This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A handbook for
Project N°: COLL-CT-2006-030384
Sixth Framework Programme
Integrated approach for a sustainable and healthy freshwater aquaculture
Preface 1. 2. SustainAqua – An Introduction Sustainability in aquaculture 3 4 6 11 11 12 12 13 14 15 18
3. Technology and production of main freshwater aquaculture types in Europe 3.1. Pond fish farming 3.2. Flow-through aquaculture systems 3.3. Recirculation Aquaculture Systems 3.4. Cage cultures in freshwater lakes and rivers 4. Regulatory framework and governance in European freshwater aquaculture 4.1. Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and related documents 4.2. Environmental policies with major impact on aquaculture development 5.
Product quality and diversification – Market opportunities for aquaculture farmers for their fish products and by-products 20 5.1. Product quality – the Polish case 20 5.2. Wetland crops for the bioenergy industry – the Hungarian case 21 5.3. Hydro-culture plants and tropical fruits for the cosmetic industry – the Swiss case 22 6. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. Water treatment of intensive aquaculture systems through wetlands and extensive fish ponds – Case study in Hungary 24 Constructed wetlands as a sustainable method to treat aquaculture effluents and produce valuable crops (African Catfish Site) 24 From a case study to a fish farm: How to treat the effluents of a catfish farm? 29 Combination of intensive and extensive aquaculture for the sustainable utilisation of water and nutrients (Intensive-Extensive Site) 33 From a case study to a fish farm: Design of a theoretical combined system 38 41 41 47 50 55 58 58 60 62 65 66 67 68 70 70 74 92 93
7. Improved natural production in extensive fish ponds – Case study in Poland 7.1. New species and methods in pond fish culture: Module POLYCULTURE 7.2. Practical recommendations and conclusions for stocking paddlefish in pond polyculture 7.3. Using agricultural waste nutrients in pond fish culture: Module CASCADE in Poland 7.4. From a case study to a fish farm: Designing a cascading module 8. New methods in trout farming to reduce the farm effluents – Case study from Denmark 8.1. Introduction – General description of the case study 8.2. Feed and feeding - Environmental impact from model trout farms 8.3. Energy consumption on model trout farms 8.4. Cultivation of pond plants in the lagoons of model farms 8.5. Cultivation of alternative Fish Species in the lagoons of model farms 8.6. Summary – Success factors and constraints 8.7. From a case study to a fish farm: How to manage a model trout farm producing 500 t fish per year (Ejstrupholm Model Trout Farm) 9. 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4. Tilapia farming using Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) - Case study in the Netherlands Module - Manure Denitrifying Reactor (MDR) From a case study to a fish farm: Integration of a denitrifying USB-MDR in a 100 MT tilapia RAS Module – Periphyton Turf Scrubber (PTS) From a case study to a fish farm: How to manage a model fish pond producing 5 metric tonnes fish per year with the PTS module
Tropical polyculture production with the integrated “Tropenhaus” concept – Case study in Switzerland 10.1. Introduction – General concept of the Tropenhaus in Switzerland 10.2. Integration of crustaceans in tilapia production and fish feed from tropical plants 10.3. Warm water aquaponic filter in a "tropical" polyculture system 10.4. From a case study to a fish farm: The design of a warm water aquaponic filter system in the “Tropenhaus Wolhusen” References and recommendations for further readings Authors of the handbook Acknowledgements
95 95 96 98 101 105 109 110
in order to prove that ‘waste’ can be used as a multifunctional resource to produce economically and ecologically viable fish and co-products. irrespective of whether farming fish in RAS or ponds. As a starting point. Dipl. demonstrate to consumers that the cultured products are of the highest quality. aquaculture farmers need to address simultaneously the equally and mutually important considerations of environmentally sound. The core of this handbook consists of a description of the different modules researched in the five SustainAqua case studies. the factors contributing towards both success and constraints as well as major benefits of sustainable aquaculture systems. the assessment of SustainAqua indicators. Johan Verreth Wageningen. The Dutch case study looked at intensive tilapia production in RAS. efficiently use nutrients and to increase the profitability of carp farms’. has to face the same issues: how to utilise feed nutrients more efficiently to save feeding costs. The traditionally cultivated pond areas of Central Europe are represented by the Hungarian and Polish case studies. In addition. from extensive and semi-intensive pond systems. Various practical techniques were tested. Therefore. June 2009 Scientific Manager SustainAqua 3/110 . its principles. using available waste heat. water treatment of intensive flow-through fish production is improved through constructed wetlands. The different technologies in the sector – pond fish farming. As we all know. Ing. an introduction to the European regulatory framework is given. Freshwater aquaculture in Europe expects challenging times and looks forward to a bright future. The general decrease in demand for carp in Eastern Europe is addressed by introducing paddlefish as a new species into polyculture to diversify species production.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Preface Preface All over the world. deployed as biofilters. the work of fish farmers and the future development of their farms are heavily influenced by the various national and European regulations which are applied to the sector. To make our scientific results transferable to farmers. flow-through and RAS – are briefly introduced to classify the subsequent sections satisfactorily. Alexandra Oberdieck Bremerhaven. A very important criterion for maintaining competitiveness on the market is excellence and proven fish quality and the innovative utilisation of aquacultural by-products. and towards a sustainable European community. Dr. We present the indicators for sustainability that have been developed for evaluating the different SustainAqua case studies. preceded by a general description. In Denmark and the Netherlands. due to the authorities? How to meet all legal requirements and restrictions. on how to strengthen the diverse aquaculture farms in Europe in a sustainable way. due to the combination of a strong increasing demand for seafood products and depleted fish stocks in the world's oceans. Ultimately. aquaculture is developing rapidly. SustainAqua undertook five different case studies in Europe representative of the most relevant freshwater aquaculture systems and fish species. As a unique case in Europe. Germany. achieve higher production and have less nutrients in the effluent? How to improve wastewater treatment and decrease its discharges. to intensive recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) as they are practiced in North-Western Europe. In Hungary. the Swiss case study rounds off this project through rearing tilapia and tropical fruits in a polyculture greenhouse system. each aquaculture farmer. research potential market applications and increase product quality. techniques for application in outdoor and indoor recirculation systems were tested. energy consumption and the emission of nutrients. To avoid the same mistakes of the European agricultural and fisheries sector. so long as we continue to combine our forces. The main findings are described here in this SustainAqua handbook. the chapter "From a case study to a fish farm" presents on-hand-information for implementing the modules. that they are produced in environmentally friendly systems whilst providing sufficient income to make a living for the farmer and ensure the jobs of employees? The EU project SustainAqua aimed to answer several of these questions. The Polish case study integrates aquaculture with the requirements of a modern agricultural farm in a ‘cascading’ pond system by utilising animal manure to produce plankton as feed for carp polyculture. both as researchers to further develop systems and the industry to implement technologies for a sustainable aquaculture. One chapter in the handbook presents the impact of different cultural systems on product quality and potential market applications for aquaculture by-products. the advantages of combining intensive and extensive aquaculture for the efficient use of water and nutrients are presented. using two different modules with a Manure Denitrifying Reactor and Periphyton Turf Scrubber to reduce water use. economically viable and socially acceptable development – that is the principles of sustainability – for the healthy development of the sector. in order to reduce water pollution charges. Netherlands. Whilst in Denmark. June 2009 Coordinator SustainAqua Prof. we discuss 'sustainability' and what this implies for aquaculture. rainbow trout was studied at so-called model farms with the aim to optimise feeding management and to reduce the environmental impact and energy costs. With the overall aim to make the European freshwater aquaculture industry more sustainable by improving production methods. which predominate in Central and Eastern Europe.
In detail. they have to conform to the stringent demands of European and national legislation with regard to product quality. as "health" and "taste" are important consumer demands. mango and guava. The overall objective of the project is to expand the knowledge base of European freshwater aquaculture farmers by training them to: • • • Improve production methods. semi-intensive and intensive aquaculture systems. their potential as a renewable resource for the bioenergy industry is being researched. Denmark and Switzerland. Short introduction to the five case studies The Hungarian case study looks at African and European catfish produced in tanks and in-pond cages as well as at effluent-water treatment in serially-connected ponds. Poland. co-funded by the European Union under the Sixth Framework Programme with the overall aim to make the European freshwater aquaculture industry more sustainable and thereby to help farmers to become globally more competitive. In addition. there are legal restrictions on the discharge of effluents. nutritional value) as marketing tools to boost consumer acceptance of farmed freshwater fish and thus. o Reducing wastewater treatment costs by decreasing wastewater volume and waste discharge. avoids the implementation of expensive wastewater treatment and filter technologies and reduces costs. on farmers’ abilities to face these challenges. The consortium intends to transfer the highly effective nutrient management principles of natural systems into competitive aquaculture systems. the project consortium will research: • Different techniques for optimising the nutrient. In Switzerland tilapia is being reared in a hydro-culture system with tropical fruits. • Taste and nutritional value of fish produced in different production systems. These principles are tested in different extensive. the consortium investigates by professional sensory and analytical tests whether the foreseen optimisation steps will have a positive influence on the quality of the fish products. o Reducing costs for fish feed by higher nutrient utilisation efficiency. quality improvement. Concept of SustainAqua SustainAqua is a three-year collective research project. such as the energy and cosmetics industry Increase product quality (taste. carp. algae or plants for different industrial applications. organic material will be exploited as far as possible for the production of marketable products like macroinvertebrates. producing different carp species and wetlands crops such as willow and reed. water and energy management by o Reducing energy costs by increasing energy efficiency. The new technologies are expected to have significantly lower construction. This optimised nutrient chain reduces waste. The success of Europe’s freshwater aquaculture sector depends. One example is efficient nutrient management: Alongside fish production. whilst also acting as cost effective and efficient biological wastewater treatment systems. the Netherlands. Case studies – applied research In order to meet the general objectives. In addition. On the other hand. environment and health. such as banana. The rearing system “Tropenhaus Ruswil” is a 1 500 m² polyculture greenhouse type system which uses waste heat from a natural gas densification plant as its energy source. water extraction. • Compounds and the economic value of different potential aquaculture by-products. The project will present a variety of technological possibilities and information on how to upgrade different conventional aquaculture systems. In addition. o Reducing labour costs per produced product. maintenance and running costs than conventional systems particularly in the case of wastewater treatment. the consortium accomplishes five different case studies from Hungary. the use of chemicals and genetic modification. Each case study develops and researches different options for optimisation of production processes. to improve the industry’s image. These are produced as by-products.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK SustainAqua – An Introduction 1. SustainAqua – An Introduction European freshwater fish farmers are fighting a battle on two fronts: On the one hand. and product diversification. to a great extent. as co-products. process efficiency and profitability Research potential market applications of different aquaculture by-products for alternative industries. with the spread of globalisation they are increasingly forced to compete with producers from countries with far lower costs of production. tilapia and catfish. The case 4/110 . Each site represents one of Europe’s most relevant freshwater aquaculture types and fish species with trout.
In addition. phosphorus. With the diversification of their products farmers will be more flexible and their enterprises less susceptible to market fluctuations. Knowledge transfer The SustainAqua project with its different AQUA+ modules provides different practical techniques and broad information on how to upgrade the different conventional aquaculture systems to improve production process profitability. The training and information activities include this training handbook. One goal is to produce feed from recycled wastewater using a “cascading” pond system where organic agricultural waste is used to farm fish and plant biomass. with the aim to optimise feeding and farm management and to reduce the environmental impact and energy costs. Germany. Spain. With the help of these tools. This allows fish to be produced without using external feed sources. up from 9% in 1980. risks and costs. With a growth rate of 8% per year since the 1980’s. success criteria as well as technical information on the different research modules. just to maintain current levels of consumption. and to meet future sustainable quality standards and Codes of Conducts – an important tool for the farmers’ advertising strategies. Eight national contact points coordinated by the responsible aquaculture associations will serve as individual advisory platforms for aquaculture farmers even after the duration of the project. At the same time world fish consumption has increased from 45 million tonnes in 1973 to more than 130 million in 2000 and the FAO estimates an additional 40 million tonnes of seafood will be required by 2030. The aim is to reduce water use to less than 25 litres/kg of feed. and to diversify the product range. product quality. The Netherlands case study looks at intensive tilapia production in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) using two different experiments with a Manure Denitrifying Reactor (MDR) and Periphyton Turf Scrubber (algae and biomass were able to recover pollutants from water). Poland. 5/110 . The generated know-how from the case studies will be promoted via 22 training seminars for aquaculture farmers in Austria. About 75 percent of the world's most valuable marine fish stocks are either fished to the limits or over-fished. Most of the AQUA+ modules have more than one simultaneous function.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK SustainAqua – An Introduction study aims to prove that “waste” can be used as a multifunctional resource in a polyculture system to produce economically and ecologically viable fish and co-products. aquaculture is probably the fastest growing food-production industry. The model farms combine technologies from intensive recirculating fish farms with effluent treatment in constructed wetlands to achieve substantial increases in fish production while reducing or even eliminating the environmental impact. In the Polish case study. farmers will be encouraged to restructure part or all of their production to make it more sustainable. Hungary. environmental performance. In order to serve this increasing demand in the long run. carbon dioxide and organic matter. and with long-term economic and environmental benefits. sustainable alternatives have to be strengthened. The most promising of these is the aquaculture industry. Importance of Sustainability The sustainability of aquaculture is crucial if the industry is not to go the way of the fisheries sector. Sweden. These options will help aquaculture farmers to comply with current and upcoming European and national legislation. that today accounts for almost half the fish consumed globally. the SustainAqua-wiki and an E-learning platform summarising benefits. as for instance wastewater treatment. and Turkey and two e-learning seminars between May and July 2009. new species were introduced into the traditional polyculture setup to increase product diversity of pond farms and to improve carp farms’ profitability. giving farmers ready access to the knowledge generated by the project. efficient. Denmark. to reduce energy consumption and the emission of dissolved and particulate nitrogen. effective nutrient management and the production of economically efficient by-products. carp is reared in two modules. In Denmark rainbow trout production is being studied at eight model farms.
Introduction – Background to "sustainability" One important origin of the concept of "sustainability" or "sustainable development" is found in the report "Our Common Future". often neglecting social and environmental aims. more commonly known as the Brundtland Report. economic and social sustainability. fisheries sectors) conserves land. the term "sustainability" is often diluted and weakened. Sustainable development is based on long-term considerations. indicating that environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the overall development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. it must be clearly stated that a better integration of these three objectives is needed to achieve sustainable development. being an integrative. It is a concept to guarantee a liveable environment for all people in the long term. An important tool to achieve this criterion – "sustainability" – correspondingly in all three dimensions. The current focus is primarily on the economy.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Sustainability in aquaculture 2. The term is usually presented in three dimensions: ecological. aiming for sustainability requires not only the achievement of environmental objectives. in this process the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development must be considered. economic welfare and social equity. Whilst it is acknowledged that no activity in industry. Its key statement is that sustainable development 'meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'. Figure 1: Framework of sustainability However. and socially acceptable. water. However. often used as nothing more than a catch-phrase. It is therefore of great importance to balance the three pillars of sustainability by applying a higher focus on environmental and social sustainability to compensate for the current overweighting of the economy. not a sectoral approach. 6/110 . First. being used by politicians. Accordingly. forestry. Such sustainable development (in agriculture. just to exploit the positive connotations of the term (as was the case with the terms "bio" or "eco" in the 1990's). it has been criticised for not adequately highlighting that economy and society fundamentally rely on the natural world and resources (see figure 1). economically viable. Sustainability in aquaculture The term "sustainability" or also "sustainable development". Certainly. also in the field of aquaculture. entrepreneurs and the public. century. this was exactly the objective of SustainAqua. plant. at the beginning of the 21. However. The following text will describe the context in which the SustainAqua project was developed and carried out. very often in a superficial or misleading way and with an incorrect definition. has much more to offer. but also to provide clear economic advantages for aquaculture farmers in the long term. then introducing the topic of "sustainability and aquaculture" followed by its application in SustainAqua. through first providing a short insight into the background and original definition of the term "sustainability". and animal resources. technically appropriate. is environmentally non-degrading. is to research and apply innovative or optimised technologies. encompassing at least three fundamental components of sustainable development: preservation of a functional environment. thinking on the dependency of each dimension on another. In the area of freshwater aquaculture. Each dimension is of equal importance and and each influence each other in an interdependent way. in a general way on numerous occasions. this model of the three dimensions with their equal importance was considered to improve the standing of environmental concerns. since then. it is the task of politics and society to find ways to equally achieve all three objectives of sustainability. agriculture or aquaculture will take place if it is not economically profitable. They cannot be separated.
for instance. local markets – requiring short transport distance). e. For SustainAqua. fish Figure 2: Three levels of system limits for which health. distance of transportation for the feed. To name just a few existing instruments: • • • • FAO "Code of conduct for responsible fisheries" (1995) FEAP "Code of conduct for European Aquaculture" (2000). All major organisations and associations within aquaculture production were involved. European and also global level develop and permanently update codes of conduct.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Sustainability in aquaculture Sustainability and aquaculture Aquaculture. It is therefore essential to continuously pursue methods and means to make production practices in aquaculture more sustainable. currently being reviewed EVAD “Guide to the co-construction of sustainable development indicators in aquaculture” (2008) Agreement of Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and GLOBALGAP to develop and harmonise certification systems for the aquaculture sector world-wide (2009) Under the EU project CONSENSUS (2005-2008). etc. visualised in three concentric circles in figure 2: 1. the description of sustainability that is presented here aims. Aquaculture has grown exponentially over the last 50 years from the production of less than 1 million tonnes of product in the 1950s to 51.). aquaculture continues to grow more rapidly than any other animal food-producing sector. etc. by producing fish feed on the farm. efficient and cost-effective by. the kind of energy the farmers uses (renewable or non-renewable). Therefore. that various initiatives on a national. however. "Farm level": includes the factors that can be directly influenced by the farmer. SustainAqua "completed" CONSENSUS through investigating several technological improvements to make different European freshwater aquaculture systems more sustainable (see chapter 1). For instance: fish feed quality. primarily. developed a set of sustainability indicators as a starting point for a certification system for sustainable aquaculture and for a benchmarking process that is based on low environmental impact. Aquaculture will continue to play a large and increasing part in the world's fish production to meet the globally rising demand for fishery products. SustainAqua anticipates future legislation and labels. for instance. is facing the challenge of sustainable development. sustainability indicator and certification systems. material. how fish feed is composed/ processed. it is important to define the limits of the system for which sustainability is defined. These are factors like sustainability of the packaging material (production. as with all other food production and also industrial practices. etc. In this way.g. The first two circles are the most relevant for the SustainAqua project. improving human capacity. and provides guidelines and technical solutions on more sustainable aquaculture practices. high competitiveness and ethical responsibility with regard to biodiversity and animal welfare. for instance water quality. etc. The "Third level": contains factors that are indirectly linked to the farm processes but which can normally not be influenced by the farmer. but on which he could potentially have an influence if he/she wanted or needed to. a "Multi-stakeholder involvement towards protocols for sustainable aquaculture in Europe". 7/110 . sustainability is defined in SustainAqua 2. resource use and environmental management. etc. three levels of system limits can be differentiated. Whereas capture fishery production is static and has even been decreasing for years. essential. the type of fuel for the transportation of the fish. that are currently still under discussion. Limits of the system To keep the practice of "sustainability and aquaculture" manageable and practicable. to give a clear direction for the research carried out within SustainAqua in order to develop methods and technologies for more sustainable aquaculture production in Europe. The farmer might also "transfer" some factors of the second level into the "farm level".7 million tonnes in 2006. "Second level": addresses the factors directly linked to the farm processes for which the farmer does not have direct influence. using energy produced on the farm or by selling the products directly from the farm. nutrient and energy management. 3. SustainAqua can be understood particularly in this context: SustainAqua firstly researches concrete solutions as technical and methodological tools and secondly offers diverse training activities to inform aquaculture farmers on the complex results of the project to achieve a more sustainable aquaculture in Europe. It is. in order to achieve a common and accepted understanding of sustainability in aquaculture among all stakeholders and how to achieve these goals in practice. markets for the products (distant markets – requiring long transport distance.
national or regional regulations. by definition. energy for water supply of a certain quality. Sustainability indicators and certification The limited availability of natural resources coupled with increasing energy prices emphasise the need to move forward in aquaculture to become more sustainable. It is not the task of SustainAqua to judge. but cannot be influenced by the farmer directly. The eight indicators were selected upon the basis of the following four criteria: 8/110 . Each approach to sustainability as well as being based on indisputable facts contains some level of attached societal values and value judgements. For completeness. As mentioned before. Figure 3: Sustainable freshwater aquaculture combines ecological. However. They affect all levels in different ways. environmental and social considerations (see Figure 3). e. by CONSENSUS. but there is still a long way to go. The sustainability of an activity and its measurement is not a static topic as. coastal areas and also the wild catch of fish for fish feed production or stock recruitment. on what can be done in a case study or at a specific farm to improve sustainability. as SustainAqua could not cover all possible areas of researching and improving sustainability on an aquaculture farm. it incorporates economic. economic and social sustainability. indicators. SustainAqua does not intend to compete with indicator systems that were already developed in a broad stakeholder-oriented approach. Compared to other animal production systems. In SustainAqua only those regulations are taken into account. as can be seen in Table 1. This means it is not always possible to decide unambiguously whether a process is sustainable or not. the final number of indicators was filtered down to eight which are then applied to the five case studies of the project. They are primarily designed to give a measurable orientation to the transferability and practicability of the research carried out in the five SustainAqua case studies in order to develop applicable methods and technologies for more sustainable aquaculture production in Europe. but to provide an unambiguous direction. SustainAqua Sustainability Indicators The SustainAqua consortium developed 28 indicators at the beginning of the project for the three dimensions of environmental. which may be under discussion or may change over time. economical and social aspects The different Codes of conducts and criteria systems mentioned earlier aim to resolve this issue of how to achieve sustainability and are intended to support a sustainable cultivation of aquaculture products. The selected criteria presented below are focused on the five SustainAqua case studies and shall provide a clear direction on how sustainability could be increased in such aquaculture farms. such as EU. for instance fish feed production. the "regulative level" needs to be taken into account as well. such as freshwater. aquaculture is put under special pressure to become more sustainable. But up until now there have been no complete and practicable European criteria. and related labelling systems which are really able to certify the sustainability status of a fish product.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Sustainability in aquaculture SustainAqua focuses on the farming process itself ("farm level"). etc. wetlands. transportation energy. Often there are transitions between non-sustainable to sustainable processes.g. energy production. and potential markets. norms. which are directly relevant for the first and the second circles. if a certain freshwater aquaculture farm is sustainable or not. because of their use of important natural resources. The most relevant factors from the second circle are also considered. The aquaculture industry is already working on this demanding task. The SustainAqua project intents to contribute to the development of criteria which are currently being developed by various initiatives (see above).
Regarding water. COD) retained in product/kg nutrient input [%] (TOD calculated from COD and N) N. biomass) Output (see also water): To reduce the amount of Amount of nutrients/ wastewater wastewater discharge (nutrient.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Sustainability in aquaculture • • • • Action relevant: The indicator is sensitive to changes of management according to the objective and is useful to measure whether the actor works towards the objective or not. electrical conductivity discharged per kg product produced kg nutrient retention in the secondary products per kg nutrient input to the system as a whole [%] Unit h/kg product Buffering Production market costs fluctuations Nutrients To increase productivity per unit of labour Improving product safety/ fish health: To reduce disease outbreaks Treatments/ production cycle treatments/ production cycle Table 1: Sustainability indicators for the 5 SustainAqua case studies In the case-study chapters frequent reference will be made to these indicators as they establish the basis for evaluating the research in the five case studies of SustainAqua and for transferring the results for practical application. In addition. the area used for the farm. P. nutrients. the principles of each sustainability area will be introduced in detail. minerals and quality organic material losses) Nutrient re-use to produce valuable secondary products within the fish farm Economical dimension Specific objective/ criterion Indicator required working time per produced product at commercial farm level (model-based assumption) Nutrient retention of reused N/P for valuable secondary products l/kg product kg nutrient (N. biomass) l/kg product Outflow per produced product (fish. P. Measureable: It is possible to measure the indicator. general suggestions are made on how to make an aquaculture system more sustainable by considering these principles. Freshwater may be obtained from surface sources. Plausible: The indicator is understandable for the actor.org. and energy are the most important topics related to the ecological sustainability of aquaculture farms. Feasible: It will be possible to measure and record this indicator within the foreseen resources (budget. Practical examples of these potential application of principles can be seen in the different SustainAqua case studies presented in this handbook. COD. kWh/ kWh output (differentiated biomass) for each product) Water Water supply per produced product (fish. Among them were indicators such as "Water and Climate: To support local climate stabilisation by increasing evapotranspiration through increasing the amount of constructed wetlands/ open water" or all indicators found for the social dimension. both the amount needed and the quality are important aspects. but including precipitation Utilisation efficiency: To use the nutrient input as Nutrient retention efficiency (NRE) effectively as possible (to produce from a certain nutrient retention in produced product unit of nutrient input as many marketable products per kg nutrient input to the system as a at as high a quality as possible) whole (fish. such as "To support the development of additional jobs" or "To support rural development". More details on this issue can be found in the SustainAqua wiki on http://wiki. The remaining 20 indicators have neither been measured nor evaluated in detail.sustainaqua. or from the 9/110 . such as lakes or rivers. Improving ecological sustainability Water. biomass) -excluding evapotranspiration and seepage. as their assessment was beyond the scope of this project. Application of sustainable principles to aquaculture In the following paragraphs. time) of the project Environmental dimension Specific objective/ criterion Energy Energy efficiency: To reduce the necessary energy input as far as possible Input: To reduce the amount of freshwater input from outside the system (re-use water as far as possible) Output: To reduce the amount of wastewater discharge (for quality aspects see Nutrients/ Output) Indicator Unit Energy input per produced output (fish.
the outflow is limited to the harvest. Important aspects are also the attractiveness of aquaculture to the younger generation or in which way an aquaculture system preserves culture and traditions. If sufficient area is available. but not least. Polyculture or the additional production of renewable resources. The diversification of the aquaculture can buffer market fluctuations. training). Sustainability with regard to the area used for the aquaculture farm depends greatly on the local circumstances.). the need to produce renewable resources in addition to food puts more pressure on the land use. as in the Danish case study. land. Production of traceable high quality products can both increase realised prices and consumer confidence. if achieved support social sustainability (securing jobs. The use of different fish species in the same ponds. An equally essential objective is (as in most cases the outflow of an aquaculture contains a lot of nutrients which may eutrophicate the natural systems). Also in other aquaculture systems. as in the Hungarian case study. the aim is to produce at least the same amount of fish with less energy or more fish with the same amount of energy. but also the general public in connection with e. the conditions of employment on the aquaculture farm (hygiene. it can also reduce costs. for example with pond fish farming in Eastern Europe. The additional use of the remaining nutrients is again a site-specific task. as is the case in many areas of Hungary.g. e. nutrients. to avoid the use of alien and exotic species. the farm revenue is reliable and the farm system and products are accepted by the consumer. The best management practice naturally depends on the type of aquaculture. However. In many cases. if the farm is profitable. The decreased land used per unit of fish produced in some recirculation aquaculture systems can offer a contribution. like the Danish model trout farms. in the Polish case study. Recirculation aquaculture systems. or garden plants. Improving economical sustainability An aquaculture is economically sustainable and viable. It includes employment opportunities in the sector. recreation. it should be considered in this case.g. Reducing feed losses by an advanced feeding regime and the selection of appropriate feeds is the first step. which are used e. However.g. may raise the nutrient efficiency because of the different ecological niches of the fish species.g. for example.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Sustainability in aquaculture ground (aquifers) by the use of wells. Improving social sustainability The issue of social sustainability is also very complex. is one possibility. are another example of how to substantially reduce the amount of water needed. renewable resources like reed or willow (one example is the Hungarian case study). this is a particularly major topic in recirculation aquaculture systems. An efficient use of the required nutrients is also essential for environmental sustainability. In general. safety. On the other hand. the pond area of the aquaculture farm can also contribute to local climate stabilisation by increased evapotranspiration. 10/110 . it is possible and important to reduce the amount of energy by increasing the energy efficiency. MSC certified). nonetheless. they use for instance plant lagoons to retain the nutrients of the outflow. but which. through the use of more efficient pumps. The use of periphyton. improving environmental sustainability can be connected to the optimisation of economic sustainability. Social sustainability was not a primary focus of SustainAqua. especially if it can be heated by waste heat. as land and water is relatively cheap and available. for instance. to reduce the amount of wastewater and to optimise the effluent treatment. fully endorsing sustainability (and not just adopting under duress as an necessary chore) can be a valuable argument to increase consumer acceptance. ensuring functional environment for recreation. which concentrated more on technical solutions to directly increase economic and environmental sustainability. One important goal in all systems is to reduce the amount of freshwater needed to relieve the natural ecosystems. whereas in rural areas. need water only for replacing the evaporation and seepage. a more efficient use of feed and nutrients or the reduction of the use of freshwater is not only positive for the environment. which are partly energy costs. all these aspects need to be evaluated very individually. a highly intensive recirculation system might be very much sustainable. The origin of the feed used is a further task to contribute to ecological sustainability. Last. energy) vary greatly between the different European countries and regions. In the vicinity of a big city. health and nutritional issues. it might be economically much more sustainable to run a large extensive carp pond. Traditional carp ponds. For instance. etc. Depending on national laws. With regard to energy use. A more local or regional distribution of products will decrease the transport costs. In the latter case. are further examples of how to increase nutrient utilisation efficiency. contributing to high-quality and healthy nutrition. reducing wastewater contributes also to the lowering of production costs. as in the case of the Netherlands (see chapter ‘Netherlands'). for instance to use fishmeal produced from by-catch originating from sustainable fisheries (e. a polyculture. garden plants or fish fry are examples applied in the SustainAqua case studies. The same is true for all energy dependent processes. because the availability of all resources needed for an aquaculture (water. Regarding the use of energy. Ponds can also provide excellent ecologically valuable areas.
Ukraine and Hungary. Pond fish farming Production of freshwater fish in artificial ponds is often considered as the oldest fish farming activity in Europe. Fish pond production.1. the Czech Republic. Pond fish farm in Hungary (Photo: HAKI) 11/110 . such as common carp. thus providing important habitats for flora and fauna. About half of this production is cyprinid fish. there are many overlaps and transitions amongst freshwater fish production systems. farmers today introduce nutrients (organic manure) and additional food (grain). where semi-static freshwater systems play an important role in aquaculture. feeding on the natural food growing in the pond itself from sunlight and nutrients available in the pond water. Germany. maintenance of biodiversity and improved of water management. which may cause eutrophication in the surrounding natural waters. Chemicals and therapeutics are not usually used in such ponds. They play a growing role in rural tourism. where various other services are provided for recreation. Chemicals and therapeutics are not usually used in such ponds. The wetlands of Central and Eastern Europe are good examples of this. Poland. silver carp and bighead carp. dating back to medieval times. Extensive fish ponds are usually surrounded by reed belts and natural vegetation. The use of organic fertilisers is regulated at national levels. Typical fish ponds are earthen enclosures in which the fish live in a natural-like environment. But from a sustainability point of view.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Freshwater aquaculture types 3. the main environmental issue is the use of organic fertilisers. In order to reach higher yields. This is accompanied by the stocking of fingerlings. the production methods can be the most reasonable basis for a classification system. however. The total European production from pond farming is approximately 475 000 tonnes per annum. Hence. The main producer countries are the Russian Federation. Technology and production of main freshwater aquaculture types in Europe There are many possible ways to classify and describe the very diverse freshwater aquaculture production types. the following basic methods can be distinguished: • • • • Pond fish farming Flow-through systems Recirculation Aquaculture Systems Cage cultures 3. remains ‘extensive’ or ‘semiintensive’ (with supplementary feeding) in most countries. Ponds were built in areas where water supply was available and the soil was not suitable for agriculture. Many pond fish farms have been turned into multifunctional fish farms. Whilst.
and use concrete basins or ponds. thus allowing the farming of new fresh water species (especially African catfish. low environmental impacts. it is in everyone’s interests that the quality of the outflowing water from one farm is good. Because of its growth requirements and production performance. 85% are produced in the EU where the main producers are Italy and France. All water in the farm is renewed at least once per day. In some countries. but prices remained good. Trout production is spread throughout Europe and fresh trout can be bought everywhere. The eel production in the EU was around 11 000 tonnes/year up to 2001. Germany and Spain. sturgeon.3.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Freshwater aquaculture types 3. such as: water saving. Some lake cages are also in use. Approximately 220 000 tonnes of portion size trout are produced and marketed within Europe each year. The main disadvantages are high capital costs. requirements for very careful management (and thus highly skilled labour forces) and difficulties in treating disease. as this then becomes the inflowing water for the next farm. Where more than one farm exists on the same river. These systems present several advantages. water passes through the culture system only once and is then discharged back to the aquatic environment. 12/110 . perch and tilapia). rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) largely dominates European trout production (approximately 95% of the total production). The main freshwater species produced in RAS are catfish and eel but other species are already being produced using this type of technology. The only big producer of portion trout outside the EU is Turkey. eel. After many years of slow but steady increase. The most widely-practiced form of flow-through aquaculture in Europe is trout farming. However. followed by Denmark. Traditional trout farm in Denmark (Photo: DTU-Aqua) 3. in the period 2000-2005 the production of portion trout fell slightly (approximately minus 0. a rigorous control of water quality. Water is taken from the river. high operational costs. heated industrial water sources (such as electricity generating plants) are also used to produce fish in flow-through systems. The flow of water through the culture system supplies oxygen to the fish and carries dissolved and suspended wastes out of the system. and then it dropped to approximately 8 500 tonnes/year from 2002 and has stabilised overall since.6% per year). Geothermal water also provides naturally warmed water. this figure hides major shifts among the main producers. high biosecurity levels and an easier control of waste production as compared to other production systems. RAS is still a small fraction of Europe’s aquaculture production and is most significant in the Netherlands and Denmark. Recirculation Aquaculture Systems Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS) are land-based systems in which water is re-used after mechanical and biological treatment so as to reduce the need for water and energy and the discharge of nutrients to the environment. Flow-through aquaculture systems In traditional flow-through aquaculture systems. Other water sources include spring water or drilled and pumped ground water. circulated through the farm and treated before being released downstream.2. Most of the EU member states have trout farms near to rivers.
