Aquacultural Engineering 5 (1986) 171-182

Applications of Systems Modeling in Aquaculture*

PingSun L e u n g Department of Agriculturaland Resource Economics, Universityof Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA

ABSTRACT This paper deals with the applications of systems modeling in aquaculture. Different types of biological models and techniques of economic analysis such as optimization and simulation are discussed in the context of aquaculture production. Emphasis is on the applicability of such modeling techniques for production system design and operation management. Past modeling efforts for several aquatic species are reviewed and sure'eyed with a special discussion on an ongoing modeling effort of prawn production in Hawaii.

INTRODUCTION This paper deals with the applications of systems modeling in aquaculture. It starts by defining the term 'model' and the purpose of modeling. Different types of biological models pertinent to aquaculture production are identified. Discussion on the techniques of economic analysis such as optimization and simulation in the context of aquaculture production then follows. Emphasis is on the applicability of such modeling techniques for production system design and operation management. Past modeling efforts for several aquatic species are surveyed. In particular, the progress of ongoing research aimed at developing a computer-operational bioeconomic model for assessing the economics of alternative pond management and marketing strategies for a freshwater prawn production system in Hawaii is briefly discussed. *Journal Series No. 3030, Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. 171 Aquaculmral Engbleering 0144-8609/86/S03.50- Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1986. Printed in Great Britain

172

R Leung
MODELS AND MODELING

A model is a simplified representation of reality for the purpose of experimenting with alternative strategies. Note the emphasis on the word simplified. Almost without exception, models are simpler than the systems they are designed to represent. Models incorporate some but not all of the elements of their real world counterparts. The art of modeling is to choose the dominant elements that explain most but not all of a system's behavior. Models can be classified into three major types: iconic, analogue and symbolic (Ackoff and Sasieni, 1968). Iconic models possess some of the physical properties of the things they represent. They are usually made on a different scale. Examples are model airplanes and automobiles. Pilot plant in aquaculture production is another good example. Analogue models use one set of properties to represent another set of properties. A hydraulic system can be used as an analogue of electrical, traffic, economic and aquaculture production systems. Symbolic models employ letters, numbers and other kinds of symbols to describe real situations. The relationships between symbols are expressed mathematically. Hence, they are also referred to as mathematical models. One of the major advantages of mathematical models is that they are adaptable to manipulations by digital computers. This is the type that we will be referring to as models hereafter. A model is used in lieu of the real thing because of economy, availability and information (Machol and Miles, 1973). It may cost less to derive knowledge from the model than the real world counterpart. The model may represent a system which does not yet exist or cannot be manipulated. In addition, the model may provide a convenient medium to collect and/or transmit information. These are the three major factors in the design and analysis of large, complex and dynamic systems. The modeling and decision process can be summarized as follows (adapted from Shore, 1978). The need for a model arises because a decision problem must be resolved. The first step is to isolate the system within which this problem exists and gain familiarity with the elements which comprise this system. Then it must be determined which of these elements are to be included and excluded from the model. Next, the model is formulated by establishing the relationship

Applications of systems modeling in aquaculture

17 3

among the included elements. The model is then verified to ensure that it is a reasonable representation of the system of interest. After these steps have been completed, the model can be used to generate information for the decision process. The decision maker takes this information together with information generated from other sources and reaches a decision. The last step is, of course, to implement the results of the decision.

AQUACULTURE MODELS Models in aquaculture try to provide answers to the questions of economic feasibility, optimal system design, optimal methods of operations and research direction. The ways in which biological and physical elements of a functioning aquaculture facility are related to the economics of production are shown schematically in Fig. 1. The biological component describes the response of the cultured organism to the environment. Food and oxygen are consumed, resulting in growth of the cultured organism. Waste products are excreted which affect the culture environment. The influence of the external environment can be regulated by controls within the physical system. Economic considerations and attributes, such as maximizing profits or minimizing production costs, are criteria for evaluating culture systems.

