Opening a Can of Whoop Ass

Hi everyone! I think it’s really important to address some misconceptions and misinformation that have been circulating, especially regarding  various aquaponics claims. I believe it’s high time we shine a light on some of these inaccuracies in a constructive manner.

For example, the UVI system has claimed to produce 5 MT of tilapia annually in 4 rearing tanks with a total volume of 31.2 cubic meters. This figure suggests an impressive yield of over 160 kg m³ per year. However, based on the information available, it appears that there might be some discrepancies in these claims.

Firstly, their own report indicates that the system volume is actually 110 m³, not 31.2 (that’s a significant difference).

Secondly, the reported annual fish biomass harvest is 4.46 MT, not 5 MT, and it seems this figure includes the biomass of the fish that were initially stocked. It’s important to note that these fish averaged about 70 grams each at the start, which is a common practice, but does complicate the numbers a bit, especially when trying to assess growth rates.

Lastly, if we calculate the increase in biomass by considering the reported harvest minus the initial biomass, the effective yield comes out to about 3.92 MT. When applied to the actual system volume, this results in a yield of approximately 35.65 kg m³ per year, which differs quite a bit from the initial claim.

I hope this clarifies things and encourages a more accurate discussion moving forward!

– Above table: blue cells from non-vetted UVI ‘report’, white cell values calculated by/in MS Excel.

By using some unconventional methods, it’s easy to see why UVI has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. It seems they may not have engaged in thorough scientific investigations that include controls and replication. It’s worth noting that there are many factors and errors that could be addressed in their promotional materials. In my view, UVI might not fit the traditional university mold and feels more like a small community college, though it has certainly gained attention in some circles.

In recirculatory aquaculture systems in developed countries, it’s common for fish production to incur significant losses primarily due to feed costs, regardless of species or growth rates. When the cost of feed per kilogram exceeds the market value of the fish, it can lead to financial losses on every gram of growth. And while the best fillet yield is typically around 35% of live weight, the financial challenges only increase as production scales up. It raises questions about the sustainability of such practices.

Additionally, one must consider many other costs involved, such as capital investment, labor, the price of fingerlings, and the continuous energy demands of running these systems.

The price of fresh tilapia fillets in Louisiana today (August 14, 2016) is $4.99 per pound or $11 per kilogram. In contrast, you can find frozen fillets imported from China or South America for under $2 per kilogram at places like Costco and Walmart across the United States. For reference, sushi-grade Albacore and Yellowtail Tuna in California fish markets is currently priced around $44 per kilogram (though it’s about 25% off on sale, particularly for Yellowtail in San Francisco), while live Maine Lobster can be found for under $19 per kilogram on the East Coast.

It’s interesting to note that the fish ‘waste’ generated during growth is valued much higher as organic plant fertilizer, estimated to be worth 10 to 20 times more than the wholesale price of the fish itself. However, this potential depends on a variety of factors, including specialized horticultural skills, off-season production planning, the ability to command organic price premiums, and strong market acumen, not to mention a bit of luck. Additionally, it’s essential that your facility operates efficiently to keep costs manageable.

If you decide to produce your own fry and fingerlings (which would also entail some costs) and purchase commercial feeds in bulk, your overall production costs could go down. Still, it might be challenging to compete with imported tilapia or larger domestic aquaculture operations, not to mention live Maine lobster.

Ultimately, growing tilapia on your own could cost 10 to 20 times more than simply buying it fresh at a seafood market when you factor in all your expenses. This calculation doesn’t even include your time or investment capital, which could potentially be used for other rewarding endeavors.

This suggests that the potential output from ‘aquaponics’ begins with a significant economic disadvantage. To break even, you would need to achieve either outstanding plant yields or generally high market prices, all while still accounting for your time, capital investments, and inherent risks. In conventional hydroponic systems, nutrient costs may closely match or even be less than the electricity required to maintain fish health.

In short, it seems to me that traditional ‘aquaponics’ might appeal to those looking for innovative projects or who have a vision of sustainable practices, but it may not be the practical solution for everyone. It’s also worth noting that there are many who successfully navigate these waters, bringing their own expertise and skills to the table.

In other words, IMO, so-called ‘aquaponics’ (in the developed-world) is well-suited for bored, wealthy, uninformed, adolescent intellects with an overactive imagination and/or fantasy that they can ‘save the world’ … from itself.  Obviously, it has also done quite well for a select few predatory aqua-shysters (we know who they are, or should) hawking fictional aquatic dreamscapes to willfully gullible patsies.

At the end of the day, it’s always important to weigh the facts and consider your goals before diving into any new venture.

-o0o-