Traditional aquaculture methods have drawn criticism from environmentalists and animal rights activists who claim waste from these operations harm seabeds, fish are kept under poor conditions, operations' usage of medication and antibiotics can harm wild marine animal populations, and the operations encroach on protected lands.
The solution, according to Chile-based Ocean Arks Tech (OAT), is to move fish-farming operations to the deep sea.
OAT proposes transferring aquaculture farms to huge ships that can remain far offshore; the firm’s concept vessel for the ambitious project measures 550 feet by 197 feet, boasts a heliport, and is specifically designed to operate offshore in waves up to 7 meters in height, allowing for repositioning to optimize farming conditions.
The vessels can also operate fully autonomously for up to 25 days, with harvesting of up to 3,900 metric tons conducted by a wellboat across eight mesh cages of 115-foot width or four cages of 210-foot width, with each cage measuring 115 feet long and 66 feet deep.
With the concept in place, OAT now aims to convince investors of its idea.
To that end, in September, company executives traveled to Hamburg, Germany, to present its concept vessel at the 2024 Shipbuilding, Machinery, and Marine Technology Trade Fair.
SeafoodSource spoke with OAT Founder and Director Rodrigo Sanchez, the former marketing and development manager for Salmones AquaChile and former CEO of EcoSea Farming, about the ambitious plans.
SeafoodSource: Doesn’t placing aquaculture pens on a boat increase carbon emissions?
Sanchez: The boat’s engines are not for sailing but to position the vessel in the best place for the fish in terms of water quality, temperature, oxygen, etc. It can drop anchor when the seabed depth is up to 700 meters to remain anchored in a quality water column. When the seabed is 3,700 meters, for example, the vessel does not anchor and remains drifting; the engines are not used.
We designed an early warning system with ROVs [robots] that circulate around the ship 24 hours a day. They give alerts when weather conditions are changing for you to make the necessary corrections. We estimate that we would use the engines about twice a week for three hours a day. It's just to keep up with the good quality water column; the use of the motors is quite minimal. It’s powered by the best, most efficient technology that exists today – a diesel-electric engine.
But, the most important issue is that we bring production closer to the place of consumption. For example, why are you going to send salmon from Chile to Seattle if you can have a ship operating offshore from Washington? There is a tremendous saving of CO2 emissions [in product transportation].
Also, you get really fresh fish because it's right off the coast. This is going to be almost to order; the fish are harvested, and in seven hours, you have them in your restaurant or the distribution center.
That's the advantage our technology has. When it comes to the carbon footprint, countries like Chile are not going to be competitive with countries like Norway or Canada that are closer to the United States. If we place the ship in front of the United States to supply that tremendous market, we are going to be very competitive. We are considered a gamechanger in aquaculture.
SeafoodSource: Does the vessel need to get to port to stock up?
Sanchez: No, it doesn't. Think of it as an oil rig. We are going to have the ship far from the coast, and the crew, together with supplies such as fish feed, are transported to the vessel via boats; the transport of juveniles would be loaded onto the vessel by wellboat; and the harvest is brought back to shore via wellboats.
We’ve had in-depth talks with NOAA over the possibility of having a prototype ship working to see if the U.S. government is willing to give us permission to operate in federal waters.
SeafoodSource: Is this solution expensive?
Sanchez: From an investment point of view, it is cheaper than any other technology in land-based or traditional aquaculture – especially compared to Norway where the licenses are very expensive.
But, it’s also cheaper when considering health issues; fish health and survival is where we make the difference. Our hypothesis is that by always keeping the fish in the best water conditions, we will need little or no antibiotics, and we want to show that with the pilot vessel.
The fish’s immune system is closely related to stress, and conditions such as poor water quality and interventions such as changing mesh can increase stress. Traditional mesh gets dirty with fouling and generates a decrease in oxygen flow inside the conventional cage; the fish begin to feel it. When the oxygen falls, when there is not much current, and when the water flow decreases inside the cage all affects fish health. Their defenses drop, and they are more susceptible to disease.
Our hypothesis is that far offshore, the fish are in a more natural condition, taking advantage of the best water conditions, optimal temperature, oxygen, etc., and the fish feel comfortable.
On the other hand, in traditional aquaculture, they are stuck inside the cage on the coast, and when the oxygen drops, the temperature drops, there is a high temperature, or there is algae, the fish can't leave. We can move as the fish could do on their own, and we are getting as close as possible to what they do naturally. With that, the fish should have a much more developed immune system.
SeafoodSource: What led you to think about OAT? Did it have to do with all the issues being faced in the industry – concessions, environmental concerns, social license to operate?
Sanchez: After the ISA virus crisis [in 2009-2010], new regulations were introduced regarding productive time, with sanitary rest [at the sites in between production cycles] and a lot of other regulations that were imported from other countries and adjusted for Chile.
We had all that potential to be able to offer a very efficient marine protein to the world. How were we limiting it so much?
Then, I realized that 20 to 30 years ago, producing on the coast with seabed technology was very interesting, and it was good and sustainable; however, from my point of view, the industry evolution and growth, responding to global demand, meant that there was an overconcentration along the coast – not only in Chile but also in other countries like Norway, Scotland, the United States, and Canada.
I came to the conclusion that aquaculture has to leave the coast; it has to move offshore. The world is 70 percent sea, and it didn't make sense to keep the industry confined to the coast.
Schools of fish have a very high concentration per cubic meter of water – sometimes around 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter. It is their way of maintaining and defending themselves. Industry regulations began to require less and less density; why? Because it is on the coast with a shallow bottom, so the ocean does not have time to work as a biodigester.
All the biological material falls to the seabed and affects the marine ecosystem. If this concentration is on the coast in a fixed place for years, the ocean cannot digest it. That leads to regulation, and even then, the quality of the water begins to change, which affects the fish, and you have to resort to things like antibiotics so that they don't die. Parasites appear, and a whole vicious circle is generated.
We believe that this offshore technology is the closest you can get to providing a natural environment and keeping the schools of fish happy – just like happy [free-range] chicken. That was the concept.
