1

Maya Bruguera

Clariss Limso Stephanie Lopez

Justin Resnick Anais Tadlaoui

Final Paper:

Lifecycle Analysis of Farmed Salmon vs. Wild-Fished Salmon

Environment 159 Prof. Deepak Rajagopal

ABSTRACT

Our project consists of doing a lifecycle analysis (LCA) of farmed salmon and wild-fished salmon in order to conclude on which type of fishery is more environmental friendly. A lifecycle analysis is appropriate since this method assesses the environmental impacts of a product or activity over its entire lifetime as it compiles and evaluates the inputs and outputs of the product system. In order to evaluate the ecological footprint of both types of fisheries, we focus on greenhouse gases emissions, acidification impacts, as well as eutrophication impacts. The acidification of water occurs when the water becomes acid due to an increasing uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Acidification greatly alters the living conditions of the marine species and is thus important to take into consideration in our analysis to have a broader view of the environmental impacts of each fishery process. Similarly, eutrophication is an ecosystem’s response to human activities that fertilize water bodies with nitrogen and phosphorus, leading to the degradation of the water body and often resulting in an algal bloom depleting the water of oxygen, which results in the reduction of marine species. Hence, we feel that eutrophication is also important to take into account while measuring the environmental impacts. We additionally incorporate and evaluate the energy use and materials necessary for each fishery process and run all our calculations according to the functional unit of 1 tone of farmed salmon and 1 tone of wild-fished salmon. At the end of our analysis, we hope to find significant and clear results that indicate which type of fishery, farmed salmon or wild-fished salmon, is more environmentally friendly. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITIONS ………………………………………………… 3 2. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE ……………………………………………………... 3 3. FUNCTIONAL UNIT, SYSTEM BOUNDARY, FLOW DIAGRAM & METHOD .. 3

2

4. LIFECYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS ……………………………………………. 7 5. LIFECYCLE IMPACT ANALYSIS …………………………………………………. 9 6. SENSITIVITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ………………………………...11 7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS………………………………….15 8. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT WORK……………………………………………….16 9. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….....16 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

1. Farmed Salmon Process Diagram……………………………………………………...4

2. Fished Salmon Process Diagram……………………………………………………....4

3. Farmed Salmon Net Energy…………………………………………………………....6

4. Fished Salmon Net Energy …………………………………………………………….6

5. Farmed Salmon Inventory Analysis…………………………………………………....7

6. Fished Salmon Inventory Analysis …………………………………………………...8

7. Comparison of GWP of Farmed and Fished Salmon………………………………… 9

8. Comparison of MTP of Farmed and Fished Salmon…………………………………10

9. Comparison of EUT of Farmed and Fished Salmon………………………………… 10

10. Sensitivity Analysis Tornado Chart for Farmed Salmon……………………………12

11. Sensitivity Analysis Spider Chart for Farmed Salmon………………………………13

12. Sensitivity Analysis Tornado Chart for Fished Salmon……..………………………14

13. Sensitivity Analysis Spider Chart for Fished Salmon………..………………………15

1. GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITIONS

3

The goal of this life cycle analysis is to compare the environmental impacts of farmed salmon versus fished salmon by looking at the GHG emissions, eutrophication potential, marine toxicity potential, and energy use of each of the major processes to produce one tonne of processed salmon. GHG emissions and energy use are compared by their carbon dioxide equivalence, while eutrophication and marine toxicity potentials are compared by their phosphate and dichlorobenzene equivalences. In addition the calculation of net energy and unit processes were computed, and used for examining the processes of harvesting, transporting, handling, processing, storing and packaging the salmon. 2. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

There have not been many life cycle analyses done comparing farmed and fished salmon, so most of the papers and reports regarding the life cycle assessment of farmed or fished salmon cite back to a few major studies. One of those major studies is from an independent Scandinavian research organization called SINTEF. Their report ‘Carbon footprint and energy use of Norwegian seafood products’ provided many of the numbers used in this LCA, particularly for the packaging and processing of salmon, and the fishing , landing, and sale of salmon (Winther, Ziegler et al. 2009). A main source for the inputs in salmon farming and lifecycle impacts, is a journal article entitled ‘Assessing Alternative Aquaculture Technologies: Life Cycle Assessment of Salmonid Culture Systems in Canada’ by Nathan Ayer and Peter Tyedmers from the Journal of Cleaner Production. There were three main sources for the data on energy, namely, ‘Life Cycle GHG Emission Analysis of Power Generation Systems; Japanese Case’ (Hondo 2002), ‘Life Cycle Assessment of a Pulverized Coal Power Plant with Post-combustion Capture, Transport and Storage of CO2’ (Koornneef, Keulen et al. 2008), and ‘Life Cycle GHG Assesment of Fossil Fuel Power Plants with Carbon Capture and Storage’ (Odeh and Cockerill 2008). 3. FUNCTIONAL UNIT, SYSTEM BOUNDARY, FLOW DIAGRAM & METHOD