4. These losses have been partially compensated by some increase in Dutch production. Intensive Tilapia production in RAS (Photo: Fishion Aquaculture B. following water regulation. 13/110 .V. extensive or intensive production of fish in cages can be in line with the sustainable use of natural resources. and Danish production has also declined since 2001. It requires an annual production of at least 5 000 tonnes Arctic charr to increase the present level of phosphorus of 3 µg/l to an estimated 'original level' of 10 µg/l in these lakes. These farms are located in the mainly unexploited regulated lakes and waterpower reservoirs along the dammed rivers in the northern parts of the country. but.) 3.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Freshwater aquaculture types Italian production (once the biggest EU producer) is on a constant downward trend since the late 1990's. Farming fish in these waters would represent a restoration action as the increased amount of nutrients would serve to bring the aquatic environment closer to the natural state. Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) farming is at present a small but successful business in Sweden and is expected to increase considerably over the coming years. However. Cage cultures in freshwater lakes and rivers Well designed and carefully managed cage cultures also provide limited but important possibilities for freshwater aquaculture. have been further nutrient depleted to what are now almost sterile conditions. because of the uncertain supply of young eels. These waters were naturally poor in nutrients. some eel farmers have switched production to other species or simply abandoned the sector. In certain water bodies. For instance.
which it is very difficult for farmers (who just want to produce healthy fish without destroying their natural resources). There are many common policies influencing the freshwater aquaculture. In the EU member states it is evident that the different Community legal instruments have the largest impact on aquaculture regulation. commerce. Directives are normally transformed into national laws by the national parliaments or most often by the governments through delegated acts. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview for farmers about the most important freshwater aquaculture related documents from the EU. Regulation: An EU decision that directly binds all Member States and citizens in the whole of the EU. Recommendation: A non-binding decision. alliance. whilst at the same time conserve their most precious resource: the clean freshwater. Resolution: A resolution is a non-binding statement. as is the case with a regulation. A Member State cannot be fined for the breach of recommendations. When a White Paper is favourably received by the Council. They invite the relevant parties (bodies or individuals) to participate in a consultative process and debate on the basis of the proposals they put forward.org). These are the tools supporting the implementation of the EU policies which are first "pillars" of the EU. The formal document embodying such an international agreement. Directive: Directives are to be transferred into national law through the member states' parliaments and governments. In the SustainAqua project case studies were carried out to support freshwater fish farmers in how they can develop their businesses. non-governmental organisations and the industry itself want to control the aquaculture industry. Green Papers may give rise to legislative developments that are then outlined in White Papers. or other international relations. It is not generally binding. White Paper: Commission White Papers are documents containing proposals for Community action in a specific area. which only urges Member States to comply. SEC documents: representing internal documents associated with the decision-making process and the general operation of Commission departments.info): Green Paper: Green Papers are documents published by the European Commission to stimulate discussion on given topics at the European level. 2. companies or Member States mentioned in the decision. Resolutions may be used by the EU Court to interpret laws. They may be referred to as a form of "soft law". The European Council's resolutions set out the direction of future policy initiatives.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Regulatory framework 4. In some cases they follow a Green Paper published to launch a consultation process at the European level. Over the years. Decision: An EU decision is binding on the persons. primarily water policies 14/110 . which defines objectives and makes political declarations. COM documents: covering proposed legislation and other Commission communications to the Council and/or the other institutions. to review themselves. Fish production using the very limited natural resources of coast-lines and freshwater bodies remains at the forefront of public interest. Treaty: 1.profetpolicy. and their preparatory papers. Whereas directives need to be "transformed" into national law. that all interested parties. regulations are directly applicable. the EU Court has proclaimed many directives to be directly applicable and even declared that countries are liable to pay compensation if they have not implemented a directive in time. this attention has led to a large amount of regulations. An excellent definition of different types of legislative documents was prepared by the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (source: www. It is therefore forbidden to change EU regulations when putting them into national laws.sustainaqua. but probably the most important are: • • Common Fisheries Policy Policies on environmental issues. documents and other communications. It is of little surprise. Regulatory framework and governance in European freshwater aquaculture It is a well-known fact that aquaculture is one of the most regulated industries in the European Union. A formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace. therefore. NGO's and other organisations. More detail is provided on this topic in on the free internet based SustainAqua Wiki (http://wiki. On the other hand. such as EU and national governmental bodies. it can lead to an action programme for the Union in the area concerned.
safe and of good quality. Conversely.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Regulatory framework 4.to help the fishing and aquaculture industries adapt their equipment and organisations to the constraints imposed by scarce resources and the market. alien species and GMO's Integrated pollution prevention and control Specific criteria and guidelines for aquaculture Environmental Impact Assessments Recognise and strengthen the positive impact of extensive culture and re-stocking Find solutions for the predation of protected wild species 15/110 . Assuring the availability to consumers of products that are healthy. Regarding the conflicts between aquaculture and environment the strategy identified the following areas: • • • • • • • Mitigate the impact of wastes Manage the demand for wild fish for on-growing as stock for aquaculture Develop instruments to tackle the impact of escapees. measures aimed at creating a balance between fishing effort and available fish resources are also in place.to maintain a common organisation of the market in fish products and to match supply and demand for the benefit of both producers and consumers. In 2007. DG MARE started a mutual discussion with the aquaculture industry to update this strategy. environmental and social conditions. The Commission strategy for a sustainable development of the European aquaculture industry The Commission strategy for a sustainable development of the European aquaculture industry aims at: • • Creating long term secure employment. It was created to manage a common resource and to meet the obligation set in the original Treaties of the then European Community. its main aim is a progressive implementation of an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management. and by ensuring that measures are respected. Markets . 4. Structures and fleet management .1. • • • Relations with the wider world . Aquaculture has gained an important role only in the last few years. in 2002. The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic. For this purpose.1. that it is important to reduce the negative environmental impacts of aquaculture by developing a set of norms and/or voluntary agreements which prevent environment degradation. to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems.to protect fish resources by regulating the amount of fish taken from the sea. • Ensuring an environmentally sound industry. Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and related documents The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the European Union's instrument for the management of fisheries and aquaculture. Since 2007 the implementation of the CFP is parallel with the Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. As the main executive body of the CFP. Common measures are agreed in the following main areas: • Conservation and limitation of the environmental impact of fishing . the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources. This new strategy document COM(2009) 162 just has been published in April 2009 and is available in all national languages of the EU. the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries prepared a COM document about the a strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture (COM(2002) 511). The strategy says. The aquaculture related issues have now became an important part of the above-mentioned common activity areas. However. It also contributes to an economically viable and competitive aquaculture industry.to set up fisheries partnerships agreements and to negotiate at the international level within regional and international fisheries organisations for common conservation measures in deep-sea fisheries. the main focus of the CFP is the extractive fisheries on the seas. as well as promoting high animal health and welfare standards. The name of the responsible Directorate General became Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE). including through public financial incentives. the positive contribution of certain aquaculture developments to the environment must be recognised and encouraged. as well as taking into account the interests of consumers.1. in particular in fishing-dependent areas. by allowing young fish to reproduce. However.
the needs of the aquaculture sector shall be assessed and addressed. Enabling the aquaculture business to cope with market demands: The EU aquaculture industry should be able to answer to consumer demands. in the framework of the future reform of the market policy for fisheries and aquaculture products. Sustainable development of fisheries areas 5. 4. but it is also possible to support medium and some large enterprises. the strategies and the planned measures have to harmonise with the council regulation of European Fisheries Fund. processing and marketing sectors. Compliance with EC water legislation is also crucial to ensuring the water quality needed to produce quality and safe food. processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products 3. inland fishing. Support for inland fisheries. consumer information and marketing instruments such as labelling of aquatic food products. the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). Funds are granted in priority to micro and small enterprises operating in the aquaculture. 3. 5. producer organisations. It will be up to Member States to decide how they allocate funds between the different priorities set. The EFF will run for seven years. 16/110 . implementation and monitoring of the NSP Financial support for aquaculture farmers Of course. Accordingly. For the EU financial planning period 2007-2013 a new financial tool will be used. In addition new compensation could be granted for fish farmers whose businesses are located in the NATURA 2000 protected areas. industry and tourism for space represents a major challenge for further development or even maintaining of freshwater fish farming and aquaculture production in coastal areas. with a total budget of around € 3. This document identifies 5 Priority Axis as follows: 1.as well as for fisheries areas. Area choice is crucial and spatial planning has a key role to play in providing guidance and reliable data for the location of an economic activity.1. but several arguments are put forward to justify the need for a revision. Technical assistance For fish farmers working in a freshwater environment the most important measures are detailed within the Axes 2 and 3. but they have to prepare a National Strategic Plan (NSP) as a base of the Operational Program. Measures of common interest 4. especially for Small and Medium Enterprises is essential to promote development. Technologies for cleaning water by removing wastes and contaminants are available and the further development of new technologies to decrease effluent is likely to be significant in the coming years.8 billion. Guaranteeing the welfare of farmed fish also contributes to a better image for the aquaculture industry. Equal competitor in terms of space: The increasing competition with agriculture. Reducing the administrative burden: Reducing the administrative burden. and the processing and marketing sectors . Funding will be available for all sectors of the industry – sea and inland fisheries. European Fisheries Fund Until 2006 the main financial tool supporting the achievement of the Common Fisheries Policy was the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). Animal domestication: Optimal husbandry conditions. Community legislation is based on the precautionary principle. The commission started a consultation process in 2007 to update this aquaculture strategy.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Regulatory framework Generally. 2. 4. Aquaculture. the vision and objectives of the 2002 strategy are fully supported and are considered to be still valid.2. A NSP should contain the following elements: • • • • • • General description of the sector Swot analysis of the sector and its development Objectives and priorities of the Member States vis à vis sustainability Development of fisheries and aquaculture with regard to the CFP Indication of resources to be mobilised to carry out the national strategy Procedure for the development. aquaculture businesses. good health and adequate feed well suited to the physiological needs of the farmed aquatic animals are essential for optimal growth and production. The just recently published. be adaptable to changing market requirements and be capable of interacting on an equal footing with the other actors of the marketing chain. updated strategy points out new goals and underlines the importance of the following elements: 1. producer organisations and the purchase of some fishing equipment by young fishermen will also be possible. in particular regarding producer organisations. Environmentally friendly aquaculture growth: The EU is committed to a high level of environmental protection. Measures for the adaptation of the Community fishing fleet 2.
d. too. Support for the purchase of equipment aimed at protecting the farms from wild predators. according to similar provisions as in the current FIFG Aid for the reassignment of inland vessels outside fishing • Temporary cessation foreseen in a Community legal act Processing and Marketing: Eligible measures for aid include: • • • • • • Improve working. extension. hygiene conditions and product quality Reduce negative impacts on the environment Improve the use of little used species. by-products and waste Apply new technologies.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Regulatory framework Axis 2 . In order to receive compensation under this Article. Implementation of aquaculture methods substantially reducing negative impact or enhancing positive effects on the environment when compared with normal practice in the aquaculture sector. Animal health measures: The EFF may contribute to the financing of the control and eradication of diseases in aquaculture (Council Decision 90/424/EEC. genetic diversity. inland fishing. health. 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field). shelters and landing sites Development of new markets and promotion campaigns Pilot projects carried out by an economic operator. Support for traditional aquaculture activities important for preserving and developing both the economic and social fabric and the environment. b. the environmental benefits of such commitments must be demonstrated by a prior assessment conducted by designated competent bodies. a recognised trade association or any other competent body designated for that purpose by the Member State. c. in particular with a view to improving working conditions. organisations acting on behalf of producers or recognised organisations. in partnership with a scientific or 17/110 . provided that their actions are of common interest.Aquaculture. which go beyond the mere application of normal good aquaculture practice. The promoters of these measures can be private operators. processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products Within the Axis 2. For example. Aqua-environmental measures: The EFF may support granting compensation for the use of aquaculture production methods in helping to protect and improve the environment and to conserve nature. For the support provided. reducing negative impact or enhancing positive effects on the environment. natural resources. Diversification towards new species and production of species with good market prospects. Improvement of the working and safety conditions of aquaculture workers. e. protecting them against the economic impacts of harmful algal blooms. There are some other measures within Axis 2 which do not affect directly the freshwater aquaculture farmers. develop innovative production methods Marketing of products (mainly originating from local landings and aquaculture) Lifelong learning Axis 3 . hygiene. forms of aquaculture comprising protection and enhancement of the environment. however in some cases they can be of interest. the EFF may support measures of common interest which cannot be normally supported by the private sector and which help to meet the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. and management of the landscape can get support within this measure.Measures of common interest Within Axis 3. Public health measures: These measures concern mainly the mollusc farmers. Investments shall contribute to one or more of the following objectives: a. Inland fishing: Eligible measures for aid include: • • Aid for inland fishing and fishing on ice. human or animal health and product quality. beneficiaries of compensation must commit themselves for a minimum of five years to aqua-environmental requirements. equipment and modernisation of production installations. Eligible measures are: • • • • • Collective actions Protection and development of aquatic fauna and flora Fishing ports. the following measures are eligible for funding the aquaculture sector: Productive investments in aquaculture: The EFF may support investments in the construction. The Commission also wants to encourage fish farmers to participate in the Community eco-management and audit scheme (EC No 761/2001) allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community ecomanagement and audit scheme (EMAS).
how they can achieve the site conservation. Nature conservation policy: Habitat and Bird Directive. irrespective of national or political boundaries. 4.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Regulatory framework technical body • Modification of fishing vessels with a view to reassignment Aquaculture related collective actions can be for example: • • • • • • • • • Improvement of working conditions and safety Transparency of markets Improvement of quality and food safety Development. which will take the EU through to 2012. better management of wastes. 18/110 . It says that positive measures should be taken. better upfront consideration of the environmental implications of planning decisions. many sites in Natura 2000 are valuable precisely because of the way they have been managed up to now and it will be important to ensure that these sorts of activities (such as extensive farming) can continue into the future. and quality of life • Natural resources and waste From the point of view of an aquaculture farmer. the actions in the field of nature conservation and the protection of natural resources (like water) are the most important. to maintain and restore these habitats and species to a 'favourable conservation status’ in their natural range. huge challenges remain. The recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy has decoupled payments from production and replaced it with a single farm payment that is based on good agricultural and environmental condition. expansion of protected natural habitats. Natura 2000 is not merely a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are systematically excluded. and more environmentally friendly products. The sixth environment action programme identifies four priorities: • • • Climate change Nature and biodiversity Environment and health. regional development and transport. It also includes Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive for around 200 endangered bird species and wetlands of international importance. By actively associating different land-users in the management of Natura 2000 sites it is possible to ensure that vulnerable semi-natural habitats and species. are maintained. It is composed of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated for one or more of the 231 threatened habitat types and 900 species listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.the Birds directive and the Habitats directive. and to integrate nature protection requirements into other EU policies such as agriculture.2. Natura 2000 EU Nature conservation policy is based on two main pieces of legislation . It builds on 30 years of activity which has already delivered a range of benefits — including much cleaner air and water. However. The current environment action programme. It is part of Europe’s response to conserve global biodiversity in line with international obligations under the Biodiversity Convention.2. is the sixth in the series. The aim of the Natura 2000 Network is to protect and manage vulnerable species and habitats across their natural range within Europe. It is up to the Member States to decide.1. Its priorities are to create the European ecological network (of special areas of conservation). Environmental policies with major impact on aquaculture development An EU environment policy is nothing new. restructuring or improvement of aquaculture sites Development of new training methods Promotion of partnership between scientists and operators Promotion of equal opportunities Creation and restructuring of Producers Organisations and implementation of their plans Feasibility studies related to the promotion of partnerships with third countries 4. The Directive requires that within Natura 2000 sites damaging activities are avoided that could significantly disturb the species or deteriorate the habitats for which the site is designated. which are dependent upon positive management. It adopts a different approach – it recognises that man is an integral part of nature and the two work best in partnership with one another. called NATURA 2000. where necessary. Indeed. Natura 2000 also was incorporated into the Common Fisheries Policy and fish farmers will be supported and required to meet with site management requirements of Natura 2000.
some of which will traverse national frontiers . i. There follows a number of exemptions to the general objectives that allow for less stringent objectives. and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status. good status by 2015. Furthermore. The general objective of the WFD is to achieve ‘good status’ for all surface waters by 2015. or in the case of the Rhine even beyond the EU territory. The Water Framework Directive expands the scope of water protection to all waters and sets clear objectives that a “good status” must be achieved for all European waters by 2015 and that water use be sustainable throughout Europe. Schelde or Rhine river basins have served as positive examples of this approach.eu/environment/water/water-framework/iep/index_en. provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The environmental objectives are defined in Article 4 . Water Framework Directive and freshwater aquaculture On 23 October 2000.2. All these documents and others produced by the Common Implementation Strategy process can be found on the WFD CIRCA library (http://ec. and this will provide the context for the co-ordination requirements identified above. For each river basin district . The intercalibration exercise is a key element in making the general environmental objective operational in a harmonised way throughout the EU. extension of the deadline beyond 2015. While several Member States already take a river basin approach. poor and bad. surface waters and groundwater Achieving "good status" for all waters by a set deadline Water management based on river basins A "Combined approach" of emission limit values and quality standards Setting the prices right Getting the citizen involved more closely • Streamlining legislation The best model for a single system of water management is management by river basin . an activity on climate change is certainly envisaged. exemptions and related economic issues”. or the implementation of new projects.of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).the natural geographical and hydrological unit . The WFD classification scheme for water quality includes five status categories: high. “environmental objectives. The Commission presented a Proposal for a Water Framework Directive with the following key aims: • • • • • • Expanding the scope of water protection to all waters.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Regulatory framework 4. 19/110 . Guidance Documents and are intended to provide an overall methodological approach. with their cooperation and joint objective-setting across Member State borders. crossing administrative and territorial borders and therefore a common understanding and approach is crucial to the successful and effective implementation of the Directive.2. the Candidate and EEA Countries as well as stakeholders and NGOs. In addition. Norway and the Commission agreed on a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive only five months after the entry into force of the Directive. The implementation of the Water Framework Directive raises a number of shared technical challenges for the Member States. the "Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy" or. which will focus on the options and opportunities provided for by the EU-Water Policy framework for adapting to the impacts of climate change. good. in short. Initiatives taken forward by the States concerned for the Maas. many of the European river basins are international. moderate.a "river basin management plan" will need to be established and updated every six years. this is at present not the case everywhere. ‘Good status’ means both ‘good ecological status’ and ‘good chemical status’. “water scarcity and drought” and “biological and chemical monitoring”.e. In order to address the challenges in a co-operative and coordinated way. the Commission.htm).the core article . This new overarching system is quite timely as Europe’s water resources are facing increasing pressures. Article 4. “WFD and Hydromorphology”.instead of according to administrative or political boundaries. but these will need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each EU Member State. the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) was finally adopted. The activity therefore will have to closely cooperate with other CIS activities with a view to linking and co-ordinating work related to climate change. The CIS is regularly updated by Member States and for the period 2007-2009 the following priorities were considered the most important by the Water Directors: “WFD and Agriculture”. Guidance documents and technical reports have been produced to assist stakeholders to implement the WFD. The aim is long-term sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. the Member States.1 defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies.europa.
Consumers are becoming more concerned about how fish is produced or which type of feed ingredients are used. texture). neutral and not too acerb smell and its tender. colours). It includes: external appearance (e. fatty acid composition and organoleptic characteristics is the diet. It can be concluded that the feeding system has a higher impact on the sensory and chemical qualities than the culturing system. Significant differences are apparent in their fatty acid content and composition. On the other hand. the main aim was to find out the influences of different fish feeding and cultivation systems on the quality and taste of carp. not mouldy taste. also from a polyculture system with natural feeding. heavy metals. fat). bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) was analysed. Common carp bred in monoculture . No significant differences between carp from monoculture or polyculture systems was detected in any analysis. To sell fish through this important retail market channel the products have to meet extremely high quality standards. and safety (inclusion of toxic constituents. due to its fresh.fed on natural food In addition. One of the major goals of SustainAqua was therefore to analyse the influence of different rearing systems and feeding patterns on the quality of fish and to research potential market applications of different aquaculture by-products to attain new markets. In the Polish case study. The following questions were analysed: • Is there a difference in taste and quality if carp is reared in polyculture or monoculture systems (different food spectrum and utilisation efficiency available)? • Is there a difference in taste and quality if carp is fed on grain (maize and wheat) or with natural food? The research focused on common carp (Cyprinus carpio). sensory profiling with expert panels. Carp with natural feeding regimes had higher proportions of the n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) which are considered to have positive effects on human health. The main factor that controls fat content. nutritional value (composition of the edible part – e. Common carp bred in traditional monoculture . most supermarket chains have introduced very strict rules on fishery products. the impact of three different pond culture systems and feed regimes on the quality of common carp was assessed. fat and fatty acids. human pathogens). the changing economic and social environment create new markets for freshwater aquaculture by-products and fish farmers have to find innovative ways to utilise aquaculture by-products more efficiently.fed with grain 2. Results show that carp with natural feeding had much lower fat contents than their grain-fed counterparts. flavour. whilst at the same time fulfilling regulatory requirements. The following fish samples were analysed: 1.fed on natural food 3. especially in the face of low-cost imports from Asia. with the help of consumer tests. Currently. European aquaculture farmers could increase their economic sustainability and improve their competitiveness within the international aquaculture market. organoleptic characteristics (taste. 20/110 . Product quality – the Polish case The term 'fish quality' is a complex set of characteristics influenced by numerous factors. 5. In the framework of SustainAqua.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Market opportunities 5. several prejudices among consumers exist with regard to an inferior taste of this species. carp with natural feeding was rated much higher. Whether carp is bred in monoculture or polyculture systems seems not to have a strong influence on the (taste) quality of the fish. resulting in low prices (ca. freshness. to prove its high quality and taste and attain a higher market acceptance. and chemical analyses of protein.1. the main species cultured in Poland. the market potential of byproducts for the booming cosmetic and energy industries was analysed: hydro-culture plants and tropical fruits of the 'Tropenhaus' in Switzerland and various wetland crops in the Hungarian case. fatty acids. odour. Because of their own trading interests and to meet consumer needs.g. chemicals used in aquaculture practices and their metabolites. Also in regard to consumer acceptance. Product quality and diversification – Market opportunities for aquaculture farmers for their fish products and by-products A very important criterion for standing up to increasing competition on the fish market is excellence of product quality related to flesh quality and consumers’ preferences.g. By accessing alternative and fast growing markets parallel to the main market of high quality fish products. 1€/kg). Common carp bred in traditional polyculture . In the case studies of Switzerland and Hungary. EU regulations and authorities are increasing their focus on food safety and traceability of the production from 'egg to plate'.
Willow after planting in water covered wetland unit (Photo: AKVAPARK) Potentials Within the framework of SustainAqua. wastewater treatment and bioenergy production is an innovative approach in the European Union.2.To know the share of the single sugars (polysaccharides) is important to evaluate the initial potential of crops for biofuel production Table 2: SustainAqua analyses to determine bioenergy potential of wetland crops 21/110 . To meet the emerging massive demands on biomass in the EU. common reed (Phragmites australis). It could serve two purposes with enormous advantages at the same time: 1. Water content Fuel value Cell wall polysaccharides . including aquaculture sites. the lower the energy content . results of this study show a positive correlation in terms of both sensory quality/ consumer acceptance and chemical composition.g.Plant cell walls contain mainly three different polymer types: cellulose.The higher the water content in the fuel. Aquaculture farmers profit in two ways simultaneously: The farmer saves costs for wastewater treatment and sells a new product for additional income. hemicellulose and lignin. . 2. concerning the marketing of bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis). cattail (Typha latifolia/ angustifolia). heat or electricity. Lignocellulosic byproducts of aquacultural activities offer huge possibilities for the production of fuel ethanol. for the production of woodchips or pellets for heat and electricity generation or for the production of cellulosic bioethanol as biofuel for transport (see Table 2). 5.Critical factor determining the amount of heat obtained through combustion . Wetland crops for the bioenergy industry – the Hungarian case The potential for biomass production for the booming bioenergy sector is massive. e.Cellulose and hemicellulose contain long chains of sugars that can be converted to fuels for transport such as bioethanol. reaching the same values as common carp. The combination of aquaculture.Amount of energy released in form of heat when 1 kg of plant (biomass) is burned . giant reed (Arundo donax) and willow (Salix viminalis) were specifically analysed for their contents for potential use as biomass for energy purposes.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Market opportunities In addition. . all potential areas for cultivating biomass must be used.
not the bioenergy production. Especially SMEs could be particularly interested in jointly developing new products. The holistic concept could be the unique selling point for such products.Duckweed is rich in a Lemna-specific pectin (apiogalactoronan/ lemnan) . As it was not possible to search for new ingredients or analyse the entire chemical composition of all selected plants.). The heating value showed promising figures especially for cattail.Could be used for treating symptoms of skin aging and skin inflammation . Carotenoids. Improvements. while the techno-economic developments for a working biomass-bioenergy market across Europe are establishing and should be achieved in the coming 3-5 years.g. Potentials Within the framework of SustainAqua. such as a papaya or guava crème. Therefore. 5. and papaya (Carica papaya) were analysed. can protect skin against harmful effects of heavy metals and improve cell respiration. Market opportunities Conditions are currently very favourable for the development of biomass for energy production. Hydro-culture plants and tropical fruits for the cosmetic industry – the Swiss case Hydro-culture plants and tropical fruits have great potential to be used as renewable primary products in the cosmetic industry.and middle quality fruits which cannot be sold to the fruit markets as first class product. This may result in the following limiting factors that are detrimental to efficient and cost-effective bioenergy production: 3. The site of the wetland crops may not provide optimal growing conditions for bioenergy production. cattail and giant reed. analyses focused on low. are expected to occur in the near future.Guava has antioxidant properties attributed to its polyphenols content . this sector is currently just beginning to develop and take off. with its polyphenols content.(which could also be a significant by-product of the Hungarian wetland water treatment system or the Polish cascading system). the most promising known ingredients were assessed for their concentration (see Table 3): Pectin . Other international experiments demonstrate the great potential for all four tested wetland crops.3. The ambitious goals of the EU to increase the share of bioenergy in the European energy mix will create a tremendous demand for biomass resources in the coming decade. lycopene Polyphenols Table 3: SustainAqua analyses to determine industrial potential of hydro-culture plants and tropical fruits 22/110 . guava (Psidium sp. the area should be a minimum of 1 ha. Harvesting cycles of 2 or 3 years could be more appropriate. e. It needs to be closely investigated in which way the water treatment and energy crop production can be combined as efficiently as possible in order to find optimal conditions to achieve both goals.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Market opportunities Results of these analyses prove the clear potentials for bioenergy applications. SRC indicate useful information on the design of wetland crop areas for aquaculture application. For the tropical fruits. Harvesting time is important for optimal combustion quality (best in spring). duckweed (Lemna sp. 5. though. this time should be used to optimise the conditions for biomass production in connection with aquaculture activities while not neglecting the primary goal of the wetland crops. The opportunity for such aquaculture co-products lies in the selling of the “local origin” and environmental friendly image of the product. It is also a unique chance for aquaculture farmers to earn a valuable additional income by utilising biomass by-products from their aquaculture farm to provide the booming bioenergy industry with the urgently needed biomass. . be accessible for machines for harvest and produce at least 8-11 t dry mass per ha per year.).Water hyacinth. especially of Arundo donax and Phragmites australis. To profitably market. Whilst it is a target to use this produced biomass as co-product for bioenergy production the wastewater treatment will always be the priority of the wetland crop plantation. However.ß-carotene and lycopene are known for positive impact on human health . the wastewater treatment and nutrient retention.Water hyacinth could also be suitable for phytoremediation as it is able to take up metals and toxic materials from wastewater for its metabolic use. 4. it needs to be considered that on an aquaculture farm the primary goal of a wetland crop plantation is the treatment of wastewater from the aquaculture activities. The figures for cell wall polysaccharides show the opportunities for cellulosic bioethanol production of these crops.Extraordinary characteristics compared to ordinary pectin (from apples) . Willow (Salix viminalis) is already used for the production of wood chips for heat and electricity generation. water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). in so-called Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) plantations. common reed. Regarding the three herbaceous plants of the Hungarian case study.Guava and papaya are both rich in bioactive substances .
However. NPD is key feature The cosmetics industry is characterised by innovation and a high rate of product development. in sales in 2006. Companies are experimenting with natural ingredients moving away from synthetic chemicals. Market opportunities Current developments in the cosmetics. an added value in the utilisation of aquaculture co-products in the cosmetic sector could be the holistic and organic approach of. the supply-side is highly fragmented and dominated by small. in particular the natural cosmetics market. Germany. both natural and conventional. with growth rates of 40% in 2005. Market winners are the companies that can successfully differentiate their products from their competitors. followed by Austria and Switzerland. safety and the environmental impact of products. Europe is a major engine of growth with growth rates of over 20% to reach € 1. French markets are the fastest growing. High rate of new product development (NPD).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Market opportunities Results of these analyses show that the aquaculture co-products from the 'Tropenhaus' case study did not contain a higher concentration of a known active substance compared to other plants. in particular small or medium enterprises. Such a unique selling point could be beneficial for certain branches of the industry. Product positioning: Successful marketing comes from clear differentiation from competing products A critical success factor for natural cosmetics is product positioning. are quite favourable for the utilisation of aquaculture by-products: • Rapid market growth of up to 20% in the natural cosmetics branch Global sales of organic cosmetics are soaring with revenues approaching € 5 bn in 2006. • • • 23/110 . However. is by a long stretch the leading country in this market segment. Innovation is essential to improve performance. The market share of the overall cosmetic market is forecast to grow from currently 6% to 10% by 2012. for instance. Domination of highly innovative SME's In Europe. the 'Tropenhaus' production or other sustainable aquaculture farms.and medium-sized companies with over 400 SMEs producing natural cosmetics. achieving € 650 mill.1 bn of sales.
The discharged suspended solids are settled and converted into soluble nutrients which are utilised through the organisms of wetlands. The B_SA B_AR 683 m2 683 m2 effluent from the fishpond unit was channelled into four surface-flow constructed B_SAi B_TAi A_PH A_TY 683 m2 683 m2 wetlands planted with different 2 2 2288m 2728m energy plants: common reed (Phragmites australis). The water from the stabilisation pond was introduced into the fishpond B_FP 1380 m2 unit. the water loading fee is a significant incurring charge in Hungary. Constructed wetlands as a sustainable method to treat aquaculture effluents and produce valuable crops (African Catfish Site) 6. Water treatment of intensive aquaculture systems through wetlands and extensive fish ponds – Case study in Hungary 6.4 ha (Subsystem ‘B’) wetland systems were constructed to treat effluent water of an intensive flow-through African catfish farm.1. With the combination of different wetland types.1.2. by the integration of valuable fish and plant species. which can be suitable for bioenergy production. the nutrient removal efficiency can be enhanced. The scheme of this Figure 4: Schematic picture of the ACS case study design module is shown in Figure 4. The effluent from the African catfish farm was channelled Subsystem ’B’ Subsystem ’A’ into the aerated stabilisation pond. In wetland ecosystems the pollutant load is reduced by natural processes using water-purifying plants. The ponds were filled with stored freshwater originating from the nearby oxbow lake of River Körös at the beginning of the operation period (May in 2007. giant reed (Arundo Macrophyte pond Irrigated area donax) and salt-cedar (Tamarix tetrandra) (see also Table 4). In the last decades constructed wetlands have been rediscovered as an effective method for waste water treatment. In the macrophyte pond. 6. Furthermore. fishpond and macrophyte pond. Principles of the case study The African Catfish Site (ACS) is located at the Experimental Pond System of the Research Institute for Fisheries. where a paddle wheel aerator was operated and A_SP B_SP 1387 m2 supplemental river water was 3072 m2 added. cattail (Typha latifolia and T. The wetland subsystems were constructed by the combination of a stabilisation pond. a fishpond and macrophyte pond units.1 ha (Subsystem ‘A’) and 0. like a stabilisation pond. Hungary. 24/110 . Introduction – General description of the innovation Obtaining and maintaining good water quality in natural water bodies is a highlighted objective of European and national legal regulation and NGO's because the quality and quantity of freshwater resources is one of the key factors of healthy human life. Flow-through Stabilisation pond African catfish angustifolia). willow (Salix Fishpond farm viminalis). February in 2008). . The pilot-scale 1.1. Discharged effluents cause eutrophication and deterioration of natural recipient ecosystems. By stocking fish into one pond a certain proportion of discharged nutrients is captured in fish flesh and the necessary dissolved oxygen level ensures adequate conditions for aerobic processes. These arguments force the producers to find efficacious and cost-effective treatment methods. these nutrients can be converted into marketable by-products. where a certain A_FP 3072 m2 proportion of the nutrients was retained in fish biomass.1. Furthermore.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary 6. several macrophytes tolerating the applied water level assimilate a considerable quantity of nutrients for biomass production. Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) in Szarvas.
5 m 0.2 m 0. Harvest: The fishponds were harvested in November. 25/110 . Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators Water input and output Input water was introduced into the experimental system from two sources: • • African catfish farm effluent to be treated and Freshwater from the River Körös to fill up ponds and supply oxygen and algae to the stabilisation ponds during the operation. insufficient growth of giant reed.) Carp polyculture Common reed (Phragmites australis).159-0.5 m in 2007 and 2008. cattail (Typha sp.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary Two additional irrigated fields were connected to the Subsystem ‘B’ in 2008. insufficient growth of willow. Water depth: The average water depth in the stabilisation and fishponds was 1. irrigated with outflow water from the fishpond (B_FP) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 not applicable Willow (Salix viminalis) not applicable Salt-cedar (Tamarix tetrandra) 2 Table 4: Main features of the experimental units 6.1. 11 173 m in 2008). The specific refreshing water consumption was computed for the treatment 3 3 system and it was found that for 1 m aquaculture effluent treatment 0. The ponds were filled up initially with freshwater from the nearby branch of River Körös. cattail invasion Planted in 2007.2 m 0.5 m in the macrophyte ponds.6 m and 69. During the retention time the inlet water volume decreased by the evaporation.) Giant reed (Arundo donax).2 m.279-0. and 0. The theoretical daily volume was calculated because refreshing water input was not supplied routinely. cattail (Typha sp. The daily water 3 3 consumption was. cattail invasion Planted in 2006. Thus. This fish stocking composition was chosen to achieve the water treatment goals and to utilise the different natural food sources as effectively as possible. The majority of the 3 3 3 river water was used at the filling up stage (13 829 m in 2007. where the water level was maintained under the surface and the sodium remediation capacity of energy willow and salt-cedar was examined. another 10 037 m in 3 2007 and 17 089 m in 2008 was added during the operation to the stabilisation ponds. irrigated with outflow water from the fishpond (B_FP) Planted in 2007. on average 65. The water output was controlled at the outflow gate of the macrophyte ponds.5 m Duckweed (Lemna sp. Fish stock: Fish were stocked in polyculture at a stocking density of 900 kg/ha: 35% common carp (Cyprinus carpio).2 m 1. evapotranspiration and seepage lost. only in the case of an unfavourable oxygen regime.2 m 1. T. angustifolia) Duckweed (Lemna sp.5 m 1. duckweed Cattail (Typha latifolia. The following principles were applied: Retention time: Calculated hydraulic retention time was 18 days in each wetland unit. Feeding: There was no artificial feeding applied in the fishponds.3.) Regularly removed Stocked in April Harvested in November Harvested in November Harvested in November Regularly removed Stocked in April Harvested in November Planted in 2006.274 m river water was used 3 during the operation and altogether (including the initial filling up) 0. respectively. 60% silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and 5% grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) in April and May.5 m 0. the output water volume was lower by 55-57% than the total input water volume.) Carp polyculture Willow (Salix viminalis). the water was drained and the bottom kept dry in winter (from November till February) Unit Area Water depth Species 2 Comments A_SP A_FP A_PH A_TY B_SP B_FP B_SA B_AR B_SAi B_TAi 3 072 m 3 072 m 2 288 m 2 728 m 1 387 m 1 380 m 683 m 683 m 683 m 683 m 2 1.453 m was applied.
6 Input kg 1 167 722 207 196 1 167 Output kg 722 404 77. N Unit A_ST A_FI A_PH A_TY A_Total P Removal % 38. according to the daily amounts.4) 12.6 (54.4) 91.0) 9.4 117 Output kg 95.5) 10.4) 5.9 23.90 (62.0 (33.0 23.36 (59. In the output water.3 (27.7 30.21 9.2) 11.7 23.0 36.26 44. In the output water less than 10% of the nitrogen level was detected compared with the input water sources.8 (76.1 148 475 59.3) 15.9 (42. The carbon content of the water samples was calculated as half of the volatile suspended solids amount: the total carbon output was 3 262 kg during the operation corresponding to 21.5) 13. in the output water 27% of the input phosphorus amount was found.3) 77.9 94.2) 94.13 9.4 58. The total organic carbon output was 4 812 kg during the operation corresponding to 19.8 (21.1 35.2) 7.2 (43.93 37.7 (49.5) 6.4 C Removal % 18.1 (62.0 15.5 (71.8 116 49.1 79.9) 5.7 22.1 813 561 188 186 813 2 743 561 374 108 79.7 B_ST B_FI B_SA B_AR B_Total Total 512 235 56.9 9.4 187 792 31.7 26.9 48.4 (68.6 24.1 69.4 9.2 26. less than 5% of the total organic carbon input was detected (Table 6).6) 8.29 kg.3 19.8) 92.5 15.1 (68.3) 94.9 1 351 554 238 257 1 351 3 997 554 503 68.5 14. output and the nutrient removal of the pond units in ACS in 2007 (in brackets: removal calculated for the pond input) N P C Unit A_ST A_FI A_PH A_TY A_Total Input kg 1 352 865 184 198 1 352 Output kg 865 376 41.1 162 54.05 kg/day discharge of the whole treatment system. 26/110 . less than 8% of the total organic carbon input was detected (Table 5).1 Table 6: Nutrient input.1 kg daily output.8) 69. The nitrogen and phosphorus output was considerable lower in 2008 than in 2007. especially regarding the daily outputs which were nearly 50% less in 2008.22) 12.2 Input kg 152 95.82 (42.4 78.93 (67. output and the nutrient removal of the pond units in ACS in 2008 (in brackets: removal calculated for the pond input) The total nitrogen output amounted to 116 kg during the operational period in 2008.1 27.9) 7.2 83.3 152 Output kg 95.2 Removal % 37.3 2.03 (70.6) 68.0) 11.0 31.6 (51.4 46.1 48.7 (52.0 717 2 069 361 184 17.9) 80.9 18.9 (81.90 (80.13 4. The organic carbon output.1 (56.1 17.97 6.8 (56.6 B_ST B_FI B_SA B_AR B_Total Total 717 361 88.2 (71.4) 9.0 Removal % 36.1 Input kg 2 646 1 304 562 522 2 646 Output Kg 1 304 1 143 161 166 327 Removal % 50.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary Nutrient utilisation efficiency The total nitrogen output was found to be 162 kg during the operational period in 2007.7 kg daily output.9 37.66 (36.4) 13.9 231 40.1 512 1 679 235 114 21.9 40.78 78. The total phosphorus output was 37.2 (44.0 71. was found to be similar in both years.3 50.3) 13.36 (44.0 31.3 99.7) 81.1) 87.1 35.4 19. In the output water less than 6% of the nitrogen amount was detected as compared with the input water sources.36 (34.2 14. in the output water 16% of the input phosphorus amount was found.1 (41.15 kg.9 36.3) 89.5 (49.55 50.0) 8.1 (57.5 124 Input kg 117 95.7 6. The total phosphorus output was 44.3) 11.5 36.30 9.1 23.4 (38. which corresponded to 0.4) 15.8 5.0 20.4) 11.96 3.6 90.0 88.6 33.3 80.5 (77.1 Table 5: Nutrient input.1 (80.1 kg and the daily discharge was 0.9) 10.6) 12.0 167 31.0 38.5 73. which corresponded to 1.9 kg and the daily discharge was 0. In the output water.07 (12.9) 10.48 kg/day discharge from the whole treatment system.0 3.8) 89.78 (9.6 Input kg 1 930 1 307 526 495 1 930 Output kg 1 307 1 022 325 279 605 Removal % 32.
