Advertisement

Aquaculture International

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 927–937 | Cite as

Potential of nutrient reutilisation in combined intensive–extensive pond systems

  • Dénes GálEmail author
  • Ferenc Pekár
  • Tünde Kosáros
  • Éva Kerepeczki
Article

Abstract

The experiments on the intensive–extensive system were carried out between 2008 and 2010 in three ponds (area 310 m2, depth 1 m) serving as extensive units, where cages were placed as an intensive units (volume 10 m3) one in each pond. In the intensive units, African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) was cultured and fed with pellet whilst common carp (Cyprinus carpio) was stocked in each extensive unit and raised without any artificial feeding. Three different setups of extensive ponds were tested: the additional artificial plastic substrate for periphyton development equalled to 0, 100 and 200 % of the pond surface area (PP0 %, PP100 % and PP200 %) at feed loading level of 1.2, 1.9 and 2.8 gN m−2 day−1 in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. The additional net fish yields in the extensive unit were 2.8–6.5 t ha−1 in PP0 %, 5.1–8.1 t ha−1 in PP100 % and 2.1–4.3 t ha−1 in PP200 %. The nitrogen recovery in the additional fish yields of extensive ponds, expressed as the percentage of feed load, was 5.6–6.1, 6.8–10 and 2.1–6.1 % in the treatments PP0 %, PP100 % and PP200 %, respectively. The combined fish production resulted in higher protein utilisation by 22–26 %; even this ratio can be increased by 33–45 % with periphyton application.

Keywords

Combined pond system Fishpond Integrated aquaculture Nutrient utilisation Periphyton Waste reusing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support for the research was provided by the SustainAqua EC-project and Ministry of Rural Development. This study was implemented under the Hungary-Romania Cross-Border Co-operation Programme and is part-financed by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, and the Republic of Hungary and Romania.

References

  1. Adamek Z, Gál D, Pilarczyk M (2009) Carp farming as a traditional type of pond aquaculture in Central Europe: prospects and weakneses in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Eur Aquac Soc Spec Pub 37:80–81Google Scholar
  2. Asaduzzaman M, Wahab MA, Verdegem MCJ, Huque S, Salam MA, Azim ME (2008) C/N ratio control and substrate addition for periphyton development jointly enhance freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii production in ponds. Aquaculture 280:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avnimelech Y, Weber B, Hepher B, Milstein A, Zorn M (1986) Studies in circulated fish ponds: organic matter recycling and nitrogen transformation. Aquac Fish Manag 17:231–242Google Scholar
  4. Azim ME (2001) The potential of periphyton-based aquaculture production systems. Dissertation, Wageningen University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Azim ME, Wahab MA, van Dam AA, Beveridge MCM, Huisman EA, Verdegem MCJ (2001) The potential of periphyton-based culture of two Indian major carps, rohu Labeo rohita (Hamilton) and gonia Labeo gonius (Linnaeus). Aquac Res 32:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bíró P (1995) Management of pond ecosystems and trophic webs. Aquaculture 129:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diab S, Kochba M, Mires D, Avnimelech Y (1992) Combined intensive-extensive (CIE) pond system A: inorganic nitrogen transformations. Aquaculture 101:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Füllner G, Gottschalk T, Pfeifer M (2007) Experiments for the production of hybrid striped bass in in-pond circulation system. Aquacult Int 15:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gál D, Szabó P, Pekár F, Váradi L (2003) Experiments on the nutrient removal and retention of a pond recirculation system. Hydrobiologia 506(1–3):767–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gál D, Kerepeczki É, Szabó P, Pekár F (2008) A survey on the environmental impact of pond aquaculture in Hungary. Eur Aquac Soc Spec Pub 37:230–231Google Scholar
  11. Kestemont P (1995) Different systems of carp production and their impacts on the environment. Aquaculture 129:347–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knösche R, Schreckenbach K, Pfeifer M, Weissenbach H (2000) Balances of phosphorus and nitrogen in carp ponds. Fish Manag Ecol 7:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kosáros T, Gál D, Pekár F, Lakatos G (2010) Effect of different treatments on the periphyton quantity and quality in experimental fishponds. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 40:363–366Google Scholar
  14. Kosáros T, Pekár F, Gál D, Lakatos G (2011) Periphyton utilisation in aquatic ecosystems: improvement of fish production and water treatment. Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldis Seria Stiintele Vietii (in press)Google Scholar
  15. McConnel WJ (1962) Productivity relations in carbon microcosm. Limnol Oceoanogr 7:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milstein A, Peretz Y, Harpaz S (2008) Periphyton as food in organic tilapia culture: comparison of periphyton growth on different substrates. Isr J Aquac-Bamidgeh 60(4):243–252Google Scholar
  17. Oláh J, Szabó P, Esteky AA, Nezami SA (1994) Nitrogen processing and retention on a Hungarian carp farms. J Appl Ichthyol 10:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scherz H, Senser F (1994) Food composition and nutrition tables. Medpharm Scientific Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. Schneider O, Sereti V, Eding EH, Vereth JAJ (2005) Analysis of nutrient flows in integrated intensive aquaculture systems. Aquac Eng 32:379–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wahab MA, Azim ME, Ali MH, Beveridge MCM, Khan S (1999) The potential of periphyton-based culture of the native major carp kalbaush, Labeo calbasu (Hamilton). Aquac Res 30:409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dénes Gál
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ferenc Pekár
    • 1
  • Tünde Kosáros
    • 1
  • Éva Kerepeczki
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and IrrigationSzarvasHungary

Personalised recommendations