The functional unit used in our analysis was 1 tonne of farmed salmon and 1 tonne of fished salmon. The system boundaries were subjectively chosen for farmed and fished salmon. For farmed salmon the system boundary ends at packaging and processing salmon and starts with aquaculture inputs. Likewise, for fished salmon, the system boundary ends with the packaging and processing, however begins with the inputs to fishing and landing sale. When preparing a lifecycle analysis, it is critical to define an appropriate functional unit because accurate results are dependent upon this decision. The chosen functional unit of 1 tonne of salmon was decided on because it is the weight of salmon being processed. Choosing weight as a functional unit is accurate because it covers all attributes of salmon, since weight is a universal unit.

4

Figure 1 - Farmed Salmon Process Flow Diagram

5

Figure 2 - Fished Salmon Process Flow Diagram The flow diagrams above detail the process LCA of farmed and fished salmon. The major

differences for the inputs to packaging are, feed for grow out in farmed salmon, and fuel for boats in fished salmon. Each of the flow processes yield by-products not mentioned in the diagram. For both fished and farmed salmon the unit process for packaging and processing yields fish by-products that are used for silage. Silage is animal feed used for cattle and sheep. In addition, fish blood can be used in the process for pet food production, and there have been attempts to use the red blood cells from salmon blood to be used for anemic piglets. (Rustad, Storrø et al. 2001) These by-products do not necessarily have an effect on the output of salmon, however their greenhouse gas emissions do have an additional effect.

The approach used for the salmon lifecycle analysis was a pure process LCA. Databases

such as EIOLCA require specific costs which were difficult to obtain, so using EIOLCA was not an appropriate option. The data gathered was taken from journals and science documents researched on google scholar. As informative the data obtained was, this may be a source of error in our analysis. The data gathered comes from a plethora of journals, where each journal has results from different experimental research. It is relatively difficult to source data on inputs to salmon lifecycle analysis because it is mostly computed for greenhouse gas emissions and not the production aspect.

Finally, we included net energy in our results. Net energy is a calculation of the energy

delivered for final use divided by the total primary energy consumed within the system. For farmed and fished salmon, the only primary fossil energy was coal and oil. We found it important to compute the net energy as a means to compare the energy concentration of farmed versus fished salmon. The diets of farmed salmon continue to increase because of improved methods of feed prepared for fish. Because of this there is potential to have a less than standard fish sent to packaging and processing. Because there is a correlation between the energy the fish consumes and the fatty acids the fish produces, as consumers understanding the net energy is beneficial from a dietary perspective. The net energy for farmed salmon was calculated as 0.388 and for fished salmon as 0.483, indicating the better choice is fished salmon.

6

Figure 3 - Farmed Salmon Net Energy Computation

Figure 4 - Fished Salmon Net Energy Computation

7

4. LIFECYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS The inventory analysis is a table of the completed inputs and outputs of the salmon lifecycle to stage 2. The data sources are listed, along with their links. The main unit processes include packaging and processing, power generation, grow-out for farmed salmon and fishing, landing and sale for fished salmon.

Figure 5 - Inventory Analysis of Farmed Salmon

8

Figure 6 - Inventory Analysis of Fished Salmon

5. LIFECYCLE IMPACT ANALYSIS

In our study, we looked at the impact categories of global warming, marine toxicity, and eutrophication. We found that fished salmon has only 60.1% of the global warming potential that farmed salmon does, as the GWP of farmed salmon is 5065.22 kg CO2 eq/tonne salmon, while that of fished salmon is only 3075.62 kg CO2 eq/tonne salmon. In fished salmon, the majority of the emissions (65.0%) come from packaging and processing and then power generation that goes in to processing and packaging (24.7%), while in farmed salmon, the majority come from the feed (43.4%) and then processing

9

and packaging (39.5%).

