Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sustainable
aquaculture
Project N: COLL-CT-2006-030384
CONTENTS
Preface 3
1. SustainAqua An Introduction 4
2. Sustainability in aquaculture 6
3. Technology and production of main freshwater aquaculture types in Europe 11
3.1. Pond fish farming 11
3.2. Flow-through aquaculture systems 12
3.3. Recirculation Aquaculture Systems 12
3.4. Cage cultures in freshwater lakes and rivers 13
4. Regulatory framework and governance in European freshwater aquaculture 14
4.1. Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and related documents 15
4.2. Environmental policies with major impact on aquaculture development 18
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. Water treatment of intensive aquaculture systems through wetlands and extensive fish ponds
Case study in Hungary 24
6.1. Constructed wetlands as a sustainable method to treat aquaculture effluents and produce
valuable crops (African Catfish Site) 24
6.2. From a case study to a fish farm: How to treat the effluents of a catfish farm? 29
6.3. Combination of intensive and extensive aquaculture for the sustainable utilisation of water and
nutrients (Intensive-Extensive Site) 33
6.4. From a case study to a fish farm: Design of a theoretical combined system 38
7. Improved natural production in extensive fish ponds Case study in Poland 41
7.1. New species and methods in pond fish culture: Module POLYCULTURE 41
7.2. Practical recommendations and conclusions for stocking paddlefish in pond polyculture 47
7.3. Using agricultural waste nutrients in pond fish culture: Module CASCADE in Poland 50
7.4. From a case study to a fish farm: Designing a cascading module 55
8. New methods in trout farming to reduce the farm effluents Case study from Denmark 58
8.1. Introduction General description of the case study 58
8.2. Feed and feeding - Environmental impact from model trout farms 60
8.3. Energy consumption on model trout farms 62
8.4. Cultivation of pond plants in the lagoons of model farms 65
8.5. Cultivation of alternative Fish Species in the lagoons of model farms 66
8.6. Summary Success factors and constraints 67
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) 68
9. Tilapia farming using Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) - Case study in the
Netherlands 70
9.1. Module - Manure Denitrifying Reactor (MDR) 70
9.2. From a case study to a fish farm: Integration of a denitrifying USB-MDR in a 100 MT tilapia RAS 74
9.3. Module Periphyton Turf Scrubber (PTS) 92
9.4. 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 93
1/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
10. Tropical polyculture production with the integrated Tropenhaus concept Case study in
Switzerland 95
10.1. Introduction General concept of the Tropenhaus in Switzerland 95
10.2. Integration of crustaceans in tilapia production and fish feed from tropical plants 96
10.3. Warm water aquaponic filter in a "tropical" polyculture system 98
10.4. From a case study to a fish farm: The design of a warm water aquaponic filter system in the
Tropenhaus Wolhusen 101
References and recommendations for further readings 105
Authors of the handbook 109
Acknowledgements 110
2/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Preface
Preface
All over the world, aquaculture is developing rapidly, due to the combination of a strong increasing demand
for seafood products and depleted fish stocks in the world's oceans. To avoid the same mistakes of the
European agricultural and fisheries sector, aquaculture farmers need to address simultaneously the equally
and mutually important considerations of environmentally sound, economically viable and socially acceptable
development that is the principles of sustainability for the healthy development of the sector.
Ultimately, each aquaculture farmer, irrespective of whether farming fish in RAS or ponds, has to face the
same issues: how to utilise feed nutrients more efficiently to save feeding costs, achieve higher production
and have less nutrients in the effluent? How to improve wastewater treatment and decrease its discharges,
in order to reduce water pollution charges, due to the authorities? How to meet all legal requirements and
restrictions, demonstrate to consumers that the cultured products are of the highest quality, 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. With the overall aim to make the
European freshwater aquaculture industry more sustainable by improving production methods, research
potential market applications and increase product quality, SustainAqua undertook five different case studies
in Europe representative of the most relevant freshwater aquaculture systems and fish species. Various
practical techniques were tested, on how to strengthen the diverse aquaculture farms in Europe in a
sustainable way, from extensive and semi-intensive pond systems, which predominate in Central and
Eastern Europe, to intensive recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) as they are practiced in North-Western
Europe. The main findings are described here in this SustainAqua handbook.
As a starting point, we discuss 'sustainability' and what this implies for aquaculture. We present the
indicators for sustainability that have been developed for evaluating the different SustainAqua case studies.
The different technologies in the sector pond fish farming, flow-through and RAS are briefly introduced to
classify the subsequent sections satisfactorily. As we all know, 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. Therefore, an introduction to the European regulatory framework is given. A very
important criterion for maintaining competitiveness on the market is excellence and proven fish quality and
the innovative utilisation of aquacultural by-products. One chapter in the handbook presents the impact of
different cultural systems on product quality and potential market applications for aquaculture by-products.
The core of this handbook consists of a description of the different modules researched in the five
SustainAqua case studies. The traditionally cultivated pond areas of Central Europe are represented by the
Hungarian and Polish case studies. In Hungary, water treatment of intensive flow-through fish production is
improved through constructed wetlands, deployed as biofilters. In addition, the advantages of combining
intensive and extensive aquaculture for the efficient use of water and nutrients are presented. 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. 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, efficiently use nutrients and to increase the profitability of carp farms.
In Denmark and the Netherlands, techniques for application in outdoor and indoor recirculation systems were
tested. Whilst in Denmark, 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. The Dutch case study
looked at intensive tilapia production in RAS, using two different modules with a Manure Denitrifying Reactor
and Periphyton Turf Scrubber to reduce water use, energy consumption and the emission of nutrients. As a
unique case in Europe, the Swiss case study rounds off this project through rearing tilapia and tropical fruits
in a polyculture greenhouse system, using available waste heat, in order to prove that waste can be used
as a multifunctional resource to produce economically and ecologically viable fish and co-products.
To make our scientific results transferable to farmers, the chapter "From a case study to a fish farm"
presents on-hand-information for implementing the modules, preceded by a general description, its
principles, the assessment of SustainAqua indicators, the factors contributing towards both success and
constraints as well as major benefits of sustainable aquaculture systems.
Freshwater aquaculture in Europe expects challenging times and looks forward to a bright future, so long as
we continue to combine our forces, both as researchers to further develop systems and the industry to
implement technologies for a sustainable aquaculture, and towards a sustainable European community.
3/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
SustainAqua An Introduction
1. SustainAqua An Introduction
European freshwater fish farmers are fighting a battle on two fronts: On the one hand, with the spread of
globalisation they are increasingly forced to compete with producers from countries with far lower costs of
production. On the other hand, they have to conform to the stringent demands of European and national
legislation with regard to product quality, environment and health. In addition, there are legal restrictions on
the discharge of effluents, water extraction, the use of chemicals and genetic modification. The success of
Europes freshwater aquaculture sector depends, to a great extent, on farmers abilities to face these
challenges.
Concept of SustainAqua
SustainAqua is a three-year collective research project, 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. The overall objective of the
project is to expand the knowledge base of European freshwater aquaculture farmers by training them to:
Improve production methods, process efficiency and profitability
Research potential market applications of different aquaculture by-products for alternative industries,
such as the energy and cosmetics industry
Increase product quality (taste, nutritional value) as marketing tools to boost consumer acceptance of
farmed freshwater fish and thus, to improve the industrys image.
The project will present a variety of technological possibilities and information on how to upgrade different
conventional aquaculture systems. The new technologies are expected to have significantly lower
construction, maintenance and running costs than conventional systems particularly in the case of
wastewater treatment.
4/110
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.
In the Polish case study, carp is reared in two modules. 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. This allows fish to be produced without using external feed sources. In addition, new species were
introduced into the traditional polyculture setup to increase product diversity of pond farms and to improve
carp farms profitability.
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). The aim is to reduce water use to less than
25 litres/kg of feed, to reduce energy consumption and the emission of dissolved and particulate nitrogen,
phosphorus, carbon dioxide and organic matter.
In Denmark rainbow trout production is being studied at eight model farms, with the aim to optimise feeding
and farm management and to reduce the environmental impact and energy costs. 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.
Importance of Sustainability
The sustainability of aquaculture is crucial if the industry is not to go the way of the fisheries sector. About 75
percent of the world's most valuable marine fish stocks are either fished to the limits or over-fished. 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, just to
maintain current levels of consumption.
In order to serve this increasing demand in the long run, sustainable alternatives have to be strengthened.
The most promising of these is the aquaculture industry. With a growth rate of 8% per year since the 1980s,
aquaculture is probably the fastest growing food-production industry, that today accounts for almost half the
fish consumed globally, up from 9% in 1980.
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, environmental performance, product quality, and to diversify the product range. These options
will help aquaculture farmers to comply with current and upcoming European and national legislation, and to
meet future sustainable quality standards and Codes of Conducts an important tool for the farmers
advertising strategies. Most of the AQUA+ modules have more than one simultaneous function, as for
instance wastewater treatment, effective nutrient management and the production of economically efficient
by-products. With the diversification of their products farmers will be more flexible and their enterprises less
susceptible to market fluctuations.
The generated know-how from the case studies will be promoted via 22 training seminars for aquaculture
farmers in Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Spain, and Turkey and two e-learning
seminars between May and July 2009. The training and information activities include this training handbook,
the SustainAqua-wiki and an E-learning platform summarising benefits, risks and costs, success criteria as
well as technical information on the different research modules. 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, giving farmers ready access to the knowledge generated by the
project. With the help of these tools, farmers will be encouraged to restructure part or all of their production
to make it more sustainable, efficient, and with long-term economic and environmental benefits.
5/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Sustainability in aquaculture
2. Sustainability in aquaculture
The term "sustainability" or also "sustainable development", often used as nothing more than a catch-phrase,
has much more to offer. It is a concept to guarantee a liveable environment for all people in the long term,
encompassing at least three fundamental components of sustainable development: preservation of a
functional environment, economic welfare and social equity. Accordingly, also in the field of aquaculture,
aiming for sustainability requires not only the achievement of environmental objectives, but also to provide
clear economic advantages for aquaculture farmers in the long term.
However, the term "sustainability" is often diluted and weakened, being used by politicians, entrepreneurs
and the public, in a general way on numerous occasions, very often in a superficial or misleading way and
with an incorrect definition, just to exploit the positive connotations of the term (as was the case with the
terms "bio" or "eco" in the 1990's).
The following text will describe the context in which the SustainAqua project was developed and carried out,
through first providing a short insight into the background and original definition of the term "sustainability",
then introducing the topic of "sustainability and aquaculture" followed by its application in SustainAqua.
However, at the beginning of the 21. century, it must be clearly stated that a better integration of these three
objectives is needed to achieve sustainable development. The current focus is primarily on the economy,
often neglecting social and environmental aims. 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. Certainly, in this process the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development must be considered, indicating that environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of
the overall development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. Whilst it is acknowledged that
no activity in industry, agriculture or aquaculture will take place if it is not economically profitable, it is the task
of politics and society to find ways to equally achieve all three objectives of sustainability. An important tool
to achieve this criterion "sustainability" correspondingly in all three dimensions, is to research and apply
innovative or optimised technologies. In the area of freshwater aquaculture, this was exactly the objective of
SustainAqua.
6/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Sustainability in aquaculture
7/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Sustainability in aquaculture
SustainAqua focuses on the farming process itself ("farm level"). The most relevant factors from the second
circle are also considered, for instance fish feed production, energy production, energy for water supply of a
certain quality, transportation energy, and potential markets.
For completeness, the "regulative level" needs to be taken into account as well, such as EU, national or
regional regulations, norms, etc. They affect all levels in different ways, but cannot be influenced by the
farmer directly. In SustainAqua only those regulations are taken into account, which are directly relevant for
the first and the second circles.
Figure 3: Sustainable freshwater aquaculture combines ecological, 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. But up
until now there have been no complete and practicable European criteria, indicators, and related labelling
systems which are really able to certify the sustainability status of a fish product. The SustainAqua project
intents to contribute to the development of criteria which are currently being developed by various initiatives
(see above). As mentioned before, SustainAqua does not intend to compete with indicator systems that were
already developed in a broad stakeholder-oriented approach, e.g. by CONSENSUS. 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. 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. It is not the task of SustainAqua to judge, if a certain freshwater
aquaculture farm is sustainable or not, but to provide an unambiguous direction, on what can be done in a
case study or at a specific farm to improve sustainability.
8/110
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.
Plausible: The indicator is understandable for the actor.
Measureable: It is possible to measure the indicator.
Feasible: It will be possible to measure and record this indicator within the foreseen resources (budget,
time) of the project
Environmental dimension
Specific objective/ criterion Indicator Unit
Energy
Energy efficiency: To reduce the necessary Energy input per produced output (fish, kWh/ kWh output (differentiated
energy input as far as possible biomass) for each product)
To increase productivity per unit of labour product at commercial farm level h/kg product
(model-based assumption)
fluctuations
Buffering
market
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.
The remaining 20 indicators have neither been measured nor evaluated in detail, as their assessment was
beyond the scope of this project. 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, 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.sustainaqua.org.
9/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Sustainability in aquaculture
ground (aquifers) by the use of wells. One important goal in all systems is to reduce the amount of
freshwater needed to relieve the natural ecosystems. 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), to reduce
the amount of wastewater and to optimise the effluent treatment. The best management practice naturally
depends on the type of aquaculture. Traditional carp ponds, for example, need water only for replacing the
evaporation and seepage; the outflow is limited to the harvest. Recirculation aquaculture systems, like the
Danish model trout farms, are another example of how to substantially reduce the amount of water needed.
In the latter case, they use for instance plant lagoons to retain the nutrients of the outflow.
An efficient use of the required nutrients is also essential for environmental sustainability. Reducing feed
losses by an advanced feeding regime and the selection of appropriate feeds is the first step. The additional
use of the remaining nutrients is again a site-specific task. The use of periphyton, as in the Hungarian case
study, is one possibility. The use of different fish species in the same ponds, a polyculture, may raise the
nutrient efficiency because of the different ecological niches of the fish species, which are used e.g. in the
Polish case study. However, it should be considered in this case, to avoid the use of alien and exotic
species. If sufficient area is available, renewable resources like reed or willow (one example is the Hungarian
case study), or garden plants, as in the Danish case study, are further examples of how to increase nutrient
utilisation efficiency.
The origin of the feed used is a further task to contribute to ecological sustainability, for instance to use
fishmeal produced from by-catch originating from sustainable fisheries (e.g. MSC certified).
Sustainability with regard to the area used for the aquaculture farm depends greatly on the local
circumstances. In general, the need to produce renewable resources in addition to food puts more pressure
on the land use. The decreased land used per unit of fish produced in some recirculation aquaculture
systems can offer a contribution. On the other hand, the pond area of the aquaculture farm can also
contribute to local climate stabilisation by increased evapotranspiration. Ponds can also provide excellent
ecologically valuable areas.
Regarding the use of energy, this is a particularly major topic in recirculation aquaculture systems, as in the
case of the Netherlands (see chapter Netherlands'). Also in other aquaculture systems, it is possible and
important to reduce the amount of energy by increasing the energy efficiency, e.g. through the use of more
efficient pumps. With regard to energy use, the aim is to produce at least the same amount of fish with less
energy or more fish with the same amount of energy.
