Lifecycle Assessment of Aquaculture and Aquaponics Systems in Hawaii and How They Can Improve your Operation - Dr. Marty Matlock, Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability, University of Arkansas, from the 2017 NIAA Annual Conference, U.S. Animal Agriculture's Future Role In World Food Production - Obstacles & Opportunities, April 4 - 6, Columbus, OH, USA. More presentations at http://www.trufflemedia.com/agmedia/conference/2017_niaa_us_animal_ag_future_role_world_food_production

1. LCA of Aquaculture and
Aquaponics Systems in
Hawaii…
1
Marty Matlock, PhD, PE, BCEE
Executive Director, Arkansas Resilience Center
Professor , Biological and Agricultural Engineering
233 Engineering Hall
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR USA 72701
mmatlock@uark.edu
Columbus, OH
April 4, 2017

2. This project was made possible
by generous funding from the
2
State of Hawaii
Department of Agriculture

3. US Roundtable for
Sustainable Aquaculture
3
Top Priority Issues for Each Dimension of Sustainability
Economic Social Environmental
Consumer Value Farm Raised Risk of Disease
Marketing of US
Products
Consumer
Understanding
Sustainability of Feed
Sources
Cost of Production Product Quality Water Quality
Access to Capital Food Safety
Efficiency of Resource
Use
Government
Regulations
Affordability
Environmental
Regulations

4. Phases of a Life Cycle Assessment
Interpretation
Goal and Scope
Definition
Functional Unit
Reference Flows
Direct Applications:
• Process Improvement
• Product Assessment
• Policy Analysis
• Strategic Planning
• Risk Management
Inventory
Analysis
Impact
Assessment
Life Cycle Assessment Framework

5. 5
Functional Units
The Goal and Scope of the LCA will define the
purpose and boundaries of the project. The unit of
measure that is of concern or causes the impact is
the Functional Unit.
•Beverage packaging – liters of packaged drink
•Flooring material – square meters per year
•Greenhouse gas emissions from dairy – kg CO2E /
kg milk

6. Life Cycle Assessment:
Reconciling Functional Units
CO2
CH4
N2O
Green
House Gas
Potentials
21 g CO2-equiv. / g CH4
6

7. Life Cycle Assessment Allocation
7
By Mass?
=
+
+
Kg CO2e per kg

8. Life Cycle Assessment Allocation
8
By Mass?
= +
+
+
By Value?
Kg CO2e per kg

9. 9
• A common objective of a life cycle assessment is
comparison of environmental impacts of one
product instead of another (or the choice of a
specific product instead of refraining from this
product).
• The functional unit describes and quantifies those
properties of the product which must be present
for the studied substitution to take place.
Functional Units
From Weidema et al, 2004, R9

10. 10
Functional Units
From Weidema et al, 2004, R9
A reference flow is a quantified amount of product(s),
including product parts, necessary for a specific product
system to deliver the performance described by the
functional unit.
Reference flows translate the abstract functional unit into
specific product flows for each of the compared systems,
so that product alternatives are compared on an equivalent
basis, reflecting the actual consequences of the potential
product substitution.
Reference flows are the starting points for building the
necessary models of the product systems.

11. Unit Process
11

12. Reference Flows
Raw
Material
A
Raw
Material
B
Product
1
12

13. Raw
Material
A
Raw
Material
B
Product
1
Boundaries matter
13
Reference Flows

14. The Phases of this Comparative
Life Cycle Assessment
1.Goal and Scope
Definition
• Tilapia and Lettuce
Production
• Aquaponic System
(combined)
• Recirculating Systems
(separate)
2.Inventory Analysis
• Primary Hawaiian
Data
• Peer-reviewed
Literature
• Industry Data
14
3. Impact Assessment
• IPCC GWP Method
4.Interpretation
• Environmental and
economic tradeoffs
• Comparisons

15. Goal and Scope Definition
• Functional Unit
– 1 kg production
• 0.4 kg tilapia
• 0.6 kg lettuce
• System Boundaries
– Begin with lettuce seed and
tilapia fingerlings
– End at the farm gate
• Impact Categories
– GWP
– Water use
– Energy use
– Economics
15
Aquaponic System
One system producing both
tilapia and lettuce
Recirculating Systems
Two separate systems:
Lettuce – Hydroponic raft system
Tilapia – Recirculating aquaculture
system (RAS)

16. Hydroponic Raft System
System overview
• Annual lettuce production
• 100 Mt (540,000 heads of lettuce)
• 6 harvests per year
• System flush after each harvest
16
• 2 acre greenhouse
• Evaporative cooling system
• Artificial lighting supplement
• 2 hours per day
• 1,900 m3 system
• Continuous recirculation
• 10% of tank volume per hour
• Continuous aeration

17. Recirculating Aquaculture System
System overview
• Tilapia characteristics
• FCR: 1.5
• Mortality: 10%
• Annual production
• 64 tons live weight
• 2 harvests per year
17
• Outdoor covered production
• Continuous recirculation
• 5% system flush every 14 days
• Supplemental aeration
• 12 hours per day

18. Aquaponic System
System overview
• Aquaculture and hydroponic systems
combined
• Equivalent annual production
• 64 tons live weight tilapia
• 100 Mt (540,000 heads of lettuce)
18
• Alterations
• Reduced plant nutrient
inputs
• Fewer pumps required
• Systems share pumps

19. Operating Costs for Each System
Materials and Labor
19
Hydroponics Aquaculture Aquaponics
Water $ 1,113.10 $ 4,403.66 $ 2,229.39
Energy $ 15,776.05 $ 13,843.91 $ 10,937.65
Nutrient $ 12,806.46 $ - $ 4,773.24
Food $ - $ 35,589.71 $ 35,589.71
Labor $ 120,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 120,000.00
Growth Medium $ 14,340.00 $ - $ 14,340.00
Total $ 164,035.61 $ 103,837.28 $ 187,870.00

20. Operating Costs
Energy and Infrastructure
20
Hydroponics Aquaculture Aquaponics
Piping $ 14,620.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 11,250.00
Pumps $ 29,256.00 $ 29,256.00 $ 16,320.00
Infrastructure $ 871,200.00 $ 152,000.00 $ 1,023,200.00
Raft Beds $ 381,446.24 $ - $ 381,446.24
Tanks $ - $ 63,120.00 $ 63,120.00
Aerators $ - $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00
Biofilters $ - $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
Total $ 1,296,522.24 $ 264,776.00 $ 1,509,736.24

21. LCIA Results from production of
0.6 kg lettuce and 0.4 kg tilapia
21
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Water GHG Energy
Hydroponics and Aquaculture Aquaponics
Impact
category
Unit
Hydroponics
and
Aquaculture
Aquaponics
Water liters 174 112
GHG kg CO2e 3.71 2.53
Energy MJ 52.01 34.81

22. Interpretation of Results
• Global Warming Potential
– Electricity use was the major contributor in both systems
(~68%)
• Primarily pumps and fans
• Aquaponics system uses fewer pumps – decreased impact
– Transport and materials less with aquaponics
• Water
– Driven by direct uses in both systems (+80%)
• Fewer system flushes in aquaponics
• Energy
– Similar to GWP 22

23. Comparison with other studies
Type of Animal
GWP
(kg CO2e/kg LW)
Aquaculture1
Carp (RAS) 0.8
Tilapia 1.67
Salmon 3.4
Other Protein2
Beef 22.5
Pork 3.98
Chicken 3.1
1Davies, 2010
2Weidema, 2003
• Aquaculture in
general produces
animal-based
protein with fewer
GHG emissions
• Added benefit from
aquaponics
(shared resources)
23

24. Economic Results
Hydroponics Aquaculture Aquaponics
Hydroponics
+
Aquaculture
Capital Cost $1,044,226 $264,776 $1,509,736 $1,309,002
Operation Cost $299,391 $207,675 $347,060 $507,066
Gross Annual Profit $587,736 $246,400 $834,136 $834,136
10-Year-Cost $4,038,138 $2,341,522 $4,980,336 $6,379,660
10-Year-Net Profit $1,839,222 $122,478 $3,361,024 $1,961,700
25-Year-Cost $8,529,006 $5,456,640 $10,186,236 $13,985,647
25-Year-Net Profit $6,164,394 $703,360 $10,667,164 $6,867,753
24

25. Marty Matlock, Ph.D., P.E., C.S.E.
Professor and Executive Director,
Office for Sustainability
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
University of Arkansas
mmatlock@uark.edu
LCA of Four US
Architype Aquaculture
Systems

26. The Phases of this Comparative Life Cycle
Assessment
1. Goal and Scope
Definition
• Functional unit,
system boundaries,
impact categories
2. Inventory Analysis
• Peer-reviewed
Literature
• Industry Data
3. Impact Assessment
• IPCC GWP Method,
water, energy
4. Interpretation
• Environmental and
economic tradeoffs
26

27. Goal and Scope Definition
• Functional Unit
– 1 kg live weight fish
• System Boundaries
– Begin with fingerlings
– End at the farm gate
• Impact Categories
– GWP
– Water use
– Energy use
27
Systems Compared
– catfish
– red swamp crawfish
– rainbow trout
– tilapia

28. Catfish Production
System overview
• Catfish characteristics
• 0.77 kg harvest
weight
• FCR: 2.5
• Farm characteristics
• 12 man-made ponds
• Farm size: 7 ha
• Total volume:
1,000,000 m3
• Paddle wheels for
aeration
• Ponds emptied and
refilled every 7 years
• Annual production:
750,000 kg
28Image source: http://nicklykipkorir.blogspot.com/2014/05/fish-farming.html

29. Crawfish Production
System overview
• Crawfish characteristics
• 670 kg crawfish/ha/year
• Feed on decomposing
rice
• Farm characteristics
• Similar to rice
production
• Farm size: 49 ha
• Flood fields (~0.3 m)
• Drain and refill when DO
gets low
• Harvested with baited
traps
• Collected manually using
boats
• Annual production:
33,000 kg
29Image source: http://www.louisianasportsman.com/lpca/index.php?section=classifieds&event=view&action=single_ad&id=614471

30. Trout Production
System overview
• Trout characteristics
• 0.55 kg harvest
weight
• FCR: 1.4
• Farm characteristics
• Flow-through
raceway
• Side stream river,
utilizes gravity
• Use feed concentrate
• Animal byproducts, corn
and soy derivitives
• Annual production:
706,000 kg
30Image source: http://www.bandahome.com/Artic%20Lady/images/Cyprus/Photo%20Gallery/pages/Troodos-Trout-Farm.htm

31. Tilapia Production
System overview
• Tilapia
characteristics
• 0.55 kg harvest
weight
• FCR: 1.5
• Farm characteristics
• Recirculating
aquaculture system
• Indoor, climate-
controlled facility
• 12 individual tanks
• Use feed concentrate
• Animal byproducts, corn
and soy derivitives
• Annual production:
32,000 kg
31Image source: http://www.smallstarter.com/browse-ideas/agribusiness-and-food/tilapia-and-catfish-farming/

32. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Results
GHG Energy Water
(kg CO2e) (MJ) (m3)
Catfish 1.33 13.2 1.15
Crawfish 28.9 32.7 9.02
Trout 2.93 25.4 0.18
Tilapia 5.25 54.9 0.12
32

33. Largest Sources of Global
Warming Potential
33
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Feed Electricity Emissions Transport
GHG(kgCO2eFUˉ¹)
Catfish
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Electricity Fuel Fertilizer Seed Bait Emissions
GHG(kgCO2eFUˉ¹)
Crawfish
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Feed Transport Electricity Emissions Other
GHG(kgCO2eFUˉ¹)
Trout
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Feed Electricity Emissions Other
GHG(kgCO2eFUˉ¹)
Tilapia

34. Largest Sources of Energy Use
34
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Feed Electricity Emissions Transport
Energy(MJFUˉ¹)
Catfish
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
Electricity Fuel Fertilizer Seed Bait Emissions
Energy(MJFUˉ¹)
Crawfish
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Feed Transport Electricity Emissions Other
Energy(MJFUˉ¹)
Trout
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
Feed Electricity Emissions Other
Energy(MJFUˉ¹)
Tilapia

35. Largest Sources of Water Use
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Feed Drainage Evaporation Seepage
WaterUse(m³FUˉ¹)
Catfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Seed Flood Up DO Correction
WaterUse(m³FUˉ¹)
Crawfish
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.160
0.180
Fishmeal Bone Meat Soybean Meal Poultry Fat Corn Gluten
Meal
WaterUse(m³FUˉ¹)
Trout
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
System WaterSoybean Meal Wheat
Middlings
Corn Gluten
Meal
Poultry
Byproduct
WaterUse(m³FUˉ¹)
Tilapia

36. Conclusions
• Efficiency of integrated production of aquaculture
and hydroponics is driven by hydroponic value
• GWP was greatest in crawfish
• GWP for most aquaculture was less than 5.25 kg
CO2e per kg live wt, similar to pork and chicken
• Energy use for aquaculture species varies widely
based on production strategies
• Water use, energy use, and GWP benchmarks
for US aquaculture provides a foundation for
continuous improvement process.
36