Concept Origins
The concept of the Z.E.R.O. System was borne out of a desire to present Greenlanders with an acceptable (and even desirable) alternative to harvesting wild Atlantic Salmon, the impact of which is associated with a significant decline in the population strength of wild Atlantic Salmon which derive largely from North American stocks. The design has commercial and conservational applications, ranging from the raising of various aquatic organisms for consumption and biofuel production to the long-term maintenance of aquatic species with IUCN conservation status of Threatened. In the United States, alone, this would comprise a long list of recreationally-significant salmonids.
The Z.E.R.O. System design is such that a small investment will yield bountiful harvest when properly managed, and avoids several issues that are associated with conventional closed-containment aquaculture system design:
-
Complex design, and use of special equipment, which can only be installed and managed by trained technicians, or by experienced aquaculturists or researchers;
-
Skewed ratio of system volume dedicated to filtration, as opposed to the vast majority of system volume being skewed towards cohort grow-out space;
-
Cost of facility design and installation*;
-
Massive energy requirements*;
-
Inflexibility of system design once a project has begun construction or operation.
*With respect to operational and yield projections based on Z.E.R.O. System design.
In short, the Z.E.R.O. System design achieves two goals of the inventor: it provides a solution to the Greenlanders, and it does away with the outdated designs and operational requirements of conventional closed-containment aquaculture systems. The former is necessary because Greenland’s native fishermen are apparently no longer interested in entertaining proposals from NGOs to limit their salmon harvest; rather, the fishermen have expressed deep frustration and, in some cases, resentment towards outsiders who attempt to dictate their salmon harvest, either through suggestion of moral obligation or monetary compensation. The latter aspect of system design is necessary because conventional closed-containment aquaculture system designs rely upon monetary investments well in excess of what is within the means of most individuals or even communities (hence the implementation of such systems, nearly without exclusion, by commercial aquaculture companies and/or groups of investors) in developed nations, much less in developing nations, and additionally requires considerable space and energy to achieve a moderate yield (generally, conventional systems operate at a loss for several years prior to making a profit, whereas the Z.E.R.O. System design can yield profits with the first harvest if the cohort is properly managed). Both of these aspects of the Z.E.R.O. System design enable Greenlanders to raise their own salmonids in perpetuity, and are discussed (in reverse order) in greater detail below with reference both to this angle of the project, as well as to further commercial considerations.
Traditional closed-containment aquaculture filtration systems: massive, expensive, inefficient.
A significant barrier to entry into the aquaculture-for-food-fish market is that most companies who operate commercial facilities insist that their approach is the only financially feasible one which can be made to work on a large scale. It is more accurate to state that they are too invested in their existing infrastructure to make any modifications to their practices. This is not an uncommon problem in industrial circles, however such practice often impedes progress to the detriment of the consumer and/or the environment (the discussion will return to the specific topic of environmental impact further along).
Limiting the discussion to closed-containment aquaculture of food fishes, the application of “oversized public aquarium filtration” concepts has resulted in the failure of various commercial closed-containment aquaculture enterprises in the past decade, and there is significant probability that others who are currently using this approach will follow. There are multiple reasons that this approach is not feasible for food production to answer the global demand; ironically, it is generally not feasible for public aquarium applications, either. At the risk of sounding overly critical in the assessment of traditional closed-containment filtration approaches, the following paragraphs provide a pragmatic description of the shortcomings as they apply to a global closed-containment aquaculture solution. In short, the traditional filtration approaches lack the efficiency to adequately manage the rate of the cohort’s nutrient production in densely-populated aquatic systems. The design inefficiency is primarily due to two related factors: lack of an adequately-sized microbial population to reduce the nutrient content satisfactorily, and lack of a design which maximizes the rate of nutrient uptake by these same microbes.
