effects of water salinity and exercise on atlantic salmon ... of water salinity and exercise on...

Effects of water salinity and exercise on Atlantic salmon performance as postsmolts in land-based closed-containment systems

B.F. Terjesen1*, T. Ytrestøyl1, J. Kolarevic1, S. Calabrese2,3, B.O. Rosseland4, H-C. Teien4, Å. Åtland5, T.O. Nilsen2, S. Stefansson2, S.O. Handeland6, Jorn Schoordik7, jH. Takle1

1Nofima, 2Univ. of Bergen, 3Marine Harvest Norway, 4Norw. Univ. of Life Sciences; 5NIVA; 6UNI Research; 7Hoogeschool Zeeland

11.09.2013 1AIW#5

Background

• Loss of fish in Norwegian production at same level now, ~20% during cage phase, as 12 years ago (Arealutvalget 04/02/11)

• Much of the loss of fish, and feed intake and growth reduction, occur early after stocking small smolts in sea (<100 g/ind) (e.g. Oehmeet al., 2010)

9/11/2013 2

Oehme, M., Grammes, F., Takle, H., Zambonino-Infante, J.-L., Refstie, S., Thomassen, M.S., Rørvik, K.-A., Terjesen, B.F., 2010. Dietary supplementation of glutamate and arginine to Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) increases growth during the first autumn in sea. Aquaculture. 310, 156-163

Mass specific feeding rate of 1+ salmon (SFR, % day-1) stocked at sea late May

Background cont’d

• Lice problems are considerable in cage production• One possible solution can be to reduce the time

spent in traditional “open” cages in sea

• The Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs in Norway recently opened for an increase in fish size in land-based facilities, from 250 g to 1 kg

• A larger smolt for stocking at sea,� may reduce lice-problems, � may reduce loss of fish, and improve growth� may reduce prod. time, especially in areas

with low winter temp

• Several Norwegian companies and R&D institutions joined forces in 2012 to explore how such post-smolt production can be done, in the RCN project OPP “Optimized PostsmoltProduction”

9/11/2013 3

Aerial photo: Erik Røed

Main objective in OPP

To develop basic and applied knowledge about how the time spent in open cages in sea can be reduced, by increasing the time on land or in semi-closed systems at sea, and to determine the consequences for the performance, physiology, and welfare of the fish and production costs

9/11/2013 4

Smolt prod in freshwaterRAS land-

based

Postsmolt in seawater? RAS land-

based

Shorter periodin cagesbefore

slaughter

Combination-lines, to 1 kg in closed-containment systems

11.09.2013

0-70 g 70 g – 1 kg 1 kg – 5 kg

Closed-containmenton land

5

Smolt prod in freshwaterRAS land-

based

Postsmolts in semi-closedcontainment

in sea

Shorter periodin cagesbefore

slaughter

0-70 g 70 g – 1 kg 1 kg – 5 kg

Semi-closedcontainmentin sea

OPP: Problems to tackle

• Problem: Cato Lyngøy, former Group Technical Manager Technology & Environment Marine Harvest, and chairman in OPP:

«So far we have not seen any closed-containment system that is sufficiently cost-effective, for production of a postsmolt up to 1 kg, neither on land or in sea» (IntraFish, 29/10/12)

• Problem: Insufficient biological knowledge of what the physiological requirements of Atlantic salmon postsmolts are in closed containment systems, for optimal technology performance, fish performance, welfare, and health

9/11/2013 6

To be tested in OPP: Land-based RAS (recirculating aquaculture systems) for production to 1 kg

To be tested in OPP: Production in semi-closed containment systems in sea to 1 kg (21 000 m3 vol, 450 m3/min flow)

Photo: Aquafarm Equipment

Nofima Centre for Recirculation in Aquaculture, Sunndalsøra, Norway

Salinity in land-based RAS, combination-line

• SW-RAS may have higher running costs than FW-RAS due to:

� CO2 removal efficiencies are lower in SW than in FW (e.g. Moran, 2010)

� Ammonia removal is lower in SW compared to FW (e.g. Chen et al, 2006)

• Results in need for largerinstallation and/or higher flow

• Or can postsmolts be kept at lower salinity in RAS, and still handle full-strength SW at stocking in sea?