Productivity of labour Plant stocking.3 n.1 kW) to mix and aerate pond water by aerators (2 pcs with a power of 0. respectively. Willow had a value of 9 699 J/g. or 3 0.99 3. In the case where the effluent inflow to the treatment system can be solved by gravity. 216 and 32 man-hours. while the water content decreased. daily operation activities. and 2. 3. Approximately 48 l fuel.8%.0 167 27 17 1. The total fuel value of the harvested biomass was 81 728 MJ corresponding to 22 702 kWh in 2007 and 359 207 MJ equal to 99 780 kWh in 2008. plant harvest and fish harvest required approximately 64.e.5 2.3 7.273 3 kWh/m in 2008. 1. Within the seasons of autumn. electrical energy was used to pump effluent into stabilisation ponds (one pump with a power of 3. Energy efficiency During the operation of the ACS experimental system. In giant reed and willow ponds.5-9. as the water content is the lowest at that period and accordingly the calorific value is comparatively high. respectively.00778 man-hours/m effluent water were used for the treatment in ACS. a strong spontaneous cattail growth occurred suppressing the development of planted species. the total labour input during the treatment process was 488 h. 487 kWh was used for the harvest and transport of the biomass.c. the energy consumption needed for pumping can be eliminated.5 n. to gain the highest heating value.0 4.* 2 069 5. The energy consumption of electrical pumps and aerators was 16 221 kWh and 16 997 kWh in 2007 and 2008.2 1. The cattail showed the highest growing rate and the lowest rate was recorded for the willow plantation. respectively.5% of nitrogen.75 kW). Cattail and giant reed showed comparatively low fuel values of 9 214 J/g and 8 611 J/g respectively.* Table 7: Nutrient outputs and nutrient retention in secondary products A part of the nutrients in the ACS module was taken up by fish and energy plants as valuable by-products. These results indicate that between March and April is the best time in the year for the harvesting the wetland crops.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary 2007 N P C N 2008 P C Nutrient Input Water Output Water at harvest Fish Plants *not calculated Unit kg % % % % 1 679 9. The produced macrophyte biomass was estimated to be 40 900 kg in 2008. 2007 kWh MJ kWh 2008 MJ Electric energy consumption Effluent pumping Aeration Fuel consumption Effective fuel value of plants Balance Table 8: The energy budget of the ACS 16 221 10 714 5 508 487 22 702 5 994 58 396 38 570 19 829 1 754 81 728 21 578 16 997 9 077 7.8 9. 176. A similar proportion of the input nutrients was converted into fish and plant biomass in both years: 1. Thus. the total biomass weight was 8 320 kg.5 3 997 4. i. Common reed had the highest fuel values with an average of 11 372 J/g.257 kWh/m in 2007 and 0.6 5.. The specific energy 3 consumption calculated for the treated aquaculture effluent volume was 0.9 0.7-4.2% phosphorus were absorbed by energy plants from the input of nutrient amounts (Table 7). phosphorus and organic carbon were retained in the harvested fish. respectively. Calculating the energy budget of the experimental system 6 000 kWh more energy was produced than consumed during the operation period in 2007 and 82 296 kWh more energy was gained in 2008 (Table 8).0% nitrogen and 8. the heating value nearly doubled for reed and increased by 45% for cattail.7 231 16 9.920 487 99 780 82 296 61 189 32 677 28 512 1 754 359 207 296 263 In the effluent treatment system energy crops were cultivated as valuable by-products.3-3.7 10 1. since by utilising them as fuel a considerable renewable energy source is produced.7 8.c. winter and spring. The plants were harvested in the macrophyte ponds in December 2007. 27/110 .0%.2 2 743 29 20 3.
Calculating on the basis of average water quality parameters from the experiments. The construction and successful operation require detailed planning and continuous control of the water quality in the units and the dissolved oxygen level in fishponds.1. This biomass could offset the burning of fossil gas. 28/110 . However. while the total costs of operation would be under 17. the savings of CO2 emission would be 11 250 kg annually Positive energy budget: During the operation of the constructed wetland system less energy was consumed than produced in form of plant biomass The removal of nutrients from the effluent water leads to the reduction of the water loading fee and helps avoid environmental fines Lower costs than the industrial waste water treatment technologies • • • • • • Production of marketable by-products generates additional income However. it is recommended to reduce the effluent load by decreasing the concentration (filtering the suspended solids) or volume of used water (storage).5. 130 kg P/ha and 7 500 kg COD/ha throughout the whole operation period from February to November in 2008 Fish production: In the fishponds on average 1 458 kg/ha fish biomass was produced on natural food Biomass production: 40 900 kg plant biomass was produced as potential renewable energy source.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary 6.7 million HUF) reduction in the water loading fee costs of the African catfish farm. The combined wetland system provides an adequate treatment method that is able to meet the environmental standards.000 € (4. Wet soils with a deep fertile layer provide favourable growing conditions for these species.4.2 million HUF) from cattail and fish production. The fishpond units are suitable for additional fish production. potentially providing profitable opportunities to utilise otherwise wasted nutrients. Its construction and operation costs are lower than those of artificial purification technologies. It could generate an additional income of 15.1. Benefits of implementation Environmental legislation forces aquaculture producers to minimise their nutrient and pollutant discharge and use sustainable purification methods. • • 6. the culture of ornamental fish or species utilising natural food resources. Success factors and constraints The African Catfish Site provided significant positive environmental and economical results: • Nutrient reuse and retention: The application of the examined treatment system decreased the amount of discharged nutrients of the intensive aquaculture by 1 300 kg N/ha.500 € (9. however these are land intensive systems. the application of the treatment method raised some constraints: • The climatic conditions in Central and Eastern Europe limit the continuous operation of constructed wetlands under the same loading level in winter. because overloading the system may cause serious disturbances to the natural equilibrium in ponds functioning as constructed ecosystems. At low temperature (under 15 ºC).6 million HUF).000 € (4. it would lead to 34. for example. The surface-flow (with continuous water supply) in the wetlands assured advantageous conditions for reed and cattail. Based on the results of the experimental years and taking into consideration climatic and economical considerations a wetland system of 12 ha area would be able to treat 100% of the effluent water from a flow-through African catfish farm with a capacity of 300 t fish/year. Natural treatment methods require a low amount of non-renewable energy. the open water surface and the relatively thin soil layer were not optimal for the growth of willow and giant reed.
92 57.07 0. • Creation of wetland habitats helps in preserving rare wetland species and contributes to biodiversity. Furthermore. and 87 t COD was discharged annually (Table 9). The average feed conversion ratio for market-sized fish is 1.0 5.90 114 62.6 29. fishpond and macrophyte pond.8 kg P are discharged with the effluent water. The total water volume of the tanks is 1 200 m on an area of 2 3 690 m . Construction costs are lower. and 52 kg N and 9. the phosphorus mass amounted to 1. They fit well into the natural environment and their notable aesthetic value results in higher acceptance by society. When applying surface-flow wetlands. and the producers are under an obligation to apply a sustainable treatment technology. CEffluent mg/l STD Load kg/day Parameter Total dissolved solids Chemical oxygen demand Ammonium N Total organic N Total N Orthophosphate P Total P Volatile suspended solids 714 200 18. 24 kg nitrogen (N) and 3. while culturing 1 t African catfish. Description of the intensive fish farm The results of the ACS case study are extrapolated to an existing flow-through fish farm with a total production capacity of 300 tonnes annually. a water loading fee is charged on the basis of the net output nutrient mass.6 1.64 3. furthermore. On the basis of average concentrations.2.37 2. Constructed wetlands are sustainable technologies since: • • • • They are effective in pollutant removal.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary 6. The total nitrogen is composed of approximately 60% total ammonium N (TAN) and 40% organic nitrogen. and by high chemical oxygen demand (COD). The used water is channelled into an oxbow lake where the discharged effluents cause eutrophication and deterioration of the natural ecosystem.8 11. The total phosphorus contained nearly 50% orthophosphate P. consideration of the following factors is essential: • • The land availability is significant. Minimal amounts of fossil energy and chemicals are necessary. From a case study to a fish farm: How to treat the effluents of a catfish farm? 6.4 1. while the volatile suspended solids represented 90% of the total suspended solids. the annual total nitrogen output equalled 13 t.2. the nutrient removal efficiency can be enhanced.2.6 857 239 22. 6. other N forms were found in negligible amounts.7 1. With the combination of different wetland types.5 89. 6.3.2. The climatic conditions influence the treatment efficiency.2. by the integration of saleable species.3 t.2 kg feed/kg fish. like the stabilisation pond. according to the recent environmental legislation.7 11.9 35.84 11.4 13.1. Treatment mechanism of wetlands In wetland ecosystems. Planning parameters Effluent water characteristics The effluent water of the African catfish farm is characterised by a high total dissolved solids content originating from the used geothermal water.48 137 Table 9: Average values of the water chemistry parameters and the calculated daily load of the effluent water (n=38) (STD: standard deviation) 29/110 . the nutrients are converted into marketable by-products. Thus. the pollutant content is diminished by natural processes. and operational and maintenance costs considerably lower than those of artificial treatment systems.9 kg phosphorus (P) are converted into fish biomass. African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) is produced intensively in 3 outdoor tanks in geothermal water at the farm.
a considerable biomass is produced. a reduced nutrient (especially nitrogen). stirs up the sediment. the lowest removal efficiency should be considered. i. especially in case of stabilisation of fishponds. whereby the nutrients and organic matter enter the water column. the retention capacities were calculated for 5 ºC intervals.2. Fish are sensitive to low oxygen levels (<1. Silver carp tolerates higher densities and can consume a large part of the phytoplankton and zooplankton.41 P removal 0. the loadability decreases at lower temperatures and a larger area is needed for the required nutrient removal. abundant zooplankton growth can occur in ponds. carp polyculture was chosen in order to utilise a certain amount of wasted nutrients directly by fish or through the food web of ponds. Aeration and refreshing water addition also helps in the reduction of unionised ammonia. the gradations of zooplankton lower the oxygen concentration of water.e. especially at lower temperatures and when the activity of nitrifying bacteria is suppressed.4. It was observed that silver carp can filter the feed remnants from the intensive farm effluent. however. The best net yields for both common carp and silver carp were found at a total stocking density of 1 000 kg/ha and stocking composition of 35%:50%:15% (completed with grass carp). could cover the whole pond surface interfering with the primary production of algae.99 30.66 Table 10: The specific removal of the constructed wetland system at different temperature intervals The possibility of adding refreshing water during the operation. Higher ammonia levels can be caused by overloading the ponds.96 5. also influences the yields since 1-year-old fish is expected to grow more intensively than larger-sized fish. photosynthetic O2 production can be reduced.46 19. Planktonic booms: At the beginning of the vegetation period. Below the desired dissolved O2 level.36 0. fish production farms operate continuously all year round. In an eutrophic/hypertrophic pond.4 mg/l).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary Nutrient retention Based on the data of a temperature-dependent loading experiment in 2008. i. stocked species and naturally occurring organisms require adequate management measures. Grass carp. However. enhancing the primary production and increasing the available food pool for filter feeders. removal is characteristic to surface-flow constructed wetlands.75 VSS removal kg/ha/day Water temperature interval 10-15 ºC 15-20 ºC 20-25 ºC COD removal 18. N removal 2.92 44.5-2. During the planning of the system. and thus. Fish stocking In the fish ponds. Furthermore.71 7. Common carp. 2-year-old common carp is able to resuspend the sediment more efficiently. from April to October in Central and Eastern Europe. The N removal showed the highest sensitivity. which can be attached or detached depending on demand. the age of stocked fish.e. rainy weather. 30/110 . In winter. The P retention and VSS removal were more efficient only in the highest temperature range (Table 10). No cyanobacterial blooms were observed in the treatment units. 6. the removal of its biomass can be solved by stocking juvenile fish or by filtration. The supply and drainage channel system of the ponds has to be planned and constructed so as to make possible the independent filling-up and draining of the units when it is necessary. is an important principle of the treatment process.0 mg/l) and increased unionised ammonia concentration (>0. stocking juvenile common carp can prevent abundant zooplankton growth. Mechanical filtration could also decrease the nutrient load of dissolved compounds.68 37. and the COD removal also improved when the water temperature increased. the dissolved O2 concentration decreases in water.37 0. as a bottom feeder. Filtering the suspended solids and phytoplankton. To prevent unfavourable zooplankton reproduction. supplementation of the deficit has to be achieved by aeration or refreshing water supply. Regular (daily) monitoring of O2 and ammonia concentrations and considering weather conditions can prevent fatal water quality deterioration. Fish stocks: In pond ecosystems. as a macrophyte feeder. The individual stocking weight. When solar radiation is permanently hindered by cloudy.48 18. however. and it is recommended that the sizing of the area of different wetland types is undertaken with parallel pond units. Therefore.3-0. Critical factors of the operation Climatic conditions: Natural water treatment systems function adequately at water temperatures of 15-30 ºC. the duckweed species grow spontaneously and in small ponds. Various stocking densities were tested in the course of the experiments. was stocked to control the duckweed growth in the ponds.
2 ha depth 1. the draining and filling-up can be managed Macrophyte pond 1. In the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). a 12 ha wetland system is recommended.e. Since aerobic processes are preferred in treatment systems. According to our calculation the investment’s payback period is 8 years. Stocking carp in polyculture is recommended in the fishponds unit. it is assumed that the energy and fuel prices and the market price of cattail would increase by 6 % annually. the manual removal of duckweed is also recommended to increase the ratio of open water surface. Further calculations are listed in the table below.7 ha stocking density.g. The size and structure of the system is designed in order to assure the treatment safety in winter and to improve the outflow water quality.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary Duckweed: In stagnant waters.5 m stabilisation pond will not be in operation during warm months (from April till September). the duckweed hampers phytoplankton growth and activity. Thus. The advisable stocking rate for fish is 35%:50%:15% common carp (2y): silver carp (1y): grass carp at 1 000 kg/ha density and 50-300 g individual weight.8 ha alternatively. it would lead to 34 543 € reduction in the water loading fees for the African catfish farms.2 m • One macrophyte pond of 1. reproduce abundantly.8 ha. depth 1.2 ha. The fish pond is harvested at the end of October or beginning of November. it is transferred into fish biomass. Additional earnings would originate from the fish production in the fishpond.2 m Stabilisation pond 2. The construction of parallel pond units can increase the flexibility of the system since a larger area could be necessary in winter than in summer to meet discharge limits (see Figure 5). 7 000-8 000 kg inorganic nitrogen. while the increase in fish and fingerling prices is calculated to 2 % annually. According to our assumption. the water inlet from the stabilisation ponds can be continued. Studying the share of different wetland types in nutrient removal. Covering the pond surface. the removal of duckweed is recommended from all pond units. one depth 0. the treatment can run in the already filled pond. ponds are filled with river water (i. Design of the suggested wetland system On the basis of the existing results and the calculated daily load discharged from a fish farm with a 300 t/year capacity.2 ha depth 1.2 m At the beginning of the operation. Accumulation: Moderate sludge accumulation was observed at the inflow of aquaculture effluents in the stabilisation ponds and after longer operation (15-20 years). One fishpond of 3. which results in anaerobic conditions in the water column. 6. can also be stocked at a similar 3. in March.2 ha depth 1. Other carp species. 31/110 .2 m Stabilisation pond 2. that can consume duckweed.5:2:1. and cattail (biofuel) production in the macrophyte pond.5. e. when the water content of above-ground plant parts is the lowest. After harvesting. the removal of the accumulated sludge may be necessary. not polluted surface or groundwater). the suggested wetland system consists of: • • Three stabilisation ponds of 2. It is reasonable to keep the water level reduced in macrophyte ponds during harvest.7 ha and Stabilisation pond 2. It is recommended to harvest macrophytes in early spring. and • 70 000-80 000 kg COD from the effluent water. In macrophyte ponds. Using parallel stabilisation ponds. the fillingup in this unit can start before or parallel with the Figure 5: Suggested structure of the wetland treatment draining and filling-up of other stabilisation units. The best solution for duckweed control in fishponds is the stocking of grass carp. It is supposed that during one year the proposed wetland would remove • • Around 1 000-1 100 kg phosphorus.2. and thus. different duckweed species can appear and at optimal conditions. while the investment net present value (discount rate: 5%) amounts to 102 175 € after 15 years of operation. the recommended proportion for AC the stabilisation pond: fishpond: macrophyte pond farm combination is 3. Calculating on the basis of the average water quality parameters from the experiments. system for a 300 t/year capacity African catfish (AC) farm During the draining and filling-up of certain stabilisation ponds. The inflation of wages is set in the model to 3 %. Fishpond ornamental fish.
aerators) 228 571 Cost of fish juveniles Fuel costs (250 litres/year) Cost of electricity (35. ponds.9 EUR/GJ) Revenue from fish production Avoided water discharge fees Profit Discounted profit (r=5%) Net present value 0 89 0 1 429 0 0 0 -230 089 -230 089 -230 089 2010 0 4 029 268 4 505 7 500 3 082 11 986 34 543 33 309 31 723 2011 0 4 109 284 4 775 7 725 3 267 12 225 34 543 33 142 30 061 2012 0 4 191 301 5 062 7 957 3 463 12 470 34 543 32 965 28 476 2013 0 4 275 319 5 366 8 195 3 671 12 719 34 543 32 778 26 966 -112 863 2014 0 4 361 338 5 688 8 441 3 891 12 974 34 543 32 580 25 527 -87 336 2015 0 4 448 358 6 029 8 695 4 125 13 233 34 543 32 371 24 156 -63 180 2016 0 4 537 380 6 391 8 955 4 372 13 498 34 543 32 150 22 848 -40 332 2017 0 4 628 403 6 774 9 224 4 634 13 768 34 543 31 917 21 602 -18 729 2018 0 4 720 427 7 181 9 501 4 912 14 043 34 543 31 670 20 415 1 686 2019 0 4 815 453 7 611 9 786 5 207 14 324 34 543 31 410 19 283 20 969 2020 0 4 911 480 8 068 10 079 5 520 14 611 34 543 31 135 18 204 39 173 2021 0 5 009 508 8 552 10 382 5 851 14 903 34 543 30 845 17 176 56 348 2022 0 5 109 539 9 065 10 693 6 202 15 201 34 543 30 539 16 195 72 544 2023 0 5 211 571 9 609 11 014 6 574 15 505 34 543 30 216 15 261 87 805 2024 0 5 316 606 10 186 11 344 6 968 15 815 34 543 29 875 14 370 102 175 -198 366 -168 306 -139 829 Table 11: CBA of the proposed 12-hectare wetland system (thousands HUF. 1 EURO=275 HUF) 32/110 .SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary 2009 Investment costs (land.800 hour/year) Revenue from cattail (2.040 kWh/ year) Labour costs (2. pumps.
The principle of this method is to treat the effluent water enriched with organic and inorganic nutrients of intensive fish ponds in an extensive pond. There.3. Principles of the module The experiments of IES were carried out in three ponds (area 310 m . The application of the combined production system contributes to the ecological sustainability and production of marketable fish. at the same time the production per unit of water intake increases. The goals of the IES innovation were to: 1. The overall objective of the “Intensive-Extensive Site” (IES) case study is to help the traditional carp farmers to use their water more efficiently by producing valuable species in their reservoir or extensively used ponds in order to diversify their production and increase the economical performance of fish production. more fish species would be able to harvest them. With these objectives the research work focused on: • • • Evaluating the potential of nutrient reusing in combined aquaculture systems Investigating different biotechnological elements (e. where a cage was placed as an intensive unit (volume 10 m ) in each pond (Figure 6). The application of periphyton in an extensive pond built for wastewater treatment can improve the purification capacity of ponds as well. which are provided with periphyton substrates than in ponds without. resulting in a more efficient utilisation of primary production. Grazing on a two-dimensional layer of periphyton is mechanically more efficient than filtering algae from a three-dimensional planktonic environment. mussel stocking) on the additional fish production and the water quality Evaluating the nutrient budget of the experimental system 6. 2 33/110 . These ponds served 3 as extensive units.3. Periphyton based aquaculture is a technology for increasing natural food production in the pond and its utilisation for fish production.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary 6. so that wasted nutrients could be recycled. depth 1 m each). Combination of intensive and extensive aquaculture for the sustainable utilisation of water and nutrients (Intensive-Extensive Site) 6. The better utilisation of nutrients in aquacultural systems aims at decreasing the nutrient discharge into natural waters. This results in a higher nutrient utilisation efficiency and reduced environmental emissions.3. The new primary production and benthic secondary production of the attached communities fostered by the artificial substrate supports a new food web.g. part of which ends up as fish biomass. If pond algae could be grown on substrates. The principle of the research on IES was based on a linkage of intensive and extensive aquaculture production methods and different species that occupy different niches in the food web into one single integrated system. A paddlewheel aerator (0. Drugs and chemicals were not used during the experiment at all. The water level was maintained by supplying river water regularly. Increase production capacity. The ponds were filled up with natural water from a river before a week of fish stocking. Introduction – General description of the innovation During the development of environmental friendly fish production technologies it seems to be the obvious solution that intensive aquaculture is integrated within fishpond systems. a part of the nutrients is utilised through various biological production processes and the other part is fixed in the pond sediment. Recycle the nutrients within the production system. 2.1.5 kW) was installed in the pond to provide sufficient oxygen concentration and maintain the water circulation between the intensive and extensive units. periphyton application. Diversify the cultured species and 3. The purpose of the task was to develop a new method for predatory fish production in pond systems and to increase the nutrient utilisation of fish production. The water treated or purified is recycled to the intensive fishponds. Aquaculture production is higher in ponds.2.
However. where the effect of periphyton application and shellfish stocking on the water quality. The design of extensive ponds was the only difference between the systems. 10 shellfish were placed in a bag. 0. 100 and 200 % (i.3 Maximum 4. The experimental system was operated over 22 weeks from 10 May till 11 October of 2007. it was assumed to be only 70 m .2 Maximum 0. Nitrogen Average 2007 2008 0. respectively (Table 12).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary Water supply canal Water tretment unit 2 300 m Intensive unit Water tretment unit 2 300 m Water tretment unit 2 300 m Intensive unit Intensive unit Fish stocking only Periphyton Fish stocking only Periphyton Fish + shellfish stocking (2007) Experimental system I.19 Maximum 0.) were raised without any artificial feeding – initial stocking biomass was 60 kg (stocking ratio 1:1).28 Organic carbon Average 3. (IES/3) Figure 6: Scheme of the experimental system All ponds were subjected to the same regime of feeding and fish stocking. In two treatments (IES/2 and IES/3) the productivity of the extensive unit was enhanced by periphyton developed on artificial substrates and without additional substrate in control setup (IES/1). The shellfish were placed in suspended plastic net bags 10 cm above the pond bottom.) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L. The only nutrient source of the system was the fish feed used in the intensive unit.1 7.) were cultured and fed with pellets – initial stocking 3 biomass was 100 kg (10 kg/m ) –.) stocking with the 2 density 1 piece/m (size 109±69 g/individual) in the third unit. C:N ratio 6) was applied daily to the intensive ponds using an automatic feeder. altogether 30 bags were installed in IES/3. (IES/1) : Paddle wheal aerator Experimental system II. approximating the entire pond water surface area. but there was no feeding in the extensive fishponds.72 1.6 Table 12: The daily feed loading of IES IES/1 Average feed loading 0. 1 and 2 m periphyton 2 area/m pond surface) of the pond surface area (Table 13).08 0.2 g N/m /day in 2007 and 2008. while in the extensive units Common carp (Cyprinus carpio L. (IES/2) : direction of water circulation Experimental system III.4 10. Willow branches were used as substrate for the growth of periphyton. 2 The additional area for periphyton development equalled to 0.e.5g 2 N/m /day (2007) Average feed loading 1.8 Phosphorus Average 0. the surface of the brunches decreased continuously during the operation.51 1.5 and 1. A pelleted fish feed (45% crude protein. 34/110 . fish yields and 2 nutrient utilisation were tested. and by the end of the production 2 season. There was an additional freshwater mussel (Anodonta cygnea L. The willow substrates added an effective 2 surface area of about 300 m per pond. The average feed loading was 0.2 g 2 N/m /day (2008) PA: Periphyton area IES/2 PA 1 m /m PA 1 m /m 2 2 2 2 IES/3 PA 1 m /m + shellfish stocking PA 2 m /m 2 2 2 No periphyton No periphyton 2 Table 13: Experimental set-up The system operation in 2007 In the intensive units European catfish (Silurus glanis L.12 0.
221 12.) as a model fish that is a more robust species than its European counterpart (Silurus glanis L.).61 1384 3. while fuel consumption accounted for only 2-3% of the total energy requirement. which represented 80% of the total input of nitrogen. because of the lower fish yields of the first research year.747 unit causing high mortality among fish in the Extensive unit 3.078 4. The energy consumption of fish production is summarised in Table 15.2 and 12.792 7. No effluent water was discharged to the environment during the culture period. Water input and output The ponds were filled up with fresh water from the nearby branch of River Körös. 75% of phosphorus and 85% of carbon. 1 000 kg/ha for nitrogen and 180 kg/ha for phosphorus in 2008. IES/1 IES/2 IES/3 parasite problems occurred in the experimental 2007 Intensive unit 3.789 5. The nutrient loading in 2008 was therefore higher than in the previous year. Electric power consumption dominated the total energy consumption. 35/110 . The evaporation and seepage were regularly compensated for in the extensive ponds during the experimental period (Table 16).3. In addition. The reason of the shellfish removal from the experimental set-up was that the shellfish mortality was high in the first year. In both years the net fish yield of the whole Table 14: Net fish yields in IES (kg/ha) system (intensive and extensive unit together) was the highest in those ponds where the periphyton area was 100% of the pond surface (Table 14).8 850 260 1.747 2. inlet water. The experimental set-up of IES/3 was changed in 2008.85 EC: Energy consumption for fish production (kWh/kg net fish production) Table 15: Energy consumption of the IES (kWh) IES/1 IES/2 IES/3 2007 Water intake Water discharge WC (m /kg fish) 3 735 248 3. the water was only drained from the ponds at fish harvest.529 2008.5 956 245 1. The combined fish production resulted in a higher protein utilisation of 26%.825 7. the water of each experimental pond by paddlewheel IES/1 IES/2 IES/3 2007 Used energy EC intensive unit (kWh/kg) EC whole system (kWh/kg) 2008 Used energy EC intensive unit (kWh/kg) EC whole system (kWh/kg) 1857 18. For the safe operation. In the second year of the experiment artificial plastic substrate was used for Whole system 6. fish feed) and outputs (harvested fish and drainage water) are summarised in Table 17.8 8. respectively.76 1384 3.788 12.619 2. The operation Extensive unit 2.083 periphyton growth because of its constant area 2008 Intensive unit 13.8 2008 Water intake Water discharge WC (m /kg fish) 3 WC: Water consumption for fish production (water intake/kg fish) Table 16: Water budget of the IES (m ) Nutrient utilisation The total nutrient inputs (stocked fish. The daily energy consumption was 12. the intensive unit was stocked with African catfish (Clarias gariepinus L. The nutrient retention was 6 300 kg/ha for organic carbon.044 intensive unit. respectively.718 lasted 16 weeks from 21 May to 10 September of Whole system 16.48 1857 21. therefore the nutrient accumulation in the shellfish biomass was not as high as expected.76 1857 10.47 2.010 17. The nutrient utilisation of fish production in IES expressed as a percentage of the introduced nutrients in fish feed is presented in Table 18.35 2. it was stocked without shellfish while the artificial substrate surface was increased to 600 2 2 2 m (2 m periphyton area/m pond surface).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary The system operation in 2008 3 In the second year of the operation the stocking density (20 kg/m ) of intensive and intensive units was 2 doubled compared to 2007.2 gN/m /day.6 8. respectively. The retained nutrients represented on average 65 and 57% of the nitrogen and 66 and 58% of the phosphorus and 75 and 64% of the organic carbon introduced into the system in 2007 and 2008. The combined system was able to process 1 400 kg/ha of fish feedoriginated nitrogen.5 kW power) during the operation.9 3 518 242 2. in 2007 and 2008.3.048 2.40 1384 3. thus the average feed loading increased to 1.46 2.837 15.4 kWh.4 7.811 instead of the willow branches. The specific energy consumption was much higher in 2007 than in 2008.173 5. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators Energy efficiency Only electrical energy was used to mix and aerate aerators (0. The energy efficiency was improved by the additional fish production in the extensive unit with 35% and 21% in 2007 and 2008.1 890 256 1. The main nutrient source was the fish feed. 6.6 848 225 3.
2 P 0. The average FCR was 3. By the combined production the FCR was improved by 51% and 44% (to 1.5 24 22 10 33 P 17 6.3 g nitrogen. The efficiency of the extensive unit was improved by periphyton developed on artificial substrates. the regulation of the oxygen regime.4 13 19 22 5.4 20 N 17 6. IES/1 IES/2 IES/3 N 2007 2008 8.20-0.8 g N/m /day.6 and 0.2 16 15 7.8 P 0.53 g phosphorus and 9-46 g organic carbon were discharged during the production of 1 kg fish biomass (Table 19). The total nutrient utilisation during the fish production was the highest where the periphyton area was 100% of the pond surface in both years and the nutrient utilisation decreased in the treatment with highest periphyton ratio.9 28 P 5. besides algae nutrient uptake and bacterial decomposition.48 0. SF: shellfish PA 100% C 5. Hence.6-8.9 31 C 11 4.1 29 Table 18: Nutrient accumulation in fish biomass as a percentage of the feed input (%) From the experimental ponds 2.8 13 21 23 3.8 13 16 4.48 0. consumption of heterotrophic organisms and denitrification processes have a significant role.32 0.6 17 24 22 3. Only the nitrogen concentration was lower in the effluent in the case of a 200% periphyton ratio.9 24 22 8.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary with periphyton application this ratio could be increased to 40% in 2008.2 19 P 7.3 26 8.5 11 20 23 6. The combined system could process a significant part of surplus nutrients from the intensive fish production. IES/1 IES/2 IES/3 N 2007 Input (kg/ha) Output (kg/ha) Retention (%) 2008 Input (kg/ha) Output (kg/ha) Retention (%) 930 330 65 1790 760 58 P 160 55 65 310 130 60 C 5400 1200 78 9700 3100 67 N 930 350 63 1800 840 53 P 150 59 67 320 140 55 C 5400 1600 72 9700 3900 59 N 950 310 67 1800 720 60 P 160 55 65 310 130 60 C 5500 1300 76 9700 3200 67 Table 17: Partial nutrient budget of the IES PA 0% N 2007 Intensive Extensive Total 2008 Intensive Extensive Total PA: Periphyton area.1 5. to provide aerobic condition by artificial aeration is important for the efficient nutrient removal during water treatment.3 4.20 C 9. This indicates that the 2 100% periphyton ratio was sufficient to utilise the metabolites of the feed loading of 1.2 13 15 4. The dry matter content of periphyton developed at different 36/110 . The pilot scale experimental combination of an intensive fish production unit and an extensive fishpond demonstrated the applicability of such systems. as the periphyton can provide special foods for fish.3 25 C 4.2 16 N 5.1 2.9) due to the additional fish yield of the extensive unit.3 22 PA 100%+SF (2007). There was no effect of the periphyton application and feed loading on the nutrient content of effluents.1 9. 17% of the phosphorus and 9% of the organic carbon. PA 200% (2008) N 6.6 P 0.27 C 25 20 Table 19: Nutrient discharge of the fish production in IES (g/kg net fish yield) In the operation of water treatment systems.6 in the intensive unit in 2007 and 2008.6 7. The maximum of reused surplus nutrients by the additional fish production in the fishpond represented 13% of the nitrogen.53 C 30 46 N 5. 0.3 and 1.
By following the quantitative and qualitative changes of the periphyton. 6.08 hours/kg net fish yield in 2007 and 2008.8% about 20-25% in most intensive culture systems. However.2% 4. Success factors and constraints Results proved that the combination of intensive and extensive fish farming systems is an efficient tool to reduce environmental pollution of intensive fish farming and to increase extensive fish production as coproduct.15 and 0.6 increased nutrient recovery in fish production. Results of the case study proved that the combination of intensive aquaculture with extensive fishponds enhances the nutrient utilisation efficiency and fish production in a combined system.3. The general fish yields are around 1 t/ha in traditional ponds.2% be increased up to 30-35% in integrated pond systems.4 0. As both years of operation have shown that the IES/2 subsystem performed the best. the average labour demand was 0. Productivity of labour and economic sustainability 31.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary layers was significantly higher in the samples. there was no significant difference between the two ponds.5 2. we were able to derive more detailed knowledge on the functioning of the system. In the intensively managed part of N 4. However. Compared to the nutrient utilisation efficiency of N 6. whilst the integration Whole system 2.8 1. The combined fish production resulted in a higher protein utilisation by 26%. The most important sustainability indicators are summarised in Table 20.8 2.27 controlled conditions and fed with artificial diets. it this P 3.2% 8.3 man-hours were used for the fish production in each experimental unit.5 3. which are placed in the extensive pond environment. it can be stated that 2 2 the usage of 1 m artificial surface for periphyton per 1 m pond surface leads to the highest economic viability. Comparing the annual average amounts of periphyton dry matter.13-0. respectively.07-0. 37/110 .5. Investigations on the nutrient budget of the system demonstrated that an adequate size of the extensive fish pond could treat the effluent from intensive fish culture efficiently and make the reuse of water for intensive fish production possible. but in combined systems it can be increased up to 20 t/ha.9 of an extensive pond as a treatment unit results in Water consumption for fish production (m3/kg) decreased nutrient loading to the environment and Water intake 1.2 5. These substrate-attached communities provide a new food web. The efficiency of the extensive unit can be improved by periphyton cultured on artificial substrates.1% receiving waters.8 2.6 the system valuable carnivorous fish can be cultured in P 0.0% 10% 5. The C 16 46 20 uneaten feed and the fish metabolic wastes can be Nutrient re-use from the additional fish production utilised in the extensive part and can increase the fish (% of the input) yields. which were collected from the higher parts of poles than samples which were taken from the lower parts.20 0. Benefits of implementation The combination of intensive and extensive IES/1 IES/2 IES/3 aquaculture exploits the advantages of both traditional Energy consumption for fish production (kWh/kg) pond farming and intensive fish culture systems. The water quality was adequate for fish growth. with periphyton application this ratio can be increased by 40%.6 1.3. Thus. and a part of the additional nutrient is recovered as fish biomass.5 0. nutrient cycling and energy flow in the aquatic ecosystem and possibilities of increasing the system efficiency. the nutrient discharge from the traditional fishponds is very low because of the improved nutrient utilisation efficiency.4. The application of the combined Table 20: Sustainability indicators of IES in 2008 intensive-extensive pond fish production system could contribute to the better use of water resources and the sustainability of aquaculture. resulting in less nutrients discharge to the C 4. The Effluent discharge 0. the higher amount of periphyton consumption by fish resulted in a higher fish yield in the extensive unit. which could then be applied to the operation and further development of the technology.5 intensive rearing can be performed in cages or in inNutrient discharge per kg produced fish (g/kg) pond floating tanks. Intensive unit 3.53 0.3% 7.4 3. The results show that the rearing of African catfish (2008) is more viable than rearing European catfish (2007).3 and 37.6% 3.5 Valuable predatory fish species can be produced in the intensive part of the system. 6.
respectively). In the case of common carp monoculture in the extensive pond the mixing of different age groups of carp (1 and 2 year old) is recommended.4. tilapia. Cages or tanks could be used as the intensive unit operating in close interaction with the fishpond. temperature fluctuations) Water quality affected primarily by natural biological processes Limited growing period (from April till October in Hungary) Winter storage of fish needs to be be resolved • • • • Table 21: Pros and contras of the IES application 6.5 gO2/m /hour is supplied from the oxygen production of algae in daytime.e. with periphyton-surface application this ratio can be increased to as high as 40%. From a case study to a fish farm: Design of a theoretical combined system 6.2 g crude protein or 2 kg standing stock of fish in the intensive unit). Only evaporation water and seepage should be regularly compensated. and the water is drained from the ponds only at fish harvest. Based on our results the additional fish production in the extensive unit was the highest where the periphyton area was 100% of the pond surface. The evaporation is higher in a continuously aerated pond system than in traditional fishponds. The combined fish production resulted in 25% higher protein utilisation than that of intensive aquaculture alone.4.2. The recommended additional area for periphyton development equals to about 100% of the pond surface area. The key to the safe operation of the system is the balance between the nutrient loading of the intensive unit and the treatment capacity of the extensive pond. Paddlewheel aerators could contribute to the adequate water circulation between the intensive and extensive units and maintain the optimal oxygen levels. The fishpond operates as a biological filter and treats the wastes from the intensive unit. Given an adequate size of the extensive pond the appropriate water quality for fish production can be maintained and the nutrient discharge into the recipient natural waters can be minimised.4. The overall rate of the community respiration is 1. and 16 t/ha without the provision of surface for periphyton culture (13 and 3 t/ha from the intensive and extensive production areas.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary 6. Paddle wheel aerators were used to maintain adequate oxygen levels and water circulation 38/110 2 . silver carp). The expected net fish yield is around 18 t/ha with stimulating periphyton production (13 t/ha from the intensive production and 5 t/ha originated from the extensive fishpond). Technology in general The applied technology of IES is simple: a compartmentalised unit for intensive production placed in a traditional fishpond. The oxygen demand of the production system is higher than that of the traditional pond systems due to the 2 high nutrient loading and fish stocking. Our results proved that the efficiency of the extensive unit can be improved by periphyton development on artificial substrates.1.e. Advantages • • Simple technology with low investment and operation costs Improved nutrient utilisation efficiency and additional income through additional fish production Low nutrient discharge into the natural waters Low energy demand for fish production Lower water consumption compared to other pond farming practices Concentrated production reduces the losses caused by predators • • • • Disadvantages Less controllable production conditions (i. there is no effluent water discharge to the environment during the culture period. the expected rate of the water compensation could be 150% of the total volume annually. but artificial oxygen supply is necessary during night-time hours. Planning parameters The maximal feed loading of the system is 1. The suggested fish stocking: carp polyculture is advised in the extensive pond based on common carp stocking as omnivorous bottom feeder species together with filter feeder fish species (i. The pond system operates as a closed system.8 gN/m /day (this corresponds to application of fish feed containing 11. The fish yields in the extensive fishpond can be enhanced by provision of additional surface for increased periphyton production.
