University of New England

DUNE: DigitalUNE

All Theses And Dissertations Theses and Dissertations

8-2021

The Waste Management Of Large-Scale Recirculating Aquaculture

Systems And Potential Value-Added Products From The Waste
Stream
Franco R. Pilone

Follow this and additional works at: https://dune.une.edu/theses

Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons

© 2021 Franco R. Pilone

The Waste Management of Large-scale Recirculating Aquaculture Systems
and Potential Value-added Products from the Waste Stream

Franco R. Pilone

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the

Professional Science Master’s Degree
in Ocean Food Systems
School of Marine & Environmental Programs
College of Arts and Sciences

University of New England

Advisors:

Zachary Miller-Hope, M.S. (University of New England)

Barry Costa-Pierce, Ph.D. (University of New England)
Michael Timmons, Ph.D., P.E. (Cornell University / Atlantic Pacific Jade, LLC)
This thesis has been examined and approved.

__________________________________________

Zachary Miller-Hope
Assistant Teaching Professor
School of Marine and Environmental Sciences
University of New England

__________________________________________

Dr. Barry Costa-Pierce

Henry L. & Grace Doherty Professor
School of Marine and Environmental Sciences
University of New England

__________________________________________

Dr. Michael B. Timmons

Professor Cornell University
Department of Biological and Environmental
Engineering
President Atlantic Pacific Jade LLC

8/6/2021
________________________
Date

1
© 2021 Franco R. Pilone

All Rights Reserved

2
Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the efforts of a variety of folks who have helped me along the way to
my completed thesis. Firstly, my primary advisor, Zach Miller-Hope. Zach was the first person I
talked to about this program while I was still in undergrad and being able to have him as my
primary adviser through this degree was special. I would like to give a special thanks to Dr. Barry
Costa-Pierce, the creator of this program, for his relentless support and his tremendous advice.
Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Michael Timmons. Dr. Timmons was very helpful towards
developing my understanding of recirculating aquaculture and the development of my project. I
would also like to thank Professor Tom Mclaughlin for his assistance in developing the methods
used for this research. Of course, I would like to acknowledge all of the interview participants and
researchers that provided the insight needed for this paper.

3
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
1. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................................... 6
2. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Global Food Demand .............................................................................................................................7
2.1.2 Aquaculture ...........................................................................................................................................9
2.2 CONTEMPORARY RECIRCULATING AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS (RAS)...................................................................................10
2.2.1 The Benefits of RAS ..............................................................................................................................14
2.2.2 Challenges associated with RAS ..........................................................................................................17
2.3 RAS WASTE .........................................................................................................................................................19
2.3.1 Waste Constituents..............................................................................................................................19
2.3.2 Solids....................................................................................................................................................20
2.3.3 Estuarine Discharge .............................................................................................................................20
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF RAS EFFLUENT .................................................................................................................21
2.4.1 Nutrient Loads .....................................................................................................................................21
2.4.2 Regulations ..........................................................................................................................................22
2.5 RAS FURTHER EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNIQUES ......................................................................................................23
3. METHODS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................... 26
3.1 META-ANALYSIS OF RAS FURTHER TREATMENT TACTICS ...............................................................................................27
3.2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................................................27
3.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................................28
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 RAS FURTHER TREATMENT META-ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................30
4.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................................34
4.2.1 Concerns of RAS ........................................................................................................................................36
4.2.2 Further Treatment.....................................................................................................................................38
4.2.3 Opportunities presented from the waste stream ......................................................................................40
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................... 43
5.1 CHALLENGES OF RAS WASTE MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................43
5.2 FURTHER TREATMENT OF RAS WASTE .......................................................................................................................44
5.3 VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS .......................................................................................................................................46
5.4 LARGE-SCALE RAS WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................47
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 48
7. IMPACT STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 50
8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 51
9. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................... 58
9.1 APPENDIX 1 LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ..........................................................................58
9.2 APPENDIX 2 IRB APPROVAL – NON-HUMAN RESEARCH DESIGNATION .............................................................................61
9.3 APPENDIX 3 CONSENT FORM ...................................................................................................................................64

4
Abstract

Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) is an emerging technology that is capturing the

attention of many in aquaculture due to its ability to produce high-quality seafood using sustainable
models. This study explored the waste management of RAS, specifically further treatment
technologies, and the potential value-added products from the RAS waste stream that can be
reused. Advanced, tertiary, or down-stream treatment technologies available for RAS were
investigated through a literature review. Utilizing the constant comparative method and semi-
structured interviews with stakeholders in RAS, opinions and attitudes were collected about
advanced treatment of RAS waste and reuse opportunities presented from value-added products
generated from the waste stream. Collected data provided insight on the current state of waste
management of RAS and how RAS waste management may develop over time.

This study confirmed that all RAS users intend to expand their waste management methods to
incorporate reutilization of waste, whether by assimilating nutrients back into their respective
system or by producing value-added products for other markets. RAS waste is a resource, holds
economic value, and will be reutilized. Enhanced RAS waste management must be cost effective
to the farmer or publicly subsidized if the public demands the result. The motivations behind
further reuse of generated waste, typically, stems from the scale of the farm. Large-scale RAS will
reutilize their waste in an effort to reduce costs of getting rid of the waste, whereas smaller scale
farms will reutilize their waste to reincorporate valuable resources back into the farm. The major
recommendation from this study is for RAS farms to work directly with agricultural and energy
management groups to develop efficient waste management strategies and utilize useful synergies.
With better defined best practices and increased co-management between aquaculture, energy, and
agriculture, RAS will continue to increase its contribution to the seafood supply chain.

5
1. Project Objectives and Significance
Global systems and the global population continue to grow at an immense rate, bringing concern
to the future of food and the possibility of sustainably feeding humanity up to 2050 and on (FAO,
2018). Uncertainty towards the future of food revolves around not only the growing global
population, but also the challenges associated with climate change, technological progress, loss of
global agricultural land due to pollution and erosion, high resource demands of terrestrial based
foods, freshwater availability, and many other factors (FAO, 2018; Costa-Pierce, 2016; Godfray
et al., 2010). Thus, new developments with goals to meet future food demand are constantly being
explored for their potential to meet increasing demand. One such growing development is finfish
aquaculture, specifically, large-scale Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). Aquaculture is
an essential growing industry that will help ensure the success of global access to seafood and
animal-based protein (Stevens et al., 2018). RAS offers a promise of sustainable food production
for a growing world, but it comes with a variety of concerns including high-capital costs, high
energy demand, high water demand, and, the emphasis of this paper, the challenges associated
with waste management (Dalsgaard et al., 2012).

Anthropogenic nutrient pollution and a changing climate are threatening not only the health of
coastal environments, but also the fisheries and people that live within and depend on them.
Proposed commercial RAS farms in the United States will create a lot of upside towards seafood
production and sustainable animal protein production, but they will need to strongly consider their
environmental stewardship. There are many social factors that may block the development of
large-scale RAS, such as community resistance, foreign ownership, competitive international
markets, and more. However, this paper will primarily focus, with a sociotechnical lens, on the
waste of RAS, its potential environmental impact, and possible value-added products produced
from the RAS waste stream that can be invested back into the RAS or into other markets. This
project seeks to explore the treatment methods of RAS wastewater. Through interviews with
current and developing RAS facilities throughout the United States, fishery consultants, and
interested aquaculture and environmentally focused academics, this project aims to form a review
of applicable waste treatment methods for RAS, explore the reusability of what is typically
considered waste, and consider the factors that make the young, but promising, industry of RAS
sustainable.

6
2. Background

2.1 Introduction

This background will go over a variety of transdisciplinary topics in order to best comprehend and
display the importance of sustainable food systems and the emergence of large-scale Recirculating
Aquaculture Systems (RAS). Beginning with a brief description of global food demand and
sustainability to frame the drive for this project, the background will introduce RAS, its benefits,
its risks, the waste derived from RAS, and introduce some of the concepts used for RAS further
treatment.

RAS is a sustainable food system that can provide increased amounts of animal protein to a
growing population, while decreasing the overwhelming demand on wild-caught fisheries.
However, aquaculture and large-scale RAS should not be framed as the sole solution to sustainably
feeding the global population. Given its high energy and water demand, RAS is not an end-all
solution. Rather, RAS is a new technology that allows for the intensification of aquaculture and
allows for the diversification of food systems that can lead to an increase in the resilience of the
global food supply (Troell et al., 2014). With proper environmental stewardship and governmental
support, RAS can become a significant contributor to the global food supply.

2.1.1 Global Food Demand

The world population is projected to grow by 15% in just 30 years. At the time of this paper (2021),
the global population is estimated to be 7.8 billion, and the projections of the global population for
2050 is estimated to exceed 9 billion (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020; FAO, 2018). This projected
increase will require a significantly larger demand on current food systems; some studies suggest
that the world will require 70-100% more food than what is currently produced (Godfray, 2010).
Increasing global population is not the only driver of food demand. A significant driver of future
food demand is economic growth and increased development, which often translates into more
income spent on food (Valin et al., 2014; Valin, 2019). Increased income spent on food often
renders increased consumption of animal-based products and increased amounts of wasted food
(United Nations, 2019). Future food production is a legitimate and threating issue to not only the
global population, but it is also threating to the environment. Non-sustainable food systems are
achieved at the cost of environmental degradation and lead to a positive feedback loop of further
destruction of environmental resources as food systems grow to meet demand. This harmful
feedback loop is a major reason why sustainable systems are needed.

