Resource Use and Pollution Potential in Feed-Based Aquaculture

Figures & data

Table 1. Revised embodied land, water, and energy use coefficients for animal products commonly included in aquaculture feeds.^a

Feedstuff	Crude protein (%)	Land (ha/t)	Water (m^3/t)	Energy (GJ/t)
Blood meal	76.7	0.100	2500	3.91
Bone meal	26.0	0.250	2500	3.91
Bone and meat meal	52.8	0.250	2500	3.91
Fat and oil, animal	–	0.100	2500	3.91
Feather meal	85	0.06	100	3.91
Fishmeal, marine	65	0.00055	87	10.52
Fishmeal, rendered	50.5	0.0006	120	7.28
Fish oil, marine	–	0.00010	15	2.11
Fish oil, rendered	–	0.0002	30	1.15
Fish solubles	41.7	0.0006	120
Pig byproduct meal	57.0	0.300	3006	3.91
Poultry byproduct meal	55.0	0.200	2069	3.91
Shrimp head meal	53.0	0.0006	100	3.91
Shrimp waste meal	46.7	0.0006	120	7.28
Squid meal	77.7	0.00019	100	10.52

^aRevision of tables presented by Chatvijitkul et al. (2017b) and Boyd and McNevin (2022) based on data from fishmeal and fish oil production presented by Fréon et al. (2017) and Hilmarsdóttir et al. (2022) and slaughterhouse operation by Ramirez et al. (2012).

Table 2. Revised embodied land, freshwater, and energy use coefficients for plant-based products commonly included in aquaculture feeds.^a

Ingredient	Crude protein (%)	Land (ha/t)	Freshwater (m^3/t)	Energy (GJ/t)
Barley grain	11.9	0.341	1423	2.70
Beans (faba)	30.0	0.307	2018	4.25
Brewer’s dried grain	25.0	–	100	11.87
Canola seed (rapeseed)	18.6	0.505	2271	4.94
Canola meal	35.6	0.288	1115	8.05
Canola oil	–	0.217	4301	6.38
Cassava tubers	3.5	0.100	550	0.86
Cassava meal	0.9	0.512	1878	6.21
Cassava starch	2.5	0.363	1052	5.53
Coconut meal	21.0	0.736	2093	2.77
Coconut oil	–	0.273	4490	1.05
Corn grain	9.5	0.171	1222	3.64
Corn gluten feed	21.5	0.031	1202	1.76
Corn gluten meal	60.2	0.011	1202	0.61
Corn meal	9.0	0.250	1081	4.80^b
Corn oil	–	0.001	2587	3.65
Corn starch	0.3	0.114	1671	6.37
Cottonseed meal	41.4	0.372	860	6.05
Cottonseed oil	–	0.134	4301	2.01
Distiller’s dried solubles	27.4	0.050	1367	6.67
Linseed meal	38	0.551	3077	3.74
Linseed oil	–	0.296	9415	1.76
Molasses (blackstrap)	4.0	0.022	527	0.48
Oat grain	11.8	0.410	1479	2.62
Pea protein	78.8	0.646	4000	45.34
Peas, field	22.0	0.781	1979	7.62
Peanuts (shelled)	25.8	0.753	5260	6.88
Peanut meal	49.1	0.452	3276	7.33
Peanut oil	–	0.301	2184	4.89
Rice grain	8.4	0.218	1673	1.89
Rice hulls	3.0	0.024	335	0.58
Rice, broken kernels	7.0	0.044	187	1.04
Rice bran	13.0	0.022	167	0.52
Rice flour	8.0	0.252	2628	7.16
Rye grain	9.9	0.373	1544	0.313
Sorghum grain	11.1	0.680	3048	5.80
Soybeans	35.2	0.348	2145	3.16
Soybean meal	47.5	0.306	2523	3.46
Soybean protein concentrate	65.0	0.552	3512	35.56
Soybean oil	–	0.077	4190	0.76
Sugar (raw)	–	0.087	1666	1.90
Sunflower seed (dehulled)	23.7	0.684	3366	3.81
Sunflower meal	42.2	0.823	1356	5.81
Sunflower oil	–	0.549	6792	4.20
Vegetable oil (average)	–	0.214	4059	3.65
Wheat grain	11.0	0.295	1829	2.61
Wheat bran	15.7	0.072	462	1.59
Wheat flour	12.1	0.214	1350	4.77
Wheat germ	36.5	0.006	408	0.13
Wheat gluten	79.8	0.036	4189	1.78
Wheat middlings (fine bran)	15.9	0.072	462	1.59
Wheat starch	0.5	0.178	1120	8.85