Public aquaria rarely, if ever, operate on a closed-loop system indefinitely; this is a result of the gradual buildup of nutrients to concentrations harmful or fatal to the captive aquatic organisms. Nutrient buildup is one of the primary reasons that such operations are nearly always situated on, or very near, natural bodies of water (enabling nutrient-rich aquarium water to be filtered to the standards set forth by the governing body, generally (within the United States) a state-run branch of the EPA, prior to discharge into the nearby body of water). As such, filtration systems are designed to decrease the nutrient content (specifically, nitrate and phosphate) to a level slightly lower than the maximum tolerance of the captive organisms, however this tolerance threshold is generally well in excess of that which organisms raised for human consumption should be exposed to over a long term (such as during the latter stages of grow out (just prior to harvest), when feeding requirements and metabolic rates are highest in the system, resulting in very high rates of nutrient input). The use of this technology as the primary means of nutrient control in a closed-containment aquaculture system is therefore not feasible when the nutrient load imparted upon the system exceeds the rate at which the existing filtration can remove nutrients, either through direct removal or through conversion into increasingly elementary forms (e.g. reduction and demineralization).
Public aquaria, including those operated through state endowments, are businesses, contrary to notions otherwise, and are operated as such. Top-down pressure exists to employ only as much filtration as is required to suitably process the nutrient content of the water to the maximum allowable levels, as dictated by the EPA or by the observed tolerance of the organisms being housed. Additionally, public aquaria are built upon principles of wastewater management that have been in place for many decades (depending on the specific principals), most of which are either directly or partially adapted from sewage treatment processes. Even the newest public aquaria employ outdated filtration principles, because the directors of husbandry responsible for overseeing design of facilities have generally worked in the public aquaria sector for several decades by the time that they are deemed eligible for consideration for facility directorship. Often, these individuals may recommend designs with which they are familiar. Similarly, planners of such facilities are familiar with the costs associated with procurement of equipment and the implementation of the same in a traditional set up, causing traditional designs to become a budgetary fixture. The manner in which closed-containment aquaculture becomes ensnared in this web is two-fold: staff brought in to assist with facility design generally come from the public aquarium or zoological park sector, and the vendors who supply equipment to aquaculture facilities also count public aquaria among their clientele. The vendors therefore recommend products and procedures that are based on economies of scale (taking associated profit margins into account). These same vendors also deal with fish and invertebrate importation/holding/distribution facilities serving the public aquarium sector; such facilities generally utilize the same filtration approaches and technology as public aquariums, and as such they must flush their systems with “clean”, nutrient-poor water (likely chlorinated, requiring neutralization with a chemical additive) on a nearly continual basis to ensure that nutrient levels within their systems do not become lethal to the animals being stocked.
It is not our intention to insinuate that it is impossible to control nutrient levels in a completely closed system with the principles described above; however, the relative inefficiency of those principles requires that the filtration portion of a facility be scaled up dramatically in all cases, to be considerably larger than it was originally designed to be, adding to the overall cost of such a project, if bioload is to be maintained (rather than being reduced to a level that the filtration can actually cope with). Consider the example of the Georgia Aquarium, which was built in the 2000’s, and was at the time the largest public aquarium in the world, purported to utilize state-of-the-art filtration principles. The aquarium reportedly spared no expense in facility installation or design, and initially hired the former (longtime) director of the Waikiki Aquarium, who had previously worked for the University of Hawaii, as the facility director. The Georgia Aquarium made global news by being the first public aquarium in the United States to house Whale Sharks (Rhincodon typus) in captivity. Unfortunately for the fish, the filtration systems could not keep up with the nutrient load, and two of the Whale Sharks died as a result. Had the filtration technology in place been scaled up considerably, it’s possible that this problem might have been avoided, or at least delayed sufficiently to remove the fish to appropriate accommodations. As previously mentioned, however, the inefficiency of this traditional filtration technology requires tremendous space and energy to operate, both of which are costly and continue to make closed-system aquaculture operated on these filtration principles an exceedingly unlikely success.
Setting aside the example of public aquaria and focusing on aquaculture for food production, more is at stake than the physical appearance of the organisms comprising the cohort. Though health of the cohort is of utmost importance, there is also the consideration of financial stability of the aquaculturist. In short, if the growth rate of the cohort is limited by inability to feed on a set schedule as a result of system nutrient content which exceeds the uptake capacity of the filtration system per unit time, then the cost of system operation increases, resulting in decreased margin. Put simply, inefficient filtration results in slower growth rates of the cohort and/or increased incidence of illness and mortality due to suppressed immune resistance and/or nutrient toxicity, all of which are added costs to operation of the aquaculture system.
Returning to the topic of progress stagnation as a result of economy of scale, top-down pressure to economize and accept substandard results is easily avoided when innovative companies remain under complete operative control of credentialed, experienced technicians and engineers, who have addressed all likely operating scenarios with a contingency plan and who are operating within an appropriate budget. Preferably, these individuals comprise >50% of company ownership, as a means of ensuring long-term project and product viability; this is not to say that some owners will not choose to denigrate their product by cheapening it or employing cost-cutting measures which negatively impact the product, however the owners who maintain their passion about the initial vision of the company and/or operation, and who remain apprised of the positive impact that technological advancements have on their product, are apt to maintain their initial standards, if not improve them with time as available resources improve. Progress and innovation tend to be driven by consumer demand, particularly when consumers are technologically savvy and exhibit willingness to invest their private capital in a product of personal interest. The monetary resource within the private sector is vastly greater than the resources of venture capitalists, NGOs, and government-funded organizations, furthermore the decision to undertake a project on an individual scale is not dictated by a board of financial directors and/or team of accountants. Additionally, the intellectual resources within the private sector drive progress independent of consortiums, corporations, and organizations. These aspects place the potential reach of the Z.E.R.O. System project, in terms of individual- and cooperative-run systems, far beyond that of all of the global commercial aquaculture operations, combined.
System Design Benefits
Innovation. Pragmatism. Determination. Experience.
Making closed-containment, recirculating aquaculture work for the environment.
Working to alleviate anthropogenic burden on stocks of wild salmonids, worldwide.
Maximizing renewable resource application to minimize carbon production and waste generation.
Pioneering filtration methods which avoid environmental exploitation associated with traditional aquaculture system designs and concepts.
This is not the answer...
... and neither is this.
"THE RUT" STOPS HERE.
IT SEEMS that it takes privately-funded entities, operated by individuals whose ethical standards demand accountability to Nature and dismiss accountability to the failed status quo, and the purveyors thereof, to steer industries hampered with environmentally-exploitative practices into a path of entirely employing practices which benefit the environment while producing a superior product, whether that product be tangible, intellectual, or service-oriented.
Despite the widespread knowledge that many corporations within big industry operate within their own bubble, often employing unethical practices protected by vast amounts of capitol, lobbyists, and political relationships, all justified by monetary gain, there is a false sense of security enjoyed by these entities, namely reliance upon what would traditionally be termed "barrier to entry". In the past, this concept took the tangible forms of regulatory scrutiny and cost of establishing a viable organization capable of existing within a crowded local or global industry. The former will always exist, and can be downplayed by thinking of regulatory scrutiny as public protection against a potentially harmful product or idea. The latter, however, is no longer the powerful barrier that it formerly was, except in the most highly-regulated industries. With every financial set back experienced by an economy (or within an industry), the supply chain moves further from the classic, outdated distributor model towards a direct-to-consumer model, which is mutually beneficial for manufacturers and consumers alike. Further, reliance upon industry standard opinions as "fact" decreases as the educated consumer, scientist, or design engineer progressively loses faith in the establishment, due to their own research and experience. This lack of faith and drive to solve problems of all scales with greater efficiency and scientifically- and environmentally-sound techniques is the genesis of many business entities wishing to ethically improve outcomes in every sense of the word.
"The Rut" alluded to in the title of this piece is the assertion by influential business entities that those standard industry practices which are inefficient and openly environmentally harmful be perpetuated as a matter of existing infrastructure, resulting in an unwillingness by those entities to evolve despite the obvious and/or admitted harm that these practices cause. Aquaculture, both that which is conducted in net pens, as well as that conducted in closed-circulation facilities, is permeated with these harmful practices.
Consider a net pen facility raising thousands of fish within a space so confined that the fish do not develop properly or even fully, in population densities so high that wide-scale treatment with antibiotics (harmful to aquatic life, and to aquatic ecosystems by way of destroying microbial communities) is required to keep the fish alive throughout the course of their existence, and in systems which are easily breached (enabling the escape of the fish, which are genetically-modified to maximize rate of feed conversion and, subsequently growth rate, into the wild to commingle, and potentially spawn, with native stocks of the same species, and to compete for the same space and feeding resources) as a result of: chewing through the net material by aquatic predators, such as seals; damage sustained during storms; negligence. One aquaculture facility operating in a piece of water will comprise multiple such pens, each one containing hundreds or (often) thousands of fish. Systems such as this are ticking environmental time bombs; it is not a matter of if, but when and to what extent, they will impact the local environment.
Now consider a land-based facility which, despite utilizing state-of-the-art filtration (according to the sellers of these systems), must discharge (potentially, tens of) thousands of gallons of wastewater daily due to the inability of the filtration system to manage the nutrient budget of the facility. In order to maintain the system volume, clean water is pumped in to the facility at the same rate that the nutrient-rich water is discharged as waste. If the incoming water is treated with chloramines by the municipal water treatment authority, then this water must undergo pre-filtration or addition of chloramine-neutralizing chemicals (chloramines are toxic to aquatic life). Now imagine if that facility is raising marine or brackish species, and that the wastewater is a dilute seawater mixture made with the least-expensive components (failing to meet standards of purity for human consumption, but being used to raise fish which are expressly intended for human consumption), likely with heavy metal content (e.g. lead, arsenic) which exceeds EPA standards for wastewater discharge. Despite the space allocated to filtration being equivalent to, or (likely) greater than, the space allocated to the cohort being raised, the rate of nutrient input (feeding) required to grow the animals quickly enough to turn a profit exceeds the rate of nutrient export that the filtration system is capable of. In essence, the system is in a constant mode of waste dilution. Consider that the demand for clean water throughout the world is increasing. Imagine a network of these systems operating throughout the world, and the sheer volume of water, as well as the amount of environmental burden of wastewater remediation, required for their operation. Such a network is the goal of the organizations currently operating such systems. They would ideally like to see systems of their design, under their direction, in place near every major city. Relative to net pen aquaculture, their systems, they argue, are more "sustainable".
Too often, the word "sustainability" surfaces in promotional literature. It has become a rallying cry and catch phrase of many organizations seemingly wishing to convey an image of corporate responsibility to their prospective patrons. "Our business practices are damaging the environment (through the wasting of natural resources, release of invasive species into the wild, prodigious use of single-use plastic packaging, constant mailing of promotional literature to customers, etc.), but we give so much back to the community in the way of donations, volunteer work, and/or choosing to employ local people as opposed to taking our labor needs offshore that we feel it's a wash." Perhaps the goal should be accountability, specifically holding one's self accountable for one's actions and the associated ramifications.
As should be evident to the reader, neither of the two methods of aquaculture discussed above are sustainable. Were accountability the goal of existing net pen and land-based aquaculture operations*, then the aquaculture industry would be unrecognizable to those familiar with its workings. *There are land-based aquaculture organizations aiming to operate in an accountable fashion, but they are very few, and the investment that has been made to establish their operations has been considerable, and is beyond the financial resources available to most individuals and communities who are interested in consuming and/or raising their own aquacultured food without directly or indirectly causing significant environmental harm. Resultantly, these accountable land-based operations could provide and enact long-term benefits and changes to land-based aquaculture practices, respectively, but the systems are still in their infancy, there are still details to improve upon (such as the flavor of the product), and it should therefore not be contentious to state that a short-term viable solution would be welcomed by the world and, particularly, the environment, not as a competitor to these accountable land-based aquaculturists, but as an adjunct.
-
Raise aquaculture stocks entirely within systems which are separated from Nature, having no ability to interfere with the surrounding habitat regardless of circumstances.
-
Utilize system design which eliminates the requirement to dilute nutrient content in order to maintain cohort viability.
-
Adjust and maintain water parameters with the necessary compounds, of the highest standards of purity, for sustainable cohort growth and quality of soft tissue.
-
Utilize feeds and feed components which reflect a nutrient profile required by the species raised for normal development, and which do not contain: grains or their byproducts; hormones; heavy metals.
Does this proposal seem elementary? It is. It also works. Does that seem elementary? It should.
Does this proposal impact the price of the product at market? It depends entirely on the comparison being made. Overall, the answer is likely to be "yes" if the comparison is being made to net pen production. If the product is superior to competing products such that it becomes a clear consumer choice, then the marginal increase in price is justified (and it is marginal, because the consumables in such an operation are largely commodities). This statement may seem too simple for a bean counter to swallow, however it's unlikely that they've sat down and done the math. Remember this: quality will be remembered long after price is forgotten. What good is a product if no one is interested in purchasing it?
How much longer can net pen operations maintain their hold on the global aquaculture supply chain? Given the environmental impacts inherent in their operations, their time is running out. The same is true of land-based operations polluting the local environment with waste water.