Next Article in Journal
An Improved Grid-Xinanjiang Model and Its Application in the Jinshajiang Basin, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Predicting Taste and Odor Compounds in a Shallow Reservoir Using a Three–Dimensional Hydrodynamic Ecological Model
Previous Article in Journal
Development and Integration of Sub-Daily Flood Modelling Capability within the SWAT Model and a Comparison with XAJ Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Water Quality as an Indicator of Stream Restoration Effects—A Case Study of the Kwacza River Restoration Project
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Water Management Technology Used in Trout Culture on Water Quality in Fish Ponds

Department of Water Resources, Climatology and Environmental Management, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 2, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2018, 10(9), 1264; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091264
Received: 30 July 2018 / Revised: 6 September 2018 / Accepted: 12 September 2018 / Published: 17 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Freshwater Quality as a Driver of Aquatic Ecosystem Health)

Abstract

:
Pond management requires that a specific fish culture is conducted while taking into account both production possibilities and profitability, as well as the impact it may have on the natural environment. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of three water management systems used in rainbow trout culture on water quality in fish ponds. It was conducted at six trout farms and differing in water management strategy. After water had flown through the fishing ponds, its quality was significantly less impaired at farms operating in the flow and cascade systems. In turn, waters discharged from farms using the recirculation system were characterized by the poorest quality and lowest values on the Water Quality Index (WQI). It was found that the flow and cascade systems can be used to maintain the water quality and give less fish mortality for trout. It has been shown that the use of a water recirculation system in rainbow trout cultures significantly affects the quality of water in fishponds and can potentially lead to suppression of fish resistance and in extreme cases, to fish death. This study will help fish farmers in choosing the optimal variant of water management, taking into account both the best fish health with the least negative impact of fish farms on the environment.

1. Introduction

Intensive development of fishery has been observed in the past two decades. The increase in food production in the aquaculture is significantly faster than in other sectors manufacturing foods of animal origin [1,2,3]. The fishing industry is under a strong pressure from environmental conditions, the quality of which determines success in certain types of activities, and in some special cases, may even make them impossible. Fish are unable to separate their living space from the area where they leave their excreta. This deteriorates water quality in a production system and thereby contributes to poorer fish growth and to increased incidence of diseases [4,5].
Trout ponds are typically fed with water drawn from watercourses or water springs. As much as 86,000 m3 of water is needed to produce 1 ton of trout [6,7]. The optimal conditions for the survival and growth of fish necessitate not only adequate amounts of water, but also the right temperature and high quality of water [8,9]. Trout aquaculture needs specific chemical and biological conditions. It is difficult to fully understand the biology and physiology of fish without having the knowledge of the physicochemical parameters of water, because the chemistry of water provides much information about the metabolism of a given ecosystem and explains general hydrobiological relationships [10,11,12,13].
Impurities and contaminants produced in the aquaculture may be divided into solid and dissolved ones. The first include mainly excreta and feed leftovers, whereas the dissolved ones (BOD, ammonia, phosphorus) derive from metabolites secreted by fish (through gills and with urine) or from degradation of suspended solids. It is estimated that in the intensive systems of aquaculture, only 20–40% of feedstuff mass are built into fish bodies, whereas the remaining part is excreted. The contribution of non-ingested feed varies between 5% and 15% [14].
The quantity of waste produced in fish ponds depends on such factors such as the following: feed mixture composition, fish species, or temperature. In turn, the amount of fecal wastes ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 kg dry matter per kg of feed mixture [15]. In all systems used in aquaculture, part of these wastes is discharged with post-production waters, however, their quantity and quality differ depending on the culture system. In the flow systems, all dissolved contaminants and solid impurities are released into the environment. It is assumed that the amount of wastes generated by fish farms operating in the recirculation systems is lower than that generated by farms based on standard flow systems due to lower water consumption [16].
The quality of water discharged from fish farms and its load of pollutants depend on a number of factors. These include the quality of water supplied to a fish farm, the species of fish, their rearing technology, the amount and quality of feed supplied to fish, and the meteorological and physiographic factors [17]. The use of surface waters for fish production may threaten water ecosystems to which water from fish farms is discharged, as this can alter their qualitative and quantitative parameters. Used water from fish farms is most often discharged directly to nearby water bodies [13,18,19]. The pollutants carried by water discharged from fish farms are mineralized, which can interfere with the biological balance within a water body that receives it, hence water from fish farms can be seen as a potential source of pollution [20].
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of three different systems of water management: flow system, cascade system, and recirculation system, used in rainbow trout culture on water quality in fish ponds.