^aRevision of tables from Chatvijitkul et al. (2017b) and Boyd and McNevin (2022) based on data from Avadi et al. (2015); CPM (1994); Dangol et al. (2015); Gokdogan et al. (2017); Guerin (2020); Lie-Piang et al. (2021); Our World in Data (2020); Ramar et al. (2019); Tripathi et al. (2015); Yani et al. (2022).

Table 3. Embodied land, freshwater, and energy use coefficients for additives commonly included in aquaculture feeds.

Additives	Land (ha/t)	Freshwater (m^3/t)	Energy (GJ/t)
Amino acids (synthetic)	–	100	18.0
Bentonite clay	–	100	2.10
Calcium carbonate	–	100	1.29
Calcium phosphate	–	100	6.96
Casein	0.016	60	0.22
Cellulose	0.220	5732	36.0
Cholesterol	–	100	18.0
Choline	–	100	18.0
Lecithin	–	100	18.0
Mineral premixes	–	100	6.00
Sodium chloride	–	4600	2.80
Sodium phosphate	–	100	8.00
Vitamin C	–	100	18.0
Vitamin premixes	–	100	18.0
Whey (dried)	0.019	547	17.9
Distiller’s dried yeast	0.050	1367	6.67

Source: Boyd and McNevin (2022).

Table 4. Generic, commercial feed ingredient formulae with percentage inclusion rates of each ingredient.^a

Ingredient	Tilapia^a	Ictalurid Catfish^a	Pangasius^a	Carp^b	Rainbow Trout^a	Whiteleg shrimp^a
Blood meal	–	5.0	–	–	4.0	–
Fishmeal, marine	–	–	–	–	15.0	6.0
Fishmeal, rendered	–	–	–	–	–	–
Fish oil, marine	–	–	–	–	8.5	3.2
Fish oil, rendered	1.8	3.1	3.0	1.3	–	–
Fish solubles	–	–	–	–	–	2.5
Meat and bone meal	7.0	7.0	–	–	–	–
Poultry byproduct meal	–	–	–	–	7.0	–
Shrimp head meal	–	–	–	–	–	2.4
Cassava flour	–	10.0	14.4	–	–	–
Corn gluten meal	–	2.0	–	8.9	6.0	–
Corn grain	18.0	–	–	–	–	–
Rice bran	–	16.9	14.0	16.0	–	–
Rice, broken	–	–	11.0	–	–	–
Soybean meal	55.0	36.0	55.0	50.0	–	52.6
Soybean oil	–	–	–	–	3.0	–
Soybean protein concentrate	–	–	–	–	30.0	–
Wheat flour	–	17.0	–	–	16.0	28.2
Wheat grain	15.0	–	–	21.0	–	–
Wheat middlings	–	–	–	–	7.3	–
Antioxidant	0.05	0.01	–	–	0.05	0.03
Carophyll pink	–	–	–	–	0.04	–
Choline chloride	0.01	–	–	–	0.03	0.06
DL-methionine	0.14	0.12	0.13	–	0.1	–
Ethoxyguin	–	–	–	0.02	–	–
Hydrolyzed fish attractant	–	–	–	–	1.0	–
Mold inhibitor	0.05	0.05	0.05	–	0.5	0.03
Monocalcium phosphate	1.20	0.95	1.51	2.43	–	1.20
Mycotoxin binder	0.10	0.10	0.10	–	0.10	0.20
Pellet binder	–	–	–	–	–	0.4
Premix, mineral	0.25	0.25	0.25	.25	0.25	0.25
Premix, vitamin	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.1	0.5	0.40
Soybean lecithin	1.0	–	–	–	1.0	1.5
Stay-C	0.03	–	–	–	–	0.04
Vitamin C	–	0.03	0.03	–	0.03	–-

^aCourtesy Mark Newman, Aquaculture Feed Consultant.

^bCourtesy Allen Davis, Auburn University.

Table 5. Land, freshwater, and energy embodied in 1 tonne of commercial feed for seven common aquaculture species compared with average (n = 7), embodied resource use estimates made earlier for experimental diets for six of the species.

Feed^a	Land (ha/t)	Water (m^3/t)	Energy GJ/t)	Crude protein (%)
Tilapia
Commercial	0.273	2061	4.50	32.1
Experimental	0.200	1405	5.47	30.0
Ictalurid catfish
Commercial	0.233	2231	4.11	32.0
Experimental	0.201	1574	4.78	29.8
Pangasius
Commercial	0.259	1793	4.35	28.1
Experimental	0.227	1553	5.13	29.5
Carp
Commercial	0.220	1803	3.54	33.8
Experimental	0.226	1552	6.30	30.0
Atlantic salmon
Commercial	0.292	2842	14.19	37.0
Experimental	0.173	1780	13.65	39.9
Rainbow trout, commercial	0.232	1771	14.54	45.1
Whiteleg shrimp
Commercial	0.221	1726	5.79	35.1
Experimental	0.202	1612	9.59	34.2

^aFor commercial diets resource use amounts calculated from feed formulae in Table 4; and data on Atlantic salmon feed ingredients from Aas et al. (2022) the resource use amount for experimental diets taken from Boyd and McNevin (2022).

Table 6. Results for the fish in—fish out ratio (FIFO) by different methods of calculation.

Method	Whiteleg shrimp	Rainbow trout	Atlantic salmon
ASC	0.85	1.84	1.80
BAP	0.54	1.12	0.82
IFFO	0.54	1.11	0.81
Boyd and McNevin^a	1.16	2.45	2.51
Boyd and McNevin, adjusted^b	0.85	1.85	1.81
Boyd and McNevin, adjusted^c	0.79	1.79	2.25
Kok et al.^d	0.52	0.98	0.98

^aOriginal equation assumed 20% recovery of fishmeal and 5% recovery of fish oil from live fish (Boyd and McNevin 2015).

^bAdjusted for recoveries of 24% fishmeal and 6% fish oil from live fish as per ASC.

^cAdjusted for recoveries of 22.5% fishmeal and 4.8% fish oil from live fish as per BAP and similar to IFFO.

^dKok et al. (2020). The data from this study is for the economic FOFO and based on the global production and feed use by the species considered. The eFiFO is not for a specific feed formulation.

Table 7. Embodied land, freshwater, and energy use resulting from inclusions of selected grain products to provide to provide 1% (10 kg) of crude protein in 1 t of aquaculture feed.

Ingredient	Quantity (t/t)	Land (ha/t)	Freshwater (m^3/t)	Energy (GJ/t)
Corn meal	0.111	0.028	120	0.53
Rice flour	0.125	0.032	328	0.90
Sorghum grain	0.090	0.061	274	0.28
Wheat bran	0.064	0.005	30	0.10
Wheat flour	0.083	0.018	112	0.40
Wheat middlings	0.063	0.004	29	0.10

Table 8. Embodied land, freshwater, and energy use resulting from inclusions of selected oil plant meals to provide 1% (10 kg) of crude protein in 1 t of aquaculture feed.

Ingredient	Amount (t/t)	Land (ha/t)	Freshwater (m^3/t)	Energy (GJ/t)
Canola (rapeseed) meal	0.0281	0.008	53	0.174
Coconut meal	0.0476	0.035	100	0.132
Linseed (flax) meal	0.0263	0.014	81	0.098
Peanut meal	0.0204	0.008	18	0.123
Soybean meal	0.0211	0.006	53	0.073

Table 9. Direct energy content and embodied resource content of common energy sources used in aquaculture.

