<%BANNER%>

The environmental impacts of aquaculture

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041796/00001

Material Information

Title: The environmental impacts of aquaculture A life cycle assessment comparison of four common aquaculture systems to beef, pork, and chicken production
Physical Description: 1 online resource (110 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Stonerook, Ethan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aquaculture, environment, lca, water
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AQUACULTURE: A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT COMPARISON OF COMMON AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS TO BEEF, PORK, AND CHICKEN PRODUCTION By Ethan Arthur Riley Stonerook May 2010 Chair: Frank A. Chapman Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology Worldwide aquaculture production nearly equals wild-caught fisheries production, animal agriculture generally uses many more resources for production than do cropping systems, and the demand for animal protein continues to rise as household economies continue to grow. It is important that animal production systems as a whole, and emerging aquaculture systems in particular, seek ecologically sustainable and efficient means of production. Of the resources needed for food production, water is in many cases the scarcest. Agriculture consumes 70% of the world?s freshwater on an annual basis, and there is little information available to growers, governments, or consumers on the real water content of human diets. The objectives of this study were to determine the total consumptive water use, or virtual water, the eutrophication impact potential, and the global warming potential associated with four common systems of aquaculture production cage-culture of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), flow-through culture of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), pond culture of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and recirculating culture of tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) compared with three common systems of terrestrial animal production (beef, pork, and broiler chickens). To accomplish these objectives, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted for each system using SimaPro 7.1. The results of the life cycle assessment show that of all the systems analyzed, flow-through production of rainbow trout had the lowest water footprint (570 liters/kg of finished product) compared to cage culture of salmon (700 liters/kg), recirculating culture of tilapia (2950 liters/kg), pond culture of channel catfish (9610 liters/kg), and beef (19,500 liters/kg), pork (10,310 liters/kg), and chicken production (7240 liters/kg). The eutrophication impact potential of trout production was lowest, and was 39.0 mg-equivalents of PO43-/kg of production, followed by catfish, chicken, tilapia, pork, salmon, and beef, which each produced 41.0, 46.0, 49.0, 71.0, 87.0, and 244.0 mg-equivalents of PO43-/kg, respectively. The global warming potential was lowest for trout production, which is responsible for 2.5 kg-equivalents of CO2/kg, followed by tilapia, catfish, salmon, pork, chicken, and beef, which produced 3.82, 3.83, 4.2, 5.78, 6.12, and 28.4 kg-equivalents of CO2/kg, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the importance and interaction of different model parameters and in almost every case, the agricultural production of animal feed accounted for the large majority of the environmental impact in these systems. These results also indicate that as the aquaculture industry moves more toward agronomic feed inputs, especially soy, and away from fisheries products its overall environmental impact will increase. This study shows the need for further research into alternative feed ingredients for both fish and terrestrial animals, and should be used to help inform producers, consumers, scientists, and policy makers on the environmental impacts of animal farming systems.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ethan Stonerook.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Chapman, Frank A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041796:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041796/00001

Material Information

Title: The environmental impacts of aquaculture A life cycle assessment comparison of four common aquaculture systems to beef, pork, and chicken production
Physical Description: 1 online resource (110 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Stonerook, Ethan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aquaculture, environment, lca, water
Interdisciplinary Ecology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interdisciplinary Ecology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AQUACULTURE: A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT COMPARISON OF COMMON AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS TO BEEF, PORK, AND CHICKEN PRODUCTION By Ethan Arthur Riley Stonerook May 2010 Chair: Frank A. Chapman Major: Interdisciplinary Ecology Worldwide aquaculture production nearly equals wild-caught fisheries production, animal agriculture generally uses many more resources for production than do cropping systems, and the demand for animal protein continues to rise as household economies continue to grow. It is important that animal production systems as a whole, and emerging aquaculture systems in particular, seek ecologically sustainable and efficient means of production. Of the resources needed for food production, water is in many cases the scarcest. Agriculture consumes 70% of the world?s freshwater on an annual basis, and there is little information available to growers, governments, or consumers on the real water content of human diets. The objectives of this study were to determine the total consumptive water use, or virtual water, the eutrophication impact potential, and the global warming potential associated with four common systems of aquaculture production cage-culture of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), flow-through culture of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), pond culture of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and recirculating culture of tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) compared with three common systems of terrestrial animal production (beef, pork, and broiler chickens). To accomplish these objectives, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted for each system using SimaPro 7.1. The results of the life cycle assessment show that of all the systems analyzed, flow-through production of rainbow trout had the lowest water footprint (570 liters/kg of finished product) compared to cage culture of salmon (700 liters/kg), recirculating culture of tilapia (2950 liters/kg), pond culture of channel catfish (9610 liters/kg), and beef (19,500 liters/kg), pork (10,310 liters/kg), and chicken production (7240 liters/kg). The eutrophication impact potential of trout production was lowest, and was 39.0 mg-equivalents of PO43-/kg of production, followed by catfish, chicken, tilapia, pork, salmon, and beef, which each produced 41.0, 46.0, 49.0, 71.0, 87.0, and 244.0 mg-equivalents of PO43-/kg, respectively. The global warming potential was lowest for trout production, which is responsible for 2.5 kg-equivalents of CO2/kg, followed by tilapia, catfish, salmon, pork, chicken, and beef, which produced 3.82, 3.83, 4.2, 5.78, 6.12, and 28.4 kg-equivalents of CO2/kg, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the importance and interaction of different model parameters and in almost every case, the agricultural production of animal feed accounted for the large majority of the environmental impact in these systems. These results also indicate that as the aquaculture industry moves more toward agronomic feed inputs, especially soy, and away from fisheries products its overall environmental impact will increase. This study shows the need for further research into alternative feed ingredients for both fish and terrestrial animals, and should be used to help inform producers, consumers, scientists, and policy makers on the environmental impacts of animal farming systems.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ethan Stonerook.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Chapman, Frank A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041796:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE E NVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AQUACULTURE: A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT COMPARISON OF COMMON AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS TO BEEF, PORK, AND CHICKEN PRODUCTION By ETHAN ARTHUR RILEY STONEROOK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 10

Salmo salar Oncorhynchus mykiss Ictalurus punctatus Oreochromis spp.

PAGE 12

1.1 Food Production and the Environment 1.1.1 Resource Use in Agriculture

PAGE 14

1.1.2 Global Food Security

PAGE 15

et al., 1.1.3 Farming Systems and the Environment

PAGE 16

et al.,

PAGE 17

1.1.4 Animal Protein Production

PAGE 18

et al., et al., 1.1.5 Fisheries

PAGE 19

1.2 Aquaculture

PAGE 20

1.2.1 Aquaculture, Past and Present

PAGE 21

1.2.2 Biology and Physiology of Fish

PAGE 22

1.2.3 Systems of Production

PAGE 23

1.2.3.1 Cage aquaculture Salmo salar 1.2.3.2 Pond aquaculture Ictalurus punctatus 1.2.3.4 Flow through aquaculture

PAGE 24

Oncorhynchus mykiss 1.2.3.5 Recirculating aquaculture 1.2.4 Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture Systems

PAGE 26

et al., et al., 1.3 The Pre sent Study

PAGE 29

et al., et al., et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 31

2.1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessments

PAGE 32

2.2 Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture Production et al.,

PAGE 33

et al., 2.2.1 Environmental Impact of Aquaculture Feeds et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 34

2.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Net Pen Salmon Aquaculture et al., et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 35

et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al.

PAGE 36

et al., et al., et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 37

et al., 2.2.3 Environmental Impacts of Flow Through Trout Aquaculture Culture et al.,

PAGE 38

et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 39

et al., 2.2.4 Environmental Impacts of Channel Catfish Pond Aquaculture et al., et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 40

et al., et al., 2.2.5 Environmental Impacts of Recirculating Aquaculture Production of Tilapia et al., et al.,

PAGE 41

2.3 Environm ental Impacts of Grain and Meat Production et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 42

et al., et al.

PAGE 43

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 Year Kg/capita/year World United States

PAGE 44

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Fish (All Seafood) Swine Beef Poultry Sheep & Goat Eggs Type of Meat Grams/capita/day U.S Meat Consumption World Meat Consumption

PAGE 45

et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al., et al.,

PAGE 46

et al. et al., et al.,

PAGE 48

3.1 Life Cycle Assessment 3.1.1 S cope, Boundaries, and Functional Unit

PAGE 49

3.1.2 Data Acquisition 3.1.2.1 Fish feed production

PAGE 50

3.1.2.2 Transportation 3.1.2.3 On farm fish production

PAGE 54

3.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment

PAGE 55

55 where EP represents the exposure potential, IIP represents inherent impact potential, i is the indexed compound, and B is a benchmark compound. The dimensionless risk index for global warming and eutrophication are referred to as Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Eutrophication Impact Potential (EIP), respectively. The benchmark compound for GWP is CO2, and is given a value of 1, while the major indexed compounds for GWP are CO2, CH4, N2O, and NOx, and are given a dimensionless risk index of 1, 21, 310, and 40, respectively. The benchmark compound for EIP is PO4 3-, and is given a dimensionless risk index of 1, while major indexed compounds are PO4 3-, P, NOX, NO2, NH3, and NH4 +, and are given a dimensionless risk index of 1, 3.06, 0.13, 0.13, 0.35, and 0.33, respectively. Complete lists of indexed compounds and their dimensionless risks for each environmental impact are given in Tables 1 and 2. The index for the entire system being assessed is then computed Equation 2: where i represents the indexed environmental stressor, the Dimensionless Risk Index is the GWP or EIP of i, and m represents the total mass of i emitted from the system of production. Because all stressors are normalized to the benchmark compound, it is possible to report an impact index that is comparable across systems of production. For GWP, impact is reported as equivalent kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of finished product (kg equiv. CO2/kg) and EIP is reported as equivalent grams of PO4 3per kilogram of finished product (g equiv. PO4 3-/kg).

PAGE 56

3.2 Sensitivity Analysis

PAGE 57

N N = r(k+1)

PAGE 58

r r k

PAGE 60

2.1 Raw Materials Extraction and Processing 2.2 Feed Production 2.3 On-farm Animal Production 2.4 Transportation and Processing Water Raw Materials Energy Animal Protein Waste Products Water Emissions Air Emission s 2.1 Raw Materials Extraction and Processing 2.1.2 Chemicals 2.1.3 Power Production 2.1.1 Diesel 2.2 Feed Production 2.2.3 Feed Processing 2.2.2 Grain Production 2.2.1 Fishmeal & Oil 2.3 On-Farm Production 2.3.3 Moving Water 2.3.4 Chemicals 2.3.2 Aeration 2.3.1 Feeding 2.4 Transport & Processing 2.3.1 Fish Processing 2.4.1 Transportation Fish Water Emissions (BOD, N, P, Pathogens) Air Emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, SOX)

PAGE 61

2.1 Raw Materials Extraction and Processing 2.1.2 Chemicals 2.1.3 Power Production 2.1.1 Diesel 2.2 Feed Production 2.2.2 Grain Production 2.2.1 Animal Inputs 2.3 On-Farm Production 2.3.3 Maintenence 2.3.4 Chemicals 2.3.2 Watering 2.3.1 Feeding 2.4 Transport & Processing 2.3.1 Animal Processing 2.4.1 Transportation Meat Water Emissions (BOD, N, P, Pathogens) Air Emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, SOX)

PAGE 64

Mambrini et al 1999, Valente et al, 2007., St Hilaire et al, 2007., A.M. Escaffre et al, 2007, S. Refstie et al., 1997, Bilgin et al, 2007. E inen & Roem, 1997, Storebakken et al 1998, Refstie et al 1998 Belle, S. 2005, Johansen & Jobling 1998, Refstie et. al. 1998

PAGE 65

Mambrini et al 1999, Valente et al, 2007., St Hilaire et al, 2007., A.M. Escaffre et al, 2007, S. Refstie et al., 1997, Bilgin et al, 2007.

PAGE 68

4.1 Simulation Results

PAGE 69

4.2 Sensitivity Analysis Results 4.2.1 Sensitivity Analysis (OAT)

PAGE 70

4.2.2 Global Sensitivity Analysis

PAGE 73

4.3 Summary 4.3.1 Summary of Model Simulations 4.3.2 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis

PAGE 77

WS: CWU of soybean production WW: CWU of wheat production WC: CWU of corn production WCan: CWU of canola production %FM: % inclusion of fishmeal %S: % inclusion of soybean meal %Can: % inclusion of canola %W: % inclusion of wheat %C: % inclusion of corn FCR: Feed conversion ratio DO: Dressout T: Transportation Dir: Direct on farm water use FP: Feed processing

PAGE 78

78 Figur e 41. Consumptive water use in animal protein production by type and by life cycle stage. Figur e 42. Global warming potential by type and life cycle stage, given in kg equivalents of CO2/kg of finished product.

PAGE 79

79 Fig ure 43. Eutrophication impact potential by type and life cycle stage, given in gram equivalents of CO2/kg of finished product

PAGE 80

Salmon Soybean Water Wheat Water Portion FishMeal Portion Soy FCR Dressout 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7 Mu Trout Soybean Water Wheat Water Portion FishMeal Portion Soy FCR Dressout 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Mu Catfish On-Farm Dressout FCR Corn Water Canola Water Soybean Water 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 .5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Mu Tilapia On-Farm Dressout FCR Portion Soy Portion Wheat Corn Water Wheat Water Soybean Water 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Mu

PAGE 90

Total CWU (L/kg) Total GWP (kg equiv CO2/kg) Total EIP (mg equiv PO4 3-/kg) 342.1 1.17 6.04 924.5 0.99 12.1 1018.2 0.97 6.95

PAGE 91

18% 61% 16% 1% 1% 1% 2% Soybean Meal Fishmeal Wheat Corn Meal Potato Starch Molasses Protein Peas 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 Soybean Meal FishmealWheat Corn Meal Potato Starch Molasses Protein Peas Feed Processing Feed Ingredient 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5Soy Fishmeal Wheat Corn Potato Molasses ProteinPeas Feed Ingredient 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Soy Fishmeal Wheat Corn Potato Molasses ProteinPeas Feed Ingredient

PAGE 94

Oreochromis niloticus X O. mossambicus Aquaculture Nutrition9 Methods for Fish Biology Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture Nutrition 4 Oreochromis niloticus Journal of Applied Icthyology. 24 Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance Trends in Food Science and Technology 5 Scophthalmus maximus Aquaculture 261 Oncorhynchus m ykiss Aquaculture 253 Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105

PAGE 95

Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 15 International Dairy Journal 12 Journal of Cleaner Production15 Oncorhynchus mykiss Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 31 Environmental Pollution 95 World Aquaculture 36 Reviews in Fisheries Science 15

PAGE 96

Journal of Animal Science 71 Oncorhynchus mykiss Aquaculture 214 Environmental Microbiology 8 Hydrobiologia 242 Food Policy 23 Aquaculture 226 Aquaculture 185 Rev ista de Biologia Tropical 54

PAGE 97

M arine Pollution Bulletin 52 Fisheries Management and Ecology 7 Aquaculture 116 Phormidium bohneri. Aquacultural Engineering 17 Chemosphere 46 Aquaculture Nutrition 3 Oreochromis niloticus Aquaculture Research 35 International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11

PAGE 98

Oncorhynchus mykiss Aquaculture 273 Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond267 Environ. Manage12 Aquaculture International 7

PAGE 99

Oreochromis niloticus Jour nal of the World Aquaculture Society 37 Ecological Economics 42 Ecological Economics 23 90 Mar. Ecol. Prog 89 Aquaculture 98 Feed Mix 5 Ecological Ec onomics 29

PAGE 100

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58 Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 48 Water Resources Management 21 Global Environmental Change15 Mar. Ecol. Prog 70 International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4

PAGE 101

Mar. Sci 54 Aquaculture International 6 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9 Poultry Science 85 Ulva rigida Custoseira barbata Oreochromis niloticus Turkich Journal of Veterinary Animal Medicine31 Ecological Economics 55

PAGE 102

Vigna unguiculata oreochromis niloticus Animal Feed Science and Technology 138 Aquaculture 147 Scientific American 235 Aquaculture 226 Oncorhynchus mykiss. Journal of Animal Science 77 Proc. Biol. Sci 270 Public Health Nutrition 7

PAGE 103

Fisheries 30 Oryzias latipes American Naturalist 158 Transgenic Research 11 Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 50 Science 282 Ecol. Econ 48 Animal Science Journal 78 Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2 Aquac. Res 26

PAGE 104

Salmo salar L. Aquaculture 221 Journal of Industrial Ecology 5 et al. Aquaculture 272 BioScience 47 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78 BioScience 54

PAGE 105

Salmo salar Aquaculture246 The Progressive Fish Culturist 49 Oreochromis niloticus Aquaculture Research 37 Ribarstvo 58 Journal of Food Engineering 86

PAGE 106

Oreochromis niloticus Aquaculture 231 Risk Analysis22 International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10 Aquacultural Engineering 32 Journal of International Food and A gribusiness Marketing 7 Oreochromis niloticus Aquaculture Research 38 Global Aquaculture Advocate3 Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 35 Journal of Animal Science 81

PAGE 107

Oreochromis niloticus Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87 Northeastern Naturalist 11 Oncorhynchus mykissJournal of the World Aquaculture Society 38 Salmo salar Aquaculture 161 Aquaculture 156 Ictalurus punctatus Journal of Applied Aquaculture 3

PAGE 108

Aquaculture 243 Oncorhynchus mykiss British Journal of Nutrition 97 Agricultural Systems83 In: J. World Aquacult. Soc 30 Aquaculture 188

PAGE 109

Zuchtungskunde63