9/11/2013 7

Nofima Centre for Recirculation in Aquaculture (NCRA), Sunndalsøra, Norway

Objectives and experimental design, effects of salinity and exercise for postsmolt in RAS

� What is optimal salinity for postsmolts in RAS, in terms of survival, health, and maturation to 1 kg size?

� Can lower salinity reduce maintenance costs and increase available energy for growth?

� Can exercise through water velocity contribute to these factors, and interact with salinity treatment?

9/11/2013 8

FT

70g 250g 450g 800g

2

Parr i FW

250g 450g

32 ‰ -RAS

12‰ -RAS 12‰ -RAS

2

+ Exercise

+ Exercise2

2

2

- Exercise 12‰ -RAS 12‰ -RAS

- Exercise

32‰ -RAS 32‰ -RAS

2

12:

1224L

250g

250g

250g

450g

450g

+ Exercise 22‰RAS

32‰ -RAS

- Exercise 22‰RAS

22‰RAS

22‰RAS

250g

250g 450g

450g

450g

NofimaNCRA

Terjesen et al., unpubl.

Methods

11.09.2013 9

• 3 separate RAS with salinities 12, 22 and 32 ppt, and two exercise levels,

i.e. a 3x2 factorial study

• 7 200, 70 g smolts were stocked in 12 tanks (3.2 m2), duplicate/treatment

• 12:12h light:dark during the experiment, 12-13°C, high marine protein

commercial diet (Havsbrun, 3-4 mm pellet), feed intake measurements

• On-line measurements of e.g flow, pH, ORP, temperature, O2

• A range of tissue samples collected, for trad. physiology, histology, and

molecular physiology

11.09.2013 10

RAS configuration during trial

Belt filter

w/sludge discharge

Degasser

Pump sump

w/overflow

RAS 2

Central

water

treatment

room

Experimental

hall 1/2/3

Oxygenation

Pump sump

w/overflow

Fish tank

Sidewall

drain

Swirl

separator

w/sludge

discharge

Fish tank

Fish tank

Moving bed bioreactor

Make-up

water

with flowmeter

Pump

Ozone injection

w/degas separator

Ozone side-stream

1

23

4

5

6

78

9 10

9

11

11

12


Date

01.o

kt.1

2

15.o

kt.1

2

29.o

kt.1

2

12.n

ov.12

26.n

ov.12

10.d

es.1

2

24.d

es.1

2

07.ja

n.13

Bod

y le

ngth

s/se

c

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Exp. day

0 20 40 60 80 100

32ppt minus exercise12ppt minus exercise22ppt minus exercise32ppt plus exercise 12ppt plus exercise 22ppt plus exercise

Swimming speed (BL/s) to ~250 g

11.09.2013 11

Flow132 l/min

Flow132 l/min

Flow85 l/min

Flow85 l/min

Mean± range (n=2 tanks per treatment)

9%

35%

63%

% o

f tot

al ta

nk d

epth

38 36 28 2318 10 8

% of total tank width

Tank inlet

Direction of the water flow

Lateral tankview

Top view


RAS conditions

11.09.2013 12

RASTemp

°CpH

CO2

mg/l

Alkalinity

CaCO3 mg/l

% Reused

flow

% Water

exchange

/day

Feedload ,

% of capacity

Feedload/

water exh

(kg/m3 /day)

12‰ 12.4±0.9 7.5±0.2 6.1±1.5 72±20 98.7±0.8 25±7 11.0±3.4 0.44±0.30

22‰ 12.1±0.8 7.6±0.1 7.0±0.2 110±26 98.8±0.7 24±6 10.6±3.9 0.49±0.28

32‰ 12.6±0.9 7.8±0.1 6.9±0.4 137±33 98.9±0.4 25±2 9.1±3.9 0.46±0.20


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

15.10.12 08.11.12 05.12.12 03.01.13 26.02.13 07.05.13

TAN

co

nce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

Average TAN conc. at the tank outlet 12 ‰

22 ‰

32 ‰

Water quality: TAN and NO2-N concentration

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

15.10.12 08.11.12 05.12.12 03.01.13 26.02.13 07.05.13

NO

2-N

co

nc.