		Direct energy	Embodied resource content
	Unit	content (GJ)	Land (ha)	Freshwater (m^3)	Energy (GJ)
Electricity^a	kW·hr	0.0036	1.6 × 10^−6	0.008	0.00539
Diesel fuel^b	L	0.0387	NF	0.0003	0.00701
Gasoline^c	L	0.0349	NF	0.0004	0.0084
Liquid propane (LPG)^c	L	0.0261	NF	NF	0.0003

^aShapouri et al. (2002; Stevens (2017); Torcellini et al. (2003).

^bSun et al. (2018).

^chttp://www.iea.org/statistics/resources/manuals/. . . .

Table 10. System waste loads of carbon C_L, nitrogen (N_L), and phosphorus (P_L) from feed-based culture of 1-t harvest biomass of seven common aquaculture species at typical feed conversion ratios (FCR).

		Feed (%)^b			Biomass (%)^c			System waste load (kg/t biomass)
	FCR^a	C	N	P	C	N	P	CL	NL	PL
Carp	1.7	38.58	5.41	1.09	10.5	2.42	0.38	551	67.8	14.7
Ictalurid catfish	2.5	40.97	5.12	1.21	10.5	2.38	0.68	919	104.2	27.1
Tilapia	1.7	39.16	5.14	1.19	10.9	2.22	0.70	557	65.2	13.7
Pangasius	1.5	36.37	4.50	1.45	11.0	2.34	0.59	436	44.1	15.8
Atlantic salmon	1.3	46.46	5.92	1.43	12.0	2.96	0.32	484	47.4	15.4
Rainbow trout	1.3	43.24	7.22	1.39	12.0	2.50	0.35	442	68.9	14.6
Whiteleg shrimp	1.6	39.28	5.62	1.09	11.7	2.86	0.40	512	61.3	10.2

^aIctalurid catfish estimated from US production and feed use in 2021 (Hanson 2022); others from Naylor et al. (2021).

^bChatvijitkul et al. (2018).

^cCarp (Sterne and George 2000); others (Boyd et al. 2007).

Table 11. Estimated carbonaceous, nitrogenous, and total biological oxygen demands (CBOD, NBOD, and BOD) and the aquatic acidification potentials (AAP) imposed by feeding for selected aquaculture species at typical feed conversion ratios (FCR).

Species	FCR	CBOD (kg O2/t)	NBOD (kg O2/t)	BOD (kg O2/t)	AAP (kg CaCO3/t)
Pangasius	1.5	1163	202	1365	315
Rainbow trout	1.3	1180	315	1495	492
Atlantic salmon	1.3	1292	216	1508	338
Whiteleg shrimp	1.6	1366	280	1646	438
Carp	1.7	1471	310	1781	484
Tilapia	1.7	1486	298	1784	466
Ictalurid catfish	2.5	2454	476	2930	745

Table 12. Means and standard deviations for discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus in pond effluent in China.

	Number of ponds		Discharge (kg/t biomass)
	Nitrogen	Phosphorus	Nitrogen	Phosphorus
Mariculture
Fish	9	13	8.1 ± 7.8	3.0 ± 1.2
Shrimp	7	7	35.7 ± 17.8	5.9 ± 3.6
Freshwater
Fish	17	13	20.4 ± 32.1	3.2 ± 4.0
Shrimp	5	6	25.2 ± 17.5	6.1 ± 5.2
Crab	5	5	88.4 ± 176	11.1 ± 24.5

Source: Zhang et al. (2015).

Table 13. Typical neutralizing values for selected liming materials used in aquaculture.^a

Liming material	Neutralizing value (kg CaCO3/kg)
Sodium bicarbonate	0.59
Agricultural limestone (calcitic)^b	1.00
Agricultural limestone (dolomitic)	1.09
Hydrated (slacked or builder’s) lime	1.35
Burnt (unslaked or quick) lime	1.79

^aThese are for the highest quality materials. Some vendors will have an exact analysis of the neutralizing values for specific liming products. Neutralizing value also may be given as a percentage (100 × values listed above).

^bPure calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) is used as the standard for assessing acid neutralizing capacities of specific liming material products.

Table 14. The atmospheric emissions as CO₂ and CO₂e from feeding on seven common aquaculture species.

