The Truth about Commercial Aquaponics

This article presents a critical analysis of aquaponics, specifically comparing the performance claims of  UVI against iAVs. Dr. McMurtry argues that UVI’s reported yields are significantly inflated and based on flawed data, using detailed calculations and comparisons to demonstrate that iAVs achieve substantially greater efficiency and profitability. The analysis exposes discrepancies in UVI’s reported area, water usage, and biomass production. Financial comparisons highlight the vastly superior return on investment for iAVs. Dr. McMurtry concludes that UVI’s claims constitute fraudulent misrepresentation.

For those among us that ‘think’ that ‘aquaponics’ is awesome and a potential moneymaker (ntm will “save the world” … from itself) – and also for those who’ve forsaken AP as ‘practiced’ today and/or given up in disgust – we have a surprise in store for you – in fact several, potentially MANY.  Ask yourself, are you in fact prepared to have your eyes opened a fair-bit wider?

For those wanting to skip the analysis (paint by the numbers section) and get right to the conclusion (complete picture):

• 1. Fish (tilapia) production is an unavoidable money loser –  in any AP or RAC – even with absolutely freefeed, capital and labor.  If your buying feed at typical current costs (in the US at less than ton lots), then you need to sell tilapia fillet for more than retail sushi-grade Albacore tuna to just break even, or at four times more than live Maine lobster (3 times more than when delivered “next-day air” to your door).
• 2. When you loose 250 to 500% of the fair market value on every kilogram of fish grown, due to the direct cost-of-production (COP (feed and electrical cost only), then you need make even more profit from the plant growth and sales just to break even (and without factoring in ANY other costs including your time, capital and all the risks involved).  Extraordinary plant yields, however, are more than possible in an iAVs operation.  This is an established, documented fact (deal with it – or F-off !).

Note: production volume x value less costs is just Part A of the profitability (“commercial”) equation.  Part B is applying business management acumen and marketing savvy 365 days of the year … while adhering to all applicable statutory regulations (in and of itself a most formidable challenge).

Presented below, for your edification and/or bemusement – is a direct aspect-by-aspect comparison between iAVs (24+ years ago) and UVI’s stated claims.

• 1. The NCSU iAVs results documented (also replicated and vetted) in 1988 (specifically from the 1:2.25, N=80 or D-ratio, Exp.#1, pristine/undeveloped filter bed) as scaled-up to the approximate volume of the UVI rearing tanks, i.e., to 30 m3 of rearing tank volume.
• 2. The Mora-USDA’92 “iAVs Commercial Demonstration Project” findings   [v:v = 1:0.9 and f:p = 1:0.6] as established and operated by total novices in aquaculture, horticulture and environment management.
• 3. At a similar fish harvest volume as in the Mora-USDA’92 project (above) but with the filter volume and plant area scaled (sized) to sustain the fish ‘waste’ load realized in that project on a continuing basis.  In this example used: v:v is 1:2.4 and v:a is 1: 7.2, Nf/m3 = 100.
• 4. The UVI final report (best results?) from 2010 (+/-1)  (UVI never provided dates for anything, ntm full disclosure, replication or accurate (ntm vetted) analysis/claims).

Later, we intend to compare the summary findings from a survey of 188 “commercial” AP operators (non-vetted claims) as conducted in 2013 (published 2014 and 2015) and to contrast those findings with the UVI, and iAVs methods.

Given the above introduction, please consider the following numerical analysis (with proportional bar graphs) comparing the cost:benefit of these 4 ‘operations’ with the same production unit costs and market values applied.