Food security is having the means, both economically and accessibility, to obtain food (USAID,
2020). It is an issue that is experienced all across the globe, even in wealthier nations. There have
been many recommendations suggested by world organizations and academics to help alleviate
the concerns towards food security. The most commonly agreed-upon solution is shifting food
diets to healthier and less resource-intensive foods, like a more plant-based diet (Valin, 2019; FAO,
2018; Davis et al., 2016; Godfray et al., 2010). This solution is well rationalized as animal products
account for 43-87% of one’s food-based environmental burden (Davis et al., 2016). In short,
growing animal products, specifically animal proteins, require much more resources than plant-
based products. However, being an environmentally conscious consumer is difficult. With food

7
deserts and a rising middle class that will be able to spend more on animal-based protein (Godfray
et al., 2010), it will be difficult to practice environmentally sustainable diets. It is notably important
to investigate emerging methods of food production that is cognizant of sustainability and of the
diverse food cultures of the world.

Sustainability is essential for developing food systems in order to become socially accepted and to
be successful and operate over time. Diminishing world resources call for the rise of sustainability-
minded food systems. Sustainability encompasses two major components: social and
environmental. Social sustainability involves factors like equal access to food and economic
impact. Environmental sustainability involves environmental stewardship of food production and
resource use. Both are equally important to the successful development of future food systems and
the operation of current food systems. While social and technical (environmental) factors have
historically been treated as sperate issues, it is critical to consider both in a holistic way to create
a truly sustainable future.

Jeffery C. Bridger and A.E. Luloff (1999) developed a set of five sustainability criteria that should
be considered during sustainable development. Though the criteria are designed for sustainable
development, it is a useful tool for accessing sustainability in general. The five factors are as
follows: increasing local economic diversity, self reliance, reduction in the use of energy and
careful management and recycling of waste products, protection and enhancement of biological
diversity and careful stewardship of natural resources, and social justice (Bridger & Luloff, 1999).
Increasing local economic diversity is ensuring that the system is contributing to the local
economy, in which it is placed, through job creation and material purchasing of local material
(Bridger & Luloff, 1999). Self reliance is met when the system creates a self-sufficient system,
meaning that production, maintenance, and market availability is at the local level, while still being
connected to larger economic entities (Bridger & Luloff, 1999). Reduction in the use of energy and
careful management and recycling of waste products is straight forward and is meant to ensure
that there is balance between the resources used and waste outputted (Bridger & Luloff, 1999).
Protection and enhancement of biological diversity and careful stewardship of natural resources
is also straight forward and is achieved through proper environmental stewardship that ensures the
system is not disrupting the existing ecosystem (Bridger & Luloff, 1999). The final criterion, social
justice, is the largest scoping criterion and is achieved when there is equitable access to the system
regardless of social and racial class (Bridger & Luloff, 1999). Social justice ensures there is
equitable inclusion of all stakeholders within the local community.

The Bridger and Luloff sustainability criteria encompass both social and environmental attributes.
Given the large disparity of food security throughout the world, even in affluent countries like the
United States, developing food systems need to ensure equitable access to fully address the social
sustainability criteria. With more demand of food, there has been a dramatic pressure forced upon
the oceans through increased agriculture use and wild-stock fishing. Coastal and terrestrial
dynamics are certainly linked together through rivers, streams, and ground water (Tilburg et al.,
2011). Increased food demands and its by-products are directly linked to ocean health. Therefore,
developing food systems also need to address the physical sustainability criteria along with social
in order to ensure that the environment and its resources are protected.

8
2.1.2 Aquaculture

One such method that meets many of the Bridger and Luloff criteria and will help contribute
towards developing more sustainable food systems is aquaculture (Kapetsky et al., 2013; Troell et
al., 2014; FAO, 2016; Belton et al. 2018). Aquaculture is defined by the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of fish,
shellfish, algae, and other organisms in all types of water environments (NOAA, 2019). It is a
method of food production that has a high capability to be produced in mass and in a sustainable
way due to its ability to be controlled by humans (Timmons et al., 2018; Troell et al., 2014).

The leaders at the forefront of aquaculture development believe that aquaculture is the most
probable and feasible solution to providing consistent amounts of seafood with its increasing
demand and shrinking wild-stock supply (Timmons et al., 2018). Aquaculture is an
environmentally safe source of high-quality food that is safe to eat, consistent, nutritious, and can
be reasonably priced (Timmons et al., 2018).

The practice of aquaculture dates back to 4000 B.C.E. in Europe and possibly later in other regions
(E.U.). Despite the long history of aquaculture, its methods continue to develop, modify, and grow.
Aquaculture methods are diverse and have taken many forms throughout history. What started
from trapping wild aquatic animals into lakes and ponds has shifted to methods such as stocking
large net pens in the oceans with fish and rearing a wide variety of species in large, on-land tanks.
Aquaculture has historically occurred in natural ponds but evolved to include man-made, artificial
ponds. Both natural and man-made ponds have the same principle: raise fish within a contained
area. However, the water in the ponds can accumulate fish waste and therefore have increased
levels of nutrients and suspended solids. Pond water can be released purposefully or during storm
events where the pond water may spill over and potentially lead to contamination of natural
waterways.

Another basic form of aquaculture is open-net pens that are found in open water, either in open
ocean or large lakes. A high density of fish is placed inside a net or cage that allow for free
exchange between the farm and the ocean/lake. Waste, disease, and parasites from the high-density
of fish may affect the surrounding environment. Some outside marine animals may harm the caged
fish, like sea lice or predation from native marine life. High nutrient loads are susceptible to occur
in the natural environment from the high density of fish feces and uneaten food that fall to the
ocean floor from the pens. Additionally, there may be fish escapes from the pens which may harm
native fish stocks if the escaped fish is not native to the environment or if the escaped fish is
contaminated with disease and parasites.

More technologically advanced forms of aquaculture include suspended aquaculture. Suspended

aquaculture is practiced for lower trophic species like shellfish and macroalgae. Suspended cages
and/or lines are attached to the ocean floor or pillars where they hang freely in the water. These
systems are usually practiced near-shore or in bays. The equipment does allow for free exchange
between the natural environment and the farmed species; however, shellfish and algae are filter
feeders, so they do not create any waste by-products. The cages and lines may impede and trap
wild marine life, but the equipment is usually built with a factor of safety to prevent from marine
life entanglement.

9
Some of the most technologically advanced forms of aquaculture include raceway and
recirculation aquaculture. They are both methods of aquaculture that allow for the most control of
the rearing system. Raceway aquaculture, also known as flow-through systems, is practiced in
flumes (Fornshell, 2019). The shallow flumes create a high-flow water environment from lakes,
springs, or ocean to rear finfish. Once the water flows through the system, it is treated and
discharged back into the environment. RAS relies on similar principals as flow-through
aquaculture, but, hence the name, the water is treated then recirculated back into the rearing tanks.
Recirculating aquaculture systems can be set up with larger circular tanks and placed in more
diverse areas than flow-through systems. Both of these systems can control the water quality, the
effluent quality, and ensure that no escapees may contaminate the wild stock. RAS is arguably the
most technologically advanced form of aquaculture.

2.2 Contemporary Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)

RAS is a method of aquaculture that recirculates 90% or more (see Table 1) of the water in the
system for the farming of fish or other aquatic species (Bregnballe, 2015). It is a farming strategy
that can produce large quantities of fish in a relatively small footprint and minimize the
environmental impacts compared to traditional methods of fishing and animal protein production
(Dalsgaard et al., 2013). In fact, RAS uses less than 1% of what conventional aquaculture uses to
produce a kg of fish (Timmons et al., 2018). RAS involves raising fish in large tanks, typically
indoors, where the water quality can be in complete control by the operators. Increased control of
the system allows for predictable and regular harvests in comparison to the seasonal wild-caught
fisheries. Other aquaculture methods that take place in the natural environment, such as pond or
cage aquaculture, are subject to environmental conditions including airborne and waterborne
pollutants which reduce the control and predictability of the system (Timmons et al., 2018). RAS
is a unique method of aquaculture that has an opportunity to be located in a variety of different
locations due to its small, on-land footprint, complete control of its entire environment including
its waste stream, and its limited vulnerability to the natural environment. For these reasons, RAS
meets many of the sustainability criteria discussed in the above section. RAS allows ample
opportunities for the careful stewardship of natural resources, for careful waste management, and
provides opportunities for waste recycling. The United States imports 62-65% of their seafood
(Gephart et al., 2019), and RAS offers an opportunity to increase sustainability as it would help
decrease the U.S. reliance on seafood imports, if adopted.

Another benefit of RAS is the systems are able to be customized to support an array of different
species, which creates varying and different systems across the industry. Adapted from Bregnballe
(2015), Table 1 compares the different levels of RAS based on their percentage of water able to
be recirculated. Recirculation is calculated by the following equation.

(internal recirculation flow/(internal recirculation flow + new water intake)) * 100

The limited amount of water use is one of the main benefits of RAS, from both an environmental
and sustainability perspective. Flow-through systems offer many of the same benefits of RAS like
increased control of effluent and increased biosecurity, but as seen in Table 1, flow-through
systems use a lot more water than low-level RAS. Water is becoming an increasingly scarce

10
resource. Food systems of the future will be required to adapt to utilizing methods that conserve
water more efficiently (Godfray et al., 2010) and RAS meets that criteria.

Table 1: Comparison of Different Intensity RAS

Type of System Consumption of Consumption of Consumption of Degree of
new water per new water per new water per recirculation at
kg fish produced cubic meter per day of total system volume
per year hour system water recycled one
volume time per hour
(m3) (m3/h) (%) (%)
Flow-through 30 1712 1028 0
RAS low level 3 171 103 95.9
RAS intensive 1 57 34 98.6
RAS super 0.3 17 6 99.6
intensive
*Calculations based on a theoretical example of a 500 tonnes/year system with a total water volume of 4000 m3,
where 3000 m3 is fish tank volume.
Bregnballe (2015)

An example of a RAS system, in its simplest form can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1 displays the
essential concepts and components of a recirculating system: filtration, disinfection, degassing,
and a biofilter. As the number of fish per unit of water increases in RAS, often referred to as
stocking density or intensification, system design and complexity increases proportionately. Figure
2 displays the flow of water through a RAS and a more specific look at actual components of
contemporary recirculating systems. Systems are designed based on the fish species being
cultured. Considerations like temperature of the water, marine or fresh water, fish type and density,
and more will all have impacts on what is included in the recirculation loop (Bregnballe, 2015;
Timmons et al., 2018). Some systems will also have more expansive waste collection and treatment
systems, depending on the size of the operation.