	Direct CO2 (kg/t)		Embodied CO2e (kg/t)
Species	Feed	Alkalinity depletion	Feed	Liming materials	Total (CO2e/t)
Carp	2025	213	425	44	2707
Ictalurid catfish	3378	328	725	68	4499
Tilapia	2048	205	540	42	2835
Pangasius	1603	139	460	29	2231
Atlantic salmon	1779	149	1,302	31	3261
Rainbow trout	1625	216	1,334	45	3220
Whiteleg shrimp	1882	193	654	40	2769

Table 15. Direct carbon dioxide emission factors for selected aquaculture pond inputs and a general CO₂e factor for embodied emissions in production of inputs.

Item	CO2e	CO2
Electricity (kg CO2e/kW·hr)	0.647
Diesel fuel (kg CO2e/L)	2.763
Gasoline (kg CO2e/L)	2.329
Molasses (kg CO2/kg		0.73
Sugar (kg CO2/kg)		1.47
Liming materials (kg CO2/kg):
Agricultural limestone, calcitic (CaCO3)		0.44
Agricultural limestone, dolomitic (CaCO3·MgCO3)		0.48
Burnt lime (CaO)		0.78
Hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2]		0.60
Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)		0.54
Embodied in inputs (kg CO2e/GJ embodied energy/t harvest biomass	70.56

Table 16. Sulfur dioxide equivalence factors of acidic atmospheric emissions of electricity, diesel fuel, and gasoline.

Source	Factor
Electricity^a (g SO2e/kW·hr)	5.89 g SO2e/kW·hr
Diesel^b (g SO2e/L)	6.68 g SO2e/L
Gasoline^b (g SO2e/L)	5.48 g SO2e/L
General factor for embodied SO2e in inputs^b (g SO2e/GJ/t shrimp)	334 g SO2e/GJ/t shrimp

^aNugroho et al. (2022).

^bSee calculation details in the text.

Table 17. Atmospheric acidification potential (kg SO₂e/t biomass) related to feeding and replacement of depleted alkalinity in feed-based culture for seven aquacultural species.

	kg SO2e/t biomass
Species	Feed	Liming material	Total
Pangasius	2.18	0.14	2.32
Rainbow trout	6.31	0.21	6.52
Atlantic salmon	6.16	0.15	6.31
Whiteleg shrimp	3.09	0.19	3.28
Carp	2.04	0.21	2.22
Tilapia	2.56	0.20	2.76
Ictalurid catfish	3.43	0.32	3.75

Chatvijitkul S, Boyd CE, Davis DA, McNevin AA. 2017b. Embodied resources in fish and shrimp feeds. J World Aquacult Soc. 48(1):7–19. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12360.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boyd CE, McNevin AA. 2022. Overview of aquaculture feeds: global impacts of ingredient production, manufacturing, and use In Davis DA, editor. Feed and feeding practices in aquaculture. Cambridge (MA): Woodhead Publishing. p. 1–28.

 Google Scholar

Fréon P, Durand H, Avadí A, Huaranca S, Orozco Moreyra R. 2017. Life cycle assessment of three Peruvian fishmeal plants: towards a cleaner production. J Clean Prod. 145:50–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.036.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hilmarsdóttir GS, Ögmundarson Ó, Arason S, Gudjónsdóttir M. 2022. Identification of environmental hotspots in fishmeal and fish oil production towards the optimization of energy-related processes. J Clean Prod. 343:130880. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130880.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ramirez AD, Humphries AC, Woodgate SL, Wilkinson RG. 2012. Greenhouse gas life cycle assessment of products arising from the rendering of mammalian animal byproducts in the UK. Environ Sci Technol. 46(1):447–453. doi: 10.1021/es201983t.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Avadi A, Pelletier N, Aubin J, Ralite S, Núñez J, Fréon P. 2015. Comparative environmental performance of artisanal and commercial feed use in Peruvian freshwater aquaculture. Aquacult 435:52–66. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.08.001.

 Google Scholar

CPM—the Swedish Life Cycle Center. 1994. Production of linseed oil in Sweden. http://cpmdatabase.cpm.chalmers.se/Scripts/sheet.asp?Actid=cpmcth010-1998-06-11-871.