Figure 7 - Comparison of Global Warming Potential

As for marine toxicity, fished salmon had no emissions, while those of farmed salmon were extremely high, at 1,000,363 kg 1,4-DB eq/tonne salmon. The emissions come from the copper paint used on net pens in the grow out of farmed salmon, so as fished salmon are not

raised in net pens, they produce no emissions. (Ayer and Tyedmers 2008) 90.4% of the emissions came from the grow out, while 9.6% came from feed production.

Figure 8 - Comparison of Marine Toxicity Potential

10

With regards to eutrophication, farmed salmon produced 42.99 kg PO4 eq/tonne salmon, while we considered the emissions of fished salmon to be negligible since they are not concentrated in a small area, and the ecosystem that they are in is accustomed to receiving their waste. The emissions mainly come from nitrogen and phosphorous releases from the fecal matter of the grow out, so as expected, 80.5% came from the grow out phase. 19.5% of the emissions came from feed production, and as feed is composed of fish oil, fish meal, and sometimes agricultural products, such as soybean oil, the emissions mainly came from the grow-out of the fish that go into fish oil and meal and the fertilizers that go into producing agricultural feed components. (Ayer and Tyedmers 2008 and Tacon 2005)

Figure 9 - Comparison of Eutrophication Potential

In summary, farmed salmon produces by far the most emissions for each impact

category, indicating that fished salmon is the preferable choice with regards to global warming, marine toxicity, and eutrophication potentials. 6. SENSITIVITY AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

Inherent in any life-cycle analysis with considerable amounts of data collection are variability and uncertainty that analysts must consider. When the desired data are available, they can vary by location, between different individuals, or over time. We refer to inaccuracies of this sort as variability that may introduce error into the results. In other cases data may be unavailable for desired factors, certain processes and variables in the analysis may be unclear, or conditions may change over time. These types of error cannot always be solved or controlled for with further data collection and are defined generally as types of uncertainty.

One of the challenges in conducting data-intensive analyses on small-scale operations, especially ones involving natural resources, is consistency. When gathering data on all energy and emissions for salmon farming and fishing, the researcher typically cannot find all of the needed information at a single source. In order to fill in the gaps we used data from salmon farms and fisheries in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and from different countries. For example,

11

factors such as water temperature and salmon species will vary by location. While values reported by multiple areas tended to stay within relatively close ranges, these deviations do introduce some error into the analysis.

At a finer level, individuals and firms introduce variability into the data. While all parties involved in salmon production, both farmed and wild-caught, have equal economic interest in maximizing their outputs, practices vary from one farmer, fisherman, or company to the next. Even though both methods have significant bodies of literature, experiments, and product tests behind them, different producers still turn to different methods based on their experiences and preferences.

The final type of variability, which is becoming increasingly important, is temporal. As we deplete natural fish stocks in order to meet consumer demand, fishermen will expend more fuel in order to catch the same amount of salmon. Likewise, salmon farms will have more difficulty stocking with juvenile fish at the outset. Knowledge and technology also change over time and can lead to development of superior techniques.

Uncertainty due to unavailable data and aspects of the model can also affect the outcome of the analysis. In the life-cycle inventory stage, analysts must make a decision on the relevant inputs and outputs of each unit process. While most of the farmed and fished salmon processes had clear inputs and outputs, some factors such as land use and fish bait were not well described in the literature. From the information we could find on these factors, their contribution was minimal and not consistently present in the data so we excluded them from the analysis. Still, even as minor inputs into the salmon production process, they do have an effect. System boundary selection is another source of uncertainty in the life-cycle inventory stage. While we chose to include processes through Stage 2 in our analysis, there are other inputs and outputs in producing farmed and fished salmon.

12

Figure 10 - Sensitivity Analysis Tornado Chart for Farmed Salmon

13

Figure 12 - Sensitivity Analysis Spider Chart for Farmed Salmon

14

Figure 12 - Sensitivity Analysis Tornado Chart for Fished Salmon

15

Figure 13 - Sensitivity Analysis Spider Chart for Fished Salmon

7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

For our lifecycle analysis, we created a flow diagram in order to identify the main phases and processes in the lifecycle of fished and farmed salmon that generate the most burden and can potentially be targeted for improvement. We chose to do the lifecycle analysis for the functional unit of 1 tone of farmed salmon and 1 tone of wild-fished salmon.

The lifecycle analysis results show that in terms of global warming potential, marine

toxicity potential, and eutrophication potential, wild-fished salmon is much more environmentally friendly than farmed salmon. From our analysis, we have concluded that consumption of fished salmon is significantly more environmentally friendly than consumption of farmed salmon.

Finally, in order to put our results into perception and statistically measure the correlation

between the input and output generated values, we simulated a Sensitivity Analysis Tornado

16

Chart and a Spider Chart. The Sensitivity Analysis Tornado Chart and Spider Chart for farmed salmon production reveal that the ratio of salmon needed for packaging and processing to the output amount for sale, the alimentation necessary to feed and grow the salmon, and the coal necessary for power generation needed for packaging and processing are the three most significant parameters in ascending to descending order in the farmed salmon process. The Sensitivity Analysis Tornado Chart and Spider Chart for wild-fished salmon indicate that coal for power generation needed for packaging and process, the fuel for boats, the ratio of salmon needed for packing to the output amount for sale, and the electricity needed, are the four most significant factors in ascending to descending order for the wild-caught salmon process. Therefore, if we were to attempt improving the ecological footprint of both types of fisheries to become more environmentally friendly, those factors should be targeted.

From our lifecycle analysis, we can conclude that fished salmon produce significantly fewer emissions and are therefore more environmentally friendly than farmed salmon. 8. LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT WORK

One major limitation of our work is that we did not include transportation from the grow out or landing site to the processing and packaging facility or from the processing and packaging facility to one’s house in our analysis. We chose not to do this because while researching data, we found too much variability in these distances and methods of transportation, and decided that it would throw off our analysis. Transportation methods varied from airfreight, to lorry, to roro car ferry, to containership, to freight train, and many others, while their associated greenhouse gas emissions varied from 7 g CO2 eq/km*tonne salmon to 879 g CO2 eq/km*tonne salmon, while distances varied from tens of kilometers to nearly ten thousand kilometers. (Winther, Ziegler et al. 2009)

The other main limitation of our work is that we used data from different countries,

mainly from northern European and Canadian ones. Because of this, the data is not specific to one country, rather it is generalized. In addition, our analysis lacks data from Chilean farms, who in past years have been large producers of farmed salmon. (Eagle, Naylor, et al. 2004) 9. REFERENCES Ayer, N.W., and Tyedmers, P.H. (2008) "Assessing Alternative Aquaculture Technologies: Life

Cycle Assessment of Salmonid Culture Systems in Canada." Journal of Cleaner Production. Volume 1, number 12, pages 1-12.

Eagle, J., Naylor, R., and Smith, W. (2004) “Why farm salmon outcompete fishery salmon.”

Marine Policy. Volume 28, number 3, pages 259-270. Gende, S.M., Quinn, T.P., Hilborn, R., Hendry, A.P., and Dickerson, B. (2004) "Brown Bears

Selectively Kill Salmon with Higher Energy Content but Only in Habitats That Facilitate Choice." Oikos. Volume 104, pages 518-28.

Hondo, Hiroki. (2004) "Life Cycle GHG Emission Analysis of Power Generation Systems;

Japanese Case." Energy. Volume 30, number 11-12, pages 2042-056.

17

Rustad, T., Storro, I., and Slizyte, R. (2011) “Possibilities for the utilisation of marine by-

products.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology. Volume 46, pages 2001–2014. Invited Review.

Koornneef, J., Keulen, T.V., Faaij, A. and Turkenburg, W. (2008) "Life Cycle Assessment of a

Pulverized Coal Power Plant with Post-combustion Capture, Transport and Storage of CO2." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Volume 2, number 4, pages 448-67.

Odeh, N. A., and Cockerill, T.T. (2008) "Life Cycle GHG Assesment of Fossil Fuel Power

Plants with Carbon Capture and Storage." Energy Policy. Volume 36, number 1, pages 367-80.

Tacon, Albert G.J. (2005) "State of Information on Salmon Aquaculture Feed and the

Environment." World Wildlife Fund.

Winther, U., Ziegler, F., Sknotorp Hognes, E., Emanuelsson, A., Sund, V., and Ellingsen, H.

(2009) “Carbon Footprint and Energy Use of Norweigan Seafood Products. Rep. no. SFH80 A096068.” Trondheim: Sintef Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2009. Carbon Footprint and Energy Use of Norweigan Seafood Products. SINTEF.