Printer Friendly

An integrated decision support system (DSS) for the management of sustainable mariculture in Indonesia.

INTRODUCTION

As the stocks of wild fish decline worldwide and the human population increases, aquaculture is becoming one of the quickest increasing food production sectors and also important as protein food supplier to the world population [1,2,3]. On the other hand as a result of the increase in fish production and seafood mariculture, there is a growing concern about the impacts of such activities on the environment. Therefore, it is vital to improve aquaculture technology and to develop management tools that address the need for an eco-friendly production process and the concerns regarding food safety [4].

In 2010, an ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) was introduced by FAO to promote sustainable development, equity, and the resilience of interlinked socio-ecological systems. Farhan and Lim [5]recommended the use of Decision Support Systems (DSSs) to meet the flexibility of dynamic environments.In this paper the application of a DSS under development at the Research and Technology Centre Westcoast of the University of Kiel for the sustainable environmental and socio- economic management of floating net cage (SYSMAR) is assessed. The DSS utilizes high resolution hydrodynamic information concerning water depth, current velocities and wave heights obtained from hydrodynamic models. Through GIS as spatial planning tools, SYSMAR DSS is able to assist in estimating site selection, determine different types of carrying capacities (CC) such as production CC, as well as ecological CC to guarantee sustainable environmental development. Furthermore, a method for the economic analysis of mariculture investment is proposed. Financial indicators to enable an adequate economic assessment were identified [6,7,4].

The investigations were carried out at three priority sites in Indonesia namely Talise Island located in the northern most tip of Sulawesi; Galang Island which is part of the Riau Archipelago located opposite of Singapore and Ekas Bay located south of the Lombok Island(see Figure 1). The development focuses on the most common high value finfish species nurtured in FNC in Indonesia [8,9,10,11]. Thus, Tiger grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus), Humpback grouper (Cromoliptes altivelis), and Leopard Coral grouper (Plectropomeus leopardus) are considered.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Hydrodynamic and wave models:

In order to provide flow and wave information, hydrodynamic models for the three selected regions were set up using the open source Delft3D modeling suite. Curvilinear grids covered the region with increasing resolutions of up to 40 meters in the areas of interest as indicated in Figure 1. Bathymetric information was taken from the GEBCO database [12]. Additional bathymetric information for the near shore was provided by the national surveying agency [13]. Tidal driving forces were specified along the open model boundaries in the form of astronomical constituents [14]. Wave models were set up using maximum wind magnitudes and directions for the period 2005 to 2009 from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis database [15].

Site Selection:

A comprehensive site suitability and capability map which integrates all of the selected criteria was edited using thirty two parameters identified in Table 1. In order to assess the relative impacts of each category of parameters (e.g. physical, chemical, and ICZM) on the DSS result, the suitability maps of the three applied categories are presented. The parameters considered in SYSMAR were taken from FAO, Cross and Kingzett, Kapetsky and Agullar-Manjarrez and Szuster and Albasri [16,17,18,19].

Production Carrying Capacity:

Production carrying capacities have been defined by the emission of particulate carbon governed by the amount of waste and physical characteristics, and deposited beneath FNC farms [20]. A simplified footprint approach considers particle settling velocities, carbon flux, current velocities, water depth and dispersion constants to provide an approximation of the carbon deposition footprint and derived deposition rates around the farm as described in Gilibrand and Van der Wulp [21,6]. Gilibrand [21] identified a breakdown rate of 0.7 kg C [m.sup.-2] [y.sup.-1], which is equivalent to 1.9 g C [m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1] and adopted by Rachmansyah [22], while Krost [23] proposed a slightly more conservative threshold value of about 0.5 to 2 g C [m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1] on the basis of measurements carried out in fish farms in Indonesia. Thus in order to ensure practical sustainability in Indonesia, we adopt the threshold value criteria of 1-2 g C [m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1] for determining local/production carrying capacity.