Improving economical sustainability
An aquaculture is economically sustainable and viable, if the farm is profitable, the farm revenue is reliable
and the farm system and products are accepted by the consumer. In many cases, improving environmental
sustainability can be connected to the optimisation of economic sustainability. For instance, a more efficient
use of feed and nutrients or the reduction of the use of freshwater is not only positive for the environment, it
can also reduce costs. Depending on national laws, reducing wastewater contributes also to the lowering of
production costs. The same is true for all energy dependent processes. A more local or regional distribution
of products will decrease the transport costs, which are partly energy costs. The diversification of the
aquaculture can buffer market fluctuations. Polyculture or the additional production of renewable resources,
garden plants or fish fry are examples applied in the SustainAqua case studies. Production of traceable high
quality products can both increase realised prices and consumer confidence. Last, but not least, fully
endorsing sustainability (and not just adopting under duress as an necessary chore) can be a valuable
argument to increase consumer acceptance.
However, all these aspects need to be evaluated very individually, because the availability of all resources
needed for an aquaculture (water, land, nutrients, energy) vary greatly between the different European
countries and regions. In the vicinity of a big city, for instance, a highly intensive recirculation system might
be very much sustainable, especially if it can be heated by waste heat; whereas in rural areas, as is the case
in many areas of Hungary, it might be economically much more sustainable to run a large extensive carp
pond, as land and water is relatively cheap and available.
Improving social sustainability
The issue of social sustainability is also very complex. It includes employment opportunities in the sector, the
conditions of employment on the aquaculture farm (hygiene, safety, training), but also the general public in
connection with e.g. recreation, health and nutritional issues. Important aspects are also the attractiveness of
aquaculture to the younger generation or in which way an aquaculture system preserves culture and
traditions, for example with pond fish farming in Eastern Europe. Social sustainability was not a primary
focus of SustainAqua, which concentrated more on technical solutions to directly increase economic and
environmental sustainability, but which, nonetheless, if achieved support social sustainability (securing jobs,
ensuring functional environment for recreation, contributing to high-quality and healthy nutrition, etc.).
10/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Freshwater aquaculture types
There are many possible ways to classify and describe the very diverse freshwater aquaculture production
types. But from a sustainability point of view, the production methods can be the most reasonable basis for a
classification system. Whilst, there are many overlaps and transitions amongst freshwater fish production
systems, the following basic methods can be distinguished:
Pond fish farming
Flow-through systems
Recirculation Aquaculture Systems
Cage cultures
11/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Freshwater aquaculture types
12/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Freshwater aquaculture types
Italian production (once the biggest EU producer) is on a constant downward trend since the late 1990's, and
Danish production has also declined since 2001. These losses have been partially compensated by some
increase in Dutch production. However, because of the uncertain supply of young eels, some eel farmers
have switched production to other species or simply abandoned the sector.
13/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Regulatory framework
It is a well-known fact that aquaculture is one of the most regulated industries in the European Union. Fish
production using the very limited natural resources of coast-lines and freshwater bodies remains at the
forefront of public interest. It is of little surprise, therefore, that all interested parties, such as EU and national
governmental bodies, non-governmental organisations and the industry itself want to control the aquaculture
industry. On the other hand, this attention has led to a large amount of regulations, documents and other
communications, which it is very difficult for farmers (who just want to produce healthy fish without destroying
their natural resources), to review themselves.
In the SustainAqua project case studies were carried out to support freshwater fish farmers in how they can
develop their businesses, whilst at the same time conserve their most precious resource: the clean
freshwater. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview for farmers about the most important freshwater
aquaculture related documents from the EU, NGO's and other organisations. More detail is provided on this
topic in on the free internet based SustainAqua Wiki (http://wiki.sustainaqua.org).
In the EU member states it is evident that the different Community legal instruments have the largest impact
on aquaculture regulation. An excellent definition of different types of legislative documents was prepared by
the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (source: www.profetpolicy.info):
Green Paper: Green Papers are documents published by the European Commission to stimulate discussion
on given topics at the European level. 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. Green Papers may give
rise to legislative developments that are then outlined in White Papers.
White Paper: Commission White Papers are documents containing proposals for Community action in a
specific area. In some cases they follow a Green Paper published to launch a consultation process at the
European level. When a White Paper is favourably received by the Council, it can lead to an action
programme for the Union in the area concerned.
COM documents: covering proposed legislation and other Commission communications to the Council
and/or the other institutions, and their preparatory papers;
SEC documents: representing internal documents associated with the decision-making process and the
general operation of Commission departments;
Decision: An EU decision is binding on the persons, companies or Member States mentioned in the
decision. It is not generally binding, as is the case with a regulation.
Directive: Directives are to be transferred into national law through the member states' parliaments and
governments. Over the years, 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.
Directives are normally transformed into national laws by the national parliaments or most often by the
governments through delegated acts.
Recommendation: A non-binding decision, which only urges Member States to comply. A Member State
cannot be fined for the breach of recommendations.
Regulation: An EU decision that directly binds all Member States and citizens in the whole of the EU.
Whereas directives need to be "transformed" into national law, regulations are directly applicable. It is
therefore forbidden to change EU regulations when putting them into national laws.
Resolution: A resolution is a non-binding statement, which defines objectives and makes political
declarations. The European Council's resolutions set out the direction of future policy initiatives. Resolutions
may be used by the EU Court to interpret laws. They may be referred to as a form of "soft law".
Treaty:
1. A formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other
international relations.
2. The formal document embodying such an international agreement.
These are the tools supporting the implementation of the EU policies which are first "pillars" of the EU. There
are many common policies influencing the freshwater aquaculture, but probably the most important are:
Common Fisheries Policy
Policies on environmental issues, primarily water policies
14/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Regulatory framework
4.1.1. 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, in particular in fishing-dependent areas;
Assuring the availability to consumers of products that are healthy, safe and of good quality, as well as
promoting high animal health and welfare standards;
Ensuring an environmentally sound industry.
The strategy says, 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. Conversely,
the positive contribution of certain aquaculture developments to the environment must be recognised and
encouraged, including through public financial incentives.
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, 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
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Regulatory framework
Generally, the vision and objectives of the 2002 strategy are fully supported and are considered to be still
valid, but several arguments are put forward to justify the need for a revision. The commission started a
consultation process in 2007 to update this aquaculture strategy. The just recently published, updated
strategy points out new goals and underlines the importance of the following elements:
1. Environmentally friendly aquaculture growth: The EU is committed to a high level of environmental
protection. Community legislation is based on the precautionary principle. 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. Compliance with EC
water legislation is also crucial to ensuring the water quality needed to produce quality and safe food.
2. Animal domestication: Optimal husbandry conditions, good health and adequate feed well suited to the
physiological needs of the farmed aquatic animals are essential for optimal growth and production.
Guaranteeing the welfare of farmed fish also contributes to a better image for the aquaculture industry.
3. Equal competitor in terms of space: The increasing competition with agriculture, 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. 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.
4. Reducing the administrative burden: Reducing the administrative burden, especially for Small and
Medium Enterprises is essential to promote development.
5. Enabling the aquaculture business to cope with market demands: The EU aquaculture industry should be
able to answer to consumer demands, be adaptable to changing market requirements and be capable of
interacting on an equal footing with the other actors of the marketing chain. Accordingly, the needs of the
aquaculture sector shall be assessed and addressed, in particular regarding producer organisations,
consumer information and marketing instruments such as labelling of aquatic food products, in the
framework of the future reform of the market policy for fisheries and aquaculture products.
16/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Regulatory framework
Axis 2 - Aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products
Within the Axis 2, the following measures are eligible for funding the aquaculture sector:
Productive investments in aquaculture: The EFF may support investments in the construction, extension,
equipment and modernisation of production installations, in particular with a view to improving working
conditions, hygiene, human or animal health and product quality, reducing negative impact or enhancing
positive effects on the environment. Investments shall contribute to one or more of the following objectives:
a. Diversification towards new species and production of species with good market prospects;
b. Implementation of aquaculture methods substantially reducing negative impact or enhancing positive
effects on the environment when compared with normal practice in the aquaculture sector;
c. Support for traditional aquaculture activities important for preserving and developing both the economic
and social fabric and the environment;
d. Support for the purchase of equipment aimed at protecting the farms from wild predators;
e. Improvement of the working and safety conditions of aquaculture workers.
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 example, forms of aquaculture comprising protection and enhancement of the environment, natural
resources, genetic diversity, and management of the landscape can get support within this measure. For the
support provided, the environmental benefits of such commitments must be demonstrated by a prior
assessment conducted by designated competent bodies. In order to receive compensation under this Article,
beneficiaries of compensation must commit themselves for a minimum of five years to aqua-environmental
requirements, which go beyond the mere application of normal good aquaculture practice.
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 eco-
management and audit scheme (EMAS).
Public health measures: These measures concern mainly the mollusc farmers, protecting them against the
economic impacts of harmful algal blooms.
Animal health measures: The EFF may contribute to the financing of the control and eradication of
diseases in aquaculture (Council Decision 90/424/EEC, 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field).
There are some other measures within Axis 2 which do not affect directly the freshwater aquaculture
farmers, however in some cases they can be of interest, too.
Inland fishing: Eligible measures for aid include:
Aid for inland fishing and fishing on ice, 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, health, 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, develop innovative production methods
Marketing of products (mainly originating from local landings and aquaculture)
Lifelong learning
Axis 3 - Measures of common interest
Within Axis 3, 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. The promoters of
these measures can be private operators, organisations acting on behalf of producers or recognised
organisations, provided that their actions are of common interest. Eligible measures are:
Collective actions
Protection and development of aquatic fauna and flora
Fishing ports, shelters and landing sites
Development of new markets and promotion campaigns
Pilot projects carried out by an economic operator, a recognised trade association or any other
competent body designated for that purpose by the Member State, in partnership with a scientific or
17/110
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, 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
4.2.1. Nature conservation policy: Habitat and Bird Directive, Natura 2000
EU Nature conservation policy is based on two main pieces of legislation - the Birds directive and the
Habitats directive. Its priorities are to create the European ecological network (of special areas of
conservation), called NATURA 2000, and to integrate nature protection requirements into other EU policies
such as agriculture, regional development and transport. It is part of Europes response to conserve global
biodiversity in line with international obligations under the Biodiversity Convention.
The aim of the Natura 2000 Network is to protect and manage vulnerable species and habitats across their
natural range within Europe, irrespective of national or political boundaries. 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. It also includes Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified
under the Birds Directive for around 200 endangered bird species and wetlands of international importance.
Natura 2000 is not merely a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are systematically
excluded. 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. Indeed, 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. 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,
which are dependent upon positive management, are maintained.
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. 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.
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. It says that positive measures
should be taken, where necessary, to maintain and restore these habitats and species to a 'favourable
conservation status in their natural range.
It is up to the Member States to decide, how they can achieve the site conservation.
18/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Regulatory framework
19/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Market opportunities
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. Consumers are becoming more
concerned about how fish is produced or which type of feed ingredients are used. EU regulations and
authorities are increasing their focus on food safety and traceability of the production from 'egg to plate'.
Because of their own trading interests and to meet consumer needs, whilst at the same time fulfilling
regulatory requirements, most supermarket chains have introduced very strict rules on fishery products. To
sell fish through this important retail market channel the products have to meet extremely high quality
standards.
On the other hand, 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. By accessing alternative and fast growing markets parallel to the main market of high quality
fish products, European aquaculture farmers could increase their economic sustainability and improve their
competitiveness within the international aquaculture market, especially in the face of low-cost imports from
Asia.
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 impact of three different pond culture systems and feed regimes on the quality
of common carp was assessed. In the case studies of Switzerland and Hungary, the market potential of by-
products 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.
20/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Market opportunities
In addition, concerning the marketing of bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), results of this study
show a positive correlation in terms of both sensory quality/ consumer acceptance and chemical
composition, reaching the same values as common carp.
5.2. Wetland crops for the bioenergy industry the Hungarian case
The potential for biomass production for the booming bioenergy sector is massive. Lignocellulosic by-
products of aquacultural activities offer huge possibilities for the production of fuel ethanol, heat or electricity.
The combination of aquaculture, wastewater treatment and bioenergy production is an innovative approach
in the European Union. It could serve two purposes with enormous advantages at the same time:
1. Aquaculture farmers profit in two ways simultaneously: The farmer saves costs for wastewater treatment
and sells a new product for additional income.
2. To meet the emerging massive demands on biomass in the EU, all potential areas for cultivating biomass
must be used, including aquaculture sites.
Potentials
Within the framework of SustainAqua, common reed (Phragmites australis), cattail (Typha latifolia/
angustifolia), giant reed (Arundo donax) and willow (Salix viminalis) were specifically analysed for their
contents for potential use as biomass for energy purposes, e.g. 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).
Water content - Critical factor determining the amount of heat obtained through combustion
- The higher the water content in the fuel, the lower the energy content
Fuel value - Amount of energy released in form of heat when 1 kg of plant (biomass) is burned
Cell wall poly- - Plant cell walls contain mainly three different polymer types: cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin.
saccharides - Cellulose and hemicellulose contain long chains of sugars that can be converted to fuels for
transport such as bioethanol.
- To know the share of the single sugars (polysaccharides) is important to evaluate the initial
potential of crops for biofuel production
21/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Market opportunities
Results of these analyses prove the clear potentials for bioenergy applications. The figures for cell wall
polysaccharides show the opportunities for cellulosic bioethanol production of these crops, especially of
Arundo donax and Phragmites australis. The heating value showed promising figures especially for cattail.
Other international experiments demonstrate the great potential for all four tested wetland crops.
However, 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. 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, not the bioenergy production. 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.
4. Harvesting time is important for optimal combustion quality (best in spring).
5. Harvesting cycles of 2 or 3 years could be more appropriate.
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.
Market opportunities
Conditions are currently very favourable for the development of biomass for energy production. 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. 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.
Willow (Salix viminalis) is already used for the production of wood chips for heat and electricity generation,
e.g. in so-called Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) plantations. SRC indicate useful information on the design of
wetland crop areas for aquaculture application. To profitably market, the area should be a minimum of 1 ha,
be accessible for machines for harvest and produce at least 8-11 t dry mass per ha per year.
Regarding the three herbaceous plants of the Hungarian case study, common reed, cattail and giant reed,
this sector is currently just beginning to develop and take off. Improvements, though, are expected to occur
in the near future. Therefore, 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, 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 wastewater treatment and nutrient retention.
5.3. 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. The opportunity for such aquaculture co-products lies in the selling of the local origin and
environmental friendly image of the product. The holistic concept could be the unique selling point for such
products. Especially SMEs could be particularly interested in jointly developing new products, such as a
papaya or guava crme.
Potentials
Within the framework of SustainAqua, duckweed (Lemna sp.),(which could also be a significant by-product of
the Hungarian wetland water treatment system or the Polish cascading system), water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes), guava (Psidium sp.), and papaya (Carica papaya) were analysed. For the tropical fruits, analyses
focused on low- and middle quality fruits which cannot be sold to the fruit markets as first class product. As it
was not possible to search for new ingredients or analyse the entire chemical composition of all selected
plants, the most promising known ingredients were assessed for their concentration (see Table 3):
- Duckweed is rich in a Lemna-specific pectin (apiogalactoronan/ lemnan)
Pectin
- Extraordinary characteristics compared to ordinary pectin (from apples)
- Could be used for treating symptoms of skin aging and skin inflammation
Carotenoids, - Guava and papaya are both rich in bioactive substances
lycopene - -carotene and lycopene are known for positive impact on human health
- Guava has antioxidant properties attributed to its polyphenols content
- Water hyacinth, with its polyphenols content, can protect skin against harmful effects of heavy
Polyphenols metals and improve cell respiration.
