Settling velocity of faecal pellets of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) and sensitivity analysis using measured data in a deposition model

Magill, Shona; Thetmeyer, Helmut; Cromey, Chris J

doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.06.005

Cited by 82 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Variability in faecal particle sizes is positively correlated with fish size [87,88]. Magill et al [89] found the mean size of particles of sea bream (Pagrus major) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fed the same diet to range from 0.3 to 2.5 mm (1.4 mm mean) and from 0.3 to 6.2 mm (1.12 mm mean), respectively. Fish size and species affect potentially also other physical and rheological properties of faeces such as settling rates that can be affected by many different parameters not dependent on fish.…”

Section: Wastes and Faecesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information on the biophysical properties of fish faeces (such as nutrient content, digestibility, particle size and density, mass fractions and settling rate) is highly variable and disparate in the scientific literature currently available [89]. Strangely, even if the physical properties of feed pellets have less importance on the water quality than the faecal properties, there is more information available on the settling rates and related physical properties of feed pellets compared with those of the faeces [77].…”

Section: Wastes and Faecesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fish Welfare in Aquaponic Systems: Its Relation to Water Quality with an Emphasis on Feed and Faeces—A Review

Yıldız

Robaina

Pirhonen

et al. 2017

Water

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Aquaponics is the combination of aquaculture (fish) and hydroponic cultivation of plants. This review examines fish welfare in relation to rearing water quality, fish feed and fish waste and faeces to develop a sustainable aquaponic system where the co-cultured organisms, fish, bacteria in biofilters and plants, should be considered holistically in all aquaponics operations. Water quality parameters are the primary environmental consideration for optimizing aquaponic production and for directly impacting fish welfare/health issues and plant needs. In aquaponic systems, the uptake of nutrients should be maximised for the healthy production of the plant biomass but without neglecting the best welfare conditions for the fish in terms of water quality. Measures to reduce the risks of the introduction or spread of diseases or infection and to increase biosecurity in aquaponics are also important. In addition, the possible impacts of allelochemicals, i.e., chemicals released by the plants, should be taken into account. Moreover, the effect of diet digestibility, faeces particle size and settling ratio on water quality should be carefully considered. As available information is very limited, research should be undertaken to better elucidate the relationship between appropriate levels of minerals needed by plants, and fish metabolism, health and welfare. It remains to be investigated whether and to what extent the concentrations of suspended solids that can be found in aquaponic systems can compromise the health of fish. Water quality, which directly affects fish health and well-being, is the key factor to be considered in all aquaponic systems.

show abstract

Section: Wastes and Faecesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Wastes and Faecesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fish Welfare in Aquaponic Systems: Its Relation to Water Quality with an Emphasis on Feed and Faeces—A Review

Yıldız

Robaina

Pirhonen

et al. 2017

Water

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A sensitivity analysis demonstrated the need to use all water current data without averaging for short-term model runs, whereas longer runs of a month or more were represented satisfactorily with hourly averaged data. In all runs, faecal settling data for sea bass of 0.4 (6%), 1.4 (9%), 2.5 (20%), 3.6 (38%) and 4.6 cm s −1 (27%) and for gilthead sea bream of 0.4 (24%), 1.5 (45%), 2.5 (18%), 3 cm s −1 (13%) were used (Magill et al 2006). Where species in individual cages were unknown, as was the case when only monthly summaries were supplied by the farmer, a combined distribution of settling rates for both species was used: 0.4 (8%), 1.4 (14%), 2.5 (20%), 3.5 (35%) and 4.6 cm s −1 (23%).…”

Section: General Model Set-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this process was not incorporated in DEPOMOD applied at salmon farms even though wild fish are now known to aggregate around these northern temperate fish farms (Dempster et al 2009). Magill et al (2006) determined the difference between the settling rates of faecal particles from gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata L. and sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax L. and demonstrated the importance of using these rates in modelling studies; fish farms in the eastern Mediterranean Sea typically have both sea bass and gilthead sea bream from different cohorts on the same farm, where feed input may differ by an order of magnitude in adjacent cages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MERAMOD: predicting the deposition and benthic impact of aquaculture in the eastern Mediterranean Sea

Cromey¹,

Thetmeyer²,

Lampadariou³

et al. 2012

Aquacult. Environ. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model composed of coupled particle tracking and benthic response modules was developed for predicting waste solids flux and benthic impacts of gilthead sea bream Sparus aurata L. and sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax L. aquaculture. The model was tested at 6 sites with different hydrodynamics, bathymetries and biomasses in the Aegean and Ionian seas, eastern Mediterranean Sea, and sediment trap flux and benthic impact indicators were observed. Seven sediment trap validation studies were conducted that varied in design with traps deployed either on the seabed, attached to nets or suspended in the water column. Model predictions of flux to traps spaced 5 m apart up to 50 m from the cages over a 13 d period were significant (R 2 = 0.61, n = 57, p ≤ 0.05). However, the model could not predict adequately the flux to traps spaced 2 m apart in the high-flux zone underneath cages where variability between trap observations was high. In this high-flux zone underneath cages, the averaged model flux predictions resulted in a performance of ± 49%. Statistically significant relationships were established at 4 sites between modelled flux and either benthic fauna impact indicator species (S), abundance (A), A/S ratio, Shannon-Wiener index or biomass fractionation index (BFI), (R 2 = 0.82, 0.60, 0.57, 0.67 and 0.48, respectively; n = 24, p ≤ 0.05). Two other sites, which did not exhibit an abundance peak in enriched zones, did not fit these relationships. Using relative abundance of taxonomic groups, a modelled flux of 4.1 g m −2 d −1 was determined to be a useful boundary; on either side of this boundary, clear trends occurred in pollutant tolerant and intolerant species.

show abstract

“…In short, bivalves growing in suspension feed on detritus, phytoand zooplankton in the water column, using part of what is filtered for growth and consolidating the remaining fraction as either faeces or pseudofaeces, which sinks relatively quickly to the bottom, potentially increasing the accumulation of organic material in the vicinity of the site. For both types of aquaculture, the "footprint" or areal size of the impact is a function of many factors, including the size and age of the farm, the species being cultivated, and local hydrodynamic and natural benthic conditions (Black, 2001;Magill et al, 2006). To date, research on the environmental effects of aquaculture has largely focussed on benthic processes as they relate to increased deposition of organic matter (Carroll et al, 2003).…”

Section: Review Of Ecological Carrying Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of recent carrying capacity models for bivalve culture and recommendations for research and management

McKindsey¹,

Thetmeyer²,

Landry³

et al. 2006

Aquaculture

Self Cite

249

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models and tools for assessing the carrying capacity of an area of interest for bivalve culture can be classified according to their level of complexity and scope. In this report, we discuss and outline four hierarchical categories of carrying capacity studies: physical, production, ecological, and social carrying capacity. The assessment of carrying capacity for progressively higher categories of models is based on a sound understanding of preceding categories. We discuss each in brief and the third in more detail as this is the level at which knowledge is the most lacking and for which science may make the most advances.(1) Physical carrying capacity may be assessed by a combination of hydrodynamic models and physical information, ideally presented and analysed within a Geographic Information System (GIS). (2) Most scientific effort to date has been directed towards modelling production carrying capacity and some of the resulting models have been used successfully to this end. Further development of these models should pay attention to (i) better modelling of feedback mechanisms between bivalve culture and the environment, (ii) a consideration of all steps in the culture process (seed collection, ongrowing, harvesting, and processing), and (iii) culture technique. (3) The modelling of ecological carrying capacity is still in its infancy. The shortcomings mentioned for models for production carrying capacity estimates are even greater for ecological carrying capacity models. GIS may be employed to consider interactions between culture activities and sensitive habitats. (4) It is recommended that social carrying capacity be evaluated only after the preceding levels have been completed so that an unbiased assessment is obtained. This however does not exclude direction from managers for scientists as to which factors (such as water clarity, specific habitats, etc.) should be evaluated. The use of expert systems to aid in management decisions is briefly discussed with a suggested application of a fuzzy expert system to this end.

show abstract

Settling velocity of faecal pellets of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L.) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) and sensitivity analysis using measured data in a deposition model

Cited by 82 publications

References 27 publications

Fish Welfare in Aquaponic Systems: Its Relation to Water Quality with an Emphasis on Feed and Faeces—A Review

Fish Welfare in Aquaponic Systems: Its Relation to Water Quality with an Emphasis on Feed and Faeces—A Review

MERAMOD: predicting the deposition and benthic impact of aquaculture in the eastern Mediterranean Sea

Review of recent carrying capacity models for bivalve culture and recommendations for research and management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About