Quartz 5

Aquicultura: manejo e aproveitamento de efluentes

Properties1
tagsmeta/type/narrative-review, meta/region/south-america

13 min read

Aquicultura: manejo e aproveitamento de efluentes

Metadata

  • Cite key: silvaAquiculturaManejoAproveitamento2013
  • Item type: Report (Embrapa “Documentos” technical bulletin series, no. 95)
  • Authors: M. Silva, M. Losekann, H. Hisano
  • Affiliation: Mariana Silveira Guerra Moura e Silva and Marcos Eliseu Losekann — Embrapa Meio Ambiente, Jaguariúna, SP; Hamilton Hisano — Embrapa Agropecuária Oeste, Dourados, MS
  • Journal: Documentos (Embrapa Meio Ambiente) 95 (2013), 39 p.
  • Date: 11/2013
  • Date added: [not reported]
  • DOI: no DOI found
  • Funding: [not reported]
  • URL: [not reported]
  • PDF: Aquicultura manejo e aproveitamento de efluentes..pdf

Opinion

This is an institutional technical bulletin (Embrapa “Documentos” series), not a peer-reviewed journal article, and it presents no original data collected by the three authors — every quantitative claim in the document is attributed to another cited work. It reads as a broad, well-organized primer on aquaculture effluent management (water quality basics, biofilters, constructed wetlands, recirculating aquaculture systems) that culminates in a short survey of aquaponics as one application of “natural treatment systems.” Useful as an entry point into the Brazilian constructed-wetlands/RAS literature and as a source of secondary aquaponics figures (Mariscal-Lagarda, Savidov, Morris, Trang & Brix, etc.), but every number in it must be traced back to its original source before being cited — this document should never be treated as a primary source for any aquaponics parameter. One of the co-authors (M.S.G.M. Silva) is also the author of a 2012 Unicamp doctoral thesis on wetland-based RAS for fish effluent cited within (SILVA, 2012), which is a related primary source not yet in this vault.

Abstract

No formal abstract is present in this document (confirmed via the table of contents on p. 5, which lists only numbered sections starting at “1. A aquicultura mundial e brasileira,” and via the body text on p. 6, which opens directly with Section 1 and no preceding abstract/resumo block).

In lieu of a verbatim abstract, here is a translation of the opening paragraph (p. 6), clearly marked as not a verbatim abstract:

[Not a verbatim abstract — translated opening paragraph, p. 6] “In the last fifty years, world aquaculture has grown expressively, with an average growth rate of 3.2% per year over 1961–2009 (FAO, 2012). According to FAO data, global production (inland and marine aquaculture) totaled 47.3 million tonnes in 2006; by 2011, fish production reached 63.6 million tonnes (FAO, 2012). Considering only national inland aquaculture, production increased significantly (40%) over the 2008–2010 triennium (BRASIL, 2012).”

Summary

This is a 39-page Embrapa “Documentos” technical bulletin (no. 95, November 2013) that surveys aquaculture wastewater management, written for a Brazilian producer/technical audience rather than as original research. It opens with global and Brazilian aquaculture production statistics and the environmental pressures of intensification (nutrient and organic-matter loading of effluents), then works through water-quality monitoring basics, natural treatment systems (biofilters, constructed wetlands — surface and subsurface flow, support-media characteristics), recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS/SRAP), and finally a dedicated section on aquaponics as an integrated treatment-and-production option. Every quantitative finding presented (removal efficiencies, water-use figures, growth results) is attributed to a specific external study rather than measured by the three authors themselves; the only original content is a labelled photograph (Figure 1) of an in-house experimental RAS/wetland system with Nile tilapia and Vetiver grass, for which no data are reported. It is useful as an orientation document and as a pointer to primary aquaponics studies (shrimp–tomato, tilapia–lettuce, tilapia–strawberry, tilapia–ornamental Canna) but contributes no extractable trial of its own.

