting to consider that a 156-metre circumference cage with a

net depth of 30 metres has a theoretical maximum volume of 58,000m3.
Off the coast of Baja California in the Pacific Ocean are a number of With a biomass per cubic metre of 20kg,this cage should be capable of
farms dedicated to fattening tuna. These are using the same technology holding over 1,100 tonnes of fish,and in terms of scale is potentially an
as outlined for Australia and are operating in very exposed conditions ideal candidate for offshore aquaculture.
some of them being located in more or less open water. (Fig 4.14)
The general industry view in Norway is that whilst there is little pressure
to move offshore at present,there will be a need to go in that direction
4.10 Norway & Chile within the next couple of years. With this in mind,a number of strategies
Because of topographic similarities, the nature of the marine finfish aimed at developing suitable technology for offshore sites have been
industry in both Norway and Chile is virtually identical with respect to initiated. These include the Storm cage system from Marine Construction
the degree of exposure to which their sites are subjected.Both countries A/S, which is a gravity cage consisting of a steel platform with nets
have an abundance of sheltered deepwater and as such can deploy hung beneath and is designed to withstand significant wave heights
the proven technologies for Class 1 and Class 2 operations successfully. of 4-5 metres.

Another system is the Subfish cage, which is a submersible cage with a 4.11 Scotland
single point mooring. The Norwegian Institute of Technology is developing
this system for use in open waters. (Fig 4.16) Scotland’s west coast is deeply indented,and its sheltered sea-loughs
have facilitated the country’s rapid growth in salmon farming.As the
Plastic cage collar supplier, Polarcirkel,has produced a submersible industry has grown,however, most of the available and suitable sites
cage and is developing a new plastic/steel square cage for more exposed have now been exploited.As a result of increasing levels of environmental
waters. (Fig. 4.17) Another radical concept is the spherical submersible awareness, suggestions have been made that some areas are over
cage, being developed by Byks A/S. (See paragraph on rigid cages in impacted,particularly at the heads of the longer sea-loughs. It is now
Chapter 3.) a policy of the Scottish Executive to move any further expansion of the
industry offshore, and over time to shift a proportion of the existing
In summary therefore, with regard to both the Norwegian and Chilean production to higher energy locations.
finfish farming industries, there remains a considerable resource of Class 1
and Class 2 sites as yet unexploited.Nevertheless, successful exploitation Farmers are now converting from small steel cages to plastic circular
of these areas will require similar techniques to those being developed for cages, ranging in size from 80-120 metres in circumference. These are
the emerging offshore finfish sector in other countries. These areas have serviced by a centralised barge-mounted feeding system.
little or no infrastructure, and will present similar operational challenges The concrete cylinder feed barge, Sea Cap from Gael Force, has
such as the provision of large feed storage capacity and remote proven particularly suitable, especially in the more exposed locations.
operational capabilities. These are located in the channel (The Minch) between the mainland
and the Outer Hebrides Islands. Additional offshore sites are located
around the Shetland Islands where plastic cages and Sea Cap feeding
barges are also used. (Fig 4.18)
Fig 4.15 Norway’s largest salmon cages,1000 tonnes per cage. Aqualine, Norway.

Fig 4.16 Subfish submersible cage concept. Technology Institute, Norway. Fig 4.17 Polarcirkel cage being submerged. Polarcirkel, Norway.
4.12 United States Off the mouth of Portsmouth Harbour is the Open Ocean Aquaculture
Project,operated by The University of New Hampshire and funded by
Due to federal policies and regulations in the U.S. that discourage the NOAA.A true Class 4 site, the project is operated as a test bed to
use of inshore locations for finfish cage farming,there is a major drive demonstrate and develop offshore cage and ancillary technology as
to develop offshore or Class 4 sites. Several centres of activity have well as fish husbandry techniques. Although run by an academic
already been set up in Hawaii,Puerto Rico, Gulf of Mexico and on institution and not as a commercial enterprise, much effort is put into
the northeast coast. operating the site with realistic commercial practices and up-scaling
in mind. The project grows Atlantic halibut,cod and haddock in its
From a commercial point of view, Hawaii is most developed. The State three submerged Sea Station cages.
has now licensed a third offshore finfish farm,and all are using or propose
to use submerged 3000m 3 Sea Station cages. Several more sites are at the Associated with the project is the Jere A.Chase Ocean Engineering
planning stage. Hawaii has a modest goal of just 10 such sites. These are Laboratory, which provides engineering and modelling services.
being closely monitored for environmental impact and results to date have Significant developmental effort has been applied to the design,
been favourable. The sites are quite small by salmon standards, with the construction and operation of a spar type feed buoy, incorporating
scale of production per site being limited to between 500 and 1,000 associated remote telemetry competence and feeding capability in
tonnes, harvested from 6 to 10 submerged cages. (Fig. 4.19) submerged cages. (Fig. 4.20)
The industry has developed around juvenile rearing programmes run by A similar programme, sponsored by Hubbs Sea World, is now in the
the state and the Oceanic Institute. Whilst availability of juveniles is now middle of a long licence application process. The project will be centred
a limiting factor for growth in production,the industry is confident that around an offshore oil rig located in a Class 4 situation 10 miles off of
the relative success to date demonstrates the positive economic, the coast of California,and will grow tuna, California yellowtail and
operational and marketing issues associated with offshore farming. striped bass. The project will employ a large surface plastic cage for the
tuna and submerged Sea Stations for the other species, with a view to
The industry will farm many different indigenous marine species such demonstrating the various technological aspects of offshore farming.
as Pacific threadfin (moi),and amberjack. These species, which are both
scarce and valuable, occupy specialised niches in local and Asian markets.
This factor, allied with planned restrictions on production levels, should 4.13 Western Pacific
protect the industry from the price instability that has plagued salmon,
sea-bass and sea-bream farmers. In the Western Pacific,plastic gravity cage technology has been tested,
but with limited success due in part to typhoon damage to sites.
In the Gulf of Mexico over the past 15 years, a number of aquaculture
projects have endeavoured to employ redundant oil and gas platforms Taiwan has significant goals for its fish farming industry and as an island
as feeding and crew stations to support finfish cages moored close by. nation will need offshore farming to realise these goals. The country has
For a variety of reasons, such as logistical problems associated with sites built up a comprehensive infrastructure for juvenile production,which,
being located up to 40 miles offshore;equipment failure;poor planning as yet,it has been unable to exploit.Some trials have been carried out
and inadequate finance, none of these projects achieved long-term at offshore sites using plastic collar gravity cages but these have failed
commercial or developmental activity. Several of the projects were due to exposure levels and the usual shortcomings associated with
strictly engineering exercises, with no fish placed in the cages. The gravity cages, as previously discussed.
cage technology tested included plastic rings, Dunlop/Bridgestone,
small Ocean Spar cages and Sea Stations. Since early in 2000,China has engaged in a number of projects in
recognition of the potential that offshore farming represents for increasing

Escape From Below
Loaded Water Level Loaded Water Line

Generator
2,500 2,500
Light Water Level Empty Water Line Access
From Above
5,000 5,000 Fuel Tank
10,000
Light Water Level Side Elevation Plan Through Underside of Deck
Air Vents For Blowers

Vent to Fuel Tank Feed Control
Generator 38 Degree Angle
Selector 1 Position Panels
Access to of Repose
Under Silo Selector 2
Blowers
Blower Access Deck Hatch to
Loaded Water Line
Deck Hatch Generator Room
Generator Galvanised
Access to
2,500 Room Cooling
Generator Room
Vent from Light Water Level Pipes
Generator
Augers Cool Air
5,000 Flex Pipe
Crane Controls Sluice Valve Feed Pipe

Access to Silo Via
Positions
Silo Filler
Crane
Crane Hydraulic
Pump
Plan at Deck Level & Section Through Section c-c Feed Pipe Layout
Accommodation
Fig 4.18 General lay-out drawings of 200 tonne Sea Cap concrete feed barge.
(see also Fig 3.23) Gael Force, Scotland.
aquaculture output to feed its growing population. The projects, which 4.15 Global trends
involve both plastic surface cage technology and submerged Sea Station
cages, have not yet resulted in any significant large-scale operations. Having reviewed offshore aquaculture in practice around the world,
it is appropriate to consider the emerging trends and the conclusions
In the Philippines, submerged Sea Stations growing milkfish have had that might be drawn.
limited success but this has not yet translated into a commercial offshore
industry. Likewise in Korea and Vietnam,interest in offshore farming is In the first instance, probably the most confusing issue that needs to be
developing but is in the early planning stages. addressed is the varying cage types that are employed in different ‘open
ocean’ situations.
For instance, the Mediterranean has extensive operations located in what

are ostensibly Class 4 or open ocean sites around the coasts of Spain,
Italy, Cyprus and Malta,mostly using gravity cages.
On the other hand,there are few, if any, Class 4 operations around

the coasts of Ireland,Scotland and North America,and it is quite
certain that Mediterranean gravity cage technologies would have
little chance of long-term operation or survival in open ocean sites
in these countries.
Thus, open ocean conditions vary hugely with respect to location,and

are dependent on climate as well as topography. Obviously therefore,
there are different grades of Class 4 sites. This applies to Class 3 sites
Fig 4.19 Inside view of Sea Station cage in the clear waters of Hawaii. also, and the need for a more refined site classification system,based
Net Systems Inc.
on an analysis of wave characteristics and tidal currents, is apparent.

Fig 4.20(a) Cod in a submerged Sea Station cage off the coast of New Hampshire,
USA. University of New Hampshire.
With regard to which cage technologies are favoured by offshore fish

farmers, gravity cages are by far the most prevalent.Although problems
continue to occur, the design of offshore gravity cage collars and nets
is evolving.While this may eventually culminate in the availability of
trouble-free systems, it is more likely that other approaches will
be needed.
As already outlined,there are many alternatives to offshore gravity

cages in the form of a variety of novel cage options. Only two of these
to date, however, show any sign of extensive take-up by commercial
operations. These are the RefaMed tension-leg cage in Italy and the Sea
Station, which is being used in offshore sites in many parts of the world. 4.21(b) Prototype spar feed buoy for supply of feed to submerged cages off the
coast of New Hampshire, USA. University of New Hampshire.
Widespread adoption of novel cage technologies has been slow to date for
In summary it may be seen that whilst a number of very worthwhile and
a variety of reasons. In most cases, the designs have not been adequately
innovative initiatives are taking place around the world,there is also a
proven,and the cage units are too small.Also, it is often unclear as to
relatively high rate of failure. It should also be observed that the nature
how they will accommodate a full operating system that must include
of the developments have been disconnected and piecemeal. This model
feeding,harvesting and general husbandry procedures.
of development is essentially wasteful and by necessity inefficient. Valuable
knowledge gained and fundamental concepts, which may have been
Cost is another important factor. Alternative systems are either going
validated,can easily be lost in the fallout following an unsuccessful trial
to have to match the cost of offshore gravity cages, or offshore farmers
of a new piece of equipment.
will need to be convinced that the higher cost will be money well spent.
It is not commercially feasible to expect that the returns from the sale of
With regard to supporting technologies, it appears that most offshore
fish reared in an experimental set-up in the short-term would be sufficient
sites require daily visits by crew feeding by hand or by feed cannon.
to fund the ‘full chain’ development of new offshore technologies. Because
Farmers remain to be convinced that there are fully automated systems
the equipment suppliers are not in a position to offer fish farmers systems
that can do the job at a reasonable cost.
that are fully mature in all respects, there is in effect no established market
for offshore finfish farming technologies. Thus, a new paradigm for the
A good example of a country anxious for these issues to be satisfactorily
development of such technologies is required,which incorporates a
resolved is Iceland,whose farmed salmon industry is confined to sheltered
long-term approach allowing the suppliers and farmers to work together
waters on the east coast. There are two problems with this area:lack of
in a business environment that does not expect a short-term return.
space for expansion and poor fish growth due to low water temperatures.
The waters of the south coast,being visited by the Gulf Stream,are much
A possible approach is set out in chapter 9.
warmer but are very exposed.Icelandic farmers for a long time have
had ambitions to expand into this area but believe that appropriate
technologies are, as yet, unavailable.

Chapter
Environmental Aspects of
5
Offshore Aquaculture
5.1 Introduction
There has been much debate in the media over the past 20 years regarding
the potential environmental impacts of marine finfish cage farming. During that
period, however, as numerous environmental audits and scientific studies were
carried out, it has become apparent that appropriately-sited farms pose minimal
risk, particularly with regard to water quality and benthic (seabed) impacts.
In Ireland for example, most farms are now located in areas of high Offshore sites therefore can expect to experience lower levels of
water exchange so that extensive dispersion mitigates waste ecto-parasitic infestation because the planktonic juveniles tend to
accumulation. For instance, fish in a cage in a typical Irish coastal be swept away, never to return. This means that in the case of
situation will experience average current speeds of 0.1 metres per offshore salmon farms, for example, there is a significantly lower rate
second or 0.36 kilometres per hour. This equates to 8.6 linear of build up of sea-lice levels. Experience in Irish offshore operations
kilometres of water passing through the cage daily, resulting in a already shows that they rarely have to medicate against lice.
volume of up to 2.35 million m3 (or 2.35 million tonnes) of water
passing through a typical cage of 100-metre circumference. This scenario not only confers major advantages in terms of
husbandry, logistics and cost,but also helps in establishing
In the case of sites located offshore, dispersion effects are even more eligibility for ‘organic’ certification,as has been the case at the
pronounced.Offshore operations therefore experience advantages in farm at Clare Island off the Irish west coast.A low incidence of
terms of husbandry benefits and benthic impacts, by virtue of a higher ecto-parasites is also a major contributory factor to low mortality
rate of water exchange. and high growth rate in the farm stock.
These issues are discussed in this Chapter, along with aspects relating It should also be noted that because of their location,ecto-parasitic
to the wider environment such as consideration of the potential for fish juveniles swept away from offshore cages are unlikely to encounter
escapes from offshore units. any wild hosts, and thus will die harmlessly in the plankton.
• Less extreme and more stable water temperature regimes. The

5.2 Husbandry Benefits offshore zone does not experience extreme temperature oscillations,
which can severely compromise fish at inshore farms. For example,
As previously outlined,whilst there are technology challenges associated
the peak summer temperature in oceanic waters off the Irish west
with moving offshore, significant advantages also exist,especially with
coast is usually around 17ºC, ideal for optimum growth of Atlantic
regard to husbandry. These include:
salmon.On the other hand farms in coastal bays on Ireland’s west
• Greater water exchange through the cages, brought about by coast can experience highs of 23ºC during the summer, which may
a combination of wind and wave action,and tidal currents. result in fish losses due to anoxia (lack of oxygen).
The advantages conferred include greater oxygen availability
and minimal levels of ammonia,which although excreted by Similarly, extremes in low water temperatures during the winter
the fish themselves, can be toxic to them at high concentrations. period would also be avoided if farms were located in offshore
situations. This combination of higher winter temperatures and
• The open nature of offshore sites further improves dispersion, lower summer peaks, in the Irish situation for example, results in
as a particular body of water is unlikely to pass through the cages an average regime, which is conducive to maximum fish growth
more than once. This is in contrast with the situation in many inshore and feed conversion rates. (Fig 5.2)
sites, which because of topographical confines can experience a
portion of the same water returning with each tidal cycle. (Fig 5.1) The potential economic advantages in this regard are illustrated in
Chapter 8.)