===================

error in above text:  Feed is calculated at $3/kg (not $4) …. (corrected on sheet but no jpg update as yet)

 ALL IN ONE PLACE

FINAL VERDICT on UVI’s claim of “5 MT / yr from 31.2 m3”

• UVI yield calculation shown above.  Note that the claimed harvest biomass was applied and not the much lower growth (increase in) biomass, which is the more accurate value for determining yield rate.  Including 70 g of fish in the yield claim without proper justification is misleading and would likely raise concerns with the editors or reviewers at the Journal of the World Aquaculture Society and similar publications. Additionally, there is another point that hasn’t been addressed: Assuming the mean 513 kg/cohort harvest number is correct, and an average of 826 of the 900 stocked survived to harvest, then 513.5 kg/ 826 then Pmf is 621.7 g -which is  NOT 663.2g – for a difference of +41.5 g each or +6.7%.
• UVI area calculated as 214 m2 styrofoam + 76 m2 frames + 250 m2 aisles (0 .66m aisles between frames plus 1 m perimeter (as in a GH setting) = 540 m2.  Actual raft area was at least 800 m2..  Total area calculated as 535m2 plants + 240m2 fish shed + 125 m2 sludge lagoon and misc. = 900 m2.   Actual total area was 1200 to 1400 m2.
• UVI  annual water volume calculated as (0.015 x 110 m3 x 365) + (1.27 m rain x 289 m2) = 602 + 367 = 970 m3/yr
• UVI electrical load calculated as 3.5 HP (750W/HP) 24 hr/day for 63 kWh/d x 365 at $0.225/ kWh in the USVI
• NOTE: Anyone who wants to discuss UVI’s numbers above should reach out to them directly. If you have a different perspective on basic arithmetic, it might be best to reconsider your approach.

==============================

In prose:

Vs. the 2010? UVI report claims, the iAVs ‘D’ ratio in 1988 was:  [which BTW had the lowest yield on a per plant basis among those of the ratios trialled].

•  Given the stated unit values and reported outcomes:
• 27% of the system water capacity as UVI at similar scale
  • (at the approximate same rearing tank capacity),… 30 vs 110 m3
• 19% of annual water volume consumption of UVI 
  • (185 m3 in NC vs 970 in humid tropics)
  • UVI 2.66 m3/day (w/ rain) vs iAVs 0.78 m3/day (at same FT scale +plants)
• more than twice the fish growth rate of UVI  [SGR = 2.87 vs 1.34 avg]
  • ◦(albeit not to same Pmf, also not similar Pmi) [SGR 3.1 to 2.8 vs 1.34 avg.]
  • actual UVI yield in terms of growth was 35.65 kg/m3/yr not 40.56 [ and NOT 160.26 ]
• 48% total annual fish biomass harvest (1/3 the revenue loss due to COP)
  • [2.21 vs 4.46 MT/yr, Mora 22.7]  Similar FCR, different pH maintained.
• 3+ times plant yield/m2  Mora 9.4 times (as fruit, not leaf)
  • 28 kg/m2 vs UVI 9 kg/m2/yr.    Mora’92 at 85 vs UVI 9
• 14.6 times plant yield (as fruit, not leaf) per liter of water consumption
  • 76 kg/m3 vs 5.2
• same percentage of water converted into (sold as) biomass [8 +/- 0.2%]
• 8 to 10 times the revenue (after deducting COP, costs of both electric and feed)
  • [150-180 vs 18 $/m2/yr, with the same $/kg fish value and feed costs]
• 3.5 times the annual revenue per composite area (w/o COP)
  • ($186 vs $53 /m2/yr, at same $/kg)
• 7.5 times the gross Revenue/m2 minus direct fish COP /m2/yr [165.5 vs 22]
• 30% of equipment and material costs in 2016 (same FT scale, w/o GH, labor)
  •  $25K  vs $80K –  w/o land, GH++, other operating costs, any labor, or misc.
• 15.7 times more (annual revenue / equipment + material costs) (same $/kg)
  • ◦+389% vs +25%
• the 1992 Mora/USDA fish yield/m3 was 2.8 times (279%) that of UVI’s ‘best’ 
  • (by total novices, no assistance, first attempt)
• the 1992 Mora/USDA plant yield (fruit not leaf, w/ aisles) was 9.3 times (934%) UVI’s mean ‘best’
  • (average of 50% each basil and okra).