Review scope

  • Region / system covered: Brazil (national policy/production context) with worldwide literature on constructed wetlands, RAS, and aquaponics
  • Argument: Aquaculture must adopt natural/low-cost effluent-treatment systems (biofilters, constructed wetlands, RAS, and aquaponics) to grow sustainably; aquaponics research is still incipient in Brazil and needs standardized coefficients (e.g., fish-biomass : plant-biomass ratios) before it can be offered as a turnkey production model to farmers
  • Evidence base: Secondary sources only — a narrative synthesis of Brazilian and international literature (theses, journal articles, government/FAO statistics, EPA and Metcalf & Eddy engineering manuals). No stated search strategy, database list, or inclusion criteria — hence classified narrative-review, not systematic-review
  • Typologies or frameworks introduced: A structured breakdown of “natural treatment systems” (fertirrigation / natural or constructed wetlands / aquaculture with plant or animal biomass production, i.e. aquaponics); a two-way classification of constructed wetlands as surface-flow vs subsurface-flow, each with its own operating trade-offs (p. 18–19)
  • Key figures cited: Aquaponic system reduced water use to 2.1 m³/kg (shrimp+tomato) vs 67–113 m³/kg for shrimp-only culture in Mexico [secondary, cites Mariscal-Lagarda et al. 2012]; RAS reduces water use to <100 L/kg fish vs several m³/kg in open systems [secondary, cites Verdegem et al. 2005]; closed aquaponic systems exchange only ~2% of water daily [secondary, cites Rakocy et al. 2006]; tilapia biomass increase of “23%, from 0.50 kg to 0.64 kg” in a Canadian aquaponics trial [secondary, cites Savidov 2005 — see Extraction notes, arithmetic does not match the stated percentage]

Aquaculture effluent context

This paper: Frames aquaculture effluent management as an environmental necessity: only 25–30% of dietary N and P is captured as fish/shrimp biomass, with the remainder settling in pond sediment or leaving in the effluent (p. 11, citing Casillas-Hernández et al. 2006). Phosphorus is highlighted as the hardest nutrient to remove in treatment systems (p. 10, citing Comeau et al. 2001).

Compared with:

Constructed wetlands / biofilters

This paper: Surveys constructed-wetland (CW) support-media choices and removal efficiencies drawn entirely from other studies: gravel/rock media of 13–76 mm most common (p. 18, citing Reed & Brown 1992); expanded clay outperforms gravel for ammonia, TSS and COD removal (p. 15, citing Albuquerque et al. 2010); gravel no. 2 (55–90 mm) with Eleocharis macrophyte gave 91–97% SS removal, 70–97% COD removal, 94–97% coliform removal (p. 15, citing Valentim 1999); subsurface-flow systems achieve on average 85% BOD and 90% TSS removal (p. 19, citing Zachritz II et al. 2008). All figures are secondary — this document reports none of them as its own measurements.

Compared with:

  • todo Valentim 1999 — gravel + Eleocharis constructed wetland for septic-tank effluent, Unicamp MSc thesis
  • todo Zachritz II et al. 2008 — submerged surface-flow CW for recirculating tilapia systems
  • todo Albuquerque et al. 2010 — horizontal subsurface-flow CW media comparison
  • todo Silva 2012 — recirculating system with constructed wetlands for fish-farm effluent (Vetiver + gravel + expanded clay biofilters); this is a Unicamp doctoral thesis by the same first author as this bulletin, likely a richer primary source than the bulletin itself

Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS / SRAP)

This paper: Describes RAS/SRAP as closed systems replacing ~5%/day of water lost to evaporation (p. 21, citing Crepaldi et al. 2006), with water use per kg fish falling from several m³ (open systems) to <100 L (RAS) (p. 22, citing Verdegem et al. 2005). Lists RAS advantages (water-quality control, reduced water exchange, 26–38% lower eutrophication potential than flow-through systems) and disadvantages (higher construction/operation cost, skilled labor requirement, 1.4–1.8x higher energy use) per Ozório et al. (2004) (p. 23–24). Cites Corso (2010) reporting 72.5% water savings for a tilapia RAS vs. a conventional non-recirculating system, with equal zootechnical performance (p. 25).

Compared with:

Aquaponics

This paper: Section 5 (p. 26–30) surveys aquaponics as an integrated production/treatment system. Notes historical system designs (channel systems, aquariums, fiberglass/concrete/plastic tanks — Sneed et al. 1975 through Rakocy et al. 1989) and describes the standard fish-tank → solids-removal → biofilter → hydroponic-subsystem → treatment-tank loop (Figure 2, adapted from Rakocy et al. 2006). Cites several primary aquaponics studies with their headline results (all secondary to this document):

  • Mariscal-Lagarda et al. (2012): shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) + tomato, water use 2.1 m³/kg product vs. 67–113 m³/kg for shrimp-only culture in Sonora, Mexico (p. 27)
  • Crivelenti et al. (2009): tilapia + lettuce, low fish mortality (2.7%) and improved lettuce quality via nitrate uptake (p. 27)
  • Sikawa & Yakupitiyage (2010): catfish effluent through sand filters gave 61% TSS reduction and good lettuce growth (p. 28)
  • Savidov (2005, for Canada’s Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans): tilapia + tomato/cucumber/basil; aquaponic plants outgrew hydroponic controls under non-limiting nutrient conditions; fish biomass rose “23%, from 0.50 kg to 0.64 kg” (p. 29) — see Extraction notes, this arithmetic does not check out
  • Morris et al. (2011): tilapia + strawberry, testing two fish densities; nitrate/Ca/phosphate/K were sufficient at 2 kg fish/m³ (p. 29)
  • Trang & Brix (2012): Canna glauca (ornamental) in a recirculating system, good growth and high N/ammonia/P removal (p. 29–30)

The section closes arguing that aquaponics research is still incipient in Brazil and that standard coefficients (e.g. a fish-biomass : plant-biomass ratio and system carrying capacity) are needed before the technology can be packaged for small/medium/large producers (p. 30).

Compared with:

Linked claims

Citations to chase

  • todo Mariscal-Lagarda et al. (2012) — shrimp + tomato aquaponics water-use figures (2.1 m³/kg vs 67–113 m³/kg)
  • todo Crivelenti et al. (2009) — tilapia + lettuce RAS/hydroponics, Brazilian primary study
  • todo Savidov (2005) — Alberta aquaponics vs hydroponics comparison; verify the 0.50→0.64 kg / “23%” biomass figure directly against the original report
  • todo Morris et al. (2011) — tilapia + strawberry, two fish densities, nutrient sufficiency thresholds
  • todo Trang & Brix (2012) — planted biofilters, Mekong Delta aquaponics-hydroponics
  • todo Sikawa & Yakupitiyage (2010) — catfish pond water for hydroponic lettuce
  • todo Corso (2010) — RAS vs. non-recirculating tilapia system, 72.5% water savings
  • todo Silva (2012) — Unicamp PhD thesis, RAS with constructed wetlands (Vetiver) for fish effluent, by this bulletin’s first author; likely a richer primary source
  • todo Valentim (1999) — gravel + Eleocharis constructed wetland removal efficiencies
  • todo Zachritz II et al. (2008) — submerged-flow CW for recirculating tilapia systems
  • todo Bitar et al. (2009) — constructed wetlands for fish-farm (“pesque-pague”) effluent, Brazil
  • todo Yang-Zhang et al. (2011) — integrated RAS with vertical/horizontal constructed wetlands

Extraction notes

Classification: No original data are collected by the three named authors anywhere in the 39-page document — every numeric result is attributed to a cited external study (theses, journal articles, government reports). The document has no stated search strategy, database list, or inclusion criteria, ruling out systematic-review. It is descriptive/synthetic rather than argumentative-for-a-specific-policy-action, so narrative-review was chosen over policy; it is also too long and thematically broad (5 major sections, ~80 references) to be a technical-note in the sense of a short descriptive report. Per the prime directive and SCHEMA.md Part 1, decision rule 1 (“did the authors collect data themselves? No → secondary or non-research”), this is classified narrative-review. Consequently, per SCHEMA.md and CLAUDE.md, it receives a note only — {citekey}.trials.csv and {citekey}.plant.csv contain header rows only, with zero data rows, to avoid double-counting the primary studies (Mariscal-Lagarda et al. 2012, Crivelenti et al. 2009, Savidov 2005, Morris et al. 2011, Trang & Brix 2012, etc.) it cites.

WARN-MINOR — ISSN inconsistency: Cover page (p. 1) prints “ISSN 1517-5111”; the title/verso page (p. 2) prints “ISSN 1516-4691” for the same “Documentos 95” series. Both appear in running headers on their respective pages. Does not affect any extracted field (this paper produces no trials.csv/plant.csv rows); recorded here only per the prime directive of never silently resolving a discrepancy. The verso-page CIP-cataloged ISSN (1516-4691) is used in the Metadata block above as it appears alongside the formal catalog entry.

WARN-MINOR — Section acronym mismatch: The table of contents (Sumário, p. 5) lists section 4.4 as “Sistemas de Recuperação de Água para Aquicultura (SRAP)” (“recovery”), but the section heading in the body text (p. 21) reads “Sistemas de Recirculação de Água para Aquicultura (SRAP)” (“recirculation”). “Recirculação” is used consistently throughout the body text of the section itself, so it is treated as the authors’ intended term; the ToC entry appears to be a typo. Does not affect any extracted field.

WARN-MINOR — Arithmetic mismatch in a secondary figure: p. 29 states, citing Savidov (2005): “foram obtidas maiores médias de biomassa (aumento de 23%, de 0,50 kg para 0,64 kg)” [fish biomass increased 23%, from 0.50 kg to 0.64 kg]. Recomputed check: (0.64 − 0.50) / 0.50 = 28%, not 23%. This is a secondary figure — the error could originate in this bulletin’s citation of Savidov (2005) or already be present in Savidov’s original report; this document does not allow distinguishing the two. Not resolved; flagged for verification against the Savidov (2005) primary source before citing either the 23% or 28% figure. Does not affect any trials.csv/plant.csv cell, as none exist for this paper.

[not reported] / [unclear] fields:

  • DOI — not present anywhere in the PDF (checked page 1, title/verso page 2, and CIP catalog block on p. 3); not found in zotero-export.csv either (both matching Zotero entries have an empty DOI field). Recorded as “no DOI found,” consistent with this being an institutional technical-report series (Embrapa “Documentos”), not a journal article.
  • Funding — [not reported]. No funding-acknowledgment section or statement appears anywhere in the document.
  • Date added (to Zotero) — [not reported] in the template sense (Zotero’s own “Date Added” field, 2026-07-13, reflects when it was added to this vault’s library, not a paper-internal date, so left [not reported] here per the metadata field’s intent).

Zotero cross-check: zotero-export.csv contains two duplicate entries for this exact title (keys LXFFZKTV and ESPQFVGF), both with empty Author/Year/DOI/Publication Title fields and Language: pt. Neither Zotero entry supplied usable metadata beyond confirming the title and language; all substantive metadata (authors, year, series, ISSN, affiliations) was taken from the PDF itself (title page, verso, CIP block, and author-bio page).

Figure with no extractable data: Figure 1 (p. 22) is a photograph of the authors’ own experimental RAS system (Nile tilapia + Vetiver/gravel/expanded-clay biofilters), credited to “Foto: Mariana Silveira Guerra Moura e Silva.” No measurements, growth data, or water-quality values are reported for this system anywhere in the text — it illustrates the SRAP concept only. Per the no-figure-values rule, nothing was extracted from it.

No original trial exists to define: there is no TRIAL DEFINITION note because no trials.csv row was created — see Classification above.

Source: Aquicultura manejo e aproveitamento de efluentes..pdf

Graph View

Backlinks