02.culture Systems Report

Report 2/2022
Overview of culture systems

for low trophic species
Part of the AquaVitae MOOC reading material
Åsa Strand, Jason Bailey, Anton Rydstedt, Philip James, Jefferson Legat,
Simone Sühnel
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
Programme under Grant Agreement No 818173
Overview of culture systems for Low trophic species · AquaVitae
Overview of culture systems for low trophic

species
Part of the AV MOOC reading material
AUTHOR(S)
Åsa Strand, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
Jason Bailey, East Region Aquaculture Centre, ERAC
Anton Rydstedt, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
Philip James, NOFIMA
Jefferson Legat, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa, Embrapa Coastal Tablelands)
Simone Sühnel, Primar Aquaculture
Project Coordinator: Philip James (NOFIMA)
ABOUT THE PUBLISHER
Manuscript completed in April 2022
This report is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-
commercial License which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
All Intellectual Property Rights, know-how and information provided by and/or arising from this document, such
as designs, documentation, as well as preparatory material in that regard, is and shall remain the exclusive
property of the AquaVitae Consortium. Nothing contained in this document shall give, or shall be construed as
giving, any right, title, ownership, interest, license or any other right in or to any IP, know-how and information.
Any commercial rights are reserved by the consortium AquaVitae, 2022
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.6531530
REFERENCE TO CITE THE REPORT
Strand, Å., Bailey, J., Rydstedt, A., James, P. Legat, J., Sühnel, S. (2022). Overview of culture systems for low
trophic species, AquaVitae, Tromsø, 62 pages
REFERENCE FOR IN TEXT CITATIONS
(Strand et al. 2022)
DISCLAIMER
This report reflects only the authors’ view and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may
be made of the information it contains. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are
authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
© Cover image used under the licence from Åsa Strand
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FUNDING
2
AquaVitae has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme
under Grant Agreement No 818173
AquaVitae
www.aquavitaeproject.eu
NOFIMA, Muninbakken 9-13, Breivika
Postboks 6122
NO-9291 Tromsø
Norway
3
Executive summary
This report was developed as a learning material for use in the AquaVitae MOOC (massive
open online course) developed by the project during 2021-2022. The report presents the
concept of low trophic species, discusses some of the most commonly used classification
systems for culture systems (open/closed systems and intensive/extensive systems), and
present a categorisation and description of production systems used in low trophic species
aquaculture. The categorisation presented is based on location, i.e., land based or sea based
systems, and sea based systems are subdivided into on-bottom and off-bottom systems. The
use of different systems for co-culture application and recent developments of
offshore/exposed areas are exemplified. Where possible, the different systems are illustrated
using examples from the AquaVitae project.
4
Content
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ 4
Content........................................................................................................................................... 5
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. 6
List of figures .................................................................................................................................. 7
Background .................................................................................................................................... 9
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 10
1.1 Trophic structures .............................................................................................................. 10
1.2 Classification of culture systems ........................................................................................ 12
2. Land-based systems ................................................................................................................. 17
2.1 Ponds .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.2 Tanks and raceways ........................................................................................................... 20
2.3 Recirculating aquaculture systems - RAS ........................................................................... 23
2.4 Co-culture systems ............................................................................................................. 26
2.4.1 Land based IMTA ......................................................................................................... 26
2.4.2 Biofloc systems............................................................................................................ 27
2.4.2 Aquaponics .................................................................................................................. 29
2.4.3 IAA – Integrated Agri- and Aquaculture ...................................................................... 32
3. Sea based, on-bottom systems ................................................................................................ 33
3.1 Not confined ...................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Confined ............................................................................................................................. 34
4. Sea based, off-bottom systems – Near bottom ....................................................................... 36
4.1 Table/racks ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Intertidal longlines ............................................................................................................. 38
4.3 Cages .................................................................................................................................. 39
5. Sea based, off-bottom systems - Surface based ...................................................................... 42
5.1 Fish cage systems (net pens, semi-closed and closed systems) ........................................ 42
5.1.1 Net-pens ...................................................................................................................... 43
5.1.2 Semi-closed and closed systems ................................................................................. 44
5.1.3 Off-shore and submersible systems for fed aquaculture ........................................... 45
5.2 Longlines ............................................................................................................................ 48
5.2.1 Surface based longlines .............................................................................................. 48
5.2.2 Submerged longlines ................................................................................................... 51
5.3 Rafts ................................................................................................................................... 53
5.3 Dynamic submerged systems for extractive species ......................................................... 54
5.4 On-surface systems ............................................................................................................ 56
5.5 Sea based co-culture systems ............................................................................................ 58
References.................................................................................................................................... 60
5
Abbreviations
AV: AquaVitae
DWC: Deep-water culture in aquaponics system
IAA: Integrated agri- and aquaculture systems
IMTA: Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture
LTS: Low-Trophic-Species
NFT: Nutrient film technique in aquaponics
6
List of figures
Figure 1. Illustration of the trophic pyramid in marine environments with emphasis on low trophic species
aquaculture species............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2. Illustration of selected aspects affected by mode of production from extensive to intensive……12
Figure 3. Overview of the classifications of different culture systems for low trophic species used in this
report................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4. Illustration of a flow-through pond system. ................................................................................ 17
Figure 5. Examples of pond culture in Brazil ............................................................................................... 19
Figure 6. Examples of raceway design ........................................................................................................ 20
Figure 7. Linear flow raceway constructions. ............................................................................................. 20
Figure 8. Some modern pond aquaculture systems have installed water treatment systems. .................. 21
Figure 9. A cross section view of pilot bioreactor design ............................................................................ 21
Figure 10. Land-based, flow through, abalone farming systems used in South Africa .............................. 22
Figure 11. D-ended raceway used to culture Ulva sp. in a land-based abalone/Ulva IMTA system in South
Africa ................................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 12. Recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) showing components as described in the text ........... 24
Figure 13. Roe enhancement of green sea urchin (S. droebachiensis) in RAS. ........................................... 25
Figure 14. Native oyster (Crassostrea gasar) hatchery production in RAS system in Brazil ....................... 26
Figure 15. IMTA in large shrimp ponds in Brazil ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 16. Organisms in flow-through IMTA in Spain ................................................................................. 27
Figure 17. Example of an indoor biofloc system for shrimp. ...................................................................... 28
Figure 18. Shrimp (Litopaneus vannamei), mullet (Mugil liza) and seaweed (Ulva ohnoi) farmed in biofloc
system in Brazil.................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 19. Banana tree in an aquaponics media bed ................................................................................. 30
Figure 20. Tomato plants growing in media beds in a large-scale aquaponics facility. ............................. 30
Figure 21. Illustration of an NTF (Nutrient film technique) aquaponics system. ........................................ 31
Figure 22, Illustration of deep water culture aquaponics system (DWC). .................................................. 31
Figure 23. An example of integrated agri- and aquaculture (IAA). ............................................................ 32
Figure 24. Seeding an area for on-bottom culture ..................................................................................... 33
Figure 25. Harvested mussel seed being transferred to a grow out site.. .................................................. 34
Figure 26. On-bottom culture of oysters in the USA ................................................................................... 34
Figure 28. The Oyster boat ApS system is a “carpet” of oyster baskets put out on the bottom ................ 35
Figure 27. On-bottom, confined culture of oysters using a fence for predator control in Brazil ................ 35
Figure 29. Culture of mussels in France using the traditional system called Bouchot................................ 36
Figure 30. Traditional cultivation system from France. Table culture system in Brazil.Table system in Rio
Grande do Norte, Brazil....................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 31. Large-scale cultivation of oysters in France. The cultivations are so large they are visible on
satellite images.. ................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 32. Illustration of different intertidal longline systems. .................................................................. 38
Figure 33. Fixed off-bottom system for oyster culture in North Brazil....................................................... 39
Figure 34. Examples of small-scale bottom cages used in the US .............................................................. 40
Figure 35. Examples of baskets for small-scale off-bottom systems for oysters. ....................................... 40
Figure 36. Example of large-scale bottom cages used in the US ................................................................ 40
Figure 37. Benthic cage with abalone inside and colonized with sugar kelp.............................................. 41
Figure 38. The Shellevator, driven by compressed air ................................................................................ 41
Figure 40. Tambaqui in net cage in Tartarugalzinho (Amapá State) in Brazil............................................ 43
Figure 39. Floating open cage aquaculture system in Norway................................................................... 43
Figure 41. Design of a closed, floating tarpaulin covered cage .................................................................. 44
Figure 42. Examples of closed systems for fed aquaculture ....................................................................... 45
Figure 43. Examples of offshore fish farming systems.. ............................................................................. 46
Figure 44. Salmar AS have designed a large offshore farming system with a central hub controlling
feeding and monitoring of the salmon ............................................................................................... 47
Figure 45. Examples of submersible cage aquaculture systems ................................................................. 47
7
Figure 46. Illustration of the principal structure of longline systems (left) with a backbone rope supported
by floating elements, anchors, and droppers on which the farmed organism (e.g. mussels or kelp)
grow. ................................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 47. Different types of floating elements providing buoyancy to longline systems .......................... 48
Figure 48. Examples of ropes used as substrate in extractive culture in longline systems......................... 49
Figure 49. Illustration of nets as substrate used in longline production..................................................... 50
Figure 50. Different types of baskets for farming of oysters. ..................................................................... 51
Figure 51. Examples of how submerged longline systems may be constructed ......................................... 52
Figure 52. Example of suitable buoy-design for high energy-areas........................................................... 52
Figure 53. Principles of a system for macroalgae culture in exposed areas ............................................... 53
Figure 54. Examples of raft systems. Left: Typical wooden raft for mussel farming .................................. 53
Figure 55. Left: Cages with oysters suspended from a raft system in Sweden ........................................... 54
Figure 56. Dynamic systems for oyster and mussel cultivation in exposed areas ...................................... 55
Figure 57. Raft system adapted to exposed areas ...................................................................................... 55
Figure 58. Examples of floating surface-based systems from the US ......................................................... 56
Figure 59. Illustration of floating racks used in Brazil................................................................................. 57
Figure 60. The flip-farm system developed in New Zealand ....................................................................... 58
Figure 61. Classic IMTA showing fish farming in an open net pen, mussel farming, algae farming, as well
as lobsters and urchins underneath the fish production site .............................................................. 59
8
Background
AquaVitae (AV) is a research and innovation project, funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020
program. The project consortium consists of 35 partners, from 16 different countries spread
across four continents. In addition to Europe, partners are situated in countries bordering the
Atlantic Ocean, including Brazil, South Africa, Namibia, as well as North America. The overall
objective of AV is to introduce new low trophic species (LTS), products and processes to
marine aquaculture value chains (VCs) across the Atlantic, in a sustainable way. AV focuses on
the VCs for macroalgae production, Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) and
production of new echinoderm species as well as of underutilized shellfish species and low
trophic finfish species. In addition to research in specific VCs, a significant part of the research
activities in AV, directed through several work packages (WPs), focuses on aspects of high
relevance to the different domains in the sustainability matrix (social, economic, and
environmental).
As one part of the work in AV, an online course was developed to enable training of different
stakeholder groups in LTS aquaculture. As part of that work, this report was developed to
provide an overview of systems used for LTS aquaculture around the Atlantic and to highlight
suitability of each system to specific organism groups. The following chapters therefore
provide examples and a brief description of different types of systems and attempt to give a
general overview of where specific production techniques fit into different classifications. This
report does not claim to provide a complete overview of all available systems but will present
the major system groups and show examples from different regions around the Atlantic. It is
important to know that, in general, all system types differ slightly between different
geographical regions as local conditions require adaptation to the local context. The general
principles of each system are, however, valid across different geographical areas.
9
1. Introduction
1.1 Trophic structures

The human population is predicted to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 (UN 2019). Moreover,
feeding the world population in 2050 would require raising overall food production by 70
percent (FAO 2009), hence placing an increasing strain on natural resources. This is critical
considering that we are already outside of the safe operating space for four of the nine the
planetary boundaries (i.e. climate change, biodiversity, land-system change, and
biogeochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus, Steffen et al., 2009). As an example,
agriculture uses > 80% of all phosphorous (Achary et al., 2017), and projections state that the
phosphorous reserves will be depleted in 50-100 years given business as usual (Svedrup et al.,
2013). The global rate of species extinction today is also orders of magnitude higher than the
average rate over the past 10 million years (IPBES, 2019), a problem exacerbated by food
production which is estimated to cause 70% of terrestrial biodiversity loss partly based on the
current land use of agriculture (nearly 40% of the earth’s surface) and being responsible for
80% of global deforestation (WWF, 2020). Food systems also release about 29% of global
greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2021). Different food production systems will, however, have
different impacts with lower impact for extractive marine species and production of primary
producers such as crops and vegetables compared to meet production1 (Hilborn 2018;
Hallström et al., 2019). Consequently, a transformation of food production systems and
consumption patterns is needed with increased consumption of low trophic species (LTS).
LTS are the base of the energy triangle/trophic pyramid (Figure 1). This model describes the
energy flow from primary producers (such as macroalgae) which convert energy from the sun
through photosynthesis to chemical energy, to carnivorous species. For each step up the
pyramid, the biomass of each level gets less (hence forming the pyramid shape) until the apex
predators at the top are reached. In its most simple form, the trophic levels in the pyramid are
aligned with the energy pyramid, with the lower trophic levels at the bottom and higher
trophic levels closer to the top. In Figure 1, five trophic levels are illustrated but in some
diagrams more, or less, levels are illustrated. The most important feature is that as one moves
up from one trophic level to another, only 10% of the energy from the trophic level below is
transferred. Consequently, the lower in the pyramid food is produced, the more energetically
efficient the production is. As with most models and classifications, trophic levels are complex,
especially in relation to aquaculture, and can change according to species, culture systems and
several other factors. What is clear, however, is that by producing and utilizing lower trophic
species in aquaculture, the sustainability of the food production system can be increased.
There is a range of ways to group or categorize aquaculture production worldwide, e.g. by

organism groups/species, culture environment (marine, brackish water, freshwater),
geographical area, trophic level (low trophic species, high trophic/predatory species) or culture
mode (fed-, unfed aquaculture). Despite the obvious benefits of classifying aquaculture in
different ways, such classifications can also be confusing. This is particularly apparent when
discussing the trophic level of cultured organisms. While the definition of extractive species
(organisms which depend on natural available sustenance, e.g. microalgae or nutrients) is
straightforward, the situation is more complex for fed aquaculture (aquaculture where
formulated feed is added during the culture cycle to enable or enhance growth of the cultured
1 https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
10
organism) as this group includes both lower trophic species such as sea urchins and crustacea
as well as higher trophic species such as carnivorous finfish. Examples of extractive species are
algae, plants, polychaetes, echinoderms such as sea cucumbers, and bivalves such as mussels
and oysters. Examples of fed LTS are omnivorous fish such as Tilapia and carps, grazing animals
such as abalone and sea urchins, and shrimps. Examples of predatory species are salmon and
sea bass.
In terms of trophic levels in aquaculture it is important to understand the complex relationship

between trophic level, production intensity and sustainability, as this will affect the effective
trophic level of the farmed organism. For example, both Tilapia and white legged shrimp are
omnivorous species and consequently considered to be LTS. However, as the organisms are
farmed and as the intensity of the operations increase (i.e. increased rearing densities and
demands for optimal growth rates), so does the need for addition of formulated feed. Through
the use of formulated feeds containing fish meal and fish oil, the effective trophic level of the
farmed organisms is increased compared to their natural niche. Similarly, when fish meal and
fish oil are replaced by other alternatives (e.g. vegetable alternatives, microalgae, fungi and
more) in feed formulated for predatory species such as salmon, the effective trophic level of
that species is reduced (Cottrell et al., 2021). Consequently, in terms of fed aquaculture, the
definition of low trophic is ambiguous and requires in depth knowledge about the culture
methods used.
Figure 1. Illustration of the trophic pyramid in marine environments with emphasis on low trophic species
aquaculture species. Figure developed by P. James.
11
1.2 Classification of culture systems

There is a wide range of culture systems used in aquaculture around the Atlantic. Different
types of systems allow different levels of interaction between the farmed organisms and the
surrounding ecosystems, e.g. in terms of nutrient release, interactions with wild populations,
pathogens, invasive species, water exchange and more. Consequently, aquaculture production
systems are often classified as open, closed, or semi-contained. Open systems are, as the
name suggests, open to the surrounding environment. Closed systems, on the other hand,
attempt to completely prevent any interactions between the farmed organism and the
surrounding environment. Semi-contained or semi-closed systems is somewhere in between,
collecting and/or even sometimes utilizing, some fraction of the nutrients released from the
main production system, yet cannot completely disclose all interactions with the surrounding
environment. Different systems may, consequently, have advantages or disadvantages
regarding the target species in culture. For example, it is difficult to culture extractive species
in closed systems as they depend on continuous renewal of the natural available food or
nutrients (hence reducing cost efficiency if cultured in closed systems), while organisms not
endemic to an area should be held in closed systems to prevent interaction with wild species,
or in systems where the effluent is treated to prevent the spread pathogens and/or disease
from the production system to wild species in the adjacent areas.
Another classification system for culture systems commonly used is based on the intensity of
the culture (Figure 2). Extensively managed systems generally require the least management,
with no supplemental feeding and low investment costs. In contrast, intensively managed
systems require feeding and substantial water management to ensure optimum conditions for
the culture species. Some of the descriptors separating extensive from intensive culture is
illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Illustration of selected aspects affected by mode of production from extensive to intensive. Please note that
the densities descriptor is most applicable to fed aquaculture as densities of the farmed organisms in extractive
culture, e.g. mussel farming, can be very high despite longline systems being classified as extensive systems. The blue
triangle below the figure indicates the direction of intensity from low (extensive) to high (intensive) from longline
systems to RAS systems.
12
While it is convenient to create these categories for definition purposes, some systems are not
easily categorized into one of these groupings. There are some grey areas and overlap
between all these system definitions. Therefore, in this report, another classification system
based on where the systems are placed, i.e. on land or in the sea, is used (Figure 3). In
comparison to the concept of open and closed systems, land-based systems span the entire
range from fully open to fully closed systems, while sea based systems are primarily open with
the exception of semi-closed and closed fish culture. Moreover, many land-based systems are
used for both fed- and LTS aquaculture. Other systems, however, are primarily used for LTS,
specifically systems used for extractive species such as kelp, mussels and oysters.
Consequently, the range of systems for LTS aquaculture is more diverse compared to systems
for species in higher trophic levels.
The systems are presented in this report according to the order in Figure 3. The first type in
this report is land based systems, including different types of ponds, tanks and raceways with
varying degree of water reuse ranging from fully open systems with limited and/or batch-wise
exchange of water to fully recirculating systems (RAS).
These systems can also be used for co-culture of organisms where organisms from different
trophic levels are cultured together. This is done using various combinations of the techniques
described above, although to optimize the performance, in particular in land-based systems,
the systems may have to be adapted to the co-culture situation. Combining low-trophic
organisms with higher trophic organisms can allow for the direct utilization of waste streams
from one system in the production of another group of organisms. This type of integrated
production is known as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). However, IMTA can take
many forms. Even aquaponics (producing plants and fish together in a system) and IAA
(Integrated Agri- and Aquaculture) are forms of IMTA production. The main premise is that
waste products from higher trophic organisms are used in the production of lower trophic
organisms, in this way reducing waste products while increasing production of other
organisms. It's important to mention that organisms within the same trophic level can also be
cultured in the same system, based on niche partitioning between species (Nunes et al., 2003,
ongoing project2). The benefits and drawbacks of this type of culture is, however, very little
documented although industry know-how states that co-culture may enhance the
performance of the cultured organisms.
In sea based systems, the systems are categorized in this report as on-bottom or off bottom
systems. In on-bottom structures, the culture species is placed directly on the sediment
surface, either without or with some sort of containment. In off-bottom systems the cultured
organism is raised above the sediment surface. Off-bottom systems are further divided into
bottom based and surface based systems. Bottom based systems are formed by structures
placed on/in the substrate, and these structures support various holding units for the cultured
organisms, e.g. bags, cages or lines. Surface based systems are supported by floating elements
to keep the culture structures floating and/or suspended. All land-based system types and sea
based fish cages can be used for fed aquaculture of both high- and low trophic species. Many
of the surface based systems can also be used, in a modified way, in off shore or high energy
areas, and in IMTA systems.
Offshore systems and systems adapted to high energy conditions are used around the world
for production of different organism groups (Beveridge 2004, Ryan 2004, Chopin and Sawhney
2 https://aic.rutgers.edu/bivalve-polyculture.html 2022-04-06
13
2009, Langan 2009, Langan and Couturier 2010, Shumway 2010). This type of systems includes
a broad spectrum of technical solutions yet are based on the system types described in the
previous sections. The advantages with these systems are many, for example that they are
protected from, or can handle, rough conditions in exposed areas (Moe et al., 2010; Goseberg
et al., 2017), they can provide structure in offshore areas, thereby enhancing biodiversity in
the areas (Troell et al., 2009; Mascorda Cabre et al. 2021), the may enhance the survival of the
cultivated organisms (Petton et al., 2015), can improve the quality of the product (Ngo et al.,
2006; Klinger and Naylor, 2012) and can decrease the exposure of the farmed organisms to
pollutants (Cheney et al., 2010).
Figure 3. Overview of the classifications of different culture systems for low trophic species used in this report. Colors in
the boxes (except black) represents system categorization in terms of closed, semi-closed and open systems (red,
purple, and blue, respectively), and the frames around the boxes represents the suitability of each category for fed
(yellow) or unfed (green) species.
Some of the pros and cons for each major production system group (from a production
perspective) are summarized in Table 1. Some of these aspects are discussed more in detail in
the following sections.
14
Table 1. Summary of the major pros and cons with each production system type.
System System Pros Cons

location culture
types
Land -Ponds -Access to the culture structure -More investment to maintain
Based -Tanks and during all times, and consequently water quality in high stocking
System raceways to the animals densities
-RAS -More control of water parameters -Depends on a water availability
- Less risk of accidental escapes, for in-let water
and consequently less interactions -Preferential substrate type for
with wild populations ponds: clay
-High cost of installation and
maintenance
-Constant maintenance of
structures
Sea - Not Intertidal zone: Intertidal zone:

Based confined -Helps to control fouling and the -Exposure of animals to the air
System - - Confined management of predator (affects growth, can expose
on -Does not require infrastructure (not animals to extreme events: e.g. ice
bottom confined) and UV light)
-Shell thickening for bivalves by air -Area close to polluting sources
exposure and exposure to predators -Conflicts of use may occur (ex.
noise from night collection, access
Subtidal zone: to the beach, visual impact)
-Animals are always submerged, -Access to the animals only during
and consequently has good low tide
conditions for growth -More exposed to salinity and
-Shell thickening for bivalves by temperature variations
exposure to predators
-Little visual impacts Subtidal zone:
-Difficult to access and handle the
For both intertidal and subtidal: farmed organisms
- Extensive systems = low cost and -For confined system, divers are
low management sometimes required for handling or
harvest
-The farmed animals are exposed
to benthic predators
For both intertidal and subtidal:

-Fouling on confined systems may
affect production negatively
- Expansion potential limited
(shallow areas, specific substrates)
Sea -Tables and -Low installation cost -Exposed to the tide (affects
Based racks -Popular method worldwide growth, can expose animals to
System - -Intertidal -Helps to control fouling extreme events: e.g. ice and UV
off longlines -Shell thickening in suspend light)
bottom: -Cages structures - Expansion potential limited
near (shallow areas, specific substrates)
bottom -Constant maintenance of
structures, labour demanding
-Limited shell thickening in fixed
structure (where the oyster do not
move with tide variation)
-Intertidal systems
*exposed to salinity and
temperature variations
*air exposure --> less growth
15
*access to the animals only

during low tide
*visual impact
Sea -Fish cage -No animal exposure to bottom -High cost of installation and
Based -Longlines predators maintenance
System - -Rafts -Animals are always submerged --> - labour demaning culture process
off -On-surface high productivity (management of fouling + size
bottom: cages -Possibility of expansion (wide sorting)
Surface depth range and wide substrate -Constant maintenance of
based acceptance) structures
-Suitable for both sheltered and -Access to the animals depending
exposed areas on weather conditions
-Efficient (use of the water column,
3D environment)
-Ease of mechanization
16
2. Land-based systems
Closed containment systems are often (but not always) established on land. Examples of these
include ponds and tanks, raceways, and RAS. Some combined systems (see section Co-culture
systems (combined systems), page 26) can also be included in this group and include
aquaponics, IMTA (integrated multitrophic aquaculture) and IAA (Integrated Agri- and
Aquaculture). Land-based flow-through systems using tanks, raceways or ponds can also be
classified as open and/or semi-closed systems if they do not have treatment of the effluent
water.
2.1 Ponds
Pond culture, the rearing of fish or other culture organisms in natural or artificial constructed
basins, is one of the oldest forms of aquaculture and can, as for tanks and raceways, be
designed to be semi-contained or closed. Since the initiation of pond culture during the Yin
Dynasty (1400-1137 B.C.), the concept has spread to almost all parts of the world and is used
for a wide range of culture organisms.
Ponds are essentially dug-out pools of water containing the farmed species of interest. Pond
culture can be carried out using stagnant waters, but over time a range of variants has
developed, including topping of water to compensate for evaporation or leakages, batch-wise
exchange, flow-through and even waste-water treatment systems. Consequently, ponds can
be designed to be closed systems with no exchange of water outside the farming area, or the
water can be led into a series of ponds and then released into a waterway (Figure 4), in which
case the pond system is considered to be an open system. In some cases, the effluent from a
pond can also be treated to lower the nutrient levels in the effluent waters. In Denmark, for
example, traditional pond systems have been upgraded to include water treatment systems
with particulate and dissolved nutrient removal so that the outgoing water contains lower
nutrient levels than the incoming water.
Figure 4. Illustration of a flow-through pond system (illustration from Baluyut, 1989).
17
Pond systems are described in detail in Baluyut (1989), and generally consists of the following
basic components:
1. Pond compartments enclosed by dikes.
2. Canals for supply and drainage of water to and from the pond compartments.
3. Gates or water control structures to regulate entry and exit of water into and from
the pond compartments.
Pond compartments are usually rectangular in shape but can also be constructed in the form
of raceways or ovals. They vary in size from less than one to several hectares (ha) each and can
sometimes be up to 20-50 ha. With new intensive methods the trend is to use smaller units for
flexibility and ease of management. Depth varies between 0.5 m to a few meters deep. In
general, a pond water depth of one meter is considered suitable for many species e.g. tilapia,
carps, and shrimps. Ponds are usually built so that they can be easily drained for harvesting,
e.g. by having one end of the pond (the drainage end) being a bit deeper than the inflow end.
Canals/channels supply new water into the ponds and drain out old water. The entry and exit
of water into ponds through the canals are regulated or controlled by gravity and gate
systems, or by pumps. Pond management involves the following basic activities:
a) Pond preparation/conditioning
b) Fertilization (if wanted/needed to favour natural production of microalgae as food)
c) Stocking
d) Feeding (if wanted/needed)
e) Monitoring and management of water quality
f) Pond maintenance
g) Harvest
Depending on type of production (culture organism) and water exchange routines, the ponds
can either be used without any further enhancement of the natural production (extensive),
can be fertilized to enhance natural production (semi-intensive), or formulated feed can be
added to enhance the farm production (intensive). The mode of operation (extensive, semi-
intensive or intensive) also partially stipulates the level of water quality management required.
In extensive and semi-intensive pond culture systems, 10% water exchange daily is normal.
Intensively managed ponds require greater water exchange in view of the much higher organic
load on the pond bottom, especially toward the final part of the culture cycle when the
animals excrete more waste. To avoid the risk of anoxia, some pond systems are equipped
with aeration. Oxygen depletion in high-density ponds results not only from the faster rate of
utilization of dissolved oxygen for respiratory activities of the farmed organism (and by
phytoplankton during night-time) but is also caused by decomposition of organic material at
the pond bottom. Paddlewheels or other types of aerators are thus sometimes installed in
ponds. Fed systems generally has an automatic feeding system with fractional feeding
throughout the day. This facilitates feed management and provide better culture conditions
for the target species. In terms of low trophic species, carps and other fish species are
commonly cultured in pond systems. An example of fish cultivation in ponds from AV comes
from Brazil (Figure 5), with tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) and pirarucu (Arapaima
gigas), however, the latter species is a higher trophic level species.
18
Figure 5. Examples of pond culture in Brazil. Top left and bottom: culture of Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) och
pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) in large (top) and small (bottom) systems (pictures L. Torati). Top right: Tilapia culture in an
aerated pond (Paraná State, picture, S. Sühnel).
Ponds are also often used for shrimp production, sometimes in an IMTA or biofloc setup (see
section 2.4 Co-culture systems, page 26), as is also the case in AV. Bivalves such as mussels
and oysters are rarely cultured in ponds (but see exception described in section 2.4 Co-culture
systems, page 26).
19
2.2 Tanks and raceways

The next step in complexity in terms of land-based systems are tanks and raceways. Tanks are
often round to promote the natural schooling and swimming behavior of fish, facilitate
cleaning and may have conical bottoms to facilitate accumulation of waste particulates in the
center of the tank where the waste can be automatically flushed from the tank using different
types of draining systems. The tanks are often constructed of concrete, plastic or fiberglass
and may vary in size from very small (>50 L) in e.g. research facilities to very large tanks
containing several liters (e.g. 1 000 m3 [1 000 000 L]).
Raceways may be viewed as elongated tanks with continuous water flow. As for tanks,
raceways can be made of concrete, plastic or fiberglass (Figure 6, Figure 7) or can simply be
dug out in the ground to resemble an elongated continuous, meandering pond. Raceways
often have flat bottoms and low water depth and are hence suitable for bottom dwelling
culture organisms (in comparison to tank structures which are often deeper and are better
suited for pelagic species).
Figure 6. Examples of raceway design. Top: a D-end system with circulating water, bottom: a linear flow raceway
(figure from Bregnballe, 2015).
Figure 7. Linear flow raceway constructions. (FAO, 2011 - Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 561 – Small-
scale rainbow trout farming – pictures courtesy of Thomas Moth-Poulsen and András Woynarovich).
Most raceways are constructed as flow-through systems with linear flow from one end of the
raceway to the other, hence water from an external source like a river or waterway may simply
be diverted into the system and allowed to “flow-through” the farming system and out to the
environment again. Water may or may not be treated at the outflow end and either
recirculated or simply released untreated. However, simple water-treatment systems with
particle separation, settling and/or biological treatment including denitrification via a wood-
chip bioreactor are relatively inexpensive and easily installed techniques (Figure 8, Figure 9), so
20
fully open systems are becoming less frequent. Some countries also offer farmers an incentive
to reduce nutrient levels in effluent waters by introducing farming permits based on this
parameter. A farmer could, in this way, increase production by adding effluent treatment and
still not break the obligations outlined within his/her permit. Fed-aquaculture systems
generally has an automatic feeding system with fractional feeding throughout the day. This
facilitates feed management and provide better culture conditions for the target species.
Figure 8. Some modern pond aquaculture systems have installed water treatment systems (picture from
https://www.aqua.dtu.dk/english/research/aquaculture).
Figure 9. A cross section view of pilot bioreactor design. Wastewater is directed into the saturated zone towards the
bottom of the trench, flowing horizontally, and providing anoxic conditions required by denitrifying bacteria
(Illustration by K. Rish).
21
An obvious concern in interconnected systems might be deteriorating water quality along the
raceway and/or the spread of disease within the system with no treatment barriers between
different farming units. However, by designing raceway units in parallel, each with individual
inflows and outflows, will help mitigate this concern.
Tanks and raceways are represented in AV including cultivation of green sea urchin
(Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) and Purple sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus), for culture
of Tambaqui (C. macropomum) in Brazil, and for culture of abalone in South Africa (Figure 10,
Figure 11).
Figure 10. Land-based, flow through, abalone farming systems used in South Africa (picture C. Jones).
22
Figure 11. D-ended raceway used to culture Ulva sp. in a land-based abalone/Ulva IMTA system in South Africa
(picture C. Jones).
2.3 Recirculating aquaculture systems - RAS

RAS are the most complex of the land-based systems and utilize a series of mechanical and
biological filters and techniques for sterilization of the water to recirculate and re-use water.
These systems often have two waste streams – one particulate/solid and one liquid phase
containing dissolved nutrients. Depending on how these waste streams are handled, the
system can be considered completely closed or semi-closed. Moreover, the systems can run
either on salt water or on freshwater. Even though most (or in some cases even all) of the
water is reused in these systems, top-up water is required due to loss through evaporation and
waste streams. In larger systems this may necessitate the supply of a significant amount of
water but in many of the smaller systems currently in use, the volume required is small and
depends on the total volume of the system and the recirculation (or re-use) percentage.
However, even for smaller systems, it may be a good idea to plan the system so that it is
possible in an emergency to decrease the recirculation rate and increase the amount of new
water that can be taken into the system. Moreover, water can be replaced continuously or
batch-wise. Consequently, the recirculation rate of water can vary widely between systems
with recirculating rates of 80% to 100% on a daily basis.
While a RAS can have many different configurations, they all contain the following
components (Figure 12):
1. Tanks or raceways selected to be suitable for the target species (e.g. shape,
size, color)
2. Feeding system
3. Particle remover true skimmer and/or mechanical filter or sedimentation traps
to collect as much solid materials as possible
4. Biological filter to remove/convert the dissolved wastes from the animal’s
metabolism
5. An aeration unit to remove CO2 and replenish O2
23
6. Supplementary oxygenation and/or aeration before the water is returned to

the tanks
7. Sometimes UV or ozonation for sterilization of the effluent water or “in-line”
of the recirculating water is used to reduce pathogens within the system
The waste streams from a RAS are made up of two parts. The first is the slurry (waste feed and
faeces) which is separated through the skimmer, mechanical filters and by sedimentation
traps. This sediment is usually concentrated using water separation and/or drying techniques
and can be utilized for other purposes such as fertilizer. The second part of the waste
production constitute dissolved nutrients in the water. Nitrogen from the metabolic
degradation of protein by the cultured organism (in the form of ammonia) is removed or
oxidized to a chemical form that is harmless to the organism up to very high concentrations
(i.e. nitrate). This oxidation of ammonia to nitrate is performed in a biofilter using naturally
occurring bacteria. In most RAS, water lost through the particulate waste stream or
evaporation is topped-up in the system and thereby dilutes this nitrogen by-product. In other
instances, a small amount of water is released from the system and replaced with new water
(usually 1-5% of the total volume is released in this way). Because this water contains valuable
dissolved nutrients, it can be utilized in irrigation or coupled to a system to grow plants or
algae (see section 2.4 Co-culture systems, page 26). Also, RAS system generally has an
automatic feeding system with fractional feeding throughout the day. This facilitates feed
management and provide better culture conditions for the target species.
Figure 12. Recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) showing components as described in the text (illustration by Akva
Group, https://www.akvagroup.com/home).
24
Besides the obvious advantages of efficient water-use and reduced effluents, the major
advantage of RAS is that the farmer has full control over the system and the farming
environment, and consequently can optimize the rearing environment to the specific
requirements of each culture species (e.g. manipulation of temperature, salinity, light, feed,
etc.), inferring high growth rates and hence optimized production timelines. In addition, the
likelihood of escapes and the spread of infectious diseases to the surrounding environment is
greatly reduced or eliminated depending on the species farmed and the amount and type of
effluent treatment utilized, and flexibility in farm-placement can provide locally produced food
directly to the larger markets. Furthermore, nutrients (feed waste, faeces and metabolites)
from the farm can be collected before release, creating new products in the form of, for
example, feed materials, natural gas (bioenergy) or fertilizers. A disadvantage often associated
with RAS is the higher investment and operating costs compared to other systems. RAS
systems are classified as intensive culture systems due to the high investment and running
costs, advanced technology used, requirements of trained staff, high densities of the cultured
organisms and additions of formulated feed during the culture cycle.
RAS systems can be used for a range of organisms. The most common is perhaps fish culture,
both high-trophic and low trophic fish. However, the systems are also used for other organism
groups. Examples of LTS are abalone, some seaweeds and sea urchins, for which the systems
can be used either through the full production cycle of the species or for part of it (e.g. as for
sea urchins during roe-enhancement). Also, RAS are often used in hatchery production for
production of fry and fingerlings of fish and seed and seedlings of unfed species. In AV, RAS
systems are used for culture of the green sea urchin (S. droebachiensis) in the US and in
Scandinavia (Figure 13), for Tambaqui (C. macropomum) and pirarucu (A. gigas) in Brazil, and
for native oyster (Crassostrea gasar) hatchery production in Brazil (Figure 14).
Figure 13. Roe enhancement of green sea urchin (S. droebachiensis) in RAS (pictures: P. James).
25
Figure 14. Native oyster (Crassostrea gasar) hatchery production in RAS system in Brazil (picture: Primar hatchery).
2.4 Co-culture systems

2.4.1 Land based IMTA
IMTA systems can, as described in section 1.2 Classification of culture systems, page 12, be
implemented in land based systems. Within AV several species are being produced within
different IMTA scenarios in land based, sea based, and biofloc systems. The species being
produced in these systems within AV include shrimp (Litopenaeus vanammei) farmed with
Mangrove oyster (Crassostrea gasar) and macroalgae (Ulva intestinalis, Figure 15), and
Abalone, sea cucumbers, anemones and macroalgae in Spain, France and South Africa (Figure
16).
Figure 15. IMTA in large shrimp ponds in Brazil. IMTA includes shrimp (Litopenaeus vanammei) and Mangrove oyster
(Crassostrea gasar) and macroalgae (Ulva intestinalis, pictures W. Valenti).
26
Figure 16. Organisms in flow-through IMTA in Spain. Top left: integrated culture of anemones (Anemonia viridis) on
abalone (Haliotis tuberculata) production plates covered with the algae Ulvella lens.Top right: abalone juveniles
(Haliotis tuberculata) on the macroalgae Ulva rigida. Bottom: abalone (Haliotis tuberculata) in their grow out
production baskets (pictures G. Courtois de Viçose).
2.4.2 Biofloc systems

Biofloc systems are closed, land-based systems containing a heterogeneous suspension of
microorganisms, inorganic dissolved nutrients and organic particles. Bioflocs contains, among
others, bacteria, protozoa, fungi, invertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton and detritus
creating a nitrogen cycle within the closed system. Unused feed and faeces are converted to a
protein-rich feed by these organisms in the presence of light and heat. The mixture is usually
aerated and the bubbling brown to green mixture forms small loose matrixes or flocs of mucus
excreted by bacteria and giving the biofloc its name ( Figure 17). Large flocs can be seen in the
mixture, but most flocs are, in fact, microscopic.
Biofloc aquaculture systems are normally found in warmer climates as the floc forms and
functions best at around 30°C. However, these systems are becoming more common even in
colder climates in heated buildings. Some advantages of biofloc include the ability to farm
several species at once in the same system. Shrimp and tilapia, for example, are a commonly
found combination in biofloc ponds with both the shrimp and the tilapia having the ability to
feed off of the floc as well as of any feed inputs to the system. Other advantages are the
elimination of nutrient-rich effluent into the environment, very little water use, high
productivity with very little feed input, and a high resistance to infections. This makes biofloc a
very efficient means of production, especially in warmer climates where heat input
requirements are minimal and the systems can be an effective means of reducing water use
where water is a limited resource. The systems do, however, require a high input of energy for
heating (in some climates), mixing and aeration, as well as pH regulation through the addition
of alkalinity. Oxygen levels must also be monitored closely as there is a high biological load
27
within the system. The system allows marine shrimps to be produced in land based structures
far away from the sea, and allow control of water quality parameters.
Figure 17. Example of an indoor biofloc system for shrimp (picture Florida shrimp farm,
https://www.floridatrend.com/article/23140/under-water-shrimp-farmer-faces-a-big-problem).
28
In AV, biofloc systems are used for co-culture of shrimp, mullet and macroalgae (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Shrimp (Litopaneus vannamei), mullet (Mugil liza) and seaweed (Ulva ohnoi) farmed in biofloc system in
Brazil (pictures F. Vieira).
2.4.2 Aquaponics
In aquaponics systems, fish and plants are cultivated together in a recirculating system. This is
commonly done using freshwater fish and plants, but salt tolerant vegetation can also be used
in more marine systems3. An ecosystem is created within the system using naturally occurring
bacteria which convert fish nitrogen wastes to a form which can be utilized by plants.
Aquaponics systems can be constructed in numerous ways but can be divided into 3 broad
3 https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/can-salicornia-effectively-treat-aquaculture-effluent/
29
categories which may or may not be combined

within the same system. These include the
nutrient film technique (NFT), media bed, and
deep-water culture (DWC).
The most robust of these systems is perhaps

the growing of plants in media beds (Figure
19). In this system, grow beds resemble
traditional agricultural beds but are usually
constructed on a raised tray 30-40 cm deep
and filled with course gravel or light expanded
clay aggregate (LECA). The beds are watered
using ebb and flow watering or via trickling
techniques. Water is collected under the trays
and pumped back to the fish tanks. In these
systems, the media bed itself becomes the
particulate and biological filter and the plants
are planted directly in the media.
NFT closely resembles hydroponics systems

where a thin film of water is continually
pumped through a pipe or channel containing
holes where plants are placed (Figure 20,
Figure 21). Dissolved nutrients and water are
absorbed by the plants. These systems can be
configured in many ways, both vertically and Figure 19. Banana tree in an aquaponics media bed.
horizontally and are an effective means of (Picture J. Bailey).
growing plants if space is limited.
DWC have floating platforms with

holes where plants are placed
(Figure 22). The platforms float in
deep water trays and water
exchange is continuous so as to
provide the plants with nutrients
and oxygenated water. Both DWC
and NFT systems require
particulate filtration and a
constructed biofilter. However,
these variations on aquaponics are
often used in combination with
media bed aquaponics thereby
possibly eliminating the need for
Figure SEQ Figure
extra filtration of\*particulate
ARABIC 52. Large-scale tomato production using media beds and trickle watering. (Photo:
Agtira - J.Bailey)
matter.
Figure 20. Tomato plants growing in media beds in a large-scale

aquaponics facility (picture J.Bailey).
30
Figure 21. Illustration of an NTF (Nutrient film technique, www.gogreenaquaponics.com) aquaponics system.
Figure 22, Illustration of deep water culture aquaponics system (DWC). Top: DWC showing extensive root system and
floating structures used (www.aquaponics.com). Bottom: plants sit in holes in a floating Styrofoam sheet with their roots
directly in the water (www.aquaponics.com).
31
2.4.3 IAA – Integrated Agri- and Aquaculture

A form of IMTA that is increasing in popularity in Northern Europe incorporates the growing of
fish in freshwater RAS and using the solid and liquid waste streams to fertilize and irrigate
large-scale agricultural farms (Figure 23). These systems can be referred to as integrated agri-
and aquaculture (IAA)*, are essentially decoupled (since water is not returned to the fish)
aquaponics systems on a larger scale and have gained increased popularity in areas where
there is significant agricultural activity. IAA saves both water for irrigation and the reliance on
commercial fertilizers.
Figure 23. An example of integrated agri- and aquaculture (IAA). Liquid and solid waste streams are used on the
surrounding agricultural land to eliminate the need for commercial fertilizers (picture from Gårdsfisk AB,
https://www.gardsfisk.se).
32
3. Sea based, on-bottom systems

The second main group of culture systems are sea based, on-bottom systems. This system type
can be considered the most extensive type of culture and is also referred to as sea-ranching.
The technique is based on re-laying of the culture organisms on the substrate in shallow
waters (intertidal to 15 m depth) with no, or little, infrastructure to manage the production.
3.1 Not confined

Non-confined on-bottom culture is the simplest type of bottom based systems. On-bottom
culture in the intertidal zone need a flat, large area, where the culture organisms are relayed
(seeded) as juveniles (Figure 24Figure 25) and left for grow-out to commercial size (Figure 26)
at which point they are harvested. In the inter tidal zone, management, e.g. removal of fouling
and predators, can be done manually or mechanically during low tide, as the animals are
exposed to air during low tides. During on-bottom culture in the subtidal zone, animals are
constantly submerged.
The scale of activities can be small or large. In large scale activities, often used in mussel
culture, seed are dredged and transferred from areas where they have settled in great
abundance to culture plots in the intertidal or subtidal (figure 26), where they can be re-laid at
lower densities to obtain improved growth and fattening and where predation can be
controlled. The seeding sites are usually prepared to stabilize the bottom before seeding.
Harvest is normally done by dredging. Besides for mussels, the technique is commonly used
also for oysters.
Figure 24. Seeding an area for on-bottom culture. Picture from https://www.pangeashellfish.com
33
Figure 25. Harvested mussel seed being transferred to a grow out site. Photo from unknown source.
Figure 26. On-bottom culture of oysters in the USA. Right: picture from www.penncoveshellfish.com/oyster-farming-
1. Left: picture from Brian Kingzett.
3.2 Confined
In confined on-bottom culture, different structures such as bags or fences (Figure 28, Figure
27) to prevent predator attack and/or facilitate handling and/or harvest can be used. Confined
on-bottom culture using fences (picture to the right) is generally used to prevent loss of
oysters due to high currents and due to predator attacks.
34
Figure 28. Left: On-bottom, confined culture of oysters using a fence for predator control in Brazil, Paraná (picture F.
Lagreze). Right: Confined on-bottom culture in the US (picture from https://www.globalseafood.org).
Figure 27. The Oyster boat ApS system is a “carpet” of oyster baskets put out on the bottom (pictures from:
forcoast.eu/pilot-sites/pilot-6-denmark/).
35
4. Sea based, off-bottom systems – Near bottom

The general principle behind the category bottom based systems belonging to the off-bottom
type of structures is that the culture organism is raised from the substrate, yet the structures
supporting the organisms are still placed on/in the substrate. Most of the systems are adapted
to tidal movements, and management is then in general performed during low tides when it is
easy to access the oysters and culture structures. The air exposure during low tide reduces
fouling and predation, but also can affect bivalve growth rate by stopping feeding during air
exposure. Tables, racks and inter-tidal longlines are used worldwide and can be cheap
depending on the material used.
Figure 29. Culture of mussels in France using the traditional system called Bouchot. Picture from elementseafood.com.
The traditional way of growing mussels in France is a type of off-bottom system called
“bouchot” (Figure 29). Bouchot is used in areas that are within the intertidal zone and have
soft bottoms, i.e. mudflats, an consists of poles with ropes with mussel seed wound around
them (Prou and Goulletquer, 2002; Kamermans and Capelle, 2019). The posts are submerged
during high tide and above water level during low tide. The tidal movements, causing periodic
droughts to the Bouchots, prevent fouling. Management, e.g. removal of fouling and
predators, is generally done during low tide. This system does not resemble any of the other
systems in this category yet apply to the same principles.
4.1 Table/racks
Table/rack structures are commonly used for oyster culture. Bags with oysters (made of
plastic) are placed on structures attached on/in the sediment (Figure 30).In France, where
large areas of the coast are within the tidal range, large-scale production using this type of
system is common (Figure 31).
36
Figure 30. Top left: Traditional cultivation system from France. Figure from Barillé et al. (2020). Top right: Table
culture system in Brazil. Picture S. Sühnel. Bottom picture: table system in Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Picture S.
Sühnel.
Figure 31. Large-scale cultivation of oysters in France. The cultivations are so large they are visible on satellite
images. Picture modified from Google maps.
37
4.2 Intertidal longlines

There are more recently developed off-bottom culture systems with the added function of
automatic tumbling of the oysters which produce better oyster shell shape. These systems are
designed to move with the currents as one side of the cage or bag has a float which lifts the
structure up during high tides. At low tides the structure hang from a longline placed above
the water level. This causes movement of the oysters and produces oysters with a rounded
shape and with thicker shells as the growth line at the edge of the shell is continuously worn
down. The periodic air-drying also reduces fouling. Examples of models are Flip-Bag, BST and
SEAPA (Figure 32).
Figure 32. Illustration of different intertidal longline systems. Top left: picture from
https://www.pangeashellfish.com/blog/the-different-methods-of-growing-oysters, top right: picture from
http://www.rn.agenciasebrae.com.br, bottom left: picture Å. Strand, bottom right: picture from
http://www.penncoveshellfish.com/oyster-farming-1.
An example of off-bottom system within AV is found in the state of Pará, Brazil and another
one in the state of Sergipe, Brazil (Figure 33). In the latter one, baskets are attached to ropes.
38
Figure 33. Top: fixed off-bottom system for oyster culture in North Brazil (State of Sergipe, picture J.F.A. Legat).
Bottom: fixed off-bottom system for oysters in Northeast Brazil (state of Pará, picture F. Contente).
4.3 Cages
Off-bottom cages are placed in the subtidal zone and consequently can be used in areas
without tides. It is important to place the cages deep enough to avoid damage from ice
formation during winters (in temperate climate areas). The systems are suitable for both small
scale and large-scale culture. The baskets in off-bottom systems are often connected to a
headline stretching from one end of the farm site to the other. The headline is anchored and
marked in each end.
There are many different types of baskets. In some types, bags with oysters are placed on
shelves, and in others, oysters can be placed directly in the cages. In small-scale systems cages
with 1-3 shelves are common (Figure 34, Figure 35). In large-scale systems big cages which can
contain about 15 rectangular oyster bags, each one having its own box in the cage, is common
(Figure 36). Cages can be winched using a crane or other device depending on the size of the
cages.
39
Figure 34. Examples of small-scale bottom cages used in the US (pictures Å. Strand).
Figure 35. Examples of baskets for small-scale off-bottom systems for oysters (pictures Å. Strand).
Figure 36. Example of large-scale bottom cages used in the US (pictures Å. Strand).
40
In AV, bottom cages are used in for example France, where abalone (H. tuberculata) is cultured
in cages which are colonized with sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima). The kelp constitutes food
for the abalone and the system can consequently be considered as an IMTA system (see
section Co-cultured systems, page 26).
Figure 37. Benthic cage with abalone inside and colonized with sugar kelp (pictures N. Job/France Haliotis).
One of the drawbacks with these systems are the limited access to the cages and need for
systems to raise them to the surface. Consequently, there is significant innovation ongoing to
develop more dynamic systems which are easier to handle. One example of this is a small-scale
submersible basket-system called the “Shellevator” (Figure 38). The Shellevator floats on two
pontoons. In between the pontoons there is a platform where the metal oyster baskets are
placed. The system is air-pressure operated.
Figure 38. The Shellevator, driven by compressed air. Picture from

https://www.shellevator.com/gallery?lightbox=dataItem-kk5t8mhy
41
5. Sea based, off-bottom systems - Surface based

Although being very diverse, the group surface-based culture systems are based on the same
basic principle – the usage of floating elements to keep the culture structures at, or near, the
surface. Some surface-based systems, e.g. net pens, are used for fish (both predatory and LTS)
while others are exclusively used for low trophic species, e.g. suspended longline systems and
rafts (Figure 3). The systems are suitable for sheltered areas and optimal depth vary depending
on type of system but is normally between 4-30 m but can be deeper in the case of large fish
culture systems. There are systems that are suitable for areas with high tides as well as areas
with no or very little tides, and the systems can be established regardless of substrate
(although anchoring must be adapted to the substrate conditions at each site). Some of the
systems are also suitable for exposed areas, see pages 45, 51 and 54).
Benefits of surface-based systems compared to land-based systems are lower investment costs
and lower technological requirements, although this also differs widely within this group with
systems designed for fed aquaculture being more complex compared to systems designed for
extractive culture. This opens up for culture of low value species such as macroalgae and
mussels. Moreover, as extractive species are fully dependent on the available food
and/nutrients in the water, sea based systems allow diversification of the cultured species also
to this category of organisms. Disadvantages are the close interaction between the culture
systems and the ambient environment. This is a particular disadvantage in terms of fed
aquaculture which can struggle with nutrient pollution and changes in the benthic community
as feed waste and faeces accumulate under and in the direct vicinity of the farms (Brown et al.
1987, Karakassis et al. 2000, Mazzola et al. 2000, Bridger et al. 2003). Also, culture systems
containing bivalves, despite being extractive species, may contribute to local eutrophication
effects under the farms as a result of faeces and pseudo-faeces production (Mascorda Cabre et
al. 2021). The only organism group free of this challenge is macroalgae. Other drawbacks with
the surface based, open systems, are the possible interaction with local, wild populations of
the cultured species, both in terms of the occurrence of genetic pollution (when a
domesticated strain is cultured that differs genetically from the wild populations yet which
through escapees or other means manages to intermix with the wild population during
reproduction) and transfer of pathogens or parasites between the farmed and wild
populations. This is, however, best described for high trophic species (e.g. McGinnity et al.
1997, Fleming et al. 2000). So far, most of the LTS farmed in open, surface-based systems are
not fully domesticated, hence the problem of genetic pollution is less pronounced for these
species, yet these questions should be monitored closely in order to avoid history repeating
itself.
5.1 Fish cage systems (net pens, semi-closed and closed systems)
For residents of much of northern Europe, cage culture (sometimes called net-pen culture) is
how most people visualize the aquaculture industry. Cage culture systems became very
popular during the expansion of the salmonid farming industry and are still used today for
raising salmon, rainbow trout, sea bass, sea bream, tilapia and many other fish species in many
parts of the world. Marine species include mainly grouper, sea bass, sea breams, mullet,
snapper, and milkfish. In general, cage culture has expanded rapidly over the past decades due
to the wide applicability in different types of open water bodies (e.g. coastal waters, protected
coves and bays, lakes, rivers, and reservoirs) hence reducing the dependency on access to
land-resources, their high productivity (of as much as 10-20 times that of ponds of
42
comparative sizes), and for the socio-economic opportunities they provide to low-income
families in rural areas, particularly those displaced by the reduction of fisheries.
5.1.1 Net-pens
The systems consist of a floating structure, from which a net bag holding the fish is hung in the
water column (Figure 40). The systems can be deployed as single cages or in structures of a
number of cages supported by a common frame (Figure 40). The cages can be round or square.
Since their inception, the size of the cage has grown significantly and normal cage sizes in
Norway today are between 160 m – 200 m in diameter, each holding up to 1 000 tons of
salmon. This is, however, only an example, and the systems is also commonly used for LTS as
exemplified in Figure 39.The system is a very effective means of growing large quantities of
fish with water exchange facilitated by tidal exchange and/or water currents. These systems
generally has an automatic feeding system with fractional feeding throughout the day. This
facilitates feed management and provide better culture conditions for the target species.
Figure 40. Left: Floating open cage aquaculture system in Norway (Aqualine AS). Right: Example of square fish cages
in a joint structure (picture from https://www.planetlighting.com/project/cermaq-canada-salmon-farm-lighting-
british-columbia/).
Figure 39. Tambaqui in net cage in Tartarugalzinho (Amapá State) in Brazil (Photo:
https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-noticias/-/noticia/2207822/embrapa-amapa-pesquisa-tecnologias-para-
tambaqui-em-tanque-rede).
43
Net-pens will, by their nature, be affected by the weather conditions and are dependent on
natural water exchange, making localization extremely important. With proper localization
excessive sedimentation of particulate matter (feed residues and faeces) directly under the
cage farm can be somewhat mitigated.
5.1.2 Semi-closed and closed systems

Over the past years there has been considerable innovation and development of closed and
semi-contained coastal and offshore fish culture systems. This is a response to several
different factors challenging present day production, e.g. public concerns for nutrient pollution
and interactions between farmed and wild species, space limitations in nearshore areas and
fish welfare/a need to reduce parasite infestations. Consequently, several different types of
systems have been developed. One type of structure developed are semi-closed systems
where the net is replaced by a tarp like plastic or hard structure (often fiberglass-reinforced
plastics + steel, Figure 41). The idea is that this will allow the collection of sludge and dead fish,
hence reducing the release of particulate organic material from the farm (Nilsen et al., 2017).
As the structure of the culture unit enables controlled water exchange, inlet water is often
taken from greater depths, hence reducing the exposure of the fish to some parasites and
pathogens, e.g. salmon lice.
Figure 41. Design of a closed, floating tarpaulin covered cage. Water inlet at 25 m depth through a 25 mm filter.
Effluents separated in three fractions: water, sludge and dead fish. Figure from Nilsen et al. 2017.
There are also examples of sea based closed systems. Floating closed systems, like traditional
cage farms, float on the water surface with a hanging structure under the surface keeping the
farmed species from escaping. The difference between these and traditional open cage
systems, however, is that, instead of a net-pen hanging from a series of floats or a plastic ring,
there is a solid structure separating the water inside the farm from that on the outside and
eliminating the transfer of nutrients and pathogens between the open environment and the
contained farm environment (Figure 42). The solid structure can be hard or soft but most
importantly, it is an impermeable barrier for water exchange. Water is usually replenished by
pumping it into the structure and any effluent is treated in much the same way as in a RAS
44
system, with mechanical and biological filtration and disinfection. Temperature and disease
control can be mitigated by taking in water at various depths to avoid pathogens and/or
Figure 42. Examples of closed systems for fed aquaculture. Left: Example of a closed, surface-based system for fish culture.
Picture from Aquafarm equipment (https://aquafarm.no/). Right: “The egg” - Hauge Aquas innovative floating closed
containment system for salmon farming (https://haugeaqua.com/technology/egget).
replenish with colder or warmer water as required.
5.1.3 Off-shore and submersible systems for fed aquaculture

The coastal areas are crowded, and consequently the potential for expansion of aquaculture is
limited. In fed aquaculture, as discussed before, nutrient pollution and parasites, also pose
challenges in near-shore areas. Therefore, there is an increasing trend to move aquaculture
offshore. Exposed areas, however, create challenging conditions for floating net cage systems
and the staff working on the facilities, and damage to the culture units from extreme weather
and waves has led to massive escapes and loss of income. This has led to the design of new,
large scale, systems suitable to handle the conditions in offshore environments, and of
submersible systems which can be lowered under the water surface permanently or during
periods of high wave activity and thereby spared from damage. Several innovative designs
have been tested and are in use with promising results (Figure 43, Figure 44, Figure 45).
45
Figure 43. Examples of offshore fish farming systems. Top: Nordlaks “Havfarm” for salmon cultivation (picture from
https://salmonbusiness.com/nordlaks-wants-to-build-three-versions-of-the-havfarm/). MIddle: Nordlaks giant offshore salmon
farming system. Net pens hang inside the frame of the vessel and green walkways allow workers to move about on the ship
(https://salmonbusiness.com/the-heart-skips-a-beat-every-time-we-get-updates-on-how-close-havfarm-is-to-getting-home/).
Bottom: https://salmonbusiness.com/new-chinese-offshore-fish-farm-launched/.
46
Figure 44. Salmar AS have designed a large offshore farming system with a central hub controlling feeding and
monitoring of the salmon (picture from https://www.salmar.no/en/).
Figure 45. Examples of submersible cage aquaculture systems. Top: Akva Group (https://www.akvagroup.com/home),
bottom left: The Aquapod (picture from: https://www.edibleeastend.com/2017/04/25/taking-the-plunge-into-a-new-way-
of-farming-a-fish-farm-grows-off-the-east-end-of-long-island/) , bottom right: submerged fish cage (picture from:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/can-deepwater-aquaculture-avoid-the-pitfalls-of-coastal-fish-farms
47
5.2 Longlines
5.2.1 Surface based longlines
Longline systems are primarily used for extractive species, e.g. blue mussels, and macroalgae,
but can also be used for oysters and scallops. The systems consist of a long headline called
“backbone” (Figure 46) which is attached to anchors on each side, and which is supported by
floating elements such as barrels, buoys or polyethylene pipes (Figure 47). Buoys are used to
adjust system buoyancy but adding or subtracting items as the mass of the farmed organisms
change during the culture cycle. The benefit with polyethylene tubes is that a constant, high,
buoyancy is maintained, thereby reducing the need for continuous adjustments of the systems
buoyancy during the culture cycle.
Several headlines can also be connected on the short ends to a supporting line to reduce the
number of anchors needed. In that situation the supporting line is anchored and acts as an
attachment point for the headlines.
Figure 46. Illustration of the principal structure of longline systems (left) with a backbone rope supported by
floating elements, anchors, and droppers on which the farmed organism (e.g. mussels or kelp) grow. The picture to
the right illustrates barrels used for buoyancy (floating elements). Figure and picture: Å. Strand.
Figure 47. Different types of floating elements providing buoyancy to longline systems. Top Left and right: barrels.
Bottom left: polyethylene tube (photos, Å. Strand), and bottom right: submerged longline for scallop culture in Brazil
(photo S. Sühnel).
48
The headline’s length can vary but is normally between 100-200 meters. The headline is
moored at 1-3 meters depth. The culture units can differ in size and type, but the basic
principles are the same for all version of this system. A common set up is to have several
parallel cultivation lines which form a larger unit. Concrete anchors, plow anchors and screw
anchors are all commonly used. The anchor type is chosen depending on the conditions on the
site, e.g., depth, bottom type and exposure. Longlines can also be installed submerged (2-6 m
deep). From the headline, different structures are suspended on or in which the culture
organism is farmed, e.g. different types of ropes (Figure 48).
Figure 48. Examples of ropes used as substrate in extractive culture in longline systems. Top left: Sea squirt (Ciona
intestinalis) farming on mussel bands. Top right: close up of the mussel bands in the sea squirt farming. The bands
are, as apparent from the name, also used for mussels. Bottom left: Fuzzy (Christmas tree) ropes for mussel
farming. Bottom right: ropes used for mussel production in Canada (pictures Å. Strand).
49
The ropes can be deployed from the backbone line as droppers (single ropes hanging down
one by one from the backbone), or in a continuous loop as illustrated in Figure 46. A recently
developed alternative for mussels is nets (Figure 49). These nets normally reach down to about
3 meters depth from the backbone, while ropes go down to 5-7 meters. The combination of
polyethylene tubes as floating elements and nets as structure for mussels are sometimes
referred to as “Smartfarm” from the company which initiated this type of system, Figure 49. In
Croatia, nets are also used for capture of oyster seed (Figure 49).
Figure 49. Illustration of nets as substrate used in longline production. Left: Smart-farm-system using polyethylene
pipes for buoyancy and nets for the mussels to grow on (www.smartfarm.no). Right: net used for capture of oyster
seed in Croatia (pictures Å. Strand).
Other types of structures can be used in combination with longlines for oyster or sea urchin
culture, e.g. baskets and cages (Figure 50). These structures are suspended from the backbone
(like droppers). Several cages can be stacked and supported and deployed from one rope.
Longline systems are also suitable for macroalgae culture, e.g. sugar kelp (Saccharina
latissima). In kelp production, seedlings are produced in land-based hatchery systems, and
settled on thin lines which are later wrapped around thicker ropes which are then attached to
the backbone of the longline system. Kelp farming is only performed during the cold season, in
temperate areas as this provides good temperature conditions for growth and little fouling by
other organisms.
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 21. Ascidians grown in longline system

(https://www.ivl.se/toppmeny/press/reportage/reportage/2017-07-06-ivl-gar-till-botten-med- 50
sjopungarna.html)
Figure 50. Different types of baskets for farming of oysters. From left: Aquapurse, oval and rectangular baskets
(acuiculturaspya.com), SEAPA (seapa.com.au), Dark sea (Carapax.se) and lantern nets (acuiculturaspya.com). There
are many other types of models and manufacturers and the pictures should only be regarded as examples.
5.2.2 Submerged longlines

In general, all subtidal on-bottom and off-bottom - near bottom systems are by definition
submerged, but there also examples of surface-based systems which are adapted to high-
energy areas by being lowered to greater depths. For LTS, mainly longline systems are
modified to withstand exposed conditions, and several types (e.g. with droppers and with nets
similar of the ones used in smart-farm systems, see Figure 49) have been tested in e.g. the
Baltic Sea (Bornadelli et al., 2019). Farming of LTS in high energy-areas using static systems is
now a common practice around the Atlantic, e.g. in North America (Morse and Rice, 2010, St-
Gelais et al., 2022) and in Europe (sometimes linked to off-shore wind farms4), but also in Asia.
Submerged long line systems are based on similar principles as longline systems in protected
areas, but the headline is anchored on a depth adapted to the local exposure (often 7-10
meters depth). The headline is, just as in surface-based longline systems, supported by floating
elements (e.g. buoys) which can be submerged or not (Figure 51). If the buoys are submerged,
the headline is marked by a few buoys. The systems are also designed to withstand stress from
waves and currents by adapting rope dimensions, shackles and anchors (Heasman et al., 2020).
4
http://bluegent.ugent.be/edulis
51
Figure 51. Examples of how submerged longline systems may be constructed. Left picture illustrates a system using
surface-based buoys (Goseberg et al., 2017). The right picture shows a system using submerged buoys for keeping the
headline at the right depth (Morse and Rice, 2010).
The design of the buoys will affect the system

performance in relation to wave action. Round
buoys (often used nearshore in more protected
systems) will be heavily affected by the wave
forces and cause strain on the system. In
comparison, buoys designed for high energy
areas are often cylindrical and elongated to
reduce the effects of the waves on the system
(Figure 52). Often the buoys are pressurized
which prevents the buoys from imploding if they
are dragged under surface. Examples of buoys
that are suitable for high energy
areas/submerged systems are described in
Bornadelli et al. (2019). When planning the
establishment of a submerged longline system in Figure 52. Example of suitable buoy-design for high
a high energy area, knowledge of the dominating energy-areas (Picture from offshoreshellfish.com).
wind and current direction is essential to
minimize the stress on the system. According to Bornadelli et al. (2019) the positioning of the
longlines should be parallel to the dominating wind and current direction.
In AV, a system for macroalgae (sugar kelp) culture in high energy-areas is under development
on the Faeroe Islands. For macroalgae, the depth of the headline is a key aspect, given the light
dependency of this type of production. Consequently, the traditional “start near the surface
and hang down” type of system is not optimal for macroalgae, especially not in exposed
conditions where the headline must start at an even greater depth compared to in more
shallow sites. The system being developed therefore flip things around, by anchoring the
headline at the greatest depth and then using buoys for lifting the droppers towards the
surface to increase light availability for the macroalgae (Figure 53). Since the dropper ropes are
flexible and the buoyancy needed to lift the algae is low, the system will follow the wave
motions rather than countervailing them, hence without causing excessive stress on the
system.
52
Figure 53. Principles of a system for macroalgae culture in exposed areas (Illustration: Urd Grandorf Bak,
oceanrainforest.com).
In AV, work has also been initiated to develop an air pressure controlled longline system for
mussel culture based on old equipment from fish farms (tubes used as floating elements). The
system is still under construction and subjected to IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), and
consequently there is no documentation about the systems available yet.
5.3 Rafts
Rafts are rectangular (or quadratic) structures made of wood and steel, and recently also by
concrete (Formex, sometimes in combination with wood, Figure 54). Raft culture of mussels is
common in Spain, but exist also in North America and Asia, and is under development in
northern Europe (Denmark and Sweden). The rafts are supported by large polyethylene buoys
(for example barrels) and the foundation is formed by steel bars connected by wooden bars.
Traditionally, only wood was used. The raft is anchored to the bottom with lines in the middle
or at the corners. Individual droppers (ropes for cultivation) are hung from the raft. To protect
farmed mussels from predation (e.g. from birds or fish) a net can be deployed out around the
raft edges.
As for longline systems, rafts can support also cages for oyster culture (Figure 55). A modified
version of this technique for small-scale farming is being evaluated in Sweden. The
construction is triangular, but the main principle is the same as for the industry size rafts
(Figure 55).
Figure 54. Examples of raft systems. Left: Typical wooden raft for mussel farming (Morse och Rice 2010), right:
Formex raft made by concrete (https://preffor.com/en/formex-farming-rafts/).
53
Figure 55. Left: Cages with oysters suspended from a raft system in Sweden (Picture from Ostrea aquaculture,
https://aquaculture.se/). Right: Small scale raft construction being tested in Sweden (picture Å. Strand).
5.3 Dynamic submerged systems for extractive species

Static, submerged, systems (page 51) are suitable for species that require little or no handling
during the grow out phase. For other species, e.g. oysters, that require more handling, more
dynamic systems which allow access to the farmed organisms is required. The development in
this field is progressing fast with a high rate of innovations. The designed systems need to
meet all the demands of exposed areas, e.g. resistance to stress from waves and currents, but
it is also important that the system is cost-efficient as the species farmed often has a lower
market value. Consequently, as for fish, large-scale systems can infer a higher cost efficiency
due to the economies of scale. Moreover, offshore culture of such species also increases
demands of minimized management and streamlining of harvesting processes which poses
additional challenges on system design. Consequently, the systems must be dynamic and
adaptive, i.e. the buoyancy must be easy to control so that the system can be lowered
automatically when storms are approaching. Also, the construction should be endurable, light
and built from environmentally friendly materials (Heasman et al., 2020). Examples of systems
that recently were developed in New Zealand based on the above-mentioned criteria are
presented in Figure 56.
54
Figure 56. Dynamic systems for oyster and mussel cultivation in exposed areas. Both developed in New Zealand
(Heasman et al., 2020).
There are also examples of modifications of existing culture systems. One of these is the
modification of raft systems to a submersible system. In this system, the raft structure is
placed on three hollow pontoons kept together by steel beams. The steel beams also support
wooden beams, from which more than 300 droppers for mussels can be suspended (Figure 57.
Raft system adapted to exposed areas (Wang et al., 2015).). To keep the system at the
surface, the pontoons are filled with air, and to lower it, the pontoons are filled with water.
When submerged, the system is stabilized with surface-based buoys adapted to high energy
environments. The system is kept in place by four anchors (two on each side of the raft).
Figure 57. Raft system adapted to exposed areas (Wang et al., 2015).
55
5.4 On-surface systems

One final system type in this category (sea based, off-bottom systems, surface based) is on-
surface cages. This system is only suitable for oysters. The systems consist of bags or cages
supported by pontoons (floating elements, Figure 63. Examples of floating surface-based
systems from the US. All systems in these pictures use pontoons to keep the cultivation
baskets floating). There are both small-scale and large-scale examples of these systems. The
small-scale systems are made of plastic oyster mesh bags whereas the large-scale systems are
made from metal cages. The bags/cages are connected to a long-line system (although
normally with a thinner headline compared to longline systems with suspended production).
To prevent fouling, the large-scale systems can be turned upside down (meaning that the
cages are facing upwards and the pontoons downwards, Figure 63. Examples of floating
surface-based systems from the US. All systems in these pictures use pontoons to keep
the cultivation baskets floating). This dries out and kills the fouling while the oysters, which
are resilient to air exposure, survives. Currently, the flipping of cages is done manually, but
automated systems are being developed. During the cold season, the pontoons can be filled
Figure 59
Figure 60. Examples of floating surface-based systems from the US. All systems in these pictures use pontoons to
keep the cultivation baskets floating.
Figure 61Figure 62
Figure 63. Examples of floating surface-based systems from the US. All systems in these pictures use pontoons to keep
the cultivation baskets floating (pictures Å. Strand).
with water and put on the bottom to escape ice-formation. In this process the pontoons act as
“legs”, supporting the system, and make it an off-bottom, near bottom system (see section
56
4. Sea based, off-bottom systems – Near bottom, page 35).
The use of floating racks attached to longlines in estuarine areas is also being studied in Brazil,
showing promising results in terms of growth and survival in the States of Pará (Macedo et al.
2021), Maranhão (Legat et al. 2021) and Sergipe (Aquavitae project) (Figure 64. Illustration of
floating racks used in Brazil. Left: the center rack is without oysters, remaining out of
the water, while the rack on the right is submerged due to the weight of the oysters in
the bags (picture J.F.A. Legat). Right: illustration of how the floating racks are installed
(Figure developed by Serena Sühnel Lagreze).).
Figure 64. Illustration of floating racks used in Brazil. Left: the center rack is without oysters, remaining out of the
water, while the rack on the right is submerged due to the weight of the oysters in the bags (picture J.F.A. Legat).
Right: illustration of how the floating racks are installed (Figure developed by Serena Sühnel Lagreze).
An additional system based on the same principles, yet more automated, has been developed
in New Zealand. Instead of flat net-bags or cages, plastic cages with hexagonal short sides,
similar to the baskets used for oyster cultivation in longline systems or rafts, are used (Figure
50). The cages are assembled on a plastic reinforced line which is attached to anchor lines in
the ends of the cultivation system (Figure 65. The flip-farm system developed in New
Zealand (flipfarm.co.nz). ). The cages have a floating device attached to one of the long sides
of the basket, and using a semiautomatic system, the baskets can be turned over so that
oysters are tumbled, and any fouling is exposed to the air. The concept has the suiting name ”
Flipfarm”.
57
Figure 65. The flip-farm system developed in New Zealand (flipfarm.co.nz).
5.5 Sea based co-culture systems

Sea based IMTA usually includes the open net-pen culture of fish combined with macroalgal
and/or bivalve shellfish production (Figure 66. Classic IMTA showing fish farming in an
open net pen, mussel farming, algae farming, as well as lobsters and urchins underneath
the fish production site. Each production species feeds off the waste of the other with
the only feed input coming from the fish farming system. (Illustration: Chopin 2011).),
with the aim of increasing nutrient capture from the fish farm to produce other organisms
from different trophic levels. The idea is that bivalves filter organic particulate matter
produced in the fish farm from the water while algae take up the inorganic dissolved nutrients
produced by the farm. The result is production of fish, shellfish and algae with one input – the
feed for the fish. Additional organisms, e.g. deposit feeders such as sea cucumbers, can be
added to feed on particulate matter accumulated under the farm. Sea based IMTA systems can
also be based on bivalves, which eliminates the need for fed aquaculture yet utilises the
benefits of multi-resource use from side streams of the normal production (i.e. the production
58
of dissolved organics nutrients that can be utilized by macroalgae and particulate organic
matter that can be utilised by deposit feeders in association to bivalve farming).
Figure 66. Classic IMTA showing fish farming in an open net pen, mussel farming, algae farming, as well as lobsters and
urchins underneath the fish production site. Each production species feeds off the waste of the other with the only feed input
coming from the fish farming system. (Illustration: Chopin 2011).
59
References
Achary et al. (2017) Phosphite: a novel P fertilizer for weed management and pathogen
control. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15:1493-1508.
Baluyut, E.A. (1989). Aquaculture Systems and Practices: A Selected Review. ADCP/REP/89/43,
United Nations development programme, FAO, Rome.
Barillé, L., Le Bris, A., Goulletquer, P., Thomas, Y., Glize, P., Kane, F., Falconer, L., Guillotreau,
P., Trouillet, B., Palmer, S., Gernez, P. 2020. Biological, socio-economic, and
administrative opportunities and challenges to moving aquaculture offshore for small
French oyster-farming companies. Aquaculture, 521: 735045.
Beveridge M.C.M. (2004). Cage Aquaculture. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Bornadelli, J.C., Kokaine, L., Ozolina, Z., Aigars, J., Purina, I., Persson, P., Persson, K., Johnsson,
H., Minnhagen, S. (2019). Technical evaluation of submerged mussel farms in the Baltic
Sea. Report published as a part of the EU Interreg Baltic Blue Growth Project and is
available at www.balticbluegrowth.eu.
Bridger, C.J., Costa-Pierce, B.A. (2003). Open ocean aquaculture: from research to commercial
reality. Open Ocean Aquaculture IV Symposium, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada,
June 17-20, 2001.
Brown, J.R., Gowen, R.J., McLusky, D.S. (1987). The effect of salmon farming on the benthos of
a Scottish sea loch. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 109:39–51.
Cheney, D., Langan, R., Heasman, K., Friedman, B., Davis, J. (2010). Shellfish culture in the open
ocean: Lessons learned for offshoer culture. Marine technology Society Journal. 44, 55-
67.
Chopin T. Sawhney M. (2009). Seaweeds and their mariculture. In: Steele J.H. Thorpe S.A.
Turekiam K.K (Eds.). The Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, Oxford, UK: Elsevier. pp. 4477–
4487.
Chopin, T. (2011). Progression of the Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) concept and
upscaling of IMTA systems towards commercialization. Aquaculture Europe. 36. 5-12.
Cottrell, R.S., Metian, M., Froehlich, H.E., Blanchard, J.L., Jacobsen, N.S., McIntyre, P.B., Nash,
K.L., Williams, D.R., Bouwman, L., Gephart, J.A., Kuempel, C.D., Moran, D.D., Troell, M.,
Halpern, B.S. (2021). Time to rethink trophic levels in aquaculture policy. Reviews in
Aquaculture, 13: 1583-1593.
FAO (2009). High Level Expert Forum - How to Feed the World in 2050. Office of the Director,
Agricultural Development Economics Division, Economic and Social Development
Department, Rome, pp 4.
Fleming, I.A., Hindar, K., Mjolnerod, I.B., Jonsson, B., Balstad, T., Lamberg, A. (2000). Lifetime
Success and Interactions of Farm Salmon Invading a Native Population. Proceedings:
Biological Sciences, 267: 1517–1523.
Goseberg, N., Chambers, M.D., Heasman, K., Fredriksson, D., Fredheim, A., Schlurmann, T.
(2017). Technological Approaches to Longline- and Cage-Based Aquaculture in Open
Ocean Environments. In: Buck B., Langan R. (eds) Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use
Sites in the Open Ocean. Springer, Cham.
Hallström, E., Bergman, K., Mifflin, K., Parker, R., Tyedmers, P., Troell, M., Ziegler, F. (2019).
Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 230: 402-411.
Heasman, K.G., Scott, N., Ericson, J.A., Taylor, D.I., Buck, B.H. (2020). Extending New Zealand’s
Marine Shellfish Aquaculture Into Exposed Environments – Adapting to Modern
Anthropogenic Challenges. Frontiers in marine science, 7. Pp 7.
Hilborn, R., Banobi, J., Hall, S.J., Pucylowski, T., Walsworth, T.E. (2018). The environmental cost
of animal source foods Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 329–35.
60
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and
ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, et al. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages.
IPCC, (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group
I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Masson-Delmotte, et. al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
Kamermans, P., Capelle, J.J. (2019). Provisioning of Mussel Seed and Its Efficient Use in Culture.
In: Smaal, A.D., Ferreira, J.G., Grant, J., Petersen, J.K., Strand, O. (Eds.). Springer Nature
Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland.Klinger, D., Naylor, R. 2012. Searching for solutions in
aquaculture: charting a sustainable course. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources. 37: 247-276.
Karakassis, I., Tsapakis, M., Hatziyanni, E., Papadopoulou, K.-N., Plaiti, W. (2000). Impact of
cage farming of fish on the seabed in three Mediterranean coastal areas. ICES J Mar Sci
57:1462–1471.
Langan, R. (2009). Opportunities and challenges for off-shore farming. In: Burnell G. and Allan
G. (Eds.). New technologies in aquaculture, Improving production efficiency, quality and
environmental management. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge. Pp. 895-913.
Langan, R., Couturier, M. (2010). Offshore and recirculation technologies. In: Le Francois N.R.
Jobling M. Carter C. Blier P. (Eds.) Finfish Aquaculture Diversification, Oxfordshire, UK,
CABI. pp. 533–545.
Mascorda Cabre, L., Hosegood, P., Attrill, M.J., Bridger, D. and Sheehan, E.V. (2021), Offshore
longline mussel farms: a review of oceanographic and ecological interactions to inform
future research needs, policy and management. Rev Aquacult, 13: 1864-1887.
Mazzola, A., Mirto, S., La Rosa, T., Fabiano, M., Danovaro, R. (2000). Fish-farming effects on
benthic community structure in coastal sediments: analysis of meiofaunal recovery. ICES
J Mar Sci 57:361–379.
McGinnity, P., Stone, C., Taggart, J.B., Cooke, D., Cotter, D., Hynes, R., McCamley, C., Cross, T.,
Ferguson, A. (1997). Genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)
on native populations: use of DNA profiling to assess freshwater performance of wild,
farmed, and hybrid progeny in a natural river environment, ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 54: 998–1008.
Moe, H., Fredheim, A., Hopperstad, O.S. (2010). Structural analysis of aquaculture net cages in
current. Journal of Fluids and Structures 26, 503-516.
Morse, D., Rice, M.A. (2010). Mussel Aquaculture in the Northeast. NRAC Publication No. 211,
pp10.
Ngo, T.T.T, Kang, S.-G., Kang, D.-H., Sorgeloos, P., Choi, K.-S. (2006). Effect of culture depth on
the proximate composition and reproduction of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas
from Gosung bay, Korea. Aquaculture. 253, 712-720.
Nilsen, A., Nielsen, K., Næss, A., Bergheim, A. (2017). The impact of production intensity on
water quality in oxygen enriched, floating enclosures for post-smolt salmon culture.
Aquacultural Engineering. 78.
Nilsen, A., Nielsen, K.V., Biering, E., Bergheim, A. (2017). Effective protection against sea lice
during the production of Atlantic salmon in floating enclosures. Aquaculture 466: 41-50.
Nunes, J.P., Ferreira, J.G., Gazeau, F., Lencart-Silva, J., Zhang, X.L., Zhu, M.Y., Fang, J.G. (2003).
A model for sustainable management of shellfish polyculture in coastal bays.
Aquaculture, 219: 257 – 277.
Petton, B., Boudry, P., Alunno-Bruscia, M., Pernet, F. (2015). Temperature influence on
pathogen transmission and subsequent mortalities in juvenile Pacific oysters Crassostrea
gigas. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. 3, 257-273.
Prou, J., Goulletquer, P. (2002). The French mussel industry: present status and perspectives.
Bull Aquac Assoc Can 102:17–23.
61
Ryan, J. (2004). Farming the deep blue. Tech. Rep. Bord Iascaigh Mhara-Irish Sea Fish. Board
Irish Mar. Inst. Presented at Farming the Deep Blue, Limerick, Irel., Oct. 6–7. Shumway
S.E. (2010). Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scott, D.C.B., Muir, J.F. (2000). Offshore cage systems: A practical overview. In: Muir J., Basurco
B. (ed.). Mediterranean offshore mariculture. Zaragoza, CIHEAM, Options
Méditerranéennes: Série B. Etudes et Recherches, n. 30: 79-89.
Steffen et al. (2015). Planetary Boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.
Science Vol. 347 no. 6223
St-Gelais, A.T., Fredriksson, D.W., Dewhurst, T., Miller-Hope, Z.S., Costa-Pierce, B.A. Johndrow,
K. (2022) Engineering A Low-Cost Kelp Aquaculture System for Community-Scale
Seaweed Farming at Nearshore Exposed Sites via User-Focused Design Process. Front.
Sustain. Food Syst. 6:848035.
Sverdrup et al. (2013). Peak metals, minerals, energy, wealth, food and population; urgent
policy considerations for a sustainable society. J. Earth Sci. Eng. (2013), pp. 499-534.
Troell, M., Joyce, A., Chopin, T., Neori, A., Buschmann, A.H., Fang, J.-G. (2009). Ecological
engineering in aquaculture — Potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA)
in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture. 297, 1–9.
UN (2019). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423).
Wang, Xx., Swift, M.R., Dewhurst, T. et al. (2015). Dynamics of submersible mussel rafts in
waves and current. China Ocean Eng., 29: 431–444.
WWF. (2020). Living Planet Report 2020 - Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Almond,
R.E.A., Grooten M. and Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
62
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.6531530
63

02.culture Systems Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02.culture Systems Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 2/2022

Overview of culture systems

Part of the AquaVitae MOOC reading material

Overview of culture systems for low trophic

Åsa Strand, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute

Jason Bailey, East Region Aquaculture Centre, ERAC

Anton Rydstedt, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute

Philip James, NOFIMA

Simone Sühnel, Primar Aquaculture

Project Coordinator: Philip James (NOFIMA)

ABOUT THE PUBLISHER

Manuscript completed in April 2022

Any commercial rights are reserved by the consortium AquaVitae, 2022

REFERENCE TO CITE THE REPORT

REFERENCE FOR IN TEXT CITATIONS

(Strand et al. 2022)

© Cover image used under the licence from Åsa Strand

1.1 Trophic structures

There is a range of ways to group or categorize aquaculture production worldwide, e.g. by

In terms of trophic levels in aquaculture it is important to understand the complex relationship

1.2 Classification of culture systems

System System Pros Cons

Sea - Not Intertidal zone: Intertidal zone:

For both intertidal and subtidal:

*access to the animals only

Figure 4. Illustration of a flow-through pond system (illustration from Baluyut, 1989).

2.2 Tanks and raceways

2.3 Recirculating aquaculture systems - RAS

6. Supplementary oxygenation and/or aeration before the water is returned to

2.4 Co-culture systems

2.4.2 Biofloc systems

categories which may or may not be combined

The most robust of these systems is perhaps

NFT closely resembles hydroponics systems

DWC have floating platforms with

Figure 20. Tomato plants growing in media beds in a large-scale

2.4.3 IAA – Integrated Agri- and Aquaculture

3. Sea based, on-bottom systems

3.1 Not confined

4. Sea based, off-bottom systems – Near bottom

4.2 Intertidal longlines

Figure 38. The Shellevator, driven by compressed air. Picture from

5. Sea based, off-bottom systems - Surface based

5.1.2 Semi-closed and closed systems

replenish with colder or warmer water as required.

5.1.3 Off-shore and submersible systems for fed aquaculture

Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 21. Ascidians grown in longline system

5.2.2 Submerged longlines

The design of the buoys will affect the system

5.3 Dynamic submerged systems for extractive species

5.4 On-surface systems

4. Sea based, off-bottom systems – Near bottom, page 35).

Figure 65. The flip-farm system developed in New Zealand (flipfarm.co.nz).

5.5 Sea based co-culture systems

You might also like