- 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.
Table 3: SustainAqua analyses to determine industrial potential of hydro-culture plants and tropical fruits
22/110
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. However, an added
value in the utilisation of aquaculture co-products in the cosmetic sector could be the holistic and organic
approach of, for instance, the 'Tropenhaus' production or other sustainable aquaculture farms. Such a unique
selling point could be beneficial for certain branches of the industry, in particular small or medium
enterprises.
Market opportunities
Current developments in the cosmetics, in particular the natural cosmetics market, 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. Europe is a
major engine of growth with growth rates of over 20% to reach 1,1 bn of sales. Germany, followed by
Austria and Switzerland, is by a long stretch the leading country in this market segment, achieving 650
mill. in sales in 2006. The market share of the overall cosmetic market is forecast to grow from currently
6% to 10% by 2012. However, French markets are the fastest growing, with growth rates of 40% in
2005.
Domination of highly innovative SME's
In Europe, the supply-side is highly fragmented and dominated by small- and medium-sized companies
with over 400 SMEs producing natural cosmetics.
High rate of new product development (NPD); NPD is key feature
The cosmetics industry is characterised by innovation and a high rate of product development.
Innovation is essential to improve performance, safety and the environmental impact of products.
Companies are experimenting with natural ingredients moving away from synthetic chemicals.
Product positioning: Successful marketing comes from clear differentiation from competing products
A critical success factor for natural cosmetics is product positioning. Market winners are the companies
that can successfully differentiate their products from their competitors, both natural and conventional.
23/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
24/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
Two additional irrigated fields were connected to the Subsystem B in 2008, where the water level was
maintained under the surface and the sodium remediation capacity of energy willow and salt-cedar was
examined.
The following principles were applied:
Retention time: Calculated hydraulic retention time was 18 days in each wetland unit.
Water depth: The average water depth in the stabilisation and fishponds was 1.2 m, and 0.5 m in the
macrophyte ponds.
Fish stock: Fish were stocked in polyculture at a stocking density of 900 kg/ha: 35% common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), 60% silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and 5% grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
idella) in April and May. This fish stocking composition was chosen to achieve the water treatment goals
and to utilise the different natural food sources as effectively as possible.
Feeding: There was no artificial feeding applied in the fishponds.
Harvest: The fishponds were harvested in November, the water was drained and the bottom kept dry in
winter (from November till February)
2 Stocked in April
A_FP 3 072 m 1.2 m Carp polyculture
Harvested in November
2 Common reed (Phragmites australis),
A_PH 2 288 m 0.5 m Harvested in November
duckweed
2
A_TY 2 728 m 0.5 m Cattail (Typha latifolia, T. angustifolia) Harvested in November
2
B_SP 1 387 m 1.2 m Duckweed (Lemna sp.) Regularly removed
2 Stocked in April
B_FP 1 380 m 1.2 m Carp polyculture
Harvested in November
2 Willow (Salix viminalis), Planted in 2006, insufficient growth of
B_SA 683 m 0.5 m
cattail (Typha sp.) willow, cattail invasion
2 Giant reed (Arundo donax), cattail Planted in 2006, insufficient growth of
B_AR 683 m 0.5 m
(Typha sp.) giant reed, cattail invasion
2 Planted in 2007, irrigated with outflow
B_SAi 683 m not applicable Willow (Salix viminalis)
water from the fishpond (B_FP)
2 Planted in 2007, irrigated with outflow
B_TAi 683 m not applicable Salt-cedar (Tamarix tetrandra)
water from the fishpond (B_FP)
25/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
N P C
Table 5: Nutrient input, output and the nutrient removal of the pond units in ACS in 2007 (in brackets: removal calculated
for the pond input)
N P C
Input Output Removal Input Output Removal Input Output Removal
Unit
kg kg % kg kg % kg Kg %
A_ST 1 352 865 36.0 152 95.9 37.0 2 646 1 304 50.7
A_FI 865 376 36.1 (56.5) 95.9 48.0 31.5 (49.9) 1 304 1 143 6.07 (12.3)
A_PH 184 41.9 10.5 (77.3) 23.7 15.5 5.36 (34.4) 562 161 15.2 (71.4)
A_TY 198 37.1 11.9 (81.2) 23.3 14.7 5.66 (36.9) 522 166 13.4 (68.1)
A_Total 1 352 79.0 94.2 152 30.2 80.1 2 646 327 87.6
B_ST 717 361 49.6 78.9 40.4 48.7 1 351 554 59.0
B_FI 361 184 24.7 (49.0) 40.4 19.3 26.7 (52.2) 554 503 3.78 (9.22)
B_SA 88.3 17.3 9.90 (80.4) 9.21 2.96 7.93 (67.9) 238 68.3 12.5 (71.3)
B_AR 99.0 19.5 11.1 (80.3) 9.78 3.97 7.36 (59.4) 257 80.1 13.1 (68.8)
B_Total 717 36.8 94.9 78.9 6.93 91.2 1 351 148 89.0
Total 2 069 116 94.4 231 37.1 83.9 3 997 475 88.1
Table 6: Nutrient input, 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, which corresponded to
0.48 kg/day discharge from the whole treatment system. In the output water less than 6% of the nitrogen
amount was detected as compared with the input water sources. The total phosphorus output was 37.1 kg
and the daily discharge was 0.15 kg, in the output water 16% of the input phosphorus amount was found.
The total organic carbon output was 4 812 kg during the operation corresponding to 19.7 kg daily output. In
the output water, less than 5% of the total organic carbon input was detected (Table 6). 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. The organic carbon output, according to the daily amounts, was found to be
similar in both years.
26/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
2007 2008
Nutrient Unit
N P C N P C
Input kg 1 679 167 2 743 2 069 231 3 997
Water % 9.7 27 29 5.6 16 4.3
Water at harvest % 10 17 20 5.9 9.2 7.5
Output
Fish % 1.0 1.8 3.5 0.99 1.7 2.3
Plants % 4.0 9.2 n.c.* 3.7 8.5 n.c.*
*not calculated
A part of the nutrients in the ACS module was taken up by fish and energy plants as valuable by-products. A
similar proportion of the input nutrients was converted into fish and plant biomass in both years: 1.0%, 1.8%,
and 2.3-3.5% of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon were retained in the harvested fish, respectively.,
3.7-4.0% nitrogen and 8.5-9.2% phosphorus were absorbed by energy plants from the input of nutrient
amounts (Table 7).
Energy efficiency
During the operation of the ACS experimental system, electrical energy was used to pump effluent into
stabilisation ponds (one pump with a power of 3.1 kW) to mix and aerate pond water by aerators (2 pcs with
a power of 0.75 kW). The energy consumption of electrical pumps and aerators was 16 221 kWh and 16 997
kWh in 2007 and 2008, respectively. In the case where the effluent inflow to the treatment system can be
solved by gravity, the energy consumption needed for pumping can be eliminated. The specific energy
3
consumption calculated for the treated aquaculture effluent volume was 0.257 kWh/m in 2007 and 0.273
3
kWh/m in 2008, respectively. Approximately 48 l fuel, i.e. 487 kWh was used for the harvest and transport of
the biomass.
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. 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).
2007 2008
kWh MJ kWh MJ
Electric energy consumption 16 221 58 396 16 997 61 189
Effluent pumping 10 714 38 570 9 077 32 677
Aeration 5 508 19 829 7,920 28 512
Fuel consumption 487 1 754 487 1 754
Effective fuel value of plants 22 702 81 728 99 780 359 207
Balance 5 994 21 578 82 296 296 263
In the effluent treatment system energy crops were cultivated as valuable by-products, since by utilising
them as fuel a considerable renewable energy source is produced. The plants were harvested in the
macrophyte ponds in December 2007, the total biomass weight was 8 320 kg.
The produced macrophyte biomass was estimated to be 40 900 kg in 2008. The cattail showed the highest
growing rate and the lowest rate was recorded for the willow plantation. In giant reed and willow ponds, a
strong spontaneous cattail growth occurred suppressing the development of planted species. Common reed
had the highest fuel values with an average of 11 372 J/g. Willow had a value of 9 699 J/g. Cattail and giant
reed showed comparatively low fuel values of 9 214 J/g and 8 611 J/g respectively.
Within the seasons of autumn, winter and spring, the heating value nearly doubled for reed and increased by
45% for cattail, while the water content decreased. These results indicate that between March and April is
the best time in the year for the harvesting the wetland crops, to gain the highest heating value, as the water
content is the lowest at that period and accordingly the calorific value is comparatively high.
Productivity of labour
Plant stocking, daily operation activities, plant harvest and fish harvest required approximately 64, 176, 216
and 32 man-hours, respectively. Thus, the total labour input during the treatment process was 488 h, or
3
0.00778 man-hours/m effluent water were used for the treatment in ACS.
27/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
28/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
6.2. From a case study to a fish farm: How to treat the effluents of a catfish farm?
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
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
Nutrient retention
Based on the data of a temperature-dependent loading experiment in 2008, the retention capacities were
calculated for 5 C intervals. The N removal showed the highest sensitivity, and the COD removal also
improved when the water temperature increased. The P retention and VSS removal were more efficient only
in the highest temperature range (Table 10). During the planning of the system, the lowest removal efficiency
should be considered, and it is recommended that the sizing of the area of different wetland types is
undertaken with parallel pond units, which can be attached or detached depending on demand.
The possibility of adding refreshing water during the operation, especially in case of stabilisation of
fishponds, is an important principle of the treatment process. 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.
Fish stocking
In the fish 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. Common carp, as a bottom feeder, stirs up the sediment, whereby
the nutrients and organic matter enter the water column, enhancing the primary production and increasing
the available food pool for filter feeders. Silver carp tolerates higher densities and can consume a large part
of the phytoplankton and zooplankton. It was observed that silver carp can filter the feed remnants from the
intensive farm effluent. Grass carp, as a macrophyte feeder, was stocked to control the duckweed growth in
the ponds. In an eutrophic/hypertrophic pond, the duckweed species grow spontaneously and in small
ponds, could cover the whole pond surface interfering with the primary production of algae. Furthermore,
stocking juvenile common carp can prevent abundant zooplankton growth.
Various stocking densities were tested in the course of the experiments. 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). The individual stocking weight, i.e. the age of stocked fish,
also influences the yields since 1-year-old fish is expected to grow more intensively than larger-sized fish;
however, 2-year-old common carp is able to resuspend the sediment more efficiently.
30/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
Duckweed: In stagnant waters, different duckweed species can appear and at optimal conditions, reproduce
abundantly. Covering the pond surface, the duckweed hampers phytoplankton growth and activity, which
results in anaerobic conditions in the water column. Since aerobic processes are preferred in treatment
systems, the removal of duckweed is recommended from all pond units. The best solution for duckweed
control in fishponds is the stocking of grass carp, that can consume duckweed, and thus, it is transferred into
fish biomass. In macrophyte ponds, the manual removal of duckweed is also recommended to increase the
ratio of open water surface.
Accumulation: Moderate sludge accumulation was observed at the inflow of aquaculture effluents in the
stabilisation ponds and after longer operation (15-20 years), the removal of the accumulated sludge may be
necessary.
31/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Investment costs (land, ponds,
pumps, aerators) 228 571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cost of fish juveniles 0 4 029 4 109 4 191 4 275 4 361 4 448 4 537 4 628 4 720 4 815 4 911 5 009 5 109 5 211 5 316
Fuel costs (250 litres/year) 89 268 284 301 319 338 358 380 403 427 453 480 508 539 571 606
Cost of electricity (35,040
kWh/ year) 0 4 505 4 775 5 062 5 366 5 688 6 029 6 391 6 774 7 181 7 611 8 068 8 552 9 065 9 609 10 186
Labour costs (2,800 hour/year) 1 429 7 500 7 725 7 957 8 195 8 441 8 695 8 955 9 224 9 501 9 786 10 079 10 382 10 693 11 014 11 344
Revenue from cattail (2.9
EUR/GJ) 0 3 082 3 267 3 463 3 671 3 891 4 125 4 372 4 634 4 912 5 207 5 520 5 851 6 202 6 574 6 968
Revenue from fish production 0 11 986 12 225 12 470 12 719 12 974 13 233 13 498 13 768 14 043 14 324 14 611 14 903 15 201 15 505 15 815
Avoided water discharge fees 0 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543 34 543
Profit -230 089 33 309 33 142 32 965 32 778 32 580 32 371 32 150 31 917 31 670 31 410 31 135 30 845 30 539 30 216 29 875
Discounted profit (r=5%) -230 089 31 723 30 061 28 476 26 966 25 527 24 156 22 848 21 602 20 415 19 283 18 204 17 176 16 195 15 261 14 370
-18 102
Net present value -230 089 -198 366 -168 306 -139 829 -112 863 -87 336 -63 180 -40 332 729 1 686 20 969 39 173 56 348 72 544 87 805 175
Table 11: CBA of the proposed 12-hectare wetland system (thousands HUF, 1 EURO=275 HUF)
32/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
6.3. Combination of intensive and extensive aquaculture for the sustainable utilisation of
water and nutrients (Intensive-Extensive Site)
33/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
Intensive unit
Intensive unit
Intensive unit
Fish stocking only Periphyton Periphyton
Experimental system I. (IES/1) Experimental system II. (IES/2) Experimental system III. (IES/3)
All ponds were subjected to the same regime of feeding and fish stocking. A pelleted fish feed (45% crude
protein, C:N ratio 6) was applied daily to the intensive ponds using an automatic feeder, but there was no
feeding in the extensive fishponds. The design of extensive ponds was the only difference between the
systems, where the effect of periphyton application and shellfish stocking on the water quality, fish yields and
2
nutrient utilisation were tested. The average feed loading was 0.5 and 1.2 g N/m /day in 2007 and 2008,
respectively (Table 12). The only nutrient source of the system was the fish feed used in the intensive unit.
2
The additional area for periphyton development equalled to 0, 100 and 200 % (i.e. 0, 1 and 2 m periphyton
2
area/m pond surface) of the pond surface area (Table 13).
34/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
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).
35/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
with periphyton application this ratio could be increased to 40% in 2008. 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. This indicates that the
2
100% periphyton ratio was sufficient to utilise the metabolites of the feed loading of 1.8 g N/m /day. The
average FCR was 3.3 and 1.6 in the intensive unit in 2007 and 2008. By the combined production the FCR
was improved by 51% and 44% (to 1.6 and 0.9) due to the additional fish yield of the extensive unit.
PA 100%+SF (2007), PA
PA 0% PA 100%
200% (2008)
N P C N P C N P C
2007 Intensive 8.5 7.8 5.6 17 17 11 6.4 5.6 4.1
Extensive 11 13 7.8 6.5 6.9 4.2 13 17 9.2
Total 20 21 13 24 24 16 19 24 13
2008 Intensive 23 23 16 22 22 15 22 22 15
Extensive 6.1 3.3 4.4 10 8.9 7.3 5.9 3.3 4.2
Total 29 26 20 33 31 22 28 25 19
PA: Periphyton area, SF: shellfish
Table 18: Nutrient accumulation in fish biomass as a percentage of the feed input (%)
From the experimental ponds 2.6-8.3 g nitrogen, 0.20-0.53 g phosphorus and 9-46 g organic carbon were
discharged during the production of 1 kg fish biomass (Table 19). There was no effect of the periphyton
application and feed loading on the nutrient content of effluents. Only the nitrogen concentration was lower in
the effluent in the case of a 200% periphyton ratio.
