Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Effect of production quotas on economic and environmental values of growth rate and feed efficiency in sea cage fish farming.
Besson, M; de Boer, I J M; Vandeputte, M; van Arendonk, J A M; Quillet, E; Komen, H; Aubin, J.
Afiliação
  • Besson M; Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • de Boer IJ; Génétique animale et biologie intégrative, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
  • Vandeputte M; Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • van Arendonk JA; Génétique animale et biologie intégrative, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
  • Quillet E; IFREMER, Chemin de Maguelone, Palavas-les-Flots, France.
  • Komen H; Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  • Aubin J; Génétique animale et biologie intégrative, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
PLoS One ; 12(3): e0173131, 2017.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28288179
ABSTRACT
In sea cage fish farming, production quotas aim to constrain the impact of fish farming on the surrounding ecosystem. It is unknown how these quotas affect economic profitability and environmental impact of genetic improvement. We combined bioeconomic modelling with life cycle assessment (LCA) to calculate the economic (EV) and environmental (ENV) values of thermal growth coefficient (TGC) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of sea bass reared in sea cages, given four types of quota commonly used in Europe annual production (Qprod), annual feed distributed (Qannual_feed), standing stock (Qstock), and daily feed distributed (Qdaily_feed). ENV were calculated for LCA impact categories climate change, eutrophication and acidification. ENV were expressed per ton of fish produced per year (ENV(fish)) and per farm per year (ENV(farm)). Results show that irrespective of quota used, EV of FCR as well as ENV(fish) and ENV(farm) were always positive, meaning that improving FCR increased profit and decreased environmental impacts. However, the EV and the ENV(fish) of TGC were positive only when quota was Qstock or Qdaily_feed. Moreover, the ENV(farm) of TGC was negative in Qstock and Qdaily_feed quotas, meaning that improving TGC increased the environmental impact of the farm. We conclude that Qstock quota and Qdaily_feed quota are economically favorable to a genetic improvement of TGC, a major trait for farmers. However, improving TGC increases the environmental impact of the farm. Improving FCR represents a good opportunity to balance out this increase but more information on its genetic background is needed to develop breeding programs improving FCR.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Bass / Ecossistema / Aquicultura / Ração Animal Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation Limite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Bass / Ecossistema / Aquicultura / Ração Animal Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation Limite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article