Ecological Carrying Capacity:

In this paper, the ecological carrying capacity for FNC finfish farms within a domain is set to be equivalent to the production rates of total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) which do not contribute more than 1% of the TDN flux of the domain [24,25,6].

Economic Analysis of Mariculture Investments:

Economic decision tools in mariculture aim to assist farmers, potential investors, and decision makers (stakeholders) in understanding the economic requirements, costs and benefits, and risks involved in production. Economic sustainability is maintained when environmentally sustainable production rates remain profitable [26]. In this paper, the discount cash flow analysis methodologies facilitate the justification of an investment in cases in which the net present value (NPV) is greater than 0, the benefit cost ratio (BCR) greater than 1 and the internal rate of return (IRR) greater than each benefit cost value [27,28]. Required information of the main economic properties of grouper at Galang Island was collected from various institutions in 2012 and 2013 as shown in Table 2 (1 [euro] = 12.500 IDR).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Site Selection:

After classifying, the physical information from hydrodynamic and wave numerical models give an insight into the spatial distribution of areas which are suited for the development of floating net cage mariculture. The first location for the application of SYSMAR DSS site selection is in the vicinity of Talise Island. The concluding outcome of the wave parameter analysis showed that all the area is defined as unsuitable (see Figure 3a). As can be seen in Figure 3b, the final result of site selection in Ekas Bay shows no potentially suitable area for development of floating net cages (FNC) grouper culture. It is affected by incopatible wave height parameter, current and flushing which are considered too weak or low for FNC activities. Conditions are more feasible in Galang Island. The final result of the suitability map from all parameters in the vicinity of the Galang Island can be seen in Figure 3c. It shows about 12,940 Ha (40.3%) of the seawater area in Galang Island are interpreted as suited area. The areas are spread over the vicinity of the Galang Island. Regarding the results of site selection carried out on three areas, we conclude that Galang Island is a suitable location for further development of FNC grouper culture in Indonesia.

Production Carrying Capacity:

There is a large area available for the development of FNC grouper culture in Galang Island. The SYSMAR DSS is applied to recognize the best locations for a limited number of farms. The selection is carried out for all potential farms based on the production carrying capacity. Thus, suitable and potential locations for all farms with a minimum distance of 500 meters between individual farms were selected for each of the locations as shown in Figure 3d. We consider large scale farms (over 100 cages) made up of cages with the size of 3m x 3m x 3m, with a distance between cages of 1 m [33,34].

In Galang Island, prediction based on maximum deposition and feeding with trash fish indicated that about 51-125 tons/year/farm can be produced, but when feeding with mixed trash fish and pellet or feeding just pellet about 73 to 196 tons/year/farm and 115 to 366 tons/year/farm, respectively can be sustained (see Table 3). Discrepancies of the production carrying capacity are obtained by feeding type and also physical models which are influenced by currents and maximum water depth parameters as dominant factors and responsible for the indicated ranges.

Ecological Carrying Capacity:

The ecological carrying capacity for FNC finfish farms within a domain is proposed to be equivalent to emission rates of total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) not exceeding 1% of the TDN flux of the suitable domain. The maximum daily TDN load is calculated with respect to the flushing rate and TDN background concentration of the suited region, which is recorded in the order of 0.31 mg N [l.sup.-1] [35]. As can be seen in Table 3, the ecological carrying capacities are in the range of 18,393-21,727 tons per year in the vicinity of Galang Island.

Since the estimation of the total maximum production CC does not exceed the ecological carrying capacity [36], the estimation of the maximum allowable production in the vicinity of Galang Island is 21,727 t/a. Regarding the estimation of production carrying capacity in the vicinity of Galang Island, this total production is achieved by 206 fish farms with an estimated production CC in the range of 32.5 t/a/f to 366 t/a/f.