Figure 1 – A simple schematic of RAS that includes the main components of a recirculating system (Jones & Scott, 2019)

11
Figure 2 – A detailed flow diagram of a RAS displaying the direction of water flow and its respective flow percentages. Includes
a more detailed look at the different water treatment components available to RAS. (Good et al., 2017)

Complete water recirculation in RAS (100% recirculation) is an intensive process that requires
technological advances and includes high costs due to increased system use and maintenance, so
there is typically an effluent in large-scale RAS (Timmons et al., 2018). The recirculation portion
of the system is what makes RAS unique compared to other aquaculture systems, yet vulnerable
if not done so properly. The water recirculation system has the ability to control temperature,
salinity, pH, alkalinity, overall chemical composition, and dissolved oxygen (Timmons et al.,
2018). In order to maintain these parameters, RAS must contain operations like mechanical filters,
biological filters, denitrification methods, disinfection, pumps, gas transfer, heat and moisture
control, pH controllers, and more (Timmons et al., 2018; Summerfelt et al., 2001). Since RAS is
closed off to environmental factors completely, it is susceptible to any system malfunction. If an
operation like gas transfer were to fail, the dissolved oxygen parameter would not be able to be
controlled and would thus have an effect on the fish health.

RAS requires proper utilization of its feeds and water recirculation system. Table 2, modified from
Noble and Summerfelt (1996), offers a brief description of each individual recirculating water
treatment operation and its respective importance to the water quality and fish in the system.

12
 Table 2: Unit Processes used in Intensive Aquaculture systems and their effects on water
quality and fish health (adapted from Noble and Summerfelt 1996)
Component Component action and effect on Component’s effect on
Purpose water quality fish health
Culture Unit • Fish respiration reduces DO • Low pH and DO
To contain fish during and increases levels of CO2 may increase stress
the grow-out phase, and ammonia. Lowers pH levels of fish
allow fish to feed, and levels • Physical
flush waste • Solids introduced to water via interactions with
waste and extra feed other fish may
• High fish densities increase stress
Clarification • Some clarifiers store organic • High levels of
To remove solids solids which may promote solids and ammonia
through settling, anoxic conditions, lower DO, may promote fish
sieving, floatation, or support microbes, and leach disease
mechanical filtration nutrients
Biofiltration • Consumes DO and byproducts • Improved water
To provide surface can lower pH quality reduces fish
area where • Ammonia and nitrites may stress and boosts
microorganisms are pass through if bacteria health
established and work to population is not developed or • Biofilms may be
remove dissolved solids system is overloaded harmful to fish
• Biofilm may clog the system population
or pass through as solids to the
next stage
Stripping/Aeration • Adds oxygen to water • High CO2 levels
To contact water with • Removes CO2, N2 (g), O3 (g), may decrease water
air at near atmospheric and other gas supersaturations pH and cause fish
pressures side effects
Oxygenation • Used to create supersaturations • Increased DO can
To contact water with of oxygen support higher fish
purified oxygen at loadings
pressures equivalent or
greater than
atmospheric pressures
Ozonation • Reduces levels of nitrite, • Disinfection
To oxidize constituents bacteria, water color, odor, etc. reduces risk of
in the water disease and
improves overall
water quality

RAS, as seen in Table 2, is very intensive, yet offers great benefits to the water quality when all
of the system components are operating as they should be.

13
2.2.1 The Benefits of RAS

RAS has the capability to help meet the rising global demand for animal protein and to provide
increased accessibility of seafood. RAS provides many benefits compared to other forms of animal
protein production and even other forms of aquaculture. First, RAS is able to have a larger stocking
density than other large-scale aquaculture, like net pen aquaculture. Due to the ability of RAS to
accurately and consistently sustain optimal water quality parameters, the stocking densities are
able to be maintained higher for longer periods of time (Liu et al., 2016). Stocking densities of
RAS vary, but the ideal maximum density for Atlantic Salmon, for example, is 30 kg/m3 (Wang
et al., 2019). Net pen aquaculture stocking densities for Atlantic Salmon are held at lower densities
around 5.6 – 14.5 kg/m3 (Oppedal et al., 2011). Additionally, adverse effects on the fish were seen
in net pens at densities over 26.5 kg/m3 like fin erosion and skin lesions (Oppedal et al., 2011),
whereas stocking densities 30 kg/m3 and above had no effect on the salmon in RAS other than a
variance in growth time (Wang et al., 2019).

A major benefit of RAS is its control of its waste stream. Open net pen aquaculture is a high-risk
system due to the pen’s free exchange between the farmed species and the environment. This
allows the risk for high nutrient loads, fish escapees, and wild-stock fish contamination. The waste
produced from RAS is closed from the environment and allows ample opportunity to treat the
waste before any sort of discharge into the environment (Timmons et al., 2018). RAS offers the
opportunity for increased revenue through the capture and reutilization of its waste products, like
nitrogen and phosphorous (Adler et al., 2000). Waste treatment and value-added product
production from the waste stream of RAS are the emphasis of this paper.

RAS has the ability to very efficiently manage its inputs (water quality parameters) and its outputs
(waste stream). These specific controls allow RAS to oversee its biosecurity within the system.
Biosecurity in aquaculture is the means to reduce the risk of introducing infectious disease and
spreading it to the animals in a facility and also outside the facility to other natural-stock,
susceptible species (Yanong & Erlacher-Reid, 2012). RAS is a closed system meaning that
biosecurity is more easily attainable. There is little to no chances for fish escapees and the fish are
not exposed to natural environmental factors. Custom culture optimization in RAS enhances the
biosecurity of fish, which is often susceptible in outdoor aquaculture development (Bebak-
Williams et al., 2001).

While RAS does need a substantial quantity of start-up water for large-scale systems, its water
consumption is relatively small in comparison to other animal protein food systems. Figure 3
shows that the freshwater consumption of farmed fish requires the least amount of resources of
any terrestrially raised animal protein, such as beef, pork, and poultry (World Resources Institute,
2016). Reduced water and land use in RAS are important benefits in the current resource-scarce
world (Kristensen et al., 2009). When RAS operates at an 80-90% water reuse rate, it is estimated
that about 180 kg (400 pounds) of fish is harvested annually for 3.8 liters per minute water flow
(1 gallon per minute of water flow) (Timmons et al., 2018). RAS allows the ability of custom
culture optimization for fish, which helps sustain healthy populations of fish, allows for a
predictable harvest schedule, and limits extensive resource use (Summerfelt et al., 2001).

14
Figure 3 - A bar graph indicating the resource uses of animal and plant-based proteins. The figure shows the amount of land use,
freshwater consumption, and greenhouse gas emission per category of food. Farmed fish is the least resource-intensive form of
animal-based protein (World Resources Institute, 2016)

In addition to lowered water usage, RAS uses less feed inputs. Food conversion ratios of animal-
based proteins are important as they show the amount of feed input required to yield the product.
Below is an equation from USAID (2011) representing how a Food Conversion Ratio (FCR) is
calculated.

FCR = mass feed / mass product

A lower FCR means that less feed was required to produce the end product. FCR for fish, raised
in aquaculture, are lower than the other major animal-based proteins like beef and poultry, as seen
in Figure 4 from Fry et al. (2018). Though, FCR is calculated using the wet weight of the two

15
masses. The feed is usually 5% water and fish are about 80% water (Timmons et al.,2018).
Increased fish production from RAS will supply more animal-based proteins using less resources.

Figure 4 - Feed Conversion Ratios for a variety of different aquaculture species compared to Chicken, Pig, and Beef. The FCR for
the aquaculture species can be seen to be lower meaning that it takes less feed to produce the same weight of fish versus terrestrial
chicken, pig, and beef.

More seafood needs to be sold for RAS to profit and develop further. Seafood markets are more
underdeveloped than other animal proteins, like beef and chicken. Seafood accounts for only 7%
of animal protein consumed per capital in the U.S. (USDA, 2019). However, the supply chain of
salmon has potential to grow and assist RAS in fulfilling the rising demand of seafood. Many of
the current and developing RAS systems are anticipating on raising Atlantic salmon or some other
form of Salmonid like rainbow trout (Badiola et al., 2018; Dalsgaard et al., 2013). Future RAS
will likely rear these types of fish due to its popularity in the U.S. compared to other fish and, more
importantly, because of its existing developed and sophisticated supply chain (Anderson, 2002;
Asche et al., 2018). Asche et al. (2018) considers that salmon is the most efficient seafood supply
chain in the world. Salmon is becoming a fish that was once a limited luxury product towards a
more available product to most consumers (Asche et al., 2018). Salmon production is on a similar
trend to that of chicken, though lacks behind mainly due to the lack of added value. Chicken has
many highly processed variants which allow for increased market capability and use of the whole
chicken. Salmon is the closest seafood to becoming an industry as efficient as the chicken industry
(Asche et al., 2018). The development of RAS focused on rearing salmon, along with additional
processed forms that use more of the product, may significantly help grow the salmon industry.

16
2.2.2 Challenges associated with RAS

RAS has great potential to sustainably increase seafood production due to its reduced water use,
high quality control, and location diversity among many other factors. Based on the sustainability
factors listed previously, RAS can increase self-reliance on seafood production in the U.S., can
carefully manage natural resource inputs, i.e. water, and has ample opportunities to recycle its
waste. However, there are some improvements needed in order for RAS to consistently produce
fish while minimizing environmental hazards and competing in a competitive U.S. market.
Challenges of RAS can include economic, social, and technological barriers.

Economic

The main economic challenge for RAS is high capital costs. High capital costs remain one of the
biggest challenges of large-scale RAS development (Dalsgaard et al., 2013). Although RAS works
more efficiently as a business at large-scale than at small-scale, scaling up RAS to a large
commercial scale is expensive and requires large investments initially to afford upgraded
equipment, additional system inputs, and upgraded permits. In comparison to open net pens, the
capital costs for a RAS system designed to rear Atlantic Salmon are nearly 80% more expensive
(Liu et al., 2016). However, the operational costs of RAS were found to be similar to that of open
net pens. Liu et al. (2016) found that it costs about $4.37 USD to produce 1 kg salmon in RAS
systems and $4.30 USD to produce 1 kg salmon in open net pens. Decreasing the initial capital
costs of RAS would help benefit the sustainability of the industry as it would help boost longevity
of RAS companies. Many RAS companies have gone bankrupt within the first few years of
production due to the high capital costs inhibiting revenue and overall poor management (Cherry
& Mutter, 2019).

Social

Social challenges for RAS include efficient marketing in a competitive market of animal proteins
and negative public perception. The future development of RAS is heavily impacted by the demand
of fish; thus, the success of RAS is subject to consumer choice. Beef consumption per capita has
been decreasing in the United states since the 1990s (USDA, 2019). However, animal protein
consumption is still increasing (Godfray et al., 2010). Seafood must be marketed at prices similar
to or less than that of other competing animal proteins, like chicken or pork (Timmons et al., 2018).
Becoming a more competitive source of animal protein entails lowering market prices by scaling
up seafood production and increased marketing. Large, commercial operations of RAS are needed
in order to supply large quantities of finfish at a more reasonable cost by lowering the cost of
production per fish (Timmons et al., 2018). Marketing farmed fish is also a challenge as more
seafood consumers prefer wild-caught seafood over farm-raised (Brayden et al., 2018). Seafood
marketing contains a variety of different sorts of certifications, which can create complexity among
the consumers, turning them away from seafood in general (Brayden et al., 2018). In order for
RAS-raised finfish to become a more sought-after fish, a clearer marketing strategy is needed with
increased education of the consumer. Given the state of the ocean and current trends in fisheries,
RAS is poised to meet the increased demands for animal proteins, more sustainably than other
terrestrially based animal protein producers.

17
Aquaculture is a practice that may be viewed in a negative reference by the public, especially in
the United States, and RAS is often included in that view. Coastal areas are often designated for
and used for a variety of commercial and recreational purposes, which often brings about conflict
among aquaculture projects (Browdy & Hargreaves, 2009). Aquaculture can be seen as an “eye
sore” by the public. A growing population also brings large amounts of development; the coastline
is highly sought after and is a competitive ground for developing new structures. RAS development
is most certainly being pushed against given its on-land footprint in competitive coastal towns. In
addition to some public rejection given to RAS due to competition of land use, RAS needs to
develop more efficient sustainability metrics (Browdy & Hargreaves, 2009). Historically, there
has been major failures with aquaculture, in particular, open net pens. These incidents of nutrient
pollution cause hypoxia events and major fish escapes have given aquaculture a negative
connotation, and RAS is often lumped together with these problems. RAS needs to be able to
differentiate themselves from open net pen aquaculture through educating consumers of the
practice.

Technological

RAS requires a lot of attention and maintenance in order to operate at ideal conditions. Some
technological challenges of RAS include strategic site locations, energy efficiency, and better
controlled environmental pollution. RAS is often argued to have the flexibility to be set up
anywhere (Hilfrich & Libey, n.d.). However, RAS is burdened with the need of a large water
supply, especially at the commercial scale, which restricts it to only a few applicable site locations.
Timmons et al. (2018) state that the first critical step of developing RAS is proper site selection
with adequate water supply. When RAS is located in sites with an abundance of water, that is
affordable, then RAS can operate as it should. Not only does RAS need an abundance of water, it
needs an abundance of clean water (Timmons et al., 2018). Water quality of the intake is an
important consideration in the site selection. Water can be taken from municipal sources, surface
waters, or from the groundwater supply through wells. The water intake will likely need to be
treated no matter the intake. Municipal sources often contain chlorine residuals which can induce
stress on the fish, surface waters often contain forms of bacteria, and ground water sources are
often low in dissolved oxygen and may contain toxic substances like hydrogen sulfide and high
levels of carbon dioxide (Timmins et al., 2018). Strategic site selection can greatly benefit RAS.

Water is the most important resource input for RAS, but the next most important resource is energy
(d’Orbcastel et al., 2009). RAS is very intensive and requires a lot of energy to allow all of the
recirculation and treatment operations to work as designed. High energy demands increase
operational costs and increases the potential environmental impacts through the use of fossil fuels
(Badiola et al., 2018). More efficient uses of energy and site locations where energy is cheap would
benefit RAS. According to a review on energy use in RAS, Badiola et al. (2018) found that fossil
fuels are less cost-effective than renewable energies, energy is a small concern by the majority of
the RAS industry, and renewable energy technologies have future potential in RAS. The
implementation of renewable energy systems in RAS can help increase the environmental
sustainability of RAS and lower operational costs, regardless of the RAS design and management.

The recirculation aspect of RAS reduces the amount of water that is discharged, but there are still
waste constituents in the water. There is some public concern that RAS discharge will affect natural

18
and receiving waters (PETA, n.d., Undercurrent News, 2019). This rationale stems from historical
pollution events from other aquaculture methods. Typical aquaculture systems, like open net pens
and flow-through systems, have historically polluted water ways by releasing untreated water
containing suspended solids and dissolved organics. Unlike many other forms of aquaculture, RAS
includes water treatment operations that help diminish the volume and the eutrophication potential
of effluents (Ramírez-Godínes et al., 2013).

While RAS pollutes significantly less than other forms of aquaculture, nutrient pollution is still a
concern. Due to the high stocking density of fish in RAS, there are high levels of nutrients in the
effluents due to the accumulation of uneaten food and fish waste. Denitrifying systems within the
water treatment loop of the RAS are only so efficient and eliminating nitrates can become a
challenge. Leading countries of RAS, like Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, have
implemented legislation enforcing stricter nutrient discharge limits from land-based fish farms
(Bergheim & Brinker, 2003). Developing and current RAS aquaculture in the U.S. will need to
make sure its effluent is controlled and limits its nutrient pollution to combat negative public
perception.

2.3 RAS Waste

RAS has a promising future. It is an efficient and sustainable method of animal-protein production,
however a key aspect to RAS is still scrutinized and for good reason. Waste management, the main
topic of this study, is a critical component of RAS and is one of the factors that makes RAS more
attractive than other forms of aquaculture (Ramírez-Godínez et al., 2013). RAS contains its own
water treatment cycle, but it still contains a waste stream of exhausted water that is deployed into
the environment. The large flows involved in maintaining proper water quality in RAS can result
in large and significant cumulative waste loads, consisting of uneaten food, fish feces, etc.
(Summerfelt, 1999). Additionally, the maintenance of the pipes and operating systems of RAS can
alter the flow rates of waste streams and the concentrations of waste in those flows which creates
more inconsistencies in RAS effluent (Timmons et al., 2018). RAS waste management is hard to
standardize due to the large variety of RAS rearing species and system designs.

2.3.1 Waste Constituents

Constituents are parameters that are concerning and can cause potential harm to aquatic life.
Certain levels of constituents in the waste stream from RAS vary based on factors like the rearing
species and the different forms of RAS water treatment loops. However, a range of the typical
constituents and their respective levels in RAS waste can be formed. Chen et al. (1993)
characterized the typical ranges of constituents found in aquacultural waste sludge. Sludge is the
solid waste that is filtered out of the water via a variety of different water treatment operations.
Solid waste from RAS consists of uneaten food and fecal droppings (Akinwole et al., 2016;
Summerfelt, 1999). Uneaten food can become a significant polluter in the water column.
Overfeeding increases the organic load, which can create a higher oxygen demand (Yogev et al.,
2020). To put the aquacultural sludge into perspective, the study compared the fish sludge to that
of typical domestic sludge found in residential wastewater. Table 3 illustrates the characteristics
and levels of constituents found in the two types of sludge.

19
 Table 3: Waste Production Characteristics of Sludge (Chen et al. 1993)
Aquacultural Sludge Domestic Sludge
Parameter Range Mean St Dev Range Typical
Total Solids 1.4-2.6 1.8 0.35 2.0-8.0 5.0
1
TVS (% of TS) 74.6-86.6 82.2 4.1 50-80 65
2
BOD5 (mg/L) 1,590-3,870 2,760 210 2,000-30,000 6,000
3
TAN (mg/L) 6.8-25.6 18.3 6.1 100-800 400
4
TP (% of TS) 0.6-2.6 1.3 0.7 0.4-1.2 0.7
pH 6.0-7.2 6.7 0.4 5.0-8.0 6.0
Alkalinity 284-415 334 71 500-1,500 600
2
BOD20 (mg/L) 3,250-7,670 5,510 1,210 - -
1
Total Volatile Solids (TVS)
2
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
3
Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN)
4
Total Proteins (TP)

Aquacultural sludge may have lower total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) concentration, but the sludge
has an overall higher concentration of nitrogen and phosphorous than domestic sludge (Timmons
et al., 2018). The significant amount of nitrogen taking the form as nitrates and nitrites indicates
that the dissolved nitrogen concentration is high. If nutrient loads in the sludge and wastewater are
not treated, then discharge risks harming the water quality of the receiving waters, which may
cause hypoxia events. The potential harms of nutrient loads on the environment are explained
further in section 2.4.1 and the types of further treatments that can treat the RAS discharge for
nutrient loads will be explored in the meta-analysis.

2.3.2 Solids

Solid waste can be dangerous. If solid waste in a culture system is not removed, the waste can be
broken down into smaller suspended solids and increase the amount of dissolved nitrogen
(Akinwole et al., 2016). The solid waste can not only contribute to increased suspended and
dissolved solids, but it can be a hazard to fish as the solid particles can clog fish gills and the
biofilters used in RAS (Akinwole et al., 2016; Timmons et al. 2018; Dauda et al., 2018). Large
particles may also harm pumps and clog the biofilter within the RAS loop.

Often times, the solids collected are landfilled. While the main point to remove solids from the
culture system is to prevent the increase of dissolved solids, BOD, and other harmful water quality
parameters, it can also be utilized by other markets and uses. Solid waste can be applied as a land
fertilizer, can be composted for miscellaneous uses, can be digested to generate biofuels, and more
(Timmons et al., 2018). Further exploration of solids disposal will be explored in the meta-
analysis.

2.3.3 Estuarine Discharge

RAS facilities require large amounts of water, as explored above, in order to operate efficiently.
Based on the demand in the US, many of the current and developing RAS systems are anticipating
on raising Atlantic salmon or some other form of Salmonid like rainbow trout (Badiola et al., 2018;

20
Dalsgaard et al., 2013). Salmon aquaculture requires both fresh and saltwater, so a lot of the
proposed RAS will be located along coastlines so that they have access to a large body of saltwater
(Dalsgaard et al., 2013). Locations like Maine and Florida provide ample resources for large-scale
RAS due to its large freshwater supply, its long extensive coastline, and its proximity to large
markets (Fantom, 2019). The waste stream of some of those systems will discharge their exhausted
water into the same marine water body that the system took in the water. The effluent leaving
large-scale RAS then becomes a potential concern to marine health if not treated since the effluent
is highly concentrated water with often high nutrient levels (Wik et al., 2009). Based on approved
discharge flows of multiple commercial RAS, large-scale RAS discharge ranges from 4,800 m3/d
– 29,000 m3/d, depending on recirculation rates and system design (State of Maine, 2020).

Estuarine discharge of future RAS may be roughly predicted as many wastewater treatment plants
also discharge into the marine environment. Though, it is important to note that the contents of
fish waste and human waste are different, as displayed in Table 3 and that effluent from domestic
and industrial wastewater treatment plants are discharged in much higher volumes and much more
common than RAS effluent. For example, New York City discharges approximately 1.4 billion
gallons of effluent (New York City Department of Environmental Protection). Many different
species are found to habituate near wastewater effluent discharge pipes, like algae, invertebrates,
and fishes (Allen et al., 1976). Luoma and Cloern (1982) conducted a study on wastewater
discharge effects in the San Francisco Bay. They found that there were many stress inducers like
high levels of heavy metals and toxic organic compounds like PCB. Domestic wastewater
effluents, especially in more urban drainages, include industrial sources that can contain
contaminants like trace metals and organics. The waste streams from RAS will not contain much
heavy metals, if any, or trace organics. However, high nutrient loads from wastewater treatment
plants were found to cause some eutrophication events (Luoma & Cloern, 1982). The comparable
metric between RAS and domestic wastewater effluent are its nutrient levels, which may bring
concern to future RAS effluent and its discharge location and amounts. However, it is important
to consider that not all nutrients come from just wastewater effluent, and populated bays, like the
San Francisco Bay, contains many more waste streams than most other bays in the United States
(Luoma & Cloern, 1982). There are many other sources like agricultural runoff, stormwater runoff,
and environmental nitrogen deposition to consider.

2.4 Environmental Risks of RAS Effluent

As discussed in the above section, nitrogen and phosphorous are the most likely constituents of
concern in RAS effluent, assuming proper solids capture in the system and low BOD.

2.4.1 Nutrient Loads

Globally, humans have increased the nutrient flux from land to ocean by 2-fold and 3-fold
(Howarth et al., 2002). Mapping the transport of nutrients is complex and essentially impossible
as ecosystems are extensive and constantly changing. As seen in Figure 5, there are many sources
of nitrogen loading on the marine landscape. Developing RAS has the potential to add to the
different sources of nitrogen pollution. One of the great challenges of the future will be to integrate
land-based and agricultural management with aquacultural management that addresses both
human needs and ecosystem services (Diaz, 2010).

21
Figure 5 - An overview of the potential sources of nitrogen pollution in a city. The figure displays the sources of the inorganic
nitrogen and displays the transport of the nitrogen through river systems.

Increased levels of nutrients, specifically nitrogen, can create ocean environments with low levels
of dissolved oxygen (DO). High nutrient levels can disrupt marine habitat and accelerate the
production of algal blooms (Díaz, 2010). Algal blooms can cause extreme low levels of DO (≤ 2.8
mg/L) in the water column, otherwise known as hypoxia (Ng & Chiu, 2020; Diaz & Rosenburg,
2008). Hypoxia is one of the biggest threats and stressor to coastal ecosystems (Diaz & Rosenburg,
2008). Aquaculture effluents can become a source of nutrients that can lead to harmful effects to
the natural environment. Seagrass meadows in Asia have been impacted by large amounts of
nutrient pollution derived from aquaculture effluents (Thomsen et al., 2020). The increased
dissolved inorganic nitrogen from the aquaculture effluent negatively impacts some types of
seaweeds, like seagrass (Thomsen et al., 2020).

If we look at Maine as an example, there is a lot at stake if nutrient fluxes increase. Fisheries are a
major economic contributor in Maine with the value of Maine’s commercially harvested marine
resources exceeding $600 million in 2018 (State of Maine, 2018). Fisheries not only support a high
economic value, but also a social heritage as Maine’s governor proclaims that the seafood industry
is the cornerstone of Manie and produces the best seafood in the world (State of Maine, 2018).
Eutrophication events, warming waters, and the continuous development of Maine’s coastlines are
creating a coastal habitat crisis effecting important fisheries of Maine.

2.4.2 Regulations

The risks of nutrient pollution are concerning to a sustainable ecosystem. RAS are required to
obtain discharge permits in order to discharge their effluent into the ocean and other natural
waterways. The U.S. EPA has developed an extensive set of criteria that RAS must meet in order
to operate. The “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category” was finalized in 2004 by the

22
EPA and outlines many environmental guidelines that RAS and all other forms of aquaculture
must follow (US EPA, 2004). The guidelines do not give specific numerical limits to effluent. The
EPA decided that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge
permits given to RAS and other aquaculture systems from their respective state would suffice as
they are site-specific (US EPA, 2004). State water quality standards are based off of the Clean
Water Act of 1972 and include an “antidegradation” statement (Timmons et al., 2018). The
antidegradation statement means that approved discharge permits, especially those in areas with
existing pristine water, make it so the effluent water quality is of equal or better quality than the
receiving waters (Ewart et al., 1995).

2.5 RAS Further Effluent Treatment Techniques

The further treatment of the RAS effluent is the treatment of the water/waste beyond the
recirculation loop and can be considered tertiary, advanced, or down-stream treatment. Some
forms of secondary treatment techniques are briefly explored and categorized into three main
segments: dilution, natural systems, and constructed systems.

Dilution

Dilution is the least intensive form of treatment as there really is no treatment involved. Dilution
as a treatment method relies on contaminated water mixing with enough clean water to decrease
the concentrations on constituents like ammonia to acceptable, non-toxic levels.

Natural Systems

Natural systems are treatment systems that utilize naturally occurring processes to help remediate
and sequester waste products from aquaculture. Natural systems offer a lot of synergy between
multiple species and include systems like Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA). Seaweed
farms are becoming increasingly more popular, especially in the coastal waters of New England,
and offer a valuable benefit of sequestering nutrients. Seaweeds requires the use of inorganic
carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous for photosynthesis and growth (Roleda & Hurd, 2019).
Seaweed growth utilizes and remediates sources of nutrients. Roleda and Hurd (2019) explain the
mechanisms of nutrient uptake. Nutrients move across the cell membrane of the seaweed through
three possible mechanisms including passive transport, facilitated diffusion, and active transport
(Roleda & Hurd, 2019). Seaweeds usually uptake nitrogen in the forms of either nitrate or
ammonia (Roleda & Hurd, 2019).

The United States have seen a shift towards using and eating more seaweeds, which may provide
an incentive to utilize this form of treatment/remediation. In fact, China has a large seaweed
aquaculture industry, some taking up entire bays, and it is predicted that if seaweed aquaculture is
to continue to grow at its current pace, all phosphorous inputs can be removed by 2026 (Xiao et
al., 2017). There is a lot of environmental bioremediation potential with seaweed aquaculture,
though it is important to note that the example case in China eliminates the use of the bay entirely,
which decreases its functionality.

Constructed Systems

23
There are a variety of constructed wastewater systems that may be applied to RAS effluent for
secondary treatment. Constructed systems range from constructed wetlands to bioreactors, that
include a variety of different organisms and organic material to break down, sorb, and remediate
contaminants in the effluent. This treatment category has a wide depth of different options that
utilize principles like sorption and denitrification that will be explored in the meta-analysis in the
results of this study. Many of the constructed systems to be explored in this study overlap with the
technologies used for domestic wastewater treatment. A Membrane Biological Reactor (MBR),
for example, is a water treatment method that has successfully been in use to treat domestic
wastewater. MBR shows potential, with some fine-tuning, to help RAS eliminate high waste
discharges and to help reclaim water, heat, salinity, and alkalinity (Summerfelt et al., 2016).

To best conclude the background, Figure 6 is a map of many of the above factors together and how
they each interact with each other in one way or another. Figure 6 also displays the goals of this
project through the addition of a bubble representing what this thesis aims to explore, the potential
further treatment methods and reuse opportunities that the RAS waste stream offers.

24
Figure 6 - Systems Map of RAS Waste Management that highlights the contributing factors within the system and the goals of
exploration in this thesis.

25
3. Methods and Research Questions

The goals of this project were to review the waste management methods of large-scale RAS
through mixed methods research to better understand current waste management practices in the
industry and assess the potential for improved sustainability with respect to effluent discharge and
solids management. A meta-analysis was conducted to display the technical details of waste
treatment processes. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with industry to survey
actual waste management processes, compare differences amongst companies, and explore the
potential reuse options and further treatment technologies to highlight areas of improvement. RAS
engineers and operators were interviewed to be able to get primary information on what is being
done to treat RAS waste. Fishery consultant and academics were interviewed to gather secondary
information on what is being done currently, what is missing, and how continuing research on
waste management may guide the development of RAS. An effort to get interviews from these
different sources was to help understand the decision processes and garner insight through the lens
of different stakeholders.

A meta-analysis of treatment methods provided a succinct description of the current and emerging
technologies that RAS facilities may utilize. Through a review of peer-reviewed journal articles, a
collective concept of further treatment for RAS waste was created that included both quantitative
data on treatment efficiencies and qualitative data on treatment descriptions, benefits, challenges,
and results.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to survey the range of waste treatment technologies
and plans among current and developing RAS facilities. Stakeholders’ comments and goals on
RAS waste management were assessed through the interviews as well. The list of questions for
each respective stakeholder can be seen in Appendix 1. Stakeholders included commercial RAS
engineers and operators, independent RAS consultants, and academics focused on RAS
development and RAS wastewater. Interviews with academics and consulting firms gave this study
an educated outsider perspective on what would ideally be done by the RAS facilities to properly
manage their waste. The stakeholders of this segment of interviews were determined through
internet searches, data-base searches, and some snowball sampling. A goal of 3-5 interviews from
this segment was given due to a limited number of researchers focused on wastewater treatment
of RAS. There was an emphasis on collecting more data from commercial RAS. Interviews with
different RAS engineers and operators gave the study their general quantitative wastewater quality
goals and their interpretive vision of the waste management of RAS. A collection of all of the
current and up-and-coming commercial RAS were collected via internet searches and academic
informants. The commercial RAS companies were contacted for an interview with one of their
engineers or operators. A goal of 7 to 10 interviews were set given the limited number of such
facilities. All stakeholder interviews were selected from a volunteer sample.

This project was designated as exempt from IRB review and oversight (Appendix 2). The project
is a Non-Human Research Subject study and given the project number 010521-01. No personally
identifiable information was released in this study.

26
3.1 Meta-analysis of RAS Further Treatment Tactics

An extensive review was conducted on peer-reviewed sources focused on the topics of RAS waste,
RAS further treatment technologies, and RAS environmental impacts. The sources were examined
to understand the concepts and efficiencies of various solid and wastewater treatment techniques.
The criteria for source selection required the written piece to be peer-reviewed and published in a
journal. It must also have detailed information on waste treatment applied directly to RAS or other
related aquaculture systems. Sources detailing commercial scale water treatment was preferable,
but all sources including pilot-scale were included in this meta-analysis. Studies with only
qualitative data describing the treatment technique(s) were also accepted in this meta-analysis.

A coding sheet was used to organize and interpret the meta-analysis using MS Excel. Coding sheets
are important tools that can help organize data collection and identify common trends among large
amounts of data (Leary & Walker, 2018). The categories of the coding sheet and each categories’
respective purpose can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4: Meta-analysis Coding Sheet Categories and Purposes

Category Purpose
Article Type To denote whether the article was a peer-reviewed paper or a news
article
Title, Author, Year
Summary To summarize the purpose of the article beyond the treatment used and
to describe the scale of the treatment’s use
Type of Treatment To designate the title of the treatment method used in the article and
whether it was utilized for solid waste or wastewater
Technology To detail the scientific principles being used
Utilized
Cost Description To describe/estimate the cost of using such treatment method
Effectiveness To describe the relative success and efficiency of the treatment method
Benefits To detail the pros of the treatment
Challenges To detail the cons of the treatment
Citation

The coding sheet described in Table 4 was then used to quantify common further treatment types
among others, and it documented specific details, both qualitative and quantitative, about the
specific treatment methods. The meta-analysis succinctly detailed most further treatment types
employed by RAS or being explored by RAS companies through the analysis of 25 peer-reviewed
articles.

3.2 Stakeholder Interviews

The other data source utilized in this study were semi-structured interviews. The stakeholders
interviewed were split into three categories: RAS engineers/operators, fishery consultants, and
RAS focused academics. Proper research was conducted on each stakeholder prior to the interview.

27
To prepare for RAS engineers/operators, their RAS company was researched for sufficient
background knowledge of the status and size of their RAS facility. The fishery consultants’
interviews were prepared for through research on the consultant’s goals, mission statement, and
project history. Finally, to prepare for the interviewed academics, their peer-reviewed articles and
university biographies were read and understood. Each interview was done so independently from
the others. All interviews were conducted over the video conference application, ZOOM and lasted
from a range of 15 minutes to 45 minutes.

A total of 12 interviews were conducted over the period of February 2021 through April 2021. A
total of 7 RAS engineers/operators, 2 fishery consultants, and 3 RAS focused academics were
interviewed. Each stakeholder group answered a different set of interview questions (Appendix 1),
yet all of the questions asked were focused on RAS waste, the treatment and disposal of that waste,
and the possible reuse opportunities that may be present with RAS generated waste stream. The
questions were modified in order to utilize the knowledge of the stakeholder in the best way
possible. The semi-structure format allowed for different prompt questions to be asked after the
main questions as seen in the question sheet in Appendix 1. Varied prompt questions allowed for
an opportunity to further explore waste information that not all alike stakeholders may have. Each
interview was recorded using the recording tool from ZOOM. ZOOM has an automatic transcribe
feature that was utilized and that transcription was verified manually later. Each interviewee was
given a consent sheet (Appendix 3) that described the risks and expectations of interviewing.
Before a recording was conducted, the interviewee was required to have either sign a consent form
or give verbal consent.

The interviews were coded using the constant comparative method. The constant comparative
method compares codes and categories across the individual interviews to create themes (Boeije,
2002). Common themes were determined for waste management strategies and waste reuse
opportunities present and under consideration for RAS. The discovered themes were collected and
discussed to create a narrative on RAS waste management and reuse. The collected data presented
an opportunity to offer recommendations on how RAS waste management may be improved to
help better promote sustainability and a circular economy.

Statistics were not taken because of the variance between each RAS facility that was interviewed.
The diversity of fish type, size, and other factors were too large to narrow down meaningful
statistics.

3.3 Research Questions

As mentioned, the goals of this study were to review the waste management of large-scale RAS
including further treatment technologies, explore potential reuse options from the RAS waste
stream, and to illustrate the potential sustainability of RAS. With specific focus on RAS waste, the
study’s goals are also meant to help consider the overarching future of RAS in terms of sustainably
contributing food to the growing global population. To achieve the goals set in this study the
following research questions were asked.

1. What kinds of waste management strategies and technologies, specifically downstream

treatments, are going to be employed by current and developing RAS?

28
2. What kinds of value-added products can be produced from the RAS waste stream that may
support other markets and/or be integrated back into the farm?

3. How can successful waste management help propel RAS into becoming an important and
recognized future food system?

29
4. Results

4.1 RAS Further Treatment Meta-analysis

Further treatment, as defined by this review, is the treatment of the effluent water and solid waste
after the recirculation loop in RAS. The effluents resulting from RAS often still contain high
concentrations of nutrients, depending on the variety of RAS variables like recirculation intensity,
size, feed used, biofilter efficiency, and other factors. With stricter environmental regulations and
a more informed public, large-scale RAS facilities will need to ensure their discharge is at a quality
acceptable to both the regulations and the public. Table 5 offers a summary of the different further
treatment options discovered from literature for RAS waste solids and wastewater. Each respective
treatment type is discussed further below Table 5. How the treatment type works, its respective
benefits and challenges, and its effectiveness is discussed.

Table 5: Brief explanation of found further treatment types for RAS

Treatment Technologies Description Reuse Citations
Types Used Opportunities
Anaerobic Hydrolysis, Sludge is digested in Anaerobic digestion Mirzoyan et
Digestor Acidogenesis, an anaerobic reactor solubilizes nutrients al., 2010
Acetogenesis, for a number of days for a better
Methanogenesis (~5-30 days) and will composted material Suhr et al.,
break down into and produces 2015
different products methane that can be
depending on the used to partially
intermediatory steps. power the RAS
facility.

Aquaponics / Phytoremediation, Utilization of other Other organisms Kim et al.,

IMTA filter-feeding species that uptake that utilize the by- 2013
and/or utilize products from RAS
nutrients and by- can be sold, eaten, Estim et al.,
products of the main or used as another 2019
organism in growth food source.
within the RAS. Biswas et al.,
2020

Bioremediation Phytoremediation Using plants or algae Plants or algae can Ansari et al.,
to uptake nutrients be sold, utilized as a 2016
from the RAS feed stock, used for
effluent. biofuel production, Roleda &
etc. Hurd, 2019

Viegas et al.,
2021

30
 Biofilter / Heterotrophic The use of carbon -- Suhr et al.,
Bioreactor Denitrification, containing material to 2013
Activated Sludge promote biological
Denitrification processes for Tsukuda et
denitrification. al., 2014

Kuma et al.,
2016

Letelier-
Gordo et al.,
2020
Constructed Biotic and Abiotic A constructed system -- Turcios &
Wetland Processes of natural organisms Papenbrock,
that uptake and sorb 2014
nutrients and other
constituents in RAS Gregory et
effluent. al., 2011

Von Ahnen
et al., 2020
Dilution -- Mixing clean water -- Gaikowski et
with the effluent until al., 2003
the constituents of the
mixture are at
lower/acceptable
concentrations
downstream. Models
generated can be
accurate.
Woodchip Biotic and Abiotic Bed of woodchips -- Christianson
Bioreactor Processes that are able to sorb et al., 2011
and breakdown
constituents in RAS Von Ahnen
effluent et al., 2016

Sharrer et al.,
2016

Lepine et al.,
2020

Anaerobic Digestor

An anaerobic digestor utilizes anaerobic microbial communities to break down the solids collected
in RAS, otherwise known as sludge. As described in section 2 of this paper, sludge consists of fish
waste and uneaten food. Anaerobic digestion is an established technology in municipal wastewater
treatment facilities and is an effective method to change and breakdown the sludge physically,
chemically, and biologically. The end product of anaerobic digestion results in a biogas that

31
consists mainly of methane and carbon dioxide (Mirzoyan et al., 2010). The steps leading to the
final biogas product include hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. In the
hydrolysis stage, the complex organic matter (the fish sludge) is converted into soluble organic
matter. The acidogenesis stage converts the soluble organic matter into volatile fatty acids, and the
acetogenesis stage converts the volatile fatty acids into acetic acid and a mixture of hydrogen gas
and carbon dioxide. The final stage of methanogenesis converts the acetic acid and gasses into a
mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. These transformations occur in tank reactors, which vary
by design.

Anerobic digestion, although proven and a common treatment method in municipal wastewater
treatment, is a relatively new concept for aquaculture (Mirzoyan et al., 2010). Yet, there are many
benefits to utilizing anaerobic digestion, such as the production of biogas, the ability for high
loading rates in a small footprint, and its ability to reduce the volume of the collected sludge
(Mirzoyan et al., 2010). Methane collected from full digestion may supply RAS with 2-5% of its
energy demand which helps RAS become more sustainable and help decrease operational costs
(Mirzoyan et al., 2010). Anerobic digestion can also produce acidogenic products that can help
drive heterotrophic denitrification on-site (Suhr et al., 2014). Unfortunately, anaerobic digestion
is a relatively new concept for the application of aquacultural sludge and therefore still requires
additional research, especially for marine RAS facilities.

Anaerobic digestion is relatively successful in reducing the volume of solids. Full digestion can
reduce the sludge volume near 90% of its original volume (Mirzoyan et al., 2010). This treatment
is also effective at removing volatile solids and COD within the solids, removing around 75% and
50%, respectively (Mirzoyan et al., 2010).

Bioremediation / Aquaponics and IMTA

The use of other plants and organisms to utilize byproducts of one species to the next is a concept
often utilized in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture and bioremediation. These treatments work
though plants phytoremediation and potentially filter-feeding organisms. Plants uptake nutrients
like nitrogen and phosphorous which in turn removes and decreases their respective concentrations
in the effluent. Nitrogen is often the limiting factor for seaweed growth so utilizing the excess
nitrogen from RAS effluent to supply nutrients for seaweed creates a symbiotic relationship
(Roleda & Hurd, 2019).

There are many benefits to bioremediation, aquaponics, and IMTA. The primary benefit is the
development of another plant/organism outside of the main rearing specie in the RAS. The
development of other plants and organisms create additional economic and ecological
opportunities. A RAS facility may be able to sell the additional organism or reuse the organism as
a feed stock or biofuel. The development of seaweed may also create ecosystem services by
assisting in providing habitat for other organisms in the ocean. However, utilizing this further
treatment type does complicate RAS operation as the addition of a new species often require
different inputs and environments in order to sustain that species. Plants and algae have different
growth rates, seasons, and environmental requirements like temperature, salinity (in a marine
system), light, current, etc. One of the biggest challenges is the difficulty of scale. In order to

32
remediate proper amounts of nutrients in large-scale RAS systems, there needs to be a lot of
biomass. This can create unreliable and inconsistent removal efficiencies.

The efficiency of phytoremediation is dependent on the type of seaweed, microalgae, plant, other
species, etc. that is in use in the remediation system. Phytoremediation reduces nutrients, dissolved
organic carbon, COD, etc.

Biofilter / Bioreactor

Biofilters are already in use within the recirculating loop in RAS. Additional biofilters, however,
can be used to further treat the effluent before environmental discharge. Some RAS are utilizing
the extensive technologies already available and in-use in domestic wastewater treatment as their
additional treatment methods. These reactors take advantage of microbes in a similar way to that
of municipal wastewater treatment though the utilization of nitrifying microbes and denitrifying
microbes. Biofilters and bioreactors utilize organic material containing carbon as feed source for
denitrifying bacteria (Letelier-Gordo et al., 2020).

Bioreactors are able to use endogenous carbon sources from the RAS sludge to promote
denitrification. This promotes a circular economy and can help reduce costs of operation, however,
external carbon sources, like acetate and methane, are much more efficient. Eternal carbon sources
can be expensive and difficult to store, due to their volatility. Regardless, biofilters and bioreactors
provide a reliable, low operational cost method to remove nutrients in a small footprint.

The efficiency varies depending on types of carbon sources that are used, retention times, and the
type and design of the reactor/filter. Nitrate removal rates can vary from 25% to 90% (Tsukuda et
al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2016).

Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands was another popular method of further treatment found in literature, mainly
due to its low cost. Like bioremediation, this system relies on natural processes to help remove
excess nutrients coming from RAS (Von Ahnen et al.,2020). Constructed wetlands utilize organic
material to promote biotic and abiotic processes that remove nutrients and other constituents like
BOD and solids (Gregory et al., 2011).

Constructed wetlands are cheap and do not require a lot of maintenance. They do, however, require
a lot of area to be effective. This can pose challenges depending on the site of the RAS and if the
facility has space to implement a large outdoor wetland.

The efficiency of constructed wetlands depends on the size of the wetland. Adequately sized
wetlands are able to remove up 98% of ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and total inorganic nitrogen
(Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014).

Dilution

33
Dilution is a non-intensive form of pollution control for RAS. Dilution works with the receiving
waters to mix the contaminated water with enough of the ‘clean’ water to dilute the concentrations
of contaminants to acceptable levels. Dilution methods require proper models to ensure water
quality parameters are not out of regulation.

This form of treatment is non-intensive and requires no capital or maintenance. The only
requirement is to monitor the levels of contaminants to ensure proper mixing is occurring.

Woodchip Bioreactor

Woodchip bioreactors were a common treatment variety in many research articles. It is a relatively
cheap and simple method of excess nutrient removal that has been used for agricultural purposes.
It shares many of the same concepts as constructed wetland in its treatment methods. The
woodchips are used to promote biotic and abiotic processes that breakdown and sorb contaminant
from the RAS effluent.

Woodchip bioreactors are cheap, efficient, and require little maintenance. They can also be scaled
up easier than that of other treatment types in order to meet the remediation demand of large-scale
RAS. However, woodchip bioreactors can become clogged and inefficient over time. They may
also leach out organic phosphorous if the system is not set up correctly or becomes nitrate limited.

When woodchip bioreactors are working properly, they can remove around 50% of nitrate from
RAS effluent (Lepine et al., 2020). Considering the inputs of the system, 50% is quite effective for
passive remediation.

4.2 Semi-structured Interviews

Interviews were conducted in order to gain perspective and information on RAS further treatment
methods and potential value-added reuse products from the RAS waste stream. Each stakeholder
group was asked a list of questions in a semi-structured format, as seen in Appendix 1. Although
each stakeholder group was asked different questions, they were all framed to gather the ideas and
opinions on further treatment and reuse opportunities to gain insight from a diverse set of experts
within the industry. Figure 7 displays the types of stakeholders interviewed and their respective
professions. A total of 12 interviews were conducted: 3 interviews were in academia, 2 interviews
were in a private company who designs and evaluates RAS, and 7 interviews were with engineers
and operators of current and proposed RAS facilities.

34
 Stakeholders Interviewed

25%

58%
17%

Academic Consultant Engineer/Operator

Figure 7 - A pie chart of the different types of stakeholders that were interviewed for this study. The majority of interviews came
from engineers and operators of RAS facilities.

Almost 10 hours of interview data were collected and analyzed. Three main resulting themes
emerged from the interviews, as shown in Figure 8: (1) Concerns, (2) Further Treatment, and (3)
Opportunities.

Concerns entailed discussions on specific constituents of concern from the RAS effluent, such as
nitrogen and its implication on receiving waters. This theme also included discussions about both
concerns on how RAS companies will be able to handle and manage large-scale waste treatment
and discussions on why there should be no concern at all.

The further treatment theme entailed conversations about in-use further treatment technologies,
like the ones described in the meta-analysis. It included discussions on challenges of treating RAS
waste and the discussion of why more research on treatment technologies is needed.

Finally, the last main overarching theme is opportunities. This theme involved conversations on
the opportunities that RAS waste presents like value-added products and how they can be used in
the RAS itself and/or other external markets. The opportunities theme also included the challenges
of handling, managing, and producing reuse products, and, like the further treatment theme, the
call for more research on how to better reuse RAS waste at scale.

35
 •Specific constituents in
RAS effluent
Concerns •Waste management
strategies
•No concerns

•In-use further treatment

technologies
Further •Challenges of further
Treatment treatment
•Calls for increased
research

•Value-added products from

the RAS waste stream
Opportunities •Challenges involved with
reuse
•Calls for increased research

Figure 8 - Overarching themes resulting from the semi-structured interviews on RAS waste management. The figure displays the
three overarching themes: Concerns, Further Treatment, and Opportunities. It also briefly describes what each theme entails.

