Quartz 5

Current status of industrialized aquaculture in China: a review

Properties1
tagsmeta/type/narrative-review, meta/region/china

16 min read

Current status of industrialized aquaculture in China: a review

Metadata

  • Cite key: chenCurrentStatusIndustrialized2023
  • Item type: Journal Article
  • Authors: W. Chen, S. Gao
  • Affiliation: College of Animal Science and Technology, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471000, China
  • Journal: Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30 (2023) 32278-32287
  • Date: 02/2023 (Received 31 August 2022; Accepted 24 January 2023; published online 3 February 2023)
  • Date added: 2024-12-26
  • DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-25601-9
  • Funding: Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Henan University of Science and Technology (13480088; 13480087)
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25601-9
  • PDF: Chen and Gao - 2023 - Current status of industrialized aquaculture in Ch.pdf

Opinion

A useful sector-level orientation piece for China’s land-based aquaculture industry, but only tangentially an aquaponics paper: aquaponics is one of three model categories the authors define (flowing water / RAS / aquaponics, Fig. 1), gets a short conceptual paragraph and one panel of a schematic figure, and then essentially disappears from the rest of the paper — none of the production, farming-area, provincial-distribution, or economic data that make up the bulk of the paper are broken out by model type, so there is no way to tell from this paper how much (if any) of China’s industrialized aquaculture is actually aquaponics rather than flowing-water or RAS. All of the quantitative “current status” content (production tonnage, farming area, provincial shares, cost structures) is drawn from government yearbooks (China Fishery Statistical Yearbook) and other authors’ economic studies, not from any original data collection or systematic search by Chen and Gao themselves — this is explicitly a narrative synthesis with no stated search strategy, database list, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. Useful as a citable source for China-specific industrialized-aquaculture background statistics and for the RAS-vs-aquaponics environmental rationale (N2O emissions, nutrient discharge) in an aquaponics review’s introduction, but it does not itself contain aquaponics performance data of any kind.

Abstract

Industrialized aquaculture is an essential trend for aquaculture development in China, owing to its considerable advantages in lower water consumption, higher productivity, and sustainability. However, information on its current status has been scarce up to now. This paper reviewed the current status and has identified existing problems as well as proposing possible solutions for the development of industrialized aquaculture in China. This field is still at an early stage of development and is mainly distributed in coastal regions. Major constraints on industrialized aquaculture include high capital and operational costs, the uncompetitive market price of aquatic products, uneven distribution of production and farming areas, a lack of suitably experienced managers and operators for recirculating aquaculture systems, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Possible solutions to these problems include technological innovations in systems optimization, the use of renewable energy sources and biofloc technology, the pollution-free certification of industrial aquaculture products, increased numbers of professionals in water quality control and waste management, and the financial assistance to companies and farmers along the aquaculture industrial chain.

Summary

Chen and Gao synthesize the current state of land-based (“industrialized”) aquaculture in China, drawing on China Fishery Statistical Yearbook data (2004-2022) and prior literature rather than any data the authors themselves collected. They first define industrialized aquaculture and compare it with traditional pond/cage culture, then describe three model types used in China (flowing water systems, recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), and aquaponics) and the farmed species typical of Chinese industrialized aquaculture versus Europe, North America, and Japan. Using national and provincial yearbook statistics, they trace production and farming-area growth from 2003 to 2021 (production rising from 1.2x10^5 to 6.8x10^5 tonnes; farming area from 3.3x10^7 to 9.6x10^7 m3) and show that the industry remains concentrated in a handful of coastal provinces (chiefly Shandong and Fujian), with flowing-water systems still dominating over RAS and aquaponics. The paper then lists five constraints on further growth — high capital/operating costs, uncompetitive market prices, uneven regional development, a shortage of trained RAS managers/operators, and COVID-19 disruption — and proposes corresponding solutions (cost-reducing technological innovation, renewable energy and biofloc technology, pollution-free certification, workforce training, and financial support). No original experiments, surveys, or new empirical measurements are reported; the paper is a statistics-driven narrative review with no stated systematic search method.