 Google Scholar

Dangol N, Shrestha DS, Duffied JA. 2015. Life cycle analysis and production potential of Camelina biodiesel in the Pacific Northwest. ASABE. 58:465–475. doi: 10.13031/trans.38.10771.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gokdogan O, Seydosoglu S, Kokten K, Bengu AS, Baran MF. 2017. Energy input-output analysis of guar (Cyanopsis tetragonoloba) and lupin (Lupinus albus L) production in Turkey. Legum Res. 40(3):526–531. doi: 10.18805/lr.v0i0.7017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guerin O. 2020. Energy efficiency in feed factories. Phileo by Lesaffre. https://phileo-lesaffre.com/en/energy-efficiency-in-feed-factories/.

 Google Scholar

Lie-Piang AL, Braconi J, Boom RM, van der Padt A. 2021. Less refined ingredients have lower environmental impact—a life cycle assessment of protein-rich ingredients from oil- and starch-bearing crops. J Clean Prod. 292:126046. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126046.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Our World in Data. 2020. Oil yield by crop type, world, 2019. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-yield-by-crop.

 Google Scholar

Ramar H, Llyas M, Shabbir G, Irshad G, Nisar F, Abbas SM, Ghias M, Arshad A. 2019. Flax: ancient to modern food. Pure Appl Biol. 8:2269–2276. doi: 10.19045/bspab.2019.80173.

 Google Scholar

Tripathi H, Chandel NS, Tripathi A, Mishra P. 2015. Energy use and economical analysis for pea production. Madras Agric. J. 102:196–200. https://researchgate.net/publication/301680653_Energy_Use_and_Economical_Analysis_for_Pea_Production_.

 Google Scholar

Yani M, Toruan DPML, Puspaningrum T, Sarfat MS, Indrawanto C. 2022. Life cycle assessment of coconut oil product. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 1063(1):012017. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1063/1/012017.

 Google Scholar

Aas TS, Åsgård T, Ytrestøyl T. 2022. Utilization of feed resources in the production of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in Norway: an update for 2020. Aquacult Rep. 26:101316. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101316.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boyd CE, McNevin AA. 2015. Aquaculture, resource use, and the environment. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Blackwell.

 Google Scholar

Shapouri H, Duffield JA, Wang N. 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. Agricultural Economic Report 814. Washington (DC): Office of Energy Policy and New Uses.

 Google Scholar

Stevens L. 2017. The footprints of energy: land use of U.S. electricity production. https://docs.wind-watch.org/US-footprints-Strata-2017.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Torcellini P, Long N, Judkoff R. 2003. Consumptive water use for U.S. power production. Golden (CO): National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33905.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Sun P, Elgowainy A, Wang M, Han J, Henderson RJ. 2018. Estimation of U.S. refinery water consumption and allocation to refinery products. Fuel. 221:542–557. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.07.089.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hanson T. 2022. US farm-raised catfish industry—2021 review and 2022 outlook. Farm Management, Extension Alabama A&M and Auburn University. https://www.aces.edu/blog/topics/farm-management/us-farm-raised-catfish-industry-2021-review-and-2022-outlook/.

 Google Scholar

Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Buschman AH, Bush SR, Cao L, Klinger DH, Little DC, Lubchenco J, Shumway S, Troell M. 2021. A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture. Nature 591(7851):551–563. doi: 10.1038/s415-86-021-03308-6.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chatvijitkul S, Boyd CE, Davis DA. 2018. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon concentrations in some common aquaculture feeds. J World Aquacult Soc. 49(3):477–483. doi: 10.1111/jwas.12443.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sterne RW, George NB. 2000. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus stoichiometry by cyprinid fishes. Ecol. 81(1):127–140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/177139. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0127:CNAPSO.2.0.CO;2]

 Google Scholar

Boyd CE, Tucker C, McNevin A, Bostick K, Clay J. 2007. Indicators of resource use efficiency and environmental performance in fish and crustacean aquaculture. Rev Fish Sci. 15(4):327–360. doi: 10.1080/10641260701624177.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang Y, Bleeker A, Liu J. 2015. Nutrient discharge from China’s aquaculture industry and associated environmental impacts. Environ Res Lett. 10(4):045002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/045002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar