Adaptive response of beam trawl fishers to rising fuel cost

Abstract

Poos, J. J., Turenhout, M. N. J., van Oostenbrugge, H., and Rijnsdorp, A. D. 2013. Adaptive response of beam trawl fishers to rising fuel cost – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 675–684. In this paper, we develop models to test different hypotheses on the optimal towing speed at which fuel savings are traded off against the reduction in catch due to the decrease in swept area. The model predicts that optimal towing speed is a decreasing function of fuel price and an increasing function of fish abundance and price. The model was fitted to vessel monitoring system (VMS) data. By means of mixture analysis, these VMS data were attributed to one of three behavioural modes: floating, towing, or navigating. Data attributed to the towing mode were used to determine the model that best fit the data. The preferred model includes a maximum towing speed and a component describing the decline in catch efficiency with decreasing towing speed. Towing speed is reduced by up to 14%. The savings obtained by reducing towing speed were estimated for each month and showed that vessels reduced their fuel consumption by between 0 and 40%.

Mixed fisheries management: Is the ban on discarding likely to promote more selective and fuel efficient fishing in the Dutch flatfish fishery?

“…The current developments in the fleet, where a large number of vessels have applied for a permit to replace the conventional beam trawl with a pulse trawl, provides support for our conclusion and shows that the current high fuel cost (Beare and Machiels, 2012;Poos et al, 2013b) is already a sufficient stimulus to replace conventional beam trawls with pulse trawls (Condie et al, 2014).…”

“…Fuel costs depend on trip effort and fuel price, and are estimated to be approximately D 6400 day −1 for a large beam trawler and D 2400 day −1 for a pulse trawler (van Marlen et al, 2014). Fishing effort per week was estimated from the time spend at sea less the travel time between the harbour and the fishing ground, assuming a steaming speed of 12 n miles h −1 (Poos et al, 2013b). Vessels in the model operate from a single harbour (Harlingen, see Fig.…”

“…The recent increase in the cost of fuel has reduced the economic profitability of this fleet Bartelings and Soma, 2010). To reduce fuel costs, vessels reduced their towing speed and replaced their heavy beam trawl gear with a pulse trawl gear (Beare and Machiels, 2012;Poos et al, 2013b). Pulse trawl gears requires about half of the amount of fuel per hour of fishing as the gear is towed at a lower speed and use electrical pulses to stimulate the flatfish out of the sea bed as compared to the conventional beam trawlers using mechanical stimulation with tickler chains (van Marlen et al, 2014;Soetaert et al, 2015).…”

Laboratory Study of the Impact of Repetitive Electrical and Mechanical Stimulation on Brown Shrimp Crangon crangon

“…However, these gears have well-known disadvantages, such as high fuel consumption (Poos et al 2013) and seabed disturbance (Lindeboom and de Groot 1998), resulting from their intense bottom contact . Another important disadvantage is that beam trawling is a mixed fishery with poor selectivity, which results in high bycatch rates (Kaiser and Spencer 1995;Depestele et al 2014;Bayse et al 2016).…”

Economic performance of commercial fishing fleets off the South Brazil Shelf from Angra dos Reis (23ºS) to Rio Grande (32ºS)

“…In this sense, changes in technological and operational measures, in addition to behavioral adaptations, can result in significant improvements in profitability (JOHNSON, 2011;SUURONEN et al, 2012) as a result of reduced costs. For example, fuel savings can be achieved by eliminating the complete lack of engine maintenance, just as with the use of autopilot (savings of 20-30%), and a reduction in fishing or cruise speed, friction (without unnecessary underwater appendages) and unnecessary vessel weight as spare parts (ABERNETHY et al, 2010;JOHNSON, 2011;POOS et al, 2013;RENCK, 2014). In addition, Pio et al (2016), estimated that a 46% reduction in fishing gear size can reduce the maintenance costs by at least 40%, and the expected effects may be positive with an increase in the profitability of the gillnet fishing fleet in South…”