6 16 2 t/cage (100m ) 6.5).3.2 million HUF).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary in our experiment. The water should be circulated with 4 paddlewheel aerators in each pond (2 kW each) Intensive unit Extensive pond Combined Stocking total (t) Unit ha (t/ha) FCR consumed feed Harvesting total (t) Unit ha (t/ha) Net yield total (t) ha (t/ha) 34 t 13.5 31 6.5 mg/l.000 € (6.6 12. In order to avoid nutrient accumulation in the pond sediment. The occurrence of high ammonia levels indicates insufficient nitrification or an overloading of the system. In the extensive part of the ponds it is advised to rear carp without feeding (stocking density: 6 t/ha) and 2 to used artificial substrate in order to boost periphyton production (10 000 m substrate/hectare). since nitrogen and organic carbon mineralisation take place during this season and the dry period minimises the occurrence of parasites and other infectious agents. The system would consist of 2 ponds. nitrification and decomposition processes.4.4. Mixing is important to ensure that algal cells are kept in suspension in the water column in order to enhance the primary production.0 51 t 77.25ha) 20 Table 22: Stocking and yields of the theoretical farm 39/110 . Feeding levels have to be adapted to the fluctuations in temperature.75 31 12. periodic aeration by drainage is needed. it can be considered as a small-scale or family farm (Table 22). FCR: 1. The total ammonium nitrogen (TAN) and nitrite nitrogen concentration should be lower than 0. Critical factors of operation The main risk of the operation is the unsteady purification efficiency resulting from unpredictable fluctuation of phytoplankton biomass and the plankton species composition in the treatment pond. According to our calculation a total power of 1 kW is sufficient capacity to maintain the 2 oxygen level in a 1500-2 000 m pond during night-time hours with paddle wheel aerators.5 ha intensive-extensive pond system. as the production system is exposed to changes in temperature. 6. It is recommended to keep the pond dry in winter. Design of a theoretical farm of 80 t/year production A theoretical fish farm is described below.4 1. In case of a high ammonia level the feed loading should be reduced and artificial aeration must be operated intensively until ammonium and nitrite levels decrease to acceptable levels. we suggest establishing a 2. which is characterised by an expected gross output of approximately 50 t of intensively produced predatory fish and 30 t of common carp.5 5 46. Based on the results of the experimental years and taking into account economical considerations.5 t/pond (1. Therefore.5 51 t 50 2 2 15 7. It is also important to avoid the development of permanent anaerobic conditions anywhere in the system. 6. The adequate velocity of water circulation is 5-10 cm/sec. With an expected profit of 22.4 1.25ha) 6 27. the important practical factors in this system are the homogeneous water mixing of the treatment pond and the maintenance of adequate oxygen levels in order to satisfy the oxygen demand of fish. both 3 of them containing 4 cages as units for intensive rearing of predatory fish (stocking density: 20 kg/m . During daytime – especially in sunny hours – the main function of the aerator is to maintain adequate water circulation between the intensive and extensive parts of the system and flush away the residuals from the intensive area.5 13.25 t/cage (100m ) 15 t/pond (1. The critical oxygen level is 4 mg/l.4.5 18.
25 hectare Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Total pond area: 1. 1.2 million HUF) and creation of starting current assets (2 000 €.6 million HUF).5 ha pond area (54 000 €. 0. 0. In the Cost Benefit Analysis it is assumed that the prices are constant. 1.7 million HUF) after 10 years of operation. year 8. year 10.5 ha of land (5 000 €.25 hectare Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Intensive fish production unit 100 m2 Figure 7: Scheme of the theoretical farm The calculated investments costs comprise the acquisition of 3. year 3. year 4. the 3 construction of a 2.4 million HUF). setting of artificial substrate for periphyton production (4 000 €. The investments’ payback th occurs in the 4 year. 0. year Investment Residual value after 10 years Feed costs Seed costs Labour costs Energy costs and water fees Total Cost Total Revenue Cash-flow Discounted cash-flow (r=10%) -67 857 -67 857 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 67 857 17 857 36 643 62 857 7 857 6 714 1. year 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 22 000 20 000 22 000 18 182 22 000 16 529 22 000 15 026 1 880 22 000 13 660 15 540 22 000 12 418 27 959 22 000 11 289 39 248 22 000 10 263 49 511 22 000 9 330 58 841 39 857 15 367 74 208 Cumulative discounted cashflow -67 857 -47 857 -29 675 -13 146 Table 23: Cost Benefit Analysis of the theoretical farm (EUR. year 7.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Hungary Total pond area: 1. calculation is based on an exchange rate of 280 EUR/HUF) 40/110 . year 2. 15 million HUF) with a 800 m cage (3 000 €.8 million HUF*). year 9. year 6. year 5. Further calculations are listed in the table below. while the investment’s present net value (with 10 % discount rate) amounts to 74 000 € (20.
1. The fish stocks were designed to ensure that each feeding spectrum of fish (bottom feeders. The proposed technology introduces paddlefish into carp aquaculture as a replacement for bighead carp. though it. The polyculture stock composition is described together with expected production and economical results as well as practical observations on the paddlefish production techniques. filter feeders. The fish were introduced into the ponds at the end of April and stayed for 5 months. Due to the nature of carp pond farming. Improved natural production in extensive fish ponds – Case study in Poland 7. Therefore.2.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland 7. The paddlefish is a filter feeder and due to its fast growth rate it seems to be an excellent replacement for bighead carp. Additionally. Literature research and practical observations highlighted the American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) as one of the possible species for introduction. a new polyculture stock would be desirable. unlike other sturgeon. Fish stock Standard monoculture and polyculture fish stocks have been compared with two experimental stocks involving paddlefish and sturgeon. General description of the case study The majority of pond farms in Poland are run as a monoculture of common carp. Other fish species produced together with carp have low market value due to limited market demand. Therefore. herbivorous) carried the same biomass of fish (Table 24). resulting in decreases of accumulation in the environment.1. feed exclusively on plankton organisms and reach 2 m length. Throughout its life paddlefish. Designed fish stock researched under the Polyculture module (initial biomass and average individual fish weight) 41/110 . poor production diversification does not provide an opportunity to compensate for economical losses caused by decreasing carp demand. presence of filtrating fish species in ponds increases nutrient dynamics and retention of N and P in fish biomass.1. except for the purchase of new fish stocks. never became a popular species. This innovation requires no investments costs. The introduction of new fish species would increase product diversity of pond farms and allow them to compete better with other fish producers by providing fish in greater demand by consumers. Principles of the module The technology developed under the Polyculture module provides new possibilities to current farmers running carp-type pond farms. The paddlefish is an acipenserifom fish naturally living in slow-flowing rivers of the temperate zones of North America. 7. Besides its economical benefits.1. This fish is appreciated for its flesh taste and eggs. New species and methods in pond fish culture: Module POLYCULTURE 7. Polyculture sturgeon Species Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) Bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis) Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) Tench (Tinca tinca) Common carp (Cypriunus carpio) Sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) Monoculture 150 kg/ha 250 g - Polyculture tench 30 kg/ha 500 g 60 kg/ha 500 g 72 kg/ha 100 g 45 kg/ha 250 g 105 kg/ha 250 g - Polyculture carp 30 kg/ha 500 g 60 kg/ha 500 g 72 kg/ha 500 g 150 kg/ha 250 g - 30 kg/ha 500 g 60 kg/ha 500 g 72 kg/ha 500 g 150 kg/ha 250 g Table 24. These treatments (different fish stocks) were run in duplicate. Paddlefish was been imported to Poland during the 1980’s. to improve carp farms profitability and reduce their environmental impact. these monoculture stocks are not efficient in terms of nutrient utilisation. a substitute for herbivorous and planktophagous cyprinids is the most reasonable solution.
97 1. Fertilisation The ponds were fertilised with urea (46% N) and superphosphate (20% P) on a weekly basis. whereas carp biomass gain in monoculture and polyculture with paddlefish stock was comparable. the value of produced paddlefish (one season biomass gain) was about three times higher than other species produced together in polyculture. introducing paddlefish into carp-type earthen ponds was performed. 65 % Polyculture sturgeon 91 kg/ha. 70 % 488 kg/ha. two-season experiment. supplied with water from the Vistula river. 89% Table 25: Fish biomass gain and survival rate within the Polyculture module Species Common carp Price (PLN/kg) 10. 87 % 49 kg/ha. This resulted in a fertilisation intensity of 147 kgN/ha and 25 kgP/ha per season. 65 % 426 kg/ha.95 5. Low common carp production in the ‘Polyculture tench’ treatment was a result of high mortality related to a KHV outbreak.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland Ponds A pilot scale. 95 % 65 kg/ha. 49° 53’N).3. Assuming accuracy of prices surveyed.30 26.43 8. reached only 53% of the biomass gain of paddlefish. 83 % 24 kg/ha. biomass gain of bighead carp.23 Tench Sturgeon Silver carp Bighead carp Paddlefish* Grass carp 13. 95 % Polyculture tench 85 kg/ha. However. in this treatment. All experiments were conducted at one complex of experimental earthen ponds located in southern Poland 2 (18° 45’E.87 5. thus the volume of each 3 pond was estimated to be 1 500 m . 65 % 280 kg/ha. The paddlefish biomass increase was about 30% greater than carp biomass increase.87 9. 7.1. 37 % Polyculture carp 100 kg/ha. the fish stock involving paddlefish and common carp provided the highest total fish biomass gain. 70 % g 567 kg/ha. Species Grass carp Silver carp Bighead carp Paddlefish Tench Common carp Sturgeon Monoculture 438 kg/ha. Average retailer prices of fish species used in the Polyculture module 42/110 . The obtained results are presented in Table 25. The ponds were fully drainable.00 * estimated value based on other sturgeon price (no real data available) Table 26.00 2. 67 % 102 kg/ha. Paddlefish in the treatments ‘Polyculture carp’ and ‘Polyculture sturgeon’ stocks were responsible for the majority of total fish production (see Figure 8). The average retail prices in Poland taken for the calculation are presented in Table 26.87 1. 100 % 91 kg/ha. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators Fish production Within all treatments tested under the module 'Polyculture'.97 2.04 Price (€/kg) 2. 100 % 99 kg/ha.43 26.87 8. The estimated value of the fish biomass gain in all tested treatments is presented on Figure 9. The ponds were 1 500 m each and the average depth was 1 m.
18th and 30th months of production is presented in Figure 10. Grazing on zooplankton favours autothrophic algae growth. the less efficient bottom sediment resuspension in Polyculture sturgeon ponds resulted in a 24% lower primary production compared to polyculture involving common carp (Figure 11).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland Figure 8: Average fish biomass gain of researched stocks Figure 9: Estimated value of fish biomass gained during researched season The paddlefish obtained at the beginning of the project were kept under extensive conditions in carp type ponds without supplementary feeding. The difference was caused by the modification of the plankton spectrum caused by the feeding pattern of paddlefish. This was 53% higher compared to monoculture of carp. Therefore its presence in a fish stock affects qualitative composition of plankton. Paddlefish feed mainly on zooplankton. thus net primary production of the pond water body. The fish were fed exclusively on plankton. 43/110 . Primary production Highest average net primary production of plankton (0.349 mgO2/L·h) was reported in ponds stocked with polyculture involving common carp and paddlefish. The individual body mass on the 10th. In contrast.
the water utilised in pond systems is not connected with fish production exclusively. All ponds used in the Polyculture module were in the same pond complex. The water utilisation (input) expressed in litres per kg of products is tens to hundreds fold higher than in the case of intensive fish production. However. Water utilisation Extensive carp farming involves large water volumes collected during the filling of ponds in spring . The same water regime was applied to all treatments.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland . Energy demand is very farm specific and strongly depends on the farm size. not for individual ponds. Thus. pond construction and equipment used. energy efficiency in the researched pond production system was not calculated. Observed differences between the treatments result from the fish gain only. Figure 10: Average (±SD) individual body weight of paddlefish in three consecutive years Figure 11: Season average net primary production in pond of researched stocks Energy Efficiency The energy demand for pond farming is mainly connected to transport and handling of fish. situated next to each other. the calculations presented below were made for the whole complex of ponds. Thus. These factors influence the amount of energy demand much more than the production technology applied. The large water bodies (pond complexes) are important elements of the environment contributing to water retention of the local drainage system and local water cycling. thus being exposed to the same climatic conditions. 44/110 .
1 159. respectively (Table 29). However.4 10. However.8% for N and P. overflow will contribute to the total water output.81 and 3 43.9 30. under researched climate conditions bacterially fixed nitrogen is negligible when compared to fertilisation.1 159. Water output expressed in volume per product weight • Bottom sediment deposits – there are a large amount of nutrients accumulated in the bottom sediment which is bio-available. Retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in fish biomass 45/110 . They constitute the major source of N and particularly P as a large fraction of mineral phosphate fertilisers is bound in the sediments after application. However.0 6. For the most optimal 'Polyculture' stock the Nutrient Retention Efficiency has been estimated at 20.4 19. the water output from a pond system is equal to the volume of the pond harvested.4 3.4 32. during the rainfall of the production season.84% and +0. nitrogen fixation has been omitted in the calculations.3 1. Because of this hypothesis. total volume of the researched system together with rainfall has been used. This is an important improvement when compared to standard monoculture where the water demand per kg of product may be twice as high (Table 27).6 33. however not negligible. However.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland Water input: l/kg product 3 The most optimal stock researched under the Polyculture module demanded water input of 8. m /kg MONOCULTURE CARP POLYCULTURE CARP POLYCULTURE STURGEON POLYCULTURE TENCH 26.6 Table 29.3 18. Water input expressed in volume per product weight Water output: l/kg product Generally.9% and 10.8 5.9 30. quantitative analysis of P and N in the bottom sediment of Polyculture module ponds before and after the production season did not reveal important changes in their concentration. In the case of nitrogen no N2 fixation and N2 volatilisation caused by denitrification has been considered.8 3 Table 28.5 8.9 3 Table 27. Nutrient utilisation efficiency Four major sources of nutrients were identified in the researched module: • • Fertilisers (urea and superphosphate) – main source in terms of amount of N and P delivered to the system Inflowing water – the river water used for filling the pond contained nutrients received from the river drainage system. In the case of the Polyculture module. • NITROGEN RETENTION kg/ha % PHOSPHORUS RETENTION INPUT kg/ha % INPUT MONOCULTURE CARP POLYCULTURE CARP POLYCULTURE STURGEON POLYCULTURE TENCH 159.8 1. the level of the nutrients is low.8 30.45% for N and P respectively.1 14. m /kg MONOCULTURE CARP POLYCULTURE CARP POLYCULTURE STURGEON POLYCULTURE TENCH 43. thus was omitted from the calculations.1 3. This gives an increase of 1. if losses caused by evapotranspiration and seepage are compensated.4 m /kg of fish produced.1 159. For the calculations of water output. Thus.65 m /kg of raw product (Table 28).1 10.9 1. The increase of the quantity of these compounds was estimated to +0. • Nitrogen fixation – some blue-green algae and bacteria can assimilate molecular nitrogen into organic compounds enriching the ecosystem with bioavailable nitrogen. The calculations of nutrient utilisation efficiency were based on the nutrients introduced with fertilisers and water used for the pond filling as the only sources of N and P. the water leaving the pond is more similar to pond water than to rainwater in terms of nutrient content. whilst the significance of this process can be important in warm waters. the runoff volume was negligible in contrast to the rainfall.8 25.9 30. Rainfall and aerial runoff – external.65 13. the bottom soil was not taken into consideration in calculations. For the calculations only the single volume of the pond was used.4 8.6 20. In such a case.9 4.9 11. the rainfall was not analysed for P and N content. Depending on stock used the values ranged between 13.57 kgP/ha compared to 26. uncontrolled sources of nutrients.4 15.35 kgN/ha compared to 159 kgN/ha added with fertilisers.9 kgP/ha added with fertiliser and an addition of 19.
Success factors and constraints The main successes and findings of the experiments conducted under the Polyculture module are: • • • • Introduction of American paddlefish into polyculture with common carp in pond culture. thus production ponds should be covered with nets o When crowded and harvested fish should be handled with exceptional care as they are very sensitive o During grading and sorting additional space and water flow is required in order to prevent asphyxiation EU legislation limiting the introduction of exogenous species into aquaculture: Thus. The STURGEON concentration of nutrients in discharged 0. Any organic carbon present in the pond system derives from primary production. extensive carp pond culture produces an increase fish biomass gain. Despite the advantages there are also constraints for the production of paddlefish: • • High stocking material price oscillating about 8 euro per 1 year old (~100 g) fish (caused by difficulties with its reproduction).29 0. Nutrient loss through outflow water per kg fish produced was estimated (Table 30). too. However. To increase productivity per unit of labour Basically.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland The only external carbon source in the pond system was urea. The amount of nutrients discharged from the system has Nutrient output been estimated assuming the amount discharged equals the concentration in kgN/kg product kgP/kg product pond water before harvest multiplied by the MONOCULTURE CARP 0.22 0. 46/110 • .39 0.045 related mainly to fish biomass gain.1 0. the differences POLYCULTURE CARP of recorded values between treatments are POLYCULTURE 0. However. the proposed technology (introduction of paddlefish) does not require changes in techniques and equipment involved in fish production. an increasing demand for aquaculture products in the EU may force the development of technologies providing for the production of alien species (including paddlefish) in an environmentally safe way. The size of ponds or the number of ponds harvested will play an important role. The paddlefish. production of paddlefish in different EU countries may encounter different difficulties. The CO2 transferred to the water from the atmosphere is the main source of organic carbon in the biomass developed in a pond. Throughout the production season nutrients are released only by seepage. Harvesting of the pond stock in polyculture required approximately 10% more time or labour when compared to monoculture ponds. 7.4. Limitations related to production techniques: o Young paddlefish are easy prey to birds. especially during sorting.1. However this is very case specific and constitutes only a minor fraction of the total nutrient release during the production season. only the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus Table 30. In this case. The presence of filter feeder species increases nutrients’ dynamics in ponds and higher retention of N and P in fish biomass resulting in a decrease of its accumulation in the environment. the quantity of C introduced with fertiliser as well as the amount of organic C or CO2 introduced to the system with runoffs or supplying water can be neglected. The majority of nutrients are released during the drainage of ponds at harvest time. However. The amount of labour will strongly depend on facilities and equipment used as well as personnel numbers and experience.023 Similarly to the water inflow.059 water was far less of a consideration for POLYCULTURE TENCH the observed differences. The quantity of organic carbon in a water body can be calculated (based upon COD). High market value of paddlefish can increase farm’s profitability providing high quality product.079 pond volume. The pathways of organic carbon in a pond ecosystem are very complex and fluctuate within a production season. Nutrients output A properly maintained pond system does not discharge water during the production season as any losses of nutrients are undesired. observations made during the harvest of experimental ponds used for the Polyculture module suggest an increase of labour required for harvest. 0. as a substitute for bighead carp in sustainable. This also concerns extensively cultivated ponds such as the ones used in the Polyculture module.
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland • Market related issues: o The paddlefish is not a recognised species on the EU fish market o Unknown demand results in uncertain retail prices o Very little information on product processing and quality available. However. Special attention must be paid during netting and crowding.2. paddlefish did not lose body weight during wintering in contrast to common carp. 7. After the harvest from ponds fish are kept in freshwater to flush gills clogged with bottom sediment. Thanks to this. The introduction of the new species would increase the product supply diversity of pond farms and allow them to compete with other fish producers by providing fish commanding a greater customer demand. Prolonged crowding with other species in a seine net may result in paddlefish asphyxiation. which is a far more resilient fish than paddlefish.2. 7. However. ponds stocked with paddlefish up to 300-500 g need to be protected against birds with nets or strings mounted above the pond. Therefore. the impact is more severe in terms of the fish farm’s economical performance. which can be considered both part of the production season and wintering. It is recommended to use hand nets of a proper size to avoid body or gill laceration. Initial average body mass of ~10 months old fish was about 90 g and increased to about 2 700 g during the first breeding season. exceptional caution should be taken when handling the new species. In contrast to common carp.1. this may be one of the major drawbacks of introducing paddlefish into pond culture. Paddlefish growth performance Paddlefish growth performance in carp type ponds was observed. paddlefish guts were filled with plankton originated matter. This regards both hand netting and sorting or grading. Due to the elongated shape of their rostrum paddlefish do not fit into most common hand nets. Young paddlefish are easy prey for piscivorous birds. The paddlefish. The issues listed above require further research.5. The body mass and mortality were recorded for 24 months during every harvest. Immobilised fish may asphyxiate.1. seems to be an excellent replacement for bighead carp. 7. paddlefish requires ample area to swim as it does not use operculum to provide water flow through the gills. This indicates a longer feeding season. Practical recommendations and conclusions for stocking paddlefish in pond polyculture 7.2. Benefits of implementation Paddlefish introduction. Ecological performance Presence of filtrating fish enhances the primary production of the pond ecosystem. due to the stock value of paddlefish being greater than that of common carp. overall 47/110 . The staff should be sensitised to the features of the new species. It has been observed that paddlefish require a much longer recovery time than common carp or bighead carp. Samples of fish were slaughtered to assess gut content before wintering in 2008. resulted in a few practical conclusions in relation to to paddlefish mortality to reduce fish loss under real production conditions: • Workers harvesting ponds are generally used to handling carp. special attention must be paid to the gill flushing process.2. Hence. Observations made during the harvest. Due to the elevated pond productivity and the fact that the fish stock comprised species of a non-overlapping food spectrum. is a desirable species to improve the profitability of ponds farms. Hence. compared to common carp. the average cumulated mortality of paddlefish reached almost 50%. Therefore.2. The recorded survival rate is comparable to that seen in common carp. This is especially important if there is a break between successive fish transportation. It provides greater biomass gain with a much higher market value than other filter fish species. it these are likely to damage the rostrum or gills. due its fast growth rate and appreciated flesh and roe. Further. as a substitute for herbivorous and planktonophagous cyprinids. It is recommended that nets with appropriate sized holes should be used. The paddlefish’s rostrum tends to enmesh in to seine nets used for harvesting.3. Paddlefish mortality Throughout the 24 months period. • • • • • 7.
apply to other cyprinids.05 0.2 0. transport and storage of paddlefish. without supplementary feeding. common carp is only favoured for the stock during second and third production season. The feeding behaviour of common carp causes efficient resuspension of bottom sediments and thus better exchanges nutrients with water.5 0.2 1 2 3 1.5 Initial weight [kg/ind] 0. without supplementary feeding and kept in ponds receiving only agricultural fertilisers is able to provide fish biomass gain similar to commonly used monoculture stock of common carp fed on grains (wheat and maize). More man-hours are needed due to extra sorting of harvested fish. The paddlefish stocking density presented in Table 31 calculated on its growth performance recorded Estimated biomass gain [kg/ha] Common carp 400 400 600 Paddlefish 600 600 Silver carp Grass carp 70 70 100 100 Desired final individual weight [kg/ind] 0. Efficient resuspension of bottom sediment providing efficient nutrient cycling in the water column requires high enough biomass of bottom feeders and its individual body weight. handling. 7.1 1 2 0.1 0. An economic assessment of polyculture must also take into consideration the increased amount of labour especially related to harvest. • • Different age classes of all used species can be used. drastically reduce this phenomenon. is one possible solution for improving carp farms’ profitability. paddlefish.2. The vast majority of waste biogenic compounds are deposited in the bottom sediment. a fish stock involving paddlefish can be recommended. The influence of different fish stocks was observed also in relation to hydrochemical and physical water parameters related to production of plankton organisms: water transparency and chlorophyll concentration.1 Stocking density [ind/ha] 1 600 400 667 600 600 70 175 100 250 • Species • • Table 31. Additional facilities or equipment may be necessary for netting. As the paddlefish’s flesh is similar to other sturgeons it can be assumed that it will be similarly appreciated by consumer and hence command a premium price. earthen ponds.5 1.4. Estimated common carp biomass gain from a pond fertilised with 40 kgP/ha and 240 kgN/ha per season is 450 kg/ha. As there were no other crops obtained from the system. if allowed to mature. Presence of filtrating fish reduces abundance of zooplankton and hence the risk of its uncontrolled growth leading to overgrazing of autotrophic algae responsible for oxygen production. but does however. Besides. common carp. based on common carp. Recommended fish stock Based upon the results obtained during the research.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland system production almost tripled in polyculture treatments compared with monoculture. only the fish biomass gain is responsible for observed differences between the treatments. The paddlefish biomass gain of about 600 kg/ha and the individual body weight 1750 and 3500 g after the second and third production season respectively can be expected. Improved nutrient utilisation through use of polyculture stocks does not eliminate. during a pond harvest can be (by mechanical resuspension) released to waste water discharged from the pond and in turn contribute to eutrophication of natural waters.5. Stocking density should be calculated according to the planned fertilisation intensity and the pond fertility. These. Example of fish stock density design 48/110 . Economical performance The introduction of paddlefish into traditional pond culture. The following recommendations concern fish stock to be produced in a semi-extensive way in carp-type.5 0. silver carp and grass carp. 7. Elimination of feeding costs together with increased value of produced fish gives a significant prevalence over standard monoculture production. thus primary production. however a few basic requirements should be fulfilled.5 0.3 1. fertilised with agricultural fertilisers. Similar rules.2.5 0. can provide very valuable and appreciated roe (caviar). Stocking density and individual weight must be calculated according to the desired final individual weight. The tested polyculture fish stock comprising paddlefish. Hence. including age class. At the same time average concentration of dissolved oxygen in ponds stocked in monoculture was lower and more fluctuating than that observed in the other treatments.
This is the main reason for the high price of the stocking material. Limitations related to production techniques: The introduction of new species demands new techniques related mainly to fish handling and staff training. No or very sparse information is available regarding paddlefish processing and the quality of final products. but not exclusively. however certain technical difficulties can be expected due to the uncommon shape of paddlefish. The same concerns applies to paddlefish handling and transport. A price close to other sturgeon species can be expected due to similar quality of flesh. production of paddlefish in different EU countries may encounter difficulties. but definitely not practical for home slaughter or preparation. No scientific information on shelf life and consumer preferences is available. the EU directive gives a certain freedom to member states for adoption. The main recommendations are listed in the previous sections.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland during the performed experiment only. However. However. This affects Poland in particular. Important is the fact that other fish species produced in Poland and other EU Member States are also exogenous species according to the Directive From amongst the species used in the Polyculture module only tench is a native species. However. Overall perception of paddlefish may reduce its demand and value. 7. The price oscillates around 8 € per 100 g fish. The fish welfare issue requires more research. There are some market related issues. The EU legislation limits the introduction of new species into aquaculture. but fish ponds are not its native environment. Based on these recommendations. The values given do not determine the maximal growth rate of paddlefish under production conditions. Sale of live or only gutted fish does not seem to be an optimal solution because of the fish’s appearance. an example of fish stock design is presented above in Table 31. Thus. As soon as paddlefish is reproduced on a commercial basis its price will decrease significantly. The rising awareness of consumers regarding fish welfare is an important concern. there are some constraints.2. progress in reproduction is reported by some Polish fish farms. too: • At the moment. Within the EU. The paddlefish is an exogenous (alien) species in Europe. during the experiment paddlefish performed very well in terms of growth rate. a small but constant demand for whole fish may be expected.6. paddlefish is not reproduced on a commercial scale. There is a potential danger that environmental conditions of carp ponds are suboptimal for paddlefish. successful reproduction of paddlefish has already been reported in the Czech Republic and Romania. The retail price will strongly depend on the stocking material price and consumers perception of the paddlefish. All stocking material available is imported as fertilised eggs or fry. Increasing demand for aquaculture products in EU may force development of technologies allowing for the production of exogenous species (including paddlefish) in an environmentally safe way. The paddlefish is not a recognised species on the EU fish market. • • • • • • 49/110 . Each species has distinct environmental requirements. Its long rostrum makes the paddlefish interesting for some people. Main constraints of paddlefish introduction Although there are many positive aspects related to paddlefish introduction. The majority of paddlefish should be offered as processed fish. However. in Poland.
Principles of the module The module is based on a set of four pond compartments connected in series and supplied with fresh water acting as the nutrient carrier.3. Each part of the pond system utilises supplied nutrients through different ecological processes. sustainable. Part of the system Figure 12: A diagram of the designed cascading system Description A Zooplankton compartment B Filtrators’ compartment • • • • • • • • • • • Compartment supplied with manure Organic matter derived from manure was the main energy source for zooplankton and bacterioplankton development No fish stocked 33% of the total system total area Stocked with filtering fish to utilise plankton developed in compartment A 17% of the cascade total area Stocked with a polyculture of common carp. silver carp and grass carp Nutrients and fish to utilise plankton developed in compartment A 25% of the cascade total area Acting as a sedimentation tank for suspended solids coming from part C 25% of the cascade total area C Polyculture compartment D Sedimentation compartment Table 32: Role of respective compartments of the cascading system 50/110 . A flow-through system built of fish ponds. This allows organic matter to be turned into compounds which enter the ponds’ food web resulting in primary production and eventually fish biomass increase. bighead carp. consisting of very diverse environments. ØIN 15 cm in diameter) in series (total area 0.3.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland 7.3 ha). Significant amounts of these compounds are retained in the system or converted into gases. Integration of an animal farm together with fish ponds. A flow-through system based on carp type ponds was constructed. is a step towards highly promoted and desired integrated agriculture. The source of energy and nutrients can be waste liquid manure (slurry) coming from an animal farm. supplied with fresh water utilises significant amounts of nitrogen. Beside ecological benefits fish production may be an additional source of income. A fish pond is an ecosystem. Each pond was divided in two parts by a mesh (3x3 cm) resulting in four compartments (see Figure 12). Each of the compartment carried out a different task in the constructed cascading system (see Table 32). discharge or on-site utilisation of manure produced becomes a concern due to legal and technical limitations. Utilisation of resources created on the farm within the same farm is an important element of farm sustainability. run as organic or willing to improve their sustainability. as one of its elements. 7. low cost.1. The experimental setup consisted of two identical earthen ponds connected by a pipeline (35 m in length. General description of the case study Progressive specialisation of agriculture in Central Europe results in monocultural animal production farms with no option to utilise waste nutrients. These compounds depending on their form (mineral or organic) are responsible for biomass development in respective parts of the cascade. The only artificial source of nutrients and energy are liquid manure (slurry) and supplying water. phosphorus and organic matter.2. Accordingly. The proposed solution is particularly appropriate to small animal farms. favouring large number of biochemical processes supported by the feeding activity of fish. Using agricultural waste nutrients in pond fish culture: Module CASCADE in Poland 7. Total nutrient load discharged throughout the season from the system is lower than delivered. Thus. environmentally friendly and easy to maintain tools providing for the utilisation of manure is highly desired.3.
7 16. In case if no water can be supplied to the system by gravity it may be necessary to circulate the water in the cascade by pumping.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland The ponds were supplied with fresh water at an 3 average flow rate of 4. energy demand to reuse the water may present significant costs to make the module functional. The system received liquid bovine manure biweekly. recently. In both seasons the cascading system was run in duplicate to ensure proper quality of data obtained.5 39.4 402. In addition. preliminary data analysis revealed poor performance of the design investigated in 2007. Water input: l/kg product The water supply aimed to transport nutrients along the cascade only and was not a nutrient resource necessary for fish production.23 L/s·ha (15. The water output from the system was 3 estimated to be 44.15 culture. Potassium (K) [%DM] 0.8 117. During the season the system received 3 3 25 m /ha liquid manure (slurry) (7.3 m /h·ha). Energy Efficiency The researched system did not utilise energy to maintain the cascade. The only energy used was related to transport of fish before and after the production season. If so.07 m /kg of fish. (2) readily available on-farm. which was equivalent to 571 kgDM/ha. as this may have led to oxygen depletion.3.0 The composition of all manure selected for experiments performed under the Cascade module is provided in Table 34. feed and water intake as well as environmental (~50/50 v/v) liquid manure (slurry) factors. For use in pond Total phosphorus (P) [%DM] 0. which becomes a nuisance unless utilised.1 Table 33: Nutrients load delivered with manure and supplying water to the cascade Main characteristics of manure used in the experiments To provide efficient conversion of nutrients and energy into biota biomass a source of easily biodegradable organic matter is needed. Water input required for fish production can still be calculated. Different sorts of animal manure have been used for fish culture for centuries as a nutrient source for fish culture for a number of reasons: (1) animal manures are relatively cheap.8 17. 51/110 . Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators The Cascade module was researched in two successive seasons. Most fish ponds in Poland are located in rural areas Dry matter (DM) [%] 8. 3 BOD5 [gO2/dm ] 5. The difference between input and output results from seepage. Light conditions and temperature dropped in the last period. Optimum water 3 input has been estimated at 66.26 bovine or pig slurry seems to be suitable. the amount of manure permitted to be Parameter Unit Value spread on land is being limited by national regulations. in 2008 the setup was re-engineered. and (3) suitable for a variety of fish in polyculture.3.9 m /kg.0 However. The manure was applied only for the first four periods.3 144. 3 COD [gO2/dm ] 14. Other demands were related to maintaining the farms’ facilities. and did not permit the introduction of a further additions of organic matter. starting from the 12th May. 7. The manure was applied to the zooplankton compartment. The amount of nutrients received by the cascade during the production season is presented in Table 33. Compound C N P Source Manure [kg/ha] Water [kg/ha] Total [kg/ha] 546. Thus. as an energy and nutrient source for zooplankton. Water output: l/kg product The same principle as above applies to the calculation of the water output.3 78.0 with a high density of agriculture livestock where liquid Total nitrogen (N) [%DM] 0. analysis of supplied manure must be repeated frequently during application. composition and quality of slurry may change during a production season according to species.2 1. next to the water supply. their size Table 34: The composition of mixed bovine/pig and age. Thus. The production season was divided into five periods (of four weeks each).5 m per cascade).48 manure (slurry) is a predominant type of agricultural waste. However. evapotranspiration and rainfall.
however important activity.7 kgN/ha and 16. The system is able to produce a significant biomass of fish. Due to the basic functioning of the Cascade module. in principle.8 5. designed to utilise waste nutrients.4 kg/ha 10. COD) retained in product/kg nutrient input [%] The main aim of the cascade was to retain nutrients delivered. Presented in Figure 14 are the loads of organic carbon.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland Fish production The system is. 39.1 kgN/ha and 1. 52/110 . Figure 13: Fish biomass gain obtained in the researched module Nutrient utilisation efficiency: kg nutrient (N.7 16. this N source was omitted from the calculations. The breakdown of production (one season biomass gain) to fish species is presented in Figure 13.1 TOTAL 117. In total 78. Although there are many variables the total fish production can be estimated to be 380 kg/ha.4 1.3 Manure 78. In the case of nutrient retention in fish biomass. • Nitrogen fixation – as in the case of the polyculture module.3 kgP/ha over 20 weeks were introduced to the system via supplied water. Fish production in the cascade is an additional.8 17. The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in the harvested fish biomass was compared with the total input of these compounds.0 Retention % 8. as the main source of nitrogen.1 kgP/ha over 20 weeks were delivered with manure per hectare of cascade. retention of the nutrients both in fish biomass and the whole cascading system is important. Although manure introduced a significant amount of organic carbon it is unknown how much fish biomass gained via zooplankton or bacterioplankton developed on this matter. Nutrient utilisation efficiency by fish in the Cascade module Throughout the production season the cascading system retained significant amounts of nutrients.8 Table 35. The majority of organic matter built into fish biomass derives from primary production. only nitrogen and phosphorus were taken into consideration. Loads of all measured parameters were smaller at output than at input. In total 424 kgC/ha (organic C). phosphorus and organic carbon have been incorporated into calculations: • Fresh water input – the system was constantly supplied with water coming from a river.1 1. Two main sources of nitrogen. Retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in fish biomass has been calculated only (Table 35). nitrogen and phosphorus entering and leaving the system divided to four week periods (I to IV) of the season (16 weeks in total). Manure supply – bi-weekly the system was supplied with manure (slurry). P. During the researched period (20 weeks) the supplied water brought with it into the system a significant load of nutrients. • Input [kg/ha·season] Water Nitrogen Phosphorus 39.
