ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT

AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS BY USING LIFE CYCLE

ASSESSMENT (LCA): A CASE STUDY IN INDONESIA AND FRANCE
Rattanawan Tam Mungkung*, Joël Aubin, Hayo van der Werf, Triheru Prihadi, Souhila Amrouche,
Marc Legendre, and Jacques Slembrouk
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), UMR Sol-Agronomie Spatialisation, Rennes, France

Aquaculture is seen as a potential way to requirements and high oxygen demand of

compensate for declining productivity trout (Fig 2). The pond system of catfish
from marine fish capture. The required the highest energy, mainly due to
environmental issues associated with the larger amount of diesel use attached to
aquaculture production activities are being the use of dried fish from trawling (for use
discussed widely, the main question being in the local fish feed) as well as a higher
whether aquaculture is a more sustainable FCR (Food Conversion Ratio). The same
method of fish production. This factors also resulted in the highest impacts
emphasizes the need to identify more on potential climate change and
sustainable aquaculture production acidification. The highest amount of
systems. This study used Life Cycle organic and nutrient loading was found in
Assessment (LCA) as an environmental the cage system of carp and tilapia and
analytical tool to compare the thus had the highest eutrophication
environmental performances of different potential. The highest net primary
aquaculture production systems: a carp production use found in trout production is
(Cyprinus carpio) and tilapia the consequence of the multiple feed raw
(Oreochromis niloticus) cage system in ingredients used. This LCA study has
Indonesia; a pond system of catfish allowed us to compare different fish
(Pangasius hypophthalmus) in Indonesia; aquaculture production systems and to
and a trout (Onchorynchus mykiss) flow- identify improvement options for each of
through system in France. the systems studied.
Water

Based on the production cycle in 2007,

Land
Fingerlings Emissions to
Feed air, water
Hatchery
different aquaculture production sites were
Energy and soil
Chemicals
Infrastructure
Resources use for broodstock rearing
assessed regarding resource use, pollutants, Energy extraction and production

and waste emitted to the environment to Feed ingredients’ production

Water
Land
Fingerlings Emissions to

produce one tonne of fish. The resource Chemicals’ production Feed Farm air, water
Energy and soil
Infrastructure materials’ production Chemicals

use and emissions from raw material Fuel extraction and production
Infrastructure

extraction and processing, energy use for Water

energy resources extraction, and emission

Emissions to
Oxygen air, water
Vehicles Market
and soil
Fuel

to air from electricity production, including

transports in all stages, were also included Figure 1 The LCA’s system boundary
in the study (Fig 1). The environmental
impact indicators considered were: water
dependency (m3), energy requirement
%
(MJ), climate change potential (kg CO2-
eq.), acidification (kg SO2-eq.), 100
eutrophication potential (kg PO4-eq.), and
net primary production use (kg C) per
tonne of fish produced.
The results indicate the highest water 90
Figure 2 Comparative potential impacts from different
dependency and energy use for the flow- aquaculture systems, expressed per tonne of fish, as a
through system, due to the large water percentage of the system presenting the highest impact.

80
 Water
Land
Fingerlin
gs Emissions
Feed to
Energy Hatchery air, water
Chemical and soil
s
Infrastruc
Resources use for ture
broodstock rearing

Energy extraction and

production

Feed ingredients’ Water

production Land
Fingerlings Emissions
Feed to
Chemicals’ production Farm air, water
Energy
Chemicals and soil
Infrastructu
Infrastructure materials’ re
production

Fuel extraction and

production

Water Emissions
Oxygen to
Market air, water
Vehicles
Fuel and soil