(m

g/L

)

Average NO2-N conc. at the tank outlet32 ‰

22 ‰

12 ‰


3638

49

34

22 21

0

1317

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

04.12.12 03.01.13 07.05.13

TAN

re

mo

val e

ffic

ien

cy (

%) 12 ‰

22 ‰

32 ‰

TAN removal efficiency over MBBR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

MB

BR

TA

N r

em

ova

l e

ffic

ien

cy

(%)

MBBR inlet TAN water conc. (mg/L)

32 ‰

22 ‰

12 ‰


CO2 removal efficiency over countercurrent, forced-ventilated degasser

11.09.2013 15

5763

70

88

63

73 7578

3428

58

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

04.12.12 03.01.13 26.02.13 07.05.13

Tota

l C

O2

rem

ov

al

eff

icie

ncy

(%)

12 ‰

22 ‰

32 ‰

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

CO

2 i

nle

t co

nce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/L

)

CO2 removal efficiency (%)

CO2 removal efficiency vs CO2 inlet concentrations32 ‰22 ‰12 ‰


11.09.2013 test 16

Postmolt sampled at ~250 g, produced in 12 ppt S RAS

12 ppt 22 ppt 32 ppt

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

bo

dy

we

igh

t(g

)

250 g training no training

Salinity: p˂0.01

Training: p˂0.01

Ind. weight at ~250 g/ind

Salinity

12 22 32

The

rmal

gro

wth

coe

ffici

ent

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

TrainingNo training

Factor salinity:p<0.001

Faktor exercisep<0.01

Salinity*exercise:p<0.05

TGC to~250 g/ind


Postmolts sampled at ~800 g, produced in RAS

TGC entire experiment

Salinity, ppt

12 22 32

Th

erm

al g

row

th c

oe

ffc

ien

t

0.0

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

Factor salinity, p<0.01

Factor exercise, p<0.01

Exercise

No exercise


400

500

600

700

800

900training no training

Salinity: p˂0.01

Training: p˂0.01

Final weight


Male gonad size 800 g/indMale gonad size 250 g/ind

Salinity

12 22 32Go

nad

oso

mati

c in

dex (

% B

W-1

)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12Exersise

No excersise

Faktor saliniNSFaktor treninNS

Salinity

12 22 32Go

nad

oso

mati

c in

dex (

% B

W-1

)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12Exersise

No excersise

Faktor salinitet:NSFaktor trening:NS

Salinity

12 22 32

Card

ioso

mati

c in

dex (

% B

W-1

)

0.070

0.075

0.080

0.085

0.090

ExerciseNo exercise

Faktor salinitet:p<0.001

Faktor trening:p<0.001

Heart index 250 g/ind Heart index 800 g/ind

Results: Organ indexes at 250 and 800 g


Why is growth higher at lower salinity and training?

11.09.2013 19

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81

g f

ee

d/d

ay

feeding days

Effect of salinity: p˂0.0132 ppt

22 ppt

12 ppt

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81

feeding days

Effect of exercise: p˂0.05

training

no training

Individual feed intake period 1 (BW 70-250 g)

Cumulative feed intake g per tank period 1-3

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

0 50 100 150feeding days

sampling

250 g

sampling

450 g

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

0 50 100 150

feeding days

sampling

450 gsampling

250 g


Fish weight (g)

0 200 400 600 800

% C

um

mu

lati

ve s

urv

ival

0

50

60

70

80

90

100

12‰ + Exercise22‰ + Exercise32‰ + Exercise12‰ - Exercise22‰ - Exercise32‰ - Exercise

12‰ salt, 99%22‰ salt, 97%

32‰ salt, 71%

Mean survival in cages

Survival, when the postsmolts were kept at 12, 22, or 32 ‰, through the entire trial

11.09.2013

Sensitive period

20Terjesen et al., unpubl.