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland Figure 14: Organic carbon load at inflow and outflow from the cascading system Figure 15: Nitrogen load at inflow and outflow from the cascading system Figure 16: Phosphorus load at inflow and outflow from the cascading system 53/110 .
The system creates opportunities to reduce costs of waste water discharge by retaining it in a controlled ecosystem of a pond cascade. Nutrients re-use for fish feed: kg nutrient retention in the secondary products per kg nutrient input to the system as a whole [%] In the researched module an attempt was made at the production of additional plant crops However.72 8. 7. the total load of nutrients was high and reached 0. Ownership of ponds may entitle the farmer to EU or national subsidies related to their environmental value. ground water levels or additional water retention.The system requires significant volumes of water to provide nutrient flow through the cascade. The system does not improve the productivity/labour ratio. Success factors and constraints Research carried out on the Cascade module resulted in the development of an environmentally friendly technology utilising waste organic matter derived from other branches of agriculture (bovine and pig farms).86 Table 36: Retention of C.4. despite high N retention.28 49.3. this experiment failed due to technical reasons.018 kg P per kg of fish produced. Compound C N P Load Retention [kg/ha] 571.85 17. The main constraints of the system are: • Water requirement . the construction or simple maintenance of the pond system enriches the natural environment at different levels: biodiversity.99 75. The proposed technology reduces the impact of a farm on the natural environment. The designed system allows the production of fish in an extensive manner utilising waste nutrients.3. The ponds being a cascading system may also act as sport fishing facility.5. when water temperature and sun radiation is intensive enough to sustain hydrobiological processes at sufficient levels. To increase productivity per unit of labour Introduction of the cascading system requires an additional labour input related to maintaining the system (including harvest).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland The nutrient retention was calculated from the difference of the total nutrient load introduced to the system (including supplying water and manure) and nutrients discharged throughout the season based on nutrients concentration in water leaving the system.N and P introduced to the Nutrient output system via water and manure in the cascade The cascade system was constantly supplied with water. • 7. between spring and autumn. The fish produced on natural food can have a higher nutritive quality and can be more appreciated by consumers (see chapter 5). The character of the research pond favoured the development of unwanted plant species instead of desired species. Production of Azolla (water fern) as a feed for herbivorous fish and as an alternative source of nitrogen can be considered. Besides utilitarian advantages of the cascade system. as opposed to the difference between supply and discharge.61 117. The results are presented in Table 36. Benefits of implementation • • • • • • The pond cascade can act as a multifunctional segment of an integrated animal farm. though the production of potentially useful plants which could be utilised in-situ would be theoretically possible. Proper functioning of the designed system is limited to a season of about 7 months. especially if only the output of nutrient loads is taken into consideration. 54/110 . bringing additional income.44 88.64 % 50. Thus. The water intake and its discharge to natural waters may be restricted in some countries.125 kg N and 0.33 Kg/ha 291.
although elongated shapes are favoured to maintain the water flow through the system. • • The design of the cascade system for optimal performance should be composed of four compartments of different area and role in the system. A. 7. The given relative area of each compartment should be controlled with minor deviations only. The module is based on the set of four pond compartments connected in series and supplied with fresh water. Each compartment of the system utilises different resources and plays a different role in the cascade. When the plankton biomass developed in the respective parts of the cascade. The following parts of the system do not have to be oriented in one line. At the same time the system must be supplied with a level of water flow allowing the maintenance of about 45 days hydraulic retention time. Figure 17: Possible setup of the cascade system: A.4. Planning parameters of a cascade • • • The researched system has been designed to merge advantages of pond farming with the needs of animal farms to utilise waste manure. acting as the nutrient carrier. Each part of the pond system is responsible for different processes leading to the utilisation of waste nutrients at different trophic levels. The farm willing to apply the technology should possess ponds or be able to build a pond system and supply it with water. The suggested setup of the cascade is presented in Figure 17. the first two compartments should be placed in one pond and be separated only by a mesh to provide transport of zooplankton.4. Cattle and/or/ pork farms collecting and fermenting their own manure are are in a particularly good position to benefit. The only source of nutrients and organic matter are liquid manure (slurry) and supplied water.1. From a case study to a fish farm: Designing a cascading module 7.2.4.three-pond system 55/110 . The system is land demanding requiring about 1 ha of pond area per 150 kg of organic carbon derived from manure. Target group and basic technological requirements The proposed solution is dedicated particularly to small animal farms run as organic farms and/or/ willing to improve their sustainability and having the possibility to cooperate with pond fish farms. The system can be composed of two or three ponds. fish biomass is produced.two-pond system. Use of pipelines between compartments B-C and C-D is possible. B. The fish production may be an additional source of income. B. There are no general constraints related to the dimensions of a certain compartment.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland 7. are responsible for biomass development in respective parts of the cascade. however. These compounds. depending on their form (mineral or organic).
A stock of <100 kg/ha of grass carp is desired to control growth of macrophytes. thus cyprinids are not favoured in contrast to young sturgeon (<50 kg/ha. enhances nutrient turnover and the primary production. Use of pipelines reduces the transfer efficiency. Thus. The fish stock shall not cause bottom sediment resuspension. The oxygen supplied with water. is utilised by planktonophagous fish. The compartment should be separated from the Compartment A with a mesh only to provide efficient transfer of plankton. The zooplankton compartment should not be stocked with fish. A stocking density of 150 kg/ha of paddlefish or bighead carp and 150 kg/ha of silver carp is sufficient to utilise the plankton (recommended individual fish weight 0. however small (up to few dozen kg/ha) bottom feeders are admitted. as the main species. siver carp and grass carp Nutrients and fish to utilise plankton developed in compartment A 25% of the cascade area Acting as a sedimentation tank for suspended solids coming from part C 25% of the cascade area Table 37. must be at least twice the amount of organic carbon received with the manure to sustain aerobic conditions in the pond. Hence. bighead carp. This fact is a main limiting factor for manure utilisation. Hydraulic retention time in this compartment should be set at two weeks. Fish stocked in part B causes a serious resuspension of bottom sediments resulting in high turbidity and suspended solids concentration. the net primary production is minimal or negative. Part of the system A Zooplankton compartment Description • • • • B Filtrators’ compartment C Polyculture compartment D Sedimentation compartment • • • • • • • Compartment supplied with manure Organic matter derived from the manure proposed as the main energy source for zooplankton and bacterioplankton development No fish stocked 33% of the total system area Stocked with filtrating fish to utilise plankton developed in compartment A 17% of the cascade area Stocked with polyculture of common carp. This period provides sufficient time for zooplankton development. Biogenic compounds coming from manure. the volume of the compartment should provide hydraulic retention time close to 12 days. supplied water or bottom deposits support primary production. however an over abundance of zooplankton suppress the development of phytoplankton. Presence of common carp. Recommended fish stock of the Compartment C Compartment D – Sedimentation part: The last compartment acts as a sedimentation tank. This compartment is responsible for the majority of the biomass yield of the cascade. The fish stock covers a wide spectrum of natural food supply developed in the compartment. Species Common carp (K2) Bighead carp OR paddlefish* Silver carp Grass carp *recommended replacement for bighead carp Individual initial weight [g] 200 . although use of paddlefish instead of bighead carp is recommended (Table 38). Stock composed of paddlefish and/or filtrating cyprinids is proposed. 1-3 years old fish are recommended). it should not be 56/110 . transferred with the water flow. expressed in moles.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland Compartment A – Zooplankton part: This compartment is directly supplied with water and the manure. The zooplankton and bacterioplankton feed directly on organic matter derived from the manure supplied. Recommended fish stock is composed of cyprinids.300 g 500 – 1 000 g 500 – 1 000 g 750 – 1 500 g Stock density [kg/ha] 300 150 150 100 Table 38. As the suspended matter contains both nutrients and organic carbon. The plankton developed in Compartment A.5–3 kg). being the only external source of nitrogen and phosphorus. Description of respective compartments of the cascading system Compartment C – Polyculture part: This part of the system is responsible for the utilisation of biogenic compounds coming from preceding compartments. Compartment B – Filtrator’s part: The compartment is mainly stocked with filter feeding fish species.
only 2. The Sedimentation part of the cascade due to the long retention time and no fish stock provides good conditions for sedimentation of suspended solids. production intensification reduced the demand for primary production in the ponds and favoured feeding. which seems to be a limiting factor. 57/110 . the load of nitrogen and phosphorus delivered with the manure is rarely the limiting factor for the designed system.4. the organic carbon content in the manure must be analysed in order to design the cascade. Thus. The economical calculations must also take into account environmental values and benefits of the system’s sustainability. Proper functioning of the designed system is limited to about 7 months between spring and autumn. (thus manure utilisation capacity). this value may vary depending on light conditions and temperature. RT (15 days = 3 3 2 360h) and possible water flow.4. Operation parameters There are two main factors affecting the design of the cascade: water flow and manure supply. Water flow The water supply efficiency may be a main limiting factor in some cases. However. Size and capabilities of the system strongly depends on water supply efficiency. the main constraint of the system is water requirement. however it declined and has been replaced with more convenient agricultural fertilisers. q [m /h]): At=RT·q [m =~m ] Manure supply If the water supply is not the limiting factor the system may be planned according to the organic matter supply derived from the manure. In such a situation the total area. Besides this. where the only source of oxygen is water provided to the system. about 2000 m of water is needed for 1 m of liquid manure. allowing the utilisation of 25 m of bovine manure per one hectare of total cascade area. but as the sun light intensity decreases the calculated value should be maintained. Expected results The use of manure for fertilisation of carp ponds has a long history. 3 The four compartment set-up performed very well. 7. The system requires significant volumes of water to provide nutrient flow through the cascade. the total system volume. If the 3 3 3 supplied manure contains 5 kgC/m (mean). (thus area) At. The absence of fish and high water transparency favours growth of water plants utilising dissolved nutrients from the water. Assuming that inflowing water contains ~7 gO2/m .7 g of oxygen. Assuming an average pond depth of 1 m.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Poland released to the environment.4. 7. During mid-summer less water (~20%) can be provided (or ~20% more manure). Where plant production is planned relevant equipment and technologies must be developed. N and P concentrations remain within a certain range in the case of manure. The relation of C. Primary production in the Zooplankton compartment may be very limited or negative due to zooplankton development. The recent trend for extensification has resulted in renewed interest in utilising organic wastes and closed production cycles. will depend on water supply. Each gram of organic carbon 3 derived from manure requires ~2. This may be an issue of particular significance.3.5 g of organic carbon can be delivered per cubic meter of water to sustain aerobic conditions in Compartment A. where water intake and its discharge to natural waters is restricted in some countries. when water temperature and sun radiation is intensive enough to sustain hydrobiological processes at sufficient levels. Conducted research resulted in the development of an environmentally-friendly technology utilising waste organic matter coming from other branches of agriculture (bovine and pig farms). will be determined by multiplication of retention time. There is a strong correlation between water flow and organic carbon supply. Thus. However. Conducted research did not reveal any constraints related to N and P. The balance between a farm’s demands for manure utilisation and available water and land must be decided. The water surface can be used to produce additional plant crops or can be used for recreation purposes.
%) -1 Water use (max. each trout farmer was given a restricted feed quota and the quality of the feed was required to fulfil certain specifications. All data is based on the use of 100 tonnes of feed per year. Farmers were also required to follow a water sampling programme in order to provide documentation of their approximate discharge of nutrients. l · s ) Pond sludge collection Filters for removal of particles Bio filter Plant lagoons Table 39: Parameters of Danish model fish farms Model Trout Farm Concrete 95 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes 58/110 . The model fish farm concept aims to reduce the intake of fresh water and to increase the retention of nutrients by using recirculation technology. reuse of water.1. Accordingly.). environmental legislation. It became compulsory for all trout farms to construct a settling basin for removal of particulate organic matter and nutrients before water was led back to the watercourse. a significant development took place developing efficient feeds with high nutrient utilisation. the amount of fish produced per kilo of feed as well as a the amount of discharged pollutants has improved significantly. which means to reducing the consumption of unused fresh water as well as the cleaning and re-use of water. New methods in trout farming to reduce the farm effluents – Case study from Denmark 8. some 200 farms are run as traditional flow through systems as they have been run for decades with intake of water from a weir and with relatively limited use of energy consuming equipment (pumps etc. As a result. To continue the production this legislation forces the farmers to make themselves more independent of the water course. The Danish production of rainbow trout in fresh water takes place across about 250 farms. a new environmental legislation was brought into force in 1989 in Denmark.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark 8. Until the 1980’s the Danish production of rainbow trout in fresh water was generally without any waste water treatment. the environmental legislation was followed by a new legislation setting a maximum limit to the allowed intake of water from the water course. However. According to the legislation at least half of the water flow in the watercourse shall pass by the farm. reduced water intake and farming management. water treatment. Of these. Parameter Pond material Water recirculation (min. The total annual production is about 33 000 tonnes of fresh water and about 7 000 tonnes in sea water corresponding to about 20 % of the Danish fishery consumption. To adapt to this legislation a proportion of the traditional farms developed more technologically advanced farms applying various methods of water purification. The water passes through the farm by gravity and finally to a sedimentation basin (sedimentation of particulate matter) before it is returned to the watercourse. feeding technology. environmental authorities and NGO’s the idea of “Model fish farms” was born around the year 2000. During subsequent discussions between aquaculture organisations. Some of the most important parameters describing the model fish farms are summarised in Table 39 below. However. a clarification of the future conditions for trout farming in Denmark became urgently needed. Introduction – General description of the case study Farming of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) has taken place in Denmark for more than 100 years and rainbow trout is the most dominant species in Danish aquaculture. aeration. As a consequence of the restricted feed quotas. Furthermore. the value of aquaculture production is about 25 % of the total value in the Danish fishery sector. restrictions on water intake from the water courses and EU’s Water Framework Directive setting standards for water quality in the recipients. Following increased public concern on environmental issues. such as the nutrient discharge from trout farms or the hindering of the fauna mobility along the watercourses through the weirs. oxygenation etc.
) • • • • • • Potential increase in the trout production without corresponding increase in the environmental impact However. bio filter.15 l/sec/t feed or about 3 900 l per kg produced fish corresponding to 1/13 of that used in traditional flow through trout farms Free passage along the whole water course for the wild fauna A significant amount of the easy degradable substances (BOD). the systems need optimisation in particular with respect to lowering nitrogen discharges.Environmental impact from model trout farms 5. in addition to the large reduction in nutrient discharges. Some farmers report on lower production time and. the total organic substances (COD). Energy consumption in model trout farms 6. aerators. Extensive knowledge about the implications of farming fish using recirculation technology Skilled experience in fish farming and running systems using recirculation technology Adequate water quality • High quality fish feed and feeding strategies From an environmental as well as a commercial perspective the model fish farms are successful.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark A Model Trout Farm (Ejstrupholm Dambrug): In the background to the left are the plant lagoons consisting of former earthen ponds. Cultivation of pond plants in the lagoons of model farms 7. and perspectives: • The model farms have made themselves independent of intake of water from the water courses as they catch water from drains under the production plant and/or nearby boreholes and recirculate water (up to 97% recirculation) The water consumption was reduced to about 0. pumps etc. implementation of the model farm technology requires extensive knowledge and experience related to: • • • • • Biological requirements of the species to be farmed Extensive knowledge about the design and function of each device on the farm. migration of fauna in nearby watercourses is facilitated. ammonia-N and total-N was removed by the cleaning devices inside the farm and in the plant lagoons Using the plant lagoons to grow commercial garden pond plants. However. edible crops as watercress or other species may provide a benefit as an integrated element of a model trout farm Stable farming conditions (water quality etc. Therefore. mechanical filtration. Cultivation of alternative fish species in the lagoons of model farms 59/110 . the SustainAqua Danish case study investigated different aspects/modules of the model trout farms for further optimisation: 4.g. Feed and feeding . e. phosphorus. inlet and outlet channels (Photo: DTU-Aqua) The Model Trout Farm strategy involves significant environmental advantages.
These model trout farms were all equipped with sludge traps. 2007) have been used in the model. 8. phosphorus (P) and organic matter – transferred to the watercourse. suspended.2. Feed and feeding . concentration of nutrients in the water at several sites within the trout farm.).2. particulate) and chemical structure (N. COD [chemical oxygen demand]) of waste components can be assessed in laboratory experiments. The different cleaning devices in operation on model farms have different cleaning efficiencies depending on the magnitude and composition of the waste components they receive. amount of feed. operation parameters (temperature. but according to Danish legislation (Bekendtgørelse om Ferskvandsdambrug) trout farms are required to have a settling basin installed immediately after the production unit(s). data from traditional trout farms in Denmark (Data from By. The model should take relevant production parameters (feed type. BOD5 [biological oxygen demand]. fish production etc. P. these farms are without the facilities characterising the model trout farms. development of an overall calculation model is required to be able to predict the environmental performance of a system in terms of waste components – nitrogen (N).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark 8. Furthermore. amounts of feed used and ingredients in feed. Therefore. flow-rates and dimensions) into account.) and system set-up (components.Environmental impact from model trout farms Feed is the most important parameter in relation to fish growth and environmental impact as well as production costs. General description of the innovation The physical form (dissolved. Data for water usage. 60/110 .2. Based on the results of these experiments a predictive laboratory based model (module of the overall calculation model) on the direct waste contribution from relevant commercial feed types applied in intensive aquaculture systems can be derived. while a few of them also had micro-sieves installed.og Landskabsstyrelsen. Typically. biofilters and constructed wetlands. To estimate the environmental performance of model farms it is crucial to make a precise quantification of the contribution from the feed to the production water. 8. biomass gains etc. the so-called “contribution from production” before the water is passed on for treatment in the cleaning devices on the farm. The laboratory model is an important input for the precision of the overall calculation model.2. Principles of the module The calculation model is primarily based on data obtained through a documentation and measuring programme that was carried out at eight “model trout farms” in Denmark during 2005-2007. Figure 18: Set up for the assessment of the physical form and chemical structure of waste components and the direct waste contribution from relevant commercial feed types applied in intensive aquaculture systems. oxygen content etc. have been obtained from all farms and the main results have then been integrated into the overall calculation model.1.
2 %. 61/110 . The laboratory experiments were carried out in 18 flow-through. 1 where i was the percentage of protein.9 %.98 % A specific experiment was set up for the determination of the . lipid.76 (kg feed kg weight gain). as Protein: 46. 2 where W(ti) and W(t0) were the biomass at the end (ti) and at the start (t0) of the trial. The sedimentation columns were emptied daily prior to feeding. A probability of P < 0.6 % particulate N and P waste and of dissolved/suspended N and P Ash: 6. respectively. The three feed types used had the following average composition. -1 phosphorus: 64. -1 The specific growth rate (SGR. Feed consumption was recorded throughout the experiments. 3 The data were subjected to one-way ANOVA analysis using Sigma Stat for Windows Version 3. 8. lipid: 91. Table 40: Composition of feed The apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) of dietary nutrients and minerals was calculated using the following equation: ADC i = [(consumed i − excreted i ) consumed i ]× 100 eq. thermoplastic tanks with a volume of 189 l. This design allowed for rapid sedimentation and collection of undisturbed faecal particles in cooled. ash. the feed amount administered and the registered feed waste during the 9 days of feeding according to: FCR = feed consumed (t i − t 0 ) biomass gain (t i − t 0 ) eq. The recorded specific growth rate (SGR) was on average: 1.05 was considered as significant in all analyses.9 % waste. NFE: 66.2. lipid.5 %. Denmark. N and P retention by the fish was determined by Crude fibres: 1. . Energy content: 23.9 %.4 % analysing the N and P concentration in the fish at the start and at the Dry matter: 94. g g ) was calculated based on the biomass gain in the tanks.10. ash or DM. After integration of data the model has been verified and adjusted accordingly in order to correlate optimally with actual measured discharges. P. ash: 51. The tanks were mounted in a modified Guelph system in which the lower third of the tanks was conical and separated from the rest of the tank by a grid. Phosphorus: 0. -1 The feed conversion ratio (FCR.8 kJ g feed contribution of dissolved BOD5 and COD waste as well as particulate BOD5 and COD waste. crude fibres and P. feed conversion ratio (FCR) was 0.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark By integrating data into the calculation model from both model trout farms and traditional farms with less technology.1 % and 57.2 %. experimental period: SGR = Ln(W (t i ) W (t 0 ) ) / (t i − t 0 ) × 100 eq. and the faecal samples were stored at -20 °C for analysis of protein. In this way it aimed to optimise the model as much as it was possible at the current time. Nfree extract (NFE). assuming that the juvenile fish grew exponentially within the relatively short.97 % d and the average . and faeces were collected from the sedimentation columns. respectively (Table 41).3. the model offers the opportunity to obtain estimates for discharges from trout farms at different technological levels. and (ti . NFE. partly separated sedimentation columns.t0) was the duration of the trial in days. Rainbow trout of approximately 50 g each were obtained from local Danish fish farms and transferred to DTU Aqua’s research facilities in Hirtshals.3 % can be see in Table 40 on the right hand side: Lipid: 27. The Holm-Sidak Test was used for pair wise comparisons where dietary treatments were significantly different.6 %. The retention of nitrogen and phosphorus by the fish was on average 49.6 % end of the whole experiment.5 % Samples were taken for determination of the contribution of NFE: 12. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators Reduced nutrient discharge The measured digestibility (ADC) was on average: Protein: 93. % d ) was calculated based on the biomass gain in the tanks.
2 88. Almost all of the phosphorus P-waste was recovered as particulate waste (on average 98%). during the metabolic processes. Success factors and constraints The results of the laboratory experiments were important inputs for the precision of the overall calculation model. while only a very minor fraction (on average 2%) was recovered as dissolved/suspended P-waste. which has to be considered for a sustainable production.2 ± 0. The majority of the Total N-waste was recovered as dissolved/suspended TN waste (88%). dev. waste gases as CO2 and N2 should be be removed from the production water. Table 41: Apparent digestibility coefficients (ADC) of protein. The most important issue in the model trout farms is the implementation of the recirculation technology. 3.7 ± 1.2. General description of the innovation The pumping of water in the model trout farms as well as the injection of air/oxygen into the farming systems requires energy.2 ± 0. NFE.3 ± 0. Energy consumption on model trout farms The model fish farms depend on transport of water in the farm (recirculation) as well as aeration/oxygenation of the water due to the low consumption of new fresh water. 6.7 ± 0.4 ± 0.6 2 a 92.005 0.5 hours in the production unit(s) and at least 20 hours in the constructed wetland.8 67. the overall calculation model serves as a convenient tool for estimation of discharges of key nutrients from trout farms.69 177.e.4.711 <0. If the farm is equipped with mechanical filters (drum filters or similar) and/or bio filters.9 57.6 Values within rows not sharing a common superscript letter were significantly different (ANOVA. lipid.0 ± 0. n = 3) of the diets as well as the calculated digestibility of dry matter . Provided that these prerequisites are fulfilled. P < 0. Thus.9 ± 0.7 ± 0. Calculations of the BOD5 and COD contributions showed that an average of 55% of the total BOD5 waste was recovered as dissolved/suspended waste..SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark Dietary Component BioMar Ecolife 20 Aller Aqua 576 BM XS Dana Feed Dan-Ex2844 F2. while 29% was recovered as dissolved/suspended COD waste.7 84.83 4. The feed used must be of good quality. lipid. i.9 84.6 ± 1. 8.0001 <0. i. The digestibility of dry matter was calculated as the sum of the measured digestibility of protein.09 - P 0.6 10.9 ± 0.4 ± 0.7 ± 1. The fish species must be rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum) 2. 8. The need of air/oxygen is highest during feeding and digestion of the feed. phosphorus and dry matter (DM) (%. NFE and ash.7 ± 0. it should be noticed.0001 0. The daily feed amount must not exceed 800 kg. contain sufficient levels of vitamins and minerals to support good growth and health and digestibility of protein and lipid must not be less than 85%. then the filters must have adequate dimensions in order to optimise water treatment.6 a b a c ab a a a a 51.5 86.4 ± 1.e.51. it should be emphasised that the calculation model only serves as a tool to estimate the nutrient discharges from trout farms. while an average of 12% was recovered in the particulate fraction. 5.3. If water recirculation is applied then the water must reside for at least 18. the model can not be used for documentation of discharges.8 60. However. 8.8 a a 85.6 ± 0.7 ± 0. ash.6 ± 0.1 46. However. This technology requires energy input and as such energy is an important parameter.3 93.7 85.05).36 62.010 0. Furthermore. and the dissolved/suspended BOD5/COD ratio was 0.2 ± 0.6 66. i. i.e.5 b a a b b a 93. An average of 71% of the total COD waste was recovered in the particulate form. pumping water and water purification to minimise water consumption and environmental impact. while an average of 45% was recovered as particulate BOD5 waste.5 85. the model offers the opportunity to obtain estimates for discharges from trout farms at different technological levels. the need for oxygen 62/110 .e.1.0 67.3.8 ± 0. it is important to evaluate the need of oxygen during the production and in accordance to this to adjust the injection level/energy consumption.4 71. By integrating data into the calculation model from both model trout farms and traditional farms with lower technology. that the following pre-requisites prevail in order to obtain acceptable estimates upon use of the calculation model: 1. mean 1 ± std.0 ± 1. Furthermore.22 0.4 91.0 60.81 14.076 - Protein Lipid NFE Ash Phosphorus DM DM calculated 1) 2) 93. 4. Tukey HSD.
e. The surface aerator is efficient to keep fish alive under low oxygen conditions and for degassing. From there the water runs down through a filter media (for example. i. equipped with a partition (Figure 19). i.2. Basin aerator Basin aerators may be designed as a simple diffuser placed about 50 cm above the bottom of a production unit with adequate proportions between length and depth of the basin to secure proper circulation. The larger the contact surface between the gas. Bio-Blocks) providing a large contact surface for aeration (O2) and degassing (N2/CO2). Principles of the module The current technologies for aeration of the water are: • • • • Basin aerator Low pressure diffuser Surface aerator Trickling filter • Air lift pump For efficient oxygenation/degassing it should be borne in mind that: • • The solubility of gases/water saturation increases with the pressure. 63/110 . Surface aerator Surface aerators are often used on traditional farms. The function of an airlift is both pumping and aeration of the water. the quicker the gas is dissolved in the water. which in turn affects the magnitude of back pressure.3. air bubbles created by diffusers with different sizes of holes. 2008).e. Low pressure diffuser A low pressure diffuser may have several diffuser tubes mounted on a steel frame. The diffuser has a relative low back pressure at moderate water depth. The oxygenation efficiency is good at lower oxygen saturations and suitable for degassing due to the low depth of air injection.e. The water is thrown into the air. which creates a good contact surface with the air and mixing in the pond.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark depends on fish size and on the standing stock. On the one side (to the left in Figure 19) a number of diffusers are installed (injection of pressurised air by compressors). about 80 cm. water exposed to pressure may contain more oxygen/CO2 than at the surface.and the water phase. The airlift consists of a well/hollow. Figure 19: Sketch of the airlift (after Lokalenergi. The design of the airlift determines as well its ability to manage the flow of air (avoid collapse) as the maximum head. 8. Airlift (”mammut pump”) The most common method of water transport and aeration in model trout farms is by using airlifts. Trickling filter In a trickling filter the water is pumped over a distribution grid on top of the filter. i. the trickling filter is energy demanding (pumping) due to the lift height requirement(often at least 1 m). However. The driving force in an airlift is the difference in the specific gravity between the water and the air/water side. Optimum head might be about 10 cm at a water depth of 2 m.
The cost efficient aeration process should be monitored and managed according to the current farming conditions (diurnal variation. During the experiment the energy consumption by the airlift was measured to be 5 802 W for compressing the air with the addition of the energy for heating the air the total energy consumption was 10 199 W. i. during the metabolic processes. using a propeller pump would require energy for aeration by an alternative method. further energy costs. diffuser geometry.3. The energy costs for aeration were significantly dependent on the method of aeration. For comparison the corresponding energy consumption by a typical submerged propeller pump lifting the water up to 0. basin aerators) need to be added. the rate of injection of air should be adjusted to the water flow. where Q = 1 300 3 3 m /h = 0. However. The energy costs of internal transport of water by submerged propeller pumps was 0. it seemed easier to improve the energy costs of transport of water than of aeration. collapse. When using propeller pumps in place of airlifts the investment costs of pumps needs be considered as well as back up solutions to secure operational reliability.25 mVs = 2 500 Pa.3. The most important factor for optimum efficiency of the airlift is the adequate relationship between the flow rate of the air and of the water. relationships between air flow.e. moving the water with a propeller pump is cheaper than by airlift. Success factors and constraints Summarising the results of energy consumption investigations on three different model trout farms. season etc. The need for air/oxygen is highest during feeding and digestion of the feed. The aeration requires energy for compressing air and the coincident increase in temperature reveal a loss of energy. the higher the air flow should be to obtain a given amount of oxygen per unit time. There was a linear relationship between the energy consumption by injection of the air and the resulting oxygen concentration of the water after aeration in the airlift. A low flow of air provided more aeration efficiency related to the costs than a large air flow. The experiments showed a direct relationship between the energy consumption and the aeration efficiency of the water.4 = 2 260 W. Evidently. dp = 0. the following can be concluded: • • • • • • • • • • • • Proper functioning of the airlift strongly depends on a balanced relationship between the flow rate of the air and that of the water. 64/110 .e. i. However.25 of the energy cost by using the airlift.3. aeration principle. The calculations showed that a submerged propeller pump might move the water by using only ¼ of the energy consumed by the airlift. On average the energy consumption was estimated to 1. ηtotal = 0. 8.e.e.4 m and a total efficiency. i. energy costs for aeration by another method (e. i.g. The higher the level of air injection in the water column.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark 8. The loss of energy due to the significant increase in temperature by using rotary blowers should be considered. i. i.e. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators Energy consumption The injection of air into the farming systems is energy requiring and thus it is important to evaluate the need for air during the production and in accordance to this adjust the injection level/energy consumption. i. the energy consumption of the airlift in relation to the resulting pressure in the air delivery system needs further consideration in order to optimise the energy consumption.7 kWh/kg produced fish.). Further. Small air bubbles added corresponding to the target oxygen content.362 x 2 500 / 0.e.e. Whilst.4 can be calculated as: Q x dp / ηtotal. = 0. However. choice of diffuser and water depth need to be considered so as to obtain: • • maximum contact surface between air-bubbles and water Air-bubbles having longest possible retention time in the water column before they reach the surface • Lowest possible back pressure/loss of pressure in the system. the need for oxygen is dependent on the fish size and on the standing stock. With too high an injection of air in relation to the water flow the air lift may loose efficiency. injection flow and long contact time between air/water are important for cost efficient aeration.362 m /s. to achieve optimum utilisation of the injected air.4.
the lagoons are not efficient in conversion of ammonia into nitrate. Principles of the module The main species studied were perennial garden pond plants. one to Butomaceae and one to Nymphaecea. Menyanthes trifoliata and King cup (Caltha palustris). Denmark. anaerobic conditions may occur in bottom areas and favour denitrification. Due to the conversion of organic matter. i. These plants are interesting in relation to both removal of nutrients and transformation/ conversion of nutrients. Nine species were investigated. four belonging to Iridacaea. The sites selected were characterised by different water flow characteristics.4. The floating garden method applicable on unused ponds of model trout farms (Photo: DTU-Aqua) 65/110 . 8.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark 8.e.4.e. 8. Finally. which apart from their potential of high nutrient absorption might obtain reasonable prices in the market. After treatment by the cleaning devices (sludge traps. conversion of nitrate into gaseous nitrogen. before returning to the water course. the plants serve as surface area for micro organisms (biofilm) and they are involved in conversion of ammonia and uptake of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus into the plant biomass. The market potential of different commercial plants as by-products of the fish industry has already been investigated. General description of the innovation The vegetation in the plant lagoons is of great importance for the cleaning process and has been investigated at Ejstrupholm. Due to the dense native vegetation crowding out pond plants on the banks and in the ponds. The investigations were performed at different sites of a plant lagoon at the Ejstrupholm model farm. the plants influence the water currents and facilitate the sedimentation of particles. anaerobic conditions in the plant lagoons may promote the removal of organic matter and nitrate. and Watercress (Nasturtium officinale). i. i.2. However.4. filamentous algae and water starwort. water thyme. bio filters) of the farm. nutrient load and water quality parameters. However. the water passes slowly through the lagoon area for further removal of nutrients by plants. apart from their function to reduce the environmental impacts from the trout production. the plant lagoons may meanwhile also be used for a secondary production of commercially high value plant species that might provide an additional income to the trout production. Cultivation of pond plants in the lagoons of model farms In connection to the model trout farms the former earthen ponds are often left inter-connected with the old channels and thus making up a lagoon area with wild plants. Thus.e. The main plant species observed in the plant lagoons with a degree of coverage of up to 80% at Ejstrupholm model trout farm were manna grass. special constructions. final waste water treatment.1. polystyrene floating frames. were used for growing the plants. Thus. BOD and precipitation of organic matter and phosphorus. lesser duckweed. The plant lagoons are important for the conversion of nitrate.
However.5. were lower than expected. it should be noticed. Some aspects of plant pond construction should also be considered in prospective development of new farms.5. the residence time of the water in the lagoons is important for the efficiency of removing nutrients. The general idea was to increase the profitability of the farm by optimising its production without harming the main trout production and the overall system operation. colour of flowers etc. Therefore. bio filters) of the farm. but renders introduction of larger units of the floating concept difficult. Menyanthes trifoliata and King cup (Caltha palustris). In addition to the vegetative reproduction the Iris species produced seeds.g. Some of these species survived and grew. The plants studied spread easily either naturally by rhizomes or could be divided manually by division of rhizomes/ seedlings. which may have a negative consequence when selling due to phenotypic differences (i. the removal of total nitrogen was greater than 1 g per m per day. Additionally.2. which may spread fast.e. hybrids. Success factors and constraints The lagoons (constructed wetlands) represent a good potential to reduce nutrient discharges from the fish 2 farm. At present most of the plant lagoons at Ejstrupholm have quite anaerobic conditions. it was initially investigated whether the zooplankton production at various sites 66/110 . it requires initially a lot of manual weeding for plants to establish. This means establishing larger areas with shallow wasteland free of existing vegetation and then either use the floating garden concept or grow the plants directly in the ponds depending on the species.5. General description of the innovation Apart from their function to reduce the environmental impacts from the trout production.) The floating garden concept was relatively successful. However. feed). a substantial part of the plants (rhizomes) were predated by water voles. however. The study showed a good growth of some pond plant species especially belonging to Iridacaea.3. These considerations should also imply the combined usage of plant lagoons both for garden ponds and for a more dense and ground based vegetation like reed (Phragmites australis) or other repository plants. Thus.4. In addition to this. The plant species Watercress (Nasturtium officinale).1. the plant lagoons may also be used for a secondary production of commercially high value juvenile fish that might provide an additional income to the trout production. These plants may contribute to increase the low oxygen conditions in the ponds.e. it was assumed. Cultivation of alternative Fish Species in the lagoons of model farms After treatment by the cleaning devices (sludge traps. which may reduce growth of various commercial plants. the water bodies in these areas are completely covered by natural vegetation. which may be an advantage for the nutritional retention. trout farms in Denmark are characterised by numerous abandoned earthen ponds. and floating frames may be built into larger units covering hundreds of square meters. which are relatively small and narrow. however the potential income of selling of plants may be compromised by an initial labour intensive period (weeding) and later at harvest. the water passes slowly through the lagoon area for further removal of nutrients by the plants. before returning it to the water course. i. which may be related to the anaerobic conditions in the earthen ponds. 8. Plants grown from seeds however may have different genetic characteristics than plants multiplied by division or root shooting. 8. but even these were initially crowded out by more fast growing species on the slopes and banks of the plant lagoons. In order to optimise commercial production of pond plants in the plant lagoons of the Ejstrupholm model trout farm it might be advantageous to restructure parts of the plant lagoon. The growth rates. Furthermore.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark 8. that new production activity should be exclusively based on the conditions prevailing in the lagoon without any external supply (e. The sump plants of the Iris family are quite tolerant. that larger units of floating frames may hinder oxygen transport/diffusion and may create anaerobic conditions for the roots. 8. Consequently. hardy and quite easy to grow. Principles of the case study module Extensive production of fish larvae and juveniles should be based on the natural zooplankton production in the plant lagoons. final waste water treatment. were grown at one of the old earthen ponds in the mid section of the plant lagoon. One species was completely predated by water voles. Thus. The study showed that the natural vegetation in an established plant lagoon creates problems for the test plants to establish within ponds and channels as well as on the banks.
) • • • • • Increased discharge of CO2 The principles of the model trout farm concept using the recirculation technology may be generally adapted in the European aquaculture sector. diffuser geometry The loss of energy due to the significant increase in temperature by using the rotary blowers should be considered Cost efficient aeration processes should be monitored and managed according to the current farming conditions (diurnal variation. the following success and limiting factors can be indicated: • Using the plant lagoons of Ejstrupholm model farm to grow juvenile fish was not feasible due to low oxygen levels and a high production of thread algae in the lagoons. However. the experiments in the put-and-take lakes demonstrated that fish larvae may be reared from hatching until a size of 2-3 cm (one month) in net-cages without human interference during the production.g. Furthermore.e.e. Based on the results of the zooplankton sampling it was concluded that the lagoons were less suitable for rearing fish larvae. parallel experiments in put-and-take lakes demonstrated. the water quality was unstable with periods of low oxygen and occurrence of toxic hydrogen sulphide formation. In the succeeding net-cage experiments the cages were stocked with perch and pike-perch larvae. Aeration of the water within the net cages was not sufficient to increase oxygen content to acceptable levels. ) To investigate the performance of net-cages experiments were performed both in the lagoon at the Ejstrupholm model farm and at two put-and-take lakes where water quality and zooplankton production were considered more favourable for the larvae. water and space utilisation efficiency The results of the zooplankton sampling during spring (larval season) showed that the plankton concentrations were highly variable and generally below the level considered necessary for fish larvae to survive and grow. alternative juvenile fish species in the lagoon areas of the Model farms. aquaria etc. Summary – Success factors and constraints Summarised. 8.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark of the lagoon was sufficient for supplying feed for the fish larvae. perch and pike-perch larvae. Therefore. Specifically. 67/110 . i. i. season etc.g. the rate of injection of air shall be adjusted to the water flow The energy costs for aeration significantly depend on the method of aeration.e. reducing the environmental impacts Optimisation of energy costs Sustainability of cultivating pond plants and of growing additional. net-cages (including suitable lagoon sites) might be an attractive methodology to produce various fish species to be sold for on-growing (put-and-takelakes. the lagoons were considered less suitable for larval rearing. However. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators: Nutrient.5. that fish larvae may be reared from hatching until a size of 2-3 cm in net-cages without human interference during the production period Proper functioning of an airlift (pump) strongly depends on a balanced relationship between the flow rate of the air and that of the water.3. i. The results showed that production of juvenile fish in the plant lagoons of Ejstrupholm model trout farm was not feasible due to low oxygen levels and a high production of thread algae in the lagoons. 8. However. Perch and pike-perch larvae were used for the experiments. e.6. the results of the Danish Model Trout Farm case study provided valuable information and tools related to: • • • Reducing nutrient and organic matter loss. production of juvenile fish in e.
S l ud ge b ed P l an t l ag oo n s P l nt l go o ns a a Ri e r v P l an t p on d La go on cha n ne l B ac k ch an ne l S l dg e u o ve r l ow f S l ud ge b ed F nc e e nt ran ce e 1 T La go on cha nn e l Con cre t f sh t nk s e i a = w ate r flow T = T rou t pr odu ction Figure 20: Sketch of Ejstrupholm Model Trout Farm.1. i.7. On the one side of the partition. Arrows indicate direction of water flow. i. By a combination of the injection of air and aeration water js lifted a few centimetres and thus creating the recirculation flow. The recirculation and the aeration of water is achieved by airlifts. Figure 20 provides a sketch of the model farm. Denmark.7.7. After treatment by the cleaning devices (sludge traps. The driving force in an airlift is the difference in the specific gravity between the water and the air/water side. 8. which are often left inter-connected with the old channels and thus making up a lagoon area with wild plants. the net discharge and the cleaning efficiency of the cleaning devices from Ejstrupholm Model Trout Farm are compared to the average specific discharge (g nutrient per kg. The particulate matter from production is collected in sludge cones placed at the bottom of the production units and the sludge is pumped to sludge basins for sedimentation. Description of the Model Fish farm Ejstrupholm model fish farm is located at Holtum Å (watercourse) in Mid-Jutland. The recirculated water passes through a biofilter. From a case study to a fish farm: How to manage a model trout farm producing 500 t fish per year (Ejstrupholm Model Trout Farm) 8. the former earthen ponds. where the conversion of ammonia to nitrite/nitrate takes place. produced fish) from Danish trout farms.e.e. before returning it to the water course. The function of an airlift is both the pumping and aeration of water. equipped with a partition. The outlet water from the production units and the cleaned water from the sludge basins is passed to the plant lagoons. bio filters) of the farm. 68/110 Su g b d l d e e La go on cha n ne l . The airlift consists of a well/hollow. The farm is constructed with two identical production units each divided into 8 sections. final waste water treatment. a number of diffusers are installed (injection of pressurised air by compressors).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark 8.2. Description of the farm effluents In the table below the specific contribution from production. the water passes slowly through the lagoon area for further removal of nutrients by the plants.
69/110 .000 l/kg fish to about 3. 8. Pro and contra of traditional trout farms and model trout farms Compared to traditional farming the model farm concept has the following advantages and disadvantages: Advantages: • • • • • • • • • • • Water consumption reduced from about 50. Increased discharge of CO2 Risk of accumulation of ammonia Increased need for supervision and management Higher energy consumption/kg fish Establishment costs of a Model Trout Farm as described above costs around 3 .2 - 53 91 96 31.3 78. while only a very minor fraction (on average 2 %) was recovered as dissolved/suspended P-waste. Water balance of the farm The water for production is harvested from drains under the production plant and/or boreholes nearby. oxygen. Denmark Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus BOD COD 33. i. while an average of 45 % was recovered as particulate BOD5 waste. and the time of residence on the farm was about 35 hours.3.5 EURO/kg feed. the specific discharge of phosphorus and organic matter was significantly reduced compared to the average discharge from Danish trout farms. The energy consumption for pumping and aeration (oxygen) of the water was about 1. produced fish) and cleaning level from Ejstrupholm Model Trout Farm compared to the average specific discharge from Danish trout farms.7 kWh/kg fish produced. phosphorus (especially suspended) and total-N (especially nitrate).3.e about 1.9 93. The water intake was about 45 l/sec.7 4. pumps. that an average of 55 % of the total BOD5 waste was recovered as dissolved/suspended waste. and the dissolved/suspended BOD5/COD ratio was 0.6 51 13 3 - Table 42: Specific contribution from production. The results document a very high efficiency of removal of nutrients from the production water in the model trout farm.9 15.7. the net discharge (average g nutrient per kg. phosphorus and organic matter is removed in the sludge traps and the bio filters. while an average of 12 % was recovered in the particulate fraction.51. Almost all of the phosphorus P-waste was recovered as particulate waste (on average 98 %).6 mio. etc.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study from Denmark Nutrient Contribution from production Net discharge Cleaning level. The majority of the Total N-waste was recovered as dissolved/suspended TN waste (88 %).2 2.4.900 l/kg fish produced Independent of watercourse Stable conditions for production Minor variations in water quality Improved efficiency of cleaning devices Reduced environmental impact Use of water from bore hole implies less seasonal temperature variations Improved control of management and production Reduced external risk of infection with pathogens Reduced need for medicine and therapeutics Improved work environment • • • • • Disadvantages Increased need of back-up systems: Electricity. EURO for a 500 ton model farm like Ejstrupholm. An average of 71 % of the total COD waste was recovered in the particulate form. while the plant lagoons efficiently remove organic matter. In particular. Calculations of the BOD5 and COD contributions showed.8 0. The ammonia. while 29 % was recovered as dissolved/suspended COD waste.39 3.7. % Average discharge Denmark Ejstrupholm as % of avg. 8.7 224.
the husbandry and water quality demands. Reduce the volume of waste water discharged (manure transport costs and costs for waste discharge). Production of fish inevitably causes production of waste.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands 9. In a Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) the water flow from the fish tanks is purified and reused (Figure 21). To attain these goals so-called “within system” innovations must be developed which reduce the emissions of dissolved and particulate nitrogen. thereby deteriorating the water quality. This waste is excreted into the water in which the fish live.1. Reduce fees for pollution units. the up scaled reactor performance. Kjeldahl-N and phosphorus discharged. Finally. Tilapia farming using Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) Case study in the Netherlands 9. Improve the nutrient utilisation of fish using well designed diets and optimal culture conditions. oxygen is added by aeration or oxygenation. In a Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) the water flow from the fish tanks is purified and reused.Manure Denitrifying Reactor (MDR) In the Netherlands fish is mainly cultured in recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS). the effect of Geotube® system on waste discharge volume reduction of the USB-MDR. Each treatment step reduces the system water exchange to the next limiting waste component. the effect of a plant protein based diet on nitrate removal and system water quality. the effect of USB-MDR on health and welfare of the fish in a pilot scale RAS and whether the integration of an USB-MDR in a RAS prevents the presence of off flavour compounds. General description of the case study The design of a fish farm starts with the choice of the fish species to be cultured. the research outcomes and commercial data (ZonAquafarming BV) were translated into a case study comparing a hypothetical 100 MT RAS with and without USB-MDR for the impact on sustainability indicators. In the latest generation of RAS’ nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas (N2) by denitrification in 70/110 . Solids are removed by sedimentation or sieving. Module . and the waste production.1. To improve sustainability of fish culture in RAS further farmers attempt to: 1. which are based on the amount of COD. Reduce energy and water consumption. In the conventional RAS system water exchange is then dictated by the concentration of nitrate (Figure 21). fish tank fish tank treatment unit 1 treatment unit 2 Flow through RAS Figure 21: In a flow through system the flow through of the fish tanks equals the system's water exchange. The research objectives of the Dutch case study were to determine: the effect of up flow velocity on USB-MDR performance. 9. 4. 3. Therefore a constant water flow is needed to remove these wastes from the fish. COD and organic matter. Different treatment units can require different flows and are sometimes operated in a separate loop within the system. the effect of C:N ratio in the diet on the nitrate removal and water quality.1. In a flow through system the flow through of the fish tanks equals the system's water exchange (Figure 21). In this case study the integration of an up flow sludge bed manure denitrification reactor (USB-MDR) in RAS was studied to reduce water consumption. the associated energy needs for heating and nutrient discharge. 2. The choice of fish species will also largely determine the growth target. carbon dioxide is removed by degassing and ammonia is mostly converted to nitrate (NO3) by nitrification in aerobic biological filters.
concentration of the drum filter solids flow. increased alkalinity production and allows a pH neutral fish culture operation. caused by harvesting and restocking. so this comes down to knowing the amount fed per day. For all compartments in a RAS. Principles of the Manure Denitrification Module An USB-MDR is a cylinder like anaerobic (no free oxygen) reactor fed with a waste flow of the solids removal unit (Figure 21) containing dissolved and particulate faecal organic waste. more knowledge is needed to operate the system and. This in turn can be calculated from the culture plan. there are two fundamental questions: 1) how much water should be passed through and 2) what are the required dimensions (i. For each treatment unit the flow should be large enough to provide it with the amount of nutrients (waste) to be removed. the amount fed also fluctuates. which uses the feed composition. The design of the farm should be based on the maximum expected feed load to realise the planned annual production. production carbon dioxide (3) production of alkalinity and (4) the production of heat. For solids removal this mostly depends on particle size distribution. the fish holding and the treatment units. reduction of nitrate-nitrogen discharge. For the fish tanks the flow should be large enough to remove the amount of waste produced and to maintain an acceptable water quality for the fish. The up flow velocity in the reactor is designed to be smaller than the settling velocity of the major fraction of the particulate waste in order to create a sludge bed in the bottom section of the reactor containing settleable particulate waste. and organic matter (COD)). Since all waste originates from the feed. In these denitrification reactors organic matter (preferably of internal origin.e. volume and shape). expressed in g Waste/m /d removed. accumulation of total dissolved solids (TDS). Finally the waste production can be determined from the maximum feed load with the nutrient budget model. Compared with a conventional RAS a RAS equipped with an USB-MDR allows for: the reduction of make up water supply for nitrate control. 9. reduction of energy consumption due to a low make up water supply flow and heat production by the bacteria biomass in the USB-MDR.e. 71/110 . but also the organic matter discharge. For biological filters the volume will 3 depend on the specific activity. Different treatment units can require different flows and are sometimes operated in a separate loop within the system (Figure 21). The particulate waste in the sludge bed serves also as media for the denitrifying bacteria to grow on. Disadvantages are: higher investments.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands anaerobic biological filters. In the sludge bed the faecal particulate carbonaceous waste is digested by the denitrifying bacteria and results in: (1) the production of bacterial biomass and (2) reduction of nitrate into nitrogen gas.e. the feed digestibility. These latest generation RAS’ reduce thereby not only the water use and nitrogen discharge (less nitrate has to be flushed out). reduction of the size/volume of the post treatment as the USB-MDR pre-concentrates and digests the solids already. i. everything in the feed which is not retained becomes waste. reduction of fees for nutrient discharge (TAN. bacterial flocs and inorganic compounds. org-N. and shape. i. nitrate. The waste flow enters the reactor at the bottom centre and creates an up flow velocity. of the treatment units depends on their functional characteristics.2. From the above it follows that for the design of a RAS it is crucial to know the amount of waste produced per day.1. The required volume of the fish tanks will depend on the maximum stocking density for the fish species in question. the fish composition and the fish respiration to calculate the solid (faeces) and dissolved (excretion through gills and urine) waste. the uneaten feed and faeces from the solids removal) is oxidised using the oxygen from the nitrate molecule. Due to the fluctuating fish stock present on the farm. Pre-settled water leaves the reactor through a V-shaped dented overflow at the top section of the reactor. The required volume.
and waste discharge per kg harvested (see Table 43).2 1.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands 9. nutrient utilisation as % of input. However. • Plant protein diets might be applied in future to further improve the sustainability profile of fish cultured in RAS. • 72/110 .58 62 1060 2. However.9 7. this effect was not observed in commercial RAS (info ZonAquafarming BV) Higher investments and a higher level of knowledge are needed to operate the system.1. diet (re) formulation resulting in a higher C/N ratio in the produced fish waste can be a profitable tool to control nitrate accumulation by denitrification. waste discharge is reduced (digestion) and concentrated (through treatment process selection) in the MDR within the recirculating loop. Table 43: Assessment of SustainAqua sustainability indicators in the MDR module 9. Consequently.22 1. ortho-phophate-P concentration was significantly higher in RAS when fish were fed the plant protein diet when compared with RAS in which fish were fed the fish meal based diet. Compared to a conventional RAS.26 a 107 13. This study showed no significant effect of plant protein diets on USB-MDR performance.1 USB-MDR RAS Waste discharge Nitrogen Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) Phosphorus Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) COD Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) TOD Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) CO2 (kg/kg incl gas) TDS (g/kg) Conductivity (µS/cm) Conventional RAS USB-MDR RAS 8. Conventional RAS Resource use Fingerlings (#/kg) Feed (kg/kg) Electricity (kWh/kg) Heating (kWh/kg) Water (L/kg) Oxygen (kg/kg) Bicarbonate (g/kg) Labour (h/MT) Nutrient utilisation Nitrogen (% of input) Phorphorus (% of input) COD (% of input) TOD (% of input) 32 43 32 32 32 43 32 32 1. energy and alkalinity consumption can be significantly reduced in conventional RAS Energy consumption is substantially reduced compared to conventional RAS as: (a) less water has to be exchanged and thus heated to control nitrate concentrations and (b) a significant amount of heat is produced by the bacterial biomass reusing and oxidising otherwise wasted nutrients.8 3.22 2.4 4.4 238 1. larger individuals (±300 g) seem to exhibit growth retardation (tendency) when cultured on a pilot scale. Success factors and constraints In “The Netherlands” case study the integration of a manure denitrification reactor (MDR) in a conventional RAS indicates the following: Success factors • • Water.6 5.0 38 1. On the other hand.5 1.18 252 12.2 1. waste concentration is possible treating the discharged MDR sludge with a Geotubes® system.5 3.2 1.8 189 40 227 48 1.10 28 2000 a) In practice the need for bicarbonate (alkalinity) is actually nil when denitrification is applied.3. Prospects • • For future farming conditions where nitrate-N cannot be controlled by a USB-MDR. RAS equipped with an USB-MDR at an similar water exchange rate.3 84 9 95 11 1.4. Furthermore. water energy and alkalinity consumption will be reduced.2 0.5 37.1. Constraints • Nile tilapia of up to ±150 g can be cultured in nearly-closed recirculation systems with water exchange rates of 30 l/kg feed/day (as with MDR) without hampering fish welfare. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators The SustainAqua sustainability parameters applied in this module for a hypothetical 100 MT RAS without (conventional RAS) and with USB-MDR are resource use per kg harvested.
D.Reduction in energy cost of 3 kWh/kg harvested .SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands 9.3 L /kg feed using Geotube® system systems Reduction in carbon dioxide discharge due to savings in fossil fuel consumption.C:N ratios in fish waste can limit the nitrate removal rate 1) .1.A drumfilter with a larger TSS removal capacity may be needed as not all TSS is retained in the USB-MDR.Higher knowledge level to operate a RAS with USB-MDR . N=7).Nutrient reuse by bacteria and converted to 0. The indicated benefits and difficulties are based on comparing a conventional RAS with an RAS integrating the USB-MDR innovation. 73/110 .Reduction in sludge volume to 7. .Reduced by 81% for N. Overall. 61% for TOD.Higher investments (± Euro 52 800.Reduction in bicarbonate consumption to 252 g/kg harvested Nutrient reuse: Nutrient discharge: . 59% for COD.5 kWh/kg fish produced . for the economical conditions in the Netherlands the case study indicates 10% lower production costs per kg fish harvested when comparing a RAS with USB-MDR with a conventional RAS.5. Estimated benefits and difficulties in applying an USB-MDR and Geotube® system in RAS when comparing with a RAS without USB-MDR and and Geotube® system are: Benefits Resource use : .Reduction in water consumption to 200 L/kg harvested . 30% CO2 1) 58% for TDS Sludge volume: Difficulties .--. USB-MDR’s and additional biofilter material and volume) when compared with conventional RAS . Benefits of implementation The summarised benefits and difficulties when applying a USB-MDR in a conventional recirculating aquaculture system are based on a case study for a hypothetical 100 MT’s tilapia farm (= selling annually 100 MT) integrating research data (AFI-WUR) and commercial farming data in RAS (ZONAQUAFARMING BV). In pilot scale experiments the TSS treatment efficiency (%) of the USB-MDR was 65 ± 18 (mean ± S.
and its market position.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands 9. The steps needed for design of RAS are shown in Table 44. of which fish species is to be cultured.e.1. i. Introduction In this case study the effects of integrating a denitrifying USB-MDR to a 100 MT Tilapia RAS on the sustainability indicators will be demonstrated. has here already been made: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).V. should be the main consideration.2. fish tank aeration O2 O2 fish tank aeration moving bed drum filter moving bed drum filter USBMDR Conventional USBMDR Figure 22: In this case study a conventional RAS and a RAS with an USB-MDR. the stocking and marketing weight.5 100 2 3 349 gram gram weeks kg/m % 3 MT/year weeks kg/d Waste production Fish composition Feed composition Digestibility Oxygen consumption fish Flow rates Water quality limits Fish tank exchange System exchange Treatment flows Treatment systems Results N. to offer guidelines for development of a course in USB-MDR design and operation. Fish species Growth traject Stocking weight Market weight Time Feed intake Feed conversion Max fish density Mortality Culture plan Production goal Growth phases Stocking/Harvesting scheme Maximum feed amount Table 44: Steps in design of a RAS Tilapia 70 845 24 1.V. which in intensive systems is largely 3 determined by the productivity (kg/m /year). both according to the ZonAquafarming B. will be compared. These steps will be discussed in the following sections. The case study is set up in a handbook format. From a case study to a fish farm: Integration of a denitrifying USB-MDR in a 100 MT tilapia RAS 9.34 140 0. The concept and results of ZonAquafarming B.2.2. Often this choice is made based on the market price of the fish.2. For economic sustainability the margin between market price and cost price. Implementation Fish species The first choice to be made. The growth curve of the fish is characterised by the time to reach the 74/110 . Growth traject In the choice of the fish species. with the intensive farming of tilapia in RAS will be the starting point (Figure 22). P and COD fluxes Sustainability indicators 9. concept. A conventional RAS will be compared with a RAS with an USB-MDR. one also largely determines the growth traject.
based on the growth and feed intake characteristics of ZonAquafarming B. tilapia. tilapia as given in Figure 23.6 1.00 0 200 400 600 800 Mort = 1.05 0. As this is based on an input of 8. after 12 weeks). and the stocking/harvesting scheme (here every 3 weeks).V. i. both depending on the body weight.25 Body weight (g) Cumulative survival (%) Mortality (%/week) 0. In this case study a stocking weight of 70 g and a harvest weight of 845 g were chosen.20 0. For further calculations see box 1 in section Culture plan. Finally the choice of fish species also determines the required culture conditions such as the maximum fish density and the required water quality (water quality will be discussed in the section Flow rates).57 bw0. This includes the production goal (here 100 MT/year).4 0 200 400 600 800 FC = 0.V.6 0.0 0.3 MT of fingerlings. The tilapia in this case study reached the market size in 24 weeks with a cumulative survival of 99. the number of growth phases (here 2. the actual production is only 91. the division being halfway in time.V.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands market weight.2 1.15 0. It should be noted that the ZonAquafarming B. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 200 400 Body weight (g) 600 400 200 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 SGR (%/d) 800 SGR = 46 bw-0.80 200 400 600 800 Body weight (g) 0.5%. Mortality is also dependent on body weight and it is important to calculate the number of fish to be stocked per cycle.8 100 99 98 97 96 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Body weight (g) Time (weeks) Figure 23: Growth and husbandry characteristics of ZonAquafarming B. Most commercial tilapia strains grow less fast and in particular have difficulties in reaching sizes above 600-700 g under intensive conditions.4 1. tilapia strain is developed through several generations of selective breeding.14 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Maximum density (kg/m3 ) Feed conversion (-) Dens = 35 ln(bw) . Culture plan After the choice of fish species and growth traject one needs to determine the culture plan. which in turn is determined by the feed intake and the feed conversion.61 600 800 Bodyweight (g) Time (weeks) 1.75 bw-0.10 0. Note With a 100 MT farm a farm output of 100 MT market sized fish is implied.8 0.7 MT.e. 75/110 .
In this way the fish in one tank can be divided over two tanks by opening the swimway to an adjacent empty tank. -0.V. after 24 weeks. system water volume and labour requirement.946 #/year or 118. At that same time the 3 of the 3 tanks is stocked with a new cohort of 70 g fish. -0.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands From the culture plan one can determine how many cohorts of fish will be present on the farm simultaneously and with the weights and numbers of the fish per cohort one can calculate the total feed load in kg/day.858*0. Total production for that tank is 0.343*(3/52) = 6. the biomass of fish present will gradually increase due to growth of the fish and stocking of new cohorts. 3/52 is the number of harvestings/stockings per year. the amount fed in kg/d. Box 1. After 12 weeks. 400 Feed load (kg/d) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 Weeks from startup 50 Figure 24: The maximum feed load is reached at the moment the first cohort reaches market size. the fish are divided between 2 tanks as described above. This culture plan is shown in Table 45.845 (kg/fish) = 118. The tanks are operated in blocks of 3 tanks. Here that 3 is the required volume after 12 weeks. Fish density is then 597/20.995 (cumulative survival) ≈ 118. tank water volume. After 24 weeks the 2 tanks with market size fish are rd st harvested.14 With a feed conversion of 0.858 = 18kg/d. At that moment (see Table 45) there are 8 cohorts present on the farm. the feed load first is decreased and then increases again due to growth of the fish stock. This process continues and the feed load will follow a sawtooth pattern.5m and total tank water volume is 246m .6g/fish/d.00058)=6. 0.343/0.07.75*70 = 0. which are connected through closable swimways. 2.07 = 19kg/d.57*87 = 1. in this case study 349 kg/d. 3 After 1 week the biomass per tank is 6. 370 g. The required tank volume is taken to be the maximum of the required volumes at the end of phase 1 and 2. along with the resulting farm setup.026*6. Every 3 weeks one of the 3 tanks (not the middle tank of the 3) is stocked with 6.5 = 29kg/m . the fish in the 3 tank is divided over 2 tanks and the 1 tank is stocked with a new cohort of 70 g fish.343 #/year or 118. will also increase (Table 46).858.862*(10. After start-up of the farm.8m . Culture plan calculations The number of fish harvested is 100. Design of the farm is based on the maximum feed load. after 24 weeks. In the culture plan of ZonAquafarming B. The number of fish stocked is then 118.828 #/cohort. The maximum feed load is reached at the moment the first cohort reaches market size. At the same time the feed load .8 For the first week the mortality is 1.862 #/cohort.946*(3/52) = 6.516 (kg/tank) / (35*ln(368)-80) = 19. When the first cohort is harvested and replaced by a new cohort of small fish.862 fish of 70 g.61 The growth of the fish after 1 week is 87 * (46*87 )/100 = 2. 12 fishtanks (24 weeks / 2 growth phases) are used. the total feed load for that tank is 18*1. Due to design considerations the 3 3 actual tank volume is 20.058% and the number per tank after 1 week is then 6. After that the feed load will follow a so-called sawtooth pattern (Figure 24).087 (kg/fish) = 597kg. tank shape. 76/110 .000 (kg/year)/0. when the rd fish are ca.
46 Feedload kg /day 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 BLOCKS OF 3 TANKS SPLIT FISH OVER 2 TANKS Tank 1 Tank 2 #/tank #/tank 6858 3418 6855 3417 6852 3417 6849 3417 6847 3416 6845 3416 6843 3415 6842 3415 6840 3415 6839 3414 6838 3414 6836 3414 3418 3418 3417 3417 3417 3417 3417 3417 3416 3416 3416 3416 3415 3415 3415 3415 3415 3415 3414 3414 3414 3414 3414 3414 Tank 3 #/tank 3418 3417 3417 3417 3416 3416 3415 3415 3415 3414 3414 3414 6858 6855 6852 6849 6847 6845 6843 6842 6840 6839 6838 6836 Table 45: Setup of the ZonAquafarming B.35 1. Total labour and system volume are for the conventional RAS.946 #/year #/year SYSTEM DIMENSIONS AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE TILAPIA 20.2 5.43 1.37 1.00 190 239 # m3 m3 m m m m2 total m m m2 m2 Tank water volume 246 m3 System volume 384 m3 1251 h/year Number of fish harvested Number of fish stocked Labour general stocking harvesting 6.8 4.10 1. 77/110 .9 5.1 6.15 1.41 1.8 3.42 1.25 1.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Fish tanks Number of tanks (blocks of 3 tanks) Required tank volume Required volume per tank Depth of tank in total Width of tankwall Water depth in tank Required surface per tank Relation length : width Designed length rounded with 0.5 Volume: m3/tank Tanks: Time Weight Density Stock Stocking weeks gram/fish kg/m3 kg/tank #/tank 1 87 29 597 6858 2 106 35 727 6855 3 126 42 863 6852 4 147 49 1007 6849 5 169 56 1157 6847 6 193 64 1321 6845 7 218 73 1492 6843 8 245 82 1677 6842 9 273 91 1868 6840 10 303 101 2073 6839 11 335 112 2291 6838 12 368 122 2516 6836 13 403 67 1377 3418 14 439 73 1500 3417 15 476 79 1626 3417 16 514 85 1756 3417 17 553 92 1889 3416 18 592 98 2022 3416 19 633 105 2162 3415 20 674 112 2302 3415 21 716 119 2445 3415 22 759 126 2591 3414 23 802 133 2738 3414 24 845 140 2884 3414 12 Growth gram/fish 2.44 1.27 1.3 4.4 5.2 3.0 3.9 4.0 6.1 4.2 6.7 5.07 1.343 118.6 4.V.1m Designed width rounded with 0.862 3 3 6 #/cohort #/cohort h/day h/cohort h/cohort 118.45 1.5 5.2 1.90 2.4 4.828 6.17 1.8 1.23 1.8 3.8 6.19 1.38 1.6 3.6 2.21 1.1 5.39 1.4 # Production kg/t/day 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 FC 1.12 1.4 3.30 1.29 1.3 15 4 7. culture plan for tilapia.1m Tank water surface Total tanksurface incl walls 12 238 19.34 1.32 1.6 0.
MAX. Maximum feed load is at 24 weeks (red box) 78/110 .SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands AVG. week 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 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 333 318 349 kg feed 19 21 24 44 48 53 76 81 88 113 120 129 155 165 175 204 215 228 258 271 285 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 332 349 318 kg/d kg/d kg/d 1 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 STOCKING New fish 1 tank every 3 weeks HARVESTING Market size fish 2 tanks per 3 weeks 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 33 35 37 39 40 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 19 21 24 25 27 30 31 Table 46: Development of the feed load from start-up. MIN.
there still is a small amount of COD missing from the budget (CODrest). for tilapia 65 kJ/kg /d energy deposition (growth in energy. The excretion of N and P can be calculated as the difference between digestible intake (feed minus faeces) and growth. In this case study this is done with the Nutrient Budget model (Figure 25) for nitrogen (N). P and COD. as can NH4-N. probably from dissolved uneaten feed and faeces. Note Organic nitrogen can also be oxidised.1 P % 1. the waste production at the maximum feed load on the 100 MT tilapia farm in the present case study is given in Table 48. Although there is no direct excretion of COD by the fish. thereby deteriorating the water quality.2 kJ/g O2 0. This waste is excreted into the water in which the fish live.21 * carbohydrates. the fish themselves also oxidise part of the feed organic matter. In order to calculate the flow rates required (see section Flow rates) one needs to know the amount of waste produced per unit of time. for tilapia 0. and consumption of oxygen (O2).8 (1) Based on these steps.7 oxycaloric equivalent. This theoretically requires 4. waste and bacterial material. COD can be calculated from the composition of the organic matter as the sum of 1. feed.57 g O2 /g N. COD is the amount of oxygen needed to oxidise 1 kg of material. to NO3-N. 2. excretion of ammonia (NH3) and carbon dioxide (CO2).60 DigCOD % 0. Fish weight Stocking 70 Harvesting 845 Protein % 38 Fat % 11 Ash % 11. The organic fraction consists of protein. In the process of feed utilisation and growth. In order to calculate the amount of waste produced when feeding 1 kg of feed one needs to know the composition and digestibility of the feed (Table 47) and the composition of the fish (Figure 26). kJ/fish/d) marginal efficiency of energy deposition.38 * protein. Protein is not oxidised completely. and can thus be used as a common denominator to characterise the organic content of fish.78 * fat and 1. is treated as ‘CODexcretion’. fat and carbohydrates.2 Feed Faeces Excretion Respiration Growth Figure 25: Nutrient budget model to calculate waste production (N.4 COD g/kg 1 192 DigN % 0. 14. P and COD) originating from the feed supplied. Adding this to the amount of COD will give the total oxygen demand (TOD).90 DigP % 0. 79/110 . Examples are faeces production. E kJ/g 18. The oxygen consumption of the fish (respiration) can therefore directly be expressed in COD (1).85 Table 47: Feed composition and digestibility of N. The oxygen consumption of the fish can be calculated as: CODrespiration = (MEm + [1-kg] * ED) / OCE where: MEm ED kg OCE = = = = energy requirement for maintenance. phosphorus (P) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). organic nitrogen is not oxidised.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Waste production Production of fish inevitably causes production of waste. This amount. Therefore a constant water flow is needed to remove these wastes from the fish.
5 * 126 = 7.0608 (kgN/kg feed) ≈ 1. Nfaeces = (1 – 0.19 400 300 energy = 4.43 = 0.6 = 4.43 – 0. The amounts of N.V. fat.0 MJ/kg.g.7) * 147 ]/14.1 0. Nfed = 24 (kg fed) * 0.1 – 9. CODfish = 275 * 126 = 446 gCOD/kg and Efish = 4.03 COD (g/kg) - 80/110 .025 (kg Nfish/kg) ≈ 0. Feed protein also contains 16% N. The amounts of N.03 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 200 400 600 800 ash = 4.4 – 4.52 – 0.5 bw COD = 275 bw 0.0 0.852) + (1 – 0.006 600 500 fat = 3.14 = 0. Box 2. The composition and digestibility of the feed can be taken from table 4.g.2 bw -0.126 * 6.5 * 126 * 10 = 25.09 200 100 0 Body weight (g) Figure 26: Whole body composition of ZonAquaculture B. P and COD grown can be calculated as e. Ngrowth = 21 (kg growth) * 0. 0. The amounts of N.76 kgN/d.9 kgCOD/d. The CODrest is then CODfed – CODgrowth – CODfaeces – CODrespFish = 28.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands 18 protein. Calculation of the waste production at the maximum feed load.9) * 1. P and COD fed can be calculated e.0 gN/kg. For N and P the excretion can be calculated as e.2 – 9. ash (%) energy (kJ/g) protein = 13. tilapia as influenced by body weight.1 bw 0.14 kgN/d. 0.6 kgCOD/d.006 The body composition of the fish of cohort 8 is: Nfish = 0.2 ≈ 9. Pfish = 0. Note Fish protein contains 16% N and fish ash contains 17% P.52 kgN/d.17 * 4.09 * 10 = 6.5 bw 0.43 kgN/d.g. Nfed – Ngrowth – Nfaeces = 1.8 (MJ/kg) = 147 MJ/d. To calculate the COD respired by the fish one first has to calculate the energy deposition: ED = 21 (kg growth)* 7.16 * 13.9 gP/kg. The CODrespFish is then [(65/1000 * 0.1 0. P and COD in faeces can be calculated from the digestibilities as e.2 * 126 0.g.
2 6.2 15.60 0.04 35.0 1192 0.85 1.0 60.60 0.18 1.44 0.95 0.05 27.14 0.04 0.9 540 8.90 0.90 0.52 0.08 38.8 12.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Tank Cohort Weeks BodyWeight Number Feed FC Growth Nfish Pfish CODfish Efish Nfeed Pfeed CODfeed DigN DigP DigCOD Nfed Ngrowth Nfaeces Nexcretion Pfed Pgrowth Pfaeces Pexcretion CODfed CODgrowth CODfaeces CODrespFish CODrest 1 1a 24 845 3414 32 1.17 1.06 41.12 21 25.8 1.5 6.0 1192 0.1 16.1 11.1 12.19 25 25.15 0.28 0.32 0.7 4.30 31 25.43 20 26.53 0.8 18.43 20 26.0 1192 0.1 60.76 0.8 2.13 0.85 1.21 0.2 60.0 1192 0.06 31.46 0.8 12.9 465 7.85 2.20 1.19 0.21 1.0 8 3b 18 592 3416 26 1.1 3 5 12 368 6836 40 1.0 9 7 6 193 6845 30 1.19 0.2 7 3a 18 592 3416 26 1.06 31.0 5 2b 21 716 3415 29 1.14 0.5 11.1 60.7 416 132 62 179 43 Total 24.0 60.0 6.81 0.60 0.05 27.4 7.41 0.61 0.90 0.12 0.9 509 7.16 0.90 0.9 10 4a 15 476 3417 23 1.1 16.8 12.58 0.7 60.60 0.15 0.6 6.6 5.36 0.14 0.60 0.82 0.0 1192 0.8 12.43 0.85 1.34 0.13 0.48 0.85 1.1 10.85 1.85 1.4 4.60 0.61 0.8 18.08 48.80 0.8 12.46 22 26.18 0.35 17 26.07 34.40 0.9 496 7.50 0.90 0.14 0.1 9.15 0.14 0.4 6.60 0.3 60.2 19.3 4.16 0.53 0.8 12.46 22 26.40 0.3 12.0 1192 0.96 0.28 0.90 0.2 1.85 2.6 9.1 2 1b 24 845 3414 32 1.20 0.7 0.3 60.0 1192 0.17 0.9 540 8.9 12 8 3 126 6852 24 1.95 0.9 5.9 509 7.6 5.60 0.08 38.9 521 8.63 0.9 446 7.60 0.39 19 26.60 0.5 60.60 0.0 1192 0.9 11 4b 15 476 3417 23 1.9 482 7.4 6.2 6.85 1.25 1.13 0.3 6.3 16.11 0.39 19 26.9 4.14 0.3 6.14 0.34 0.85 1.4 11.9 531 8.15 0.6 5.9 4 2a 21 716 3415 29 1.90 0.4 11.44 0.5 349 1.8 12.0 1192 0.8 60.1 10.74 0.6 9.7 13.90 0.32 0.8 6.8 12.60 0.0 6 6 9 273 6840 35 1.50 0.17 0.6 21.11 0.15 0.0 1192 0.7 14.14 0.58 0.42 0.4 8.11 0.8 60.20 1.74 0.4 8.90 0.82 0.04 0.72 0.39 0.8 12.25 28 25.0 6.8 12.18 0.13 0.8 12.8 12.96 0.85 1.2 6.28 0.3 6.0 60.9 531 8.7 14.2 9.9 5.02 28.00 0.0 1192 0.90 0.1 11.7 4.12 0.07 34.90 0.35 17 26.13 0.0 6.9 521 8.34 261 max Stock (MT) kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d kg/d 32 6 35 % of intake g/kg feed g/kg feed 43 5 2 % of intake g/kg feed g/kg feed 32 179 512 124 % of intake g/kg feed g/kg feed g/kg feed Table 48: Waste production at the maximum feed load 81/110 .9 4.39 0.17 1.85 1.0 1192 0.90 0.