Biological sub-models
Construction of the biological sub-model is usually the most difficult part of the modeling process, because of the complexity of the biological organism and its interactions with the environment. It is important since it forms the hub of the total model, in that it defines the requirements of the other sub-models. Bernard (1983) categorized the biological sub-model into three general classes. They are: empirical, stock and mechanistic. Empirical models set out principally to describe situations in which the ecosystem is treated as a 'black box" with only inputs and outputs. Stock models generally separate the stock or population dynamics into growth, mortality, reproduction and recruitments of stock members. Stock models are somewhere in between empirical models and mechanistic models. Mechanistic

174

P Leung
ECONOMICS
$

COSTS
CAPITAL

RETURNS
ENERGY

OPERATIONS

d
-Jl

PHYSICAL SYSTEM

PUMPING HEAT

SPACE FEED

fl

REMOVAL

BIOLOGICAL
G R O W T H AND REPRODUCTION

OXYGEN & FOOD

HETABOLITES

CULTUR ENVIRONMENT

Fig. 1.

Basic components of an aquaculture production system (adapted from Allen etal., 1984).

models attempt to give a description with understanding of the biological and environmental processes of the ecosystem on a finer scale than do stock models. T h e y are complex syntheses of what is known of the ecosystem, and hence are very difficult to build and use. Both stock and mechanistic models must eventually rest on empiricism. It is always possible to find an empirical model that gives a better fit to a given set of data than a stock or mechanistic model. This arises because the empirical model has fewer constraints, whereas a stock or mechanistic model can be very constrained by its assumptions, even when it contains m o r e adjustable parameters. Empirical and, to a certain extent, stock models can be adapted for management. Mechanistic models on the other hand are not very well

Applications of systems modeling in aquaculture

17 5

suited for management purposes as they are rather difficult to build and use. However, they can provide insight to the precision in the empirical or stock models, and direct future experiments to improve that precision.

Techniques of economic analysis

The choice of appropriate techniques of economic analysis should proceed in parallel with the choice of the biological sub-models because their joint effectiveness depends upon their compatibility. Techniques should be selected that are most appropriate to the nature of the system and the problems to be solved. The most common techniques are optimization and simulation. Optimization is the process of determining the values of variables in a system that provides the best value of a function of these variables, while satisfying a set of given constraints. An example could be determining the harvesting and stocking policies of a prawn farm in order to maximize profit, subject to the constraints of biological growth and survival. A wide variety of optimization techniques are available. The most common one is the use of differential calculus when there is no constraint, or the use of Lagrangian multipliers when the constraints are equalities. In the event that these equations cannot be solved analytically, one has to resort to numerical search techniques. By far the most widely used optimization technique is linear programing, because of its computational advantage. Linear programing is the process of determining the values of variables which optimize the objective function which is linear and satisfy a set of linear constraints. When it is desired to optimize over time, optimal control theory and dynamic programing can be used. This is particularly suitable for aquaculture production as decisions are usually time-dependent. Optimization techniques require tractable functional forms and the realism of the model is often sacrificed. Simulation can be used when it is not possible to express the interrelations in a convenient mathematical form because the system is too complex or because responses are subject to random variations. It merely describes the output behavior of different combinations of inputs, control variables and parameter values. It is in general non-optimizing and usually requires a large amount of computing time.

176

P Leung

In summary, optimization models require tractable functions but yield the best solution, while simulation can use more realistic models but may not find the best solution and may be very expensive in terms of computing time. A hybrid of these two classes of models can be helpful in some cases.

SURVEY OF SOME PAST MODELS Johnson (1974) used linear programing to optimize both the schedule of release dates for each lot of salmon and the choice of stocks for use in the hatchery facility. Gates et aL (1980a, b) used a multi-period linear programing model to determine the optimal methods of operation of full term salmon culture facility. Lipschultz and Krantz (1980) used linear programing to make production decisions for oyster production. Barbieri and Cuzon (1980) used linear programing to determine the optimal nutritional levels of P e n a e u s j a p o n i c u s . Optimal control theory was used to determine the optimal operating methods for lobster culture system by Botsford et aL (1974, 1975) and Schuur et aL (1974). They used the model to determine the optimal temperature, recirculating rate, container size, feeding rate and food type. Emanuel and Mulholland (1975) used optimal control theory to maximize the standing crop of largemouth bass. Kitchell et a l . ( 1 9 7 7 ) and Sparre (1976) used dynamic programing to determine the optimal methods of operations of yellow perch and rainbow trout cultures respectively. McNown and Seireg (1983) used dynamic programing to determine the optimal system design for the same two cultures. Examples of simulation applications are many. The simplest form of simulation is budgeting such as the Texas A&M Aquaculture Budget Generator (Griffin et aL, 1984). There are numerous other examples of budgeting in the literature. Allen and Johnston (1976) and Botsford et aL (1977) brought more realism to the earlier lobster model by using simulation technique. The Texas A&M group has developed a rather extensive shrimp simulation model for the purpose of providing year to year financial situations of proposed facility (Adams et al., 1980a, b; Griffin et al., 1981 ). Huang et al. (1976) and Polovina and Brown (1978) developed models to simulate the growth of prawns by size class. Economic ele-

Applications of systerns modeling in aquaculture

177

ments are not included in the models. They are purely bioloNcal stock models. Gibson and Wang (1977) developed a deterministic population model using empirical growth and harvesting functions, the parameters of which were determined by linear regression. Azizan (1983), using the same data as Polovina and Brown, developed a simulation model whose purpose was to determine the economically optimal (batch) harvest period. Reviews of most of the models mentioned above can be found in the excellent aquaculture modeling text by Allen et al. (1984). Models of aquaculture systems are few in comparison with agriculture system models. However, they are increasing in number recently. With the advent of low-cost microcomputers and powerful software like the electronic spreadsheet, the development of models, particularly simulation models, may be even faster.

A PRAWN P R O D U C T I O N M A N A G E M E N T M O D E L This section presents the progress of an ongoing research project at the University of Hawaii. The objective is to develop a computeroperational bioeconomic model for assessing the economics of alternative pond management and marketing strategies for a freshwater prawn production system in Hawaii. The model consists of two p a r t s - a stochastic population submodel and an economic optimization sub-model. The stochastic population sub-model follows a Markov process. The economic submodel is formulated as a dynamic programing problem incorporating the Markov process as defined in the population sub-model. The purpose of the population sub-model is to simulate the size distribution of prawns in a grow-out pond over time. We divide the prawn population into 16 length size classes (or states) of i cm increment. That is, length class 1 consists of prawns with orbit to tail lengths from 0 to 1 cm, length class 2 contains prawns with lengths from 1 to 2 cm, and so on. The movements of animals between length classes in a specified time increment can be represented by a stochastic matrLx T as shown in Fig. 2. t 0 is the probability that the prawns will grow from length class i to length class j in one time increment. If we assume the time period to be sufficiently short, the prawns will either stay in the same class, grow to the next larger class, or die.

17 8

P. Leung
To

State 1 2 3 4 From t5 16 d

1
t~l

2
tt:

3
0

4
0

15

16
0 0

d
tl, d tz. d

0 0

t2: 0

t,3

0 0 .0
Fig. 2.

0 0 0

/15.15

/[5.16

0 0 The one-step transition matrix T.

tl6.~6 0

tlS.d t~6.a I

We have c h o s e n a period of two weeks. T h e structure of this matrix implicitly a s s u m e s that the r a n d o m behavior of the prawn g r o w - o u t process is Markovian. Successive samplings of the population distribution in two w e e k intervals and estimation of mortality rate will allow us to estimate this matrix. T h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l details are d o c u m e n t e d in L e u n g et al. (1984).

Decisions D1 harvest (0.1) D2 stock (0,1)

Yt

~Istage
Yt.l = G(Yt,D1.D2 , z )

Reward Rt =R(Y t , D 1 , D 2)

Fig. 3.

A generalized stage of a prawn grow-out process

Applications of systems modeling in aquacul;ure

INTEREST R A T E H A R V E S T EFFICIENCY H A R V E S T SIZE PRICE FOR 26TH. PERIOD MAXIMUMBIOMASS M I N I M U M S T O C K RATE S T A R T I N G RATE STOCKING RATE T {1.16,16) * 0.12 = 0.500 = 10 = 2.25 = 1500 0 = 2000 = 5000 = 0.965
=

179

PERIOD

STOCK DECISION
l I 1 I I 1 1 1 l I 1 I I 0 I 0 I I 1 I I I 0 1 0 0

HARVEST DECISION 1 1 1 1 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 0 I 0 1

REVENUE

HARVEST COST 80 80 79 79 0 78 0 0 77 0 0 76 0 0 75 0 74 0 74 0 73 0 0 72 0 71 988

STOCK COST 60 60 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 58 57 57 57 0 56 0 56 55 55 55 55 54 0 54 0 0 1200

NET RETURN
1787 1009 653 431 -59 508 -58 -58 964 -58 -57 1656 -57 0 2321 0 2180 -55 2074 -55 1930 -54 0 2267 0 4988 22255

BIOMASS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1927 I148 792 569 0 644 0 0 1099 0 0 1789 0 0 2452 0 2310 0 2203 0 2058 0 0 2393 0 5060 24,-143

1028 709 556 482 462 592 583 746 937 874 1095 1343 1156 1416 1678 1342 1588 1265 1518 1206 1447 1160 1397 1633 1261 1479

Fig. 4. A sample output from the program.

The economic sub-model is a sequential decision model formulated as a dynamic program. The model assumes a 26 bi-weekly period (one year) time horizon. At each period there are four distinct actions or decisions that can be taken (see Fig. 3). They are: 1, harvest only; 2, stock only; 3, do nothing; and 4, perform both 1 and 2. The state variable (y,) of a prawn grow-out process is a vector representing the prawn population by size class at any instance of time. The values of this variable tell us all we need to know about the prawn pond system for the purpose of making decisions about it. The decisions can be thought of as the opportunity to change the state variable in order to realize a profit.

180

P Leung

However, there is no simple solution to such a dynamic program. With four possible decisions in each period, a brute-force approach would require evaluations of 426 or 4.5 1 0 t5 possible paths. This would require a tremendous amount of computing time even on a very fast speed computer. So we resorted to a heuristic solution approach. A set of heuristic decision rules is derived and is documented in Leung etal. (1985). The heuristic decision rules were programed on an IBM personal computer. The basic inputs to this program are the transition matrix, the beginning stock, harvesting efficiency, the stocking distribution, the m a ~ m u m biomass, interest rate, stocking cost, harvesting cost and prawn price. The program produces the optimal harvesting and stocking strategies for each of the 26 bi-weekly periods. It also prints out the total net revenues and biomass for each time period. A sample output is shown in Fig. 4. We have just completed the debugging process of the program. Hence, we will be thoroughly testing the program in the coming months to ensure validity of the model and the associated decision rules. Runs will also be made to test the sensitivity of the harvesting and stocking decisions to different price and cost situations. The program will also be modified so as to facilitate ease of inputs and enhance the readability of outputs. It is hoped that the model can be adapted and used by prawn producers to assist them in better managing their prawn farms for more profits.

REFERENCES Ackoff, R. L. & Sasieni M. W. (1968). Fundamentals of Operations Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Adams, C. M., Griffin, W. L., Nichols, J. P. & Bricks, R. W. (1980a). Bioengineering-economic model for shrimp mariculture system. TAMU-SG80-203, Texas A&M University, 118 pp. Adams, C. M., Griffin, W. L., Nichols, J. P. & Bricks, R. W. (1980b). Applications of a bioeconomic engineering model for shrimp mariculture systems. Southern J. Aqr. Econ., 12, 135-41. Allen, K. R. & Johnston, W. E. (1976). Research direction and economic feasibility: an example of system analysis for lobster culture. Aquaculture, 9, 155-80. Allen, P. G., Botsford, L. W., Schuur, A.M. & Johnston, W. E. (1984). Bioeconomics of Aquaculture, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York.

Applications of systems modeling in aquactdture

181

Azizan, Z. (1983). Using simulation methods to determine the optimal harvesting period for the cultured Malaysian freshwater prawns, Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Masters Thesis, University of Illinois, 196 pp. Barbieri, M. A. & Cuzon, G. (1980). Improved nutrient specification for linear programming of penaeid rations. Aquaculture, 19, 313-23. Bernard, D. R. (1983). A survey of the mathematical models pertinent to fish production and tropical pond aquaculture. In: Principles and Practices of Pond AquaculttLre, eds J. E. Lannan, R. O. Smitherman and G. Tchobanoglous, Oregon State University. pp. 225-35. Botsford, L. W., Rauch, H. E. & Shleser. R. A. (1974). Optimal temperature control of a lobster plant. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, AC-19, 541-3. Botsford, L. W., Rauch, H. E., Schuur, A. M. & Schleser, R. A. (1975). An economically optimum aquaculture facility. Proc. World Maric. Soc., 6. 407-20. Botsford, L. W., van Olst, J. C., Carlberg, J. M. & Gossard, T.W. (1977). The use of mathematical modeling and simulation to evaluate aquaculture as a beneficial use of thermal effluent. Proc. 1977Summer Computer Simulation Conference, Chicago, 18-20 July l 977, pp. 405-10. Emanuel, W. R. & Mulholland, R. J. (1975). Energy based dynamic model for Lago Pond, Ga. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, AC-20, 98-101. Gates, J. M., MacDonald, C. R. & Pollard, B. J. (1980a). Salmon culture in water reuse system: an economic analysis. University of Rhode Lslatzd Marine Technical Report, 78, 52 pp. Gates, J. M., MacDonald, C. R. & Pollard, B. J. (1980b). A dynamic linear programming model of fish culture in water reuse systems. Rhode Island Agrictdtural Experimeptt Station Contribution No. 1892, 20 pp. Gibson, R. T. & Wang, J. K. (1977). An alternative prawn production systems design in Hawaii. UNIHI-SG-TR- 77-05, University of Hawaii, 36 pp. Griffin, W. L., Hanson, J. S., Brick, R. W. & Johns, M. A. (1981). Bioeconomic modeling with stochastic elements in shrimp culture. J. World Maric. Sot., 12, 94-103. Griffin, W. L., Adams, C. M. & Jensen, L. A. (1984). A generalized budget simulation model for aquaculture. TAMU-SG-83-202, Texas A&M University, 131 pp. Huang, W. Y., Wang, J. K. & Fujimura, T. (1976). A model for estimating prawn populations in ponds. Aqttactdture, 8, 57-70, Johnson, E C. (1974). H a t c h - - a model for fish hatchery analysis. Report NBSIR 74-521, US National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC, 51 pp. Kitchell, D. F., Stewart, D. J. & Weininger, D. (1977). Applications of a bioenergetics model to yellow perch (Perca flavesceus) and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum v). 3". Fish. Res. Board Canada, 34, 1922-35. Leung, P. S., Fallon, L. A. & Shang, Y. C. (1984). Bioeconomic modeling of freshwater prawn production: the Hawaiian experience. J. Int. Soc. Ecological Modeling, 6, 12. Leung, P. S., Fallon, L. A. & Shang, Y. C. (1985). Modeling prawn production management system: a Markov decision approach. Presented at 16th Ann. Meeting Worm Maric. Soc., Orlando, Florida.

1S2

P. Leung

Lipschultz, E & Krantz, G. E. (1980). Production optimization and economic analysis of an oyster (Crassostrea virginica) hatchery, on the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA. Proc. WorldMaric. Soc., 11,580-91. Machol, R. E. & Miles, R. F. Jr. (1973). The engineering of large-scale systems. In: Systems Concepts, ed. R. E Miles Jr., John Wiley & Sons, New York. McNown, W. & Seireg, A. (1983). Computer aided design and control of staged aquaculture system. Proc. ~brld Maric. Soc., 14, 417-33. Polovina, J. & Brown, H. (1978). A population dynamics model for prawn aquaculture. Proc. Worm Maric. Soc., 8,393-404. Shore, B. ( 1978 ). Quantitative Methods for Business Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York. Shuur, A. M., Allen, R G. & Botsford, L. W. (1974). An analysis of three facilities for the commercial production of Homarus americanus. Winter Meeting, Am. Soc. Agr. Eng., Paper No. 74-5517, Chicago. 10-13 December 1974, 19 pp. Sparre, E (1976). A Markovian decision process applied to optimization of production planning in fish farming. Meddeklserfra Danmarks Fiskeri-Og Havundersogelser N.S., 7, 111-97.