Table 19: Nutrient discharge of the fish production in IES (g/kg net fish yield)
In the operation of water treatment systems, besides algae nutrient uptake and bacterial decomposition,
consumption of heterotrophic organisms and denitrification processes have a significant role. Hence, the
regulation of the oxygen regime, to provide aerobic condition by artificial aeration is important for the efficient
nutrient removal during water treatment.
The pilot scale experimental combination of an intensive fish production unit and an extensive fishpond
demonstrated the applicability of such systems. The combined system could process a significant part of
surplus nutrients from the intensive fish production. The maximum of reused surplus nutrients by the
additional fish production in the fishpond represented 13% of the nitrogen, 17% of the phosphorus and 9% of
the organic carbon.
The efficiency of the extensive unit was improved by periphyton developed on artificial substrates, as the
periphyton can provide special foods for fish. The dry matter content of periphyton developed at different
36/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
layers was significantly higher in the samples, which were collected from the higher parts of poles than
samples which were taken from the lower parts. Comparing the annual average amounts of periphyton dry
matter, there was no significant difference between the two ponds. However, the higher amount of
periphyton consumption by fish resulted in a higher fish yield in the extensive unit. By following the
quantitative and qualitative changes of the periphyton, we were able to derive more detailed knowledge on
the functioning of the system, nutrient cycling and energy flow in the aquatic ecosystem and possibilities of
increasing the system efficiency, which could then be applied to the operation and further development of the
technology.
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.
37/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
6.4. From a case study to a fish farm: Design of a theoretical combined system
Advantages Disadvantages
Simple technology with low investment and Less controllable production conditions (i.e.
operation costs temperature fluctuations)
Improved nutrient utilisation efficiency and Water quality affected primarily by natural biological
additional income through additional fish processes
production Limited growing period (from April till October in
Low nutrient discharge into the natural waters Hungary)
Low energy demand for fish production Winter storage of fish needs to be be resolved
Lower water consumption compared to other pond
farming practices
Concentrated production reduces the losses
caused by predators
38/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
in our experiment. 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. 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. Mixing is important to ensure that algal cells are kept in suspension in the water column in order to
enhance the primary production. The adequate velocity of water circulation is 5-10 cm/sec.
39/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Hungary
Total pond area: 1.25 hectare Total pond area: 1.25 hectare
Intensive fish Intensive fish Intensive fish Intensive fish
production unit production unit production unit production unit
100 m2 100 m2 100 m2 100 m2
The calculated investments costs comprise the acquisition of 3.5 ha of land (5 000 , 1.4 million HUF), the
3
construction of a 2.5 ha pond area (54 000 , 15 million HUF) with a 800 m cage (3 000 ,
0.8 million HUF*), setting of artificial substrate for periphyton production (4 000 , 1.2 million HUF) and
creation of starting current assets (2 000 , 0.6 million HUF). Further calculations are listed in the table
below. In the Cost Benefit Analysis it is assumed that the prices are constant. The investments payback
th
occurs in the 4 year, while the investments present net value (with 10 % discount rate) amounts to
74 000 (20.7 million HUF) after 10 years of operation.
0. year 1. year 2. year 3. year 4. year 5. year 6. year 7. year 8. year 9. year 10. year
Investment 67 857
Residual value after 10 years 17 857
Feed costs 36 643 36 643 36 643 36 643 36 643 36 643 36 643 36 643 36 643 36 643
Seed costs 62 857 62 857 62 857 62 857 62 857 62 857 62 857 62 857 62 857 62 857
Labour costs 7 857 7 857 7 857 7 857 7 857 7 857 7 857 7 857 7 857 7 857
Energy costs and water fees 6 714 6 714 6 714 6 714 6 714 6 714 6 714 6 714 6 714 6 714
Total Cost 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071 114 071
Total Revenue 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071 136 071
Cash-flow -67 857 22 000 22 000 22 000 22 000 22 000 22 000 22 000 22 000 22 000 39 857
Discounted cash-flow (r=10%) -67 857 20 000 18 182 16 529 15 026 13 660 12 418 11 289 10 263 9 330 15 367
Cumulative discounted cash-
flow -67 857 -47 857 -29 675 -13 146 1 880 15 540 27 959 39 248 49 511 58 841 74 208
Table 23: Cost Benefit Analysis of the theoretical farm (EUR, calculation is based on an exchange rate of 280 EUR/HUF)
40/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
7.1. New species and methods in pond fish culture: Module POLYCULTURE
Fish stock
Standard monoculture and polyculture fish stocks have been compared with two experimental stocks
involving paddlefish and sturgeon. The fish stocks were designed to ensure that each feeding spectrum of
fish (bottom feeders, filter feeders, herbivorous) carried the same biomass of fish (Table 24). These
treatments (different fish stocks) were run in duplicate. The fish were introduced into the ponds at the end of
April and stayed for 5 months.
Polyculture
Species Monoculture Polyculture tench Polyculture carp
sturgeon
Grass carp 30 kg/ha 30 kg/ha 30 kg/ha
-
(Ctenopharyngodon idella) 500 g 500 g 500 g
Silver carp 60 kg/ha 60 kg/ha 60 kg/ha
-
(Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) 500 g 500 g 500 g
Bighead carp 72 kg/ha
- - -
(Aristichthys nobilis) 100 g
Paddlefish 72 kg/ha 72 kg/ha
- -
(Polyodon spathula) 500 g 500 g
Tench 45 kg/ha
- - -
(Tinca tinca) 250 g
Common carp 150 kg/ha 105 kg/ha 150 kg/ha
-
(Cypriunus carpio) 250 g 250 g 250 g
Sturgeon 150 kg/ha
- - -
(Acipenser baerii) 250 g
Table 24. Designed fish stock researched under the Polyculture module (initial biomass and average individual fish
weight)
41/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
Ponds
A pilot scale, two-season experiment, introducing paddlefish into carp-type earthen ponds was performed. All
experiments were conducted at one complex of experimental earthen ponds located in southern Poland
2
(1845E, 4953N). The ponds were 1 500 m each and the average depth was 1 m, thus the volume of each
3
pond was estimated to be 1 500 m . The ponds were fully drainable, supplied with water from the Vistula
river.
Fertilisation
The ponds were fertilised with urea (46% N) and superphosphate (20% P) on a weekly basis. This resulted
in a fertilisation intensity of 147 kgN/ha and 25 kgP/ha per season.
Table 25: Fish biomass gain and survival rate within the Polyculture module
Table 26. Average retailer prices of fish species used in the Polyculture module
42/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
The paddlefish obtained at the beginning of the project were kept under extensive conditions in carp type
ponds without supplementary feeding. The fish were fed exclusively on plankton. The individual body mass
on the 10th, 18th and 30th months of production is presented in Figure 10.
Primary production
Highest average net primary production of plankton (0,349 mgO2/Lh) was reported in ponds stocked with
polyculture involving common carp and paddlefish. This was 53% higher compared to monoculture of carp.
The difference was caused by the modification of the plankton spectrum caused by the feeding pattern of
paddlefish. Paddlefish feed mainly on zooplankton. Therefore its presence in a fish stock affects qualitative
composition of plankton. Grazing on zooplankton favours autothrophic algae growth, thus net primary
production of the pond water body. In contrast, 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).
43/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
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. Energy demand
is very farm specific and strongly depends on the farm size, pond construction and equipment used. These
factors influence the amount of energy demand much more than the production technology applied. Thus,
energy efficiency in the researched pond production system was not calculated.
Water utilisation
Extensive carp farming involves large water volumes collected during the filling of ponds in spring . 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, the water utilised in pond systems is not connected with fish
production exclusively. 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.
All ponds used in the Polyculture module were in the same pond complex, situated next to each other, thus
being exposed to the same climatic conditions. The same water regime was applied to all treatments. Thus,
the calculations presented below were made for the whole complex of ponds, not for individual ponds.
Observed differences between the treatments result from the fish gain only.
44/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS
RETENTION RETENTION
INPUT INPUT
kg/ha % kg/ha %
MONOCULTURE CARP 159,1 10,6 6,6 30,9 1,1 3,4
POLYCULTURE CARP 159,1 33,3 20,9 30,9 3,3 10,8
POLYCULTURE STURGEON 159,1 18,1 11,4 30,9 1,8 5,9
POLYCULTURE TENCH 159,1 14,0 8,8 30,9 1,4 4,6
Table 29. Retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in fish biomass
45/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
The only external carbon source in the pond system was urea. However, 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. Any organic carbon present in the pond system derives from primary production. The CO2
transferred to the water from the atmosphere is the main source of organic carbon in the biomass developed
in a pond. The pathways of organic carbon in a pond ecosystem are very complex and fluctuate within a
production season. The quantity of organic carbon in a water body can be calculated (based upon COD).
Nutrients output
A properly maintained pond system does not discharge water during the production season as any losses of
nutrients are undesired. This also concerns extensively cultivated ponds such as the ones used in the
Polyculture module. Throughout the production season nutrients are released only by seepage. However this
is very case specific and constitutes only a minor fraction of the total nutrient release during the production
season. The majority of nutrients are released during the drainage of ponds at harvest time. The amount of
nutrients discharged from the system has
been estimated assuming the amount Nutrient output
discharged equals the concentration in kgN/kg product kgP/kg product
pond water before harvest multiplied by the
pond volume. MONOCULTURE CARP 0,39 0,079
Similarly to the water inflow, the differences POLYCULTURE CARP 0,1 0,023
of recorded values between treatments are POLYCULTURE
related mainly to fish biomass gain. The STURGEON 0,22 0,045
concentration of nutrients in discharged
water was far less of a consideration for POLYCULTURE TENCH 0,29 0,059
the observed differences. In this case, only
the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus Table 30. Nutrient loss through outflow water per kg fish produced
was estimated (Table 30).
46/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
47/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
system production almost tripled in polyculture treatments compared with monoculture. 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. 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. 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, thus primary production.
The feeding behaviour of common carp causes efficient resuspension of bottom sediments and thus better
exchanges nutrients with water.
As there were no other crops obtained from the system, only the fish biomass gain is responsible for
observed differences between the treatments. The vast majority of waste biogenic compounds are deposited
in the bottom sediment. These, 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. Improved
nutrient utilisation through use of polyculture stocks does not eliminate, but does however, drastically reduce
this phenomenon.
48/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
during the performed experiment only. The values given do not determine the maximal growth rate of
paddlefish under production conditions.
Based on these recommendations, an example of fish stock design is presented above in Table 31.
49/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
7.3. Using agricultural waste nutrients in pond fish culture: Module CASCADE in Poland
50/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
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. Other demands were related to maintaining the
farms facilities. 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. If so, energy demand to reuse the water may present significant costs
to make the module functional.
51/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
Fish production
The system is, in principle, designed to utilise waste nutrients. Fish production in the cascade is an
additional, however important activity. The system is able to produce a significant biomass of fish. Although
there are many variables the total fish production can be estimated to be 380 kg/ha. The breakdown of
production (one season biomass gain) to fish species is presented in Figure 13.
Nutrient utilisation efficiency: kg nutrient (N, P, COD) retained in product/kg nutrient input [%]
The main aim of the cascade was to retain nutrients delivered. Two main sources of nitrogen, phosphorus
and organic carbon have been incorporated into calculations:
Fresh water input the system was constantly supplied with water coming from a river. During the
researched period (20 weeks) the supplied water brought with it into the system a significant load of
nutrients. In total 424 kgC/ha (organic C), 39,7 kgN/ha and 16,3 kgP/ha over 20 weeks were introduced
to the system via supplied water.
Manure supply bi-weekly the system was supplied with manure (slurry), as the main source of
nitrogen. In total 78,1 kgN/ha and 1,1 kgP/ha over 20 weeks were delivered with manure per hectare of
cascade.
Nitrogen fixation as in the case of the polyculture module, this N source was omitted from the
calculations.
Due to the basic functioning of the Cascade module, retention of the nutrients both in fish biomass and the
whole cascading system is important. In the case of nutrient retention in fish biomass, only nitrogen and
phosphorus were taken into consideration. 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. The majority of organic matter built into fish biomass derives from primary production. The amount of
nitrogen and phosphorus in the harvested fish biomass was compared with the total input of these
compounds. Retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in fish biomass has been calculated only (Table 35).
Throughout the production season the cascading system retained significant amounts of nutrients. Loads of
all measured parameters were smaller at output than at input. Presented in Figure 14 are the loads of
organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus entering and leaving the system divided to four week periods (I to
IV) of the season (16 weeks in total).
52/110
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
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
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, this
experiment failed due to technical reasons. The character of the research pond favoured the development of
unwanted plant species instead of desired species, though the production of potentially useful plants which
could be utilised in-situ would be theoretically possible. Production of Azolla (water fern) as a feed for
herbivorous fish and as an alternative source of nitrogen can be considered.
54/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
55/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
Compartment A Zooplankton part: This compartment is directly supplied with water and the manure.
Hydraulic retention time in this compartment should be set at two weeks. This period provides sufficient time
for zooplankton development. The zooplankton and bacterioplankton feed directly on organic matter derived
from the manure supplied. Biogenic compounds coming from manure, supplied water or bottom deposits
support primary production, however an over abundance of zooplankton suppress the development of
phytoplankton. Thus, the net primary production is minimal or negative. This fact is a main limiting factor for
manure utilisation. The oxygen supplied with water, expressed in moles, must be at least twice the amount of
organic carbon received with the manure to sustain aerobic conditions in the pond. The zooplankton
compartment should not be stocked with fish, however small (up to few dozen kg/ha) bottom feeders are
admitted. The fish stock shall not cause bottom sediment resuspension, thus cyprinids are not favoured in
contrast to young sturgeon (<50 kg/ha, 1-3 years old fish are recommended). A stock of <100 kg/ha of grass
carp is desired to control growth of macrophytes.
Compartment B Filtrators part: The compartment is mainly stocked with filter feeding fish species. The
plankton developed in Compartment A, transferred with the water flow, is utilised by planktonophagous fish.
Stock composed of paddlefish and/or filtrating cyprinids is proposed. 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 0,53 kg). The compartment should be separated from the Compartment A with a mesh
only to provide efficient transfer of plankton. Use of pipelines reduces the transfer efficiency.
Compartment C Polyculture part: This part of the system is responsible for the utilisation of biogenic
compounds coming from preceding compartments, being the only external source of nitrogen and
phosphorus. Presence of common carp, as the main species, enhances nutrient turnover and the primary
production. Hence, the volume of the compartment should provide hydraulic retention time close to 12 days.
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. Recommended fish stock is composed
of cyprinids, although use of paddlefish instead of bighead carp is recommended (Table 38).
Compartment D Sedimentation part: The last compartment acts as a sedimentation tank. Fish stocked in
part B causes a serious resuspension of bottom sediments resulting in high turbidity and suspended solids
concentration. As the suspended matter contains both nutrients and organic carbon, it should not be
56/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Poland
released to the environment. The Sedimentation part of the cascade due to the long retention time and no
fish stock provides good conditions for sedimentation of suspended solids. The water surface can be used to
produce additional plant crops or can be used for recreation purposes. The absence of fish and high water
transparency favours growth of water plants utilising dissolved nutrients from the water. Where plant
production is planned relevant equipment and technologies must be developed.