Review scope

  • Region / system covered: Land-based industrialized (indoor-tank) aquaculture in China, spanning three model types — flowing water systems, recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), and aquaponics — with national and provincial comparisons of freshwater vs. seawater production, 2003-2021 (2011-2021 for provincial breakdowns).
  • Argument: Industrialized aquaculture is an environmentally and economically advantageous alternative to traditional pond/cage culture and an important future direction for Chinese aquaculture, but its growth is still constrained by cost, market, regional-development, workforce, and pandemic-related problems that the authors argue are addressable with specific policy and technology interventions.
  • Evidence base: Government statistics (China Fishery Statistical Yearbook, FBMA 2021/2022) compiled and charted by the authors, plus secondary citation of other researchers’ economic and technical studies (e.g., Cang 2019 dissertation on turbot systems; Engle et al. 2020 on RAS cost structure; Zhao 2015 on turbot break-even price). No stated search strategy, database list, or inclusion/exclusion criteria — narrative-review per SCHEMA.md decision rule 4.
  • Typologies or frameworks introduced: Three-model classification of Chinese industrialized aquaculture (flowing water / RAS / aquaponics, Fig. 1); four-region comparison of farmed species (Europe / North America / Japan / China, Table 1); five-problem / five-solution framework for industry constraints.
  • Key figures cited: National industrialized aquaculture production 1.2x10^5 -> 6.8x10^5 tonnes, 2003-2021 (annual growth ~10.2%); farming area 3.3x10^7 -> 9.6x10^7 m3 (annual growth ~6.2%); industrialized share of total aquaculture production 0.4% (2003) -> 1.3% (2021); Shandong + Fujian = 57.1% of production / 54.4% of area (2021); RAS = only 6.72% of total industrialized-aquaculture area in four coastal provinces [secondary, cites Wang et al. 2013]; flowing-water share of turbot industrialized area = 97.9% [secondary, cites Cang 2019]; RAS feed conversion ratio 0.8-1.1 vs. conventional 1.3-1.7 [secondary, cites Ahmed and Turchini 2021; Naylor et al. 2021]; RAS energy use 2.9-81.5 kWh/kg fish [secondary, cites Badiola et al. 2018]; RAS capital costs = 23-57% of total costs for salmon/trout/tilapia RAS [secondary, cites Engle et al. 2020]; turbot break-even vs. market price = 42.9 vs. 38.0 RMB/kg [secondary, cites Zhao 2015].

Definition and models of industrialized aquaculture

This paper: Industrialized aquaculture is defined as land-based, indoor-tank farming using machinery/automation to control water quality and temperature, enabling continuous, non-seasonal, high-density production (FBMA 2021, as cited). Chinese industrialized aquaculture is classified into three models (Fig. 1): (A) flowing water systems (underground water source, wastewater discharged directly, no recycling), (B) RAS (fish tanks + physical filtration + biofiltration + UV disinfection + aeration, water recycled), and (C) aquaponics (fish tanks integrated with hydroponic tanks so that plants take up dissolved waste — CO2, NO3-, PO4(3-) — from the recirculating water while producing O2). Aquaponics is explicitly framed as a response to two RAS-specific environmental problems: N2O emissions from nitrification/denitrification (global warming potential >310x CO2, citing Hu et al. 2012) and the daily water exchange RAS needs to keep NO3- and PO4- from accumulating (citing Lekang 2013). Beyond this definitional paragraph and its one panel in Fig. 1, aquaponics is not mentioned again anywhere in the paper — none of the production, farming-area, or provincial statistics that follow are broken out by model type, so the paper cannot say what share (if any) of the reported industrialized-aquaculture figures is aquaponics specifically.

Compared with:

  • todo Ebeling and Timmons 2012 — cited for the claim that some industrialized systems (e.g., RAS) use 90-99% less water and <1% of the land area of conventional aquaculture. (Definition section)
  • todo Goddek et al. 2015 — cited alongside Love et al. 2014 for the aquaculture + hydroponics double-purpose framing of aquaponics. (Industrialized aquaculture models section)
  • todo Love et al. 2014 — international survey of aquaponics practitioners, cited for the same aquaponics framing. (Industrialized aquaculture models section)
  • todo Whitelaw 2004 — ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard proposed as a possible tool for controlling RAS environmental effects. (Industrialized aquaculture models section)

Farmed species by region

This paper: Table 1 contrasts species typical of industrialized aquaculture in Europe (Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, European eel, pike perch, Arctic char, sturgeon, Nile tilapia, European lobster), North America (mussels, Arctic char, rainbow trout, yellow perch, hybrid striped bass, tilapia), Japan (Japanese eel, pejerrey, Japanese flounder, kuruma shrimp, white shrimp, abalone, tilapia), and China (grouper, large yellow croaker, half-smooth tongue sole, giant river prawn, white shrimp, turbot, starry flounder, mud crab, eel, rainbow trout, abalone, sturgeon), with turbot and half-smooth tongue sole identified as the main species specifically in Chinese industrialized aquaculture [secondary, cites Wang et al. 2013]. All of this is a synthesis of cited literature (Table 1 reference column), not species the authors themselves studied.

Current status: production and farming area, 2003-2021

This paper: Using China Fishery Statistical Yearbook data, the authors report industrialized aquaculture production rising from 1.2x10^5 tonnes (2003) to 6.8x10^5 tonnes (2021) (~10.2%/yr), and farming area from 3.3x10^7 m3 to 9.6x10^7 m3 (~6.2%/yr) (Fig. 3); industrialized aquaculture’s share of total Chinese aquaculture production rose from 0.4% to 1.3% over the same period. Freshwater industrialized area grew from 2.4x10^7 to 5.5x10^7 m3 and seawater from 9.2x10^6 to 4.1x10^7 m3; freshwater production grew from 8.2x10^4 to 3.2x10^5 tonnes and seawater from 3.7x10^4 to 3.6x10^5 tonnes. Shandong and Fujian together accounted for 57.1% of 2021 production and 54.4% of 2021 area (Fig. 4). Provincial detail: for freshwater (Fig. 5), Fujian, Shandong, Hubei, Jiangxi and Anhui together made up 73.6% of production and 60.5% of area in 2021; Jiangxi grew from 0 to 20,721 t (6.4%) and Zhejiang fell from 79,671 t (48.4%) to 12,610 t (3.9%) between 2011-2021, while Fujian and Jiangsu rose steadily (34,194 -> 91,893 t and 15,564 -> 19,383 t respectively). For seawater (Fig. 6), Shandong, Liaoning, Fujian, Jiangsu and Hainan made up 88.9% of production and 79.2% of area in 2021; Shandong rose from 58,601 t (44.6%) to 177,037 t (49.8%), Liaoning fell from 30.9% to 13.8%, and Fujian/Hainan rose from 6.2%/1.9% to 12.4%/7.3%.

Compared with: none — this section is the authors’ own compilation/charting of national statistics, not a comparison against other primary studies.

Existing problems and possible solutions

This paper: Five constraints are identified, each with cited secondary evidence and a proposed solution: (1) high capital/operational costs — capital = 23-57% of total RAS costs for salmon/trout/tilapia [secondary, cites Engle et al. 2020], energy use 2.9-81.5 kWh/kg fish [secondary, cites Badiola et al. 2018]; solutions = low-cost technological innovation, renewable energy (geothermal/solar), biofloc technology (BFT) as a feed source; (2) uncompetitive market price — turbot break-even (42.9 RMB/kg) exceeded market price (38.0 RMB/kg) in one study [secondary, cites Zhao 2015]; solution = pollution-free certification and green-brand positioning; (3) early-stage, regionally uneven technology — flowing water = 97.9% of turbot industrialized area in one study [secondary, cites Cang 2019], ~half of Chinese provinces had <1,000 t freshwater industrialized production in 2020, Guangxi had only 569 t marine industrialized production; solution = funding to shift flowing-water systems toward RAS/aquaponics, tailored strategies for coastal vs. inland regions; (4) shortage of trained RAS managers/operators; solution = professional training in water quality/chemistry/waste management; (5) COVID-19 disruption — disrupted farm management, depressed fish prices/demand, caused product overstock and higher costs [secondary, cites Yuan et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2021; Chang et al. 2022]; solution = free legal advice and financial assistance along the aquaculture supply chain. Aquaponics is not mentioned in this section except implicitly as one of the “closed recirculating aquaculture and aquaponics” targets of problem (3)‘s recommended transformation away from flowing-water systems.

Compared with:

  • todo Engle et al. 2020 — cost-structure analysis of US pond/raceway/RAS aquaculture; source of the 23-57% capital-cost-share figure for salmon/trout/tilapia RAS. (Problems and solutions, cost section)
  • todo Badiola et al. 2018 — review of RAS energy use; source of the 2.9-81.5 kWh/kg figure. (Problems and solutions, cost section)
  • todo Mohammad et al. 2018 — economic feasibility of goldfish RAS; cited for market price as the most sensitive profitability parameter. (Problems and solutions, price section)
  • todo Zhao 2015 — dissertation comparing turbot RAS and flowing-water economics; source of the break-even vs. market price figures. (Problems and solutions, price section)
  • todo Cang 2019 — dissertation on turbot industry transformation; source of the 97.9% flowing-water area share. (Problems and solutions, uneven-development section)
  • todo Yuan et al. 2022 — COVID-19 impact on Chinese aquaculture and mitigation strategies. (Problems and solutions, COVID-19 section)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

  • todo Wang et al. (2013) — “Review of industrial recirculating aquaculture research at home and abroad”; source of the RAS = 6.72% of industrialized-aquaculture-area figure and the turbot/half-smooth tongue sole “main species” claim.
  • todo Hu et al. (2012) — N2O emissions from aquaculture; source of the >310x CO2 global-warming-potential figure used to motivate aquaponics as an alternative to RAS.
  • todo Engle, Kumar & van Senten (2020) — cost drivers and profitability of US pond/raceway/RAS aquaculture; source of the 23-57% capital-cost-share figure.
  • todo Badiola, Basurko, Piedrahita, Hundley & Mendiola (2018) — energy use in RAS, a review; source of the 2.9-81.5 kWh/kg figure.
  • todo Zhao (2015) — dissertation, turbot factory circulating-water vs. flowing-water economic comparison; source of the break-even/market-price figures.
  • todo Cang (2019) — dissertation, turbot farming industry transformation; source of the 97.9% flowing-water area share.
  • todo Yuan, Miao, Yuan, Dai, Yuan & Gong (2022) — COVID-19 impact on Chinese aquaculture and recommended mitigation strategies.

Extraction notes

Severity tally: 0 BLOCK, 0 MATERIAL, 0 CHECK, 1 MINOR -> quality: ok. No contradictions were found between the abstract, body text, and stated figures anywhere in the paper — all cross-checked percentages and growth-rate claims (e.g., 6.2%/yr farming-area growth from 3.3x10^7 to 9.6x10^7 m3 over 18 years; 10.2%/yr production growth from 1.2x10^5 to 6.8x10^5 tonnes; Shandong+Fujian = 57.1%/54.4%) recompute consistently with the underlying start/end values given in the text.

  • WARN-MINOR Fig. 4 pie-slice labels: the province-level percentage breakdowns for Fig. 4A (production) and Fig. 4B (area) were extracted from the PDF as a flat list of numbers and legend entries whose visual slice-to-label pairing could not be independently confirmed from the extracted text/figure alone (the legend order does not unambiguously map onto the printed percentage order for panel B). The two aggregate figures stated in the running text (Shandong+Fujian = 57.1% production, 54.4% area) are unambiguous and are the only Fig. 4 figures recorded above; no other paper value or CSV cell depends on the individual per-province pie slices, so this has no downstream effect and is not a true stated-differently contradiction (only one data source — the figure — exists for the individual slice values).
  • Not a contradiction, noted only: several “current status” statistics attributed in-text to specific other researchers’ dissertations or papers (Wang et al. 2013; Cang 2019; Zhao 2015; Engle et al. 2020; Badiola et al. 2018) are presented in the same paragraphs as this paper’s own yearbook-derived national statistics. All such borrowed figures are marked [secondary, cites Author Year] above per CLAUDE.md’s rule on secondary figures in review papers; they are not treated as this paper’s own measurements.

[not reported] / [unclear] fields: Not applicable in the trials.csv/plant.csv sense — this is a review with zero experimental fields to extract. Within the note itself, no field was left [unclear] beyond the Fig. 4 pie-label ambiguity noted above (WARN-MINOR, not a genuine unresolved contradiction).

Type classification, justified: narrative-review, not experiment/observational/case-study. The authors collected no new empirical data of their own (no fish, no plants, no water samples, no surveys) — all quantitative content is either (a) government production/area statistics from the China Fishery Statistical Yearbook, compiled and charted by the authors but not originating from their own experiments, or (b) figures and findings cited from other researchers’ economic/technical studies. Per SCHEMA.md decision rule 1 (“did the authors collect data themselves?”), this rules out any primary-research type regardless of how much quantitative material is presented. Per decision rule 4, the paper states no search string, database list, or inclusion/exclusion criteria anywhere (Introduction simply states “This paper reviews the current status… and summarizes the main issues”), which rules out systematic-review/scoping-review and defaults it to narrative-review. It is not policy: while the paper does propose solutions, these solutions are framed as a synthesis of the industry’s own stated needs rather than an argument for a specific policy course of action, and the paper’s title and structure (definition -> current status -> problems/solutions -> conclusion) match a status review more than a policy brief.

Aquaponics relevance, explicitly stated: This paper is about Chinese industrialized aquaculture in general, not aquaponics specifically. Aquaponics appears as one of three named model types (Fig. 1C) with a short definitional paragraph explaining its rationale relative to RAS (reduced N2O emissions and nutrient discharge), but zero quantitative data (production, area, cost, species) anywhere in the paper is attributed to aquaponics as distinct from flowing-water or RAS systems. No Meta/Fish/ or Meta/Plant/ tags were applied because no organism is studied experimentally by these authors; the many fish species named in Table 1 are discussed only as part of a literature-derived regional comparison, not organisms this paper investigated.

New tags introduced: Meta/Type/Narrative-Review (reused spelling as already used elsewhere in this vault, e.g. altawahaOptimizingNutrientAvailability2025, silvaAquiculturaManejoAproveitamento2013). Meta/Region/China (new leaf — no existing note in the committed vault tags a China-specific region; follows the existing hyphenated Title-Case convention seen in Meta/Region/North-America, Meta/Region/South-Asia, Meta/Region/Middle-East).

New wikilink targets introduced: [[Aquaponics reduces RAS nutrient discharge and N2O emissions by routing dissolved waste through a hydroponic plant component]], [[Industrialized aquaculture in China remains dominated by flowing-water systems rather than RAS or aquaponics]], [[Industrialized aquaculture production in China is highly concentrated in a small number of coastal provinces]] — checked against existing vault notes via search, no matching or near-duplicate claim notes found.

trials.csv / plant.csv: Both produced header-row only, zero data rows. This paper reports no original experiment, quasi-experiment, field-trial, or exploratory study — every quantitative figure is either government yearbook statistics or a citation of another paper’s finding — so per CLAUDE.md and SCHEMA.md, a review gets a note only and must never contribute rows built from its cited industry statistics.

Source: Chen and Gao - 2023 - Current status of industrialized aquaculture in Ch.pdf

Graph View

Backlinks