Fig 5.1 The open nature of offshore sites improves dispersion - Clew Bay, Ireland. John Costelloe, Aquafact International Services.
• Salinity is also more stable in the offshore situation because of the The following section examines the question of benthic impacts using
remoteness from sources of freshwater. Irish marine finfish cage farms as a case study. Inshore and offshore sites
were compared during the research,and the key findings are reported
• Another benefit of good dispersion,open locations and distance below, on the basis that they can be applied internationally. The results
from extensive shorelines and reefs, is that there tends to be a graphically illustrate the difference in benthic impacts between
lower rate of net fouling from sessile organisms such as mussels, inshore and offshore locations.
hydroids and macro-algae (seaweeds). This not only ensures a
better environment for the fish but can also result in significant
savings in net cleaning costs. 5.3 Seabed or Benthic Effects: Irish Case Study
Since 1989 there has been a statutory requirement in Ireland whereby
• Lower impact on the seabed. This is another benefit of greater water
any marine cage farm wishing to expand production or to occupy a new
exchange and is so pronounced that many offshore operations in
site is obliged to carry out an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) as part
Ireland for example, record little or no measurable benthic impact.
of the licence application process. This study must include an assessment
This is significant to the welfare of farmed fish as there is no risk
of the impact on water quality (Fig 5.3) the seabed and the
of the toxic gas, hydrogen sulphide (H2S),being released from
surrounding area.
decaying organic matter on the seabed.
In the intervening years, almost every Irish farm site has been the subject
These factors combined will result in an environment conducive to
of at least one if not two or three EIS’s. A comprehensive picture of the
the production of healthier and faster-growing fish,with significantly
real environmental effects is now available. This shows that the main
lower mortality rates. Fish grown at offshore sites are also known to
impact is on the sea floor beneath the cages, principally caused by
have firmer flesh and lower fat levels, resulting in a higher quality product.
organic waste dropping from the cage above. In addition to the
These implications are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
requirement for an EIS, the study also used data arising from the annual
benthic audit,required by the Irish regulator, as a source of information.
(Fig 5.4,5.5,5.6)

Fig 5.2 Comparison of temperature regimes (degrees Celsius) over a 13 month period (Jan. 2003- Jan. 2004) at 2 adjacent farms off the South West coast of
Ireland- Deenish being offshore and Aghabeg being inshore. Though inshore, Aghabeg is adjacent to oceanic water and a more enclosed site would have greater
extremes of temperature. Glan Uisce Teo, Ireland.
In 2001,a review of benthic conditions at Irish fish farms was carried

out,which incorporated data from twelve years of EIS’s and benthic
audits. In all,109 environmental reports referring to 53 marine fish
cage sites were studied. The results were then compared with available
data from other countries with marine finfish industries.
The authors of the report concluded:
In general, the conditions recorded under Irish salmon farms are notably
better than those from under cages in Scotland and Norway. This is
attributed to the different oceanographic and morphological characteristics
of the bays where fish farming is carried out in Ireland. Along the west
coast, the tidal range is circa 5m during highest Spring tides and the
flushing effects of this volume of water creates tidal velocities that not
only sweep away uneaten food but also dilutes any B.O.D. or low oxygen
water in the vicinity of farms. This in turn helps to reduce any negative
effects that the seabed experiences due to the addition of uneaten fish
food to the benthos. Furthermore, the bays on the Irish West Coast are
not silled systems such as are found in parts of Scotland and Norway.
With the exception of Killary Harbour and Mulroy Bay, entire bays can be
entirely flushed over a short period of time.
(Review of Benthic Conditions at Irish Fish Farms, September 2001,

Aquafact International Services Ltd)
A key finding of the Aquafact review is that benthic impacts are

reduced,if not more or less absent altogether from offshore or
exposed sites. (Fig 5.7)
Having examined the husbandry benefits and the local impacts of

Fig 5.3 Water sampling on a monthly basis is required by Government regulation at offshore operations, it is now appropriate to consider what implications
Irish fish farm sites. Samples are analysed for temperature, salinity, nutrients, oxygen
and chlorophyll. John Costelloe, Aquafact International Services. there might be for the wider environment if an extensive offshore farming
strategy was pursued.

Fig 5.4 Sediment Profile Imager (SPI) for assessing sea-bed conditions. The entire apparatus is lowered to the sea-bed whereupon the wedge-shaped
structure in the centre is catapulted into the sediment. A camera located behind the glass panel then photographs the sediment profile. John Costelloe,
Aquafact International Services.
5.4 Other Environmental Considerations

The other major environmental considerations with regard to offshore
finfish aquaculture are:
• Visual impact
This will obviously be reduced because of increased distance
from the shore and will be almost completely eliminated in the
event of widespread use of submerged structures. It needs to be
borne in mind,however, as outlined in Chapter 6,that offshore
farms must have access to inshore sites for harvesting purposes.
These could also ultimately avail of submerged structures for live
fish storage once the required technologies have been perfected.
• Competition for space

In moving offshore, competition for space should be less of an issue
than in the inshore zone, particularly from tourism/marine-leisure
operators and other stakeholders such as inshore fishermen and
shellfish farming activities.
Nevertheless, offshore farms will need to be very well marked

Fig 5.5 A grab for retrieving sea-bed samples. The variety and number of animal
species present in the samples indicates benthic conditions. John Costelloe, and located away from shipping lanes and major fishing
Aquafact International Services. grounds. Given the vast areas of space available, this should
not pose a problem.

Fig 5.8 Analysis by the Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries shows that a significant
proportion of escape events are caused by equipment failure.
Fig 5.6 A sediment profile image (SPI) of an enriched sea bed beneath an inshore Escapee prevention must therefore be a major consideration in
Irish farm. Here, a dense carpet of worms (Malacoseros sp) processes the waste
from above and ensures the oxygenation of the sediments. John Costelloe, Aquafact the selection of appropriate equipment for offshore aquaculture.
International Services. A discussion on how these events could be avoided by the
deployment of higher specification systems, specially designed
for the offshore environment has been presented in Chapter 3.
Further risk minimisation measures are discussed in Chapter 7

paragraph 7.4.2
• Restoring or enhancing capture fisheries.

There has been a long-standing practice of enhancing migratory
fisheries by the rearing and release of juveniles. It is not unreason-
able to postulate that large-scale offshore finfish units would play
a similar role in the re-stocking of certain high value marine species
that may have been depleted in particular areas of the ocean. The
ability of offshore finfish containment units to rear and release very
large numbers of juveniles would make them ideal incubators for
stock recovery.
Fig 5.7 A SPI photo of a non-impacted sea bed beneath an offshore Irish farm. The
large burrowing worm imaged here is typical of un-enriched sites. John Costelloe, In summary, accumulated knowledge and understanding within the
Aquafact International Services. industry suggests there are major husbandry benefits associated with
• Escapees locating large-scale finfish farms offshore. Significant investment
When promoting a large-scale offshore finfish industry, concern opportunities are therefore possible in the offshore zone, and
over the threat of increased escapee numbers needs to be addressed. Chapter 6 examines the state-of-the-art as regards likely
(Escapees have the potential for cross breeding with wild members technologies and methodologies required to avail of these.
of the same species, which can result in reduced genetic diversity,
the dilution of genes with local adaptations and a reduction in
population sizes.)
Although this particular consideration is of less importance in the

offshore context because most escapees will fall to natural predation
before reaching the breeding locations of migratory stocks because of
sheer distance. Escapes are highly undesirable from an economic point
of view and must be avoided.
One major survey has indicated that the greatest proportion of

escape events from marine fish farms is caused by weather conditions
and holes in the nets. (Fig 5.8) Both of these are equipment
failure issues.

Chapter
The next step
6
6.1 Introduction
Previous chapters have demonstrated the need to consider an integrated

offshore aquaculture strategy and have also reviewed progress in most of
the world’s oceans. Much experience has already been gained in the daily
operation of exposed ocean fish farms but there is some way to go before
this aspect of salt-water farming becomes a mature industry.
This chapter will review what has been learned as well as what
6.1.1 Wear and tear
technologies are now available, in an attempt to visualise the ideal
offshore fish farm.It will explore the equipment likely to be used, To date, offshore farms have favoured gravity cages, mostly using
and the daily procedures and infrastructure that might be required. hexagonal or octagonal rubber collar cages or plastic circular collars.
The principal focus will be to consider improvements that could be
made to current methods of operating Class 3 sites. In addition, As outlined in Chapter 3,the components of a gravity cage comprise
suggestions will be made towards successful exploitation of the flotation collar, the net pen with its weighting system and the top
Class 4 sites. net,which is used to keep preying birds and marine mammals at bay.
In the offshore situation,relentless wave action causes these
Most attempts to move offshore have involved technologies and components to constantly move and rub together, causing abrasion.
methods already used at inshore sites. This approach regularly fails
to fully appreciate the significant differences that prevail between the There is also the cage mooring system to consider, which usually
two environments, namely:exposure of offshore sites to ocean swell, comprises a grid work of heavy lines attached at one end to anchors
and the consequent challenges to both the integrity of equipment on the seabed and at the other to the cage collar. Each time a wave
and to the execution of essential daily operations such as feeding passes through a cage, shock loadings are applied to the cage collar,
and harvesting. particularly at the point where the mooring lines are attached.
Shock loadings also affect both the cage net and the mooring
The Irish industry has a good deal of experience of the harsh realities lines. This constant movement,abrasion and shock-loading results
imposed by wave action in Class 3 sites. As outlined in Chapter 4, in progressive wear and tear, which can become particularly severe
Ireland’s coastal topography provides few locations suitable for farming during storm conditions. (Fig 6.1)
inshore so that offshore aquaculture has been in operation there since
the mid-1980s. It has proven difficult however to make an adequate Experience has shown that much of the day-to-day work on an
return on investment from these sites, and a high proportion of the offshore farm revolves around keeping ahead of ongoing damage,
country’s farmed finfish still comes from Class 1 and Class 2 sites. through adherence to a never-ending maintenance and repair
programme. Problems start mounting as bad weather arises and
At a meeting of offshore operators in Ireland in 2003,three principal essential repairs cannot be carried out. The longer poor conditions
challenges to successful daily operations were identified,namely: prevail,the worse the damage becomes.
wear and tear, feeding and harvesting.It may be observed that
these challenges are not unique to Ireland and are arguably When a weather window finally appears, all available time must be
common to all offshore operators regardless of their global location. spent repairing breaks and tears at the expense of feeding the fish,
which might already have been without feed for many days.
As outlined in Chapter 1,this report postulates a model of a 10,000
tonne operation,which is described in detail in this chapter. The practical
and logistical considerations, such as wear and tear, feeding and
harvesting,are set out hereunder.

Fig 6.1 Storm at a Scottish salmon farm with plastic circle cages and Sea
Cap feed barge. Andy Johnson, Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance.
6.1.2 Feeding 6.1.3 Harvesting

The normal feeding method employed at many offshore sites is by means This operation is critical in that it represents the culmination of up to
of a workboat travelling from cage to cage delivering the feed via a water two years of careful husbandry, so it is vitally important that the fish
or compressed air-powered cannon,supplied from deck-mounted hoppers. are not damaged or lost at this stage. Harvesting can only be carried
This method works satisfactorily in reasonable weather. In adverse out in reasonably fine weather as it involves tying the workboat to the
conditions however, workboats can encounter severe difficulties when cage, bringing a quantity of the fish to the surface with a sweep net
attempting to tie up to a cage, and may be forced to forego feeding and then scooping them out with a crane-mounted brailer, or pumping
altogether rather than risking damage to both cage and boat. them out with a fish-pump.
This is a serious issue. Take for example a farm needing 10 tonnes or As excessive wave action can result in damage to the fish,the boat and
more of feed per day. Given a normal feed conversion rate of 1.3kg the cage flotation collar, harvesting at offshore sites is largely a summer
of feed returning 1kg of farmed fish,one missed day could result in activity or is confined to weather windows at other times of the year.
the loss of approximately 7.5 tonnes of production. Thus, 10 days of This means that the supply of fish from offshore farms can be unreliable,
lost feeding would mean the loss of 75 tonnes of production. making it difficult to continuously supply the market.
Typically, an offshore farm could lose anything up to 50 days of feeding,

and thus our example above would lose 375 tonnes of production 6.1.4 Other issues
annually. At a value of €3.50 per kilo, this amounts to €1.3 million
Additional challenges facing offshore farmers using conventional
eliminated from the annual turnover.
technologies and methods include live grading of fish in situ;predation
prevention;net-cleaning;adequate monitoring of fish health and appetite,
and ongoing assessment of equipment integrity. Perhaps, however, the
greatest challenge is to operator morale.

The offshore fish farmer and his crew must operate in a constant state The implication of the above statements is that the process of deploying
of alert for equipment failure. They must also struggle against the vagaries a successful offshore finfish operation requires a degree of pre-planning
of weather to carry out essential repairs, feed the fish and harvest as quite unlike that required for an inshore farm.A major component of
required. They are under constant pressure to try and get everything this process is the acquisition of a very detailed understanding of the
done within available weather windows, regardless of prevailing wave real operational conditions that will be encountered at a proposed site.
conditions. Eventually, morale can start to suffer. Thus, an extensive survey process will be required before any equipment
purchase decisions could be considered.
In summary, with the current available operating technologies, the offshore
finfish farmer is disadvantaged with regard to his inshore colleagues. Lost An outline of the necessary process is set out below:
feeding days at sea can never be replaced,and in the highly competitive
world of modern marine finfish farming,all of the above elements lead to 6.2.1 Understanding the site
a higher unit cost of production and thus lower returns for the offshore
operator. Clearly, the offshore finfish farms of the future will have to Just as probes are sent to planets and moons in advance of man’s planned
overcome these operational challenges. visits, it is essential to ascertain precise information on every aspect of
the environment at the proposed offshore site. This can be achieved by
locating on-site or near-site devices throughout the water column to
6.2 The Next Step monitor and record current speed and direction,temperature, salinity,
oxygen levels and chlorophyll.It may also be advisable to install a wave
There is mounting consensus within the industry that implementing buoy - if only to validate what computer-generated wave climate models
offshore aquaculture effectively involves going back to the drawing might already be indicating. (Fig 6.2,6.3)
board and treating offshore aquaculture as an entirely new adventure,
quite unlike that of growing fish inshore. A comprehensive site profile can be obtained by combining at least 12
month’s site monitoring data with data from other sources such as that
Every aspect of going offshore needs to be carefully considered and regularly collected by research vessels and oceanographic monitoring
assessed ahead of installation.In a report on the feasibility of farming buoys. This must include predictions of what kind of extremes might
offshore in New Brunswick,Canada,Bridger (2004) states, ‘Exposed be expected - particularly with regard to wave energy, current speeds
aquaculture will require a more holistic perspective of how individual and temperature.
components fit together unlike near shore operations that could function
in the absence of a well planned system design’. In addition,Muir (2000) When carrying out a full assessment,what is being sought is a site with
points out that ‘a major challenge for future systems may be to overcome favourable characteristics under the headings of wave climate, topography,
the psychological dependence on human-based management, allowing water-exchange, temperature, salinity, oxygen levels and plankton regime.
greater reliance to be placed on automatic monitoring, control and
management systems’. The following are guidelines as to what these characteristics might be:
• Wave climate
Having established the wave climate at a site, it is critical to select
equipment capable of long-term operation within those conditions.
The problem,however, is that many suppliers are not in a position
to provide full operating parameters for their equipment.
In developing an offshore aquaculture strategy, this is obviously

an issue that must be addressed.Equipment will have to be built
to recognised standards and rated to withstand specified conditions.
In the meantime, experience would suggest that the best approach is
to assess what equipment is surviving in established sites with similar
wave climates, and to then make well-informed investment decisions
on that basis.
What can be stated with some certainty at this stage is that Class
4 or open ocean sites in the North Atlantic and other similar areas
are off limits for large-scale aquaculture operations using currently
available technologies. Therefore, installations in Class 3 sites
represent the boundary of contemporary technological feasibility
Fig 6.2 Preparing a sea-bed located, current and environment monitoring device for for these areas. Nevertheless, large-scale commercial exploitation
deployment. John Costelloe, Aquafact International Services, Ireland.
of more exposed areas should be possible in the not too distant
future, and is therefore discussed at the end of this chapter.

periods of slack water must be avoided as this can result in low

oxygen conditions.
Optimum average current speeds will vary depending on the species

of fish being farmed,but should lie within the range of 0.1 to 0.5
metres per second. (Petrell and Jones 2000;Reidy et al.2000)
Average speeds beyond this range may challenge the well-being
of the fish,although farms in the Bay of Fundy, which is famous
for its strong tidal currents, have carried out successful trials with
current deflectors. These consist of large panels of netting anchored
on the up-current side of flotillas of fish cages and have been
observed to achieve significant amelioration of the current speed.
On the other hand areas that experience average speeds below 0.1
metres per second may not provide adequate water exchange for the
scale of cage and biomass that is required in the offshore situation.
• Temperature
The optimum temperature varys from species to species but
significant fluctuations must be rare occurrences, if a site is to be
suitable. This is probably not a major issue given that most existing
offshore sites are known to experience more stable temperature
regimes than those found inshore. (See Chapter 5)
• Salinity
Salinity is probably not going to be an issue, given that oceanic
salinities are the norm in offshore sites. Nevertheless, most marine
Fig 6.3 Retrieving a wave monitoring buoy. fish species do not appreciate brackish conditions, and sites subject
John Costelloe, Aquafact International Services, Ireland. to these must be avoided.
• Topography • Oxygen
Topography is a major influencing factor in the operational Adequate oxygen levels are critical for all fish species. While it might
suitability of offshore sites. For instance, water depth needs to be assumed that offshore sites will automatically offer full saturation,
be at least 25 metres in the case of Class 3 sites, in order to some offshore locations adjacent to zones of up welling can routinely
avoid large waves of oceanic origin breaking or becoming experience oxygen levels as low as 3mg/l.Long-term advance
steeper as they pass through a cage. monitoring must therefore indicate a minimum of 90% saturation
as the norm.
In the case of Class 4 sites, the minimum water depth may need
to be 50 metres or more. In addition,every effort must be made to • Algae blooms/jellyfish
locate a site in the lee of as many topographical features as possible. In the North East Atlantic in recent years, a number of incidents
These might include reefs, islands, headlands or combinations of all. have occurred at both inshore and offshore sites, resulting in damage
These modest sheltering features can greatly extend the duration to the gills of farmed salmon.Mortalities have often ensued,and the
of weather windows, thus allowing more time for essential health of surviving fish has been compromised.Planktonic algae or
on-site operations. jellyfish usually cause this problem,and studies have been carried
out to identify the agents and risk factors involved.Initial indications
• Water exchange/current speed are that the risk of damage from jellyfish may be reduced at some
A top quality computerised hydrographic model should be used to offshore sites and that the ill effects of harmful algae blooms are
predict the water exchange at the proposed site, based on real data more likely at inshore sites due to the concentrating effect of
collected over a long period (at least six months continuous, including shallow enclosed bays. It may be possible to use current deflectors,
the winter period). It is important that this model indicates adequate as developed in the Bay of Fundy, (see above) to divert jellyfish
current speeds for fish rearing and that extreme highs or lows away from cages. Assessment of site chlorophyll profiles and
will be rare. historical research vessel data will indicate whether harmful
algae blooms pose an unacceptable risk factor at a given location.
Depending on local topography, strong winds that occur during
storms may cause dangerously high currents;however an effective
hydrographic model will predict this. Equally, sites with prolonged

• Other site-selection criteria yield and price fluctuations. Compared to salmon,which can yield
Additional site-selection criteria exist,which may be critical to the 60% or more of the gutted carcass as skinless fillet,the cod has a
success of the licence application or the ongoing operation of the large head and only returns a yield of around 45%. Therefore, the
site. These include:distance from known fishing grounds;not being cost of production per kilo of usable cod flesh may be higher than
a navigational hazard;low visual impact;access to harvesting sites, that of salmon,and the worry is that the market will baulk at having
discussed late in sub-section 6.2.5 and section 6.3,and deepwater to pay more for what is traditionally considered a cheaper fish.
landing facilities with adequate road access.
Furthermore, the annual variation in catches of wild cod can result
Having considered the required site characteristics, this report now in dramatic price fluctuations so that sometimes it is sold at prices
discusses the factors that would influence the selection of a particular below the cost of production of farmed cod.It has been suggested
species to be farmed at an offshore finfish farm. that long-term fixed price supply contracts with processors and retail
multiples would be one way for farmers to hedge against this effect.
6.2.2 Which species? Not withstanding these issues, some major fish farming companies are
pressing ahead with developing a cod farming industry. During 2004,
Unlike agriculture, which concentrates on a few food animal species,
three million juveniles will be produced in Norway. In 2005,Fjord
aquaculture can choose from literally hundreds of species that might
Marine expects to harvest up to 2,500 tonnes, and Nutreco has
lend themselves to husbandry. Industry interest in temperate Atlantic
predicted it will have produced 30,000 tonnes by 2007.
zones is currently focused on the following species:
• Salmon (Salmon salar) Over the last few years, Johnson Sea Farms in Shetland has been
Approximately 750,000 tonnes are produced annually in the transferring its focus from growing salmon to cod,and plans to install
North Atlantic.Demand for this fish is steadily increasing,and it 1.5 million juveniles in 2004. The company expects to harvest 1,000
has already proven its suitability for large-scale production,being tonnes during the same year and has established that its farmed fish
grown successfully in many offshore situations. Salmon,however, are higher quality and return a greater yield than wild cod. The farmed
may not be suitable for culture in submerged cages because they fish are thus achieving a premium price over wild.
possess a physostomic swim bladder that is connected to the
oesophagus, and therefore the fish must surface to take in air. Nascent industries in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have solved most
A number of contradictory reports have been published on whether of the issues associated with the production of cod juveniles and are
salmon can live for extended periods without access to the surface. seeking significant public and private investment in the development
A definitive answer is required before large scale submerged salmon of large scale on-growing.
cultivation should be considered. (Ablett et al,1989: Rubach
and Svendson,1993) On the other hand,it is possible to trap • Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
air in a kind of bell over the top of a submersible cage, as can be The haddock is closely related to the cod and should therefore be
achieved in the case of the Sadco Shelf cage. equally suitable for intensive aquaculture. New Brunswick,Canada,
is to the forefront in developing haddock farming.In a partnership
• Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) between government and private industry, techniques for juvenile
This fish has many of the same suitable features as salmon but production and on-growing in inshore sea cages have been
suffers from a lack of differentiation from salmon in the marketplace. established.Several thousand juveniles are also being on-grown
Moreover, as rainbow trout has a history of husbandry difficulties in by the University of New Hampshire in submerged cages off the
a full salinity environment,it is unlikely to be considered as a coast. To date, haddock farming has not achieved commercial scale,
potential offshore species. however, an encouraging feature of this species is that the fillet
yield is somewhat better than that of cod.
• Cod (Gadus morrhua)
Although there are still issues regarding early maturation and the cost Other gadoids such as pollack (Pollachius pollachius) and saithe
of juvenile production,cod can be successfully reared using the same (Pollachius virens) may be suitable for offshore aquaculture in the
kinds of sea cage technologies as have been applied so effectively in future, however, their current market price is often less than half
the case of salmon.Furthermore, it thrives in large-scale production that of cod and this prohibits their consideration at this time.
systems. Indeed,the industry view in Norway is that in order for
farmed cod to compete in the marketplace with other whitefish • Halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus)
species and with salmon,economies of scale are essential. To this The current annual production of 2,000 tonnes of farmed halibut
end,the Norwegian plan is to increase production to 100,000 tonnes is concentrated in Norway, Iceland and Scotland. The prevailing
by 2010 and to 400,000 tonnes by 2015.It would appear, therefore, view within the industry is that halibut should be grown to 300g
that cod is an obvious candidate for large scale offshore farming. in pump-ashore systems and should then be transferred to sea
cages for further on-growing.Being active swimmers, halibut lend
Controversy exists however over whether the market will support themselves quite well to cage farming but need to be able to rest
large-scale cod farming. The principle concerns relate to poor fillet

on the bottom of a cage or on a rack system that is not subject to americanus, which is rare but highly valued.In trials carried out by
the violent motions resulting from wave action. Therefore, they are the French development agency, IFREMER,at Brest,this fish grew
not suitable for cultivation in surface-based systems offshore but at a rate of 1.5-2kg per annum.
are a candidate species for submerged systems. The University of
New Hampshire is currently on-growing halibut in submerged It should be born in mind that taking a wild species and turning it into
Sea Station cages at an offshore site off the U.S. east coast. (Fig 6.4) a farmed animal is in itself a very lengthy and complex process. Thus it is
likely that those fish species, which are already well understood from an
• Other species aquaculture perspective, will be the lead candidates in offshore finfish
The discussion on poor meat yield from cod is central to the farming development.
whole question of what species should be the focus of attention
for marine fish farmers wishing to diversify from salmon.It is quite Having outlined the site characteristics and species choice, the report now
possible that what the market requires is a relatively cheap, firm reviews the technologies that need to be considered when developing an
white-fleshed fish,suitable for all kinds of processing and that it offshore finfish farming operation.
is immaterial from which species this comes. In this regard,the
Chilean fish-farming industry is now focusing on cultivating
austral hake (Merluccis australis) because it has good quality 6.2.3 Offshore sites: technology required
white flesh,and having a small head, returns a considerably
A central tenet of this report is that careful pre-planning and analysis of
higher fillet yield than cod.
critical site factors such as wave climate and prevailing weather conditions
is a pre-requisite for successfully developing an offshore site. This process
A review of the hundreds of fish species natural to the Atlantic
should result in a comprehensive assessment of all available technologies,
region might indicate a few candidates with characteristics making
and the judicious selection of those suited to particular sites and
them more favourable for large-scale aquaculture other than cod.
applications as detailed below:
One suitable species might be the European wreckfish, Polyprion
Fig 6.4 Halibut in a submerged Sea-Station cage off the coast of new Hampshire.
University of New Hampshire, U.S.A.

• Cages as a possible component of the proposed expansion of offshore

Wear and tear and daily maintenance are the biggest problems aquaculture, at least in Class 3 sites.
facing offshore operators using conventional technologies.
Therefore, the choice of cage is crucial in order to reflect a • Alternatives to gravity cages
design that is durable and has been proven capable of The review in Chapter 3 indicated only one cage type that has
withstanding offshore weather conditions. The major cage been shown in practice to be capable of matching the gravity cage
types are discussed below in this regard. in terms of scale. This is the Ocean Spar or anchor-tension cage, of
which only a few have been built and are in current use. While
• Gravity cages these are being used in fully commercial situations, there have
Since coming on the market,the rubber and plastic collar systems been indications of some greater than predicted wear and tear,
have undergone design modifications, resulting in significantly and further operational issues need to be addressed.
lower abrasion to both net and collar. Nevertheless, the characteristic The RefaMed tension-leg cage is widely used in Italy and is showing
common to all gravity cage designs is that the flotation element is promise in terms of up-scaling;however only units up to 4000m3 have
concentrated at the surface, which is the zone of greatest wave been deployed to date. Again further developmental work is required.
energy. Therefore, the system is subject to constant movement
and shock loading. The Byks Oceanglobe rigid cage is also a possibility in terms of
adequate scale but again,no full-scale version has been built.
In addition,collar systems depend on heavy weights or weight
rings hanging from the bottom of the net to assist in maintaining In summary, the cage options for expanding large-scale offshore
its shape and volume. This not only adds to the shock loading on aquaculture are gravity cages, anchor-tension cages, tension-leg
the net but also sometimes fails to maintain the full net volume cages and the rigid Oceanglobe. All require further development
due to tidal or storm current effects. Violent movement of the net and/or need to be proven. To be pragmatic,a farmer wishing to
and repeated reduction in volume can compromise the performance establish a large offshore farm in the near future would probably
of the fish.Notwithstanding these inherent flaws, the gravity cage have to choose between either gravity cages or anchor-tension
approach to offshore aquaculture has been used with some success, cages, or employ a combination of both.A true pioneer, with deep
not only in Ireland but also in Spain,Italy and Australia amongst pockets, might commission the first full-scale Oceanglobe.
others. (See Chapter 4)
• The question of scale
As outlined in Chapter 3,many alternatives to the gravity cage As indicated above, scale is a major consideration when selecting
approach are available or are in the course of development. an appropriate cage type. In an assessment of the economies of
None of these, however, are in widespread use for various reasons scale as highlighted in Chapter 8,the optimum annual production
such as inadequate cage volume, high cost,and lack of clarity as level for an offshore farm is estimated to be in the order of 10,000
to how they might fit into modern operating practices. Furthermore, tonnes. To simplify logistics, and taking into account the level of
the industry is currently functioning in a climate of severe cost investment in monitoring equipment required per cage, this would
consciousness and is inclined to favour ‘the familiar’ over have to be produced in a maximum of 10 cages. Thus, 1,000 tonnes
potentially expensive adventures with novel technologies. would be harvested from each cage. Given a final stocking density
of 25kgs per cubic metre, each cage will be required to have an
Nonetheless, it must be recognised that one of the constraints on enclosed volume of 40,000m 3.
the expansion of offshore aquaculture is the failure by suppliers to
address the heavy maintenance and repair requirements of currently A suitable gravity cage of 20 metre net depth will therefore need
available gravity cage types. If this can be dealt with,then the a circumference of approximately 160 metres. Tuna farms in the
gravity cage could be ideal for the purposes of offshore farming, Mediterranean are currently using cages on this scale and above,
given that it is capable of significant up-scaling and is a familiar and a cage of similar dimensions is being tested for salmon in
technology to the industry. Norway. (See Chapter 4)
As discussed in Chapter 4,the Irish industry has experience of The largest anchor-tension cage currently in use has a design volume
four different cage types designed for offshore use, namely: of 20,000m3. In plan view, this cage has the shape of a flattened
rubber collar systems (Bridgestone and Dunlop),heavy plastic hexagon with a vertical steel spar at each of its six nodes. By the
cage systems, the Farm Ocean semi-submersible and the Ocean addition of two extra spars, a barrel shape would be achieved and
Spar from Net Systems. Of these, only rubber collar and plastic the volume would increase to 38,000m3. Given that up to 750
collar systems are in widespread use. tonnes of salmon have already been harvested from 20,000m3
anchor-tension cages, 1,000 tonnes from a 38,000m 3 version should
As outlined in that chapter, the Aquaculture Engineering Group be achievable. (Fig.6.5)
(AEG) in Canada is proposing a novel method of configuring
gravity cages, which they believe will obviate the shortcoming
of this technology. The gravity cage, therefore, must be regarded

Fig 6.5 Plan and side view of 38,000 cubic meter Ocean Spar cage. As yet, this Fig 6.6 Grid mooring system for 4 circular collar cages.
cage has only got as far as the drawing board. Net Systems Inc, U.S.A. Gael Force, Scotland.
• How many support sites? How many support cages? 2. The zone of benthic impact is concentrated in one area.
In the case of salmon and cod,which currently have a grow-out
phase of more than one year, at least two sites would be required 3. Every part of the system has to be engineered to be capable of
in the interests of good husbandry practice in order to maintain bearing the load of the entire system,given that both wind and
separation between different age classes. A third site inshore current can come from any direction.
would also be required to facilitate harvesting.(See 6.2.5)
4. Mooring grids are expensive and complicated because of
Thus, an offshore farm producing 10,000 tonnes of cod or salmon multiple components.
per annum would therefore require a juvenile on-growing site with
four 40,000m3 cages along with a finishing site containing 10 such 5. Many things can go wrong in such an extensive system,and
cages, together with an inshore sheltered harvesting/holding site. inspections and maintenance are laborious.
It will be a prerequisite of licensing policy that any offshore licence An alternative to the mooring grid is the single point mooring or
will require these additional juvenile and holding sites as part of an SPM.(see Fig 3.18,Chapter 3) In this case, a cage or cage flotilla
integrated approach. is attached to a single point on the seabed and can swing around
this point depending on the directions of wind and current forces.
• Moorings Such systems were in common usage in Scotland in the early and
Given that gravity cages or their derivatives are the most prevalent mid 1980s and the experience of them was good. Their usage was
cage systems used,the considerations below largely deal with the phased out as the individual cage dimensions and the number of
moorings of this type of containment system. cages linked together increased. The necessary development work
to up-scale the SPM systems was not carried out.
Fish cages can be moored singly or in pairs with mooring lines
radiating out in all directions to anchors on the seabed.In most The SPM concept is once again gaining favour within the industry
inshore locations, however, mooring grids are used. These anchor and may well be the system of choice for the offshore operation of
an entire flotilla of cages, with lines radiating outwards on all sides. the future. The advantages include:
The principal reason for using this system is to confine the farm within 1. Less space is taken up by the seabed portion of the SPM than is
a defined lease area.It is a simple system requiring less space than the case with the mooring grid system. This can be a particular
mooring cages individually. (Fig 6.6) advantage in the case of territorial issues with capture fishers.
Nonetheless, there are significant disadvantages with mooring grids 2. Although it has been shown in Chapter 5 that benthic impacts at
and these include: offshore sites will be negligible, whatever impact there is will be
1. The pull on an anchor must be as near horizontal as possible, the spread over the wider ‘swing area’ of the SPM.
length of the mooring line between anchor and surface (the scope)
must be at least three times the maximum depth. This significantly 3. Because the same part of the surface structure is always bearing
increases the area taken up by the fish farm,especially in the case the load of the entire system,the rest of the structure can be more
of one using a mooring grid. The situation is exacerbated with the lightly engineered.
greater depth found at offshore sites.

Fig 6.7 Pairs of circular collars cages attached to single point moorings (SPM’s). Aqualine, Norway.
4. A reduced number of components implies that SPMs should be It should be noted that the SPM concept will not work with
simpler and cheaper than mooring grids. anchor-tension cages as the entire structure must be free to swing
in accordance with prevailing tide/wind conditions. There is great
5. The simplicity of fewer components should result in lower inspection deal of accumulated experience with SPM systems, particularly
and maintenance costs. within the oil industry. This approach is worthy of further
investigation and recommendations in this regard are highlighted in
6. Where current deflectors are used for shelter or against jellyfish Chapter 9.
attacks, it is only necessary to locate them at the front of the system
rather than all around as might be the case with a mooring grid. A feature of both the SPM systems and anchor-tension cages is the
amount of space that is required in a licensed area to accommodate
7. It is easier to set up feed distribution and monitoring systems as both their swing area and their moorings. Although,in the case of
the current will always be travelling in the same direction through anchor-tension cages, it may be possible to reduce this by using a
the cages. flotilla approach and by having cages with shared mooring lines.
A number of equipment suppliers are developing SPMs. These include: This should not be a constraining issue, as it has been in inshore
the Aquaculture Engineering Group (AEG),whose entire novel cage locations, given that space is not at a premium offshore. This factor,
flotilla concept is based around the use of an SPM and the Norwegian along with the need for support sites and scale, should be taken on
plastic cage manufacturer, Aqualine, which is testing SPMs for board as a fundamental policy matter by the regulators-to-be of the
mooring its cages in paired configurations. (Fig 6.7) offshore finfish industry.
Where cages are moored with SPMs, either the feed reservoir or barge Another approach to mooring is the tension-leg system,as outlined
must be part of the entire system,or a workboat mounted feed barge in the profile of the RefaMed system.(See chapter 3) This method
must be used. This reduces the amount of feed distribution pipe-work ensures maximum space conservation,and requires little more area
required,which is a major advantage in the offshore situation (See than that taken up by the cage itself. Tension-leg moorings could
Chapter 7). also be used for feed barges.

Fig 6.8 Ship type feed barge. Akvasmart, Norway. Fig 6.9 Concrete box feed barge. Marine Construction, Norway.
6.2.4 Feeding A consideration of the necessary characteristics of offshore feed storage

barges is given below:
An essential element in successful farming is that fish feeding must be
• Feed barge options
easy and uncomplicated. This results in fast growing,unstressed fish and
Whatever type of feed barge is ultimately selected,it is critical
a good feed conversion ratio. At its core, fish farming is about converting
that the design has been thoroughly tested and proven in terms
the minimum amount of expensive fish feed into the maximum amount
of loading,feed delivery and ability to withstand the prevailing
of quality fish flesh in the shortest possible time.
weather conditions. It must also be fitted with the latest in safety
systems. These would include a variety of emergency bilge-pumping
Yet on many marine farms today, both offshore and inshore, the biggest
mechanisms and water ingress warning systems.
daily challenge is feeding the fish. Feed must be delivered to the nearest
mainland pier, loaded into workboats, transported to the farm and
Currently there are three basic types of feed barge on the market:
cannon-fed to each cage individually. Given that this system relies on
fair weather and complicated logistics, it can result in too many missed Ship type barge: This is a rectangular box of steel and is the most
feeding opportunities. This model will not be viable for large-scale offshore common type of feed barge in use, ranging in capacity from 50 tonnes
farming ventures. to 400 tonnes. (Fig 6.8)
What is required is long-term feed storage capacity at each site with The concrete box: This is a concrete version of the steel box
the capability to dispense feed to each cage automatically. Many farms but tends to be squarer in shape and is generally a lot larger. It is
around the world already have these facilities in the form of feed barges. designed with a lot of accommodation and working deck areas so
(See Chapter 4) These have revolutionised inshore fish farming over the that it can assume most of the functions of a shore-base at sea. The
last 10 years but few are being used in offshore farms because of farmers’ largest concrete barges can carry up to 400 tonnes of feed. (Fig 6.9)
doubts over the sea-keeping qualities of many of the barge types available
and difficulties with wave damage to floating feed pipes. Concrete cylinders: These are built in the shape of a vertical
cylinder by Scottish company, Gael Force. The current design has
The model offshore farm described in this chapter and analysed in storage capacities ranging from 100 tonnes up to 250 tonnes.
Chapter 8 has an annual production of 10,000 tonnes and thus has (For more detail on feed barges see Chapter 4)
an annual feed requirement of approximately 12,000 tonnes. Such an
operation cannot be efficiently carried out using anything other than Whilst either a ship-type barge or a concrete cylinder could be used
fully-automated feeding technology. in exposed situations, a preliminary assessment carried out by the
Irish Sea Fisheries Board (BIM) indicates that the concrete cylinder
The finishing site of the envisaged farm will need to achieve a peak would be more suitable for the more exposed sites.
feeding rate of 45 tonnes per day. Assuming a two-week gap between
feed deliveries and allowing for delays, a storage capacity of at least Concrete cylinder barges have been operating successfully in very
900 tonnes will be required. This capacity would be divided between exposed sites in the Faeroe Islands and in Shetland for a number
two barges each of which would be set up to feed all 10 cages, thus of years. The largest barge designed but not yet built by Gael Force
ensuring a fail safety procedure in the case of breakdown of one of has a maximum storage capacity of 600 tonnes. The calculations
the barges. The feed barges will have to be capable of being operated above indicate that this would be more than adequate for the
remotely as it might not be possible to have personnel on board in envisaged offshore farm. Two such barges would be required at the
anything more than light weather conditions. finishing site and one at the juvenile site. A pictorial representation
of the envisaged model farm can be seen in Fig 6.10.

Fig 6.10 The Next Step. Represented here is a concept for an offshore farm in a Feed is supplied to the cages via sub-surface pipes from two floating concrete
Class 3 site – exposed to ocean swell but partially sheltered. This farm has 10 feed barges. Each barge can carry up to 600 tonnes of fish feed and has a
Ocean Spar anchor tension cages, each capable of holding up to 1,000 tons of crane and crew quarters located on the main deck. Operation of the entire
fish. The ‘’Spars’’ are floating vertical steel pipes which act like fence posts to system and video and sonar monitoring of the fish and equipment can be
which the net is attached top and bottom. The structure and shape of each carried out by telemetry from a shore-based control station. This concept
cage is maintained by high-tension, non-stretch anchor lines, attached to represents a feasible next step in the progress of offshore farming as both
every Spar. the cages and feed barge represented are on the drawing boards of
experienced equipment suppliers. Furthermore, the remote control and
monitoring technologies are available off the shelf, but need to be integrated
into a single reliable package.
Fig. 6.11 Plastic circle cage temporarily attached to Ocean Spar cage. Fish, ready for Fig 6.12 Conventional cages are not ideal for towing. Represented here is a concept,
harvest, are encouraged to swim into the plastic cage which can then be towed to the ‘’Fishrocket’’, which is a specialised cage for towing live fish from a growing site
the harvest site. to harvest site. While this cage could be towed at up to 10 knots, water would pass
through the live fish inside the cage at only 0.5 knots. Net Systems Inc, U.S.A.
6.2.5 Harvesting 6.2.6 Operating plan

Having proposed solutions to such major issues as the choice of
In summary, the envisaged model offshore farm,using salmon or cod
containment,feeding and mooring systems, this report now discusses
as exemplar species, will produce 10,000 tonnes of fish annually at
concerns associated with harvesting.
two separate sites and will operate as follows:
The problem with harvesting at offshore sites is that all conventional Each year, the juvenile site would be stocked with young fish in four
methods involve crowding the fish at the surface in order to provide 40,000m3 cages serviced by a 600-tonne feed barge. These would
the increased fish density required to operate the fish-pumps or then be on grown for up to 11 months, and subsequently moved to
crane-operated brailers. These are used to transfer the fish from the the finishing site where they would continue growing in 10 x 40,000m3
cage to the harvest boat where they are either immediately slaughtered cages. The first site would then be left fallow for a minimum of one
or stored alive in a well.Excessive wave action during this procedure can week prior to restocking. The fish would then be harvested over an
result in damage to the fish,and therefore harvesting can end up being 11-month period after which the finishing site would be left fallow
confined to periods of fine weather. Consequently, supply to the market for at least one month.A fallow period must also be applied at the
can be unreliable. harvest site.
The best available solution to offshore harvesting problems is to

transfer live fish to a sheltered inshore site during favourable weather. 6.2.7 Monitoring/control
This can be achieved with a wellboat but a better method may be to The most critical requirement of the envisaged model offshore farm
use an intermediary transfer cage. In this case, a conventional cage such will be an operating methodology that does not depend on daily
as a plastic circle is temporarily attached to the offshore cage so that the access to the site. This will be achieved by incorporating remote
fish can swim from one cage to the other. (Fig 6.11) The transfer cage, operational capability via ‘real-time’ telemetry with regard to
with its cargo of live fish for harvest,is then towed by workboat to the feeding and monitoring of the fish and equipment.
inshore site.
• Feeding/appetite monitoring
This might require the development of a specialised transfer cage designed Feed is transported to the fish by means of compressed air via a hose
for towing,with a view to minimising stress on the fish. (Fig 6.12) Fish from the feed barge. A computer located in the feed barge controls
would be harvested over an 11-month period at an average rate of 250 feeding rate and the amount of feed delivered.Consumption and fish
tonnes per week.Ideally therefore, the transfer cage will carry 250 tonnes behaviour is then monitored by submerged video cameras and sonar
of fish per trip from the offshore site to the inshore site. devices mounted inside the cages. (See Chapter 3) All of these
devices must be capable of being remotely operated from a
At the harvest site there would be 6 x 250-tonne cages. These would shore-based office.
ensure the potential to carry up to six week’s supply for harvest at any
one time, thereby providing the required continuity of supply, even during • Fish monitoring/site monitoring
the vagaries of winter weather. Harvesting would be carried out by While much can be learned from observing fish behaviour by means
conventional methods using specialised slaughtering vessels, or the fish of in-cage video cameras and sonars, it would be preferable if there
would be delivered by wellboat to a shore-based processing plant. was a more direct method of monitoring the status of fish health.

This could be achieved by attaching low-impact probes to a few Thus, the provision of high data capacity, ‘real-time’,reliable
indicator fish to monitor critical physiological parameters such as telemetry systems will be a critical developmental area for offshore
heart rate, blood oxygen levels, or the stress-indicating hormone, finfish farming operations. Currently available systems tend to lack
cortisol. These probes would transmit a signal to an in-cage receiver, range and may not be sufficiently robust.
which in turn would transmit to the inshore office via the feed barge.
As good quality water is critical to fish health,in-cage probes could 6.2.8 Methods of data handling and transfer
constantly monitor oxygen,ammonia levels, turbidity and temperature,
• Power requirements
and then transfer the data ashore in real time. Such water-quality
Technology and communication systems require electricity to operate.
monitoring systems already exist on permanently moored buoys
Cage-mounted systems such as cameras, sonar and probes will need
installed along the coasts of many countries. Data from these buoys
to be powered from in-situ batteries recharged by wind generators,
could be combined with farm data to give a comprehensive picture
solar panels or even wave generators. These systems would have to
of unfolding events in the offshore environment.
be capable of operating all year round in the offshore environment.
• Equipment monitoring
The feed barge will have both single-phase and three-phase
Maintaining the integrity of cages and moorings in a hostile
electricity provided from its own diesel-powered generators. In
environment is essential,and therefore a regular inspection
order to be self-sufficient for long periods, it will need generous
programme would be required. The programme could be enhanced
diesel storage capacity and a high degree of system duplication
by data collected from load meters installed on mooring lines and
and redundancy.
nets. This data would then be transmitted to the onshore office
and would indicate whether mooring or net failure had occurred
In so far as possible, power generation in offshore sites should be
or was imminent.
from renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar.
• Security monitoring
The value of fish at a 10,000 tonnes farm would reach in 6.3 Infrastructure
excess of €30 million, with the cages, moorings and feed barges
representing another €8 million.It is important therefore that A major consideration when selecting a suitable site is proximity to
offshore farms are protected from theft, vandalism and accidental essential infrastructure such as a deep-water pier for cargo handling,
damage arising from collision. This could be achieved by locating ice-making facilities, and good road access. In some situations the
video cameras and radar scanners on feed barge mastheads. Boats provision of adequate infrastructure will need to occur in tandem
detected by radar in the vicinity of the farm would trigger an alarm with the installation of new offshore operations.
that would alert onshore staff. During night-time hours, barge
masthead floodlights and searchlights would also be triggered. Other essential elements would be a modern processing plant,offices
and stores, a marine engineering workshop and a dry dock for repairing
Shore staff would then observe events as they unfolded by means and maintaining the workboats. In an ideal situation,such infrastructural
of signals relayed to the shore via radar and video cameras. At the elements would be strategically located so as to be able to service the
AquaNor aquaculture industry exhibition in August 2003,equipment needs and production of more than one large offshore site.
supplier, Arena,displayed a security system involving video
surveillance of a Norwegian salmon farm hundreds of miles
from the exhibition hall. 6.4 People and Offshore Finfish Farming
It has been the experience worldwide that as the scale of finfish farming
• Communications increases, most of the consequent employment arises downstream in
All of the sophisticated solutions that have been discussed depend such activities as processing,marketing, sales and distribution, rather
on the efficient transmission of many different kinds of data from than directly on the farms themselves. This would also be the case
the offshore site to the shore base, and the transmission of control with regard to the envisaged offshore production unit.
data back to the site. In-cage video cameras, sonar devices, fish
and equipment monitors and water quality probes would transmit The production crew would comprise management,fish health experts,
to a processor mounted on the barge. The data would then be maintenance craftsmen,commercial divers and professional seafarers.
forwarded to the shore office along with further data from the Given the combination of a difficult work environment and complex
barge computer that controls the feeding system.Data from technologies, all of these staff will have to be highly trained specialists.
the security system and the barge safety systems would also be A crew rostering approach more typical of the oil industry rather than
transmitted.Shore-based staff would then respond to this data the current inshore aquaculture work practices will be required to
by sending control instructions via the processor to feed systems, provide continuous servicing on a round-the-clock basis. For example,
cameras and emergency systems. favourable weather windows will have to be exploited on a 24-hour
basis. Experience from the oil and related marine industries will need
to be taken on board in this context.

An exciting prospect arising from the scale of the envisaged offshore 6.5 Surface or Submerged Operations?
farm is that the establishment of even one of these units would form
a significant node of development in a coastal community. In effect, As indicated throughout this report,the principal problem encountered
one or more offshore farms would become major engines of wealth in offshore fish farms is wear and tear caused by wave action on the
creation via employment in processing and ancillary services in the surface-based structures. In contrast,submerged structures would be
locality of the supporting infrastructure. far less vulnerable because the power of waves decreases markedly
with depth.A rule of thumb employed by marine engineers is that at
Given the nature of the infrastructure requirements and the design of a depth equivalent to half a wave length, wave-induced water
the offshore units, it would be quite feasible to envisage the locating movement is negligible.
of several 10,000 tonne units in a radius that could be serviced by a
single support structure ashore, but which would not result in any A secondary (but nonetheless potentially lethal) problem for floating
significant environmental impacts. surface structures is the threat of storm-induced currents in the upper
layers of the water column. These can achieve a speed many times
Considerations of this kind should be incorporated into new licensing greater than the normal current experienced at a site. The critical factor
and regional development policies, which will need to be formulated in this case is that the drag force on the structures increases as a function
for offshore finfish operations as distinct from existing inshore farms. of the square of the multiple. For example, a current speed increase from
recommendations in this regard are put forward in Chapter 9. 0.5 knots to 1.5 knots will cause a nine-fold increase in drag force.
Similarly, an increase from 0.5 to 3 knots will result in a 36-fold increase
Another major issue when considering offshore finfish farming is in drag force. The effects of these forces can be avoided or mitigated by
whether the systems should be located on the surface as at present, submerging the farm structures to appropriate depth.
or be submerged.A discussion on the relevant factors is set out below.
Fig 6.13 The Ocean Globe concept from Byks envisages using a semi-submersible
feed barge in exposed locations. Byks, Norway.

These are compelling arguments for locating offshore finfish farming Filling the submersible technology gap with adequately scaled cages
structures beneath the surface, or building an ability to submerge into and supporting technologies could ultimately be the panacea that
the system. offshore aquaculture has been waiting for. Based on the feedback
from current offshore practitioners, there is no doubt that every effort
Thus, as the development of offshore sites progresses along an axis must be made to encourage the development of submersible systems.
of increasing energy impacting on the farm structures, the arguments One possible scenario would be to install experimental submerged
for submerged operations and associated technologies become more systems alongside the fully commercial operations in the Class 3
compelling.Inevitably at some point along that hypothetical axis, the offshore site envisaged above.
cost of constructing a surface cage, which could survive in very
extreme conditions, would make such systems uneconomical. The 10,000-tonne farm could therefore serve as a test site for developing
Undoubtedly, submerged finfish farming technologies will be the technologies suitable for exploiting Class 4 sites, and significantly
required in the not too distant future. reduce both the cost and time required.
At present there is no proven submersible technology of adequate scale Once very large rigid-framed cages, either resting on the seabed or
to support the expansion strategy proposed.Nevertheless, technologies floating in mid-water, such as the Oceanglobe concept have been
such as the RefaMed tension-leg and the Sea Station have demonstrated developed,these could be fed from submerged feed stores or from
that submerged operations can and do work,albeit on a small scale. semi-submersible vessels such as those envisaged by Byks and
The problem is that there is a technology gap. Large-scale submersible Izar Fene. (Fig 6.13)
cages and appropriate operating technologies such as feeding and
monitoring systems need to be developed. It is very likely that for a given site the need for submergence will vary. In
some locations, it may only be necessary to submerge the farm structures
Current methods of feeding submerged cages include;daily pumping of from time to time, to avoid extreme weather incidents;in other cases the
feed down to the fish from a surface workboat (Hawaii and Puerto Rico); submerged mode may be the norm.In the case of prolonged submergence,
a cage-integrated feeding system that has to be replenished every few further development of the monitoring technologies will be required to
days (Sadco Shelf);and feeding from a surface-based feeding buoy achieve full remote control. The systems developed for the Class 3 site
(New Hampshire, US).While these methods suffer from a lack of envisaged above would provide a firm basis for this process.
adequate scale they do serve the essential purpose of providing a
test bed for further development. An artist’s impression of what a fully submerged farm might look
like is presented in Chapter 9.
Ocean Spar Cage in Bay of Fundy, Canada. Net Systems Inc, USA.
53
Chapter
Operational Issues and
7
Potential Obstacles
7.1 Introduction
Chapter 6 explored how the model 10,000 tonne offshore farm should be
planned with regard to site location, technology and candidate fish species.
Other outstanding issues including stock grading, net cleaning, predation,
mortality removal and feeding equipment failure are addressed in the first
part of this chapter. Issues common to both inshore and offshore finfish farming
such as stock genetics, disease control and growth rates are also considered.
The Chapter concludes with a discussion on controlling the level of risk transfer cage. Smaller fish would swim into the tunnel and down
in offshore finfish farming operations, together with considerations on through the slatted panel only to arrive back into a cordoned-off
projected savings in the unit cost of production that will be achieved section of the cage being harvested.
by virtue of locating finfish farms in the open ocean.
Another option might involve installing a partition containing a
7.2 Operational and Technical Issues slatted grading panel in the on-growing cage. Over a period of days
or even weeks, smaller fish would be encouraged to swim through
• Grading
the panel by means of an artificially induced current.Larger fish
Most finfish farmers are accustomed to grading their stock at various
would be unable to fit through,and the ultimate outcome would be
stages of the life cycle. Regular grading helps to avoid discrepancies in
two size-classes of fish on opposite sides of the partition in the cage.
fish sizes and consequent bullying of smaller fish,which can result in
runting,i.e. poor growth induced by stress.
For example, the promoters of the Oceanglobe cage concept
envisage that their spherical cage could be partitioned so that all
Taking salmon as an example, the market will generally pay a higher
the fish are confined to one side of the partition.(See Chapter 3)
price for the larger grades, i.e. fish with an average weight of 4-6kgs
A slatted grading panel would be incorporated into the partition
consistently fetch higher prices than fish in the 1-3kg grades. Also,
so that by bringing the cage to the half-surfaced position and then
fish at a higher average weight have a lower unit cost of production
rotating it slowly, the fish would be motivated to swim down through
because the juvenile cost is spread over a greater weight. Thus, selling
the panel.Fish small enough to go through would end up on the
smaller fish,which are more expensive to produce and fetch a lower
other side of the partition.
price, is doubly disadvantageous to the fish farmer. These principles
also hold true for the other finfish species in marine cultivation.
As part of an integrated strategy to develop offshore finfish
farming techniques, projects to deal with this issue will need to
Normal grading procedure either involves ‘passive grading’,(sweep
be commissioned.Recommendations in this regard are made in
nets fitted with slatted panels through which the smaller fish can
Chapter 9.
escape back into the cage),or pumping fish across a grading grid
on the deck of a service vessel. (Fig 7.1, 7.2) For various logistical
• Net cleaning
reasons associated with both site exposure and the scale of cage
One of the greatest headaches for fish farmers, be they inshore
required,these procedures would be difficult in the proposed
or offshore, is net fouling. Fouling is the growth of unwanted
model offshore farm.
flora and fauna on the netting. The ensuing clogging of the meshes
impedes the passage of water through the cage , and this reduction
An alternative option might be to have a slatted grading panel in
in water exchange, combined with the metabolism of the fish,can
the floor of the swim-out tunnel between the on-growing cage and
result in depleted oxygen levels and elevated ammonia levels.
the transfer cage to deliver live fish to the inshore harvest site. (See
Heavy fouling can also increase current-induced drag forces on
Chapter 6) Harvest size fish would not fit through the slatted panel
all submerged equipment,potentially resulting in gear failure,
and would continue through the tunnel until they emerged into the
because of overloading.

Fig 7.1(a) Fish grading panel sown into seine net.

Grading Systems (UK) Ltd.
Fig 7.2 Sea-bream swimming through a grading panel in a

Mediterranean farm. Grading Systems (UK) Ltd.
Fouling is a particular problem inshore because of the proximity

to shorelines and reefs where the spores and larvae of fouling
Fig 7.1(b) Diagram of grading seine net. This net is deployed within a fish cage so
that a portion, or all, of the fish are captured within it. The smaller fish swim out organisms originate. Offshore sites are less prone to fouling,
through the grading panel near the top of the seine and the larger fish are retained however, if the fouling organisms are allowed to develop on
for harvesting. Grading Systems (UK) Ltd.
even one cage, they can quickly spread to adjacent cages. Once
In many inshore sites, particularly during late spring,summer and fouling becomes established at a site it can be difficult to manage,
early autumn,a cage net can become almost completely clogged particularly at times of high water temperature. Normal methods
with an assortment of algae, hydroids, and mussels within three of control include changing the nets at frequent intervals, diver
to four weeks. If this situation remains unchecked, the fish can or surface operated power washing and the use of anti-fouling
become so stressed due to oxygen depletion that major growth paint. (Fig 7.3)
penalties and even mortalities can occur.

Fig 7.4 Taut netting protects farm fish from predator attack. Here, a diver inside
Fig 7.3 Diver using a water-jet powered washer to clean a fish cage net . an Ocean Spar cage in British Columbia tempts a sea-lion with a tasty morsel.
Net Systems Inc. U.S.A. Net Systems Inc. U.S.A.
Anti-fouling paint is expensive and only gives a few weeks grace Because gravity cages are vulnerable, if they are to be employed
to a net before it has to be either washed or changed again. in proposed offshore operations, they will need to be rendered
This makes its use on giant nets almost pointless because these predator-proof through incorporating small mesh top nets with
can normally only be changed after harvest,when they are empty. adequate floating supports and using weight-rings below the net
By using special lifting gear, it may be possible to change a net on to keep them taut. (Fig 7.5)
the giant gravity cages proposed,but this is not an option in the
case of anchor-tension cages. It may be that by locating large biomasses of finfish in offshore
locations, they will attract the attention of much larger marine
In-situ washing of offshore cage nets, probably by divers, is perhaps predators such as sharks or carnivorous cetaceans. Such incidents
the only option at present. This exercise is expensive and presents are currently without precedent and may require new
significant health and safety considerations where deep nets are used. deterrent methodologies.
A number of novel approaches have been suggested.One envisages The current range of non-destructive deterrents such as acoustic
using wave action to create constant movement of brushes suspended pingers will need further refinement and it will be important in
from surface floats to clean the cages. Another solution would be to assessing site suitability that the likely occurrence of large
employ specially designed submarine robots to patrol and clean the predatory species be ascertained.
cage net on a continuous basis. This approach to cleaning would
prevent newly settled fouling organisms from becoming established. • Mortality removal
The robot would have a crawl mechanism appropriate to mesh size Given that a single cage in the finishing site of the envisaged farm
and brushes or water jets or a combination of both for cleaning. could contain up to 300,000 fish,even a relatively low natural
It could be either autonomous or have an umbilical tether for power mortality rate of 0.1% per month would result in more than 80
and control signals. This device could also be equipped with cameras dead fish,which would have to be disposed of in any given week.
and other sensory devices.
Mortality removal on conventional farms is carried out either by
The development of a specialist robotic net-cleaning system would scuba divers or by in-cage passive collection systems. The proposed
be an attractive commercial proposition even now, as the inshore offshore farm would most likely use a combination of these methods,
industry badly needs such equipment.A project in this regard might and would rely for the most part on passive collection systems.
form a useful vanguard in bringing together the multi-disciplinary
personnel necessary to address the other challenges posed by In systems of this kind the fish-cage is sloped towards a pocket
offshore finfish farming. that holds a container into which dead fish gradually tumble as
tidal currents ebb and flow. The giant cages would have one of
A recommendation in this regard is made in Chapter 9. these passive collectors located in the centre of each one. The
containers will need to have a capacity of at least one tonne
• Predation in order to accommodate the build-up of mortalities that could
Predators such as seals, sea lions and diving birds can wreak havoc occur during extended periods of weather-induced absence of a
in gravity cages systems, which are vulnerable to attack.Anchor- service vessel.
tension cages are more or less impregnable to predator attack
because of the tautness of the net and because they have a roof On a regular basis or as weather windows allow, farm workboats
or top net of the same small mesh size as the rest of the cage. would haul the containers to the surface for emptying.At this stage,
(Fig 7.4) Similar advantages apply to other systems such as divers would also carry out inspection visits to each cage and gather
AEG and submersibles like the Oceanglobe and the Sea Station. any mortalities that have missed the collection system.

The promoters of both the Oceanglobe and AEG’s cage concepts 7.3 Fish Genetics and Health Issues
have included automatic mortality collection systems in their designs.
These pump the dead fish from passive collectors to storage systems So far, this report has examined how established methodologies of fish
in the integrated feed barges. rearing in the inshore zone might be successfully transferred to offshore
operations. Although marine-farmed finfish production has consistently
The net cleaning robots referred to in the previous section could carry expanded since the 1970s, problems still exist with regard to certain
out a valuable ancillary role of picking up dead fish encountered on elements of farmed fish genetics and disease control in the inshore
their travels, and dropping them into the collection system containers. zone. These may also pose challenges in the offshore zone.
• Problems with feed pipes • Stock genetics

Maintaining the integrity of the floating pipes that deliver the feed When any organism detects a consistently plentiful supply of food
from the barge to the fish cages is a problem even in sheltered in its environment,its response is to produce more offspring.In the
inshore sites. The solution to feed pipes kinking and breaking must standard well-managed fish farm,food rains down on the fish as
lie in the use of heavily reinforced rubber hosing with flexible fixings fast as they can consume it,and the natural response of the fish is
to moorings and cage structures. A further development would be to to sexually mature as early as possible so as to take advantage of
locate the pipe-work below the surface away from the damaging the apparently bountiful environment.
effects of waves.
If a sizeable proportion of fish mature earlier than expected,the
Sub-surface pipe-work would be rendered easier to engineer if farmer is faced with disaster because the maturation process
pumped water, rather than air, was the transport medium. The induces physiological changes that compromise both flesh quality
promoters of both the Oceanglobe and the AEG concept cages and appearance. In this case, the market value of the fish can be
include this approach in their concepts. A parallel development in reduced by as much as 60-70%.
feed pellet technology would also be required to maintain pellet
integrity over a longer period of immersion than is usual. Where salmon are concerned,it is commonplace for up to 15%
of harvested fish to be downgraded because of early maturation.
• Equipment failure Occasionally, levels of 25% or more can be experienced if the stock
Being automated,the envisaged offshore farm is dependent on an is not graded early enough to remove these fish whilst still in prime
assortment of machinery and sophisticated systems. As every marine condition. The issues surrounding the grading of fish in the offshore
farmer knows, however, machinery by its very nature breaks down setting have been discussed earlier in this Chapter, and it is clear
and electronics are particularly prone to malfunctioning when in that an extra pressure such as unwanted maturation would only
proximity to saltwater. compound the existing challenge.
Because of the scale of the proposed operation,breakdowns could Similar problems occur with other species such as cod or haddock.
be costly. For example, if, due to equipment failure, the proposed At an industry level,the solution to early maturation lies in carefully
farm was to lose just 10 days per year of feeding 30 tonnes per day, breeding out early maturation tendencies. Sterile fish can also be used
annual production would fall by approximately 230 tonnes, thereby but trials of these have indicated compromised growth performance.
reducing the bottom line result by at least €400,000.Within 10
years this could accumulate to €4 million. For the individual farmer, particularly offshore, it would be vitally
important that fish strains with the lowest possible rate of early
Fail-safe procedures and a high degree of system redundancy maturation are selected.A 10,000-tonne harvest containing 2,500
must therefore be integrated into the overall package wherever tonnes of mature fish would be economically catastrophic for the
possible. Thus, on the envisaged finishing site there would have proposed operation.
to be two feed barges, each of which would be equipped to feed
the entire site in the event of one being out of action. The experience of the long established family-breeding programme,
for salmon farming,shows that it is possible to ‘tailor-make’ strains of
Each would have twin feeding systems and standby generators farmed fish for particular locations and environmental circumstances.
along with back-up emergency bilge pumping etc.Other critical As indicated in Chapter 6,planning an offshore farm requires a totally
systems such as communications and monitoring would also be integrated approach, and this would extend to the genetics of the
duplicated.Despite the initial high costs, such fail-safe systems stock as much as to the choice of equipment.
would quickly pay for themselves.
This level of equipment cost is factored into the capital cost

projections in the envisaged farm in Chapter 8.

• Stock diseases control The process must clearly demonstrate the significant benefits to the
Widespread use of fish vaccines has not only resulted in reduced local community regarding employment,improvement to infrastructure
reliance on antibiotics but has also made the fish-farmer’s life easier and business opportunities. Equally important,it must show that there
in that predictability is greatly improved and fish mortalities are less will be no unacceptable impact on scenic amenity, water quality or the
likely to reach epidemic proportions. Nevertheless, fish diseases are environment.Ideally, local communities should be given a minority equity
still a significant risk in marine finfish farming.It is likely that disease stake in large fish farm ventures so as to create a partnership that is more
risk will be somewhat lower in offshore farms because of the than simply ‘aspirational’.
optimum environment for the fish and the distance from neighbouring
farms. (See Chapter 5) This however does not rule out the absolute Even in jurisdictions where the licence application procedure is different to
requirement for careful selection of disease resistant fish strains, and that outlined above, the same principles will hold true. In keeping with the
for excellent husbandry and health monitoring practices thereafter. policy of adopting an holistic approach to planning offshore installations,
this element of the implementation strategy should be fully included.
At industry level,realisation of the increased production levels
proposed would support a stronger service and supply sector. Recommendations with regard to licencing policy issues are brought
This would inevitably include a comprehensive fish health component forward in Chapter 9.
devoted to disease prevention and treatment.If marine finfish farming
realises its developmental potential and achieves the volumes of
output as predicted in Chapter 2,then the industry as a whole will 7.4.2. Managing the risk in offshore operations
have achieved a scale comparable with that of animal agriculture.
Insurance companies, shareholders and banks may be apprehensive
This will incentivise the pharmaceutical companies to invest in the
about the proposal to have up to €3 million worth of fish in a single
necessary compliance research,so that appropriate vaccines and
cage as postulated in the 10,000 tonnes model,outlined in Chapter 6.
other products are made available to the marine finfish farming
Their biggest concern would likely centre on catastrophic failure of the
industry in the same way that they are to terrestrial farm animals.
cage caused by damage to the net or mooring lines and consequent loss
of the fish. They would also be concerned about incidents resulting in
smaller escapes of stock and breakdowns in the operating system,
7.4 Other Key Elements to Developing an
leading to loss of production efficiency.
Offshore Aquaculture Strategy
These concerns and others will need to have been taken into account
in the detailed pre-planning process, and contingencies will also need
7.4.1 Licensing/site availability
to have been made to deal with them.As stated earlier in Chapter 6
The expansion of offshore aquaculture proposed here is critically (6.2.3),the level of site investigation and equipment specification will
dependent on the support of the regulators who determine licence or lease be of a much higher order than has been customary at inshore operations.
applications. For this reason they will need to be included in discussions
around developing an offshore strategy. The regulators will also need to be The proposed offshore farm will lend itself to this approach,in that it
made aware of the supporting scientific data that confirms the minimal involves a smaller number of large containment systems. This scale of
environmental impact of offshore finfish farming as outlined in Chapter 5. growing justifies a high level of investment in each cage unit,in terms
This is important given they will be receiving site applications containing of netting materials, net-failure detection systems and in-cage robotic
previously unheard of production tonnage targets. inspection cameras. All equipment will have been rigorously tested
and will be supplied with appropriate rating and warranties from
Regulators must therefore be comfortable with the notion that a 10,000 the manufacturers.
tonnes offshore farm can be environmentally sustainable. They will need
to understand that high fixed and capital costs require that offshore Recommendations in this regard are offered in Chapter 9.
farming is carried out on a large scale. For this very reason,any proposed
compromise towards temporary or pilot sites on a smaller scale would not The same principle will hold true with regard to the staff, in so far as
be viable, as clearly demonstrated in Chapter 8. there will be relatively few personnel,but each will be highly trained in
various technical specialities. The support vessels and ancillary equipment
While consultation with other stakeholders is a mandatory part of the will also be to a very high specification,and fully certified.As discussed
environmental impact assessment process, which is a feature of the in Chapter 6 all systems will incorporate a high degree of duplication
Scottish and Irish licence application system,it is important not to take and redundancy.
a minimalist approach. If a policy of large-scale offshore aquaculture is
to be successfully pursued,the only way forward is partnership with local If such an approach were followed and the necessary equipment and
communities. This requires early consultation and negotiation with opinion systems were available, then the level of risk would be no higher than
formers and key organisations such as fishing co-operatives and tourism that experienced by inshore finfish farmers at present. Valuable lessons
bodies in the local area. in this regard could be learned from the offshore oil and gas industries.

Fig 7.5 To prevent bird and seal predation, gravity cages in offshore locations need well-supported small mesh top nets, as in the case of this farm in New Brunswick,
Canada. Nell Halse.
7.4. 3 Justifying the investment in specialist

equipment and stocks
As illustrated in Chapter 6,if one considers the cost of equipment
failure, more expensive but reliable technology will pay for itself very
quickly, with the offshore scenario. The salmon farming industry has
already committed to the high-tech route, particularly with regard
to feeding systems and appetite monitoring. These strategies have
resulted in increased scale and in significant reductions in cost
per kilo of fish produced.
In the next Chapter a detailed scenario is presented,which examines

the production costs in the postulated 10,000 tonnes offshore finfish
farm.Interestingly, if certain modest assumptions are made regarding
fish growth rate and fee conversion ratio, it may be seen that production
costs per kilo in the offshore may in fact be considerably lower than
current industry averages, as a result of the advantages of scale and
the superior growing environment.

Chapter
Can Offshore Finfish Farming
8
Be Profitable?
This Chapter presents a production model based on the widely known and accepted costs associated
with farming Atlantic salmon in sea cages. All costs are on a per cycle basis not annual.
The advantage of using salmon as a model species is that the production

costs have a high degree of inter-comparability across a wide range of
locations worldwide. The core conclusions that will be drawn from the
model will be broadly applicable to other marine farmed finfish species
such as cod, sea-bream and sea-bass.
It is acknowledged by the author that the approach used is based on a or Class 5 sites given that the technologies have not been developed
developed country end-market price for the production from the offshore to a point where realistic financial projections are possible.
unit,and assumes that raw material costs for fish feed formulation will
remain broadly stable out into the future. The model describes an Atlantic salmon farming operation,utilising
anchor-tension type cages, a 30m workboat with a large capacity deck
crane and automatic spar-type feeding barges. A pictorial representation
8.1 The Scenario can be seen in Chapter 6.
The model presented envisages an offshore marine cage operation with

an annual production capacity of 10,000 tonnes as set out in Chapter 6.
8.2 What Scale of Production?
Thus, the facility described is based on assembling a package of the best
currently available technologies, with some further development and Figure 1 summarises the projected financial performance of operating
locating them in a Class 3 ‘type’ site. It would not be possible at this our model farm at either an output of 5,000 tonnes per annum or
time to construct a meaningful model of production costs for Class 4 10,000 tonnes per annum. (Fig 8.1)
Assumptions (Fig 8.1)

FCR 1.3:1 18 month grow out cycle
Projected Fixed Capital Costs €M
Production unit Unit cost Quantity 5,000 t Quantity 10,000 t
Workboat 1.25 2 2.5 1 2.5

Feedbarges 0.9 3 2.7 3 2.7
Cages and moorings 0.6 8 4.8 14 8.4
Shore infrastructure 2.5 1 2.5 1 2.5
Monitoring/robotics 0.8 1.2
Small boats 0.04 5 0.2 5 0.2
Vehicles 0.05 5 0.25 5 0.25
Harvest cages 0.1334 3 0.40 6 0.80
Total 14.15 18.55

Projected Working Capital million €
Direct Unit cost Quantity 5,000 t Quantity 10,000 t
Production unit 5,000 10,000

Smolt,millions 1.1 1.2 1.32 2.4 2.64
Feed cost, € x tonnes 900 6500 5.85 13000 11.7
Veterinary 0.3 0.6
Direct wages 1.56 1.56
Operating costs 1.17 1.69
Stock insurance 0.3 0.6
Selling costs @ €0.45 per kg gutted fish 2.03 4.05
Total 12.53 22.84
Projected Overhead Cost €M Unit cost Quantity 5,000 t Quantity 10,000 t
Production unit 5,000 t 10,000 t

Administration 0.46 0.46
General insurance 0.26 0.26
Marketing etc 0.06 0.06
Total 0.78 0.78
Summary Table € Unit cost Quantity 5,000 t Quantity 10,000 t
Production unit 5,000 t 10,000 t

Set up cost 14,150,200 18,550,400
Depreciation cost per annum 10% 1,415,020 0.10 1,855,040
Depreciation cost per unit tonne 5000 283 10000 186
Unit tonne cost of production

Total direct cost 5000 2,506 10000 2,284
Total overhead cost 5000 156 10000 78
Total 2662 2362
Sales price per tonne (RWE) 2,970 2,970

Total cost of production per unit tonne
plus depreciation 2,945 2,548
Margin per tonne 25 422

The key assumptions in examining this proposition are that three sites Thus is may be seen that an annual output level of at least 10,000
will be required for the entire operation.A large grow-out site with tonnes will be required to generate sufficient turnover to make the
two feed barges, a secondary juvenile site with a single feed barge necessary contribution to justify the investment in fixed costs.
and a third inshore sheltered harvesting/holding site, as postulated
in Chapter 6.
8.3 The Advantages of Going Offshore
The schedule of capital expenditure for the two levels of output is
The conclusion above regarding the scale of output would hold equally
given as the first section of Fig 1.It may be seen that the same workboat
true in an inshore location and the projection in Fig 1 does not take
would be required,and that that the major variable is in the number
into account any of the possible benefits that might accrue from the
of cages. It is estimated that eleven cages would be required for the
superior environmental conditions that would be experienced in an
5,000 tonnes output,while the 10,000 tonnes output requires twenty.
offshore location.
The ‘working capital’ and ‘overhead costs’ are projected in the next
Figure 2 runs the same model again but incorporating some changes
two sections of Fig 1. Feed conversion rate is set at 1.3:1 (economic)
in the core assumptions. (Fig 8.2)
and the other variable costs are set pro rata to the level of output.
Given the high-water exchange environment experienced in the offshore

It may be seen from the summary table that there is a significant
and the very high level of expenditure in feed monitoring and control
advantage in terms of margin per tonne to the operator at the 10,000
equipment,it would not be unreasonable to project a feed conversion
tonnes per annum level of output. The unit cost of production and the
ratio of 1.1:1 and a reduction in juvenile cost because of increased
return on capital invested arising from the 5,000 tonnes per annum
survival and higher yield per smolt.When these factors are considered,
projection would make this an uneconomical proposition.Alternatively,
it may be seen from Fig 8.2 that there is a marked improvement in
at 10,000 tonnes, the economics of production start to become attractive.
the margin per tonne and a substantial reduction in the unit cost
of production,to the point where it represents an internationally
competitive position.

FCR 1.1:1 18 month grow out cycle
Production unit Unit cost Quantity 10,000 t
Workboat 1.25 2 2.5

Feedbarges 0.9 3 2.7
Cages and moorings 0.6 14 8.4
Shore infrastructure 2.5 1 2.5
monitoring/robotics 1.2
Small boats 0.04 5 0.2
Vehicles 0.05 5 0.25
Harvest cages 0.1334 6 0.8004
Total 18.55

Projected Working Capital €M
Direct
Smolt,millions 1.92
Feed cost, € x tonnes 900 11,000 9.9
Veterinary 0.6
Direct wages 1.56
Operating costs 1.69
Stock insurance 0.6
Selling costs @ €0.45 per kg gutted fish 4.05
Total 20.32
Projected Overhead Cost €M Unit cost Quantity 10,000 t
Production unit 10,000 t

Administration 0.46
General insurance 0.26
Marketing etc 0.06
Total 0.78
Summary Table € Quantity 10000 t

Set up cost 18,550,400
Depreciation cost per annum 10% 1,855,040
Depreciation cost per unit tonne 10000 185.504

Total direct cost 10000 2032
Total overhead cost 10000 78
Total 2110
Sales price per tonne (RWE) 2970

plus depreciation 2296
Margin per tonne 674

8.4 The Art of the Possible increase and the smolt cost as a proportion of unit cost will decline, also
the assets will be more productive as there will be continuous production.
It may been seen from Fig 2 above, that it is feasible to produce fish
at a very competitive unit cost of production in an offshore farm of When these elements are all taken together, it may be seen from the
10,000 tonnes per annum.Further improvements would be achievable summary table in Fig 8.3 that an extremely competitive projected unit
if the integrated approach suggested in Chapter 6 & 7 were extended cost of production and a very attractive margin per tonne are achieved.
logically to the juvenile production phase of the operation.If a specially
bred ‘jumbo’ smolt (cira.180g average weight) were available twice In summary, it may be seen from the financial projections as set out
yearly as S1 and S1/2,then a scenario could be envisaged where the above that farming marine finfish in semi-offshore conditions with current
need for the juvenile or smolt site could be eliminated altogether. technology is an economically viable prospect. This will be true only if the
The implications of this are projected in Fig 3. (Fig 8.3) right business plan is combined with appropriate choices in terms of site
selection,equipment and support infrastructure.
In this case, the capital cost for the juvenile site has been removed and
the juvenile portion of the cost per kilo is reduced because the survival These conclusions regarding scale, growth rate and yield-per-juvenile will
rate is higher and less smolts are required. The cost per smolt is kept the hold equally true for other species of farmed marine finfish. The details will
same as in Fig 8.2 as the hatchery will be more efficient with two full vary but the principles will be the same.
cycles per year going through it,despite producing a larger juvenile.
It should be acknowledged however that a successful integration of all of
By putting a much larger smolt to sea,with superior genetics for fast the required technology components has not yet been achieved and will
growth and low maturation (as discussed in Chapter 6),together with require some further development.
first rate feed control,it would be possible to reduce the growing cycle
time from approximately 18 months to 12 months at sea. Nevertheless, as a prospect it is quite feasible and it could well become
a concrete reality in the not too distant future if the necessary collaborative
Thus only one site would be used,stocked twice a year, with S1 and S1/2. structures are put in place now to iron out the remaining
It would be large enough in area to allow effective fallowing in two technology wrinkles.
‘zones’,each on an 11 1/2 month production cycle.
Once this level of operating capability is achieved,farms such as those
Such a strategy would be advantageous from a number of perspectives: projected above would in their turn become the development incubators
assets would be more productive, risk would be reduced,and overhead for the more radical technology solutions required for Class 4
and labour costs would be lower. In addition,yield per smolt will site locations.

FCR 1.1:1 12 month grow out cycle - Thus single marine site only.
Reduced smolt input 2.2 m - better survival.
The capital costs for the “smolt” site are removed.
Workboat 1.25 2 2.5

Feedbarges 0.9 3 2.7
Cages and moorings 0.6 10 6
Fully equipped shore base 2.5 1 2.5
monitoring/robotics 1.2
Small boats 0.04 5 0.2
Vehicles 0.05 5 0.25
Harvest cages 0.1334 6 0.80
Total 16.15

Projected Working Capital €M
Direct
Smolt,millions 1.76
Feed cost, € x tonnes 900 11,000 9.9
Veterinary 0.6
Direct wages 1.2
Operating costs 1.3
Stock insurance 0.6
Selling costs @ €0.45 per kg gutted fish 4.05
Total 19.41
Projected Overhead Cost €M Unit cost Quantity 10,000 t

Administration 0.35
General insurance 0.20
Marketing etc 0.06
Total 0.61
Summary Table € Unit Cost Quantity 10000 t

Set up cost 16,150,400
Depreciation cost per annum 10% 1,615,040
Depreciation cost per unit tonne 10,000 161.504

Total direct cost 10,000 1,941
Total overhead cost 10,000 61
Total 2,002
Sales price per tonne (RWE) 2,970

plus depreciation 2,164
Margin per tonne 806.50

Chapter
The Vision:
9 A Blueprint for the
‘Blue Revolution’
9.1 Introduction
As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, the case for realising the ultimate vision
of offshore finfish farming is compelling. The world’s population and world’s
seafood markets need the fish that will come from these farms. There is no
doubt that there will be a market opportunity, and the only way that it can
be fully exploited is by developing real offshore finfish farming capability.
Although the required production cannot be sourced from elsewhere, the
basic driver for development is market demand and this is as it should be.
Over and above this necessary commercial motivation,the major 9.2 Getting There
environmental benefits that will also accrue from a successful move
offshore have been examined in Chapters 5 and 7,and on their own As explained in Chapters 6 and 7,what is required to successfully
they justify the necessary effort to make open ocean farming a reality. move marine finfish farming offshore is a careful step-by-step process
characterised by high levels of pre-planning,and underpinned by
As may be seen from the results of the economic analysis in Chapter 8, focussed R&D to fill in the technology gaps that have been identified
and from the conclusions reached in the other chapters, the possibility in this report. The traditional “try it and see”type approach will not
of putting together a profitable and sustainable offshore finfish farm be adequate.
similar to that shown in Chapter 6,Fig 6.10 in a Class 3 location is
tantalisingly close. It is a firm conclusion of this report that it is not possible to move
straight to commercially viable operations in Class 4 offshore sites
This report concludes that fish will be healthier and of better quality in without moving through a developmental phase in perfecting the
an offshore environment and that this new production will be achieved equipment and techniques required for Class 3 sites (See Fig 6.10
with minimal environmental impact. Thus, offshore finfish farming has – The Next Step).Achieving this latter objective in an economically
the potential to be a truly sustainable form of development.It will bring sustainable manner is a formidable challenge in its own right,as
significant socio-economic benefits to the coastal communities where has been shown by the experience of the promoters reviewed in
the fish come ashore, health benefits to consumers and provide a Chapters 3 and 4.
valuable source of high-grade protein to the wider population.
Valuable lessons must be learnt from past mistakes, and the wasteful
In the case of Ireland,the report has identified at least fifteen Class 3 and piece-meal approach followed up to now should be exchanged
sites, with new and extra production potential of 150,000 tonnes, valued for a better developmental paradigm.
at almost half a billion Euro per annum,which would generate thousands
of additional jobs. It is recommended that the following should be used as guiding principles:
• Learn to speak a common language. Classification
Utilising such Class 3 sites as test beds for technology incubation,it systems with international acceptance need to be developed for the
will be possible to develop the extra techniques and equipment required description of offshore sites and containment systems.
to move further into the deep blue and successfully occupy Class 4 open
ocean sites. As with all journeys, this first step is the most important and • Capture the lessons to be learned. Once a common
there is some preparation required before it can be taken. nomenclature has been developed,it will be possible to make
meaningful inter-comparisons between different locations and
This game is definitely worth the candle, in Ireland equipment types so that vital trial results are not lost through
and internationally. inadequate communications.

• Spread the developmental costs. Where possible, when The mission statement might read as follows:
designing new or improved solutions for the offshore situation,the ICOAD will promote and facilitate, through all means possible,
equipment or technique created should have a ready market potential the development of suitable technologies and methodologies for
in the existing inshore sector. For example, effective automatic net- successful aquaculture operations in the offshore zone. The ultimate
cleaning robots and high capacity remote telemetry systems, necessary aim is the creation of a major offshore aquaculture industry, which
for the offshore, would also be attractive to the inshore sector and produces a significant proportion of the total world fish requirements
would thus enjoy high sales volume immediately. in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.
• Start now to educate the regulators and the public. What would ICOAD do?
The key process of generating acceptance of the necessary scale of
development of offshore farms (as demonstrated in Chapter 8) will The ICOAD organisation would become a world-class centre of excellence
take time. Experience with the development of inshore finfish farming for offshore aquaculture development and be the international focal point
has shown just how prolonged and difficult this can be. for collaboration.
• Pool knowledge and resources. Chapters 3 and 4 show It is envisaged that ICOAD would develop major international expertise
the expensive pitfalls that have dogged the development of new in sourcing the funding and creating the partnerships required to bring
technologies for offshore finfish aquaculture. Investment capital forward key offshore technology development programmes. The choke
is a precious commodity, and its impact should be maximised by an points blocking advances, identified in Chapters 6 and 7 and further
effective means of collaboration amongst offshore finfish developers. elaborated in Appendix II,would be prioritised and R&D programmes
For example, promoters who intend to rear different species will not initiated to yield solutions.
be competing with one another and could freely cooperate on a range
of equipment development projects, to solve common problems. ICOAD, if formed,will become the central communications node for
international cooperation and information dissemination and its creation
(An aspirational catalogue of desirable R&D topics in offshore finfish will accelerate the process of developing large-scale offshore aquaculture.
operations is given in Appendix II.) Members of ICOAD will have a major advantage over non-members with
regard to offshore aquaculture development in terms of gaining access
to financial and knowledge capital.It is envisaged that ICOAD will have
9.3 The Vehicle For Getting There membership from both governmental and private organisations. It will
function on a two tier basis, with some members accessing information
Following wide consultation and having carried out the reviews elaborated and attending events while others actively participate in multi-company
in Chapters 3 and 4,the author has concluded that there is an urgent R&D projects, which reflect their interests and are facilitated by ICOAD.
need for the establishment of an international body to energise and
coordinate the accelerated development of offshore finfish farming. Detailed proposals for the formation of ICOAD will be presented to the
To overcome natural reservations regarding the geographic location delegates at the ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference in October 2004.
of such an organisation and to utilise the opportunities afforded by These proposals have been developed by leading experts in the field
modern communication systems, it is proposed that this body should of building Virtual Communities from the University of Limerick,Ireland.
exist primarily in the form of a global community operating in a high-tech
virtual environment. The successful formation and operation of ICOAD would,over time, lead
to true open ocean finfish farming,leading the way in the evolution of
There exists considerable expertise in the formation and operation of the ‘Blue Revolution’.
such organisations, supported by reliable IT platforms. These technologies,
married with advanced organisational structures based on the ‘Community An artist’s impression and a detailed explanation of what such an
of Practice’ approach,have the potential to revolutionise the development operation might comprise is presented as the author’s vision of the
of offshore finfish farming. future in Fig 9.1.It is captioned:
The key recommendation of this report is that such an organisation should Offshore aquaculture: helping to restore and sustain
be founded as rapidly as possible. the ocean’s bounty.
It might be titled:
The International Council for Offshore Aquaculture

Development (ICOAD).

FUTURE FARM
One scenario for ocean farms of the future is total
submersion of not just the cage but the feed
storage and distribution system as well. The concept
illustrated shows a ‘Blimp’ cage with a capacity of
1,000 tonnes of fish,connected to a feed store
mounted on top of concrete anchors on the seabed.
The stores are refilled by pumping from a visiting
feed supply ship that moors to a surface buoy.
The surface buoy contains electricity generation

systems, which supply power to feeding,monitoring
and control systems. It also contains data processing
and transmission hardware, which facilitates remote
operation of the entire system from land.
To harvest, the cage is disconnected,floated to the

surface and towed to an inshore location where the
fish are removed as required.An alternative scenario
would be to have feed supply pipes radiating out
from the feed store along the seabed to an array of
additional ‘Blimps’.
Appendix I
Health benefits of fish as human food Eating fish is also important in the prevention of heart disease.
Again in The Okinawa Way, the author states: ‘There has been a
Throughout the world fish is increasingly perceived as a healthy food
wealth of evidence to support eating Omega-3 foods including fatty
option,and this perception is backed up by numerous research findings
fish like salmon, tuna, and mackerel. The initial observations of very
and health reports. It is now an accepted medical fact that eating fish
low death from heart attacks in Inuit (Eskimo) populations – despite a
is good,if not essential,for both brain and body.
diet high in total fish consumption – led to research that demonstrated
the blood thinning qualities of Omega–3 fatty acids. These fatty acids
In the case of the brain,Omega-3 fats - EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid)
were obtained mostly from saltwater fish’.
and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) - are integral components of the
myelin sheath around neurons and are essential ingredients in the
Finally, the author concludes: ‘This is all to say that if you’re a meat
synthesis of prostaglandins, which are extremely active hormone-like
eater, make the switch to fish and keep your arteries clean. Fish is one
substances. In the brain, prostaglandins regulate the release and
of the most heart-healthy foods you can eat. The Omega-3 fats in fish
performance of neurotransmitters, and low levels are known to
acts as a platelet inhibitor and keeps them from forming clots in the
be associated with various conditions, including depression
coronary arteries and elsewhere. That’s actually why Omega-3 fats are
and schizophrenia.
present in coldwater or saltwater fish. They keep the blood thin and
flowing freely, like anti-freeze for your car in the winter’.
It is this involvement of Omega-3 fats in the basic physiology of
the brain that accounts for the growing evidence of their ability
This type of information on the health benefits of eating fish is
to improve learning and alleviate behavioural problems, attention
compelling and is no longer confined to the pages of medical journals
deficit disorder, depression and schizophrenia.
and obscure self-improvement publications. It is found in the magazines
and newspapers that ordinary people are reading on a daily basis. For
A diet rich in Omega-3 fats has also been shown to improve children’s
instance, an edition of Now magazine published earlier this year cited
performances in IQ tests. In addition, a recent study of over 1,000
Hollywood’s latest craze:the ‘Perricone diet’,which ‘pledges to reduce
elderly people at Tufts University, USA,has shown that candidates
wrinkles and improve facial sagging’. The magazine explains that the
whose diets were rich in DHA were 48% less likely to develop
diet was ‘devised by US dermatologist Dr Nicholas Perricone (and that)
Alzheimer’s disease compared with those whose diets were low
the key is eating fish three times a day in order to benefit from essential
in DHA.‘These dramatic results show how older adults can play a
fatty acids that stimulate nerve function and ‘plump out’ skin. Wild
significant role in their own neurological health by increasing their
coldwater fish such as salmon, mackerel, and trout have the highest
intake of fish,fish oil,and especially DHA,’ stated Ernst Schaefer, a
levels. At the same time, Dr Perricone says that protein rich fish are
senior scientist and director of the Lipid Metabolism Laboratory at
crucial in keeping facial lines at bay.’
Tufts. (Intrafish News 17/11/03)
Over the past decade, the effect of global advertising on the health
The benefits to the human body of eating fish are many, and one
benefits of eating oil-rich fish has lead to a dramatic increase in its
of the most topical is their role in breast cancer prevention.In a
consumption,especially amongst populations not traditionally
fascinating study into the health and longevity of Okinawans, entitled
associated with a high seafood diet.
The Okinawa Way, the author notes: ‘Three populations – Okinawans,
Japanese, and Inuit – that consume fish at least three times per week
have a much lower breast cancer risk. This fact has been confirmed in
a range of studies. The connecting thread here may be fish oil, which
is rich in Omega-3 fatty acids and appears to be active in breast
cancer prevention’ .
v Farming the Deep Blue

Appendix II
Aspirational Catalogue of Desirable R&D Topics 4b. Using data from Projects 2a and 4a,develop more appropriate
in Offshore Finfish Operations floating cage designs.
1. Standards 4c. Assess the performance of novel cage systems in offshore sites,
and identify directions for further development.
1a. Development of an internationally-agreed classification system
for aquaculture cage sites, based on wave height,length and period. 4d. Using data from Projects 2a and 4c,develop successful novel
It may also be necessary to include aspects relating to current speed cage designs.
in this system
4e. Design and develop submersible cage systems.
1b. Development of an internationally-agreed standard based on
design and construction techniques for aquaculture equipment. 4f. Design and develop suitable mooring systems.
An important objective of this standard should be that equipment
is graded according to what type of site it is suitable for, by using
the site classification system arising from Project 1a above 5. Feeding systems
5a. Assess the performance of existing feeding systems in offshore
2. Environment sites and identify directions for further development.
2a. Establishment of a detailed catalogue of the stresses and strains 5b. Based on data from Projects 2a and 5a,develop feeding systems
to which moored and towed equipment is subjected to under various suitable for offshore use.
conditions of wave, current and wind. This is essential in order to
inform proper design,which would be carried out through desk-study, 5c. Develop suitable pipe systems that will deliver feed from
modelling,tank-tests and empirical work such as load measurement permanently moored feed barges to submerged and floating fish cages.
on aquaculture equipment in situ.
2b. Monitoring of benthic and water quality impacts of large-scale 6. Monitoring and Control
offshore operations
6a. Assess the methods of wireless data transmission systems currently
2c. Development of sonar systems capable of detecting reductions in in use in offshore aquaculture and in other marine applications, and
cage fish biomass arising from escapes. identify options for further development or direct application.
6b. Based on data from Project 6a,test various data transmission

3. Which fish species? systems on existing offshore farms.
3a. Review Atlantic and Mediterranean fish species in terms of quality, 6c. Based on data from Projects 6a and 6b, test wireless data
yield and suitability as new candidates for finfish farming. transmission systems for the remote operation of:
• feeding system control
3b. Development of culture methodology for species selected under
3a.above.
• subsurface video monitoring of the fish and equipment
4. Cages • sonar monitoring of fish and feed consumption
4a. Assessment of the performance of existing conventional floating • equipment monitoring systems, such as load meters and mooring
cage systems in offshore sites, and identification of where the lines and bilge-water levels in feed barges
problems arise.
Farming the Deep Blue vi

• net integrity monitoring systems 8c. Promote the commercial availability of increased ranges of fish
vaccines and fish medications
• low impact probes attached to a small sample of the fish
monitoring critical physiological parameters such as heart 8d. Development of breeding programmes that select for factors such as:
rate, blood-oxygen levels or levels of the stress-indicating fish growth,disease resistance, late maturation and finish quality
hormone, cortisol
8e. Development of predictive methods that forecast jellyfish and
• in-cage probes monitoring critical water quality parameters such algae blooms
as oxygen levels, ammonia levels, turbidity and temperature.
Data from these probes would be combined with that collected
from state-sponsored ocean monitoring buoys to give a Industry involvement in research and
comprehensive picture of unfolding environmental events development
Research and development in offshore aquaculture must be grounded
• security systems based on radar and video cameras
in commercial reality. This would be best achieved through strong industry
participation in the proposed offshore institute so that practitioners have a
• data processing and a systems control package that integrates all
significant input into prioritising and selecting projects. New technologies
of the above systems
should be piloted in an offshore environment as soon as practicable so
that unforeseen problems can be resolved by the time a product becomes
7. Housekeeping commercially available.
7a. Commission a study on possible anti-fouling strategies in order to

determine likely technologies for offshore aquaculture use. The oil and
shipping industries are particularly knowledgeable in this regard
7b. Develop net-fouling prevention methods and net-cleaning systems.

These might include new net construction materials and techniques
plus remotely-operated,robotic cleaning systems
7c. Promote the incorporation of mortality collection systems into all

cage design options
7d. Develop mortality collection robots and ROVs. There may be some
overlap here with development of net-cleaning robots
7e. Promote the inclusion of a passive fish grading system as a design

criterion for all offshore cage types
8. General finfish farming issues

There are many issues regarding RTDI that are not exclusive to the
offshore zone but are critical to the success of finfish aquaculture
regardless of where it is carried out.It is debatable whether these
should be on the agenda of the proposed Institute but the most
important ones include the following:
8a. Replacement of fishmeals and fish oils as constituents in fish feed.
8b. Development of commercially viable sterile fish strains in order to

both address early maturation problems in aquaculture and to mitigate
genetic impacts of escapees on wild fish.
vii Farming the Deep Blue

Bibliography
Farming the Deep Blue – Bibliography Black,K.D. 2001. Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture.
(The bibliography contains titles of documents referenced in the report Sheffield Academic Press Ltd,Mansion House, 19 Kingfield Road,
and other useful sources of information) Sheffield S119AS, UK.
Ablett,R.F.,C.R.Marr and J.D. Roberts. 1989. Influence of chronic Bridger, C.J. and B.A.Costa-Pierce, editors. 2003. Open Ocean
subsurface retention on swimming activity of Atlantic salmon (salmo salar) Aquaculture: From Research to Commercial Reality. The World Aquaculture
in cold temperature conditions. Aquaculture Engineering 8:1 - 13. Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,United States.
Anonymous 2000. Irish Aquaculture The Future, Strategies for Meeting the Bridger, C.J.2004. Exposed Aquaculture Site Development in the Bay of
Global Seafood Challenge. The Circa Group Europe Ltd., 26 Upper Fundy:A Feasability Report.New Brunswick Salmon Grower’s Association,
Pembroke St.Dublin 2. 226 Lime Kiln Road,Letang,NB Canada E5C 2A8.
Anonymous 2002. Yearbook of Fishery Statistics 2002.Aquaculture De Silva, S.S. 2001. A global perspective of aquaculture in the new
production. Vol.94/2 FAO. millennium.In R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E.
McGladdery & J.R.Arthur, eds. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium.
Anonymous 2003. Committee on Fisheries. Report of the second session Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third
of the Sub-Committee on Aquaculture. Trondheim,Norway, 7-11 August Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand,20-25 February 2000.pp. 431-459.NACA,
2003. FAO Bangkok and FAO, Rome.
Anonymous 2004. New research says Omega -3s can reduce pain of Delgado, C., Wada, N.,ROSEGRANT, M.W.,Meijer, S. and AHMED, M.
genetic abnormalities. Intrafish web-site 5/04/2004. 2003 Outlook for Fish to 2020 - Meeting Global Demand.
2020 Vision Food Policy Report - A 2020 Vision for Food,Agriculture, and
Anonymous 2002. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO. the Environment Initiative. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Anonymous 2000. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO.
Frantsi,C., C.Lanteigne, B. Blanchard,R.Alderson, S. Lall, S.Johnson,
Anonymous 2002. World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO. S. Leadbeater, D. Martin-Robichaud and P. Rose. 2002.
Haddock culture in Atlantic Canada.Bulletin of the Aquaculture
Anonymous 2003: Aquaculture - not just an export industry. Web article, Association of Canada 102 - 1:31 - 34.
August 2003, FAO.
Fredriksson D.W.,M.R.Swift,E.Muller, K.Baldwin and B. Celikkol .2002.
Aqua-fact,2001. Review of Benthic Conditions at Irish Fish Farms Open ocean aquaculture engineering :System design and physical
Aqua-Fact International Services Ltd,12,Kilkerrin Industrial Estate, modelling.Marine Technology Society Journal 34:41 - 52.
Liosbaun,Galway, Ireland.
Fredriksson, D.W.,M.R.Swift, J.D. Irish,I.Tsukrov, B. Celikkol.2003.
Biran,A.B. 1999. Proceedings of the Workshop on Offshore Technologies Fish cage and mooring system dynamics using physical and numerical
for Aquaculture, Technion, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,Haifa,Israel, models with field measurements. Aquaculture Engineering 27:117 - 146.
October 1998. Technion, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion City,
Haifa 32000,Israel.
Farming the Deep Blue viii

Goudey, C.A.1999. Design and analysis of a self-propelled open-ocean Steffania, V. 2003. Overview of Fish Production,Utilisation,Consumption
fish farm. Pages 65 - 77 in R.R.Stickney, compiler. Joining forces with and Trade. FAO
industry, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Open
Ocean Aquaculture. May 10 -15 1998.Corpus Christi, Texas. Stickney. R. R.,compiler. 1999. Joining forces with industry. Proceedings
TAMU - SG - 99 -103. of the Third International Conference on Open Ocean Aquaculture.
May 10 -15 1998.Corpus Christi,TX.USA. TAMU - SG - 99 -103.
Helsley. C.E.,editor 1998. Open Ocean Aquaculture '97, Charting the
Future of Ocean Farming.Proceedings of an International Conference. Tacon,A.J.,2002. Aquaculture Production Trends Analysis. FAO
April 23-25,1997.Maui,HI,USA.University of Hawaii Sea Grant College.
Watson,L.2003. Seahorses to Sea Urchins, The Next Big Splash in Irish
Holford, P. 2003. Optimum Nutrition for the Mind.383 pp. Judy Piatkus Aquaculture. BIM,Crofton Road,Dun Laoghaire, Dublin,Ireland.
(Publishers) Limited, 5 Windmill St,London W1T 2JA.
Welch,L.2004. Federal Government works to establish offshore fish
Loverich, G.F. and C.Goudey. 1996. Design and operation of an offshore farming rules. Web-posted 2004 msfish@alaska.com
sea farming system. Pages 495 - 512 in M. Polk,editor. Open ocean
aquaculture. Proceeding of an international conference. May 8-10,1996 Willcox, B.,Willcox,C.,and Suzuki,M. 2001. The Okinawa Way.
Portland,Maine. New Hampshire / Maine Sea Grant College Program 484 pp Penguin Books Ltd.,80 Strand,London WC2R ORL,England.
Rpt.# UNHMP - CP - SG- 96-9.
Loverich, G.F. and L.Gace. 1998. The effect of currents and waves on
several classes of offshore sea cages. Pages 131 - 144 in C.E.Helsley,
editor. Open Ocean Aquaculture '97,Charting the Future of Ocean
Farming.Proceedings of an International Conference. April 23-25,1997.
Maui,Hawaii,University of Hawaii Sea Grant College
Programe #CP - 98 – 08
Muir, J. and Basurco, B.,editors 2000. Mediterranean Offshore

Mariculture. Zaragoza:CIHEAM (Centre International de Hautes Etudes
Agronomiques Mediterraneennes),2000. 215 pp. ( Serie B :Etudes et
Recherches, No. 30 Options Mediterraneennes).
Petrell,R.J. and R.E.Jones 2000. Power requirement of swimming in

chinook salmon and Atlantic salmon and implications for food conversion
and growth performance. Aquaculture Engineering 22:225 - 239.
Polk.M.: editor 1996. Open ocean aquaculture. Proceeding of an

international conference. May 8-10,1996 Portland,ME.USA.
New Hampshire / Maine Sea Grant College Program
Rpt.# UNHMP - CP - SG - 96 - 9.
Reidy, S.P., S.R. Kerr and J.A.Nelson.2000. Aerobic and anaerobic

swimming performance of individual Atlantic cod. The Journal of
Experimental Biology 230:347 - 357.
Rubach, S. And Y.S. Svendsen.1993. Salmon farming in submergible

cages? Pages 237 -239 in E.Reinertsen, L.A.Dahle, L.Jørgensen and K.
Tvinnereím,editors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Fish Farming Technology. Balkema,Rotterdam.
ix Farming the Deep Blue

Acknowledgements
Firstly I would like to acknowledge my late father who, as one of the Ove Martin Grontvedt,Marine Harvest,Norway.
leaders of the Green Revolution in Ireland in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s, Nell Halse, Cooke Aquaculture, Canada.
always held that the ocean was the next frontier for farming. Lars Petter Hansen,Institute for Nature Research,Norway.
Mary Hensey, Glan-uisce Teo, Ireland.
I could not have produced this document without the help and generosity Knut Hjelt,FHL,Norway.
of a lot more people than I ever thought would be necessary. This being Hunt Howell,University of New Hampshire, USA.
my first publication,Gillian Mills as editor had the unenviable task of Harald Jelsa,Akvasmart,Norway.
training me in the art of communicating clearly and succinctly. Andrew Vigfus Johansen,Stofnfiskur, Iceland.
Storey, Canada,has been a great friend,collaborator and sounding board Andy Johnson,Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance, Scotland.
throughout the project – there were more than a few heated transatlantic Angus Johnson,Johnson Sea Farms, Shetland Islands.
phone calls as we tried to reach agreement on the likely future of marine Gordon Johnson,Grading Systems, Shetland,Scotland.
cage farming.Donal Maguire, BIM,has been a mentor all along and Graeme Johnson,Universal Nets, Australia.
contributed many critical finishing touches. Eoin Sweeney, Ken Whelan Vad Jorn,Marine Construction,Norway.
and Dave Jackson of the Marine Institute reviewed the first draft and Chris Kennedy, Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance, New Zealand.
the document has benefited significantly from their suggestions. Mark Kilroy, Bonnar Engineering,Ireland.
Jorgen Krokstad,SINTEF, Norway.
I particularly wish to thank my partner, Kathleen Nee and my children, Endre Kvalheim, Byks, Norway.
Conor, Aedin and Marcus for their forbearance and their help with the John Lambe, Ireland.
typing. Thanks also to John Costelloe and Brendan O Connor of Aquafact Gustavo Larazabel,ADSA,Canary Islands.
for the great photographs and their patient help with the environment Martin Lee, Morenet,Ireland.
chapter. Equal thanks to Lucy Watson,BIM,who was press-ganged at Darko Lisac,Refamed,Italy.
the last minute to help with the financial chapter. Trond Lysklaett,Aqualine, Norway.
Barra Mcdonald,Marine Harvest,Scotland.
Many others have been of invaluable assistance in so many ways - Joe McElwee, TIC Teo, Ireland.
crystallising ideas, providing information,giving encouragement,and in Abel Mendez,Izar Fene, Spain.
contributing the many impressive photographs and illustrations which Kjell Midling,Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Norway.
are the backbone of the document. They include: James Muir, Stirling University, Scotland.
Anthony Murphy, Ireland.
Carmelo Agius, University of Malta. Kevin Murphy, Marine Harvest,Ireland.
Neil Bass, Ireland. Deirdre Moore, BIM,Ireland.
Bernardo Basurco, CIHEAM,Spain. Frank O Reilly, O Reilly Design,Ireland.
Morten Berntsen,National Institute of Technology, Norway. John Offord,Gael Force, Scotland.
Leonid Bugrov, Sadco Shelf, Russia. Brian O Hanlon,Snapperfarm, Puerto Rico.
Luis Cabello, Spain. Owen Powys, Arena, UK.
Chris Beattie, Nutreco, UK. Abdon Ryan,Ireland.
Ben Dallaghan,BIM,Ireland. Mary Ryan,Ireland.
Anna Doyle, Ireland. Sheila Ryan,Ireland.
Dave Garforth,Skretting, Ireland. Trond Severinsen,Akvasmart,Norway.
Phil Dobson,Aquaculture Engineering Group, Canada. Bruce Smith,Bruce L.Smith and Associates, Scotland.
John-Atle Figenshau, Polarcirkel,Norway. Jamey Smith,New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association, Canada.
Richie Flynn,Irish Salmon Growers Association,Ireland. John Stephanis, Selonda Aquaculture, Greece.
Iain Forbes, Fusion Marine, Scotland. Aoife Stokes, Ireland.
David W. Fredriksson,University of New Hampshire, USA. Paula Sylvia,Hubbs Sea World,California,USA.
Langley Gace, Net Systems Inc USA. Daniel Toal,University of Limerick,Ireland.
Maeve Gilmartin,Marine Institute, Ireland. Robin Turner, Seawork,Scotland.
Jonathan Grubb, Scotland. Alex Veitch, The Vard Partnership, Ireland.
Farming the Deep Blue x

Farming The Deep Blue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Farming The Deep Blue

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

Farming The Deep Blue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deep Blue report 10 9/27/04 1:20 PM Page 1

Deep Blue report 10 9/27/04 1:20 PM Page 2

The introduction sets the scene for the required development of

1:1 Definition of offshore aquaculture

Chapter 2: Offshore aquaculture:

Chapter 2 assesses the projected global demand for increasing

Chapter 3: Aquaculture technologies p10

Chapter 3 reviews offshore farming technologies currently

3.4 Net Cleaning

But the offshore environment is a challenging one for people. We

Farming the Deep Blue i

ii Farming the Deep Blue

• An exciting prospect arising from the scale of the envisaged offshore

How should it be done?

• The key recommendation of this report is that an international body

The author suggests that it be called: The International Council

Farming the Deep Blue iii

Very often,the consumers of our product know little or nothing about

This report,and the upcoming ‘Farming the Deep Blue’ conference,

iv Farming the Deep Blue

Farming the Deep Blue 1

2 Farming the Deep Blue

Farming the Deep Blue 3

1.3 Fish farming in Ireland today

Ireland’s current National Development Plan (2000-2006) envisages

4 Farming the Deep Blue

Since then the industry has grown,and production peaked at 25,000

Farming the Deep Blue 5

6 Farming the Deep Blue

Before assessing the strategies required to develop offshore aquaculture

2.2 The Supply/Demand Outlook for

Farming the Deep Blue 7

8 Farming the Deep Blue

Taking these and other factors into account,marine finfish aquaculture

If this increase is divided between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on

2.4 The Case for Offshore Fish Farming

Chapter 1 refers to constraints on expansion within inshore aquaculture

Assuming that production in the Atlantic inshore zone increases to

Farming the Deep Blue 9

10 Farming the Deep Blue

3.2 Containment Systems 3.2.1 Type 1: Gravity cages

The results, however, have been mixed,with operators being challenged

Despite these issues, however, significant amounts of fish are produced

Of particular interest is the apparent ‘overnight success’ of the tuna

Farming the Deep Blue 11

Fig 3.3(a) Ocean Spar cage, Net Systems Inc.

Fig 3.2(b) Sadco Shelf cage concept. Sadco Shelf, Russia.

12 Farming the Deep Blue

The industry has developed a collapsible cage collar for transportation

Farming the Deep Blue 13

3.2.2 Type 2:Anchor-tension cages

Development and commercialisation of the Ocean Spar cage system

14 Farming the Deep Blue

3.2.3 Type 3: Semi-rigid cages

The scope of the Sea Station is currently limited to relatively small

Farming the Deep Blue 15

3.2.5 Proposed Type 5:Tension-leg cages • Enclosure systems

16 Farming the Deep Blue

Farming the Deep Blue 17