Economic Analysis of the SYSMAR DSS:

The aim of the Indonesian government is to expand fish farming activities, especially through small family owned businesses. Therefore, it is necessary to consider small scale farms (10 cages or less) and large scale farms (100 cages or more).Table 4 presents a ranking of the 18 cases studied of 10 cages and 600 cages according to the indicators of financial viability of FNC grouper culture projects in Galang Island. The project ranking shows that the highest net present value (NPV) amounts to 9,961 million Euros that the highest internal rate of return (IRR) amounts to 590% and that the payback period is shorter than 1 year in the case of a large farm of 600 cages in which the variety Leopard Coral Grouper is fed trash fish. On the other hand, the lowest NPV is obtained from a small farm of 10 cages in which the variety Tiger Grouper is fed pellets (NPV: 34,089 [euro], IRR 107% and payback less than 1 year).

Surprisingly, the results for the 18 cases show strongly positive levels of NPV, very large values of internal rate of return, well above the discount rate value of 13% and an extremely short payback period below one year. It is apparent that the economic analysis for the sites in Galang Island clearly indicates the economic feasibility of FNC grouper culture projects.

The research shows that FNC finfish culture developments are economically viable as a whole, because after a 5-year projection period, positive cumulative cash flow and net present value, internal rate of return at rates above the bank rates, and a payback period far below the 5 year projected lifetime of the project are evident.

The use and implementation of a DSS for sustainable aquaculture development in Indonesia, with respect to the EAA concept of various carrying capacities which was introduced by FAO in 2010, is very complex and a number of concerns should be taken into account. We find that the dissimilarity of the definitions of carrying capacity in the different contexts, along with its development is a complex problem. On the other hand, this DSS is able to present the integration of all key components of detailed site selection, determination of carrying capacity along with an economic appraisal.

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 12 February 2015

Accepted 1 March 2015

Available online 28 March 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to show my gratitude to Rector of Lancang Kuning University Pekanbaru Indonesia.

REFERENCES

[1] Ruckert S., S. Klimpel, S. Al-Quraishy, H. Mehlhorn, H.W. Palm, 2009. Transmission of Fish Parasites Into Grouper Mariculture (Serranidae: Epinephelus coioides (Hamilton, 1822)) in Lampung Bay, Indonesia. Parasitology Research, 104(3): 523-532.

[2] FAO., 2007. Table of World aquaculture of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, etc., by principal producers.ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/stat/summary/summ_07/default.htm. Accessed 15 August 2010.

[3] Staniford, D., 2002. Sea cage fish farming: an evaluation of environmental and public health aspects (the five fundamental flaw of sea cage fish farming). Paper presented by Don Staniford at the European Parliaments Committee on Fisheries public hearing on "Aquaculture in the European Union: Present Situation and Future Prospects", 1st October 2002. http://www.europarl.eu.int/hearings/20021001/pech/programme_en.pdfhttp://www.eur oparl.eu.int/committ ees/pech_home.htm. Accessed 24 May 2011.

[4] Hermawan, S., S.A. van der Wulp, K.R. Niederndorfer, K.H. Runte, R. Mayerle, 2012. System for the Sustainable Management of Floating Net Cage Mariculture (SYSMAR). An Application to Three Selected Regions in Indonesia. Proceeding of Marcoastecos Conference in Albania.

[5] Farhan, A.R., S. Lim, 2010. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Towards Indonesia Global Ocean Observing System (INA-GOOS): review and recommendation, Ocean& Coastal Management, 52: 421427.

[6] Wulp, S.A., Van der, K.R. Niederndorfer, K.J. Hesse, K.H. Runte, R. Mayerle, A. Hanafi, 2010. Sustainable Environmental Management for Tropical Floating Net Cage Mariculture, A Modeling Approach, XVIIth World Congress of the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering (CIGR). Quebec City. Canada.

[7] Mayerle, R., A. Hanafi, K.J. Hesse, S.A. Wulp, Van der, K.R. Niederndorfer, K.H. Runte, N. Ladwig, A. Giri, F. Kleinfeld, K. Sugama, 2011. Verbundprojekt: WTZ Indonesien: SYSMAR-- Integriertes System fur das Management einer okologisch und sozio-okonomisch nachhaltigen Marikultur in Indonesien; Teilproject 1. Retrieved from BMBF-Verbundvorhaben data base. (FKZ 03F0469A)

[8] Heemstra, P.C., J.E. Randal, 1993. FAO Species Catalogue. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the grouper, rockcod, hid, coral grouper and lyretail species, Food and Agriculture of the United Nations.ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/t0540e/t0540e00.pdf. Accessed 7 April 2010.

[9] Sim, S.Y., M.A. Rimmer, J.A. Toledo, K. Sugama, I. Rumengan, K.C. Williams, M.J. Philips, 2005. A Practical Guide to Feeds and Feed Management for Cultured Groupers. NACA, Bangkok. Thailand, 18.

[10] Sadovy, Y.J., T.J. Donaldson, T.R. Graham, F. McGilvray, G.J. Muldoon, M.J. Phillips, M.A. Rimmer, A. Smith, B. Yeeting, 2003. While Stocks Last: The Live Reef Food Fish Trade. Pacific Studies Series. Asian Development Bank: Manila, 147.

[11] Sadovy, Y., C. Thierry, J.H. Choat, A.S. Cabanban, 2008. Cromileptes altivelis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.<www.iucnredlist.org>. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39774/0. Accessed 15 December 2012.

[12] IOC/IHO/BODC, 2003. General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans.British Oceanographic Data Centre, Liverpool, U.K. http://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gebco_digital_atlas/. Accessed 4 May 2010.

[13] Bakosurtanal (Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan Nasional), 2011. National Coordinator for Survey and Mapping Agency, Indonesia. Nautical chart number, 42: 262-334.

[14] Egbert, G.D., S.Y. Erofeeva, 2002. Efficient Inverse Modeling of Barotropic Ocean Tides, J. Atmos. Tide extracted from Total Model Driver. Oceanic Technol, 19(2): 183-204. http://www.esr.org/polar_tide_models/Model_TPXO62.html#EgbertErofeeva_2002. Accessed 10 July 2010.

[15] NOAA/OAR/ESRLPSD, 2009. NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis 2 data. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Global six hourly reanalysis data with the resolution 1.87 degrees (192 x 94 grid) for wind and sea level pressure. Accessed 4 May 2010.

[16] FAO., 1989. Site Selection Criteria for Marine Finfish Net Cage Culture in Asia, UNDP/FAO Regional Sea farming Development and Demonstration Project, Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia. FAO Documentation NACA-SF/WP/89/13.

[17] Cross, S.F., B.C. Kingzett, 1992. Biophysical Criteria for Shellfish Culture in British Columbia: A Site Capability Evaluation System. Aquametrix Research. Ltd. Sidney. B.C., 61.

[18] Kapetsky, J.M., J. Aguilar-Manjarrez, 2007. Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing and Mapping for The Development and Management of Marine Aquaculture. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 141.

[19] Szuster, W.B., H. Albasri, 2010. Site Selection for Grouper Mariculture in Indonesia, International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2(3): 87-92.

[20] Gowen, R.J., N.B. Bradbury, J.R. Brown, 1989. The Use of Simple Models in Assessing Two of the Interactions Between Fish Farming and the Marine Environment, in: De Pauw, N. et al. (Ed.). Aquaculture: a biotechnology in progress, 1: 1071-1080.

[21] Gilibrand, P.A., M.J. Gubbins, C. Greatheard, I.M. Davies, 2002. Scottish Executive Locational Guidelines for Fish Farming: Predicted Levels of Nutrient Enhancement and Benthic Impact. Scottish fisheries research report (63) 2002. Aberdeen: Fisheries research service, 52.

[22] Rachmansyah., 2004. Carrying Capacity Analysis of Awerange Bay of Milkfish Culture Development in Floating Net Cages. PhD dissertation. In Indonesia Language. Bogor Agricultural University, 274.

[23] Krost, P., unpbl.data, 2007. Sediments carrying capacity of organic pollution and cumulative effects by fish farming in a tidally influenced region in Riau region, Indonesia.SPICE Cluster 3.2 Verbundprojekt Indonesien: Entwicklung einer Systemlosung fur ein nachhaltiges Management lebender Ressourcen (Aquakultur) BMBF-Verbundvorhaben FKZ 03F0393A.

[24] Weston, D.P., 1986. The Environmental Effects of Floating Mariculture in Puget Sound. Prepared by the University of Washington, School of Oceanography for the Washington Department of Fisheries and Ecology, 148.

[25] GESAMP, 2001. (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). Planning and management for sustainable coastal aquaculture development. Report and Studies No. 68. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations.ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y1818e/y1818e00.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2011.

[26] Johston, B., T. Pickering, 2003. The Economics of Aquaculture in Comparison With Other Rural Development Opportunities In Pacific Island Countries, Marine Studies Programme The University of the South Pacific, Queensland, 24.

[27] Jacob, H., 1969. Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Verlag Gabler Wiesbaden Betriebswirtschaftlicher, 964.

[28] Afero, F., S. Miao, A.A. Perez, 2010. Economic Analysis of Tiger Grouper Epinephelus Fuscoguttatus And Humpback Grouper Cromoliptes Altivelis Commercial Cage Culture In Indonesia, Aquaculture Int 18: 725-739. [26] Act no. 17., (2010). Undang--Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 17 Tahun 2010 tentang Tarif efektif Pph Badan (Progressive tax for Indonesia domestic agency). http://www.bppk.depkeu.go.id/webpajak/index.php/artikel/opini-kita-pph/1217- tarif-efektif-pphbadanAccessed 10 January 2011.

[29] Act no. 17., 2010. Progressive Tax for Indonesia Domestic Agency. In Indonesian language. http://www.bppk.depkeu.go.id/webpajak/index.php/artikel/opini-kita-pph/1217- tarif-efektif-pph-badan. Accessed 25 March 2012.

[30] Alongi, D.M., A.D. McKinnon, R. Brinkman, L.A. Trott, M.C. Undu, M. Rachmansyah, 2009. The Fate of Organic Matter Derived From Small-Scale Fish Cage Aquaculture In Coastal Waters of Sulawesi And Sumatra Indonesia, Aquaculture 295(1-2): 60-75.

[31] Ismi, S., 2012. Personal communication. GRIM (Gondol research institute for Mariculture Indonesia), Center for aquaculture research and development, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. http://www.rca-prpb.com/content.php

[32] Ministry of marine affairs and fisheries (MMAF) Indonesia, 2013. Information price of Grouper in June 2013.In Indonesian Language.http://wartaekonomi.co.id/berita11314/budidaya-laut- peluang-usahaberprospek-cerah.html

[33] Kongkeo, H., C. Wayne, M. Murdjani, P. Bunliptanon, T. Chien, 2010. Current Practices of Marine Finfish Cage Culture in China, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Aquaculture Asia Magazine, XV(2): 32-40.

[34] Wong, M., M.A. Barbeau, R.A. Aiken, 1999. Intertidal Invertebrate Population Density and Diversity: Does Salmon Aquaculture Play a Role. Environment Canada, Occ. Rep.12: (89-100). Proceeding 3rd Bay of Fundy Workshop.

[35] SPICE (Science for the Protection of the Indonesian Coastal Environments)., unpbl.data, 2006. Development of a Decision Support System for Sustainable Environment Management of Mariculture in Indonesia.Techn.Report.

[36] Byron, C.J., B.A. Costa-Pierce, 2010. Carrying Capacity Tolls For Use in the Implementation for an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture, Presented at the FAO Expert Workshop on Aquaculture Site Selection And Carrying Capacity Estimates For Inland And Coastal Water Bodies, Institute of Aquaculture, University Stirling, Stirling, U.K.

(1) Hermawan S. and (2) Syafrani

(1) Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technic, Lancang Kuning University, Pekanbaru Riau, Indonesia.

(2) Faculty of Agriculture, Lancang Kuning University, Pekanbaru Riau, Indonesia.

Corresponding Author: Hermawan S., Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technic, Lancang Kuning University, Pekanbaru Riau, Indonesia.

Table 1: Site selection of groupers grown in floating net cages.

Description      Parameters         Indicators            Units

Physical      Min. water depth      water depth             m
Process         Max. mooring

                                    water depth             m
                  Flushing

                                   mean current            m/s
                  Currents

                                   mean current            m/s
              Exposure to waves

                                    significant             m
                                   wave max wind

              Exposure to wind
                                       speed               m/s
              Water temperature

                                       water           [degrees]C
                  Salinity          temperature

                                     salinity              ppm
              Dissolved oxygen
                                     dissolved        mg[O.sub.2]/l
                                      oxygen

                  Acid-base             pH              -log(H+)
                   balance

                    Water
                transparency       Secchi depth             m

                  Turbidity
                                     suspended            mg/l
                                      matter

                  Ammonium
Water                                ammonium       mg N[H.sub.4]-N/l
Quality

                   Nitrate
                                      nitrate       mg N[O.sub.3]-N/l

                   Nitrite
                                      nitrite       mg N[O.sub.2]-N/l

                  Phosphate
                                  total phosphate        mg P/l

                  Villages         thematic map             m

                                   thematic map             m

                    Towns
                                   thematic map             m

                   Cities
                                   thematic map             m

                  Harbours
                                   thematic map             m

                  Industry
                                   thematic map             m

ICZM               Tourism
                                   thematic map             m

                   Streams
                                   thematic map             m

                   Rivers
                                   thematic map             m

                   Erosive
                  shoreline        thematic map             m

               Semi intensive
                 hatcheries        thematic map             m

                  Intensive
                 hatcheries        thematic map             m

                    Ponds
                                   thematic map             m

                   Sewage
                 discharges        thematic map             m

                Traffic lanes
                                   thematic map             m

                Coastal usage
                                   thematic map             m
               Environmentally
               protected area

Description      Parameters       Unsuitable     Allowable

Physical      Min. water depth       < 6         [greater
Process         Max. mooring                      than or
                                                equal to] 6

                                     > 25       [less than
                  Flushing                       or equal
                                                  to] 25

                                    <0.01        [greater
                  Currents                        than or
                                               equal to]0.01

                                     > 1           [less
              Exposure to waves                   than or
                                                equal to]1

                                     > 1           [less
                                                  than or
                                                equal to]1
              Exposure to wind
                                     > 15         [less
              Water temperature                   than or
                                                equal to]15

                                  <20 or >35       20-35
                  Salinity

                                  <15 or >35       15-35
              Dissolved oxygen
                                     < 4         [greater
                                                  than or
                                                equal to]6

                  Acid-base       <6 or >8.5       6-7.8
                   balance

                    Water
                transparency         < 2         [greater
                                                  than or
                                                equal to]2
                  Turbidity
                                     > 10          [less
                                                  than or
                                                equal to]10
                  Ammonium
Water                                > 1           [less
Quality                                           than or
                                                equal to]1
                   Nitrate
                                    > 200          [less
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                   Nitrite
                                     > 4           [less
                                                  than or
                                                equal to]4
                  Phosphate
                                     > 70          [less
                                                  than or
                                                equal to]70

                  Villages          < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200

                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                    Towns
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                   Cities
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                  Harbours
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                  Industry
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
ICZM               Tourism
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                   Streams
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                   Rivers
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                   Erosive
                  shoreline         < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
               Semi intensive
                 hatcheries         < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                  Intensive
                 hatcheries         < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                    Ponds
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                   Sewage
                 discharges         < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                Traffic lanes
                                    < 200        [greater
                                                  than or
                                               equal to]200
                Coastal usage
                                    < 200        [greater
               Environmentally                    than or
               protected area                  equal to]200

Description      Parameters       Optimal

Physical      Min. water depth      > 8
Process         Max. mooring

                                   < 20
                  Flushing

                                  0.2-0.5
                  Currents

                                  0.2-0.5
              Exposure to waves

                                   < 0.6

              Exposure to wind
                                   < 10
              Water temperature

                                   27-31
                  Salinity

                                   26-31
              Dissolved oxygen
                                    > 5

                  Acid-base       7.8-8.5
                   balance

                    Water
                transparency        > 4

                  Turbidity
                                    < 5

                  Ammonium
Water                              < 0.5
Quality

                   Nitrate
                                   < 200

                   Nitrite
                                    < 4

                  Phosphate
                                   < 70

                  Villages         > 500

                                   > 500

                    Towns
                                   > 500

                   Cities
                                   > 500

                  Harbours
                                   > 500

                  Industry
                                   > 500

ICZM               Tourism
                                   > 500

                   Streams
                                   > 500

                   Rivers
                                   > 500

                   Erosive
                  shoreline        > 500

               Semi intensive
                 hatcheries        > 500

                  Intensive
                 hatcheries        > 500

                    Ponds
                                   > 500

                   Sewage
                 discharges        > 500

                Traffic lanes
                                   > 500

                Coastal usage
                                   > 500
               Environmentally
               protected area

Table 2: Economic properties of grouper
cultures at Galang Island

Economic Properties                                   10 FNC   600 FNC

Investment, including           Floating net          11,908   504,000
  home base, guard             cages 3x3 x3m          [euro]   [euro]
  house, storage,
FNC, operational              Lifespan (years)          5
  equipment, electric,
  contingency, etc
Indonesian Bank, 2012        Discount rate (%)          13
Progressive Tax, Law            Tax rate (%)            25
  No.17, 2010 [29]
Food convertion ratio            Trash fish            7.78
  [30,6]                          Pellets              2.64
Grow out period                Tiger Grouper           300
  (day) [6]                   Humpback Grouper         500
                           Leopard Coral Grouper       180
Seed price                     Tiger Grouper           0.6
  ([euro]/kg) [31]            Humpback Grouper         0.96
                           Leopard Coral Grouper       2.72
Feed price                       Trash fish            0,32
  ([euro]/kg) [31]                Pellets              1.04
Production (kg)                Tiger Grouper          3,285    197,100
                              Humpback Grouper        1,380    87,782
                           Leopard Coral Grouper      5,475    328,500
Commodity Value                Tiger Grouper                11.20 [euro]
  ([euro]/kg) [31,32]         Humpback Grouper              28.00 [euro]
                           Leopard Coral Grouper            21.60 [euro]
Wages ([euro]/year)             Total wages           4,612    44,688
                                                      [euro]   [euro]

Table 3: Results of the estimation of site selection and carrying
capacity, A) Site Selection, B) Production CC based on the dissipation
of particulate organic matter in the vicinity of a particular farm, C)
Ecological CC based on the maximum POM load and TDN surplus.

Type of Carrying    Feedstock   Grouper species
Capacity

                                     TG               HG

Site Selection Ha                                   12,940

Production Carrying Capacity:
Deposition threshold 1g C
[m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1]

t/a/fish farm        TF (a)        0.5-59           0.5-85
                      P (b)        0.5-158          2-400
                      M (c)        0.5-90          0.5-153

Deposition threshold 2g C
[m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1]

t/a/fish farm          TF         0.5-155.5         1-277
                        P           3-624          20-1000
                        M           1-268          2.5-650

Ecological Carrying
Capacity (d) based on a
limitation by particulate
organic matter:

t/a/entire domain      TF        3,959-9,972     5,371-15,503
                        P       10,478-35,993   22,162-128,071
                        M       6,014-16,729     9,152-33,467

based on a limitation by
Total Dissolved Nitrogen:

t/a/entire domain      TF          18,393           18,393
                        P          21,727           21,727
                        M          20,116           20,116

Type of Carrying    Feedstock   Grouper species
Capacity

                                     LG

Site Selection Ha

Production Carrying Capacity:
Deposition threshold 1g C
[m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1]

t/a/fish farm        TF (a)        0.5-51
                      P (b)      0.5-115.5
                      M (c)       0.5-73.5

Deposition threshold 2g C
[m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1]

t/a/fish farm          TF        0.5-125.5
                        P          2-366
                        M          1-196

Ecological Carrying
Capacity (d) based on a
limitation by particulate
organic matter:

t/a/entire domain      TF       3,493-8,410
                        P       7,942-23,795
                        M       5,308-13,050

based on a limitation by
Total Dissolved Nitrogen:

t/a/entire domain      TF          18,393
                        P          21,727
                        M          20,166

Remarks: (a) trash fish, (b) Pellet, (c) Mix 70% trash fish and
30% pellet (d) The calculation considers an acceptable bed load
of 1-2g organic carbon [m.sup.-2] [d.sup.-1]

Table 4: Rankins of economic analysis of the FNC finfish culture.

No.               Type of Floating                 NPV     IRR (%)
                 Net Cages Grouper               (1.000
                                                 [euro])

                     600 Cages

1              Leopard Coral Grouper              9,961      590
               feed with trash fishes
2         Leopard Coral Grouper feed with         9,837      583
              trash fishes and pellets
3     Leopard Coral Grouper feed with pellets     9,739      577
4        Humpback Grouper feed with pellets       4,062      257
5     Humpback Grouper feed with trash fishes     4,025      255
6            Humpback Grouper feed with           3,994      253
              trash fishes and pellets
7       Tiger Grouper feed with trash fishes      3,159      204
8             Tiger Grouper feed with             3,054      200
              trash fishes and pellets
9             Tiger Grouper 600 cases             2,996      197
                 feed with pellets

                      10 cages

10             Leopard Coral Grouper               150       387
               feed with trash fishes
11           Leopard Coral Grouper feed            148       382
           with trash fishes and pellets
12    Leopard Coral Grouper feed with pellets      146       378
13    Humpback Grouper feed with trash fishes      51        149
14           Humpback Grouper feed with            51        148
              trash fishes and pellets
15       Humpback Grouper feed with pellets        50        147
16      Tiger Grouper feed with trash fishes       36        112
17            Tiger Grouper feed with              35        109
              trash fishes and pellets
18        Tiger Grouper feed with pellets          34        107

No.               Type of Floating               PP year
                 Net Cages Grouper

                     600 Cages

1              Leopard Coral Grouper              0.19
               feed with trash fishes
2         Leopard Coral Grouper feed with         0.17
              trash fishes and pellets
3     Leopard Coral Grouper feed with pellets     0.17
4        Humpback Grouper feed with pellets       0.39
5     Humpback Grouper feed with trash fishes     0.39
6            Humpback Grouper feed with           0.39
              trash fishes and pellets
7       Tiger Grouper feed with trash fishes      0.49
8             Tiger Grouper feed with             0.50
              trash fishes and pellets
9             Tiger Grouper 600 cases             0.51
                 feed with pellets

                      10 cages

10             Leopard Coral Grouper              0.26
               feed with trash fishes
11           Leopard Coral Grouper feed           0.26
           with trash fishes and pellets
12    Leopard Coral Grouper feed with pellets     0.26
13    Humpback Grouper feed with trash fishes     0.66
14           Humpback Grouper feed with           0.67
              trash fishes and pellets
15       Humpback Grouper feed with pellets       0.67
16      Tiger Grouper feed with trash fishes      0.87
17            Tiger Grouper feed with             0.89
              trash fishes and pellets
18        Tiger Grouper feed with pellets         0.91
COPYRIGHT 2015 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hermawan, S.; Syafrani
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9INDO
Date:Apr 1, 2015
Words:4783
Previous Article:An empirical study on the characteristics of high risk aversion behavior in portfolio decision making using regression model.
Next Article:The best scenario of carbon capturing storage and utilization (CCSU) in Malaysia.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters