See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329064865

Waste production in aquaculture: Sources, components and managements in

different culture systems

Article in Aquaculture and Fisheries · November 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.aaf.2018.10.002

CITATIONS READS

392 6,910

4 authors:

Akeem Babatunde Dauda Abdullateef Ajadi

Federal University, Dutsin-Ma University of Ilorin
96 PUBLICATIONS 1,288 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 633 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tola-Fabunmi Adenike Susannah Akinwole A Olusegun

National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology University of Ibadan
6 PUBLICATIONS 414 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 697 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdullateef Ajadi on 21 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture and Fisheries

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/
aquaculture-and-fisheries

Waste production in aquaculture: Sources, components and managements in

different culture systems
Akeem Babatunde Daudaa,∗, Abdullateef Ajadib, Adenike Susan Tola-Fabunmic,
Ayoola Olusegun Akinwoled
a
Laboratory of Aquaculture, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Federal University Dutsinma, P.M.B. 5001, Dutsinma, Katsina State, Nigeria
b
Laboratory of Pathology, Department of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Ilorin, P.M.B. 1515, Ilorin, Nigeria
c
National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, P.M.B. 5382, Moor Plantation, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
d
Laboratory of Aquaculture, Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The intensification of aquaculture has emerged as a viable alternative for increasing aquaculture production due
Fish farming to competition that arose from the use of natural resources, such as land and water, by other production and
Aquaculture effluents developmental sectors. However, intensification demands increased inputs, such as fish and feed per unit culture
Environmental degradation area and, therefore, increased waste generation from the aquaculture production systems. The impact of waste
Waste management
products from aquaculture has increased public concern and threatens the sustainability of aquaculture prac-
Sustainable aquaculture
tices. The need for increasing the production of aquaculture products cannot be overemphasized and, therefore,
there is a need to develop culture systems that will increase fish production with efficient waste management in
order to limit environmental degradation resulting from aquaculture wastes and ensure its sustainability. This
paper reviewed various aspects of waste production from aquaculture, their sources, components, and methods
of management, in different culture systems, primarily discussing waste production from feed, chemicals, and
pathogens. We aimed to establish the sources of wastes, their contents, and potential harms to both the fish
culture and the environment. Suggestions for managing wastes in different culture systems were made to ensure
an improved and sustainable aquaculture production.

1. Introduction or no economic value and are often a nuisance to the environment. The
waste generation from aquaculture has made its sustainability a public
The increase in aquaculture production has been necessitated by a concern (Buschmann et al., 2006; Martins et al., 2010). The amount of
reduction of wild fish catch (Dauda, Folorunso, & Dasuki, 2013). The waste generated from aquaculture production in Japan, irrespective of
global human population increase has resulted in a consequential in- type of fish culture, is so high that one ton of fish generate 0.8 kg of N
crease in the demand for fish (FAO, 2016). However, the same increase and 0.1 kg of phosphorus on average, equivalent to the waste generated
in population that necessitated an increase in demand for fish and fish by 73 people per day (assuming 11 g N per person per day (Suzuki,
products has led to an increased competition for the basic needs of Maruyama, Numata, Sato, & Asakawa, 2003). Furthermore, the pollu-
aquaculture development, including water, land, and other natural re- tants (metabolic wastes) discharged by 63,000 tons of fish produced
sources. The intensification of production is an alternative for the were equivalent to the waste generated by 5 million people in Japan in
needed development in aquaculture (Crab, Defoirdt, Bossier, & 1999 (Suzuki et al., 2003). This underscores the need for proper
Verstraete, 2012). Intensification of aquaculture production will re- methods to ensure the sustainable intensification of aquaculture.
quire the use of more inputs, especially feed per unit area of land Godfray et al. (2010) described a sustainable intensification as a system
(Henriksson, Belton, Murshed-e-Jahan, & Rico, 2018), leading to an of production where more food is produced from the same area of land
increase in waste generation from the production systems. without increasing the environmental impacts. This paper focuses on
Aquaculture is like any other production enterprise where there are waste production from aquaculture, sources, components, and man-
inputs to generate products. There are always wastes in such systems, agement methods in different culture systems.
which are either unused inputs or by-products. These wastes have little

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.B. Dauda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2018.10.002
Received 13 February 2018; Received in revised form 23 October 2018; Accepted 24 October 2018
2468-550X/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai Ocean University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Dauda, A.B., Aquaculture and Fisheries, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2018.10.002
A.B. Dauda et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2. Sources of waste from aquaculture 2003; Timmons, Ebeling, Wheaton, Summerfelt, & Vinci, 2002). Our
focus will be narrowed to those major aquaculture wastes from feed.
2.1. Feed Generally, wastes from aquaculture can be classified into solid wastes
and dissolved wastes.
Feed is an extremely important factor of production in aquaculture
and its level of importance depends on the type of culture technique 3.1. Solid wastes
(Biswas, Jena, Singh, & Muduli, 2006; Dauda, Ibrahim, Bichi, & Tola-
Fabunmi, 2017a). In an extensive system, feed supply to fish is mainly Solid wastes are primarily derived from the uneaten feed and fecal
dependent on the environment. The fish are left in low density over a droppings of cultured fish (Akinwole et al., 2016). They occasionally
large culture area and feed primarily on naturally occurring organisms, include those fish that do not survive the culture process. Solid wastes
with some aid from pond fertilization (Ajani, Akinwole, & Ayodele, can be further classified as suspended solids and settled solids. The
2011). This type of culture system is primarily outdoors and does not suspended solids are fine particles and remained suspended in the
meet the current demand for aquaculture products. In semi-intensive water, except when a method of coagulation or sedimentation is em-
culture, fish are stocked at a moderate to relatively high density and ployed, and are the most difficult type of solids to remove from culture
rely on both food from natural production and supplemental feed from systems (Cripps & Bergheim, 2000). The settled solids are larger par-
the culturists (Dauda et al., 2017a). In intensive systems, natural food ticles that settle within a short period of time and can be easily removed
production is not relied upon, using very high quality artificial feed from the culture column (Ebeling & Timmons, 2012). Solid wastes have
targeted towards fast growth instead (Ajani et al., 2011). Feed has been been classified as the most dangerous waste in fish culture systems and
reported to be the major source of waste in aquaculture systems should be effectively removed as quickly as possible (Timmons &
(Akinwole, Dauda, & Ololade, 2016; Martins et al., 2010). The effect of Summerfelt, 1997). Solid wastes are regarded to be very dangerous
waste production due to fish feed varies with the amount of supple- because they can clog the fish gills and lead to death, especially in the
mental feed. Waste production from feed depends on so many factors, case of large settled particles (Akinwole et al., 2016). If left for a long
including its nutrient composition, method of production (extruded vs time and allowed to decompose, these wastes lead to increases in both
pelleted), ratio of feed size to fish size, quantity of feed per unit time, the total suspended and total dissolved solids. They may also increase
feeding method, and storage time (Miller & Semmens, 2002). the nitrogenous compounds and stress the cultured fish (Akinwole
et al., 2016). If solid wastes in aquaculture remain within the culture
2.2. Chemicals system, their aerobic bacterial activity will increase the chemical
oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand and deplete oxygen
Current aquaculture practices strictly limit the use of chemicals in within the culture column (Timmons & Lorsodo, 1994). In a properly
fish farms, however, some chemicals are still used in the form of managed farm, (i.e., feeds are properly stored, effectively fed, and the
medications, disinfectants, and antifoulants (Read & Fernandes, 2003). right size is being used) approximately 30 percent of the feed will be-
The medications are used for chemotherapeutic purposes, which in- come solid wastes (Miller & Semmens, 2002). This is subject to the type
clude the antibiotics being used for prophylaxis and curative purposes of culture system, as it is easier to remove solid wastes from re-
(Ajadi, Sabri, Dauda, Ina-Salwany, & Hasliza, 2016), anaesthetics, ec- circulating aquaculture systems than from flow through systems
toparasiticides, endoparasiticides, and vaccines, being used for the (d'Orbcastel et al., 2009).
treatment and control of parasites (internal and external), as well as
microbial infections (Costello et al., 2001). Salts, mainly, are used to 3.2. Dissolved wastes
reduce stress in fish, lime is being used to treat pond bottoms for acidity
during pond preparation, and other chemicals considered not harmful Dissolved wastes are products of food metabolism in fish or de-
to fish are also used. Although these chemicals are important to fish composed, uneaten feed. In dissolved wastes, the two major compo-
culture, they may also constitute a nuisance to the environment (Boyd nents of concern are nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) products (Boyd &
& McNevin, 2015). As the water is released from the ponds, it flows into Massaut, 1999). These two elements constitute important components
natural water bodies. The effect of these chemical wastes upon these of protein, which is the main component of fish feed. Fish, irrespective
natural water systems depends on the concentration of chemicals used, of species, require a high dietary crude protein ranging from 25 to 50%.
the farm size, and the size of the receiving water bodies. The high protein fish feeds contain high amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorus, yet less than 50% of these potential water pollutants (ni-
2.3. Pathogens trogen and phosphorus) are retained in the body of the fish (Piedrahita,
2003). Hence, a large percentage is transferred into the culture water,
This group of waste is rarely considered in aquaculture systems, where it becomes a nuisance, and, when finally released, has a lot of
especially when it is below the level that affects the cultured fish. environmental impacts. The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus re-
However, discharging pathogens with the wastewater (Goldburg & tained by the fish varies, with average nitrogen retained ranging from
Triplett, 1997) may negatively affect the aquatic organisms in the between 25% and 30% (Boyd, 2003) to 10%–49% (Piedrahita, 2003)
natural water bodies. Natural water bodies have their own pathogenic and 17–40% for phosphorus retention (Piedrahita, 2003) (Table 1).
load and receiving additional loads from fish culture systems may cause Piedrahita (2003) went further to reveal that fish fecal droppings
stress or the outright death of aquatic organisms. The discharge of pond contained 3.6%–35% N and 15%–70% P, while the amount of N and P
effluent is rampant in semi-intensive pond aquaculture, which is more as the excretory products were 37%–72% and 1%–62%, respectively.
common in Africa (FAO, 2009), where organic fertilizers used in The nitrogen is mainly excreted in dissolved form as ammonia, while
aquaculture resulted in a high level of pathogens (Ansah, 2010). Four phosphorus is excreted as particulate matter (Bureau & Cho, 1999;
organic fertilizers (blood cow waste, cow manure, pig manure, and Sugiura, Raboy, Young, Dong, & Hardy, 1999).
poultry manure) contribute to a high level of fecal streptococci (Ampofo Fish are unable to utilize a substantial percentage of N and P, which
& Clerk, 2003). are primarily the main nutrients (components) of the feed, giving
aquaculture a high potential for environmental pollution (Lazzari &
3. Components of waste from aquaculture systems Baldisserotto, 2008), hence its categorization as industrial waste. These
nutrients enter the systems and are eventually released into the en-
Components of waste produced from aquaculture systems have been vironment as waste (Stephens & Farris, 2004). These nutrients, when
characterized by many authors (Akinwole et al., 2016; Piedrahita, released into water, can harm fish and other inhabitants of aquatic

2
A.B. Dauda et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) retention and excretion rates (as a percentage of the feed consumed).
Source: Piedrahita (2003), with little modification.
Retained as flesh Undigested in feces (particulate matter) Excreted (dissolved form) Type of fish Reference

N P N P N P

49 36 14 55 37 9 A. salmon Johnsen, Hillestad, & Austreng, 1993; Bergheim & Asgard,

1996
17–19 48–54 28–34 A. salmon Holby and Hall (1994)
11 32 Carp Avnimelech & Lacher, 1979
27 30 Channel catfish Boyd (1985)
10 40 35 15 55 45 Sea bass Lemarie, Martin, Dutto, and Garidou (1998)
30 10 60 Sea bream Porter, Krom, Robbins, Bricknell, and Davidson (1987)
19–26 Sea brea Krom, Ellner, van Rijn, and Neori (1995)
30 13 57 Rainbow trout Beveridge, Phillips, and Clarke (1991)
25 30 15 70 60 0 Rainbow trout Hakanson, 1988; Pillay, 1992
21–22 18.8 3.6–5.4 19–22 59–72 60–62 Tilapia hybrid Siddiqui & Al-Harbi, 1999

ecosystem at high concentrations. They can also lead to increase in both Phosphorus is another important metabolite or decomposed product
dissolved solids and total suspended solids, as well as water turbidity of aquaculture feed that is also poorly utilized. Unlike ammonia,
(Boyd et al., 2000; Teichert-Coddington, Rouse, Potts, & Boyd, 1999). It phosphorus is not toxic to cultured fish, but when released to the en-
is possible that these dissolved nutrients have little or no significant vironment, it enriches natural water bodies and leads to eutrophication,
effect on the cultured fish, depending on the concentrations (Ansah, depending on its concentration, frequency of release, and the size of the
2010). However, releasing of culture water of poor quality may have a receiving water body (Wong, 2001). Unlike nitrogen that is released
significant impact on the aquatic organisms in the receiving water into the water mainly in dissolved form, a larger percentage of P is
bodies (Boyd & Massaut, 1999; Piedrahita, 2003; Stephens & Farris, released as particulates in feces. This varies with species, with Tilapia
2004). hybrid releasing major phosphorus (60–62%) in dissolved form through
Nitrogen is released into culture water in the form of ammonia, excretion (Piedrahita, 2003). Phosphorus in culture water is primarily
which may be further decomposed to nitrite and nitrate (Dauda, released as phosphate, which is an important nutrient for receiving
Akinwole, & Olatinwo, 2014; Piedrahita, 2003), depending on the water along with its nitrate counterpart from nitrogen (Lazzari &
biological activity in the culture column. Ammonia (NH3) is highly Baldisserotto, 2008). Unfortunately, when the concentration is high,
toxic to both the fish cultured in the system and those in receiving water the two cause eutrophication in the receiving water bodies.
bodies, if not treated before released into the environment (Romano &
Zeng, 2013). Ammonia exists in two forms, the un-ionized form and the
ionized form (NH3 and NH4+). In water, the two exist in equilibrium at 4. Management of waste in aquaculture systems
ratios determined by water temperature and pH (Ebeling & Timmons,
2012). The un-ionized form is highly toxic, the ionized form is slightly The primary solution for managing the environmental impacts of
less toxic, and the summation of the two is total ammonia nitrogen aquaculture is the management of feed (Martins et al., 2010; Turcios &
(TAN). The second critical pollutant of fish culture water is ammonia- Papenbrock, 2014). Feed and feeding systems can effectively reduce
nitrogen, most especially in the un-ionized form (Romano & Zeng, wastes resulting from the fish feed through proper management of the
2013). Cultured fish have varying tolerances of ammonia-nitrogen inputs into the culture system. d'Orbcastel et al. (2009) reported that a
which depends on fish species, age, and physiological status. Warm reduction in feed conversion ratio (FCR) by 30% in a fish farm will
water fish are more tolerant than cold water fish, while adult fish are bring about 20% reduction in environmental impact from the fish
more tolerant than the fingerlings and juveniles. Ammonia is generally culture system. In order to reduce waste from aquaculture, Westers
recommended to be below 1 mg/L in culture tanks (Ajani et al., 2011). (1995) recommended the following:
According to Boyd (2003), Global aquaculture alliance (GAA) re-
commended total ammonia nitrogen (un-ionized ammonia + ionized ● That the species and fish size-specific potential performance of any
ammonia) of 5 mg/L in the aquaculture effluents as part of the guide- diet to be supplied must be known. This may necessitate labeling
lines for aquaculture effluents management. feed with necessary information on feed digestibility and waste
Nitrite is the intermediate product of ammonia oxidation to nitrate, production, including the quantity of solids, phosphorus, and ni-
is also toxic, and the level below 0.5 mg/L is generally desirable in fish trogen. There may also be information on FCR obtained under a trial
culture systems (Ajani et al., 2011). However, nitrite is not stable and condition with optimized system;
further oxidizes to nitrate. ● There should be knowledge of the biomass of the fish in the system;
Nitrate is the end product of ammonia oxidation and it is generally ● Adequate information on health and physiological status of the fish
regarded as safe because it is not toxic to most fish species even at a must be available;
concentration as high as 200 mg/L (Dauda & Akinwole, 2015). How- ● Uniformity in size of fish is very important, in order for them to
ever, it constitutes a nuisance to the environment because it is capable accept the same size of pellet;
of enriching the receiving water and, with phosphorus, causing eu- ● The feed should be sieved to remove dust and broken pellet before
trophication (Dauda et al., 2014). Fish culture systems where water is being fed; and
being treated for ammonia reduction, mainly in recirculating aqua- ● The feed must be fed effectively to ensure little or no waste resulted
culture systems, employ biofilters for oxidation of ammonia to nitrate from the uneaten feed.
(Dauda & Akinwole, 2014; Dauda et al., 2014; Suzuki et al., 2003; van
Rijn, Tal, & Schreier, 2006). Nitrate can accumulate over time to levels The use of grains that are low in phytate is also encouraged in fish
as high 300–400 mg/L (van Rijn, 1996) and, depending on the fre- feed production to reduce the amount of phosphorus released into the
quency of water exchange and when such water is released, will ne- water through uneaten feed or fish metabolic waste. Hardy (2010) re-
gatively impact the receiving water body (Dauda et al., 2014). ported that majority of the phosphorus in plant protein cannot be uti-
lized by fish, which are monogastric animals. Researchers have also

3
A.B. Dauda et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

suggested the increase of phytase in the feed formulation to increase exchange where most of the wastes produced are discharged from the
bioavailability and utilization of the phosphorus in fish feed (Baker, culture unit. In most flow through systems, the water retention time is
Smith-Lemmon, & Cousins, 2001; Orisasona & Ajani, 2015; less than an hour. The solid wastes are usually collected at quiescent
Papatryphon, Howell, & Soares, 1999). Rodehutscord and Pfeffer areas into an offline basin (Ebeling & Timmons, 2012). The flow
(1995) noted that increased phytase in fish feed formulation also in- through system, if properly designed, can provide fast collection and
creased bioavailability and utilization of phosphorus in fish diets. They concentration of solid wastes before fragmentation (Miller & Semmens,
also noted that this process was more effective in warm water fishes, as 2002). According to Summerfelt and Timmons (2000), a round tank can
the impact of phytase is impaired by lower temperature in cold water be designed with dual effluent areas, containing a high exit at the upper
fish culture. Baker et al. (2001) reported a level of 3-phytase between perimeter for high-volume low-density solids and another exit at the
500 and 2000 phytase units per kilogramme (FTU/kg) of feed as being center of the tank for low-volume high-density solid wastes. A properly
effective in increasing the utilization of phosphorus in trout, a cold designed circular tank with inlets, drains, and filters can remove ma-
water fish species. The performance of Clarias gariepinus fingerlings was jority of the solid wastes from the tank. Wong (2001) also proposed a
improved when fed a diet including phytase between 5000 FTU and raceway system where a device is inserted to create a circular flow at
7500 FTU/kg with toasted lima beans as the plant protein source the center for collection and concentration of most of the solid wastes
(Orisasona & Ajani, 2015). The development of high-energy extruded and this may allow exit of 10–20% of the wastes at the center. The
feed has also improved feed utilization and reduced FCR and safe wa- major problem of solid wastes management in flow through systems is
stage in fish feeding. The high-energy extruded feed also increases the that it remediates the culture unit at the expense of the environment.
fat content of the feed without using the coating method, hence, lim- The solid wastes removed through flow through system are difficult and
iting the leaching of fat into culture water. It also allowed for the expensive to manage because of a high flow rate of weakly-con-
production of sinking and floating feed that are regular and stay longer centrated effluents. The flow through systems has a flow rate 10 to 100
in water without nutrient leaching (Miller & Semmens, 2002). Bender times higher than recirculating systems, while the waste concentration
et al. (2004) reported a low FCR in trout cultured with high-energy method is 10–100 times less than that of the RAS (Blancheton et al.,
extruded feed. The moderate size and tight compaction of the high- 2007).
energy feed also limits fines and reduces the potential waste that is
associated with irregular feed sizes and fines (Turcios & Papenbrock, 4.1.3. Recirculating aquaculture system (RAS)
2014). The RAS is a culture system that allows reuse fish culture water and
has been proven to be better at removing solids than the flow-through
4.1. Solid wastes system. According to Pedersen et al. (2008), RAS has the potential of
reducing environmental impacts from aquaculture waste when com-
Solid wastes have been implicated as the most deleterious waste in pared with flow through systems. RAS removes solid wastes through
fish culture systems and, systems that can remove them rapidly and sedimentation and screen filters (Ebeling & Timmons, 2012). Though
effectively are given higher priority (Akinwole et al., 2016). The two RAS can remove a large portion of solid wastes through sedimentation,
major sources of solid wastes in aquaculture are uneaten feed and un- it is not effective in removing fine solids from the system (Piedrahita,
digested substances, which are passed as fecal waste in fishes (Turcios & 2003), hence, the need for a supplementary screen filter along with the
Papenbrock, 2014). The amount of solid wastes in fish culture systems sedimentation technique. Singh, Ebeling, and Wheaton (1999) reported
and those finally released to the environment varies with fish culture no differences in water quality between RAS with screen filter and that
system type (Bergheim & Asgard, 1996), the amount of feed supplied, of settling basins, though the needed make-up water volume was sig-
and effectiveness of feeding process. Thus, general waste management nificantly higher in RAS with settling basins. Generally, screen or
will be discussed with reference to these different culture systems. floating bead filters have better solid removal efficiency compared to
sedimentation basins, though total solid removal is not also possible
4.1.1. Pond systems with screen filters (Patterson, Watts, & Timmons, 1999). A substantial
Pond systems are the traditional system of fish culture (Akinwole, amount of solid particles in RAS are less than 10 μm and can cause
Bankole, Dauda, & Ayanlere, 2014) and are used globally. According to problems in RAS, if not effectively removed. They can clog biofilters,
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2000), 63% of all lead to secondary production of ammonia, have negative impacts on
fish culture in the United States is still done in pond culture system and, other components of the systems, and health of the cultured fish
in the north central region of United States of America, 65% is done in (Patterson et al., 1999). Neither screen filters, nor settling basins, can
pond culture (Yeo, Binkowski, & Morris, 2004). Pond culture systems remove particles less than 50 μm effectively from the culture tank, but
are static and have no special means of water treatment. The pond the removal efficiency of granular media or foam fractionator filters
system relies mainly on internal processes, where solid wastes settle at may be better (Waller, 2001). Even though solid waste removal is
the bottom of the pond and accumulate over time (Yeo et al., 2004). considered to be comparatively cheaper and easier than other types of
The microbes in the system act on the settled waste and convert it to waste in the fish culture system, it is extremely important to employ
less toxic material. However, if the settled waste has accumulated over effective techniques that will remove it as quick as possible. Effective
time, any natural activities, such as erosion, can cause mixing of the removal of solid wastes may ensure reduction of some other nutrients in
highly nutritious pond bottom and may lead to algal blooms. The only culture water, most especially phosphorus and organic matter, which
way of removing solid waste from the pond culture is by desilting, are released largely as particulate matter (Piedrahita, 2003). According
which is done after two or more fish culture rounds. Lack of adequate to Martins et al. (2010), RAS has tendency of removing 85–98% of
waste management techniques in pond culture systems has limited their organic matter and suspended solids and 65–96% of phosphorus
use to semi-intensive culture operations. The production capacity of through effective removal of solid wastes.
ponds depends on the amount of feed that can be added daily without
the degeneration of the water quality. Tucker, Hargreaves, and Boyd 4.2. Dissolved wastes
(2001) reported a daily feeding rate of 30–50 kg/ha and this limited the
annual production to 2000–3000 kg/ha. Dissolved organic wastes in fish culture systems are primarily ni-
trogen and phosphorus. While there are different techniques for ni-
4.1.2. Flow through/raceway system trogen removal in fish culture systems (section 4.3), there is hardly a
Unlike the pond systems, where the solid waste is settled within the specially designed technique for removal of phosphorus in fish culture
system, the flow through system experiences a high level of water systems. This may be partly due to the fact that phosphorus is not toxic

4
A.B. Dauda et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

to culture fish, unlike nitrogen, which has toxic derivatives, such as use of biofilters to achieve nitrification may lead to nitrate accumula-
ammonia and nitrite. Phosphorus is reduced in culture systems through: tion, especially when combined with a decreased frequency of water
reduction of phosphorus in the feed; inclusion of phytase to increase change (Dauda & Akinwole, 2015). Though nitrate is relatively non-
bioavailability and utilization of dietary phosphorus (Orisasona & toxic, at a concentration above 200 mg/L, it may affect the growth of
Ajani, 2015); or through efficient and quick removal of solids, since commercially cultured organisms such as eel (Kamstra, Van Der Heul, &
larger amounts of phosphorus are released in particulate form Nijhof, 1998) and, above 250 mg/L, African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)
(Bergheim & Asgard, 1996; Martins et al., 2010; Piedrahita, 2003). (Ajani et al., 2011). Nitrate levels in RAS can be as high as 400–500 mg/
Though Abeysinghe, Shanableh, and Rigden (1996) designed a model L and at this point it may affect the performance of cultured organisms
RAS with total nutrients removal that was able to reduce as high as 40% and become unfit for direct discharge into open water bodies.
phosphorus from culture system, there has not been a record of any The development of denitrification in RAS has increased the per-
such system used for commercial purpose. formance of RAS and progressed towards a zero-emission aquaculture
system (van Rijn et al., 2006). Unlike the conventional RAS, where
4.3. Nitrogen removal from culture systems nitrogen is merely transformed from highly toxic (ammonia) to less
toxic (nitrate), the incorporation of denitrification units ensures the
4.3.1. Pond systems removal of nitrogen from the systems. Therefore, nitrogen is removed
The pond systems rely on natural process for purification and from the system rather than accumulated as with conventional RAS
maintenance of water in fish culture. The pond biological community, (Dauda & Akinwole, 2015; Dauda et al., 2014; Martins et al., 2010;
mainly microbes, work on dissolved organic matter and ammonia (Yeo Suzuki et al., 2003; van Rijn et al., 2006). Denitrification is the dis-
et al., 2004). The ammonia is converted by nitrobacter and ni- similatory reduction of nitrate (NO3-) to nitrogen gas and is done pri-
trosomonas to less toxic nitrate (Dauda et al., 2014), while the nitrate marily by heterotrophic bacteria in anoxic conditions, where nitrate is
and phosphate in the waste serve as nutrients for the phytoplankton and used as terminal electron receptor with carbon as an energy source
macroalgae in the pond ecosystem. The phytoplankton are fed upon by (Dauda et al., 2014). Martins et al. (2010) listed the merits of in-
the zooplankton and finally harvested by the fish. However, the pond corporating denitrification bioreactor to the conventional RAS, which
system's ability to manage aquaculture waste is limited and depends include:
directly upon the amount of waste that can be recycled by the pond
daily (Tucker et al., 2001). Any amounts beyond this may lead to ex- ● reduction of make-up water required for nitrate control;
cessive nutrient enrichment of the pond, eutrophication, and the death ● reduction of the nitrite discharge;
of fish in the culture unit. This limits the use of pond to extensive to ● reduction of energy consumption as a result of heat produced by the
semi-intensive fish culture systems. bacteria in the reactor as well as reduction in the amount of make-
up water required to be heated; and
4.3.2. Flow through system ● concentration and reduction of solid flows from drum filters,
This system has no special provision for nitrogen removal except for through in situ solid digestion, resulting in a reduction in the dis-
expedited removal of the solids and water with the dissolved nutrients charge fees for TAN, nitrate, organic nitrogen, and organic matter.
from the culture unit.
The use of denitrification is largely limited in commercial farms
4.3.3. Recirculating aquaculture systems despite its numerous advantages. This is due to several reasons, in-
RAS employs a biological system for management of nitrogen in the cluding:
culture system. Crab, Avnimelech, and Defoirdt (2007) noted that the
most important water treatment in RAS is a biological process that uses ● high cost of installation;
the nitrification process to convert toxic ammonia to less toxic nitrate. ● high level of expertise required; and
Research on the nitrification processes of aquaculture effluents has led ● accumulation of total dissolved solid on the farm.
to the development of various media (biofilters) with different prop-
erties, advantages, and disadvantages (Martins et al., 2010). Biofilters Though reduced water use is seen as an important advantage of
are classified into two types: emerged and submerged fixed-film filters. denitrification systems, this may also be considered a disadvantage.
The emerged fixed-film filters include rotating biological contactors and Reduced water exchange in the system may lead to the accumulation of
trickling filters, while submerged fixed-film filters include fluidized bed certain growth-inhibiting factors, such as cortisol from the fish itself,
filters and bead filters (Dauda et al., 2014; Malone & Pfeiffer, 2006). bacteria metabolites, and heavy metals from the feed (Martins et al.,
Biofilters provide a surface for the growth of microbes that come in 2010). However, research reports showed no negative impact of low
contact with the wastewater and convert the toxic ammonia to nitrate water exchange RAS on growth performance of grow-out trout cultured
(Ebeling & Timmons, 2012). The conventional RAS does not remove in the denitrification incorporated RAS (Good et al., 2009; Martins,
nitrogen (ammonia) from the culture water, instead converting it to the Ochola, Ende, Eding, & Verreth, 2009). Schram et al. (2009) also re-
less toxic nitrogenous product (nitrate) (Dauda et al., 2014). The use of ported no reduction in growth over 550 days (long-term experiment)
RAS has contributed immensely to the development of aquaculture due for turbot culture (Scophthalmus maximus) in low water exchange RAS
to its various advantages, which includes: reduced water usage through compared to re-use flow through systems.
partial reuse of culture water (Verdegem, Bosma, & Verreth, 2006);
reduced environmental impacts from fish culture systems through im- 4.4. Biofloc technology system
proved waste management and nutrient recycling (Martins et al., 2010),
improving the hygienic condition; reducing the emergence of diseases Biofloc technology is an emerging technology in fish culture systems
(Summerfelt, Sharrer, Tsukuda, & Gearheart, 2009; Tal et al., 2009); that is progressing towards ensuring sustainable aquaculture (Bossier &
and limiting biological control through escape of culture fish (Zohar Ekasari, 2017; Dauda et al., 2018), unlike RAS where the water treat-
et al., 2005). In contrast, the use of RAS is still small compared to the ment is done outside the culture column; biofloc technology is an in-situ
pond, flow through, and cage systems (Martins et al., 2010), due to the water treatment method (Vinatea et al., 2018). Biofloc technology is
high cost of RAS installation (Dauda & Akinwole, 2014; Schneider, similar to denitrification systems in which a carbon source is supplied
Blancheton, Varadi, Eding, & Verreth, 2006). Suzuki et al. (2003) noted to the culture system to stimulate the growth of heterotrophic bacteria
that the volume of water exchange in RAS daily is varied between 5 and that converts toxic ammonia to nitrogen gas instead of nitrates that
100% and this may minimize the effect on reducing pollution load. The accumulate in conventional RAS (Dauda & Akinwole, 2015). However,

5
A.B. Dauda et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

while denitrification system is done ex-situ and requires a biofilter for and ascertain all the necessary requirements for its success to simplify it
the development of bacteria, biofloc technology systems require no and encourage its usage by fish farmers.
biofilter nor external equipment (Vinatea et al., 2018). This saves
aquaculturists from the high costs of initial investment associated with Declaration of interest
denitrification systems (Luo et al., 2014). Biofloc technology is a water
quality management technique that is based on the development and None.
controlling of heterotrophic bacteria within the culture system with
minimal or zero water exchange (Ekasari, Crab, & Verstraete, 2010; References
Sgnaulin et al., 2018). Emerenciano, Gaxiola, and Cuzon (2013) re-
ferred to biofloc technology as an environmental friendly aquaculture Abeysinghe, D. H., Shanableh, A., & Rigden, B. (1996). Biofilters for water reuse in
system. It is a sustainable alternative to the previously discussed culture aquaculture. Water Science and Technology, 34, 253–260.
Ajadi, A., Sabri, M. Y., Dauda, A. B., Ina-Salwany, M. Y., & Hasliza, A. H. (2016).
systems, due to its potential to efficiently recycle and reuse nutrients Immunoprophylaxis: A better alternative protective measure against shrimp vibriosis
within the culture system (Dauda et al., 2017b; Kumar et al., 2017). The –a review. PJSSR, 2(2), 58–69.
system has been referred to as various names by different researchers Ajani, E. K., Akinwole, A. O., & Ayodele, I. A. (2011). Fundamentals of fish farming in
Nigeria. Nigeria: Walecrown publishers Ibadan.
and these include: zero exchange autotrophic heterotrophic systems Akinwole, A. O., Bankole, A. F., Dauda, A. B., & Ayanlere, S. V. (2014). Fish farming
(ZEAH) (Wasielesky, Atwood, Stokes, & Browdy, 2006), suspended facilities, and operation in Ibarapa area of Oyo State. EIJAST, 1(2), 85–94.
bacterial-based system or active sludge (Rakocy, Bailey, Thoman, & Akinwole, A. O., Dauda, A. B., & Ololade, A. O. (2016). Haematological response of
Clarias gariepinus juveniles reared in treated wastewater after waste solids removal
Shultz, 2004), suspended growth systems (Hargreaves, 2006), or mi-
using alum or Moringa oleifera seed powder. International Journal of Acarology,
crobial floc systems (Avnimelech, 2012). 6(11), 1–8.
The basic principle in biofloc systems involves a balance of carbon Ampofo, J. A., & Clerk, G. C. (2003). Bacterial flora of fish feeds and organic fertilizers for
fish culture ponds in Ghana. Aquaculture Research, 34(8), 677–680.
and nitrogen ratio (C/N) to a level that stimulates the growth of het-
Ansah, Y. B. (2010). Characterization of pond effluents and biological and physicochemical
erotrophic bacteria who in turn utilize ammonia for growth and give off assessment of receiving waters in Ghana. MSc thesisUSA: Virginia polytechnic institute
nitrogen gas from the system (Dauda et al., 2017b; Dauda et al., 2018). and state University.
A high C/N ratio of between 10 and 20 will stimulate the growth of Avnimelech, Y. (2012). Biofloc technology — a practical guide book (2nd ed.). Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, United States: The World Aquaculture Society.
heterotrophic bacteria, which will directly feed on the toxic ammonia Avnimelech, Y., & Lacher, M. (1979). A tentative nutrient balance for fish ponds. Israeli
from the culture system and in turn produce a cellular protein Journal of Aquaculture Bamidgeh, 31, 3–8.
(Avnimelech, 2012). The production of the cellular protein gives BFT Baker, R. T., Smith-Lemmon, L. L., & Cousins, B. (2001). Phytase unlocks plant potential
in aquafeeds. Global Aquaculture Advocate, 4(Issue 2) April 2001.
additional advantage over other culture systems because the cellular Bender, J., Lee, R., Sheppard, M., Brinkley, K., Philips, P., Yeboah, Y., et al. (2004).
protein is available as feed to the culture organisms (Bossier & Ekasari, A waste effluent treatment system based on microbial mats for black sea bass
2017; Gaona, Almeida, Viau, Poersch, & Wasielesky, 2017). The mi- Centropristis striata recycled water mariculture. Aquacultural Engineering, 31(1–2),
73–82.
crobial community (cellular protein) contains a heterogeneous mixture Bergheim, A., & Asgard, T. (1996). Waste production in aquaculture. In D. J. Baird, M. C.
of microorganisms (floc former and filamentous bacteria), particles, M. Beveridge, L. A. Kelly, & J. F. Muir (Eds.). Aquaculture and water resource man-
colloids, organic polymers, cations, and dead cells (Avnimelech, 2012; agement (pp. 50–80). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Beveridge, M. C. M., Phillips, M. J., & Clarke, R. M. (1991). A quantitative and qualitative
Ekasari et al., 2010; Hargreaves, 2006). This suspended heterogeneous assessment of wastes from aquatic animal production. In D. E. Brune, & J. R. Tomasso
protein particle is available as food to the culture organisms and has (Eds.). Aquaculture and water quality (pp. 506–533). Baton Rouge, LA: World
been found to be high-quality protein. In summary, biofloc technology Aquaculture Society.
Biswas, G., Jena, J. K., Singh, S. K., & Muduli, H. K. (2006). Effect of feeding frequency on
is able to ensure maintenance of water quality through uptake of am-
growth, survival and feed utilization in fingerlings of Catla catla (Hamilton), Labeo
monia to produce microbial proteins and it also makes available food rohia (Hamilton) and Cirrhinus (Hamilton) in outdoor rearing systems. Aquaculture
for the cultured fish through utilization of the microbial protein pro- Research, 37, 410–414.
duced, hence increased efficient utilization of feed supplied, decreased Blancheton, J. P., Piedrahita, R., Eding, E. H., Lemarie, G., Bergheim, A., Fivelstad, S.,
et al. (2007). Intensification of landbased aquaculture production in single pass and
food conversion ratio, and decreased the cost of feeding in aquaculture. reuse systems. Aquacultural engineering and environment (pp. 21–47). .
Bossier, P., & Ekasari, J. (2017). Biofloc technology application in aquaculture to support
5. Conclusion sustainable development goals. Microb Biotechnol, 10, 1012–1016.
Boyd, C. E. (1985). Chemical budgets for channel catfish ponds. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society, 11, 291–298.
The development of aquaculture as a source of affordable animal Boyd, C. E. (2003). Guidelines for aquaculture effluent management at the farm-level.
protein is essential to human existence. However, restrictions in some Aquaculture, 226, 101–112.
Boyd, C. E., & Massaut, L. (1999). Risks associated with the use of chemicals in pond
parts of the world, especially the developed world, requires a con- aquaculture. Aquacultural Engineering, 20, 113–132.
tinuous effort to develop sustainable production methods that will not Boyd, C. E., & McNevin, A. A. (2015). Chemical in aquaculture. Aquaculture, resource use,
put the environment at risk. The use of pond systems can still be con- and the environment (pp. 172–210). (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Boyd, C. E., Queiroz, J., Lee, J., Rowan, M., Whitis, G. N., & Gross, A. (2000).
tinued for extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture of farming. These Environmental assessment of channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, farming in Alabama.
systems can be maintained at a level that will not be toxic to fish and Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 31(4), 511–544.
the effluent from pond systems can easily be treated. These are con- Bureau, D. P., & Cho, C. Y. (1999). Phosphorus utilization by rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss): Estimation of dissolved phosphorus waste output. Aquaculture, 179,
centrated effluents, especially if such ponds are so well-constructed that
127–140.
they cannot erode and produce accidental discharge. However, the Buschmann, A. H., Riquelme, V. A., Hernández-González, M. C., Varela, D., Jiménez, J. E.,
output from extensive and semi-intensive systems cannot substantially Henríquez, L. A., et al. (2006). A review of the impacts of salmonid farming on
help to achieve the output needed from aquaculture. Intensified sys- marine coastal ecosystems in the southeast Pacific. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
63(7), 1338–1345.
tems, using conventional RAS and denitrification-incorporated RAS Costello, M. J., Grant, A., Davies, I. M., Cecchini, S., Papoutsoglou, S., Quigley, D., et al.
systems, may be able to serve the purpose of producing highly priced (2001). The control of chemicals used in aquaculture in Europe. Journal of Applied
fish because of the cost of installation and operation and, if well- Ichthyology, 17(4), 173–180.
Crab, R., Avnimelech, Y., & Defoirdt, T. (2007). Nitrogen removal techniques in aqua-
maintained, may put the environment at a lesser risk. The proper de- culture for a sustainable production. Aquaculture, 270, 1–14.
velopment of zero to minimal water exchange systems like BFT will go a Crab, R., Defoirdt, T., Bossier, P., & Verstraete, W. (2012). Biofloc technology in aqua-
long way in enhancing sustainable aquaculture production. The system culture: Beneficial effects and future challenges. Aquaculture, 356, 351–356.
Cripps, S. J., & Bergheim, A. (2000). Solids management and removal for intensive land-
has the potential to produce both highly priced and low priced fish based aquaculture production systems. Aquacultural Engineering, 22, 33–56.
species. It does not require a high cost of investment and it can be d'Orbcastel, E. R., Blancheton, J.-P., & Aubin, J. (2009). Towards environmentally sus-
managed without special skills or expertise. It is, therefore, important to tainable aquaculture: Comparison between two trout farming systems using Life
Cycle assessment. Aquacultural Engineering, 40(3), 113–119.
intensify research on BFT for different species of fish (fin and shellfish)

6
A.B. Dauda et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Dauda, A. B., & Akinwole, A. O. (2014). Interrelationships among water quality para- Martins, C. I. M., Ochola, D., Ende, S. S. W., Eding, E. H., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2009). Is
meters in recirculating aquaculture system. NJRED, 8(4), 20–25. growth retardation present in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus cultured in low water
Dauda, A. B., & Akinwole, A. O. (2015). Evaluation of polypropylene and palm kernel exchange recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquaculture, 291, 65–73.
shell as biofilter media for denitrification of fish culture wastewater. NSUK JST, 5, Miller, D., & Semmens, K. (2002). Waste management in aquaculture. Aquaculture
207–213. Information Series1–10 #AQ02-1(January).
Dauda, A. B., Akinwole, A. O., & Olatinwo, L. K. (2014). Biodenitrification of aquaculture Orisasona, O., & Ajani, E. K. (2015). The growth and mineral utilization of Clarias gar-
wastewater at different drying times in water reuse system. JAFT, 4(2), 6–12. iepinus fingerlings fed phytase-supplemented toasted lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus)
Dauda, A. B., Folorunso, L. A., & Dasuki, A. (2013). Use of probiotics for sustainable diets. Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development, 361.
aquaculture production in Nigeria. JASR, 13(2), 35–45. Papatryphon, E., Howell, R. A., & Soares, J. H. (1999). Growth and mineral absorption by
Dauda, A. B., Ibrahim, H. I., Bichi, A. H., & Tola-Fabunmi, A. S. (2017a). Assessment of striped bass Morone saxatih fed a plant feedstuff based diet supplemented with
fish farming practices, operations, water resource management and profitability in phytase. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 30(2), 161–173.
Katsina state, Nigeria. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 24(4), 89–96. Patterson, R. N., Watts, K. C., & Timmons, M. B. (1999). The power of law in particle size
Dauda, A. B., Romano, N., Ebrahimi, M., Karim, M., Natrah, I., Kamarudin, M. S., et al. analysis for aquacultural facilities. Aquacultural Engineering, 19, 259–273.
(2017b). Different carbon sources affected biofloc volume, water quality and the Pedersen, P. B., Svendsen, L. M., Sortkjær, O., Ovesen, N. B., Skriver, J., Larsen, S. E., et al.
survival and physiology of African Catfish Clarias gariepinus fingerlings reared in (2008). Environmental benefits achieved by applying recirculation technology at
intensive biofloc technology system. Fisheries Science, 83, 1037–1048. Danish trout farms (Model trout farm). Proceedings of the aquacultural engineering
Dauda, A. B., Romano, N., Ebrahimi, M., Teh, J. C., Ajadi, A., Chong, C. M., et al. (2018). society's fourth Issues forum (pp. 139). .
Influence of carbon/nitrogen ratios on biofloc production and biochemical compo- Piedrahita, R. H. (2003). Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank aqua-
sition and subsequent effects on the growth, physiological status and disease re- culture effluents through intensification and recirculation. Aquaculture, 226, 35–44.
sistance of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) cultured in glycerol-based biofloc Pillay, T. V. R. (1992). Aquaculture and the environment. New York: Wiley.
system. Aquaculture, 483, 120–130. Porter, C. P., Krom, M. D., Robbins, M. G., Bricknell, L., & Davidson, A. (1987). Ammonia
Ebeling, J. M., & Timmons, M. B. (2012). Recirculating aquaculture systems. In J. H. excretion and total N budget for gilthead seabream Sparus aurata in marine fish-ponds
Tidwell (Ed.). Aquaculture production systems (pp. 245–278). A publication of World and its effect on water quality conditions. Aquaculture, 66(3–4), 287–297.
Aquaculture Society. John Willey & Sons, Inc. Rakocy, J. E., Bailey, D. S., Thoman, E. S., & Shultz, R. C. (2004). Intensive tank culture of
Ekasari, J., Crab, R., & Verstraete, W. (2010). Primary nutritional content of bio-flocs tilapia with a suspended, bacterial-based treatment process. in: New dimensions in
cultured with different organic carbon sources and salinity. HAYATI J Biosci, 17(3), farmed tilapia. In R. B. Bolivar (Ed.). Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on
125–130. Tilapia in aquaculture, Manila, Philippines (pp. 584–596). .
Emerenciano, M., Gaxiola, G., & Cuzon, G. (2013). Biofloc technology (BFT): A review for Read, P., & Fernandes, T. (2003). Management of environmental impacts of marine
aquaculture application and animal food industry. Biomass now – cultivation and uti- aquaculture in Europe. Aquaculture, 226, 139–163.
lization (pp. 1–28). INTECH. https://doi.org/10.5772/53902. van Rijn, J. (1996). The potential for integrated biological treatment systems in re-
FAO (2016). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture-contributing to food security and circulating fish culture-A review. Aquaculture, 139, 18–201.
nutrition for all. Fisheries and aquaculture department. Rome: Food and Agriculture van Rijn, J., Tal, Y., & Schreier, H. J. (2006). Denitrification in recirculating systems:
Organization of the United Nations. Theory and applications. Aquacultural Engineering, 34(3), 364–376.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) (2009). National aquaculture sector overview: Rodehutscord, M., & Pfeffer, E. (1995). Effects of supplemental microbial phytase on
Ghana. FAO fisheries and aquaculture Department. Rome. Italy. phosphorus digestibility and utilization in rainbow trout. Water Science and
Gaona, C. A. P., Almeida, M. S., Viau, V.,, Poersch, L. H., & Wasielesky, W. (2017). Effect Technology, 31(10), 141–147.
of different total suspended solids levels on a Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) BFT Romano, N., & Zeng, C. (2013). Toxic effects of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate to decapod
culture system during biofloc formation. Aquaculture Research, 48(3), 1070–1079. crustaceans: A review on factors influencing their toxicity, physiological con-
Godfray, C. H. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., sequences, and coping mechanisms. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 21(1), 1–21.
et al. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327, Schneider, O., Blancheton, J. P., Varadi, L., Eding, E. H., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2006). Cost
812–818. price and production strategies in european recirculation systems. Linking Tradition and
Goldburg, R., & Triplett, T. (1997). Murky waters: Environmental effects of aquaculture in the Technology Highest Quality for the Consumer. Firenze, Italy: WAS.
United States. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund. Schram, E., Person-Le Ruyet, J., Blancheton, J. P., Vinçon, B., Verniau, B., Jansen, J., et al.
Good, C., Davidson, J., Welsh, C., Brazil, B., Snekvik, K., & Summerfelt, S. (2009). The (2009). Long-term effects of water refreshment rate on turbot growth. "new research
impact of water exchange rate on the health and performance of rainbow trout frontiers", novel approaches for evolving needs, Trondheim, Norway. EAS.
Oncorhynchus mykiss in water recirculation aquaculture systems. Aquaculture, Sgnaulin, T., Lemos de Mello, G., Cristina Thomas, M., Ramon Esquivel Garcia, J.,
294(1–2), 80–85. Rodriguez Montes de Oca, G., & Gustavo Coelho Emerenciano, M. (2018). Biofloc
Hakanson, L. (1988). Basic concepts concerning assessments of environmental effects of technology (BFT): An alternative aquaculture system for piracanjuba Brycon or-
marine fish farms. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. bignyanus ? Aquaculture, 485, 119–123.
Hardy, R. W. (2010). Utilization of plant proteins in fish diets effects of global demand Siddiqui, A. B., & Al-Harbi, A. H. (1999). Nutrient budgets in tanks with different stocking
and supplies of fishmeal. Aquaculture Research, 41, 770–776. densities of hybrid tilapia. Aquaculture, 170, 245–252.
Hargreaves, J. A. (2006). Photosynthetic suspended-growth systems in aquaculture. Singh, S., Ebeling, J. M., & Wheaton, F. (1999). Water quality trials in four recirculating
Aquacultural Engineering, 34, 344–363. aquaculture system configurations. Aquacultural Engineering, 20, 75–84.
Henriksson, P. J. G., Belton, B., Murshed-e-Jahan, K., & Rico, A. (2018). Measuring the Stephens, W. W., & Farris, J. L. (2004). A biomonitoring approach to aquaculture effluent
potential for sustainable intensification of aquaculture in Bangladesh using life cycle characterization in channel catfish fingerling production. Aquaculture, 241, 319–330.
assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/ Sugiura, S. H., Raboy, V., Young, K. A., Dong, F. M., & Hardy, R. W. (1999). Availability of
10.1073/pnas.1716530115. phosphorus and trace elements in low-phytate varieties of barley and corn for
Holby, O., & Hall, P. O. J. (1994). Chemical fluxes and mass balances in a marine fish cage rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture, 170, 285–296.
farm. III. Silicon. Aquaculture, 120(3–4), 305–318. Summerfelt, S. T., Sharrer, M. J., Tsukuda, S. M., & Gearheart, M. (2009). Process re-
Johnsen, F., Hillestad, M., & Austreng, E. (1993). High energy diets for Atlantic salmon. quirements for achieving full-flow disinfection of recirculating water using ozonation
Effect on pollution. In S. J. Kaushik, & P. Luquet (Eds.). Fish nutrition in practice (pp. and UV irradiation. Aquacultural Engineering, 40, 17–27.
391–401). Paris: INRA. Summerfelt, S. T., & Timmons, M. B. (2000). Hydrodynamics in the "Cornell-Type" dual-
Kamstra, A., Van Der Heul, J. W., & Nijhof, M. (1998). Performance and optimisation of drain tank. Third international conference of recirculating aquaculture, july 19-21, 2000
trickling filters on eel farms. Aquacultural Engineering, 17, 175–192. Roanoke, VA.
Krom, M. D., Ellner, S., van Rijn, J., & Neori, A. (1995). Nitrogen and phosphorus Cycling Suzuki, Y., Maruyama, T., Numata, H., Sato, H., & Asakawa, M. (2003). Performance of a
and transformations in a prototype ‘‘non-polluting’’ integrated mariculture system, closed recirculating system with foam separation, nitrification and denitrification
Eilat, Israel. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 118, 25–36. units for intensive culture of eel: Towards zero emission. Aquacultural Engineering, 29,
Kumar, S., Anand, P. S. S., De, D., Deo, A. D., Ghoshal, T. K., Sundaray, J. K., et al. (2017). 165–182.
Effects of biofloc under different carbon sources and protein levels on water quality, Tal, Y., Schreier, H. J., Sowers, K. R., Stubblefield, J. D., Place, A. R., & Zohar, Y. (2009).
growth performance and immune responses in black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture, 286,
(Fabricius, 1978). Aquaculture Research, 48, 1168–1182. 28–35.
Lazzari, R., & Baldisserotto, B. (2008). Nitrogen and phosphorus waste in fish farming, Vol. Teichert-Coddington, D. R., Rouse, D. B., Potts, A., & Boyd, C. E. (1999). Treatment of
34, Boletim do Instituto de Pesca591–600. harvest discharge from intensive shrimp ponds by settling. Aquacultural Engineering,
Lemarie, G., Martin, J. L. M., Dutto, G., & Garidou, C. (1998). Nitrogenous and phos- 19, 147–161.
phorous waste production in a flow-through land-based farm of European seabass Timmons, M. B., Ebeling, J. M., Wheaton, F. W., Summerfelt, S. T., & Vinci, B. J. (2002).
(Dicentrarchus zubrux). Aquatic Living Resources, 11(4), 247–254. Recirculating aquaculture systems (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY 14850, USA: Cayuga Aqua
Luo, G., Gao, Q., Wang, C., Liu, W., Sun, D., Li, L., et al. (2014). Growth, digestive ac- Ventures.
tivity, welfare and partial cost-effectiveness of genetically improved farmed tilapia Timmons, M. B., & Lorsodo, T. M. (1994). Aquaculture water reuse systems, engineering
(Oreochromis niloticus) in recirculating aquaculture system and an indoor biofloc design and management. New York, USA: Elsevier science B.V.
systems. Aquaculture, 422–423, 1–7. Timmons, M. B., & Summerfelt, S. T. (1997). Advances in circular culture tanks engineering
Malone, R. F., & Pfeiffer, T. J. (2006). Rating fixed film nitrifying biofilters used in re- hydraulics, solids removal and fish management. Recent advances in aqua-cultural en-
circulating quaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering, 34, 389–402. gineering. Ithaca, New York: North east regional Agricultural Engineering.
Martins, C. I. M., Eding, E. H., Verdegem, M. C. J., Heinsbroek, L. T. N., Schneider, O., Tucker, C. S., Hargreaves, J. A., & Boyd, C. E. (2001). Manangement of effluents from catfish
Blancheton, J. P., et al. (2010). New developments in recirculating aquaculture ponds. West Virginia: Aquacultural Engineering Society Issues Forum, Shepardstown.
systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental sustainability. Aquacultural Turcios, A. E., & Papenbrock, J. (2014). Sustainable treatment of aquaculture effluents-
Engineering, 43(3), 83–93. what can we learn from the past for the future. Sustaianbility, 6, 836–856.

7
A.B. Dauda et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

USDA (2000). 1997 census of agriculture. AC97-SP-3. Census of aquaculture (1998) vol. 3, production in a zero exchange suspended microbial floc based super-intensive culture
part 3. Special Studies. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. system for white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquaculture, 258, 396–403.
Verdegem, M. C. J., Bosma, R. H., & Verreth, J. A. J. (2006). Reducing water use for Westers, H. (1995). Feed and feeding strategies to reduce aquaculture waste. In M. B.
animal production through aquaculture. International Journal of Water Resources Timmons (Ed.). Aquacultural engineering and waste Management. NRAES-90 (pp. 365–
Development, 22, 101–113. 376). Ithaca, New York: Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service.
Vinatea, L., Malpartidaa, J., Carbób, R., Andreeb, K. B., Gisbertb, E., & Estévezb, A. Wong, K. B. (2001). Enhanced solids removal for aquacultural racewaysPhD Dissertation.
(2018). A comparison of recirculation aquaculture systems versus biofloc technology Davis: University of California.
culture system for on-growing of fry of Tinca tinca (Cyprinidae) and fry of grey Mugil Yeo, S. E., Binkowski, F. P., & Morris, J. E. (2004). Aquaculture effluents and waste by-
cephalus (Mugilidae). Aquaculture, 482(2018), 155–161. products: Characteristics, potential recovery, and beneficial reuse. USA: NCRAC.
Waller, U. (2001). Tank culture and recirculating systems. In K. D. Black (Ed.). Zohar, Y., Tal, Y., Schreier, H. J., Steven, C., Stubblefield, J., & Place, A. (2005).
Environmental impacts of aquaculture (pp. 99–127). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Commercially feasible urban recirculated aquaculture: Addressing the marine sector.
AcademicPress. In B. Costa-Pierce (Ed.). Urban aquaculture (pp. 159–171). Cambridge, MA: CABI
Wasielesky, W., Atwood, H., Stokes, A., & Browdy, C. L. (2006). Effect of natural Publishing.

View publication stats