You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Water
  • Editorial
  • Open Access

3 March 2017

Strategic Points in Aquaponics

,
,
,
and
1
Institute for Natural Resource Sciences, ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, 8820 Waedenswil, Switzerland
2
Humboldt-University of Berlin, Thaer Institute and IRI THESys, 10099 Berlin, Germany
3
School of Agricultural Engineering, Technical University of Madrid. Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
4
Plant Protection Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Agricultural Research, Herman Otto 15, 1022 Budapest, Hungary
This article belongs to the Special Issue Aquaponics: Toward a Sustainable Water-Based Production System?

Abstract

Global environmental, social and economic challenges drive the need for new and improved solutions for food production and consumption. Food production within a sustainability corridor requires innovations exceeding traditional paradigms, acknowledging the complexity arising from sustainability. However, there is a lack of knowledge about how to direct further activities, to develop technologies as potential solutions for questions related to climate change, loss of soil fertility and biodiversity, scarcity of resources, and shortage of drinking water. One approach that promises to address these problems is controlled environment agriculture. Aquaponics (AP) combines two technologies: recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) and hydroponics (plant production in water, without soil) in a closed-loop system. One challenge to the development of this technology is the conversion of the toxic ammonium produced by the fish into nitrate, via bacteria in a biofilter, to provide nitrogen to the plants. However, as this Special Issue shows, there are many other challenges that need to be addressed if the goal of the technology is to contribute to more sustainable food production systems.
No living thing lives separate: One and Many are the same.
[Johann Wolfgang Goethe, in “Epirrhema”]
In nature, nothing exists alone.
[Rachel Carson in “Silent Spring”]

1. Emerging Aquaponics

Global environmental, social and economic challenges drive the need for new and improved solutions for food production and consumption [1]. Stable and sustainable food production requires continuous innovation in an attempt to achieve the goals of a circular economy [2,3]. However, there is a lack of knowledge about how to direct further activities, to develop technologies as potential solutions for questions related to climate change, loss of soil fertility and biodiversity, scarcity of resources, and shortage of drinking water.
This Special Issue is on aquaponics: one approach that promises to address these problems in the framework of controlled environment agriculture [4]. Aquaponics [5] combines two technologies, namely recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) and hydroponics (plant production in water, without soil) in a closed-loop system (plants use the waste produced by the fish, thereby continuously cleaning the water). One major challenge to the development of this technology is to regulate the conversion of the ichthyotoxic ammonium produced by the fish, into nitrate, and to balance their concentrations in the fish tank and the plant growing beds. However, as this Special Issue shows, there are many other challenges that need to be addressed if the technology is to contribute to more sustainable food production systems.
Contemporary aquaponics started with the pioneering research of Todd, as referred to in [6] together with studies by Naegel [5] and Rakocy [7], with the first scientific papers being published around 1980. However, aquaponics research really took off only after 2010 (see the comparative number of scientific publications on hydroponics, aquaculture, and aquaponics in Figure 1). In spite of being acknowledged as one of the “ten technologies which could change our lives” by the European Union (EU) Parliament [8], research on aquaponics is still lacking. This is reflected by the number of peer-reviewed publications on aquaponics, which is significantly lower than in the fields of aquaculture, hydroponics or green roofs (Table 1). There is, however, a big difference between what the world is ‘talking’ about (as witnessed by the number of results in Google), and what is being thoroughly researched. In this regard, aquaponics can be termed "an emerging technology" and an emerging science topic.
Figure 1. The number of papers published on hydroponic*, aquaculture*, and aquaponic* from 1978 to 2015 (data were collected from the Scopus database on 17 September 2016). Please note that the scale for aquaponic* is two orders of magnitude lower than hydroponic* or aquaculture*.
Table 1. Number of scientific publications according to Google Scholar for some environmental- and ecotechnologies (patents and citations excluded), compared to the number as indicated by search results in Google. The keywords were evaluated on 3 August 2016.
Potentially, aquaponic systems can be designed for small, private installations to large commercial enterprises. Although many aquaponic systems may be found all over the world [6], the social, financial, environmental, operational, and ecological basics are in many aspects unknown or fuzzy, and the technology still needs further research and development in order to progress. The papers in this Special Issue of Water were written by research scientists working in different areas of closed system agriculture. The aim of this Special Issue is, therefore, to summarize and disseminate recent scientific findings in aquaponics. Special attention is paid to scientific progress leading to the development of a production system respecting the three pillars (social, environment and economy) of sustainability. The scope of this issue is ambitious, without being over-diluted. The successful development of aquaponics could insure, over the next decades, a greater part of the human food supply with a more neutral impact on the environment.
The aim of this paper is to sketch the diversity of fields that need to be addressed to further develop this food production approach; an attempt to decrease uncertainty and fuzziness by improving the knowledge base.

2. Defining Types of Aquaponics

Currently, the term aquaponics is used to describe a wide range of different systems with different goals. Nobody confuses professional aquaculture with home aquaria and koi ponds. Similarly, there ought to be a clear distinction between hobby forms of aquaponics (sometimes called backyard or household aquaponics), social projects (school aquaponics) [9], and commercial production [10]. Also, aquaponics can be part of urban agriculture, either as a small business or as a community project, or an element of rural agriculture (such as projects in the developing world). A comprehensive framework and a classification system is needed in that respect. One possible classification was suggested by Maucieri et al. [11], based on different design principles: main stakeholder, size, operational mode of the aquaculture compartment (RAS, flow through), water cycle management (coupled, de-coupled), water type, type of implemented hydroponic system and the use of space.
An aquaponic system can also address various goals or users, and has to be designed accordingly, with its components (fish tanks, biofilters, hydroponic units) fulfilling various requirements, such as pure food production, aesthetic purpose, education, hobby, etc. [12]. A classification can be attempted along these (sometimes contrasting) design guidelines, according to their main aspects.
Underlying these broad characterizations, there are several technological and biological implications. Consider a classification based on operational modes. There are two main categories: extensive (with integrated sludge usage) and intensive (with sludge separation) [11,13]. Whilst the integrated sludge usage allows for complete nutrient recycling, the negative aspects include limited fish stocking, turbid water, and rather low biofilter performance. On the other hand, sludge separation enables up to five times more intensive fish stocking, with positive aspects which include clear water, lower BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), lower microbial load and optimized biofilter performance. On the negative side, there is only partial nutrient recycling, unless additional provisions are taken (such as integration of a biodigester unit) [14]. An additional sludge treatment step (on-site or off-site) such as connecting sludge biodigesters or vermicomposting, may be necessary.
Currently, there is some debate about the advantages of circulating, or coupled vs. decoupled aquaponics [14]. There is not yet a consensus about the status of decoupled systems since they could be considered as just another plant fertigation method (i.e., as long as the water does not circulate back to the fish).

3. What Roles Can Aquaponics Play in Society?

Whilst aquaponics can involve a wide array of users, one aquaponics facility cannot target all of them at the same time. There are several trade-offs involved. Therefore, the user group ought to be identified before design is completed. For example, a commercial operation, selling to retailers, needs to comply with many legal requirements [15]. Whilst, on the other hand, if aquaponics is to contribute to community wellbeing, for which it has immense potential, it has to be designed to be entirely or partly operated by non-professionals, either alone or under professional guidance. One example is a passive aquaponics house operated by the social living facility “Somogy County Association of Disabled Persons” [16]. The architecture was adapted to the needs of the facility, allowing for disabled access.
Aquaponics has features that are well suited to urban environments, or areas where land is scarce or polluted, as well as in rural areas [17,18]. It allows intensive production in small spaces, producing fresh and high quality food, can contribute to urban heat island mitigation [19], can use harvested rain water, and thus acts as a reservoir in case of large rain events.
Aquaponics must rely on environmentally friendly methods of pest and disease control, because otherwise the health of the fish would be negatively affected. In plant production, biocontrol or integrated pest management can be implemented [20]. However, the use of hormones or antibiotics in fish rearing is not allowed.
Existing RAS units can also be upgraded to include aquaponics, such as using wastewater from aquaculture to feed hydroponic systems, or the other way around, adding RAS to a vegetable grower’s operation. An example of the first solution is described by Bulc et al. [21], who diverted some water from a small-scale cyprinid fish farm into an aquaponic system with a vertically constructed wetland planted with tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum L.). An example of the second solution is the “bolt-on” system by UrbanFarmers Company, which enables the seamless integration of a RAS unit into an existing hydroponic system [22].
The design of successful aquaponics systems depends on the user group. High-yield, soil-less production requires high input of technology (pumps, aerators, loggers) and knowledge, and is therefore mostly suited for commercial operations. A good example of this is the newly opened rooftop farm by UrbanFarmers in Den Haag [23]. However, it is entirely possible to design and operate low-tech aquaponics systems that require less skill to operate, and still yield respectable results [13,24]. The range of applications implies different points for further development pathways for the technology, system design and socio-economic aspects, which we discuss in the following sections.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our knowledge of the factors that determine the commercial viability of aquaponics has expanded greatly in recent years, and it is our conviction that this technology has the potential to play a significant role in food production in the future. However, there is much yet to be learned about the environmental, operational, and socio-economic effects of aquaponics. The points raised in our contribution illustrate that additional research is not only needed on the biological and technological system per se (for example, the microbiome of the system), but should also involve system design and socio-economic aspects and their interrelation for developing AP as a technology contributing to more sustainable food systems.

Acknowledgments

In this Editorial, we could only quote the most recent references; therefore, we apologize to those researchers whose equally important works were not cited. We thank the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions, which improved the final form of this paper. Special thanks to Andreas Graber, co-founder of UrbanFarmers, for fruitful discussions. This work was partly supported by funding received from the COST Action FA1305 “The EU Aquaponics Hub—Realising Sustainable Integrated Fish and Vegetable Production for the EU”.

Author Contributions

The review was initiated within the framework of the COST Action FA1305. Ranka Junge wrote the first version of the manuscript. Other authors provided inputs and participated in discussions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables; Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Leach, M.; Rockström, J.; Raskin, P.; Scoones, I.; Stirling, A.C.; Smith, A.; Thompson, J.; Millstone, E.; Ely, A.; Arond, E.; et al. Transforming Innovation for Sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pretty, J.; Sutherland, W.J.; Ashby, J.; Auburn, J.; Baulcombe, D.; Bell, M.; Bentley, J.; Bickersteth, S.; Brown, K.; Burke, J.; et al. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2010, 8, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kiss, G.; Jansen, H.; Lucia Castaldo, V.; Orsi, L. The 2050 City. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 326–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Naegel, L.C.A. Combined production of fish and plants in recirculating water. Aquaculture 1977, 10, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Love, D.C.; Fry, J.P.; Genello, L.; Hill, E.S.; Frederick, J.A.; Li, X.; Semmens, K. An international survey of aquaponics practitioners. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rakocy, J.E.; Allison, R. Evaluation of a closed recirculating system for the culture of tilapia and aquatic macrophytes. In Proceedings of the Bio-Engineering Symposium for Fish Culture; Allen, L.J., Kinney, E.C., Eds.; Publication No. 1; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1981; pp. 296–307. [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Woensel, L.; Archer, G.; Panades-Estruch, L.; Vrscaj, D. Ten Technologies Which Could Change Our Lives; European Union: Brussels, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hart, E.R.; Webb, J.B.; Danylchuk, A.J. Implementation of Aquaponics in Education: An Assessment of Challenges and Solutions. Sci. Educ. Int. 2013, 24, 460–480. [Google Scholar]
  10. Buehler, D.; Junge, R. Global Trends and Current Status of Commercial Urban Rooftop Farming. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maucieri, C.; Forchino, A.; Nicoletto, C.; Junge, R.; Pastres, R.; Sambo, P.; Borin, M. Life cycle assessment of a micro aquaponic system built using recovered material and usable for education purposes. J. Clean. Prod. 2017. submitted. [Google Scholar]
  12. Graber, A.; Antenen, N.; Junge, R. The multifunctional aquaponic system at ZHAW used as research and training lab. In Proceedings of the Conference VIVUS: Transmission of Innovations, Knowledge and Practical Experience into Everyday Practice, Strahinj, Slovenija, 14–15 November 2014.
  13. Sommerville, C.; Cohen, M.; Pantanella, E.; Stankus, A.; Lovatelli, A. Small-Scale Aquaponic Food Production—Integrated Fish and Plant Farming; No. 589. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  14. Goddek, S.; Espinal, C.A.; Delaide, B.; Jijakli, M.H.; Schmautz, Z.; Wuertz, S.; Keesman, K.J. Navigating towards decoupled aquaponic systems: A system dynamics design approach. Water 2016, 8, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Joly, A.; Junge, R.; Bardocz, T. Aquaponics business in Europe: Some legal obstacles and solutions. Ecocycles 2015, 1, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Passive Aquaponics. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/PassiveAquaponics (accessed on 11 September 2016).
  17. McClinton, N.; Cooper, J.; Khandeshi, S. Assessing the potential contribution of vacant lands to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 111, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Hartmann, I.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M.; Werner, A.; Thomaier, S.; Henckel, D.; Walk, H.; Dietrich, A. Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zinzi, M.; Agnoli, S. Cool and green roofs. An energy and comfort comparison between passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island techniques for residential buildings in the Mediterranean region. Energy Build. 2012, 55, 66–76. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bittsánszky, A.; Gyulai, G.; Junge, R.; Schmautz, Z.; Komives, T. Plant protection in ecocycle-based agricultural systems: Aquaponics as an example. In Proceedings of the 28th International Plant Protection Congress (IPPC), Berlin, Germany, 24–27 August 2016.
  21. Bulc, G.T.; Šajn Slak, A.; Kompare, B.; Jarni, K.; Krivograd Klemenčič, A. Innovative Aquaponic Technologies for Water Reuse in Cyprinid Fish Farms. In Proceedings of the BALWOIS 2012, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, 28 May–2 June 2012.
  22. UrbanFarmers. Available online: https://urbanfarmers.com/productsservices/uf-bolt-on-systems/ (accessed on 7 November 2016).
  23. UrbanFarmers Benelux. Available online: http://www.urbanfarmers.nl/en/our-farms/uf002-de-schilde/ (accessed on 9 December 2016).
  24. Trang, N.T.D.; Brix, H. Use of planted biofilters in integrated recirculating aquaculture-hydroponics systems in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Aquac. Res. 2014, 45, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Graber, A.; Urban Farmers AG, Zürich, Switzerland. Personal communication, 2016.
  26. Massart, S.; Martinez-Medina, M.; Jijakli, H. Biological control in the microbiome era: Challenges and opportunities. Biol. Control 2015, 89, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schmautz, Z.; Graber, A.; Jaenicke, S.; Goesmann, A.; Junge, R.; Smits, T.H.M. Microbial diversity in different compartments of an aquaponics system. Arch. Microbiol. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Goddek, S.; Delaide, B.; Mankasingh, U.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; Jijakli, H.; Thorarinsdottir, R. Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4199–4224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Konig, B.; Junge, R.; Bittsanszky, A.; Villarroel, M.; Komives, T. On the sustainability of aquaponics. Ecocycles 2016, 2, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Palm, H.W.; Bissa, K.; Knaus, U. Significant factors affecting the economic sustainability of closed aquaponic systems. Part II: Fish and plant growth. AACL Bioflux 2014, 7, 162–175. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Llorach-Masana, P.; Delmás, D.S.; Oliver-Solà, J.; Josa, A.; Montero, J.I.; Rieradevall, J. The ICTA-ICP Rooftop Greenhouse Lab (RTG-Lab): Closing metabolic flows (energy, water, CO2) through integrated Rooftop Greenhouses. In Finding Spaces for Productive Cities, Proceedings of the 6th AESOP Sustainable Food Planning Conference, VHL University of Applied Sciences, Velp, The Netherlands, 5–7 November 2014; IUFN: Paris, France, 2014; pp. 692–701. [Google Scholar]
  32. Goddek, S.; Schmautz, Z.; Scott, B.; Delaide, B.; Wuertz, S.; Junge, R. The Effect of Anaerobic and Aerobic Fish Sludge Supernatant on Hydroponic Lettuce. Agronomy 2016, 6, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hu, Z.; Lee, J.W.; Chandran, K.; Kim, S.; Brotto, A.C.; Khanal, S.K. Effect of plant species on nitrogen recovery in aquaponics. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 188, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. USDA Organic Certification of Aquaponics Systems. Available online: https://www.friendlyaquaponics.com/organic-certification/ (accessed on 4 February 2017).
  35. Tamin, M.; Harun, A.; Estim, A.; Saufie, S.; Obong, S. Consumer Acceptance towards Aquaponic Products. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 17, 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  36. Specht, K.; Weith, T.; Swoboda, K.; Siebert, R. Socially acceptable urban agriculture businesses. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Newman, G.; Gorlin, M.; Dhar, R. When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 41, 823–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Love, D.C.; Fry, J.P.; Li, X.; Hill, E.S.; Genello, L.; Semmens, K.; Thompson, R.E. Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture 2015, 435, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Junge, R.; Wilhelm, S.; Hofstetter, U. Aquaponic in classrooms as a tool to promote system thinking. In Proceedings of the Conference VIVUS: Transmission of Innovations, Knowledge and Practical Experience into Everyday Practice, Strahinj, Slovenija, 14–15 November 2014; pp. 234–244.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.