2. Materials and Methods

The study covered six trout culture farms located across Poland differing in water management systems applied (Figure 1). They were divided into three groups (two farms each) in terms of water circuit technology, that is, farms operating in the flow system, cascade system, and recirculation system. The flow system consists in one-time use of water, that is, water that passed through the culture system is treated as wastewater and discharged outside the system. In the cascade system, water flows through subsequent ponds arranged in a series, and afterwards is discharged to a receiver. In turn, in the recirculation system, the pond is re-fed with most of water that had flown through it. Part of the water used is discharged outside fishing ponds, and this part is re-filled with fresh water. Little intensive recirculation is used at the analyzed farms, with water recirculation approximating 96%. Total exchange of water in ponds proceeds within 24 h. Farms operating in the flow system use ca. 30 m3 of fresh water to produce 1 kg of fish. The cascade system consumes 20 m3, whereas the recirculation system used ca. 3 m3.
The volume of water flowing through the analyzed ponds differed depending on the type of water management solution. At the farms with the flow system, it accounted for 8–12 dm3·s−1; at those with the cascade system, for 28–36 dm3·s−1; whereas at farms operating in the recirculation system, for 300–350 dm3·s−1. The use of a recirculation system in fish farming causes an increase in the concentration of impurities in the water. To improve the water quality, it is subjected to pre-treatment on microsites and biofilters. Higher flow through the joints results in a faster total water exchange in the ponds. In addition, the more water flows through the pond, the lower the concentrations of pollutants are and the easier it is to remove them from the water.
At all analyzed farms, trouts were fed twice a day with a pelleted feed mixture composed of fish meal, blood meal, soybean meal, maize, wheat, poultry and fish fat, and soybean oil. The feed mixture also contained 70.4 gN·kg−1, 10 gP·kg−1, 6 gNa·kg−1, and 7 gK·kg−1.
For water quality assessment, sampling points were established at each farm at the site of water inflow to the farm and water outflow from fishing ponds. Analyses were accomplished within two years.
Concentration of dissolved oxygen in water and water pH was measured at all sampling points using a multiparameter probe YSI 6600. In addition, water samples were collected from these points for laboratory analyses. Concentrations of total suspended solids, BOD5, N-NO3, N-NO2, N-NH4, NKiejdahl, and TP were determined according to the Standard Methods [21], whereas N-NH3 concentration in water was computed from the following formula [22]:
N-NH3 = (a) × TAN (mg·dm−3)
  • (a)—mole reaction of un-ionized ammonia,
  • TAN—total ammonia nitrogen (mg·dm−3),
  ( a )   =   1 1   +   10 10.068     0.33 T     pH  
  • T—temperature of water in a fish pond,
  • pH—pH of water in a fish pond.

Calculation of Water Quality Index

The evaluate water quality, the Water Quality Index (WQI) was computed for water samples from each sampling point. The WQI may be computed with different methods [23,24,25,26]. In this study, we used a method developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) based on the following formula [27,28]:
CCME - WQI = 100     ( F 1 2   +   F 2 2   +   F 3 2 1.732 )  
The symbols used in the formula are in the Supplementary Information.
Water quality is established by referring the computed values of CCME-WQI to one of the five categories from the water quality rating (Table 1).
To enable the CCME-WQI calculation, eight physical and chemical parameters of water were used (DO, pH, suspended solids, BOD5, TP, N-NH4, N-NH3, N-NO2). Their limit values determining the possibility of these waters colonization by the Salmonidae fish were stipulated in the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 4 October 2002 on the requirements to be met by inland waters inhabited by fish in natural conditions [29] consistent with Council Directive 78/659/EEC on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life [30].
In the present study, hierarchal cluster analysis has been employed in a dataset to detect similarity between the waters of a fisheries farm in terms of water quality parameters. The Euclidean distances were used as a measure of similarity between the water sampling sites, while the Ward’s error sum of squares in the hierarchical clustering method was applied to minimise the increase in the within-group variance. Analysis of the relationship between physicochemical parameters of the studied waters was based on the principal component analysis (PCA) method.