Would you rather:

• invest $80K (plus your time, risk and all other costs) to gross $48K/yr (at most $20k/yr minus ALL other costs)
• OR
• invest $23K and generate $100K  in revenue ($89K/yr minus other costs) ?
• OR
• invest $164K and generate $1.25+ million/yr.
• ‘Take in’ (less costs)  $ 0.25/yr per $1 invested or $4 to 8+/yr ?

UVI above: spend $80K min, (NO structure or other devt. costs), work full-time for a year for $13,250 K and at best break-even if all goes well !

========================

‘Actually’, the UVI harvest was 40.56 kg/m3/yr of system volume after mortality (4.4 MT/yr), Growth was 35.89 kg/m3/yr

from below

• averages of 20 cohorts claimed:
  • mean weight gain 594 g,,  N=116 = 68.09 kg – 5.9% mortality = 64.84 kg/m3
  • / 168 day X 365 = 140.87 kg/m3/yr at 31.2 m3 (40.56 kg/m3/yr at 110 m3)
  • 40.56 kg x 110 m3 = 4471 kg  (not 5000 kg)

========================================================

Similarly, the UVI raft area (actual) was 775 m2 (not 214 m2).  Actual raft box footprint is 289 m2),  With a 1 m perimeter and 0.67 m aisles between raft tanks, area = 535 m2    “214 m2” seems is an inaccurate representation and does not reflect the true size. ,,,  Total actual area with minimal perimeter = 1,220+ m2 (not 500).

===========================================================

Similarly.  claims of 1.5% make-up water per day.  At 110 m3 x 1.5% x 365 = +602 m3 yr.  Plus 1.27 m of rain on 289 m2 = +367 m3 (not acknowledged). For a total water addition of 971 m3/yr (2.655m2/day) for 2.42% system volume /day (in the humid tropics, no less)

• Fish harvest yield ‘overstated’ 3.94-fold (394%), Growth yield ‘overstated by 4.46-fold (446%)
• Plant yield by actual plant area ‘overstated’ 3.62-fold (362%) and by minimum plant area by 2.5-fold (250%)
• Area ‘understated’ by 2.44 fold (-59%)
• Water use ‘understated’ by 0.913 m3/day or (by 0.83% sys vol./day or by -36%)

BTW: UVI annual volume 1080 m3 (w/ avg. rain) or 971 m3 of make-up.  Compare: Ratio study 1:1.5 = 185 m3 make- up at the 31.2 m3 FT scale, or 19 % water consumption with 282% of the UVI plant production  (14.8 times more crop per drops)

• UVI revenue -COP / m3 consumption = $20.38   vs iAVs’88 $483 (23.7 times UVI)

=====================================================

There is some misleading representation by certain individuals regarding their agricultural practices. I have not come across any credible claims or suggestions that Jim Rakocy and the UVI T cultivated anything beyond basil, lettuce, and okra. There doesn’t appear to be any photographic evidence of other crops growing on those painted styrofoam rafts. However, it appears these individuals have shared selfies holding tilapia alongside cantaloupe and watermelon, which creates a misleading implication that they were grown together. If they had indeed grown melons on the rafts, it seems likely they would have documented that and taken great pride in it. However, that has not been indicated, aside from what seems to be staged photographs. They certainly demonstrate a level of skill in their deceptive practices.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COMPARE EQUIPMENT COSTS and REVENUE GENERATION

UVI at FT 30 m3 and RT 214 m2

• materials, delivered (no land, building, labor, utility, elect. misc)  $75 to $85.000
  • 13 tanks $47K, rafts $14K, air $12K, pump & misc $7K+ = $80K
    • tank prices from AquaMerik plus 30% shipping (probably more to them)
• Yields ( fish based on 110 m3 volume, plants as reported on 214 m2 basis),
  • 30 @ 45kg = 1350 kg @ $3.30 = $4450 (actually avg of 20 cohorts = 40)
  • 214 @ (50% basil and 50% okra) 17.6 kg/yr = 3776 kg @ $6.6 = $24,900
    • undoubtedly ‘best’ yields they got in 20+/- years of jerking off
• Total revenue $29,350
  • Fish to plant mass 1: 2.8   by revenue 1: 5.47
  • % total area actual fish tanks  (100m2) = 12%
  • % total area actual plant growth  25% (w/0.67m aisles, 1 m perimeter)
  • non productive area 536 m2 (63%) minimum

iAVs at FT 30 m3 and BF 288 m2 (1:3)

• materials, delivered (no land, building, labor, utility, elect. misc $20 to $25,000
  • Liners $7K, sand 10K, air 2.5K, pumps 3K, misc 2.5k = $25K (max)
• Yields (v:v 1:3)
  • 30 @ 120 kg = 3600 kg @ $3.30 = $11,880
    • a = 30 m3 x 120 v 0.3 kg x 3/yr = 108 kg/m3/yr
    • or b = (30 m3 x 120 x 0.5 x 2/yr ) = 120 kg/m3/yr
  • 288 m2  “a” @ tomato 4 plt x 2 crop x 10kg = 23,040 kg @ $6.6 = $152,060
    • or “b” @ annual crop 4plt x 1 x 24 kg = 27,650 @ $6.6 =  $182,490)
• Total revenue$163,940  (b $202,290)
  • Fish to plant mass 1: 6.4 (1:7.7)   by revenue a 1: 12.8 (b 1: 15.4)
  • % total area actual fish tank  (24m2) = 5 %
  • % total area actual plant growth 59%
  • non producing area 176 m2 (36% w/ 0.5m wide aisles and 1m perimeters)
  • 285 m3 for 2.1mt @70% + 23.5MT @85% = 8,772% into product (11 times more)
  • plant 23.5 MT/ 285m3 =  82.25 kg/m3

SUMMARY Cost: Benefit

• @ scale        UVI      iAVSa    times      iAVsb      times
• materials        80K       25K      0.31          25K        0.31
• elect/yr           5,2K      1.1K     0.21         1.1K        0.21
• Revenue       47.7K     100.4K   2.1         202K        4.2
• Rev- E+feed 19.8k     89.4K     4.5 x        179.5K    9.1x
• sq m (min)      900        540                     ~700
• US$/m2/yr   $22      $165.5    7.5x        $368    16.7x

========================================================

compare SGR’s (having a SGR calculator is very handy)

• R411 1-D: N=80  SGR @ 15 to 250g in 93 days = SGR 3.03  (1.4 g/f/d) for 78.5 kg/m3/yr
• IF N=120:  15g to 455g  in 180 day  SGR=1.90 ( 2.62 g/f/d) for 110.7 kg/m3/yr

UVI’s own data  (average? of 20 harvests, 5 each of 4 tanks of 24 weeks each)

• UVI (Niles) N=77 from 79 to 814 g in 168 day SGR= 1.3867 (1.7% mortality)
• UVI (Reds) N=154 from 59 to 513g in 168 day SGR = 1.2887 (10.1% mortality)
• Average “Niles and Reds” N=106 (survived)  from 69 to 663g in 168 days SGR= 1.338
• avg weight gain 594 g, N=106/m3 = 62.96 (168 day) or
  • 62.96 / 168 day X 365 = 136.79 kg/m3/yr
    • 136.79 x 31.2 m3  = 4,268 kg/yr
    • / 110 m3 =  (38.8 kg/m3/yr)
    • 40.56 kg harvest x 110 m3 = 4462 kg  (not 5000 kg)
• For a claimed 5000 kg/yr harvest from 31.2 m3 (actually 110 m3)
  • N = 150  SGR  from 30 to 490g  in 168 days SGR = 1.6626 gpf/d
  • N=120 SGR from 30 to 615g in 168 days SGR = 1,7979 gpf/d
  • N=100 SGR from 30 to 735g in 168 days SGR = 1,9040 gpf/g
  • to achieve SGR = 2.87 would need go from 15 to 663 g in 132 days

-o0o-