Weird result with fish dominant FMFO

[gclawson1]

I've just come across an odd result. I wanted to see if a 10% decrease in FCRs (I.e., the "efficient" scenario) always resulted in a 10% decrease in impacts. For most of the ingredients and species, this is true.

For example, in the plant-dominant scenario (if the impacts arent 0), there is ALWAYS a 10% decrease in impacts when there is a 10% decrease in FCR.

However, when looking at the fish-dominant scenario, it is a bit different: There is always a 10% decrease in impacts when there is a 10% decrease in FCR except for the FMFO from forage fish. For some reason, FMFO from forage fish in the fish-dominant scenario almost always (~95% of observations) have HIGHER impacts under the "efficient FCR" scenario...

I'm a bit baffled by this, because I would expect this also to be true under the plant-dominant scenario, since we are essentially just scaling down the pressures when applying that 10% decrease in FCR.

See below for code exploration and exact numbers

test2 <- fcr_comparison_df %>%
  filter(percent_difference != 0) %>%
  group_by(diet) %>% 
  summarise(mean_diff = mean(percent_difference, na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
  ungroup()

# # A tibble: 2 × 2
#   diet           mean_diff
#   <chr>              <dbl>
# 1 fish-dominant       2.46
# 2 plant-dominant     10.0 

# plant-dominant scenario; always a 10% decrease in impacts if not 0. 
# fish-dominant, average is 2.46. 

fd_test <- fcr_comparison_df %>%
  filter(percent_difference != 0,
         diet == "fish-dominant") %>%
  filter(percent_difference > 0)
mean(fd_test$percent_difference) # 9.94408... ok so if the difference is >0 in the FD, then impacts are a 10% decrease. 

trimmings_fd <- fcr_comparison_df %>%
  filter(diet == "fish-dominant",
         str_detect(ingredient, "trimmings"),
         percent_difference != 0)
mean(trimmings_fd$percent_difference) #  10.. ok trimmings is fine. 

forage_fd <- fcr_comparison_df %>%
  filter(diet == "fish-dominant",
         str_detect(ingredient, "forage"),
         percent_difference != 0) %>%
  filter(percent_difference < 0)
mean(forage_fd$percent_difference) #  -17.18885.. so for some reason, forage fish FMFO under fish dominant is WORSE under the efficient scenario

I'm gonna try to identify why this is happening, and if it could be a bug.

[gclawson1]

ugh ok, I'm not sure what happened, but something must've gone wrong when I made the pressure rasters for the regular scenario for fish-dominant forage FMFO.

I just reran some stuff and compared and it looks appears the fish-dominant regular scenario forage fish FMFO pressures were lower than they should have been. Everything else looks ok though. I probably just didnt rerun this scenario at some point in the past.

This means I'll have to rerun some stuff to fix this. Hopefully it won't take too long given it is only one of the scenarios.

[cottrellr]

Good work identifiying the problem!

---

Richard S. Cottrell Research Fellow in Aquaculture Sustainability Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies College of Sciences and Engineering University of Tasmania

Theme Co-Lead, Sustainable Futures and Planetary Health Centre for Marine Socioecology University of Tasmania

Size Ecology Labhttps://www.sizeecology.org/ | Centre for Marine Socioecologyhttps://marinesocioecology.org/themes/sustainable-futures-and-planetary-health/ Google Scholarhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X1a9t90AAAAJ&hl=en&authuser=1 | ORCIDhttps://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0000-0002-6499-7503 | @RichCottrell22https://twitter.com/RichCottrell22

From: Gage Clawson @.> Date: Wednesday, 1 May 2024 at 1:27 PM To: Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_biodiv_impact_mapping @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: Re: [Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_biodiv_impact_mapping] Weird result with fish dominant FMFO (Issue #19)

ugh ok, I'm not sure what happened, but something must've gone wrong when I made the pressure rasters for the regular scenario for fish-dominant forage FMFO.

I just reran some stuff and compared and it looks appears the fish-dominant regular scenario forage fish FMFO pressures were lower than they should have been. Everything else looks ok though. I probably just didnt rerun this scenario at some point in the past.

This means I'll have to rerun some stuff to fix this. Hopefully it won't take too long given it is only one of the scenarios.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Sustainable-Aquafeeds-Project/feed_biodiv_impact_mapping/issues/19#issuecomment-2087922689, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJK3YJHSM4KBKQ3TLZG5T2TZABOJRAVCNFSM6AAAAABHBHQAN6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOBXHEZDENRYHE. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.