3. Results

The quality of water inflowing to the fish farm met criteria set for inland waters inhabited by the Salmonidae fish in the Directive 78/659/EEC, in the case of most of the analyzed parameters. Only mean concentrations of N-NO2 and suspended solids were negligibly exceeded (Table 2). Water inflowing to the farms operating in the recirculation system was also characterized by exceeded permissible concentration of total phosphorus, by 0.049–0.070 mg·dm−3 on average, and water inflowing to the farm No. 6, BOD5 value exceeded by 0.1 mg·dm−3 on average. High oxygenation of waters was observed in the study period (from 8.27 ± 1.70 mg·dm−3 to 10.31 ± 1.22 mg·dm−3), which was negatively correlated with N-NO3 concentration (Figure 2). The principal component analysis of correlations between concentrations of selected substances in waters inflowing to the trout ponds demonstrated that the first component (PCA1) described 98.7% of the total variance of data. The PCA showed also a statistically significant positive correlation between concentrations of SS and N-NH4. Waters inflowing to the fish farms also had low and stable concentration of N-NH4.
The fish farms got water from various rivers. For this reason, their chemical water composition was varied. The mean concentration of total nitrogen in water inflowing to the fish farms ranged from 0.53 mg·dm−3 to 2.27 mg·dm−3. In water inflowing to the fish farm No. 1 and fish farm No. 3, it was mainly composed of organic nitrogen (69–70%) and N-NO3 (18–19%).
An opposite observation was made in water inflowing to the fish farm No. 2, that is, total nitrogen was constituted by 80% of N-NO3 and 17% of organic nitrogen. In waters inflowing to the fish farms No. 4 and No. 5, concentrations of these forms of nitrogen were similar and reached 39–42% (N-NO3) and 52–53% (Norg). In turn, in water inflowing to the fish farm No. 6, total nitrogen was mainly constituted by N-NO3 (55%), organic nitrogen (29%), and N-NH4 (15%) (Figure 3).
The CCME-WQI index was used in the complex assessment of the quality of waters inflowing to fish farms in terms of their usability for rainbow trout culture. It refers the physicochemical parameters of water to the requirements to be met by inland water inhabited by the Salmonidae fish under natural conditions [31,32]. The computed CCME-WQI values enable the conclusion that waters inflowing to the fish farms No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 were of the fair quality category (Table 3). Their quality was usually sufficient for trout culture, however, concentrations of substances periodically exceeded permissible values (Table 1).
As indicated by the statistical analysis conducted with Ward’s method, these waters represented a separate cluster of waters of a better quality (Figure 4). The second cluster included waters of a worse quality that were inflowing to the fish farms No. 1, No. 5, and No. 6. These farms were fed with waters of the marginal category, which means that these waters often pose risk to fish as their quality indicators exceed live-threating values (Supplementary Information).
The quality of water deteriorated once it flew through fish ponds at all fish farms studied. A significant increase was demonstrated in concentrations of N-NO2 and suspended solids and in BOD5 value, and a decrease in the concentration of dissolved oxygen (Table 3). The PCA showed a statistically significant correlation between N-NH4 and BOD5 (Figure 5). At farms operating in the recirculation system, the BOD5 values permanently exceeded the limit value set in the requirements for inland water inhabited by the Salmonidae fish under natural conditions. The increase accounted for ca., 35% at farm No. 6, whereas at the fish farm No. 5, it was almost two-fold (Table 4). At the farms using the recirculation system, the concentration of N-NH4 in water from fish ponds periodically exceeded the permissible values and reached values posing a threat to fish life. The PCA demonstrated a significant correlation between N-NH4 concentrations and the TP value.
The concentration of total nitrogen in water used for rainbow trout culture also increased and ranged from 0.71 mg·dm−3 to 2.63 mg·dm−3. At the fish farms operating in the flow and cascade systems, concentrations of individual nitrogen forms in water outflowing from ponds was similar to those in water inflowing to the farms (Figure 3). At the farms using the flow system, the concentration of N-NO3 decreased by ca. 5% and that of organic nitrogen increased by 5%. At the farms with the cascade system, organic nitrogen concentration decreased by 4% and concentrations of N-NO3 and N-NH4 increased by 2% in the outflow from farm No. 3, whereas in water discharged from the farm No. 4, organic nitrogen concentration decreased by 3%, whereas N-NO3 concentration increased by 3%. An opposite situation was observed at farms operating in the water recirculation. In water outflowing from the farm No. 5, concentrations of N-NO3 and organic nitrogen decreased by 6% and 18%, respectively, while that of N-NH4 increased by 24%. Also, in water discharged from the farm No. 6, an increase by 17% was observed in the concentration of N-NH4 and by 10% in the organic form of nitrogen, whereas a 28% reduction in the concentration of N-NO3 occurred.
At the farms using the flow system of water management, the CCME-WQI value decreased by 2.70–6.64 after waters had passed through the fish ponds, which caused no changes in their quality category according to the scale proposed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment [28] (Supplementary Information). Waters discharged from the farm No. 1 were of the marginal category and these outflowing from the farm No. 2 were of the fair category.
A similar observation was made for water outflowing from the farm No. 3. Despite a decrease in its quality index, the category of water used for trout culture did not change. An opposite situation occurred at the farm No. 4. Water passage through the fish pond caused its CCME-WQI to decrease by 11.97, which resulted in a change of its quality category from fair to marginal. The decreased value of the index was mainly attributable to an increased concentration of suspended solids (by 28 mg·dm−3) and to a double increase in the concentration of N-NO2.
Waters discharged from the farms working in the recirculation system were characterized by the lowest CCME-WQI values. Despite their CCME-WQI decrease by 11.01, the waters outflowing from the farm No. 5 kept their marginal category. The greatest deterioration in water quality was noted in the outflow from the farm No. 6. Water passage through fish ponds resulted in its CCME-WQI value decrease by 25.57, which caused a change in its quality category from marginal to poor, being the lowest in the scale. The quality of these waters was almost always unfavorable and significantly diverged from the desirable values (Table 1). The decrease in the CCME-WQI value was mainly because of increased concentrations of N-NH4, TP, and N-NO2.
The above data allows noticing a clear division of waters used in the fish farms into two groups: the first one including waters of better quality outflowing from the fish farms operating in the flow and cascade systems, and the second one including waters of significantly worse quality discharged from the fish farms using the recirculation system. This observation was confirmed by results of the statistical analysis of water quality parameters conducted with the Ward method (Figure 6).
The mortality rate of fish was determined by the water management system used at fish farms, that is, by water quality in the fish ponds (Table 4). At the fish farms using the flow and cascade systems, fish mortality was similar despite various stock density and ranged from 0.62% to 0.64%. At the farms operating in the recirculation system, wherein water was of the poorest quality, fish mortality was statistically significant (p < 0.05), higher than at the other farm, and reached 0.96–0.98%.

4. Discussion

Fish production is an important contribution to the economic sector of the European Union (EU) [31]. Trout production in Poland in the last five years has been on average 16,044 tons per year. It places Poland as one of the largest trout producers in the EU. Currently, the production of fish in aquaculture provides about 2% of the raw material for animal processing in Poland.
Trout culture requires detailed knowledge regarding conditions of the production process as well as chemical and biological factors of the environment. Both cost-effectiveness of the production process and impact of the production system on the natural environment should be taken into consideration when choosing the optimal water management technology in trout culture [32,33,34].
Oxygen concentration in water is one of the basic parameters that determine rainbow trout production. Fish tolerance to a low concentration of oxygen is short, species-specific, and fish size-dependent. Trout have high demands for oxygen, that is, at least 5–8 mg O2 mg·dm−3 water [35,36]. Oxygen concentration decrease below 3 mg·dm−3 may lead to fish immunity suppression and this to their increased susceptibility to infections and parasite invasions. In extreme cases, it may be fatal to fish [37,38,39,40]. For this reason, artificial aeration of waters using pure oxygen was periodically used at the fish farms to maintain oxygen concentration in water at an optimal level.
Organic matter content in water, expressed by the BOD5 value, is one of the key factors that determine usability of waters for rainbow trout culture. It is assumed that its value in waters intended for the culture of the Salmonidae fish should not exceed 3.0 mg·dm−3 [29,30,41,42,43]. The analyzed fish farms cultured rainbow trout using various water management systems. At farms operating in the cascade system, waters flew through subsequent ponds arranged in series; waters from higher located ponds were discharged untreated to the lower located ponds. In the recirculation system, most of the water that passed through the pond was re-fed to it. In the aforementioned systems, the multiple re-use of water resulted in its successively increasing contamination with undigested feed residues and fish metabolites, which contributed to organic matter level increase. Under such circumstances, bacteria degrading organic matter intensify their activity and, consequently, consume more oxygen. This, in turn, causes the BOD5 value in pond water to increase [44,45], as indicated by the positive correlation between BOD5 values and N-NO2 and N-NH4 concentration shown in our study. Nitrites may be associated with ammonia concentration in water [44,46,47].
Also, contribution of individual forms of nitrogen changed in the water from trout culture. At the farms using the flow and cascade systems, transformations of individual nitrogen forms were insignificant, whereas at farms operating in the recirculation system, waters were characterized by a significant increase in the concentration of ammonia nitrogen and by decreased levels of N-NO3 and organic nitrogen. This was in part because of the ammonification of nitrogen contained in organic compounds present in water and administered feed [45,46,47,48]. Simultaneously, fish metabolites were accumulating in the waters that were re-used multiple times, which contributed to an increase in the level of ammonia nitrogen and this resulted in an increased concentration of N-NH3 in waters at farms using the recirculation system. The concentration of non-ionized ammonia in the analyzed water did not exceed 0.020 mg·dm−3 and as such posed no threat to fish. According to Solbé and Shurben [49] and Randall and Tsui [50], considering the LC50 value per 24 h, N-NH3 becomes toxic to the Salmonidae fish even at concentrations as low as 0.07–0.39 mg·dm−3, whereas according to Svobodová et al. [44], at 0.5–0.8 mgNH3·dm−3.
In our study, we found a positive correlation between concentrations of N-NH4 and non-ionized form of ammonia and the concentration of TP. It suggests intensive fish feeding to be the main source of biogenes in the analyzed waters. It is assumed that only some small parts of phosphorus and nitrogen contained in a feed mixture are inbuilt into fish biomass, while their greater parts remain in water, thus contributing to their increased concentrations therein [51,52,53].
The health status of fish in aquaculture conditions is affected by many factors. Apart from the biological value of fish, their mortality rate depends on elements associated with water quality in ponds [54,55]. A water management system applied at a fish farm had a significant effect on the chemical composition of waters, and for this reason was a factor that determined fish survivability. On farms benefiting from recirculation of water, where water quality was the poorest, fish mortality was higher compared with other farms. Use of a water recirculation system in rainbow trout cultures significantly affects the quality of water in fishponds and can potentially lead to suppression of fish resistance, and thus to their increased susceptibility to diseases and parasites, and in extreme cases, to fish death. Such dependence is confirmed by other authors [56,57,58,59].
The results of our study demonstrated a decrease in the quality of water that passed through the fish ponds. Its direct discharge to a receiver, without treatment, may pose threat to the natural environment [3,26]. Hence, a post-production water treatment system should be implemented at trout producing farms to minimize their negative effect on the environment.

5. Conclusions

Water quality is very important part of environmental management. When water quality is poor, it affects not only aquatic life but the surrounding ecosystem. For this reason, the use of the environment requires choosing the optimal technology that will allow the highest possible efficiency with the least adverse impact on waters.
In all farms studied, the water passing through the ponds in the trout farms deteriorated its quality. After passing through the fishing ponds, its quality was much less limited in farms operating in flow and cascade systems. The analysis did not show any significant differences in the impact on the quality of waters leaving the fish farms using the flow system and cascade. Water discharged from farms using the recirculation system was characterized by the worst quality and the lowest CCME-WQI values. Their quality was almost always weak and significantly deviated from the desired values. The outflow of water from fish farms using water recirculation was characterized by the lowest quality and the lowest values of the CCME-WQI index. However, their impact on the environment of the rivers water was the lowest because of the least amount of water needed to produce 1 kg of fish. This caused the load of pollutants flowing from the farm to the rivers to be the smallest.
It was found the flow and cascade systems can be used to maintain the water quality and give less fish mortality for trout. In farms operating in flow and cascade systems, the mortality rate of fish was similar, despite various resource densities. On farms benefiting from recirculation of water, where water quality was the poorest, fish mortality was higher compared with other farms. It has been shown that the use of a water recirculation system in rainbow trout cultures significantly affects the quality of water in fishponds and can potentially lead to suppression of fish resistance, and thus to their increased susceptibility to diseases and parasites, and in extreme cases, to fish death.
This study also showed that waters discharged from fish ponds may pose risk of receiver waters contamination. Hence, technical measures should be implemented to improve their quality.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/9/1264/s1.

Author Contributions

M.S. conceived and designed the experiments; M.S. performed the experiments; M.S. and I.C. analyzed the data; M.S. and I.C. contributed materials and analysis tools; M.S and I.C. wrote the paper.

Funding

The research was financed by the National Science Centre under the research project MINIATURA 1, registration number of the application 2017/01/X/ST10/00456.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  3. Amirkolaie, A.K. Reduction in the environmental impact of waste discharged by fish farms through feed and feeding. Rev. Aquac. 2011, 3, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bhatnagar, A.; Garg, S.K. Causative factors of fish mortality in still water fish ponds under sub-tropical conditions. Aquaculture 2000, 1, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
  5. De Leo, F.; Miglietta, P.P.; Pavlinović, S. Marine ecological footprint of Italian Mediterranean fisheries. Sustainability 2014, 6, 7482–7495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brinker, A.; Koppe, W.; Rösch, R. Optimizing trout farm effluent treatment by stabilizing trout feces: A field trial. N. Am. J. Aquac. 2005, 67, 244–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sindilariu, P.D.; Brinker, A.; Reiter, R. Waste and particle management in a commercial, partially recirculating trout farm. Aquac. Eng. 2009, 41, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bhatnagar, A.; Devi, P. Water quality guidelines for the management of pond fish culture. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 3, 1980–2009. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yapo, M.L.; Yalamoussa, T.U.O.; Mouhamadou, K.O.N.E.; Atsé, B.C.; Kouassi, P. Can use the Biotic Index as an indication of fish farm pond water quality? J. Adv. Bot. Zool. 2017, 4, 419010529. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dhawan, A.; Kaur, S. Pig dung as pond manure: Effect on water quality, pond productivity and growth of carps in polyculture system. NAGA ICLARM Q. 2002, 25, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kiran, B.R. Physico-chemical characteristics of fish ponds of Bhadra project at Karnataka. Rasayan J. Chem. 2010, 3, 671–676. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hlaváč, D.; Adámek, Z.; Hartman, P.; Másílko, J. Effects of supplementary feeding in carp ponds on discharge water quality: A review. Aquac. Int. 2014, 22, 299–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mohammed, B.; Tewabe, D.; Zelalem, W.; Melaku, A. Physical, Chemical, Biological properties and fish species type of Geray reservoir,-W/Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia. Int. J. Aquac. Fish Sci. 2016, 2, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
  14. Beveridge, M.C.M.; Philips, M.J.; Macintosh, D.C. Aquaculture and environment: the supply and demand for environment goods and services by Asian aquaculture and the implications for sustainability. Aquac. Res. 1997, 28, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, S.; Coffin, D.E.; Malone, R.F. Sludge production and management for recirculating aquaculture system. J. World Aquac. Soc. 1997, 28, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Blancheton, J.P. Developments in recirculation systems for Mediterranean fish species. Aquac. Eng. 2000, 22, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sikoki, F.D.; Veen, J.V. Aspects of water quality and the potential for fish production of Shinro Reservour, Nigeria. J. Fish. Aqua. Sci. 2012, 8, 186–204. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ray, L.I.P.; Panigrahi, P.K.; Mal, B.C. Temporal variation of water quality parameters in intensively IMC cultured lined pond. Univ. de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Medicină Veterinară Iaşi Lucrări Ştiinţifice, Seria Zootehnie. 2009, 52, 429–437. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bhatnagar, A.; Singh, G. Culture fisheries in village ponds: a multi-location study in Haryana, India. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2010, 1, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dalsgaard, J.; Larsen, B.K.; Pedersen, P.B. Nitrogen waste from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with particular focus on urea. Aquac. Eng. 2015, 65, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th ed.; Water Pollution Control Federation: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  22. Petit, J. Water supply, treatment and recycling in aquaculture. Aquaculture 1990, 1, 63–196. [Google Scholar]
  23. Breabăn, I.G.; Paiu, M. Application of DRASTIC Model and GIS for Evaluation of Aquifer Vulnerability: Study Case Barlad City Area. In Proceedings of the Water Resources and Wetlands, Tulcea, Romania, 14–16 September 2012; pp. 588–593. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mazaheri, K.Z.; Ghorbani, R.; Hajimoradloo, A.; Naeimi, A. The effect of trout farm effluents on the water quality parameters of Zaringol Stream (Golestan, Iran) based on NSFWQI and WQI indexes. Environ. Resour. Res. 2014, 1, 91–201. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mirsaeedghazi, H. Effect of trout farm on the water quality of river using Iran Water Quality Index (IRQWI): A case study on Deinachal River. J. Food Bioprocess Eng. 2015, 1, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cymes, I. Use of water quality indices as a tool in water resources management. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2018, 27, 2777–2784. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bharti, N.; Katyal, D. Water quality indices used for surface water vulnerability assessment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 2, 154–173. [Google Scholar]
  28. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: CCME Water Quality Index 1.0, Technical Report. In Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines; Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2001.
  29. Rozporządzenie, M.Z. Z dnia 16 października 2002 r. w sprawie wymagań, jakim powinna odpowiadać woda w kąpieliskach. Dz. U. 2002, 183, 1530. [Google Scholar]
  30. Directive Council 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life. Eur. Commun. 1978, 222, 1–10.
  31. De Leo, F.; Miglietta, P.P.; Pavlinović, S. Marine fisheries and mariculture in Croatia: Economic and trade analysis. J. Econ. Financ. Stud. 2014, 2, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Amirkolaie, A.K. Environmental impact of nutrient discharged by aquaculture waste water on Haraz the river. J. Fish. Aqua. Sci. 2008, 3, 275–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Farmaki, E.G.; Thomaidis, N.S.; Pasias, I.N.; Baulard, C.; Papaharisis, L.; Efstathiou, C.E. Environmental impact of intensive aquaculture: Investigation on the accumulation of metals and nutrients in marine sediments of Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 485, 554–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Clark, M.; Tilman, D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sidoruk, M.; Koc, J.; Cymes, I.; Rafałowska, M.; Rochwerger, A.; Sobczyńska-Wójcik, K.; Skibniewska, K.A.; Siemianowska, E.; Guziur, J.; Szarek, J. Risk assessment of surface waters associated with water circulation technologies on trout farms. J. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 15, 76–81. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fetherman, E.R.; Wardell, J.A.; Praamsma, Ch. J.; Hura, M.K. Critical Dissolved Oxygen Tolerances of Whirling Disease-Resistant Rainbow Trout. N. Am. J. Aquac. 2016, 78, 366–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Caldwell, C.A.; Hinshaw, J.M. Communications: Tolerance of Rainbow Trout to dissolved oxygen supplementation and a Yersinia ruckeri challenge. J. Aqua. Anim. Health 1995, 7, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sirakov, I.; Staykov, Y.; Djanovski, G. Consumption of dissolved oxygen in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) cultivated in raceway. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2011, 3, 220–223. [Google Scholar]
  39. Roze, T.; Christen, F.; Amerand, A.; Claireaux, G. Trade-off between thermal sensitivity, hypoxia tolerance and growth in fish. J. Therm. Biol. 2013, 38, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bonisławska, M.; Tański, A.; Mokrzycka, M.; Brysiewicz, A.; Nędzarek, A.; Tórz, A. The effect of effluents from rainbow trout ponds on water quality in the Gowienica River. J. Water Land Dev. 2013, 19, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sidoruk, M.; Koc, J.; Szarek, J.; Skibniewska, K.; Guziur, J.; Zakrzewski, J. Effect of trout production in concrete fish ponds with a cascade water flow on physical and chemical properties of surface waters. Inż. Ekolo. 2013, 34, 206–213. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Svobodová, Z.; Lloyd, R.; Máchová, J.; Vykusová, B. Water Quality and Fish Health; EIFAC Technical Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1993; 54p. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kumar, D.; Karthik, M.; Rajakumar, R. Study of seasonal water quality assessment and fish pond conservation in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2017, 5, 1232–1238. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hargreaves, J.A. Nitrogen biogeochemistry of aquaculture ponds. Aquaculture 2008, 166, 181–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ahn, Y.H. Sustainable nitrogen elimination biotechnologies: A review. Process Biochem. 2006, 41, 1709–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Robertson, G.P.; Vitousek, P.M. Nitrogen in agriculture: Balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2009, 34, 97–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yossi, T.; Schreier, H.J.; Sowers, K.R.; Stubblefield, J.D.; Place, A.R.; Zohar, Y. Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 2009, 286, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cymes, I.; Glinska-Lewczuk, K. The use of water quality indices (WQI and SAR) for multipurpose assessment of water in dam reservoirs. J. Elementol. 2016, 21, 1211–1224. [Google Scholar]
  49. de LG Solbé, J.F.; Shurben, D.G. Toxicity of ammonia to early life stages of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Wat. Res. 1989, 23, 127–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Randall, D.J.; Tsui, T.K.N. Ammonia toxicity in fish. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002, 45, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Madeyski, M. Effect of fish ponds on selected components of the natural environment. Inż. Śr. 2001, 21, 139–144. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  52. Hernández, A.J.; Roman, D. Phosphorus and nitrogen utilization efficiency in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fed diets with lupin (Lupinus albus) or soybean (Glycine max) meals as partial replacements to fish meal. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 61, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sugiura, S.H. Phosphorus, Aquaculture, and the Environment. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2018, 26, 515–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brown, C.; Laland, K. Social learning and life skills training for hatchery reared fish. J. Fish Biol. 2001, 59, 471–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brown, C.; Day, R.L. The future of stock enhancements: lessons for hatchery practice from conservation biology. Fish Fish. 2002, 3, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fevolden, S.-E.; RØed, K.H.; Fjalestad, K. A combined salt and confinement stress enhances mortality in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) selected for high stress responsiveness. Aquaculture 2003, 216, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bartel, R. Present situation of the Vistula sea trout. Arch. Pol. Fish. 1993, 1, 101–111. [Google Scholar]
  58. Augustyn, L.; Bartel, R.; Epler, P. Effects of fish size on post-stocking mortality and growth rate of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta trutta m. Fario L.) fry. Acta Sci. Pol. 2006, 5, 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  59. Milner, N.J.; Elliott, J.M.; Armstrong, J.D.; Gardiner, R.; Welton, J.S.; Ladle, M. The natural control of salmon and trout populations in streams. Fish. Res. 2003, 62, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of fish farms.
Figure 1. Location of fish farms.
Water 10 01264 g001
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of correlations between concentrations of selected substances in waters inflowing to trout ponds.
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) of correlations between concentrations of selected substances in waters inflowing to trout ponds.
Water 10 01264 g002
Figure 3. Contribution of particular forms of nitrogen in waters used in rainbow trout culture (%).
Figure 3. Contribution of particular forms of nitrogen in waters used in rainbow trout culture (%).
Water 10 01264 g003
Figure 4. Grouping of waters inflowing to fish farms with the Ward hierarchical method.
Figure 4. Grouping of waters inflowing to fish farms with the Ward hierarchical method.
Water 10 01264 g004
Figure 5. Principal component analysis of correlations between concentrations of selected substances in waters outflowing from trout ponds.
Figure 5. Principal component analysis of correlations between concentrations of selected substances in waters outflowing from trout ponds.
Water 10 01264 g005
Figure 6. Grouping of waters outflowing from the fish ponds with the Ward method.
Figure 6. Grouping of waters outflowing from the fish ponds with the Ward method.
Water 10 01264 g006
Table 1. Water quality rating [15].
Table 1. Water quality rating [15].
Wqi ValueWater QualityDescription
95–100ExcellentWater quality is protected with a virtual absence of threat or impairment, conditions very close to natural or pristine levels
80–94GoodWater quality is protected with only a minor degree of threat or impairment, conditions rarely depart from natural or desirable levels
65–79FairWater quality is usually protected but occasionally threatened or impaired, conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels
45–64MarginalWater quality is frequently threatened or impaired, conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels
0–44PoorWater quality is almost always threatened or impaired, conditions usually depart from natural or desirable levels
Table 2. pH value and mean concentrations of selected substances in waters inflowing to the analyzed fish farms (mg·dm−3).
Table 2. pH value and mean concentrations of selected substances in waters inflowing to the analyzed fish farms (mg·dm−3).
IndexObjective Levels for Each Constituents as in EEC/78/669Flow SystemCascade SystemRecirculation System
Farm 1Farm 2Farm 3Farm 4Farm 5Farm 6
Temperature *<21.512.9 ± 3.610.8 ± 2.011.2 ± 1.210.8 ± 6.612.5 ± 3.78.9 ± 0.6
DO>7.09.22 ± 1.958.61 ± 0.3810.21 ± 0.4310.31 ± 1.229.46 ± 1.808.27 ± 1.70
pH **6.0–9.07.78–8.486.73–7.878.00–8.667.35–8.276.39–8.257.46–8.56
SS<2529 ± 2930 ± 1221 ± 733 ± 726 ± 1142 ± 19
BOD5<3.02.5 ± 1.21.5 ± 0.52.1 ± 1.42.5 ± 1.12.6 ± 1.13.1 ± 1.1
TP<0.20.118 ± 0.0480.086 ± 0.0950.096 ± 0.0290.087 ± 0.0260.270 ± 0.3320.249 ± 0.095
N-NH4<0.780.106 ± 0.0640.046 ± 0.0290.059 ± 0.0250.064 ± 0.0430.094 ± 0.0420.22 ± 0.136
N-NH3<0.0200.004 ± 0.0020.001 ± 0.0010.004 ± 0.0020.002 ± 0.0020.003 ± 0.0020.004 ±0.005
N-NO2<0.0030.012 ± 0.0100.008 ± 0.0080.006 ± 0.0010.006 ± 0.0040.029 ± 0.0100.021 ± 0.021
N-NO30.177 ± 0.0611.837 ± 0.2900.099 ± 0.0120.713 ± 0.2050.575 ± 0.3110.836 ± 0.258
Nmin0.289 ± 0.1181.887 ± 0.2940.164 ± 0.0350.782 ± 0.2350.698 ± 0.3141.084 ± 0.285
Norg0.713 ± 0.2660.377 ± 0.2190.369 ± 0.0700.871 ± 0.6290.745 ± 0.2460.450 ± 0.121
Ntot1.01 ± 0.222.27 ± 0.300.53 ± 0.061.65 ± 0.701.44 ± 0.321.53 ± 0.35
mean ± standard deviation, * °C, ** min−max.
Table 3. pH value and mean concentration of substances in waters outflowing from fish farms (mg·dm−3).
Table 3. pH value and mean concentration of substances in waters outflowing from fish farms (mg·dm−3).
IndexObjective Levels for Each Constituents as in EEC/78/669Flow SystemCascade SystemRecirculation System
Farm 1Farm 2Farm 3Farm 4Farm 5Farm 6
Temperature *<21.512.4 ± 3.810.3 ± 2.011.2 ± 1.510.9 ± 6.614.0 ± 3.111.4 ± 2.9
DO>7.08.66 ± 2.678.96 ± 0.748.97 ± 0.8810.21 ± 1.548.23 ± 2.037.97 ± 1.57
pH **6.0–9.07.85–8.327.05–8.356.94–8.257.41–8.127.64–7.977.32–8.52
SS<2535 ± 2937 ± 2523 ± 861 ± 1332 ± 1342 ± 13
BOD5<3.03.2 ± 1.11.9 ± 0.42.4 ± 1.41.8 ± 0.95.8 ± 0.44.2 ± 1.1
TP<0.20.127 ± 0.0360.076 ± 0.0170.130 ± 0.0370.111 ± 0.0640.151 ± 0.0350.336 ± 0.113
N-NH4<0.780.097 ± 0.0640.064 ± 0.0320.062 ± 0.0200.053 ± 0.0570.703 ± 0.2670.581 ± 0.604
N-NH3<0.0200.004 ± 0.0020.005 ± 0.0040.002 ± 0.0010.002 ± 0.0030.011 ± 0.0040.010 ± 0.012
N-NO2<0.0030.016 ± 0.0100.020 ± 0.0160.006 ± 0.0010.013 ± 0.0070.040 ± 0.0240.044 ± 0.054
N-NO30.161 ± 0.0411.975 ± 0.3560.124 ± 0.0260.702 ± 0.3220.747 ± 0.2160.479 ± 0.191
Nmin0.275 ± 0.0992.057 ± 0.3730.192 ± 0.0350.766 ± 0.3411.490 ± 0.2861.104 ± 0.540
Norg0.864 ± 0.2000.576 ± 0.2060.516 ± 0.2670.752 ± 0.2280.766 ± 0.5920.706 ± 0.248
Ntot1.14 ± 0.232.63 ± 0.470.71 ± 0.251.52 ± 0.392.26 ± 0.501.81 ± 0.78
mean ± standard deviation, * °C, ** min−max.
Table 4. Mortality rate of rainbow trout (%).
Table 4. Mortality rate of rainbow trout (%).
Water Management System
Flow SystemCascade SystemRecirculation System
Farm 1Farm 2Farm 3Farm 4Farm 5Farm 6
Mortality rate (%)0.62 ± 0.130.64 ± 0.160.63 ± 0.170.64 ± 0.150.96 ± 0.160.98 ± 0.20
Stock density(kg·m−3)0.43.57.0
(pcs/pond)615 ± 266607 ± 2631005 ± 4351020 ± 4511754 ± 7601656 ± 717
mean ± standard deviation

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sidoruk, M.; Cymes, I. Effect of Water Management Technology Used in Trout Culture on Water Quality in Fish Ponds. Water 2018, 10, 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091264

AMA Style

Sidoruk M, Cymes I. Effect of Water Management Technology Used in Trout Culture on Water Quality in Fish Ponds. Water. 2018; 10(9):1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sidoruk, Marcin, and Ireneusz Cymes. 2018. "Effect of Water Management Technology Used in Trout Culture on Water Quality in Fish Ponds" Water 10, no. 9: 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091264

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop