IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i11p4927-d1665832.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological vs. Traditional Aquaculture: Carbon Footprint and Economic Performance of Integrated Fish– Euryale ferox Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Jiayin Ling

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Environmental Studies and Low-Carbon Agriculture in Peri-Urban Areas, Guangdong Technology and Equipment Research Center for Soil and Water Pollution Control, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing 526061, China)

  • Guozheng Li

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Environmental Studies and Low-Carbon Agriculture in Peri-Urban Areas, Guangdong Technology and Equipment Research Center for Soil and Water Pollution Control, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing 526061, China)

  • Guodong Yuan

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Environmental Studies and Low-Carbon Agriculture in Peri-Urban Areas, Guangdong Technology and Equipment Research Center for Soil and Water Pollution Control, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing 526061, China)

  • Liang Xiao

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Environmental Studies and Low-Carbon Agriculture in Peri-Urban Areas, Guangdong Technology and Equipment Research Center for Soil and Water Pollution Control, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing 526061, China)

  • Liwen Shao

    (Guangzhou Sub-Branch of Guangdong Ecological and Environmental Monitoring Center, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Yaoyang Chen

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Environmental Studies and Low-Carbon Agriculture in Peri-Urban Areas, Guangdong Technology and Equipment Research Center for Soil and Water Pollution Control, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing 526061, China)

  • Jianqiao Qin

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Environmental Studies and Low-Carbon Agriculture in Peri-Urban Areas, Guangdong Technology and Equipment Research Center for Soil and Water Pollution Control, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing 526061, China)

Abstract

This study examined the carbon footprints of freshwater fish farming and Euryale ferox seed (gorgon fruit) production, comparing integrated ecological mode and traditional farming practices based on ISO 14067 and PAS 2050 standards. The ecological mode achieved a 24% lower carbon footprint per unit product than traditional practices, driven by reduced material and energy use. Key emission sources included aeration electricity, feed, and wastewater treatment for fish farming, fertilizers, insecticides, and drainage energy for E. ferox planting. The integrated model combining high-density fish ponds and E. ferox pond reduced the overall carbon footprint ( Micropterus salmoides : 4.342 kg CO 2 -eq/kg; E. ferox seed: 0.208 kg CO 2 -eq/kg) compared to traditional practices ( Micropterus salmoides : 5.672 kg CO 2 -eq/kg; E. ferox seed: 0.297 kg CO 2 -eq/kg). It also lowered production costs, increased profits, and mitigated GHG emissions by using E. ferox and lotus ponds as treatment facilities and reducing fertilizer use. The ecological model showed lower unit costs and higher profits ( Micropterus salmoides : 4.01 RMB/kg vs. 2.46 RMB/kg; E. ferox seed: 2.53 RMB/kg vs. 1.93 RMB/kg) than those of the traditional mode. This study underscores the potential of ecologically integrated modes to mitigate water pollution and carbon emissions in agriculture, offering a sustainable solution to meet the rising demand for aquatic products.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiayin Ling & Guozheng Li & Guodong Yuan & Liang Xiao & Liwen Shao & Yaoyang Chen & Jianqiao Qin, 2025. "Ecological vs. Traditional Aquaculture: Carbon Footprint and Economic Performance of Integrated Fish– Euryale ferox Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4927-:d:1665832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4927/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4927/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4927-:d:1665832. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.