01-0. the system exchange flow can be reduced. at the expense of added flows through these treatment systems.05-1 100-200 4-6 15-20 100-300 10 4. from whole feed and faecal pellets of several mm to particles of µm size.2 1. and therefore also the system exchange flow. to such an extent that the water quality remains within acceptable limits for the fish. Some deviations also can occur under extreme plug flow conditions. along with choices made in the present case study and some water quality parameters for nitrification and denitrification (see also section Treatment systems) .SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Flow rates A constant flow of water is required through the fish tanks to remove the waste.5 15 200 25 Range Choice Nitrification Denitrification 27 7 27 7 0. Systems with reductions in system water exchange flow of down to 15% of that in a flow through system are called reuse systems. By adding treatment systems. and is therefore not applicable for suspended solids. which can occur in a variety of particle sizes. both in g/m .5 3 Water quality parameters Temperature pH NH3-N TAN NO2-N NO3-N O2 CO2 COD dissolved Suspended solids (° C) (-) (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 k . for example in long rectangular tanks with a large hydraulic residence time. For some treatments. no added flows are needed.1 0. because the system exchange flow equals the flow through the fish tanks. are shown in Table 50.15%. which are applied in the fish tank inflow (oxygenation) or in the fish tank itself (aeration). In Table 49 water quality limits and k-values for tilapia are given.5 Table 49: Water quality limits and k-values to correct for daily variation in waste production Since it has been shown in section Waste production that the waste produced (P) is most conveniently expressed per kg of feed. Oxygenation and aeration actually reduce the flow through the fish tanks.value Choice 27 7 0.4 1 1. depending on configuration (flow through. Fish Range 24-28 5. with larger reductions we speak of recirculating systems (RAS). integrating an USB-MDR gives a further reduction down to 0.2 1 1 165 4.5-7. The general formula to calculate the required flow rates is: Flow = abs [ k * P / ∆C] Flow k P ∆C = = = = Flow through the respective compartment (m /time) a factor to correct for the daily variation in waste production (k ≥ 1) production (or consumption for O2) of waste (g/time) the difference between Climit (the limiting (=outflow) concentration of the waste substance in 3 question) and Cin (the inflow concentration of that waste substance).2 1-1. It can be seen that a flow through system needs large amounts of water. It can be seen that where a conventional RAS reduces the required system water exchange flow to 1% of that of a flow through system. This formula only works for more or less ideally mixed substances. 3 (2) Because some productions are negative and also the concentration difference has opposite values for the fish tanks and the treatment units.5 1-2 1-2 1-1. reuse. Flows through the different compartments of an aquaculture system. The treatment units also need a flow of water to provide them with the waste to be treated. 82/110 .01 1. and replenish the oxygen. it follows that the flow rates are also expressed per kg of feed.2 1-2 1. RAS). the absolute value is taken.
so the Flow = abs[1 * 4.5] = 35 m /kg feed. so the Flow = abs[1 * (38. bringing water in contact with oxygen enriched gas (technical oxygen). so the Flow = abs[1. System exchange For NO3-N.85) /-155] ≈ 0.8 gN/kg feed (= 1. in particular with the use of an USB-MDR. Denitrification.05.5] ≈ 59 m /kg feed. which do not actually reduce the system water exchange but do increase the sustainability of the farming system.85 = 38. 83/110 .5 * 35 / 1.210 m /kg feed. P remaining after spontaneous and USB-MDR denitrification = 4.5 * 0. Treatment systems In the above section Flow rates.7kg N/349 kg feed) 3 3 and ∆C = 165 – 0 = 165 g/m . With oxygenation the inflow water can be supersaturated.5 g/m (box 4). 3 3 For O2 . The choice of which treatment to add is based on the first limiting waste component. Oxygenation Oxygen can be added to the culture water by aeration.210 Table 50: Water flows through the system compartments in m /kg feed. in flow through and reuse systems ∆C = Climit (assuming no TAN in the influent) and therefore the Flow = 3 abs[1.3 g/m (box 5). The first limiting waste after that is CO2.8 / 165] = 0. it was shown that adding treatment systems can reduce the system water exchange flow.e. Fishtank exchange For TAN. P remaining after spontaneous denitrification = (15. With aeration the oxygen content can only be increased up to saturation. will be discussed more extensively.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Flow through Fishtank exchange TAN O2 CO2 Suspended solids Choice (maximum of above) System exchange Fish tank exchange NO3-N Flow suspended solids removal Fish tank exchange Flow nitrification Fish tank exchange Flow denitrification NO3-N n/a = not applicable Reuse 32 59 37 ? 59 59 Conventional 61 59 70 ? 70 USB-MDR 74 59 74 ? 74 32 204 94 ? 204 204 0. In this section the treatment systems will be discussed in order of consecutively first limiting wastes.029 m /kg feed Flow denitrification For NO3-N. and so on. in completely mixed systems the water in the tanks equals the outflow concentration (see section Flow rates). heat exchange of ventilation and sludge treatment. will also briefly be mentioned. For example it can be seen in Table 50 that by adding oxygenation to a flow through system the required system 3 exchange flow is reduced from 203 to 94 m /kg feed. For most treatment systems only the basics will be covered. and oxygenation. and ∆C = 10 – 165 = -155 g/m .9) and ∆C = 10. P = -512 gO2/kg feed and ∆C = -10. This does not mean that the water in the fish tanks is supersaturated.5gN/kg feed (box 10) of which 3 3 85% is denitrified. 3 Box 3.3] = 74 3 m /kg feed. P = 633 gCO2/kg feed (RQfish = 0.2 * -512 /-10. Calculation of flow rates in a RAS with an USB-MDR. i. Two treatment systems. 61 m /kg feed for the conventional RAS and 75 m /kg feed for the RAS with an USB-MDR.800/349) * 0.187 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 70 70 n/a 0. 3 For CO2 .2 * 633 / 10. so the Flow = abs[1. the first limiting waste is oxygen (-depletion). In the present case study the water is oxygenated at entering the fish tanks in low head oxygenators with a gas-liquid ratio (G/L ratio) of 0.029 74 74 0. In RAS the flow through the fish tanks for TAN is the same as the required flow 3 3 through the nitrification filter (box 7). bringing water in contact with air.
In a RAS we do not know the 3 actual Cin . of the fish and the bacteria. With the limiting O2 concentration (= outflow concentration) of the fish of 4. mediated by different bacterial groups. or as Climit is fixed (15 g/m ). hydrocyclone) or filtration (course filters. oxygen use = 1.se/en/solutions/drumfilters) 3 based on the matrix of Flow (L/s). gas-liquid ratio. indirectly through the weight distribution of the particles for the gravitational methods and directly for the filtration methods. Nitrification Removal of TAN from the culture water in aquaculture systems is generally accomplished by nitrification.72g CO2 (3) From this reaction it can be seen that the process consumes oxygen and alkalinity and produces. contact time.5 g/m . decreases the effective Cin. microscreen filters).26 g COD is produced. In the present case steady bubble aeration is used. In aquaculture systems the nitrifying bacteria are generally grown on plastic media as so-called biofilms. have to diffuse into the biofilm. by bacteria. Nitrification rate r (g/m /d) = a * √[TAN] + b 84/110 2 (4) .88g NaHCO3 0.98g NO3-N + 2. Drum filter For the design of the drumfilter a specific type can be chosen (http://www. ∆C = -10. Control parameters Contact surface. Note From the technical oxygen use in practice. bacterial biomass and CO2. are met by oxygenation and that the technical oxygen is applied with an efficiency of 80% (i. Control parameters Particle size distribution.hydrotech.2 g/m (∆C 3 = 10. the rate depends on the concentration to a power ½ (or √[Concentration]). in g/m /d. with nitrite (NO2) as intermediate. C).25 * O2 needs) Carbon dioxide removal Removal of carbon dioxide is achieved by de-gassing or stripping. Stripping can be done by aeration or by pumping the water over a packed bed stripping tower (trickling filter). gas-liquid ratio. Since the substrates of the reaction.8 g/m ).4 and an effective Cin = 4. the reaction rate is dependent on the concentration of the limiting substrate. This reaction goes in two steps. of ammonia (NH3) to nitrate (NO3). For all types the waste particle size distribution will dictate the design. Temperature (° expected suspended solids load (g/m ) and mesh size (µm). The overall reaction equation is 1g NH3-N + 4. it is assumed that that all O2 needs. Box 4. TAN and O2. CO2 stripping Aeration in the fish tanks increases the effective ∆C = Climit – Cin for CO2 . Nitrification is the biological oxidation.26g COD + 0. With a stripping efficiency SE the effective ∆C = ∆C / (1 – SE). both in the fish tanks and in the moving bed nitrification filter. Box 6.order reaction. The reaction rate is therefore expressed per surface of plastic 2 medium.25g O2 + 5. 3 Suspended solids removal Removal of suspended solids from aquaculture water is accomplished by gravitational methods (sedimentation.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Control parameters Contact surface. but from the CO2 production of the fish (box 3) and the fact that in practice a flow of 70 m /kg feed is 3 sufficient in the conventional RAS we can calculate a stripping efficiency of 0.5 g/m . flotation. Box 5. For each g of TAN 4. contact time. In the present case study a microscreen drumfilter (80 µm mesh) was used.7 g/m (∆C = 10. Oxygenation With the low head oxygenators the O2 concentration of the fish tank influent is brought up to 200% saturation = 15 3 3 3 g/m .25 g of O2 and about 1 equivalent of alkalinity is needed and about 0. apart from NO3.3 g/m ). In the RAS with an USB-MDR more CO2 is produced in the biological filters and the effective Cin of the 3 3 fish tanks will be Cin = 4.e. Due to diffusion kinetics this dependency takes the form of a ½ .
085g NH4-N + 5. alkalinity and bacterial biomass. as well as the 0 1 2 3 4 maximum nitrification rate.4 seen that at low TAN concentrations 0.600 / 0. The required flow through the nitrification filter is: Flow (m /time) = P / ∆C 3 Nitrification rate r (g/m2 /d) (5) The control parameters for the design of the nitrification reactor are therefore the average concentrations of TAN and O2.6. The TAN 0. Moving bed nitrification filter.1 g/m and the nitrification rate r = 0. 81 m water volume) and the required flow through the moving bed filter will become 3 74 m /kg feed. The denitrification reaction goes in a number of steps.6 and therefore the average [TAN] in 3 the nitrification reactor is [TAN]avg = 1.88g CO2 (6) From this reaction it can be seen that the process consumes COD and produces.0 takes place.6 kgN (for the conventional RAS. see box 9).8 kgN/d. where it can be 0. Total COD demand is therefore 2.1.5 g/m and [O2 ] = 4.360 m /d or 21. The moving bed filter is filled with a fill factor of 0.1 nitrification concentration where the transition rate 0. 3 3 3 Denitrification Removal of nitrate (NO3) from the culture water can be carried out by denitrification. NO and N2O as intermediates. Denitrification is done by facultative aerobic hetrotrophic bacteria.6 during part of the day and case study is also shown.58 2 gN/m /d. 0. Box 7. The average nitrification rate in the 100 MT tilapia farm in this [O2]/3. Each g of NO3-N can ‘oxidise’ 2. 2 3 The moving bed filter is filled with biorings with a specific surface of 800 m /m .7 of O2 and TAN at which one or the O2 = 5 mg/L 0.95 * 75 = 67 3 m.91 equivalent of alkalinity and 1.3 Actual O2 the reaction rate is dependent on 0. so the nitrification water volume is 0. With Climit for TAN = 1. Note: ∆C and the flow were determined simultaneously by iteration. of NO3 to N2 gas.2 that TAN concentration.4 = 3 71 m .4 .65 * √[1.86 / 85/110 .6 other becomes the rate limiting 0.4g COD 1.35 g COD/g COD). apart from N2.360 / 349 = 61 m /kg feed.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands The values of a and b depend on the type of nitrification reactor used.8 present case study a = 0. so with the amount of N to be 3 oxidised at the maximum feed load of 12.59 ≈ 21.49g NaHCO3 + 0.6 .58 / 800 = 28 m of biorings are needed.9 For the moving bed filter used in the 0.5 substrate is 3. With the specific surface of the biofilter material 2 3 (m /m ). It is further assumed that 95% of the total volume is water. while not at Average higher concentrations.600 / 0.1 ≈ 0. are dependent on the O2 concentration. They will determine the actual nitrification rate and thereby the required total nitrification surface and the required flow through the nitrification reactor. the average nitrification rate will also be lower. For the RAS with an USB-MDR more N has to be oxidised (15. TAN (mg/L) Note When Climit for TAN is close to [O2]/3.4 ≈ 1. the average TAN Figure 27: Nitrification rate (g TAN/m2/d) as affected by the concentrations of concentration will be lower than TAN and O2. Denitrification is the biological reduction. 12. The overall reaction equation is 1g NO3-N + 4. by bacteria. [O2] / [TAN] is close to 3.54 g COD are produced (0.54g COD + 1g N2 + 0.86 g of COD while 0. Control parameters The concentrations of TAN and O2 in the nitrification reactor. These relations are O2 = 3 mg/L shown in Figure 27.65 and b = O2 = 7.5 mg/L -0. One can correct for this by taking [TAN]avg = Climit / k (for k see equation 2 in section Flow rates). 3 3 The required flow through the moving bed filter is Flow = 12. the required volume of biofilter material can be calculated. box 10) and therefore 34 m biorings are 3 3 required (85 m total volume. so the total volume will be 27 / 0.5 / 1. The ratio of the concentrations 0. with NO2.5 g/m .1] – 0.
the COD/NO3-N ratio of the influent waste.38 + 26.38 m/h. box 10).045 * 18 ≈ 0. is used. methanol) origin. The sludge residence time can be calculated from the amount of sludge present (13. hence the name USB-Manure Denitrifying Reactor (USB-MDR) (see Figure 28).1 (box 10).7/3)/[(1. as SRT = 250 / 10.35) = 4.82 kg N/m /d. up flow rate. water out The required sludge volume for the denitrification reactor is determined by the sludge specific NO3-N removal capacity 3 (gN/m /d).3 kg NO3-N available after spontaneous denitrification. which in turn can be calculated from the flow through the USB-MDR (box 3) and the up flow rate.2 0.4 0.4 (equation 6). This specific removal capacity depends on the sludge out COD/NO3-N ratio of the influent waste (Figure 29) and on the 3 amount of bacteria present.7. 3 With 11. each with a diameter of 2*√[(349/24 * 0. the sludge density (gVSS/m ).8 = 3 3 18 kg VSS/m (Figure 10). which in turn is dependent on the up flow velocity (m/h) (Figure 30).42=10.4 g COD / g N. so the sludge removal rate is maximal at 45 gN/kg VSS/d (Figure 9). Total volume of the reactor is determined by the ratio of sludge Figure 28: Upflow Sludge Bed – Manure volume/total volume.4m. Note Even when there is no COD available there still will be a small endogenous (‘starvation’) NO3-N removal. which is above 4.g.5 = 24d. Denitrifying bacteria can be grown on plastic media as so-called stirrer biofilms or in suspended growth as bacterial soup (sludge). which brings the hydraulic residence time at HRT = 27. The COD/NO3-N ratio in the influent waste of the USB-MDR is 5.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands (1 – 0. For simplicity it is water in assumed that the sludge removal rate decreases linearly with a decrease in COD/N ratio.8/2) * π] ≈ 3.662 Sludge removal rate (gN/kg VSS/d) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sludge density (g VSS/m3) 0 0.6 * 0. 11.210/3) / π] = 1. In the present case study we have chosen an up flow rate of 0.9. = 27.m3.Manure Denitrifying Reactor (USB-MDR).6 0. Internal COD.82 = 13.8 COD / NO3 -N ratio Upflow rate (m/h) Figure 29: Sludge specific removal rate as influenced by Figure 30: Sludge density as influenced by the upflow rate in an USB-MDR. 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 y = -22. For flexibility we chose to install the USB-MDR as 3 units. The reactor is stirred to facilitate the escape of the nitrogen gas from the sludge bed. if there is less COD available the reaction rate will be lower (Figure 29).6 x + 26. The diameter of the USB-MDR can be calculated from the cross sectional surface. Box 8. In this case study a stirred Upflow Sludge Bed (USB) reactor is used.210) = 9h. The endogenous removal rate is 16 gN/kgVSS. However. Figure 29 shows that with the COD waste in an intensive tilapia farm the maximum removal rate is 45 gN/kgVSS. The COD utilised by the denitrifying bacteria can be of internal (faeces and uneaten feed) or external (e. 86/110 .7 / (349/24 * 3 3 0.9m of sludge is needed. so the sludge density is -22. The total volume of the USB-MDR is 2 * 13. The height of the USB-MDR is calculated to be 2 (27.5kg.8 R² = 0.8m. and the sludge specific removal rate is 0. Control parameters COD/NO3-N ratio in the influent waste.9/1. The diameter and height of the reactor can Denitrifying Reactor (USB-MDR). be calculated from the total volume and the up flow velocity.3 / 0. also called manure. Upflow Sludge Bed .9m * 18kg VSS/m = 250kg) and the daily amount of sludge produced (14.
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Heat exchange ventilation An intensive tilapia farm has to be ventilated to keep the CO2 concentration in air within acceptable levels. Heat loss through ventilation air can be substantial, 40 kW in the conventional RAS in the present case 3 study, equivalent to 44 000 m gas/year. Applying heat exchange to the ventilation air would save ca. 11 kW 3 (12 000 m gas/year) and simultaneously reduce the amount of water evaporation from 2.7 to 0.5 L/kg feed. Sludge treatment To prevent a large diluted solids waste discharge (the backwash flow of a drumfilter contains less than 0.1% dry matter) and to reduce sludge disposal costs, sludge thickening can be applied. This can be done with solid removal methods as described above, sedimentation (digestion basin), flotation and microscreen filtration. Another filtration method is the use of Geotubes, high strength woven polypropylene geotextile bags often used for the containment and dewatering of sludge. In the present case study the drumfilter backwash sludge from the conventional RAS is thickened by flotation, giving a final sludge dry matter content of 2%. The USB-MDR sludge from the USB-MDR RAS is thickened with the use of Geotubes and polymer, giving a final sludge dry matter content of 9%.
9.2.3. Assessment of results of conventional RAS compared to RAS with MDR module
Results of the conventional RAS The fluxes and the fate of the waste components at the maximum feed load in the conventional RAS are shown in Figure 31. From the water quality observed in practice in a ZonAquaculture conventional RAS it could be inferred that 98% of the dissolved N is oxidised and 50% of the dissolved COD. Further a spontaneous denitrification of 10% of the N oxidised is assumed.
Figure 31: Flux diagram of N, P and COD in the conventional RAS.
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands
Box 9. Calculation of N and COD fluxes in the conventional RAS.
The 2.1kg Nfaeces is removed by the drumfilter with an efficiency of 0.65, giving 1.38kg Nsolid and 0.74kg N (re)dissolved. Together with the 12.3kg Nexcretion there is 13.1kg Ndissolved, which is all assumed to be oxidized. Nitrification has a CODyield of 0.26g COD/g N, of which again 65% is captured by the drumfilter, adding 0.65*12.6*0.26*0.077 = 0.16kg N back to the Nsolid. The rest of the 1.0kg added to the Nsolid comes from yields (biomass growth) of the spontaneous denitrification and the COD oxidation (see below). Of the Noxidised 10% (1.3kg) is spontaneously denitrified, leaving 10.7kg NO3-N remaining. To keep a NO3-N concentration in the system 3 3 of 165 g/m , the system water exchange should be 10,700/165 = 65 m /d, or 65,000/349 ≈ 186 L/kg feed.
The 62kg CODfaeces is removed by the drumfilter with an efficiency of 0.65, giving 41kg CODsolid and 22kg COD (re-) dissolved. Together with the 43kg CODrest there is 72kg CODdissolved, of which 50% (36kg) is oxidized. Heterotrophic bacteria have a CODyield of 0.30g COD/g COD, of which again 65% is captured by the drumfilter, adding 0.65*36*0.30/(1-0.30) = 10kg COD, which can be returned to the system as CODsolid. A further 3kg CODsolid is yielded from the nitrification (see above) and the spontaneous denitrification, giving a total solid COD 3 3 waste discharge of 54kg. With a sludge COD content of 21.3kg/m (20kg/m dry matter, ash content 25%), this will 3 result in a sludge flow of 54/21.3 = 2.5 m /d, or 2,500/349 ≈ 7.3 L/kg feed. 3 Based on the total system water exchange of 65 m /d, the system CODdissolved concentration will be 12,000/65 ≈ 3 177 g/m .
Results of the RAS with an USB-MDR The fluxes and the fate of the waste components at the maximum feed load in the RAS with an USB-MDR are shown in Figure 32. From the water quality observed in practice in a ZonAquaculture RAS with denitrification it could be inferred that 56% of the dissolved COD is oxidised. Further, a spontaneous denitrification of 15% of the N oxidised is assumed, while of the remaining NO3-N 85% is denitrified. The system water exchange could be reduced further, as there is still NO3 and COD available. However, accumulation of all known and unknown substances increases exponentially when lowering water exchange further.
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands
Figure 32: Flux diagram of N, P and COD in the RAS with USB-MDR
this will result in a sludge flow of 3 (25*0.9 = 0. P and COD fluxes in the RAS with USB-MDR.4 = 5.25 m /d.95)/95. but that also there must be a sink of phosphorus in the system as the Pyield required to maintain such a concentration (P USB sludge = 0. Effect of denitrification on the N.7kg NO3-N remaining. or 10. ash content 25%). 30 L/kg feed as observed in practice.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Box 10.7kg NO3-N denitrified. In a Geotube about 95% of this is captured.35)-2. With a 3 3 sludge COD content of 95. From the water quality observed in practice in a ZonAquaculture RAS with denitrification. a COD concentration of ca.7kg more N is re-dissolved in the USB-MDR (see below).7 L/kg feed.9kg/m (90kg/m dry matter.4kg). the system 3 water exchange should be 1. 35g/m . Together with the 15kg of remaining CODsolid this gives a total solid COD waste discharge of 25kg.1kg). 3 3 200g/m and a phosphate P concentration of ca. The 9.21 gP/gCOD) is not seen in practice. In the RAS with an USB-MDR 2. 90/110 . it can be inferred that 56% of the CODdissolved is oxidised. Note: the figure of 85% was in fact chosen to maintain a system water exchange of approx.8kg which is assumed to all be oxidized. The COD/NO3-N ratio in the influent waste of the USB-MDR is 58/11. or 250/349 ≈ 0. After spontaneous denitrification (15%.1 gCOD/gN. leaving 1. producing [2.7 = 14. the remaining NO3-N (11.4kg) is assumed to be 85% 3 denitrified.86). To keep a NO3-N concentration in the system of 165 g/m . of which again 65% (ca.700/165 = 10 m /d. bringing the total Ndissolved to 15. ‘oxidizes’ 28kg COD (9.86] * 9. Note It can also be seen that the CODsolid in the influent waste of the USB-MDR consists of 70% (41kg/58kg) of ‘fresh’ (faeces) waste and 30% of ‘recycled’ (bacterial biomass) waste. 10kg) is captured by the drumfilter. 2. In the RAS with an USB-MDR some additional CODsolid is available (58kg).9kg CODyield.000/349 = 30 L/kg feed.7 * 2. and taking into account all N incorporated into bacterial biomass (2.86/(1-0.
22 1.26 a 107 13. for the conventional RAS and the RAS with USB-MDR are shown in Table 51.4 4.5 1.5 37.0 38 1. by 30% for CO2 and by 58% for TDS.9 7.18 252 12.8 3.10 28 2000 a) In practice the need for bicarbonate (alkalinity) is actually nil when denitrification is applied. water and bicarbonate.3 84 9 95 11 1. oxygen.22 2. by 61% for TOD.2 0. Table 51: Sustainability parameters. Although the RAS with USB-MDR has somewhat higher requirements for electricity. Waste discharge is reduced by integration of an USB-MDR by 81% for N.1 USB-MDR Waste discharge Nitrogen Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) Phosphorus Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) COD Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) TOD Solid (g/kg) Dissolved (g/kg) CO2 (kg/kg incl gas) TDS (g/kg) Conductivity (µS/cm) Conventional USB-MDR 8.2 1. labour (and investments) the actual production costs per kg harvested are 10% lower than for the conventional RAS. Conventional Resource use Fingerlings (#/kg) Feed (kg/kg) Electricity (kWh/kg) Heating (kWh/kg) Water (L/kg) Oxygen (kg/kg) Bicarbonate (g/kg) Labour (h/MT) Nutrient utilisation Nitrogen (% of input) Phorphorus (% of input) COD (% of input) TOD (% of input) 32 43 32 32 32 43 32 32 1. by 59 % for COD. It can be seen that the RAS with USB-MDR has substantially lower requirements for heat. waste discharge per kg harvested. nutrient utilisation as % of input.2 1.2. 91/110 .4.5 3.2 1.6 5. nutrient utilisation as % of input. waste discharge per kg harvested.8 189 40 227 48 1. Sustainability parameters The sustainability parameters: resource use per kg harvested.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands 9. resource use per kg harvested.4 238 1.58 62 1060 2.
3. or as a larger unit in outdoor systems. Water from the outlet of the fish tank flowed into the PTS tank and then into the sump tank where the water was heated and pumped into the trickling filter before flowing back into the fish tank. can help to maintain a favourable microbial water quality in culture tanks in RAS. 300W. The more nutrients there are available in the culture environment the higher the nutritional quality of the periphyton. which colonise a submerged surface in a phototrophic environment. coccoid and filamentous cyanobacteria. and to a lesser extent the amount of periphyton produced. unicellular and filamentous). Each system consisted of one 70 l fish tank. Periphyton is an excellent food source for many fish species in natural water. A variety of bacteria. In this project. maintaining a water temperature of 25 ± 2 ° C). maximum capacity of 20 l/m. and as such maintains water quality favourable for aquatic organisms. the periphytic biofilm develops in an oxygen rich environment. 9.8 -1 per system and fishes were fed 8 – 11 g kg d with a 43-47 % commercial protein diet. The experiment comparing high and low light intensity showed that light strongly affects the water quality in the system.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands 9. and one 40 l PTS tank. The use of a PTS in a recirculation aquaculture system (RAS) is innovative.96 m and water depth of about 1 cm. supplying the trickling filter with a water flow of 6 l/m) and one electrical heater (type Heizer 300. from which the turf needs to be harvested regularly. both organic and inorganic. no sludge will be trapped and most of the sludge will sink to the bottom.g. the PTS tank had a surface area of 1. 52% of the DM of periphyton collected was protein. Less oxygen is available at pond bottoms than in the PTS and excessive accumulation of organic matter will make the bottom quickly anaerobic. A number of benthic diatoms (centric. periphyton traps particulate and dissolved matter. making electricity and labour input very costly. Module – Periphyton Turf Scrubber (PTS) 9. in a one hectare pond with a substrate area for periphyton development 92/110 . and considering periphyton productivity.3.3. In growing. as such. A feed conversion ratio of 1. Therefore. Success factors and constraints The HSL and C/N ratio studies were executed at low light intensity.2. including microalgae and bacteria. protozoa’s and metazoans (e. 2 For all systems. 9.34 for periphyton AFDM can be achieved. because a large indoor illuminated surface area is needed.3. Hence operating periphyton systems at a high C:N ratio can be recommended. The fish tank was placed in such a way that vibrations from the PTS (due to the splashing water from the tipping bucket in the PTS) did not reach the fish tanks. indicating the periphyton produced is a good quality fish feed. PTS technology for water purification in RAS is commercially not viable. mineralisation of organic matter proceeds more quickly. induced by wave action over the PTS. A small trickling filter was added to each system to avoid peaks in NO2 concentrations. 230V. General description of the case study A periphyton turf scrubber (PTS) is a naturally developed heterogeneous assemblage of attached microorganisms. one 70 l sump containing one submerged pump (type Eheim 1250219. Each PTS tank was provided with 3 mm mesh stainless steel screen which supported the periphyton growth and one plastic tipping bucket which filled and emptied 4 times a minute to create waves over the screens (6 l/min). In ponds. Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) were stocked in each system at a density fluctuating between 2 to 5 kg -0. The fishes were stocked at an individual average weight of 30-70 g. Principles of the module Four identical lab scale recirculation aquaculture system (RAS units) were used in the experiments. the design parameters developed for an intensive RAS will allow for the integration of PTS technology either as a small unit in RAS. and less organic matter accumulates at the bottom. when periphyton grows on poles or at shallow bottoms. the benefits from a PTS include the production of periphyton as additional food and the improvement of water quality. By increasing the C/N ratio from 10 to 20. and benthic filamentous green algae dominate in the turf. Air was supplied to every system with air stones. 158 g AFDM at high light intensity. 28W.1. enhancing nitrification. The attached microorganisms have a high relative growth rate and regenerate quickly after disturbance. indications are that algal turfs reduce coliform bacteria in tertiary waste waster and. while relying on solid removal and biofiltration units to maintain favourable water quality. the design criteria for a PTS in RAS were explored. nematodes.3. Optimal conditions could be achieved by integrating a small PTS in a RAS to prevent excessive bacterial development. In brief. small annelids and microcrustaceans) are also associated with the turf. Each system had a total system volume of 185 l. Nevertheless. 230V/50Hz. pennate. Due to constant aeration. Per kg of feed (91 % dry matter) 70 g AFDM periphyton was harvested at low light intensity.
12% in the HSL study and 3. Of the N input through feeding.6% in the C/N ratio study. respectively. The biomass harvested is ± 5000 kg.1 kg d . 11. and could be processed for further use. Common carp is stocked at a density of 28 50-g fish m .SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands equal to the pond area. -1 -1 9. 20-30% was discharged with exchange water. Evidently. the final feeding load is 67. resulted in similar accumulation rates. From a case study to a fish farm: How to manage a model fish pond producing 5 metric tonnes fish per year with the PTS module With the PTS study. For input P. and can be a good fertiliser for agricultural crops.5 months. No feed is administered. the combination of PTS and trickling filter was sufficient to maintain favourable water quality for Nile tilapia production. Removing the sludge from the PTS only at the end of the experiment. 2 9. while this was not the case in the light intensity study.4. 17 % of N input and 23% of the P input will be recovered in the sludge. The water Substrate area 2000 depth is 80-100 cm. The sedimentation 3 pit is emptied weekly (a volume of about 10 m m).4. 25 g all-male tilapias are stocked in the periphyton pond -2 at a density of 2 fish m . In the periphyton pond N and P are trapped by the phytoplankton and the periphyton. 7-8 and 13-17% of the input P was removed in the PTS. The water flows by gravity through an overflow tank to a periphyton pond.8 kg d . The collected sludge can be used as a fertiliser. for the C/N ratio study the periphyton production declined during the study. For phosphorous. A 40% protein diet is used. and in all cases water exchange was necessary to keep the NO3-N concentration -1 below 150 mg l . 15-30% of the input N or P were harvested. 9% in the HSL study and 5. The initial feeding -1 -1 load is 10. the other 50% in the sump. The maximum fish density in the fish Periphyton pond 1000 3 3 tank/pond is 15 kg/m . This is a pond with an installed surface 2 area twice the surface area of the pond. In all experiments. The feed donated to the system is 6200 kg 40 % protein feed. circulation and 15 l/sec overflow of the fish tank/pond is undertaken by Water flow airlifts (driven by pressurised air). 9. the periphyton production was very different between the three studies. Benefits of implementation The sludge accumulating in the system was an important sink for nutrients.6 – 9. The performance parameters of the PTS case study were used to conceptualise an intensive pond as part of a recirculation unit. C/N ratio and light intensity study.5 months after stocking the common carp. Description of the production unit 2 Parameters for an intensive common carp pond Fish tank 333 m as part of a recirculation unit are given in Table Sedimentation pond 300 52. Farm's nutrient budget The sludge removed from the pond bottom will be rich in N and P.1.3. Roughly 50% of the sludge accumulated in the PTS. This is an advantage over open systems. where the nutrients disappear from the system without the option to reuse them. 3 The culture duration is about 6 months. Due to grazing by tilapia the plankton and periphyton will remain in a productive state (Table 53).2 – 4. the amounts recuperated were 1. with a sedimentation pit. The effect of periphyton on production in extensive ponds has been tested extensively by the Wageningen research team.5 kg/m . the size 333 m . Nitrification in both trickling filter and PTS contributed considerably to nitrification in the system. Fish grow to 500-550 g in 180 days. The aeration. The water head Fish production Fish tank: common carp created by the airlifts is enough to circulate the Periphyton pond: tilapia/carp water through the whole system. The fishes grow to a maximum size of 300 g in 4.5 g m d and a utilisation of 75%. The reason for this is not clear.9% in the light intensity study. 3% of N in the C/N ratio experiment. Particularly. When combining the sludge and periphyton removal from the PTS. The maximum fish density in the periphyton pond is 0. compared to 10 % in the C/N ratio study and 5-9% in the light intensity study.4. From the fish Table 52: Parameters for production unit tank/pond the water flows to a sedimentation pond. even at the same light intensity. or at weekly intervals. Small amounts of the input P and N were recovered through the harvested periphyton. 93/110 . a tilapia production of 5000 kg ha yr could be achieved (assuming a periphyton -2 -1 productivity of 2. Looking at the nitrogen mass balance 7% of the input N was removed with the sludge from the PTS in the HSL study. About 1. the production of periphyton and the effect on water quality were calculated per m biofilm.0% in the light intensity study.
Very low environmental impact Low risk of infections by pathogens and parasites Low requirement for medicines and chemical treatment • Description Total feed (40% prot. hence smaller land use. Production 5 to 10 times higher than from traditional extensive pond farming. hence seepage losses should be 2 negligible. Disadvantages: • • • • • 94/110 . In addition. Risk of ammonia intoxication negligible. which can be an excellent fertiliser. with stocking tilapia during the hottest months of the year. Reliable source of fingerlings needed in spring each year A 5 MT unit is still very small. The turnover rate in the fish tank/pond is 4 times a day. avoiding excessive plankton blooms. In addition. 9.5 3. while for the attached biofilms this is not a problem.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in the Netherlands Water use Except for the sludge.6 days.8 % 104 26 5. The large biofilter surface in the system (pond surface area + area on poles) will stabilise water quality. If land is available adjacent to the sedimentation tank. A pilot unit should be tested in practice. 1. Constant aeration needed. considerable fractions of the N and P input are recovered in the sludge. For phytoplankton development this is short. or other activities. Backup power source required. Advantages and disadvantages of the intensive pond/periphyton system Advantages: • Nutrient retention and recovery of N and P in the system is very high: 38 % of the input N and 60 % of the input P is retained in fish. water loss from evaporation is compensated for. no water leaves the farm. while the retention time in the periphyton pond is 1.4. The total surface area is close to 2000 m and the 3 expected evaporation loss is 3000 m . additional income can be generated from vegetable crops. which implies high energy costs.2. with high initial investment. all ponds are lined. More land available for nature development. If constructed new.7 8 Table 53: N and P data for an intensive common carp/tilapia production unit • • • • • • • Annual production cycle.6 3. Relatively large production area is needed.3 136 40 16 4.2% P) Total N in feed N in sludge N in periphyton N in phytoplankton Total P in feed P in sludge P in periphyton P in phytoplankton N recuperated in common carp P recuperated in common carp N recuperated in tilapia P recuperated in tilapia Unaccounted for N Unaccounted for P kg 6 200 397 77 40 24 74 17.
to seek ecosystem-based design concepts. to aim for high level diversification.1. is convinced by the Tropenhaus concept and the Figure 34: Functional scheme of Tropenhaus Ruswil SustainAqua project approach and actively 95/110 . It is located in the Canton of Lucerne in Switzerland. guavas. using waste heat as the main source of energy supply. Tropical polyculture production with the integrated “Tropenhaus” concept – Case study in Switzerland 10. the Tropenhaus is a model case for ecological engineering and sustainability. The annual waste heat production is about 100 GWH per year. Due to optimisation of harvesting times and short transportation distances between the Tropenhaus and the end customer (private persons. Figure 33: Densification plant as waste heat source for Ruswil Polyculture In the year 1999. Both projects are currently in the construction phase and are expected to start operating in mid 2009. Since inception. The nutrient-rich water of tilapia production is used for irrigation and serves as a fertiliser for the tropical fruit grown in the greenhouse. an integrated fish and tropical 2 fruit production was piloted in a 1 500 m greenhouse. The 10 years of first-hand experience gathered with the Tropenhaus Ruswil project clearly proves that high quality. 40 Million € have been developed recently. Producing fresh. to aim for high-level system integration and to use renewable and CO2-neutral energy. restaurants. Based on the promising results of the pilot project. The main objectives of the project were: • • • • • to consider waste as a resource.). organically grown papayas. the quality of the products (in terms of taste) is higher. two larger projects with a total investment sum of ca. bananas. compared to that of imported tropical fish and fruit. A core element of the Tropenhaus system is the sustainable aquaculture module for Tilapia production. star fruit and tilapia from waste heat and organic feedstock. COOP. sustainably grown fish and fruit can be produced on an economically viable basis. based on the South Asian polyculture production approach. supermarkets etc. one of the two biggest retailers in Switzerland. Introduction – General concept of the Tropenhaus in Switzerland The Tropenhaus concept was developed to make economic use of waste heat from a gas compressor station serving the natural gas pipeline that runs from the Netherlands to Italy.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland 10. applied development and research work has been carried out to optimise production in terms of quality and quantity.
The integration of crustaceans in the existing tilapia production has the potential to: • • • diversify the production enhance the nutrient management use water more intensively and • increase the economic performance of the system The isopod crustacean Asellus aquaticus is very tolerant to poor water quality and oxygen deficits. (1. the Tropenhaus system was investigated and further developed. consumers. star fruits) grown in the Tropenhaus thrive and therefore produce a lot of plant material that has not been used intensively so far. biogas based heat-power plants. is quite easy and may supplement the fish fodder of cultured fish with natural food. 10. The research focused on the following topics: • • Integration of crustaceans in the tilapia production Fish feed out of biomass that was produced as by-products in Tropenhaus • Applicability of the aquaponic filter After briefly presenting the results regarding the crustaceans and fish fodder. Studies on rainbow trout prosperity in pond culture. beside others compounds. Fish feed from biomass of the Tropenhaus The climatic conditions in the greenhouse are not favourable to the composting of plant by-products. etc. bananas.2. In this way. fish fodder. Principles of the modules Crustaceans Asellus aquaticus was kept in a shallow tank together with filamentous algae. Crustaceans in general are very good exploiters of plant material and wastes from aquaculture such as sludge. this leads to additional costs for the handling and composting of this material. Using the material as fish feed has the potential to improve the nutrient cycle of the greenhouse and to reduce the amount expended on commercial fish feed. fatty acids and other nutrients necessary for an appropriate development of a fish organism. A small part of the water circulating in the fish tank–filter–system was diverted to the Asellus tank from where it drained back to the fish water circuit. the aquaponic filter will be presented in detail. The Asellus were fed with the sludge (fish faeces. based on artificial feeding regime with a minor proportion of natural food items.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland promotes Tropenhaus products. which are not yet finalised for commercial upscaling. provided with aquaculture wastewater.5 – 2 MW / 10 000 m ) Access to markets for tropical fruit and fish Soil: No specific requirements but cold soil water flow is not recommended Topography: Flat to slightly sloped • Radiation: Good exposition to solar radiation In the SustainAqua project.1. fish faeces or dead fish. rich in bioactive compounds. geothermal 2 installations. retailers. Thus. The new Tropenhaus itself will serve as a platform to disseminate the concept of sustainable aquaculture and the results of SustainAqua to a broader audience in the coming years. Integration of crustaceans in tilapia production and fish feed from tropical plants 10.) that accumulated in the fish water. 10. contribute to fish nutrition as a complementary feeding approach. The waste discharged from intensive aquaculture such as suspended solids and dissolved nutrients can.2. with filamentous algae growing in the Asellus tank itself and with the windfall papayas. etc. 96/110 . it contributes to creating awareness for sustainable fish production amongst fish farmers. Natural food items provide essential amino acids. a market development can be initiated to support farmers’ decisions to invest into more sustainable fish production. General description of the innovation Crustaceans The tropical plants (amongst others: papayas.2. as a very attractive “model case for sustainability”. Its culture in tanks integrated into recycling systems. Preconditions for the implementation of a „Tropenhaus System”: • • • • Waste heat based on process heat from industrial plants. proved a significant improvement of fish flesh quality and vitality in comparison with intensive. guavas.2. etc. land based flow-through systems with exclusively artificial pelleted diets.
further research is necessary. Crustaceans The experience in the Tropenhaus. The comparison of different substrates suitable for this culture showed that the integration of crustacean culture into recycling farming units might also bring about other benefits. this can be fed together with the attached Asellus to the fish. Lower. However. Furthermore.4. Fish feed from biomass of the Tropenhaus Figure 36 summarises the results of this experiment. EM Compost. but at a very low level. When using filamentous algae as substrate. these plants also represent marketable by-products. 97/110 .2. Possible success factors and constraints are indicated below. Assessment of experiments Crustaceans Figure 35: Flow schema of the Asellus system The Asellus population developed well and was stable. The benefit of this substrate also lies in its suitability for direct Tilapia feeding together with the attached Asellus. In the feeding experiments. By far the highest production of Asellus was recorded when using filamentous algae (Cladophora) as a substrate. Fish feed from biomass of the Tropenhaus The use of plant biomass produced in the Tropenhaus as fish fodder is a promising option to diversify the fish diet.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland Fish feed from biomass of the Tropenhaus Different plant by-products from the tropical plants grown in the Tropenhaus were chopped into small pieces or pre-treated by composting. Since the stomach capacity of Tilapia is not reached by conventional feeding the additional fresh food does not compete with the dry feed but could even complement the diet. Figure 36: Results of biomass feeding experiment 10. Replacing Skretting by Compost. Besides benefits of Asellus production and certain retention of suspended solids (by Eichhornia in particular) and nutrient removal. it is recommended to use this biomass-based fodder only as an additional “co-feeding” to Skretting. Similar production of Asellus was also achieved with the aquarium and ornamental plants Ludwigia and Eichhornia as substrates. Nevertheless. dense mats of Cladophora may also serve as an efficient agent in the removal of suspended solids (organic particles). it cannot replace the conventional fodder. Dense mats of Cladophora may serve also as an efficient agent in suspended solids (organic particles) removal. it can be an additional natural food rich in bioactive contribution. Still. but still efficient production of Asellus was achieved when using the sludge from filters as a substrate. It may contribute to produce natural food. together with the substrate experiments show that the production of Asellus aquaticus is feasible in a warm water aquaculture such as the Tropenhaus. Asellus can be fed with the sludge suspended in the fish water but also with plant leftovers.3. rich in bioactive compounds to supplement the usual diet for cultured fish. Bokashi. The advantage of the sludge as a substrate consists in effective treatment and utilisation of certain RAS wastes. Taro or Papayas shows remarkable results. Success factors and constraints For both modules. 10. which grow on the algae. Retained organic particles provide an excellent food basis for Asellus (and are even suitable food for Tilapia when using the extra biomass of Cladophora directly attached to the Asellus for feeding).2. Retained organic particles provide an excellent food basis for Asellus production and even suitable food for tilapia when using the extra biomass of Cladophora with attached Asellus for direct feeding. parts of the commercial food pellets were replaced by this material for feeding fish or crayfish.
Principles of the module A system with an aquaponic filter and a system with the commonly used “conventional” pond filter were operated in parallel in order to compare the individual results.4 m . Each box was filled with 60 L 3 of expanded clay pellets with a diameter of 13 mm – 20 mm.3. one pond filter for the water treatment unit and • a pump for circulating the water. A tube charges each box with water coming from the fish tank. Warm water aquaponic filter in a "tropical" polyculture system 10. The aquaponic filter consists of slotted plastic boxes filled with expanded clay pellets on which tropical plants are cultivated. The slots. was used for irrigation of the greenhouse. The water coming from the fish tanks is charged at the top of the boxes from where it trickles through the expanded clay pellets. facilitate aeration of the filter and therefore prevent anaerobic conditions. Aquaponic filter system with tropical fruit plants (Photo: IEES) 10. The aquaponic filter consists of 40 plastic boxes with slitted walls and bottoms. Daytime temperature was 23 ° and night time temperature was 18 ° The water in the fish tanks C C. a new aquaponic filter was installed and assessed.3. General description of the innovation Each aquaculture module in the Tropenhaus consists of: • • one fish tank.1. Each of these systems had a round steel tank 3 with a membrane and a floor heating system. The tanks had a diameter of 5.3. The aquaponic filter contains the following principle innovations: • • Water treatment: Expanded clay pellets replace the water body Crop production: Aquatic plants are replaced by fruits and vegetables • Construction: Installation on ground level is possible The system is illustrated in the following figure.2. The tanks were refilled with rainwater collected on the roof of the greenhouse. located at the bottom and the sides of the boxes. The water was pumped through the filter system units twice an hour. The temperature of the water was 25 °C. Plant roots that establish themselves at the bottom of the filter help to improve the mechanical performance of the filter and provide a habitat for microorganisms. In one of the modules. Figure 37: Flow scheme of the aquaponic filter system compared to the "conventional" pond filter 98/110 .5 m and were filled with 10 m water. The total filter volume was 2.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland 10.
3.27 Table 54: Key results of Aquaponic filter Fluctuations in Ammonia.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland 10. also here.3 Nutrients: Utilisation efficiency 0.17 0. the measured ammonia concentrations in the fish tank with pond filter proved to be higher than in the tank with the aquaponic filter.22 0.01 0. Nitrite.24 0.5 and 7.9 in the fish tank with aquaponic filter. O2 and COD The ammonia concentrations are the same and remain relatively low in both fish tanks over a wide range of time.3. whereas the nitrite concentration in the tank with aquaponic is more balanced. there are some peaks in the fish tank with pond filter. and the increase of productivity resulting in lower labour costs.41 157. Results Energy efficiency System with aquaponic Energy consumption per tilapia produced [kWh/kg] Total Heat Electrical Water input Water input per tilapia produced [m3/kg] Water output per tilapia produced [m3/kg] N in tilapia biomass / N input [kg/kg] P in tilapia biomass / P input [kg/kg] Nutrients Output N load in output water / N input (fishbone) [kg/kg] P load in output water / P input (fishbone) [kg/kg] Nutrients re-use for valuable byproducts N content in by-products / N input (fishbone) [kg/kg] P content in by-products / P input (fishbone) [kg/kg] Increase productivity per unit of labour Time expenditure for system operation / products [h/kg] 214. COD levels are approximately the same in both tanks with the exception of a peak in the aquaponic tank in the middle of April. At the end of August. Nitrate. It clearly shows the improvement regarding nutrients efficiency and output respectively.36 0.05 1. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators Table 54 summarises the results regarding the SustainAqua sustainability indicators. The oxygen concentration varies between 1. The nitrate concentrations show variations of approximately the same magnitude in both basins.32 0.4 Water output 1.00 0.01 0.29 0. and between 5. comparing the innovative aquaponic filter with the pond filter.43 214. Yet.4 System with pond filter Energy consumption per tilapia produced [kWh/kg] Total Heat Electrical Water input per tilapia produced [m3/kg] Water output per tilapia produced [m3/kg] N in tilapia biomass / N input [kg/kg] P in tilapia biomass / P input [kg/kg] N load in output water / N input (fishbone) [kg/kg] P load in output water / P input (fishbone) [kg/kg] N content in by-products / N input (fishbone) [kg/kg] P content in by-products / P input (fishbone) [kg/kg] Time expenditure for system operation / products [h/kg] 157. However.21 0.05 1.9 and 7.00 0.38 0. 99/110 .27 0.2 in the fish tank with pond.4 1.04 0.28 0. The nitrite concentrations are generally also low. the ammonia level suddenly rose in both basins.
The business plan of the new expanded Tropenhaus project. For the cultivation of the plants.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland Figure 38: Comparison of fluctuations in Nitrite concentration 10. the tested aquaponic filter has some basic advantages: • • • • Added value due to higher economical yield from the crop Less fluctuations of nutrient concentrations in the fish tank Easy to integrate into existing system without expensive modifications Filter maintenance is less work intensive The new aquaponic filter is a show case of ecological engineering where “ecosystem concepts are used to serve society” and “waste is considered a resource”. no additional work is needed over and above that for the normal plant production. Compared with a pond filter. where the aquiculture is combined with plant production. The aquaponic filter also shows a better biological performance than the pond filter. Benefits of implementation Compared with the pond filter. less work is needed for the maintenance (particularly de-sludging) of the treatment system. which are both toxic to fish. It can be installed on the cultivated area of the greenhouse providing the same plant productivity as the remaining cultivated area. When the aquaponic filter cannot be integrated in the cultivated area. which requires a complex distribution system. demonstrates this.3. Expensive manual or technical de-sludging are replaced by free natural processes. the additional space requirement may be a disadvantage compared to a pond system hanging over the fish tank. Success factors and constraints The aquaponic filter proved to be a cost effective way for water treatment in systems like the Tropenhaus. Another drawback is the necessary water distribution to each single box of the filter. 10. Wastewater of the tilapia ponds is used for the production of high quality by-products (tropical fruit and vegetables) and improves the economic performance of the integrated production system.5. 100/110 . especially for the parameters ammonium and nitrite.3. which includes the new aquaponic filter based fruit production.4.
Description of the aquaculture unit The fish production component consists of six aquaculture modules each equipped with two fish tanks and 2 2 two aquaponic filters.4. built in 2009. and the fish water. The region is characterised by agriculture and the greenhouse is surrounded by farmland. Rainwater is harvested on the roof of the greenhouse. a restaurant and facilities where visitors can view ornamental tropical plants as well the same plants. and an aquaculture incorporating aquaponic filters for tilapia production.l. The fish water. in a hilly area of the central Swiss prealpine zone.s.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland 10. The annual sunshine duration is about 1 300-1 400h. is used for the irrigation of the tropical garden and thus fertilises the plants.1. 2 The event house covers a surface of 2 100 m and contains a tropical garden. greenhouse is 23 ° during daytime and 18 ° at night. The polyculture is powered by a waste heat source and solar energy and fish fodder serves as nutrient supply. Introduction: “Tropenhaus Wolhusen” The “Tropenhaus Wolhusen” is based on the ten years of experience in the Tropenhaus Ruswil where industrial waste energy has been used to operate a tropical indoor polyculture system. There is also an event house for about 55 000 visitors per year. 2 The cultivated area is about 4 000 m and the annual production of tropical fruit (mainly papayas and bananas) amounts to around 60 t or more.4. The tropical polyculture comprises both a tropical garden where papayas. The fish water temperature is 26 ° C C C. The greenhouse is connected to a source of industrial waste heat providing warm water at a temperature of about 60 ° which is used to heat the greenhouse. 101/110 . The climate regime can be considered temperate. including the 32 m required for the aquaponic filter. enriched by the residual fish fodder. bananas and other tropical crop is grown. The outputs of this system are tropical fruit. a tilapia aquaculture. which are used in the production greenhouse. The area necessary for a module is about 180 m . The target temperature for the C.2. The mean annual precipitation in the region amounts to approximately 1 200 mm. From a case study to a fish farm: The design of a warm water aquaponic filter system in the “Tropenhaus Wolhusen” 10. has a greenhouse area of 5 400 m which serves as the production unit. fish and plant biomass. Figure 39: Plan of the Tropenhaus Wolhusen with the aquaculture 10.4. The “Tropenhaus 2 Wolhusen”. The Tropenhaus Wolhusen is situated on an altitude of 680 m a.
The main crops are papayas and bananas. The Aquaponic Filter developed according to the results of the case study A fish tank under construction (Photo: IEES) The aquaponic filter is built of plastic boxes and filled with expanded clay pellets. with the water re-feeding by a level control in the fish tank. The filter is continuously charged with a load of 1 m per minute or about 18 L per box per minute. the water depth is 1. The bottoms and walls of these boxes are slatted to facilitate the flow through of air and water. lemon grass. Tropical plants are cultivated in the boxes.5 m and the height is 1.4. The crop production on the filter surface is at least the same per square meter as on the remaining surface of the greenhouse. but also chilli.3. The boxes are filled with 60 L of expanded clay pellets ranging 8 – 16 mm in size. The water for greenhouse irrigation is taken from one of the fish tanks into which the rainwater inflow is also directed. the slots on the sides and on the bottom are 5 mm wide. as in the remaining greenhouse. 3 The filter for a fish tank has 56 filter boxes. 102/110 . tarot and galangal. 10. The extraction of water for irrigation is controlled by an irrigation computer. The water is pumped from the fish tank to a distributor from where tubes channel the water to each box in the filter.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland Aquaculture module under construction (Photo: IEES) Figure 40: Schema of the aquaculture module The two fish tanks of a module are interconnected with a tube for hydraulic compensation. The stocking density is 20 kg of fish per cubic meter water and the harvest is 920 kg per tank per year.6 3 m. The plastic boxes are 60 x 40 x 32 in size.3 m and the water volume 30 m . The diameter is 5. The fish tanks are round steel tanks sealed with a PE membrane.
Figure 42: Cross section through the aquaculture 103/110 . right: a banana plant grown in a filter box (Photos: IEES) Figure 41: Flow chart of the aquaculture module in the Tropenhaus Wolhusen The aquaculture is placed on a slope so that the filter is above the fish tank and the water can flow directly back into the fish tank (see Figure 42).SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland left: Filter boxes with water tube and chilli.
4. fittings and tubes Heating. inlet and outlet Aquaponic filter Filter pump. the aquaponic filter is a cost effective method for water treatment.4. Advantages and disadvantages of the aquaponic filter In systems like the Tropenhaus where aquaculture is combined with plant production. It can be installed on the cultivated area of the greenhouse providing the same plant productivity as the remaining cultivated area. a skilled worker should be employed. Compared with a pond filter. Where the aquaponic filter cannot be integrated in cultivated area the additional space requirement may be a disadvantage compared to a pond system hanging over the fish tank as in the Tropenhaus.5. less work is required for maintenance (particularly de-sludging) of the treatment system and for the cultivation of the plants no additional work is needed than for the normal plant production. For the installation. Expenses for engineering and earthwork necessary to carve the fish tanks into the ground are not included. pump.4. supported by unskilled workers. The material costs are indicated in € without any taxes but may include some customs duties. Costs and man-hour The following table shows the costs for the construction of an aquaculture module as described above. The necessary water distribution to each single box of the filter requires a complex distribution system. The expenses for the construction of such a module are split between costs for the materials and labour costs (man hours) for the installation. The aquaponic filter shows a better biological performance than the pond filter. especially for the fish toxic parameters ammonium and nitrate. converter. fittings Total Table 55: Expenses for an aquaculture module 12 048 3 611 7 138 3 891 26 687 % 45% 14% 27% 15% 100% H 71 83 59 32 245 % 29% 34% 24% 13% 100% 10.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Case study in Switzerland 10. The new aquaponic filter after seven months of operation (Photo: IEES) 104/110 . € Fish tank with insulation.
M. S. Brussels FAO [FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS] (1988): Aspects of FAOs policies.es/books?hl=es&lr=&id=FZvLx3x9tYsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22Bell%22+%22S ustainability+indicators:+measuring+the+immeasurable%3F%22+&ots=Fr5MxY7Ocv&sig=f6OR5Acs Gy7eA_QkriVyYBjo5vA 105/110 . Rome. FAO [FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS] (1995): Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. programmes..J.C. (2005): Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems.htm EIFAC/EC Working Party on Market Perspectives for European Freshwater Aquaculture. IMKE J. VAN DER WERF.. In: Aquaculture Research 28. BASSET-MENS. . 175 pp. CARL (2003): Sustainable aquaculture: developing the promise of aquaculture.Brussels CEU [COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION] (2006): Proposal for Council Regulations on organic production and labelling of organic products. NIELS.google. amending Regulation (EC) no 2092/91..G. In: Aquaculture International 13. W.info .org Wiki based online tool to give information about the project results and about sustainable aquaculture in general.CL94/6.sustainaqua. (2005): Safety issues and sustainable development of European aquaculture: new tools for environmentally sound aquaculture. budget and activities aimed at contributing to sustainable development.org Project website http://wiki. Earthscan. . Document to the ninety-fourth Session of the FAO Council. 1999.Rome FEAP [FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN AQUACULTURE PRODUCERS] (2000): Code of conduct for European Aquaculture. A. 10782/06.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK References References and recommendations for further readings Information about the SustainAqua project Internet: www. e. COM(2005)671 final. FAO.J. CORSI. 33-50 IUCN (2006): The Future of Sustainability Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century. 9781853834981. etc. D.Boncelles. Rome. M. http://books.un. 14 – 16 May 2001: 84-94 BEVERIDGE.Oslo WURTS. 797-807 CEC [COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES] (2005): Proposal for a Council Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products.Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable?. DE BOER. RANDI. CLAUDINE. PHILLIPS. Sustainability in aquaculture Internet: www. . S. ANAMARIJA & HERSHNER. about further sustainable aquaculture modules. & STEPHEN MORSE .. & MACINTOSH. You are invited to contribute with your experiences.M. Brussels.pdf SECOND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE IN OSLO (1997): Holmenkollen guidelines for sustainable aquaculture. I.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.M. In: Reviews in Fisheries Science 8 (2). (1997): Aquaculture and the environment: the supply of and demand for environmental goods and services by Asian aquaculture and the implications for sustainability. (2000): Sustainable Aquaculture in the Twenty-First Century. DALGAARD.. 141-150 BELL.g. FRANCHI. different fish species. Belgium FOCARDI.iucn. 15-25 November 1988. E. ISBN 185383498X. Belgium. .euraquaculture. 3-17 FRANKIC. related projects. In: Livestock Production Science 96. http://cmsdata. HAYO M. In: Aquaculture International 11: 517-530 HALBERG.CONSENSUS portal focusing on the theory of sustainability in aquaculture AGENDA 21: http://www.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.sustainaqua.
aqua. USA. Biochem. D.. 149 p. PEKÁR F. Bioenergetics of salmonid fishes: energy intake. pp. PEKAR. Internat. 1999.pdf YEO.bvsde. CABI Publishing. 9789241546843. Aquaculture International. AUGUSTYN. M. M. Periphyton: ecology.pdf WHO. A. excreta and greywater . Significance of nitrogen fixation in fish ponds. Bottom soils.WHO Publications. 230-231. VAN DAM. B.fao. Hydrobiologia. A Framework for Assessment.. New York.. Comp. Wageningen University. Verh.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK References FAO/ICLARM/IIRR. (2005). D. MA 02139. AND BAYLEY. M. Hydrobiologia. USA.. 2002. 1979.wisc.E. KADLEC. SLINGER. GÁL D. (2007). 2004.C.A. Aquaculture. (2005). 348 EL SAMRA.-Aquaculture Effluents and Waste By-Products. E..asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (1987): Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future Suggested readings about constructed wetlands and integrated intensive-extensive systems AZIM. M. M. 29: 877-879. exploitation and management. 18:367-372 RAHMAN.. Aquaculture 179: 127-140.. http://www..edu/publications/PDFs/AquacultureEffluents.. Limnol. L. http://www. 10: 341-354. 15: 173-180. http://www.. S.org/bvsacd/who/waste1. (2008).E. VERDEGEM. Iowa State University. 1. Boca Raton. sediment and pond aquaculture. KNIGHT. CHO.. GÁL. KEREPECZKI É. Phosphorus utilization by rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): estimation of dissolved phosphorus waste output. p. C. http://www. Special Publication No. World Health Organization.P & MORRIS.Y.Y.A.. Proceedings of the First biennal meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society.M.unep. Physiol. (2003). Lewis Publishers. Suggested readings about pond polyculture and cascade systems SZUMIEC. IN: Rizzoli A. 168 p. European Aquaculture Society.. 2006. É. GÁL D. E. R. GOPAL. B. .. KEREPECZKI.Guidelines for the Safe Use of Excreta and Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Thesis. Lugano (Switzerland).J. BEVERIDGE. Dynamics of the surface water circulation between a river and fishponds in a sub-mountain area. (Eds). Perspectives on wetland science. OLÁH. 37. ( in English) http://www.H..aspx UNEP (1992): Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. M. Chapman & Hall. Characteristics.org/en/Framework. 1995. 106/110 . FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. PEKÁR. 32 p.Food web interactions and nutrient dynamics in polyculture ponds PHD. 2003. M.pdf Suggested readings about the model trout farms BUREAU. Ecological Engineering..org/DOCREP/005/Y1187E/Y1187E00. F. F... SZABÓ P.2003.. 490: 1-10. Preliminary investigation of an integrated aquaculture-wetland ecosystem using tertiary-treated municipal wastewater in Los Angeles County. application and policy.. VÁRADI. A primer.L. Nitrogen dynamics in an integrated pond-wetland ecosystem.J. KEREPECZKI É. (1998). & Jakeman A.P. C. COSTA-PIERCE. (2003). KEREPECZKI.Ecosystems and Human Well-being. PEKÁR F. Potential Recovery. Executive summary -UNEP. J.. Treatment wetlands. 2006.S. Preliminary investigations on the nutrient removal efficiency of a wetland-type ecosystem.org/Documents. and Beneficial Reuse. R. BINKOWSKI F.millenniumassessment. Volume 3 Wastewater and excreta use in aquaculture.A. expenditure and productivity. Verein. Integrated assessment and decision support. (1996)..Integrated agriculture-aquaculture. SZABÓ P.Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater.. 2005. A survey on the environmental impact of pond aquaculture in Hungary. 358-362 BOYD. C.C.nl/wda/dissertations/dis3980. n 407. 158 pp..paho.multilingual/Default. H. D.J. California.P. S. ISBN 9241546840.wur. 1982..HTM MEA. http://library. 506-509: 665-670. Camebridge. DUNCAN & SANDY CAIRNCROSS. NCRAC Publications Office North Central Regional Aquaculture Center. MARA. AND CHO.. Experiments on the operation of a combined aquaculture-algae system. 73B: 25–41.
vandforbrug ved produktion af regnbueørreder i danske dambrug. SORTKJÆR. RAHMAN.E.. E. RASMUSSEN. PEDERSEN. 1987.. AND VERLHAC. Suggested readings related to the Tropenhaus project ADLER . EDING. DTU Aqua. K. SORTKJÆR.T.pdf 107/110 ..M. A.. pp. Faglig slutrapport for måle. New York.H. Aquacultural Engineering 34 (3).. DTU Aqua rapport nr.. L. PEDERSEN. K..H. R. V. Ejstrupholm Dambrug . E.. EKMANN. PAUL R.org.. S.. 2nd edn. Technical University of Denmark. S. OVESEN. EDING. 234–260. EDING.S. Aquacultural Engineering 32. J. Ithaca. Aquacult. Aufbau und Management von Kreislaufanlagen.E. VERDEGEM. Clarius gariepinus (Burchell 1822). 975 Suggested readings on PTS pond technology ASADUZZAMAN... R. Nutr..1016. J.T. AZIM. Aquacult. Design and performance of water recirculation systems for eel culture. 87–207. Cayuga Aqua Ventures.. KLAPWIJK. PEDERSEN. M.J. S. J..J. SVENDSEN. J. HENKEN. Design and performance of a water recirculation system for high-density culture of the African catfish.. Design and operation of nitrifying trickling filters in recirculating aquaculture: a review.. P. M. 106-02. Udredning vedr.H. C/N ratio control and substrate addition for periphyton development jointly enhance freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii production in ponds. N. (2002). 6: 235-245.B.. B. 2006.A.N. 1999.B. 2000b. O. 1998.. 2008. WEERD. In: M. Aquaculture 280. BEVERIDGE.. SCHREIER. Aquaponics Journal.Bohl (Ed. L.A.C. M. Specifikationer og godkendelseskrav.. LOKALENERGI 2008:1: Energioptimalt design af dambrug.. VAN.Y.. SUGIURA. A. AND DALSGAARD.et modeldambrug under forsøgsordningen. WAHAB. VAN DAM. A. M. HUQUE.M. Arbejdsrapport fra DMU. 436-491. Zucht und Produktion von Süsswasserfischen...188-08 . 2006. Primary responses of rainbow trout to dietary phosphorus concentration. VERDEGEM. SCHNEIDER.H.. EBELING. Suggested readings related to tilapia farming in RAS BOVENDEUR.....pe/bvsair/e/repindex/repi84/vleh/fulltext/acrobat/phytoaqu. Modeldambrug under forsøgsordningen.. doi:10. P.og dokumentationsprojekt for modeldambrug "(in Danish)". DTU Aqua. J. M. 2006.cepis..C. 379–401. DONG F. B. A. A. S..). Effect of supplemented fungal phytase on performance and phosphorus availability by phosphorus-depleted juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 2008 JOKUMSEN. Recirculating Aquaculture.. Aquaculture 63. A. M. J.J.T.M. 2008.H. SVENDSEN. CABI Publishing..S.J.J. LARSEN. and on the magnitude and composition of phosphorus waste output. Denitrification in recirculating systems: Theory and applications..M.B. DTU Aqua rapport nr..M.J. SKRIVER.193-08 . Engineering 9 (3).. Report in Danish.. DALSGAARD. N. P. AND SUHR. 2008. M. J... Grundlagen. nr. RASMUSSEN. 2008. Analysis of nutrient flows in integrated intensive aquaculture systems. M..S. M. and J. München... (2005).A.. SALAM. måleår af moniteringsprojektet med væsentlige resultater fra første måleår (”In Danish”). Aquaculture . IV4. S.M.A. 364–376. USA.E. 2005. Technical University of Denmark. P. A. SERETI. p. exploitation and management.E. 10-15.. PEDERSEN. 192-202. A... R. Cambridge.M. AND J. E. Aquaculture Engineering 34. Report in Danish. OVESEN. LARSEN. TIMMONS. GRØNBORG. Frankfurt. 117-123. SKRIVER. http://www. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 1.A.B.W. 1990. E. HEINSBROEK.. O. Statusrapport for 2. O. M. O. TAL.. AND HARDY.A.. E. 2003.Phytorremediation of aquaculture effluents. Periphyton : ecology. 329–353 EDING. H. AZIM. KAMSTRA. VERRETH.. van RIJN. L.M. HUISMAN.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK References DALSGAARD. (2003): Modeldambrug. L. MA 02139. YAKUPITIYAGE.C. 2007.H.B. A. Use of fishpond sediment for sustainable aquacultureagriculture farming.. 183. DFU-rapport nr..J. DLG –Verlag. AND KAMSTRA. V. SVENDSEN... VERRETH. BOUTTRUP.
Aquaponics in a Barrel. In : http://www.pdf JACKSON. http://www. MICHAEL GLENN .. page 26.com/magazine/back_issues/view_article.htm LENNARD W.... SUMMERFELT .com/articleEvolution. http://www.L.1999. 2002).pdf JONES S. 2006. W.growfish. PAUL R. In GAIN (Gippsland Aquaculture Industry Network) http://www..php3?AID=130426 108/110 . D. STEVEN T. 2002.growingedge.. 2004. Volume 13.. The Growing Edge Magazine.aquaponicsjournal. & MYERS J.edu/dept/fisheries/education/documents/barrel-ponics. 11(2) http://www.pdf?id=NewYork HUGHEY..Ponics. 2002a.aces.Evolution of aquaponics . http://www. 3. Ecological Engineering 20.asp?contentid=1060 WILSON.com/magazine/back_issues/view_article. 2005.. FUMIOMI TAKEDA 2002..Growing Notes--Australian Aquaponics--Whole Fresh Fish and a Side Salad Please!. the theory behind the integration.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/19310000/FTakeda/2003EcolEng20251-264.au/content. Mechanistic approach to phytoremediation of water. March/April 2002.growingedge.gwpc.org/GWPC_Meetings/Information/PW2002/Papers/Lorri_Jackson_PWC2002. Aquaponics Journal . http://attra. n 24 ( 1st Quarter. The Growing Edge.Aquaponics-Integration of Hydroponics with Aquaculture. T. 251/264 http://www. A. Number 4..org/new_pubs/attrapub/PDF/aquaponic.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK References ADLER .pdf DEZSERY. G.ncat.php3?AID=110217 DIVER S.Saltwater aquaponics.Aquaponics.ars..Barrel.usda.com.Alternative Use of Produced Water in Aquaculture and Hydroponic Systems at Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2002.
Richard S. Institute of Ichthyobiology and Aquaculture (GOLYSZ) Tilapia farming using Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) .Danish Aquaculture Organisation (ODA) Improved natural production in extensive fish ponds – Case study in Poland Maciej Pilarczyk. SustainAqua – An introduction Alexandra Oberdieck . Tünde Kosáros.ttz Bremerhaven Sustainability in aquaculture Christian Hildmann . Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) New methods in trout farming to reduce the farm effluents – Case study in Denmark Alfred Jokumsen.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Authors Authors of the handbook Editors Dr. Magdalena Stanna . Johan Verreth . Anne Johanne T. Marc Verdegem. Geertje Schlaman. Leon Heinsbroek. 10. Christian Laursen . Wageningen University (WU-AFI) Frans Aartsen.V. 6. Victor Bierbooms . (ROYAAL) Tropical polyculture production with the integrated “Tropenhaus” concept . Lászlo Váradi – Research Institute for Fisheries.HAKI) Tamás Bardócz (Akvapark Association) Alexandra Oberdieck (ttz Bremerhaven) List of authors per chapter: 1./ ZonAquafarming B. 7. Philippe Wyss .Martin-Luther-University Halle Wittenberg Alexandra Oberdieck . László Váradi (Research Institute for Fisheries. Grethe Hyldig . 5.Research Institute of Fish Culture and Hydrobiology. Ferenc Pekár. Catarina Martins.Viskwekerij Royaal B. 8.International Ecological Engineering Society (IEES) Zdenek Adamek .V. Ivar Lund.Case study in the Netherlands Ep Eding. National Institute of Aquatic Resources (DTU Aqua) Lisbeth J. Stephan Ende.Polish Academy of Sciences.ttz Bremerhaven Water treatment of intensive aquaculture systems through wetlands and extensive fish ponds – Case studies in Hungary Dénes Gál. Bob Laarhoven.Aquaculture and Fisheries Group.ttz Bremerhaven Technology and production of main freshwater aquaculture types in Europe Tamás Bardócz .Case study in Switzerland Johannes Heeb. Helge Paulsen. University of South Bohemia (USB) 3. Per B.Akvapark Association Regulatory framework and governance in European freshwater aquaculture Tamás Bardócz . 4.Akvapark Association László Váradi – Research Institute for Fisheries.Technical University of Denmark. Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI) Product quality and diversification – Market opportunities for aquaculture farmers for their fish products and by-products Alexandra Oberdieck . Aquaculture and Irrigation . 109/110 . Dalsgaard. Réka Hegedős. Pedersen. Kaare Michelsen. Éva Kerepeczki. Joanna Ponicka. 2. 9. Rasmussen. Plessner.
Viskwekerij Royaal B. Germany. (LIMAN). Verband der Deutschen Binnenfischerei e.National Institute of Aquatic Resources (DTU-AQUA).STI. Malta. June 2009. Netherlands. Spain. The research and training has been undertaken by a consortium of twenty-three partners: ttz Bremerhaven (ttz). Alfred Jokumsen (DTU-AQUA). Hungary. Technical University of Denmark . design and layout by EUROFISH ©SustainAqua. Turkey. Dénes Gál (HAKI). who are too numerous to acknowledge individually. Ep Eding & Marc Verdegem (WU-AFI). Aquakultur Kahle (KAHLE). Sweden.V. Österreichischer Fischereiverband (ÖFV). Hungary. Hungary. Polska Akademia Nauk. (VDBi). Denmark. Wageningen University . Austria. Netherlands. SustainAqua consortium (Photo: ttz Bremerhaven) Cover page. Poland. Denmark. SustainAqua handbook – A handbook for sustainable aquaculture" 110/110 . (ABT). AquaBioTech Ltd. Switzerland. Aranyponty Halászati Zrt.SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK Acknowledgements Acknowledgements This handbook is one of the outputs of the SustainAqua Collective Research project . Akvapark Association (AKVAPARK). Free for distribution.V. Poland. Turkey. Alexandra Oberdieck (ttz). Danish Aquaculture Organisation (ODA). Poland. Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI). More information: www. All rights reserved. Su Ürünleri Tanitim Dernegi (BTG). Johannes Heeb & Philippe Wyss (IEES) We thank them for their dedicated work. but we mention the following persons for their exceptional input: Tamás Bardócz (AKVAPARK). MartinLuther-University Halle Wittenberg (MLU). Stowarzyszenie Producentów Ryb Lososiowatych (PTBA). Zakład Ichtiobiologii i Gospodarki Rybackiej (GOLYSZ).sustainaqua. Research Institute for Fisheries. Germany. International Ecological Engineering Society (IEES). Organización de Productores Piscicultores (OPP). (ROYAAL). University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice (USB). Hodowla Ryb "SALMO" (SALMO). Liman Enegre Balikçilik Sanayii ve Ticaret Ltd.org Please cite as follows: "SustainAqua – Integrated approach for a sustainable and healthy freshwater aquaculture” (2009). Vattenbrukarnas Riksförbund (VRF). Maciej Pilarczyk (GOLYSZ). Germany.Aquaculture and Fisheries Group (WU-AFI). Denmark The work that lies behind the production of this handbook is the joint effort of several persons. (ARANY).funded by the European Commission as part of its Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). International organisation for the development of fisheries in Eastern and Central Europe (EUROFISH). Czech Republic. Germany.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.