TILAFeed: A bio-based inventory for circular nutrients management and achieving bioeconomy in future aquaponics

Roy, Koushik; Kajgrová, Lenka; Mráz, Jan

doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2022.04.002

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But even if feeding with BSF instead of BSFL was the case the digestive tracts of many carnivorous and omnivorous fish have adapted to produce chitinase to facilitate insect consumption 125 . Insect proved economic benefits when feeding Rainbow trout, 126 Common carp, 127 Tilapia species, 128 Largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ), 129 Rice field eel ( Monopterus albus ), 130 Siberian sturgeon ( Acipenser baerii ), 131 African catfish 132 and in Nile tilapia 133 . However, other authors report that the substitution of fish protein in the fish meal diet with BSFL, which usually constitutes 10%–25% of the allover mass of fish diet, did not influence the growth of other farmed fish.…”

Section: Discussion and Techno‐economic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insect rearing on biowaste represents a competitive advantage for fish farming

Maroušek

Strunecký

Maroušková

2022

Reviews in Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Techno‐economic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insect rearing on biowaste represents a competitive advantage for fish farming

Maroušek

Strunecký

Maroušková

2022

Reviews in Aquaculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aquaculture is also less diverse: $88% by carp farming in fishponds and $12% trout and percids in RAS. [17][18][19] With assumed zero-waste and a current Czech population of 10.3 million, the annual per capita fish production is $2 kg. However, zero-waste is seldom the case.…”

Section: Czech Aquaculture's Farm-to-fork Losses: a Case Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Czechia is a small, land‐locked and temperate (short vegetative season) Central European country with aquaculture production of ~20,000 tons. Aquaculture is also less diverse: ~88% by carp farming in fishponds and ~12% trout and percids in RAS 17–19 . With assumed zero‐waste and a current Czech population of 10.3 million, the annual per capita fish production is ~2 kg.…”

Section: Czech Aquaculture's Farm‐to‐fork Losses: a Case Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass losses and circularity along local farm‐to‐fork: A review of industrial efforts with locally farmed freshwater fish in land‐locked Central Europe

Mráz

Jia

Roy

2022

Reviews in Aquaculture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass losses and circularity of aquaculture farm-to-fork are reviewed in this article, taking the example of an economically developed but land-locked territory in Central Europe. We found that some waste valorization channels of locally farmed and slaughtered fish biomass are already functioning in the region (mostly for pet food, hunting bait). There is neither control nor information on how much local aquaculture farm-to-fork losses are upcycled to the local human food chain. Despite most of them qualify in 'category-3' animal by-products (useable for aquafeed) or preventable losses. Factors to improve farm-to-fork resource use efficiency 'locally' include:(a) 'at farm' (supplementary feeding, captive culture conditions, fat content, breed, rested harvest techniques, harvesting season); (b) 'towards fork' (purging duration, acclimatization before slaughtering, stunning efficacy, bleeding and filleting relative to rigour mortis, additive-based cleaning, pre-cooling, boned or deboned, grinding or baadering); (c) 'at fork' (coating-or GRAS additives-based preservation, packaging, modern hurdle systems, freezing rate, interferences of freezing apparatus or packaging on freezing, storage temperature). From farm-to-fork, it is essential to understand that most fish processing by-products can be made edible or valuable by other means. Better utilization strategies exist via low-cost value-added fish products, innovative dishes or utility products (e.g., feedstuff, fertilizers, industrial products, luxury items). Although upcycling to human food chain is priority, technological hurdles (prone to spoilage, bones in product, taste, safety) are associated with edible products but are solvable. More difficult things to overcome are at the fork (culinary industry, communication with society, future generations). Those are reviewed.aquaculture, aquaculture post-harvest, aquaculture product quality, biomass use efficiency, circular bioeconomy, fish | INTRODUCTIONApproximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption is presently lost or wasted, equivalent to $8% of all global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by humans. 1,2 Food losses also highlight the inequity of our current food system. For example, while 88 million tonnes of food are wasted yearly in the European Union (EU), in 2017, 112 million people in the EU had limited access to suitable food and healthy diets. Food waste comprises up to 16% of Europe's total emissions impact (various categories) on the entire food supply chain.A recent estimate shows that 186 Mt CO 2 -eq (global warming potential), 1.7 Mt SO 2 -eq (acidification potential), and 0.7 Mt PO 4 -eq

show abstract

“…Aquaponics systems combine the benefits of aquaculture and hydroponics, using fish feed waste and fish manure as a source of nutrients for plant/vegetable growth rather than simply throwing them away [14]- [16]. Leftover feed and fish manure become valuable products rather than mere waste [2]. Aquaponics is said to have the potential to be a solution for achieving more environmentally friendly fish farming than conventional aquaculture systems [17]- [19].…”

Section: Article History: Acceptedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing Aquaponics Facility to the Kali Code Area of Yogyakarta to Support Food Availability for the Local Community

Putra¹,

Nugroho²,

Shiddiqie³

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The community service program in the form of providing aquaponics facilities in the Kali Code area of Yogyakarta was implemented to support food availability in the community during the COVID 19 pandemic. This aquaponics facility is also expected to contribute to the development of the Kali Code region as an ecotourism area and an example of sustainable riverbank management. The water source used for the facility comes from the outlet of a wastewater treatment system that treats wastewater from several food stalls around the site. This is very beneficial in terms of conserving clean water resources as this aquaponics facility does not require a separate clean water supply. Several phases carried out in this program include the design, manufacture, and installation of aquaponics facilities. This program is also a means for students to explore ideas and use the skills they acquire during their studies to solve problems faced by the community. An example of how the program contributes to feeding the community is produced fish and vegetables are being used to support the consumption of the river school’s closing event at that location.

show abstract

TILAFeed: A bio-based inventory for circular nutrients management and achieving bioeconomy in future aquaponics

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Insect rearing on biowaste represents a competitive advantage for fish farming

Insect rearing on biowaste represents a competitive advantage for fish farming

Biomass losses and circularity along local farm‐to‐fork: A review of industrial efforts with locally farmed freshwater fish in land‐locked Central Europe

Providing Aquaponics Facility to the Kali Code Area of Yogyakarta to Support Food Availability for the Local Community

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About