Water flow
The water supply efficiency may be a main limiting factor in some cases. In such a situation the total area,
(thus manure utilisation capacity), will depend on water supply. Assuming an average pond depth of 1 m, the
total system volume, (thus area) At, will be determined by multiplication of retention time, RT (15 days =
3 3 2
360h) and possible water flow, q [m /h]): At=RTq [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. There is a strong correlation between water flow and organic carbon supply.
Primary production in the Zooplankton compartment may be very limited or negative due to zooplankton
development, where the only source of oxygen is water provided to the system. Each gram of organic carbon
3
derived from manure requires ~2,7 g of oxygen. Assuming that inflowing water contains ~7 gO2/m , only 2,5
g of organic carbon can be delivered per cubic meter of water to sustain aerobic conditions in Compartment
A. Thus, the organic carbon content in the manure must be analysed in order to design the cascade. If the
3 3 3
supplied manure contains 5 kgC/m (mean), about 2000 m of water is needed for 1 m of liquid manure.
However, this value may vary depending on light conditions and temperature. During mid-summer less water
(~20%) can be provided (or ~20% more manure), but as the sun light intensity decreases the calculated
value should be maintained.
The relation of C, N and P concentrations remain within a certain range in the case of manure. Conducted
research did not reveal any constraints related to N and P. Thus, the load of nitrogen and phosphorus
delivered with the manure is rarely the limiting factor for the designed system.
57/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
58/110
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, inlet and outlet channels (Photo: DTU-Aqua)
The Model Trout Farm strategy involves significant environmental advantages, 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 0.15 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 total organic substances (COD),
phosphorus, 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, 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.)
Potential increase in the trout production without corresponding increase in the environmental impact
However, 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, e.g. mechanical
filtration, bio filter, aerators, pumps etc.
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. Some
farmers report on lower production time and, in addition to the large reduction in nutrient discharges,
migration of fauna in nearby watercourses is facilitated. However, the systems need optimisation in particular
with respect to lowering nitrogen discharges. Therefore, the SustainAqua Danish case study investigated
different aspects/modules of the model trout farms for further optimisation:
4. Feed and feeding - Environmental impact from model trout farms
5. Energy consumption in model trout farms
6. Cultivation of pond plants in the lagoons of model farms
7. Cultivation of alternative fish species in the lagoons of model farms
59/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
8.2. Feed and feeding - 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. 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, the so-called contribution from
production before the water is passed on for treatment in the cleaning devices on the farm.
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. Therefore, 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), phosphorus (P) and organic matter transferred to the watercourse. The
model should take relevant production parameters (feed type, amount of feed, fish production etc.), operation
parameters (temperature, oxygen content etc.) and system set-up (components, flow-rates and dimensions)
into account.
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.
60/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
By integrating data into the calculation model from both model trout farms and traditional farms with less
technology, the model offers the opportunity to obtain estimates for discharges from trout farms at different
technological levels. After integration of data the model has been verified and adjusted accordingly in order
to correlate optimally with actual measured discharges. In this way it aimed to optimise the model as much
as it was possible at the current time.
The laboratory experiments were carried out in 18 flow-through, thermoplastic tanks with a volume of 189 l.
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. This design allowed for rapid sedimentation and collection of
undisturbed faecal particles in cooled, partly separated sedimentation columns.
Rainbow trout of approximately 50 g each were obtained from local Danish fish farms and transferred to DTU
Aquas research facilities in Hirtshals, Denmark. Feed consumption was recorded throughout the
experiments, and faeces were collected from the sedimentation columns. The sedimentation columns were
emptied daily prior to feeding, and the faecal samples were stored at -20 C for analysis of protein, lipid, N-
free extract (NFE), ash, crude fibres and P.
The three feed types used had the following average composition, as Protein: 46.3 %
can be see in Table 40 on the right hand side: Lipid: 27.5 %
Samples were taken for determination of the contribution of NFE: 12.6 %
particulate N and P waste and of dissolved/suspended N and P Ash: 6.9 %
waste, respectively. N and P retention by the fish was determined by Crude fibres:
1.4 %
analysing the N and P concentration in the fish at the start and at the
Dry matter: 94.6 %
end of the whole experiment.
Phosphorus: 0.98 %
A specific experiment was set up for the determination of the .
Energy content: 23.8 kJ g feed
contribution of dissolved BOD5 and COD waste as well as particulate
BOD5 and COD waste. Table 40: Composition of feed
The apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC) of dietary nutrients and
minerals was calculated using the following equation:
where W(ti) and W(t0) were the biomass at the end (ti) and at the start (t0) of the trial, and (ti - t0) was the
duration of the trial in days.
-1
The feed conversion ratio (FCR, g g ) was calculated based on the biomass gain in the tanks, the feed
amount administered and the registered feed waste during the 9 days of feeding according to:
The data were subjected to one-way ANOVA analysis using Sigma Stat for Windows Version 3.10. The
Holm-Sidak Test was used for pair wise comparisons where dietary treatments were significantly different. A
probability of P < 0.05 was considered as significant in all analyses.
61/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
Table 41: Apparent digestibility coefficients (ADC) of protein, lipid, NFE, ash, phosphorus and dry matter (DM) (%, mean
1
std. dev., n = 3) of the diets as well as the calculated digestibility of dry matter .
Calculations of the BOD5 and COD contributions showed that an average of 55% of the total BOD5 waste
was recovered as dissolved/suspended waste, while an average of 45% was recovered as particulate BOD5
waste. An average of 71% of the total COD waste was recovered in the particulate form, while 29% was
recovered as dissolved/suspended COD waste, and the dissolved/suspended BOD5/COD ratio was 0.51.
The majority of the Total N-waste was recovered as dissolved/suspended TN waste (88%), while an average
of 12% was recovered in the particulate fraction. Almost all of the phosphorus P-waste was recovered as
particulate waste (on average 98%), while only a very minor fraction (on average 2%) was recovered as
dissolved/suspended P-waste.
62/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
63/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
64/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
The floating garden method applicable on unused ponds of model trout farms (Photo: DTU-Aqua)
65/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
66/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
of the lagoon was sufficient for supplying feed for the fish larvae, e.g. perch and pike-perch larvae.
Based on the results of the zooplankton sampling it was concluded that the lagoons were less suitable for
rearing fish larvae. However, production of juvenile fish in e.g. net-cages (including suitable lagoon sites)
might be an attractive methodology to produce various fish species to be sold for on-growing (put-and-take-
lakes, aquaria etc. )
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. Perch and pike-perch larvae were used for the experiments.
8.5.3. Assessment of selected SustainAqua sustainability indicators: Nutrient, 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. Furthermore, the water quality was unstable with periods of low oxygen and occurrence of
toxic hydrogen sulphide formation. Therefore, the lagoons were considered less suitable for larval rearing.
In the succeeding net-cage experiments the cages were stocked with perch and pike-perch larvae. 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. Aeration of the water
within the net cages was not sufficient to increase oxygen content to acceptable levels.
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.
67/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
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)
S l ud ge b ed
P l an t l ag oo n s P la nt la go o ns
La go on cha n ne l
Slud ge be d
Rive r S lu dg e
P l an t p on d o ve rf l ow
La go on
cha n ne l S l ud ge
B ac k b ed
ch an ne l
1 Fe nc e e nt ran ce
= w ate r flow
T
Con cre te fi sh ta nk s T = T rou t pr odu ction
La go on
cha nn e l
Figure 20: Sketch of Ejstrupholm Model Trout Farm. Arrows indicate direction of water flow.
The recirculation and the aeration of water is achieved by airlifts. The function of an airlift is both the pumping
and aeration of water. The airlift consists of a well/hollow, equipped with a partition. On the one side of the
partition, a number of diffusers are installed (injection of pressurised air by compressors). The driving force in
an airlift is the difference in the specific gravity between the water and the air/water side. By a combination of
the injection of air and aeration water js lifted a few centimetres and thus creating the recirculation flow.
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. The recirculated water passes through a
biofilter, where the conversion of ammonia to nitrite/nitrate takes place.
The outlet water from the production units and the cleaned water from the sludge basins is passed to the
plant lagoons, i.e. the former earthen ponds, which are often left inter-connected with the old channels and
thus making up a lagoon area with wild plants. After treatment by the cleaning devices (sludge traps, bio
filters) of the farm, the water passes slowly through the lagoon area for further removal of nutrients by the
plants, i.e. final waste water treatment, before returning it to the water course.
68/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study from Denmark
Table 42: Specific contribution from production, the net discharge (average g nutrient per kg. produced fish) and cleaning
level from Ejstrupholm Model Trout Farm compared to the average specific discharge from Danish trout farms.
The results document a very high efficiency of removal of nutrients from the production water in the model
trout farm. In particular, the specific discharge of phosphorus and organic matter was significantly reduced
compared to the average discharge from Danish trout farms. The ammonia, phosphorus and organic matter
is removed in the sludge traps and the bio filters, while the plant lagoons efficiently remove organic matter,
phosphorus (especially suspended) and total-N (especially nitrate).
Calculations of the BOD5 and COD contributions showed, that an average of 55 % of the total BOD5 waste
was recovered as dissolved/suspended waste, while an average of 45 % was recovered as particulate BOD5
waste.
An average of 71 % of the total COD waste was recovered in the particulate form, while 29 % was recovered
as dissolved/suspended COD waste, and the dissolved/suspended BOD5/COD ratio was 0.51.
The majority of the Total N-waste was recovered as dissolved/suspended TN waste (88 %), while an
average of 12 % was recovered in the particulate fraction.
Almost all of the phosphorus P-waste was recovered as particulate waste (on average 98 %), while only a
very minor fraction (on average 2 %) was recovered as dissolved/suspended P-waste.
8.7.4. 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: Disadvantages
Water consumption reduced from about 50.000 Increased need of back-up systems: Electricity,
l/kg fish to about 3.900 l/kg fish produced oxygen, pumps, etc.
Independent of watercourse Increased discharge of CO2
Stable conditions for production Risk of accumulation of ammonia
Increased need for supervision and
Minor variations in water quality
management
Improved efficiency of cleaning devices Higher energy consumption/kg fish
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
Establishment costs of a Model Trout Farm as described above costs around 3 - 3,5 EURO/kg feed, i.e
about 1,6 mio. EURO for a 500 ton model farm like Ejstrupholm.
69/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
fish tank
treatment
unit 2
Figure 21: In a flow through system the flow through of the fish tanks equals the system's water exchange. In a
Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) the water flow from the fish tanks is purified and reused. Different treatment
units can require different flows and are sometimes operated in a separate loop within the system.
In a Recirculating Aquaculture System (RAS) the water flow from the fish tanks is purified and reused
(Figure 21). Solids are removed by sedimentation or sieving, oxygen is added by aeration or oxygenation,
carbon dioxide is removed by degassing and ammonia is mostly converted to nitrate (NO3) by nitrification in
aerobic biological filters. Each treatment step reduces the system water exchange to the next limiting waste
component. In the conventional RAS system water exchange is then dictated by the concentration of nitrate
(Figure 21). In the latest generation of RAS nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas (N2) by denitrification in
70/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
anaerobic biological filters. In these denitrification reactors organic matter (preferably of internal origin, i.e.
the uneaten feed and faeces from the solids removal) is oxidised using the oxygen from the nitrate molecule.
These latest generation RAS reduce thereby not only the water use and nitrogen discharge (less nitrate has
to be flushed out), but also the organic matter discharge.
For all compartments in a RAS, the fish holding and the treatment units, there are two fundamental
questions: 1) how much water should be passed through and 2) what are the required dimensions (i.e.
volume and shape).
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. For each treatment unit the flow should be large enough to provide it
with the amount of nutrients (waste) to be removed. Different treatment units can require different flows and
are sometimes operated in a separate loop within the system (Figure 21).
The required volume of the fish tanks will depend on the maximum stocking density for the fish species in
question. The required volume, and shape, of the treatment units depends on their functional characteristics.
For solids removal this mostly depends on particle size distribution. For biological filters the volume will
3
depend on the specific activity, expressed in g Waste/m /d removed.
From the above it follows that for the design of a RAS it is crucial to know the amount of waste produced per
day. Since all waste originates from the feed, i.e. everything in the feed which is not retained becomes
waste, so this comes down to knowing the amount fed per day. Due to the fluctuating fish stock present on
the farm, caused by harvesting and restocking, the amount fed also fluctuates. The design of the farm should
be based on the maximum expected feed load to realise the planned annual production. This in turn can be
calculated from the culture plan. Finally the waste production can be determined from the maximum feed
load with the nutrient budget model, which uses the feed composition, the feed digestibility, the fish
composition and the fish respiration to calculate the solid (faeces) and dissolved (excretion through gills and
urine) waste.
71/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
72/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Benefits
Resource use : - Reduction in energy cost of 3 kWh/kg harvested
- Reduction in water consumption to 200 L/kg harvested
- Reduction in bicarbonate consumption to 252 g/kg harvested
Nutrient reuse: - Nutrient reuse by bacteria and converted to 0.5 kWh/kg fish produced
Nutrient discharge: - Reduced by 81% for N,
59% for COD,
61% for TOD,
1)
30% CO2
58% for TDS
Sludge volume: - Reduction in sludge volume to 7.3 L /kg feed using Geotube system systems
Difficulties
- Higher investments ( Euro 52 800,--, USB-MDRs and additional biofilter
material and volume) when compared with conventional RAS
- A drumfilter with a larger TSS removal capacity may be needed as not all TSS is
retained in the USB-MDR. In pilot scale experiments the TSS treatment efficiency
(%) of the USB-MDR was 65 18 (mean S.D; N=7).
- Higher knowledge level to operate a RAS with USB-MDR
- C:N ratios in fish waste can limit the nitrate removal rate
1)
Reduction in carbon dioxide discharge due to savings in fossil fuel consumption.
Overall, 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.
73/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
9.2. From a case study to a fish farm: Integration of a denitrifying USB-MDR in a 100 MT
tilapia RAS
9.2.1. 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. A conventional RAS will be compared with a RAS with an
USB-MDR. The concept and results of ZonAquafarming B.V. with the intensive farming of tilapia in RAS will
be the starting point (Figure 22).
USB-
MDR
USB-
Conventional
MDR
Figure 22: In this case study a conventional RAS and a RAS with an USB-MDR, both according to the ZonAquafarming
B.V. concept, will be compared.
The case study is set up in a handbook format, to offer guidelines for development of a course in USB-MDR
design and operation. The steps needed for design of RAS are shown in Table 44. These steps will be
discussed in the following sections.
9.2.2. Implementation
Fish species
The first choice to be made, of which fish species is to be cultured, has here already been made: Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus). Often this choice is made based on the market price of the fish. For economic
sustainability the margin between market price and cost price, which in intensive systems is largely
3
determined by the productivity (kg/m /year), should be the main consideration.
Growth traject
In the choice of the fish species, and its market position, one also largely determines the growth traject, i.e.
the stocking and marketing weight. The growth curve of the fish is characterised by the time to reach the
74/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
market weight, which in turn is determined by the feed intake and the feed conversion, both depending on
the body weight. Mortality is also dependent on body weight and it is important to calculate the number of
fish to be stocked per cycle. 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).