9681

9992 92

98

0

20

40

60

80

100

12 ppt 22 ppt 32 ppt%

Su

rviv

al

Salinity before transfer to 32‰

no training training

Transfer at 250 g

32

55

80

25 22

45

0

20

40

60

80

100


% S

urv

iva

l



Transfer at 450 gTransfer at 70 g (start)

97 98

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 ppt 12 ppt 22 ppt 32 ppt

% S

urv

iva

l


Training No training

Survival when transfer from 0 ppt (start) or 12/22/32‰to 32‰ at different sizes

70g 250g 450g 800g

32‰ 32‰ 32‰

100 100 100100 100 99

0

20

40

60

80

100


% S

urv

iva

l


At end of trial ~800 g

Change to 32‰ directly inexisting12 tanks

94

0

20

40

60

80

100

All groups pooled

% S

urv

iva

l

All groups pooled, transferredto 12 new tanks, 32‰ FT


Summary survival, when the fish is transferred to 32‰ at different sizes

11.09.2013 22

250g 450g 800g70g

32‰ 32‰ 32‰


Sea water tolerance when transferred to 32-34 ‰, for 72 hours, at different sizes

2311.09.2013 23

Plasma chloride

No significant effects of treatment (previous salinity or exercise)

136 130 132131 132 135

0

50

100

150

200

250

300


mg/l

250 g

209 204226231 217 225


450 g


142 145 145144 144 141


~800 g


11.09.2013 24

� External welfare indcators:

� In our experience a set of sensitive indicators (e.g. density)

� Small, inconsistent effects on fin erosions

� Earlier manifestation of cataracts in fishkept at 32‰ RAS, versus 12 and 22 ‰

� More external skin damage in exercisedfish at 22 and 32 ‰, versus non-exercised, but this was not found at 12‰

Welfare

Photo: Hoyle I, et al. (2007): A validated macroscopic key to assess fin damage in farmed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture 270, 142-148.

NS

NS

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

260 g 450 g 800 g

Skin

le

sio

ns

(0

-2)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

260 g 450 g 800 g

Ca

tara

ct s

core

(0

-2)



11.09.2013 25

�Important organ for pathogen and parasitecontrol

�Les mucous and more tissue damage, at increasing salinity, and size

�Exercise had a negative effect on skin health at 22 and 32, but not at 12 ‰

�Up-regulation of the stress related genes HSP70 and iNOS at 32,22 vs 12‰

�We are establishing a skinanalytical pipeline, sinceskin-health may be a particular problem

Skin health

Takle et al., unpubl.

Industry-scale testing in OPP� Testing combination-line, closed-containment RAS

� Commenced in July at Grieg SeaFood, Finnmark, northernNorway, 12 and 22‰ salinity

� Testing combination-line, semi-closed in sea

� Start testing in Oct. at Smøla Klekkeri and Settefisk, and in 21 000 m3 tank, Marine Harvest, western Norway.

11.09.2013

Foto: Aquafarm Equipment

Foto: Nofima Foto: Nofima

Foto: Nofima

26

Conclusions

11.09.2013 27

� Also salmon benefits from less salt and more exercise

� Closed-containment systems make environmental control possible� Lower salinity: increased feed intake, growth rate, improved skin health� Combination with exercise maximized this effect

� No general maturation was observed, via GSI � Lower salinity improved removal efficency of TAN and CO2� Such types of findings may contribute to reduced costs in closed-

containment systems

� Production in closed-containment to 1 kg may contributeto smaller losses in Norwegian production

� Best group, 12‰ + exercise = 99% survival -6% at transfer to 32‰, = 93% survival to ~900 g

� BUT: at 400-700 g the fish was very sensitive to handling � This trial suggest a use for closed-contaiment RAS, also in grow-out

phase in Norwegian aquaculture

effects of water salinity and exercise on atlantic salmon ... of water salinity and exercise on...

Documents