Author
Listed:
- Bianca de Oliveira Ramiro
(Estação Marinha de Aquacultura, Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande 96210-030, RS, Brazil)
- Wilson Wasielesky
(Estação Marinha de Aquacultura, Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande 96210-030, RS, Brazil)
- Otávio Augusto Lacerda Ferreira Pimentel
(Estação Marinha de Aquacultura, Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande 96210-030, RS, Brazil)
- Taozhu Sun
(Virginia Seafood Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton, VA 23669, USA)
- Ethan McAlhaney
(Virginia Seafood Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton, VA 23669, USA)
- Stephen Urick
(Virginia Seafood Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton, VA 23669, USA)
- Fernando H. Gonçalves
(Virginia Seafood Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton, VA 23669, USA)
- Jonathan van Senten
(Virginia Seafood Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton, VA 23669, USA)
- Michael H. Schwarz
(Virginia Seafood Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Hampton, VA 23669, USA)
- Dariano Krummenauer
(Estação Marinha de Aquacultura, Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande 96210-030, RS, Brazil)
Abstract
This study evaluated water quality, growth, and partial budget analysis (PBA) for Penaeus vannamei , comparing super-intensive Biofloc Technology (BFT) and Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). The 69-day trial used 100 L units with two treatments (RAS and BFT), each with three replicates. Shrimp were initially reared in a 30-day nursery to a weight of 0.10 ± 0.04 g and then stocked at 500 shrimp m −3 . Biofloc growth in BFT was promoted by maintaining a C:N ratio of 15:1, adding dextrose when total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) reached 1 mg L −1 . Probiotics (3 g m −3 ) were administered daily to both groups. TAN levels in BFT initially spiked but stabilized after 36 days. Vibrio abundance was initially higher in RAS, but by the end of the trial, it was higher in BFT. Final weight, weekly growth ratio, and yield were greater in BFT, whereas feed conversion ratio (FCR) and water use were higher in RAS. Survival rates were 83.33% in BFT and 88% in RAS. BFT achieved a superior net benefit/cost compared to RAS. Although RAS more effectively controlled nitrogenous compounds, BFT exhibited better growth performance, with higher final weights, lower FCR, and better Vibrio management. The partial budget analysis indicated an economic advantage for BFT, with a net positive benefit of $2270.09 when shifting from RAS to BFT due to lower operating costs and higher shrimp yield. Among these two sustainable production systems, BFT was more productive while utilizing less natural resources.
Suggested Citation
Bianca de Oliveira Ramiro & Wilson Wasielesky & Otávio Augusto Lacerda Ferreira Pimentel & Taozhu Sun & Ethan McAlhaney & Stephen Urick & Fernando H. Gonçalves & Jonathan van Senten & Michael H. Schwa, 2024.
"Assessment of Water Quality, Growth of Penaeus vannamei , and Partial Budget in Super-Intensive BFT and RAS: A Comparison Between Sustainable Aquaculture Systems,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-13, December.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11005-:d:1544300
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11005-:d:1544300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.