In this case study a stocking weight of 70 g and a harvest weight of 845 g were chosen, based on the growth
and feed intake characteristics of ZonAquafarming B.V. tilapia as given in Figure 23. It should be noted that
the ZonAquafarming B.V. tilapia strain is developed through several generations of selective breeding. Most
commercial tilapia strains grow less fast and in particular have difficulties in reaching sizes above 600-700 g
under intensive conditions.
The tilapia in this case study reached the market size in 24 weeks with a cumulative survival of 99.5%. For
further calculations see box 1 in section Culture plan.
9
800 8
Body weight (g)
SGR (%/d)
7
600 6
5
400 4
3 SGR = 46 bw-0.61
200 2
1
0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 0 200 400 600 800
180
Maximum density (kg/m3 )
1.6
140
1.4
120
1.2 100
1.0 FC = 0.57 bw0.14 80
60
0.8
40
0.6 20
0.4 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
0.25
Cumulative survival (%)
Mortality (%/week)
0.20 100
0.15 99
0.10 98
Mort = 1.75 bw-0.8
0.05 97
0.00 96
0 200 400 600 800 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Culture plan
After the choice of fish species and growth traject one needs to determine the culture plan. This includes the
production goal (here 100 MT/year), the number of growth phases (here 2, the division being halfway in time,
i.e. after 12 weeks), and the stocking/harvesting scheme (here every 3 weeks). Note With a 100 MT farm a
farm output of 100 MT market sized fish is implied. As this is based on an input of 8.3 MT of fingerlings, the
actual production is only 91.7 MT.
75/110
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.
In the culture plan of ZonAquafarming B.V. 12 fishtanks (24 weeks / 2 growth phases) are used. The tanks
are operated in blocks of 3 tanks, which are connected through closable swimways. In this way the fish in
one tank can be divided over two tanks by opening the swimway to an adjacent empty tank. Every 3 weeks
one of the 3 tanks (not the middle tank of the 3) is stocked with 6,862 fish of 70 g. After 12 weeks, when the
rd
fish are ca. 370 g, the fish are divided between 2 tanks as described above. At that same time the 3 of the 3
tanks is stocked with a new cohort of 70 g fish. After 24 weeks the 2 tanks with market size fish are
rd st
harvested, 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. This culture plan is shown in Table 45, along with the resulting farm setup, tank shape, tank water
volume, system water volume and labour requirement.
After start-up of the farm, the biomass of fish present will gradually increase due to growth of the fish and
stocking of new cohorts. At the same time the feed load , the amount fed in kg/d, will also increase (Table
46). The maximum feed load is reached at the moment the first cohort reaches market size, after 24 weeks.
After that the feed load will follow a so-called sawtooth pattern (Figure 24). Design of the farm is based on
the maximum feed load, in this case study 349 kg/d.
400
Feed load (kg/d)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
76/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Fish tanks
Number of tanks (blocks of 3 tanks) 12 # Number of fish harvested 6,828 #/cohort 118,343 #/year
Required tank volume 238 m3
Required volume per tank 19.8 m3 Number of fish stocked 6,862 #/cohort 118,946 #/year
Tank water surface 190 m2 Tank water volume 246 m3 System volume 384 m3
Total tanksurface incl walls 239 m2
Table 45: Setup of the ZonAquafarming B.V. culture plan for tilapia. Total labour and system volume are for the conventional RAS.
77/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Table 46: Development of the feed load from start-up. Maximum feed load is at 24 weeks (red box)
78/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Waste production
Production of fish inevitably causes production of waste.
Examples are faeces production, excretion of ammonia
(NH3) and carbon dioxide (CO2), and consumption of oxygen
(O2). This waste is excreted into the water in which the fish
live, thereby deteriorating the water quality. Therefore a Feed
constant water flow is needed to remove these wastes from
the fish. In order to calculate the flow rates required (see
section Flow rates) one needs to know the amount of waste
Faeces
produced per unit of time.
In this case study this is done with the Nutrient Budget model
(Figure 25) for nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and Chemical Excretion
Oxygen Demand (COD). COD is the amount of oxygen
needed to oxidise 1 kg of material, and can thus be used as
a common denominator to characterise the organic content Respiration
of fish, feed, waste and bacterial material. The organic
fraction consists of protein, fat and carbohydrates. Protein is
not oxidised completely, organic nitrogen is not oxidised.
COD can be calculated from the composition of the organic Growth
matter as the sum of 1.38 * protein, 2.78 * fat and 1.21 *
carbohydrates. Note Organic nitrogen can also be oxidised,
as can NH4-N, to NO3-N. This theoretically requires 4.57 g
O2 /g N. Adding this to the amount of COD will give the total
Figure 25: Nutrient budget model to calculate
oxygen demand (TOD). In the process of feed utilisation and
waste production (N, P and COD) originating
growth, the fish themselves also oxidise part of the feed from the feed supplied.
organic matter. The oxygen consumption of the fish
(respiration) can therefore directly be expressed in COD (1).
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). The excretion
of N and P can be calculated as the difference between digestible intake (feed minus faeces) and growth.
The oxygen consumption of the fish can be calculated as:
where:
0.8
MEm = energy requirement for maintenance, for tilapia 65 kJ/kg /d
ED = energy deposition (growth in energy, kJ/fish/d)
kg = marginal efficiency of energy deposition, for tilapia 0.7
OCE = oxycaloric equivalent, 14.2 kJ/g O2
Based on these steps, 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, there still is
a small amount of COD missing from the budget (CODrest). This amount, probably from dissolved uneaten
feed and faeces, is treated as CODexcretion.
79/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
18 0.03
protein = 13.5 bw
protein, fat, ash (%) energy (kJ/g)
16 600
COD (g/kg)
COD = 275 bw 0.1
14 500
12 0.19
fat = 3.1 bw
400
10
8 300
energy = 4.5 bw 0.09
6
200
4
ash = 4.2 bw -0.006
100
2
0 0
0 200 400 600 800
Figure 26: Whole body composition of ZonAquaculture B.V. tilapia as influenced by body weight.
0.03 -
The body composition of the fish of cohort 8 is: Nfish = 0.16 * 13.5 * 126 * 10 = 25.0 gN/kg, Pfish = 0.17 * 4.2 * 126
0.006 0.1 0.09
* 10 = 6.9 gP/kg, CODfish = 275 * 126 = 446 gCOD/kg and Efish = 4.5 * 126 = 7.0 MJ/kg. Note Fish protein
contains 16% N and fish ash contains 17% P.
The composition and digestibility of the feed can be taken from table 4. Feed protein also contains 16% N.
The amounts of N, P and COD fed can be calculated e.g. Nfed = 24 (kg fed) * 0.0608 (kgN/kg feed) 1.43 kgN/d.
The amounts of N, P and COD in faeces can be calculated from the digestibilities as e.g. Nfaeces = (1 0.9) * 1.43
= 0.14 kgN/d.
The amounts of N, P and COD grown can be calculated as e.g. Ngrowth = 21 (kg growth) * 0.025 (kg Nfish/kg)
0.52 kgN/d.
For N and P the excretion can be calculated as e.g. Nfed Ngrowth Nfaeces = 1.43 0.52 0.14 = 0.76 kgN/d.
To calculate the COD respired by the fish one first has to calculate the energy deposition: ED = 21 (kg growth)* 7.0
0.8
(MJ/kg) = 147 MJ/d. The CODrespFish is then [(65/1000 * 0.126 * 6,852) + (1 0.7) * 147 ]/14.2 9.6 kgCOD/d.
The CODrest is then CODfed CODgrowth CODfaeces CODrespFish = 28.1 9.4 4.2 9.6 = 4.9 kgCOD/d.
80/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Tank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Cohort 1a 1b 5 2a 2b 6 3a 3b 7 4a 4b 8
Weeks 24 24 12 21 21 9 18 18 6 15 15 3
BodyWeight 845 845 368 716 716 273 592 592 193 476 476 126 24.5 max Stock (MT)
Number 3414 3414 6836 3415 3415 6840 3416 3416 6845 3417 3417 6852
Feed 32 32 40 29 29 35 26 26 30 23 23 24 349 kg/d
FC 1.46 1.46 1.30 1.43 1.43 1.25 1.39 1.39 1.19 1.35 1.35 1.12 1.34 -
Growth 22 22 31 20 20 28 19 19 25 17 17 21 261 kg/d
Nfish 26.4 26.4 25.8 26.3 26.3 25.6 26.2 26.2 25.3 26.0 26.0 25.0
Pfish 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9
CODfish 540 540 496 531 531 482 521 521 465 509 509 446
Efish 8.3 8.3 7.7 8.1 8.1 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.2 7.8 7.8 7.0
Nfeed 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8
Pfeed 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
CODfeed 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192 1192
DigN 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
DigP 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
DigCOD 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Nfed 1.96 1.96 2.46 1.74 1.74 2.13 1.61 1.61 1.81 1.40 1.40 1.43 21.2 kg/d
Ngrowth 0.58 0.58 0.80 0.53 0.53 0.72 0.50 0.50 0.63 0.44 0.44 0.52 6.8 kg/d 32 % of intake
Nfaeces 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.14 2.1 kg/d 6 g/kg feed
Nexcretion 1.18 1.18 1.41 1.04 1.04 1.20 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.76 12.3 kg/d 35 g/kg feed
Pfed 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.28 4.2 kg/d
Pgrowth 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.15 1.8 kg/d 43 % of intake
Pfaeces 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 1.7 kg/d 5 g/kg feed
Pexcretion 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.7 kg/d 2 g/kg feed
CODfed 38.4 38.4 48.2 34.1 34.1 41.7 31.6 31.6 35.5 27.4 27.4 28.1 416 kg/d
CODgrowth 11.9 11.9 15.4 10.6 10.6 13.5 9.9 9.9 11.6 8.7 8.7 9.4 132 kg/d 32 % of intake
CODfaeces 5.8 5.8 7.2 5.1 5.1 6.3 4.7 4.7 5.3 4.1 4.1 4.2 62 kg/d 179 g/kg feed
CODrespFish 18.1 18.1 19.9 16.0 16.0 16.2 14.0 14.0 12.9 11.9 11.9 9.6 179 kg/d 512 g/kg feed
CODrest 43 kg/d 124 g/kg feed
81/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Flow rates
A constant flow of water is required through the fish tanks to remove the waste, and replenish the oxygen, to
such an extent that the water quality remains within acceptable limits for the fish. The treatment units also
need a flow of water to provide them with the waste to be treated. The general formula to calculate the
required flow rates is:
3
Flow = Flow through the respective compartment (m /time)
k = a factor to correct for the daily variation in waste production (k 1)
P = production (or consumption for O2) of waste (g/time)
C = the difference between Climit (the limiting (=outflow) concentration of the waste substance in
3
question) and Cin (the inflow concentration of that waste substance), both in g/m .
Because some productions are negative and also the concentration difference has opposite values for the
fish tanks and the treatment units, the absolute value is taken. This formula only works for more or less
ideally mixed substances, and is therefore not applicable for suspended solids, which can occur in a variety
of particle sizes, from whole feed and faecal pellets of several mm to particles of m size. Some deviations
also can occur under extreme plug flow conditions, for example in long rectangular tanks with a large
hydraulic residence time. In Table 49 water quality limits and k-values for tilapia are given, along with
choices made in the present case study and some water quality parameters for nitrification and denitrification
(see also section Treatment systems) .
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, it follows that the flow rates are also expressed per kg of feed. Flows through the
different compartments of an aquaculture system, depending on configuration (flow through, reuse, RAS),
are shown in Table 50. It can be seen that a flow through system needs large amounts of water, because the
system exchange flow equals the flow through the fish tanks. By adding treatment systems, the system
exchange flow can be reduced, at the expense of added flows through these treatment systems. For some
treatments, which are applied in the fish tank inflow (oxygenation) or in the fish tank itself (aeration), no
added flows are needed. Oxygenation and aeration actually reduce the flow through the fish tanks, and
therefore also the system exchange flow. Systems with reductions in system water exchange flow of down to
15% of that in a flow through system are called reuse systems, with larger reductions we speak of
recirculating systems (RAS). 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, integrating an USB-MDR gives a further
reduction down to 0.15%.
82/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Fishtank exchange
For TAN, in flow through and reuse systems C = Climit (assuming no TAN in the influent) and therefore the Flow =
3
abs[1.5 * 35 / 1.5] = 35 m /kg feed. 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), 61 m /kg feed for the conventional RAS and 75 m /kg feed for the RAS with an
USB-MDR.
3 3
For O2 , P = -512 gO2/kg feed and C = -10.5 g/m (box 4), so the Flow = abs[1.2 * -512 /-10.5] 59 m /kg feed.
3
For CO2 , P = 633 gCO2/kg feed (RQfish = 0.9) and C = 10.3 g/m (box 5), so the Flow = abs[1.2 * 633 / 10.3] = 74
3
m /kg feed.
System exchange
For NO3-N, P remaining after spontaneous and USB-MDR denitrification = 4.8 gN/kg feed (= 1.7kg N/349 kg feed)
3 3
and C = 165 0 = 165 g/m , so the Flow = abs[1 * 4.8 / 165] = 0.029 m /kg feed
Flow denitrification
For NO3-N, P remaining after spontaneous denitrification = (15,800/349) * 0.85 = 38.5gN/kg feed (box 10) of which
3 3
85% is denitrified, and C = 10 165 = -155 g/m , so the Flow = abs[1 * (38.5 * 0.85) /-155] 0.210 m /kg feed.
Treatment systems
In the above section Flow rates, it was shown that adding treatment systems can reduce the system water
exchange flow. The choice of which treatment to add is based on the first limiting waste component. 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, i.e. the first limiting waste is oxygen (-depletion). The
first limiting waste after that is CO2, and so on. In this section the treatment systems will be discussed in
order of consecutively first limiting wastes. For most treatment systems only the basics will be covered.
Denitrification, in particular with the use of an USB-MDR, will be discussed more extensively. Two treatment
systems, which do not actually reduce the system water exchange but do increase the sustainability of the
farming system, heat exchange of ventilation and sludge treatment, will also briefly be mentioned.
Oxygenation
Oxygen can be added to the culture water by aeration, bringing water in contact with air, and oxygenation,
bringing water in contact with oxygen enriched gas (technical oxygen). With aeration the oxygen content can
only be increased up to saturation. With oxygenation the inflow water can be supersaturated. This does not
mean that the water in the fish tanks is supersaturated, in completely mixed systems the water in the tanks
equals the outflow concentration (see section Flow rates). 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 0.05.
83/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Control parameters
Contact surface, contact time, gas-liquid ratio.
Box 4. 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 . With the limiting O2 concentration (= outflow concentration) of the fish of 4.5 g/m , C = -10.5 g/m .
Note From the technical oxygen use in practice, it is assumed that that all O2 needs, of the fish and the bacteria,
are met by oxygenation and that the technical oxygen is applied with an efficiency of 80% (i.e. oxygen use = 1.25 *
O2 needs)
For the design of the drumfilter a specific type can be chosen (http://www.hydrotech.se/en/solutions/drumfilters)
3
based on the matrix of Flow (L/s), Temperature (C), expected suspended solids load (g/m ) and mesh size (m).
Nitrification
Removal of TAN from the culture water in aquaculture systems is generally accomplished by nitrification.
Nitrification is the biological oxidation, by bacteria, of ammonia (NH3) to nitrate (NO3). This reaction goes in
two steps, mediated by different bacterial groups, with nitrite (NO2) as intermediate. The overall reaction
equation is
1g NH3-N + 4.25g O2 + 5.88g NaHCO3 0.26g COD + 0.98g NO3-N + 2.72g CO2 (3)
From this reaction it can be seen that the process consumes oxygen and alkalinity and produces, apart from
NO3, bacterial biomass and CO2. For each g of TAN 4.25 g of O2 and about 1 equivalent of alkalinity is
needed and about 0.26 g COD is produced. In aquaculture systems the nitrifying bacteria are generally
grown on plastic media as so-called biofilms. The reaction rate is therefore expressed per surface of plastic
2
medium, in g/m /d. Since the substrates of the reaction, TAN and O2, have to diffuse into the biofilm, the
reaction rate is dependent on the concentration of the limiting substrate. Due to diffusion kinetics this
dependency takes the form of a - order reaction; the rate depends on the concentration to a power (or
[Concentration]).
2
Nitrification rate r (g/m /d) = a * [TAN] + b (4)
84/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
The control parameters for the design of the nitrification reactor are therefore the average concentrations of
TAN and O2. They will determine the actual nitrification rate and thereby the required total nitrification surface
and the required flow through the nitrification reactor. With the specific surface of the biofilter material
2 3
(m /m ), the required volume of biofilter material can be calculated.
Control parameters
The concentrations of TAN and O2 in the nitrification reactor.
Denitrification
Removal of nitrate (NO3) from the culture water can be carried out by denitrification. Denitrification is the
biological reduction, by bacteria, of NO3 to N2 gas. Denitrification is done by facultative aerobic hetrotrophic
bacteria. The denitrification reaction goes in a number of steps, with NO2, NO and N2O as intermediates. The
overall reaction equation is
1g NO3-N + 4.4g COD 1.54g COD + 1g N2 + 0.085g NH4-N + 5.49g NaHCO3 + 0.88g CO2 (6)
From this reaction it can be seen that the process consumes COD and produces, apart from N2, alkalinity
and bacterial biomass. Each g of NO3-N can oxidise 2.86 g of COD while 0.91 equivalent of alkalinity and
1.54 g COD are produced (0.35 g COD/g COD). Total COD demand is therefore 2.86 /
85/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
(1 0.35) = 4.4 g COD / g N. However, if there is less COD available the reaction rate will be lower (Figure
29). Note Even when there is no COD available there still will be a small endogenous (starvation) NO3-N
removal. The COD utilised by the denitrifying bacteria can be of internal (faeces and uneaten feed) or
external (e.g. methanol) origin.
Denitrifying bacteria can be grown on plastic media as so-called stirrer
biofilms or in suspended growth as bacterial soup (sludge). In this
case study a stirred Upflow Sludge Bed (USB) reactor is used.
The reactor is stirred to facilitate the escape of the nitrogen gas
from the sludge bed. Internal COD, also called manure, is used,
hence the name USB-Manure Denitrifying Reactor (USB-MDR)
(see Figure 28). water out
The required sludge volume for the denitrification reactor is
determined by the sludge specific NO3-N removal capacity
3
(gN/m /d). 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, the sludge density (gVSS/m ), which
in turn is dependent on the up flow velocity (m/h) (Figure 30).
Figure 29 shows that with the COD waste in an intensive tilapia
farm the maximum removal rate is 45 gN/kgVSS. The
endogenous removal rate is 16 gN/kgVSS. For simplicity it is water in
assumed that the sludge removal rate decreases linearly with a
decrease in COD/N ratio.
Total volume of the reactor is determined by the ratio of sludge
Figure 28: Upflow Sludge Bed Manure
volume/total volume. The diameter and height of the reactor can Denitrifying Reactor (USB-MDR).
be calculated from the total volume and the up flow velocity.
30
Sludge removal rate (gN/kg VSS/d)
50
25
40
20
30
15
20 10
y = -22.6 x + 26.8
5 R = 0.662
10
0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 29: Sludge specific removal rate as influenced by Figure 30: Sludge density as influenced by the upflow rate
the COD/NO3-N ratio of the influent waste. in an USB-MDR.
Control parameters
COD/NO3-N ratio in the influent waste, up flow rate.
Box 8. Upflow Sludge Bed - Manure Denitrifying Reactor (USB-MDR).
The COD/NO3-N ratio in the influent waste of the USB-MDR is 5.1 (box 10), which is above 4.4 (equation 6), so the
sludge removal rate is maximal at 45 gN/kg VSS/d (Figure 9).
In the present case study we have chosen an up flow rate of 0.38 m/h, so the sludge density is -22.6 * 0.38 + 26.8 =
3 3
18 kg VSS/m (Figure 10), and the sludge specific removal rate is 0.045 * 18 0.82 kg N/m /d.
3
With 11.3 kg NO3-N available after spontaneous denitrification, 11.3 / 0.82 = 13.9m of sludge is needed. The total
volume of the USB-MDR is 2 * 13.9. = 27.7.m3, which brings the hydraulic residence time at HRT = 27.7 / (349/24 *
3 3
0.210) = 9h. The sludge residence time can be calculated from the amount of sludge present (13.9m * 18kg VSS/m
= 250kg) and the daily amount of sludge produced (14.9/1.42=10.5kg, box 10), as SRT = 250 / 10.5 = 24d.
The diameter of the USB-MDR can be calculated from the cross sectional surface, which in turn can be calculated
from the flow through the USB-MDR (box 3) and the up flow rate. For flexibility we chose to install the USB-MDR as
3 units, each with a diameter of 2*[(349/24 * 0.210/3) / ] = 1.8m. The height of the USB-MDR is calculated to be
2
(27.7/3)/[(1.8/2) * ] 3.4m.
86/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
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.
87/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
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 .
88/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Figure 32: Flux diagram of N, P and COD in the RAS with USB-MDR
89/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Box 10. Effect of denitrification on the N, P and COD fluxes in the RAS with USB-MDR.
In the RAS with an USB-MDR 2.7kg more N is re-dissolved in the USB-MDR (see below), bringing the total
Ndissolved to 15.8kg which is assumed to all be oxidized. After spontaneous denitrification (15%, 2.4kg), and taking
into account all N incorporated into bacterial biomass (2.1kg), the remaining NO3-N (11.4kg) is assumed to be 85%
3
denitrified, leaving 1.7kg NO3-N remaining. To keep a NO3-N concentration in the system of 165 g/m , the system
3
water exchange should be 1,700/165 = 10 m /d, or 10,000/349 = 30 L/kg feed. Note: the figure of 85% was in fact
chosen to maintain a system water exchange of approx. 30 L/kg feed as observed in practice.
In the RAS with an USB-MDR some additional CODsolid is available (58kg). The COD/NO3-N ratio in the influent
waste of the USB-MDR is 58/11.4 = 5.1 gCOD/gN. 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.
The 9.7kg NO3-N denitrified, oxidizes 28kg COD (9.7 * 2.86), producing [2.86/(1-0.35)-2.86] * 9.7 = 14.9kg
CODyield, of which again 65% (ca. 10kg) is captured by the drumfilter. Together with the 15kg of remaining
CODsolid this gives a total solid COD waste discharge of 25kg. In a Geotube about 95% of this is captured. With a
3 3
sludge COD content of 95.9kg/m (90kg/m dry matter, ash content 25%), this will result in a sludge flow of
3
(25*0.95)/95.9 = 0.25 m /d, or 250/349 0.7 L/kg feed.
From the water quality observed in practice in a ZonAquaculture RAS with denitrification, a COD concentration of ca.
3 3
200g/m and a phosphate P concentration of ca. 35g/m , it can be inferred that 56% of the CODdissolved is oxidised,
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 = 0.21 gP/gCOD) is not seen in practice.
90/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Table 51: Sustainability parameters, resource use per kg harvested, nutrient utilisation as % of input, waste discharge
per kg harvested.
91/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
92/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
-1 -1
equal to the pond area, a tilapia production of 5000 kg ha yr could be achieved (assuming a periphyton
-2 -1
productivity of 2.5 g m d and a utilisation of 75%.
In all experiments, the combination of PTS and trickling filter was sufficient to maintain favourable water
quality for Nile tilapia production. Nitrification in both trickling filter and PTS contributed considerably to
nitrification in the system, and in all cases water exchange was necessary to keep the NO3-N concentration
-1
below 150 mg l . Of the N input through feeding, 20-30% was discharged with exchange water.
Small amounts of the input P and N were recovered through the harvested periphyton; 3% of N in the C/N
ratio experiment, 9% in the HSL study and 5.6 9.0% in the light intensity study. For phosphorous, the
amounts recuperated were 1.6% in the C/N ratio study, 12% in the HSL study and 3.2 4.9% in the light
intensity study. Evidently, the periphyton production was very different between the three studies, even at the
same light intensity. Particularly, for the C/N ratio study the periphyton production declined during the study,
while this was not the case in the light intensity study. The reason for this is not clear.
9.4. 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
2
With the PTS study, the production of periphyton and the effect on water quality were calculated per m
biofilm. The effect of periphyton on production in extensive ponds has been tested extensively by the
Wageningen research team. The performance parameters of the PTS case study were used to
conceptualise an intensive pond as part of a recirculation unit.
93/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in the Netherlands
Water use
Except for the sludge, no water leaves the farm. In addition, Description kg
water loss from evaporation is compensated for. If constructed Total feed (40% prot, 1.2% P) 6 200
new, all ponds are lined, hence seepage losses should be Total N in feed 397
2
negligible. The total surface area is close to 2000 m and the N in sludge 77
3
expected evaporation loss is 3000 m . N in periphyton 40
N in phytoplankton 24
9.4.2. Advantages and disadvantages of the intensive Total P in feed 74
pond/periphyton system P in sludge 17.5
Advantages: P in periphyton 3.6
P in phytoplankton 3.3
Nutrient retention and recovery of N and P in the system is
N recuperated in common carp 136
very high: 38 % of the input N and 60 % of the input P is
P recuperated in common carp 40
retained in fish. In addition, considerable fractions of the N
and P input are recovered in the sludge, which can be an N recuperated in tilapia 16
excellent fertiliser. P recuperated in tilapia 4.8 %
Unaccounted for N 104 26
The large biofilter surface in the system (pond surface area
+ area on poles) will stabilise water quality. The turnover Unaccounted for P 5.7 8
rate in the fish tank/pond is 4 times a day, while the Table 53: N and P data for an intensive
retention time in the periphyton pond is 1.6 days. For common carp/tilapia production unit
phytoplankton development this is short, avoiding excessive
plankton blooms, while for the attached biofilms this is not a
problem.
Very low environmental impact
Low risk of infections by pathogens and parasites
Low requirement for medicines and chemical treatment
Annual production cycle, with stocking tilapia during the hottest months of the year.
If land is available adjacent to the sedimentation tank, additional income can be generated from
vegetable crops.
Risk of ammonia intoxication negligible.
Production 5 to 10 times higher than from traditional extensive pond farming, hence smaller land use.
More land available for nature development, or other activities.
Disadvantages:
Relatively large production area is needed, with high initial investment.
Constant aeration needed, which implies high energy costs.
Backup power source required.
Reliable source of fingerlings needed in spring each year
A 5 MT unit is still very small. A pilot unit should be tested in practice.
94/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
Figure 33: Densification plant as waste heat source for Ruswil Polyculture
In the year 1999, based on the South Asian polyculture production approach, an integrated fish and tropical
2
fruit production was piloted in a 1 500 m greenhouse. Since inception, applied development and research
work has been carried out to optimise production in terms of quality and quantity.
A core element of the Tropenhaus system is the sustainable aquaculture module for Tilapia production. The
nutrient-rich water of tilapia production is used for irrigation and serves as a fertiliser for the tropical fruit
grown in the greenhouse.
The 10 years of first-hand experience gathered with
the Tropenhaus Ruswil project clearly proves that
high quality, sustainably grown fish and fruit can be
produced on an economically viable basis, using
waste heat as the main source of energy supply.
Due to optimisation of harvesting times and short
transportation distances between the Tropenhaus
and the end customer (private persons, restaurants,
supermarkets etc.), the quality of the products (in
terms of taste) is higher, compared to that of
imported tropical fish and fruit.
Based on the promising results of the pilot project,
two larger projects with a total investment sum of
ca. 40 Million have been developed recently. Both
projects are currently in the construction phase and
are expected to start operating in mid 2009. COOP,
one of the two biggest retailers in Switzerland, is
convinced by the Tropenhaus concept and the Figure 34: Functional scheme of Tropenhaus Ruswil
SustainAqua project approach and actively
95/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
promotes Tropenhaus products. In this way, a market development can be initiated to support farmers
decisions to invest into more sustainable fish production. 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. Thus, as a very attractive model case for sustainability, it contributes to creating
awareness for sustainable fish production amongst fish farmers, consumers, retailers, etc.
Preconditions for the implementation of a Tropenhaus System:
Waste heat based on process heat from industrial plants, biogas based heat-power plants, geothermal
2
installations, etc. (1.5 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, the Tropenhaus system was investigated and further developed. 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, which are not yet finalised for
commercial upscaling, the aquaponic filter will be presented in detail.
10.2. Integration of crustaceans in tilapia production and fish feed from tropical plants
96/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
Crustaceans
The experience in the Tropenhaus, together with the substrate experiments show that the production of
Asellus aquaticus is feasible in a warm water aquaculture such as the Tropenhaus. It may contribute to
produce natural food, rich in bioactive compounds to supplement the usual diet for cultured fish. Asellus can
be fed with the sludge suspended in the fish water but also with plant leftovers. When using filamentous
algae as substrate, this can be fed together with the attached Asellus to the fish. Dense mats of Cladophora
may serve also as an efficient agent in suspended solids (organic particles) removal. 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.
97/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
Figure 37: Flow scheme of the aquaponic filter system compared to the "conventional" pond filter
98/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
Water input Water input per tilapia 1.4 Water input per tilapia 1.4
produced [m3/kg] produced [m3/kg]
Water output Water output per tilapia 1.4 Water output per tilapia 1.3
produced [m3/kg] produced [m3/kg]
Increase productivity per unit of Time expenditure for system Time expenditure for system
0.04 0.27
labour operation / products [h/kg] operation / products [h/kg]
99/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
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. Expensive manual or technical de-sludging are
replaced by free natural processes. 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. The business plan of the new expanded Tropenhaus project, which includes the new
aquaponic filter based fruit production, demonstrates this.
100/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
10.4. From a case study to a fish farm: The design of a warm water aquaponic filter system
in the Tropenhaus Wolhusen
101/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
10.4.3. The Aquaponic Filter developed according A fish tank under construction (Photo: IEES)
to the results of the case study
The aquaponic filter is built of plastic boxes and filled with expanded clay pellets. The bottoms and walls of
these boxes are slatted to facilitate the flow through of air and water. Tropical plants are cultivated in the
boxes. The main crops are papayas and bananas, as in the remaining greenhouse, but also chilli, lemon
grass, tarot and galangal. The crop production on the filter surface is at least the same per square meter as
on the remaining surface of the greenhouse.
3
The filter for a fish tank has 56 filter boxes. The filter is continuously charged with a load of 1 m per minute
or about 18 L per box per minute. The plastic boxes are 60 x 40 x 32 in size, the slots on the sides and on
the bottom are 5 mm wide. The boxes are filled with 60 L of expanded clay pellets ranging 8 16 mm in size.
The water is pumped from the fish tank to a distributor from where tubes channel the water to each box in
the filter.
102/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
left: Filter boxes with water tube and chilli, 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).
103/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Case study in Switzerland
% H %
Fish tank with insulation, inlet and outlet 12 048 45% 71 29%
Aquaponic filter 3 611 14% 83 34%
Filter pump, fittings and tubes 7 138 27% 59 24%
Heating; converter, pump, fittings 3 891 15% 32 13%
Total 26 687 100% 245 100%
Table 55: Expenses for an aquaculture module
The new aquaponic filter after seven months of operation (Photo: IEES)
104/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
References
Internet:
www.sustainaqua.org
Project website
http://wiki.sustainaqua.org
Wiki based online tool to give information about the project results and about sustainable aquaculture in
general. You are invited to contribute with your experiences, e.g. about further sustainable aquaculture
modules, related projects, different fish species, etc.
Sustainability in aquaculture
Internet:
www.euraquaculture.info - CONSENSUS portal focusing on the theory of sustainability in aquaculture
105/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
References
AZIM, M.E., VERDEGEM, M.C.J., VAN DAM, A.A., BEVERIDGE, M.C.M. (2005). Periphyton: ecology,
exploitation and management. CABI Publishing, Camebridge, MA 02139, USA.
COSTA-PIERCE, B.A. (1998). Preliminary investigation of an integrated aquaculture-wetland ecosystem
using tertiary-treated municipal wastewater in Los Angeles County, California. Ecological Engineering,
10: 341-354.
GOPAL, B. (2003). Perspectives on wetland science, application and policy. Hydrobiologia, 490: 1-10.
GL, D., PEKR, F., KEREPECZKI, ., VRADI, L. (2007). Experiments on the operation of a combined
aquaculture-algae system. Aquaculture International, 15: 173-180.
GL D., KEREPECZKI ., SZAB P., PEKR F. (2008). A survey on the environmental impact of pond
aquaculture in Hungary. European Aquaculture Society, Special Publication No. 37, pp. 230-231.
KADLEC, R.H., KNIGHT, R.L. (1996). Treatment wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, USA.
KEREPECZKI ., GL D., SZAB P., PEKR F. (2003). Preliminary investigations on the nutrient removal
efficiency of a wetland-type ecosystem. Hydrobiologia, 506-509: 665-670.
KEREPECZKI, E., PEKAR, F. (2005). Nitrogen dynamics in an integrated pond-wetland ecosystem. Verh.
Internat. Verein. Limnol., 29: 877-879.
SZUMIEC, M.A., AUGUSTYN, D. 2002. Dynamics of the surface water circulation between a river and
fishponds in a sub-mountain area. IN: Rizzoli A.E. & Jakeman A.J. (Eds), Integrated assessment and
decision support. Proceedings of the First biennal meeting of the International Environmental
Modelling and Software Society, Lugano (Switzerland), 1, 358-362
BOYD, C. 1995. Bottom soils, sediment and pond aquaculture. Chapman & Hall, New York, p. 348
EL SAMRA, M., OLH. 1979. Significance of nitrogen fixation in fish ponds. Aquaculture, 18:367-372
RAHMAN, M. M., 2006.Food web interactions and nutrient dynamics in polyculture ponds PHD. Thesis.
Wageningen University, 168 p. http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis3980.pdf
WHO, 2006.- Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater . Volume 3 Wastewater and
excreta use in aquaculture. World Health Organization, ISBN 9241546840, 9789241546843, 158 pp.
MARA, DUNCAN & SANDY CAIRNCROSS, 2003.- Guidelines for the Safe Use of Excreta and Wastewater
in Agriculture and Aquaculture, Executive summary -UNEP- WHO Publications, 32 p.
http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/who/waste1.pdf
YEO, S. E., BINKOWSKI F.P & MORRIS, J.P., 2004.-Aquaculture Effluents and Waste By-Products.
Characteristics, Potential Recovery, and Beneficial Reuse. NCRAC Publications Office North Central
Regional Aquaculture Center. Iowa State University.
http://www.aqua.wisc.edu/publications/PDFs/AquacultureEffluents.pdf
BUREAU, D.P. AND CHO, C.Y. , 1999. Phosphorus utilization by rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss):
estimation of dissolved phosphorus waste output. Aquaculture 179: 127-140.
CHO, C.Y., SLINGER, S.J., AND BAYLEY, H.S. 1982. Bioenergetics of salmonid fishes: energy intake,
expenditure and productivity. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 73B: 2541.
106/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
References
DALSGAARD, J., EKMANN, K.S., PEDERSEN, P.B., AND VERLHAC, V., 2008. Effect of supplemented
fungal phytase on performance and phosphorus availability by phosphorus-depleted juvenile rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and on the magnitude and composition of phosphorus waste output.
Aquaculture , doi:10.1016. 2008
JOKUMSEN, A. (2002). Udredning vedr. vandforbrug ved produktion af regnbuerreder i danske dambrug.
DFU-rapport nr. 106-02. Report in Danish.
LOKALENERGI 2008:1: Energioptimalt design af dambrug.
PEDERSEN, P.B.; GRNBORG, O.; SVENDSEN, L.M. (2003): Modeldambrug. Specifikationer og
godkendelseskrav. Arbejdsrapport fra DMU, nr. 183, 2003. Report in Danish.
SUGIURA, S.H., DONG F.M., AND HARDY, R.W., 2000b. Primary responses of rainbow trout to dietary
phosphorus concentration. Aquacult. Nutr. 6: 235-245.
SVENDSEN, L.M., SORTKJR, O., OVESEN, N.B., SKRIVER, J., LARSEN, S.E., BOUTTRUP, S.,
PEDERSEN, P. B., RASMUSSEN, R.S., DALSGAARD, A.J.T., AND SUHR, K, 2008. Modeldambrug
under forsgsordningen. Faglig slutrapport for mle- og dokumentationsprojekt for modeldambrug "(in
Danish)". DTU Aqua rapport nr.193-08 . DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark.
SVENDSEN, L.M., SORTKJR, O., OVESEN, N.B., SKRIVER, J., LARSEN, S.E., PEDERSEN, P. B.,
RASMUSSEN, R.S. AND DALSGAARD, A.J.T., 2008. Ejstrupholm Dambrug - et modeldambrug under
forsgsordningen. Statusrapport for 2. mler af moniteringsprojektet med vsentlige resultater fra
frste mler (In Danish). DTU Aqua rapport nr.188-08 . DTU Aqua, Technical University of
Denmark.
BOVENDEUR, J., EDING, E.H., HENKEN, A.M., 1987. Design and performance of a water recirculation
system for high-density culture of the African catfish, Clarius gariepinus (Burchell 1822). Aquaculture
63, 329353
EDING, E.H., WEERD, J.H. VAN, 1999. Grundlagen, Aufbau und Management von Kreislaufanlagen. In:
M.Bohl (Ed.), Zucht und Produktion von Ssswasserfischen, DLG Verlag, Frankfurt, Mnchen,
2nd edn., pp. 436-491.
EDING, E.H., KAMSTRA, A., VERRETH, J.A.J., HUISMAN, E.A., KLAPWIJK, A., 2006. Design and
operation of nitrifying trickling filters in recirculating aquaculture: a review. Aquaculture Engineering 34,
234260.
HEINSBROEK, L.T.N. AND KAMSTRA, A., 1990. Design and performance of water recirculation systems for
eel culture. Aquacult. Engineering 9 (3), 87207.
van RIJN, J., TAL,Y., SCHREIER, H.J., 2006. Denitrification in recirculating systems: Theory and
applications. Aquacultural Engineering 34 (3), 364376.
SCHNEIDER, O., SERETI, V., EDING, E.H., and J.A.J. VERRETH, (2005). Analysis of nutrient flows in
integrated intensive aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering 32, 379401.
TIMMONS, M.B. AND J.M. EBELING, 2007. Recirculating Aquaculture, Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca,
New York, p. 975
ASADUZZAMAN, M., WAHAB, M.A., VERDEGEM, M.C.J., HUQUE, S., SALAM, M.A., AZIM, M.E., 2008.
C/N ratio control and substrate addition for periphyton development jointly enhance freshwater prawn
Macrobrachium rosenbergii production in ponds. Aquaculture 280, 117-123.
AZIM, M.E., VERDEGEM, M.C.J., VAN DAM, A.A., BEVERIDGE, M.C.M., 2005. Periphyton : ecology,
exploitation and management. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
RAHMAN, M.M., YAKUPITIYAGE, A., 2006. Use of fishpond sediment for sustainable aquaculture-
agriculture farming. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 1, 192-202.
ADLER , PAUL R., 1998.- Phytorremediation of aquaculture effluents. Aquaponics Journal, IV4, 10-15.
http://www.cepis.org.pe/bvsair/e/repindex/repi84/vleh/fulltext/acrobat/phytoaqu.pdf
107/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
References
ADLER , PAUL R., STEVEN T. SUMMERFELT , D. MICHAEL GLENN , FUMIOMI TAKEDA 2002.
Mechanistic approach to phytoremediation of water. Ecological Engineering 20, 251/264
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/19310000/FTakeda/2003EcolEng20251-264.pdf
DEZSERY, A.,1999.- Growing Notes--Australian Aquaponics--Whole Fresh Fish and a Side Salad Please!.
The Growing Edge Magazine, 11(2)
http://www.growingedge.com/magazine/back_issues/view_article.php3?AID=110217
DIVER S, 2006.- Aquaponics-Integration of Hydroponics with Aquaculture.
http://attra.ncat.org/new_pubs/attrapub/PDF/aquaponic.pdf?id=NewYork
HUGHEY, T. W. 2005.- Barrel- Ponics. Aquaponics in a Barrel.
http://www.aces.edu/dept/fisheries/education/documents/barrel-ponics.pdf
JACKSON,L. & MYERS J., 2002.- Alternative Use of Produced Water in Aquaculture and Hydroponic
Systems at Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3.
http://www.gwpc.org/GWPC_Meetings/Information/PW2002/Papers/Lorri_Jackson_PWC2002.pdf
JONES S., 2002.- Evolution of aquaponics . Aquaponics Journal , n 24 ( 1st Quarter, 2002). In :
http://www.aquaponicsjournal.com/articleEvolution.htm
LENNARD W., 2004.- Aquaponics, the theory behind the integration. In GAIN (Gippsland Aquaculture
Industry Network) http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?contentid=1060
WILSON, G. 2002a.- Saltwater aquaponics. The Growing Edge, Volume 13, Number 4, March/April 2002,
page 26.
http://www.growingedge.com/magazine/back_issues/view_article.php3?AID=130426
108/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Authors
Editors
Dr. Lszl Vradi (Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation - HAKI)
Tams Bardcz (Akvapark Association)
Alexandra Oberdieck (ttz Bremerhaven)
1. SustainAqua An introduction
Alexandra Oberdieck - ttz Bremerhaven
2. Sustainability in aquaculture
Christian Hildmann - Martin-Luther-University Halle Wittenberg
Alexandra Oberdieck - ttz Bremerhaven
3. Technology and production of main freshwater aquaculture types in Europe
Tams Bardcz - Akvapark Association
4. Regulatory framework and governance in European freshwater aquaculture
Tams Bardcz - Akvapark Association
Lszl Vradi Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI)
5. Product quality and diversification Market opportunities for aquaculture farmers for their fish
products and by-products
Alexandra Oberdieck - ttz Bremerhaven
6. Water treatment of intensive aquaculture systems through wetlands and extensive fish ponds
Case studies in Hungary
Dnes Gl, va Kerepeczki, Tnde Kosros, Rka Hegeds, Ferenc Pekr, Lszlo Vradi
Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI)
7. New methods in trout farming to reduce the farm effluents Case study in Denmark
Alfred Jokumsen, Per B. Pedersen, Anne Johanne T. Dalsgaard, Ivar Lund, Helge Paulsen, Richard
S. Rasmussen, Grethe Hyldig - Technical University of Denmark, National Institute of Aquatic
Resources (DTU Aqua)
Lisbeth J. Plessner, Kaare Michelsen, Christian Laursen - Danish Aquaculture Organisation (ODA)
8. Improved natural production in extensive fish ponds Case study in Poland
Maciej Pilarczyk, Joanna Ponicka, Magdalena Stanna - Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of
Ichthyobiology and Aquaculture (GOLYSZ)
9. Tilapia farming using Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) - Case study in the
Netherlands
Ep Eding, Marc Verdegem, Catarina Martins, Geertje Schlaman, Leon Heinsbroek, Bob Laarhoven,
Stephan Ende, Johan Verreth - Aquaculture and Fisheries Group, Wageningen University (WU-AFI)
Frans Aartsen, Victor Bierbooms - Viskwekerij Royaal B.V./ ZonAquafarming B.V. (ROYAAL)
10. Tropical polyculture production with the integrated Tropenhaus concept - Case study in
Switzerland
Johannes Heeb, Philippe Wyss - International Ecological Engineering Society (IEES)
Zdenek Adamek - Research Institute of Fish Culture and Hydrobiology, University of South Bohemia
(USB)
109/110
SUSTAINAQUA HANDBOOK
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This handbook is one of the outputs of the (ROYAAL), Netherlands; University of South
SustainAqua Collective Research project - funded Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice (USB), Czech
by the European Commission as part of its Sixth Republic; Wageningen University - Aquaculture
Framework Programme (FP6). The research and and Fisheries Group (WU-AFI), Netherlands;
training has been undertaken by a consortium of Polska Akademia Nauk, Zakad Ichtiobiologii i
twenty-three partners: Gospodarki Rybackiej (GOLYSZ), Poland; Martin-
ttz Bremerhaven (ttz), Germany; International Luther-University Halle Wittenberg (MLU),
organisation for the development of fisheries in Germany; Research Institute for Fisheries,
Eastern and Central Europe (EUROFISH), Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI), Hungary;
Denmark; Akvapark Association (AKVAPARK), Technical University of Denmark - National
Hungary; Verband der Deutschen Binnenfischerei Institute of Aquatic Resources (DTU-AQUA),
e.V. (VDBi), Germany; Vattenbrukarnas Denmark
Riksfrbund (VRF), Sweden; Stowarzyszenie
Producentw Ryb Lososiowatych (PTBA), Poland; The work that lies behind the production of this
Organizacin de Productores Piscicultores (OPP), handbook is the joint effort of several persons, who
Spain; sterreichischer Fischereiverband (FV), are too numerous to acknowledge individually, but
Austria; Su rnleri Tanitim Dernegi (BTG), we mention the following persons for their
Turkey; Danish Aquaculture Organisation (ODA), exceptional input:
Denmark; International Ecological Engineering
Tams Bardcz (AKVAPARK), Alexandra
Society (IEES), Switzerland; AquaBioTech Ltd.
Oberdieck (ttz), Dnes Gl (HAKI), Alfred
(ABT), Malta; Aranyponty Halszati Zrt. (ARANY),
Jokumsen (DTU-AQUA), Maciej Pilarczyk
Hungary; Aquakultur Kahle (KAHLE), Germany;
(GOLYSZ), Ep Eding & Marc Verdegem (WU-AFI),
Hodowla Ryb "SALMO" (SALMO), Poland; Liman
Johannes Heeb & Philippe Wyss (IEES)
Enegre Balikilik Sanayii ve Ticaret Ltd.STI.
(LIMAN), Turkey; Viskwekerij Royaal B.V. We thank them for their dedicated work.
110/110