The role of Acoustic Feeding Systems in the Industrialisation of Shrimp Farming

Ross Dodd

Managing Director – AQ1 Systems P/L

Speaker Background

• Tasmanian Salmon Industry 1987 to 1993 – Company Secretary of Saltas P/L the foundation company of the Tasmanian salmon industry

– Executive Director of the Tasmanian Salmon Industry Association

– Member of the Tasmanian salmon industry R&D Committee

• Aquasmart International AS 1994-2003 – Founder of Aquasmart who commercialized the first closed feeding system in finfish aquaculture.

– Aquasmart merged with two Norwegian companies to form AKVA Group the largest Aquaculture technology company in the world.

• Myriax P/L 2004 - 2010 – Echoview the global leader in scientific level fisheries acoustics analysis software

• AQ1 Systems 2010- 2017 – Global leader in Tuna feeding control and biomass estimation systems

– Global leader in passive acoustic shrimp feeding and production control systems

AQ1 Company Background

AQ1 Technology is used on 29 species of Fish and Shrimp in 38 countries

Key Factors in Aquaculture Industrialisation

• Genetics

• Feeds

• Production Systems

• Economies of Scale

• Disease Management

Where is shrimp farming on the industrialization scale?

Industrialisation Status High Value Aquaculture Species

Genetics Feeds Production Systems

Economies of Scale

Salmon

Bass & Bream

Snapper

Kingfish

Bluefin Tuna

Shrimp

Modern Industrial Style Marine Fish Farming was pioneered by the Norwegian Salmon industry

Over the last 40 years there has been a full

industrialization of many high value marine finfish industries

Developments in Feed Formulation & Feeding Systems

has provided enormous productivity gains

Evolution of salmon feeds

Moist feeds

Pelleted feeds

Extruded feeds

- Fish meal replacement

- Micro nutrients

- Vegetable protein sources

1970

2018

The Impact

• FCR reduced from >7 to 1.1

• Feed cost per kg reduced > 70%

• Labor cost to feed fish reduced > 80%

• Wild fish products (fishmeal & oil) in

farmed fish can be totally eliminated

Kingfish Bream Bass & Snapper have all benefitted from Salmon feed advances

Evolution of Feed Delivery

Hand Feeding

Cannon

Feeding

Centralised Feeding Systems

Automatic

Feeders

Surface visualization – 3% of cage volume

The Solution – Sensor Based Feeding Control

- Infra Red Sensors

- DO, Temp, Current

Refilling

The Solution – Feed Cameras

Feed Cameras

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Serie1

Normal variation in appetite registered by using AQ300

Can this be achieved without feeding control?

Daily Feed Consumption – Atlantic salmon (Norway)

Atlantic salmon – Preferential feeding time

• Multiple feeds

per day (100-

400gms)

• 2-3 feeds/day in

late summer early

autumn

• Major extended

morning feed in

winter with smaller

meal towards dusk

• Evening feed

increases as water

temperatures rise

in spring

• Single major feed

in morning as fish

increase to 4kg

and temperature

rises above

optimum

Spring smolt - late October entry and

January harvest (14 months)

Original research

by Peter Blyth at

Huon Aqua – This

is consistent with

AQ1 data from

many locations

around the world

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fre

qu

en

cy

(%

)

0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

207 Companies

AQ1 cages

Results for 207 Norwegian companies – (data provided by Norway Fishery

Directorate) compared with all 50 sites fed with AQ1 feed control system

Industry

Average

FCR 1.22

AQ1 user

average

FCR 1.06

Feeding Control – Improvements in FCR Atlantic salmon, Norway

Saving U$77,000 of

feed in one 400t cage

DORIS – Salmon Feed Hardness Testing

• Feed is blown 800m down poly pipes at 20m/second

• Salmon do not eat broken pieces or dust

• <1% breakage or dust

• Half of the salmon feed R&D relates to physical characteristics

95% of Sea Cage Salmon fed with centralized feeding systems

Replicate Feed Trials

Perfect feeding control where fish can be fed to satiation without waste allows the farmer to truly assess feed performance

Marine Harvest Scotland

32 – 5m x 5m cages – Atlantic Salmon

Cargill Feed Trial Unit - Chile

12 – 5m x 5m cages – Rainbow Trout, Coho & Atlantic Salmon

AQ1 Feeding Research Project - Culmarex, Spain

12 – 40m circles – Sea Bass & Bream

FCR Results - Bass & Bream Interactive Feedback (AQ1) vs. Manual Control

Sea Bass (Spain)

1.161.36

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Feb-July '00. Start and End

Wts. 35 & 135g approx.

Bio

. F

CR

AQ1 FCR

Control FCR

Sea Bream (Greece)

1.60

1.86

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Nov. '99 - May '00 Start & End

Wts. 85 & 215g approx.

•Data presented as means (of 3 replicate cages) + S.E.

•Trials carried out by Chronobiology Group, Murcia University in collaboration with industry.

•Production data analysed by Fish Biology Group, Glasgow University

Aquaculture Effluent & the Environment – Nutrient Sources

food

ingest digest

absorb and metabolise body tissue

Uneaten food (e.g. broken pellets, dust, overfeeding)

faeces (undigested food, mucus & sloughed intestinal cells)

excretory products

solid wastes

dissolved wastes

All nutrient wastes are derived directly or indirectly from feeding

Potential Impacts of Cage Wastes on Marine Sediments

solid wastes

• around 200 - 400 kg solids produced per tonne fish production • most settles in immediate vicinity of the cages

background opportunistic azoic

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance from cage E40

Se

dim

en

t ca

rbo

n (

gC

/m2

)

With

Without

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Distance from cage E40

Se

dim

en

t ca

rbo

n (

gC

/m2

)

With

Without

Average = 23.5% (SD ± 1.38) decrease in predicted sediment carbon input over the production period using AQ1 adaptive feeding system

Modelled comparison – With and Without Feeding Control

Bluefin Tuna Feeds

Raw Fish Moist Diets - Skretting Pelleted Feed

Illinois Soybean Assoc

Bluefin Tuna Feeding Delivery & Control

Hand Feeding Raw Fish – Mechanised “Throwers” now used

No control and sub optimal feeding regimes – very high FCR >12:1

AQTV Pro – Tuna Feeding Control

Formulated Feed & AQTV reduced FCR by 75%

Shrimp Feeds and Feeding Methods

Feed formulation and feeding management is even more important in

shrimp farming because the impacts of under and over feeding on

commercial and environmental sustainability are more acute.

- N Leaching

- Cannabolism

- Low survival

- Bacterial proliferation

- Pond chemistry

- Utrafication of the pond bottom

- Poor FCR & Growth

The value of providing high quality feeds that are delivered precisely

is crucial

Shrimp Feeding Methods - Inaccurate

Feed tray used

to check feed

2-4 times a

day

Truck & blower

Hand feed from canoe Timer feeder

Our Current Approach

SF200 System Coverage

• Ponds 0.05ha to 35ha

• Densities 6-350m/2

• 5 Species

• 24 Countries

SF200 Controller

• Purpose designed micro-controller

• Wireless comms.

• 2 hydrophones inputs (2 ponds)

• RS485 and 4-20mAmp inputs for

environmental monitoring and control

Hydrophone (Underwater Microphone)

Deployed mid water Size of a finger

Saudi Arabia

Ecuador

Vietnam

USA

Venezuela

Thailand

New Caledonia

AQ1 Sound Feeding Technology AQ1 Activity Sig Proc©

• Detection and differentiation of feeding sounds as opposed to other sounds in the pond

• Complex Adaptive© shrimp feeding algorithms to self regulate intake

• Developed for P. monodon (black tiger), P. japonicus (kuruma), L. vannamei (white), F. indicus (Indian) and L. stylirostris (blue)

• 5 years in testing and development

• Strong relationship between feeding sound activity and feed intake (R² = 0.8236)

• Use of feed tray to “ground truth” system

P. monodon L. vannamei Feed Tray

Sound Feeding System – How it Works

System continually varies feed rate (blue) to match feeding activity (red)

Confirms all food is consumed regularly

Feed Delivery Rate (Blue) Feeding Activity (Red)

Sound Feeding System – Reports

Sound Feeding System – Farm Maps and Status

SF200 Aeration and Environmental Control

Control feeding in relation

to oxygen and temperature

Manage aeration to

minimise electricity

costs and optimise

pond conditions

SF200 System – Environmental Control

System stopped feeding when DO <2.5mg/l and temperature >34⁰C

Under feeding

when SF System

programmed to

stop feeding during

bad environmental

conditions

Only 10 hours of

feeding opportunity

SF200 System - Ensures all feed is consumed

Pond bottom clean after 3 production cycles in Semi Intensive Ponds – New Caledonia

Sound Feeding System - Global Results Survey

Sound Feeding System Benefits

Growth FCR Survival t/ha

Semi Extensive Ponds (8-15PL/m2) 18.6% 25.1% 23.0% 31.1%

Semi Intensive Ponds (15-40PLm2) 34.9% 18.3% 14.5% 32.7%

Intensive Ponds (40-120PL/m2) 16.9% 15.2% 3.0% 15.8%

Average gain all ponds and species 23.5% 19.5% 13.5% 26.5%

• Survey of farmers in 9 countries

• Ponds 0.05ha to 35ha

• 4 species - vannamei, monodon, japonicus & stylirostris

Kasetsart University – Feeding Method Research at Tawee Farm

Feeding Method Growth

(Gms/day) MBW

(Grams)

Food Conversion

Rate

Basic Feeder

0.21

16.9

1.42

Hand Feeding

X 4 daily

0.18

15.9

1.55

SF200

0.24

24.5

1.30

Growth increase 23.1% FCR improvement 12.5%

Thailand

Water Quality Analysis for Different Feeding Methods Kasetsart University Trial at Tawee Farm

Mean ± standard deviation of water quality parameters for the three feeding treatments were:

Sound Feeding

System – SF200

Auburn University Trial 2016 & 2017 - Feeding Techniques

Trt 1=Standard feeding protocol (SFP):

FCR 1.2, growth rate 1.3 g/wk and mortality 25%/16 wk

Ration divided into 2 hand feedings/day

Trt 2= SFP plus 15% more from weeks 8-16

Trt 3= SFP plus 15% divided into multiple feedings/day using solar timer feeders

Trt 4=AQ1 Sound Feeding System with acoustic feedback - Max 12kg/day feeding between 8am-7pm

Auburn University Trial 2016 - Feeding Techniques

Auburn University Trial 2016 - Feeding Techniques

Auburn University - Economic Data

Treatment Feed Cost

(USD)

Feed Input

(kg) Shrimp value (USD)

Partial Income

(USD)

SFP1 284.06a 285.63a 1,181.00a 906.80a

SFP+15% 310.20a 312.86a 1,177.60a 877.30a

Timer* 315.89a 318.78a 1,344.60a 1,038.60a

AQ1 507.88b 518.78b 1,989.80b 1,491.80b

P-Value <.0001 <.0001 0.0005 0.0023

PSE2 19.049 19.843 104.81 92.837

• All values are per 0.1ha pond

• Shrimp value estimated based on local farm-gate prices at each size class

• Partial Income=Shrimp value less Feed cost

*One pond excluded due to low DO and high mortality

AQ1 increased growth by 32% and revenue by 48%

Shrimp Feeding Changed Forever

• Feeding by hand 1 to 2 times per day with large water stable feed will become a thing of the past

• Distributing feed up to 30 times an hour 24 hours a day with automatic feeders and acoustic feeding control

• Thailand made this change 8 years ago

How will feed companies & feeding technology suppliers work together in shrimp farming?

The Challenges – Physical Chacteristics

• Dust

• Lumps

• Big hard feeds

• Crunch

Conclusion

Massive Opportunity to Advance Shrimp Farming Productivity and Sustainability

• 50%+ productivity gains available

• High Quality Feeds – Formulation and physical characteristics.

• Precise Feed Delivery