Evaluation of environmental and economic implications of a cold‐weather aquaponic food production system using life cycle assessment and economic analysis

Bibliographic Data

ID19468340
AuthorsRamin Ghamkhar (0000-0002-0892-6209, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin‐Madison Madison USA), Christopher Hartleb (Department of Biology University of Wisconsin‐Stevens Point Stevens Point USA), Zack Rabas (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin‐Madison Madison USA), Andrea Hicks (0000-0002-6426-9717, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin‐Madison Madison USA, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume26
Issue3
Pages862-874
Publication date2022-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/jiec.13230
OpenAlexW4206662433
LanguageEN
References cited40

Aquaponics, in which fish and plants are grown in a symbiotic closed‐loop industrial metabolism, are promising test beds to implement industrial ecology in food production at a commercial scale. These systems have the potential to enhance the environmental and economic performance of aquaculture systems by reducing the overall burden on natural ecosystems (i.e., reducing resource and emission‐based impacts per unit of food produced). To holistically evaluate the environmental and economic implications of aquaponics, specifically in a cold‐weather climate, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Economic Analysis (EA) were performed on a Midwestern United States aquaponic system, using data from 3 years of annual operation cycles with varying fish species production; tilapia, conventional walleye, and hybrid walleye. For the LCA, environmental impacts were quantified using 10 midpoint indicators. Assessments indicated that 1‐kg production of live‐weight tilapia, conventional walleye, and hybrid walleye resulted in 20.2‐13.8‐11.7 kg CO 2 ‐eq, 23.0‐7.8‐3.9 g N‐eq, and 0.2‐0.3‐0.4 kg SO 2 ‐eq, consecutively, using the investigated system. The most sensitive parameters for environmental impacts were heat, aquafeed, electricity, and infrastructure (in all scenarios). For EA, benefit to cost ratios (BCRs) and three other widely used indices were analyzed for production cycles. The BCRs were 0.47, 1.16, and 1.75 for tilapia, conventional walleye, and hybrid walleye, respectively (using a 10% discount rate and a 20‐year horizon), highlighting the necessity of optimizing both cash inflows (e.g., energy costs) and outflows (plant and fish revenues) to achieve practical enhancement of return on investments. The major cost contributors were infrastructure, labor, and heat (contributing to >89% of total costs for all cycles). Suggested steps for in‐effect improvement of the investigated aquaponic system's environmental and economic favorability include heat and infrastructure optimization by (a) applying effective heating strategies (e.g., advanced insulation techniques), and (b) expanding the system's operational lifespan (e.g., prevention of waste accumulation)

Aquaculture · Aquaponics · Biology · Business · Economics · Environmental impact assessment · Fish · Fishery · Life-cycle assessment · Tilapia · Environmental Science · Innovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems · Solar-Powered Water Purification Methods · Water Quality Monitoring Technologies · Ecology