Aquaculture in Arizona - Research and Extension

Kevin Fitzsimmons

Environmental Research Lab

Soil, Water and Environmental Science

University of Arizona

Oct. 2, 2000

Introduction

• Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector in production agriculture in the US and worldwide.

• Aquatic plants and animals are only now being domesticated.

• US industry is dwarfed by aquaculture in Asia, Europe and Latin America.

• Arizona industry is in infancy.

Introduction (cont.)

• Aquaculture systems can be extensive (ponds)

Introduction (cont.)

• Semi-intensive (raceways and cages)

Introduction (cont.)

• Intensive (tanks and multiple raceways)

Introduction (cont.)

• Superintensive (recirculating controlled environment systems)

Introduction (cont.)

• Arizona has all types of systems even within the small industry.

Introduction (cont.)

• Arizona has all types of systems even within the small industry.

• Shrimp, trout, tilapia, catfish, koi, grass carp

Introduction (cont.)

• Arizona has all types of systems even within the small industry.

• Shrimp, trout, tilapia, catfish, koi, grass carp

• Fee fishing

Introduction (cont.)

• Arizona has all types of systems even within the small industry.

• Shrimp, trout, tilapia, catfish, koi, grass carp• Fee fishing

• Aquaculture in the classroom

Research Projects

• Effluent management

• Integration of aquaculture and agriculture

• Human pathogens in production systems

• Tilapia production

Research - Effluent management

• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s)

• Aquaculture operations producing 50,000 + lbs per year, with discharge to waters of the U.S. are considered CAFO’s (CWA, Section 318)

• CAFO regulations are developed by the states and reviewed by the EPA.

• EPA is considering new aquaculture industry specific regulations

Research Projects - Integration of aquaculture and agriculture• Virtually all of Arizona’s crops are irrigated,

using millions of cubic meters of water

• Much of this water could be used for aquaculture first

• Increase organic and nutrient content of water

Research Projects - Integration of

aquaculture and agriculture • Experimental work at MAC and

Safford

• Irrigate cotton crops with water from catfish ponds and well water

• Measure differences in water quality, nitrogen requirements & cotton yield

• Determine economic impact

Research Projects - Integration of aquaculture and agriculture

• First use of water for extensive pond culture.

• Pond filled with well water.• Catfish stocked at 7,000 kg/ha• Second use to irrigate and fertilize cotton.• Replicated plots irrigated with well water

and pond water.

Research Projects - Integration of aquaculture and agriculture

• Water pH reduced from 8.3 to 8.0

• Added 19.7 kg/ha N to 45 kg/ha used in standard fertilization schedule.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tot

al N

ap

plie

d w

ith

wat

er (

kg/h

a)

WellPond

Research Projects - Integration of aquaculture and agriculture

• Contributed 2.6 kg/ha P to crop.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

AprilM

ayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

berTot

al P

ap

plie

d w

ith

wat

er (

kg/h

a)

Well

Pond

Research Projects - Integration of aquaculture and agriculture

• RESULTS

• No significant difference in cotton yield.

• Split cost of water results in savings to farmers ($120/ha).

Research Projects - Human pathogens in production systems

• Most aquaculture systems encourage nitrifying and heterotrophic bacteria to improve water quality

• Farmers want to maximize the benefits of these types of bacteria in ponds

• Could human pathogens be present in pond environment?

• Seven fish culture systems were monitored for bacterial populations

• Four recirculating systems with biofilters

• Three ponds with plastic, concrete or earthen walls and bottom

Research Projects - Human pathogens in production systems

Research Projects - Human pathogens in production systems

• Each system was sampled for influent to filter or pond and effluent from filter or pond

• Water quality parameters (pH, DO, ammonia, nitrates, turbidity, alkalinity.)

Results for seven systems tested

Total coliforms (CFU's/100ml) 0.04 - 10.0 *105

Fecal coliforms (CFU's/100ml) 0.01 - 3.1* 105

Enterococci (CFU's/100ml) 0.5 - 1.8*103

C. perfringens (CFU's/100ml) 0.1 - 1.1*102

E. coli (present) Yes

Salmonella (present) ND

Discussion

• Total coliforms and fecal coliforms are normally indicators of mammalian waste

• Outdoor ponds all had dogs on site for bird control, dogs and people were often in ponds

• Indoor systems had no known source

Discussion

• Total coliforms and fecal coliforms were present in all systems

• In all but one case they were high enough to indicate possible contamination

• Look for source of contamination

Discussion

• Non detects of Salmonella may imply other source

• Could be that other heterotrophic bacteria are interfering with tests providing false positives

Discussion

• If systems are in fact harboring human pathogens, care must be taken

• Remove sources

• Reduce pathogen levels in system

• Provide protective measures for workers and processors

Discussion

• No numerical limits on bacteria in systems by regulators (may change)

• Proper handling techniques required (wearing gloves, rinsing with chlorinated or ozonated water)

Discussion

• Additional research should determine if these indicator bacteria are really the pathogens

• Are fish pathogens present

• Existing best management practices will reduce chances of infection

Research Projects - Tilapia aquaculture

• Several species which readily hybridize• Fast growing, herbivores-omnivores• Native to Middle East and Africa• Established and farmed in tropical

regions• Farmed in most temperate regions

Research Projects - Tilapia aquaculture

• Introduced to Arizona in 1960’s for weed control in irrigation canals

• Farms in desert parts of state

• Research has included nutrition, genetics, water quality effects on growth, and market development

Tilapia in the Americas

Tilapia imports to US(1992-2000)

Figure 1. Tilapia product forms imported to the U.S.

Fillet Fresh

Fillet Frozen

Whole Frozen

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Met

ric to

ns

Whole Frozen

Fillet Frozen

Fillet Fresh

Value of Tilapia imports (1992-2000)

Figure 2. Value of Tilapia product forms imported to the U.S.

Fillet Fresh

Fillet Frozen

Whole Frozen

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

$90,000,000

$100,000,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

$ U

S

Whole Frozen

Fillet Frozen

Fillet Fresh

Source of US Tilapia supply 2000 (by volume)

2000 US Tilapia Supply

OTHER4%

CHINA24%

JAMAICA1%

COSTA RICA10%

ECUADOR13%

INDONESIA3%

TAIWAN28%

HONDURAS5%

US12%

Research Projects - Tilapia aquaculture

• Edited two International Proceedings on Tilapia in Aquaculture

Extension Projects

• Economic impacts

• Fee fishing

• Arizona aquaculture web site

• Arid Lands Aquaculture Newsletter

• Aquaculture in the classroom

Extension Projects - Economic impact

• Distributed survey to all fish producers• Determined inputs (salaries, feeds,

fingerlings, water, etc)• Determined production (sales)• Proportions in and out of county & state• Used IMPLAN and other models

Extension Projects - Economic impact

• Expenditures & sales for Az. aquacultureTotalFTE's

Expend incounty

Expend inState

Expend outState

Total expend Sales incounty

Sales in state Sales outstate

Total sales

44.5 $845,000 $407,000 $910,000 $2,162,000 $599,000 $935,000 $227,000 $1,761,000% 0.3908 0.1883 0.4209 1.000 0.3401 0.5309 0.1289 1.000

• % of annual ownership and operating costsAGRIC AGRIC AGRIC R TRADE AGRIC SERVS FIRES FIRES CONSTR TCPUT TOTALSFeed Chemicals Labor Fuel Fingerlings Repairs Interest Tax & Ins. DepreciationWater

Operating 0.48 0.005 0.14 0.01 0.12 0.025 0.03 0 0 0.05 0.86Investment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.01 0.08 0 0.14

$1,037,760 $10,810 $302,680 $21,620 $259,440 $54,050 $172,960 $21,620 $172,960 $108,100 $2,162,000

Extension Projects - Economic impact

• Multipliers for additional $ of sales

• Keynsian M=1/(1-(b-X1-X2)

• 1.099 for local (county) economy

• 1.111 for state economy

• Tiebout’s M=1/(1-p1*p2)

• 1.3537 for local (county) economy

• 1.6340 for state economy

Extension Projects - Economic impact

• Multipliers for job creationStatewide AGRIC

(AQUA)AGRIC 1.1482MINIG 0.05235CONST 0.01539MANUF 0.01170TCPUT 0WTRADE 0.00938RTRADE 0.11863FIRES 0.02392SERVS 0.08157PADMN 0.03742TOTAL 1.49856

Ag Comm(Safford)

AGRIC(AQUA)

AGRIC 1.69562MINIG 0.0CONST 0.04392MANUF 0.02473TCPUT 0WTRADE 0.06219RTRADE 0.16886FIRES 0.07229SERVS 0.18983PADMN 0.07853TOTAL 2.33597

Extension Projects - Economic impact

• ARIZONA Aquaculture Production Thousand Pounds/Thousand Dollars (farm gate)

1996 1997 1998 1999Bass (lbs) 240 200 150 120Bass ($) $660 $500 $400 $420Catfish (lbs) 430 450 400 400Catfish ($) $430 $450 $440 $440Tilapia (lbs) 415 450 425 400Tilapia ($) $450 $562 $531 $500Trout (lbs) 340 300 300 300Trout ($) $600 $600 $600 $600Shrimp (lbs) <1 6 187 217Shrimp ($) <1 $30 $935 $1,085Other (lbs) 12 12 12 12Other ($) $302 $300 $300 $300TOTAL (lbs) 1,437 1,418 1,474 1,449TOTAL ($) $2,442 $2,442 $3,206 $3,345

Extension Projects - Fee fishing

• Visit and interview farms / pay lakes-ponds

• Provide extension bulletins

• Marketing promotions

• Provide web sites

Extension Projects - Arizona Aquaculture Website

• Develop and maintain Website

• Develop content appropriate to clientele

Extension Projects - Arizona Aquaculture Newsletter

Extension Projects

• Teach summer short course

• Provide lab tours, on-site visits

• Develop web site and CD-ROM

• Provide fish for classrooms

• Host Career Development Events

Arizona Aquaculture• Growing industry

• More efficient use of limited resources

• Skill levels of practitioners increasing

• Markets for locally produced fish are improving

Dawn of Arizona Aquaculture