4.2.1 Concerns of RAS

Academics, consultants, and the engineers/operators of RAS, alike, had similar concerns involving
the waste management of large-scale RAS (see Figure 9). However, their different backgrounds
and position held displayed different levels of emphasis on certain concerns. The main themes that
came from each respective stakeholder is organized in a Venn-diagram to show shared thoughts
and the differences in their opinions, as shown in Figure 9. It is important to note that the concerns
discussed during interviews were concerns that brought most attention. A concern not listed for
one stakeholder does not mean that they are not interested in that concern, rather there were other
concerns that brought more attention.

36
Figure 9 - Major themes on RAS waste management concerns discovered in the semi-structured interviews, organized in a Venn-
diagram by stakeholder group. The themes are the concerns that brought the most attention to the respective stakeholder, not the
only concern.

Academic interviewees generally had a positive outlook on the ability of large-scale RAS to be
able to treat their waste according to standards set by permits. The interviewees all made a
comment about the extensive environmental regulations in the US and that these regulations will
help ensure that RAS waste is treated to adequate levels. Many of the interviewees mentioned the
room for growth and further research in RAS waste treatment, implying that RAS will be able to
treat their waste beyond acceptable levels. This group, however, was the only to group to bring up
concerns with the actual faculty and employees working at large-scale RAS. They were concerned
that there is no or not enough waste management experts working for RAS companies. RAS
facilities have experts in fish, but usually not experts in waste treatment.

Many of the engineer/operator interviewees mentioned discharge permits as potential concerns.

Discharge permitting is different depending on the location of the facility. Some of the engineers
were concerned that this could create inconsistent treatment standards and could allow some RAS
companies to manipulate the system by locating their facility is a less strict state/county so that
they do not have to treat their waste as intensively.

Engineers/operators, along with the academics, discussed that the RAS effluent is less concerning
than that of municipal wastewater. RAS effluent contains only fish waste and extra feed, whereas
municipal waste contains an assortment of different constituents beyond just fecal waste.
Additionally, fish waste does not contain fecal coliforms like waste from mammals.

37
The consultants emphasized the concern of collecting, handling and treating solids. According to
consultants, the main challenge is removing the solid waste. One interviewee mentioned that there
is an assortment of effluent further treatment systems, so there should not be as much concern
dealing with the liquid waste compared to the solid waste.

RAS Waste Management Concerns Mentioned

Inconsistent Permitting
Inadequate Waste Treatment Expertise
Nutrient Pollution
Solids Management

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Interviewees (%)

Figure 10 - The specific concerns mentioned by interviewees and the percentage of the interviewees that mentioned that specific
concern.

Nutrient pollution was the most commonly mentioned concern from the interviews conducted as
seen in Figure 10. The next most frequently listed concerns were inconsistent discharge permitting,
inadequate waste treatment expertise, and solids management, respectively. Nutrient pollution and
solids management were expected responses given that these concerns are directly related to the
waste produced from RAS. The concerns of permitting and waste treatment expertise were unique
concerns due to their focus on the management of waste rather than the waste itself.

4.2.2 Further Treatment

Further Treatment in RAS is diverse and depends largely on the size and design of the RAS
operation. Further treatment is something that is and will be incorporated in every large-scale RAS
due to their scale and the amount of nutrients and waste they will produce. Figure 11 shows the
major themes that resulted from discussions on further treatment systems in RAS.

38
Figure 11 - Major themes on RAS waste management further treatments discovered in the semi-structured interviews, organized
in a Venn-diagram by stakeholder group

The themes resulting in further treatment did not vary much between stakeholder groups. Many of
the themes can be connected with each other and they all usually ended up leading towards similar
solutions and ideas. There were no conflicting ideals, goals, or definitions on further treatment
between stakeholder groups.

All stakeholders mentioned the fact there are many further treatment options available for RAS
effluent. An important theme that emerged is that every RAS is unique and will thus have its own
unique waste treatment system. There are too many variable and different system parameters that
affect how waste could be treated and how effectively it needs to be treated. The amount of feed
waste, quantity of fish, size of farm, recirculation intensity, and location of farm are just a few
parameters that can affect how a farm treats its waste.

Small and medium scale RAS stakeholders interviewed typically did not have further treatment
systems at their facility. Many of these operations separated out the solids and landfilled them.
Then, the resulting effluent was usually dumped down the sanitary sewer to be treated at a
municipal wastewater treatment plant. In fact, one of the small-scale systems sent all effluent,
solids included, to their respective town’s wastewater treatment plant.

An important theme that emerged is that there is a lack of defined best practices for further waste
treatment in large-scale RAS. There is no precedent set for RAS, which leaves a large variance in
how the waste is treated. Many of the interviewees called for increased research in RAS waste
treatment methods because there is no defined best practice.

39
 Further Treatment Technologies Mentioned

Anaerobic Digestion
Aquaponics/IMTA
Bioremediation
Constructed Wetland
Dilution
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Moving Bed Biofilter
Woodchip Bioreactor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Interviewees (%)

Figure 12 - The further treatment technologies that were mentioned by interviewees and the percentage of interviewees that
mentioned that specific treatment technology.

Figure 12 shows the most frequently mentioned further treatment technologies. The most
commonly mentioned technology was anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion was discussed as
a beneficial further treatment that was able to reduce sludge volume and produce valuable
byproducts like biogas. The next more commonly mentioned further treatment technology was
dilution. Many of the engineers and academics mentioned this technology for small-scale
application. Small-scale RAS, in many cases, does not require further treatment and is thus able to
utilize dilution. It is important to note that interviewees discussing dilution mentioned that the
discharge water quality from these small-scale systems are required to be monitored and reported
to governmental regulators.

The other resulting technologies, in order of percent mentioned, were aquaponics/IMTA,

constructed wetland, woodchip bioreactor, bioremediation, MBR, and moving bed biofilter. The
choices of further treatment technologies varied and shows that there are many options for many
different sized facilities with different budgets. Many of the discussions on further treatment also
included discussions of cost.

4.2.3 Opportunities presented from the waste stream

RAS is different than all other types of aquaculture as the waste is more easily collected. This
presents challenges of proper treatment as discussed in the previous section, but it also presents
opportunities for potential reuse. Mentioned by academics and engineers, the waste from RAS
contains much fewer concerning constituents than municipal sources and its constituents are at
consistent amounts over time. These factors allow for increased opportunity for reuse.

40
Figure 13 - Major themes on RAS waste management opportunities discovered in the semi-structured interviews, organized in a
Venn-diagram by stakeholder group

Figure 13 displays the similar and differing themes that resulted among stakeholder when asked
about reuse opportunities in RAS. Similar to further treatment, emerging themes aligned with each
other. The stakeholder groups mentioned many similar ideas, yet some focused more on certain
value-added products than the others.

Most importantly, all stakeholders mentioned that it is feasible to create value-added products from
the RAS waste stream. Academics, consultants, and both small- and large-scale RAS
engineers/operators mentioned the desire to utilize the waste stream for reuse opportunities both
within the RAS and in external markets.

Many engineers/operators mentioned that main cost involved in waste management is the
transportation of the collected solids. This was the main rationale for finding reuse application for
collected solids. If the solids could be reused, then RAS facilities will not have to pay as much for
companies to haul off their waste.

An important factor in reuse options is the location of the RAS facility. Many of the
engineers/operators mentioned that reuse opportunities depend on where the farm is actually
located due to differences in climate and proximity to other synergies like terrestrial farms.

41
Finally, there was the theme of further research. Similar to further treatment, there are no defined
best practices for reuse in RAS. Interviewees mentioned that with increased research, more defined
and RAS-specific reuse opportunities can be developed.

Value-Added Products Mentioned

Algae

Aquaponics/IMTA

Biogas for Energy

Land Application - Soil Amendment, Fertilizer,
compost, etc.
Salt Extraction (Marine Systems)

Vermiculture/Feed Inputs (Fish and other animals)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Interviewees (%)

Figure 14 - The value-added products produced from the waste stream of RAS that were mentioned by interviewees and the
corresponding percentage of how many times that value-added product was mentioned specifically.

Land application is the most frequently mentioned reuse opportunity for RAS as seen in Figure
14. All interviews talked about land application of aquacultural sludge. Land application was the
most versatile and cost-effective use of the collected solids. The next most commonly mentioned
reuse opportunities, in order, were biogas for energy, aquaponics/IMTA, vermiculture, algae
production, and salt extraction.

42
5. Discussion

This paper is meant to explore the practical waste management strategies of RAS, examine all
available further treatment options, discuss reuse opportunities from the RAS waste stream, and
consider the sustainability of RAS as a dominant future food system. RAS is an emerging industry
in global food production. The waste management of these systems is arguably just as important
as the production of the fish. These systems need to be able to produce large quantities of animal
protein, while protecting the natural environment so that we address the issues of global food
demand and climate change together. Based on the results, there are many options towards treating
RAS effluent and creating value-added reuse products, but there are not enough standardized best
practices focused on RAS, especially at large-scale. As seen in Figure 8 and 13, stakeholders agree
that there are many opportunities in collected RAS waste. RAS waste should be not be considered
waste, rather waste should be considered a resource.

5.1 Challenges of RAS Waste Management

There were many concerns that were mentioned by interviewees and some of them have legitimate
implications on how RAS should manage their waste. The two main concerns with handling the
waste itself, were (1) nutrients removal and (2) solids management. Nitrogen is treated through
bacterial processes in the biofilter portion of the recirculation loop in RAS. The biofilters converts
toxic ammonia, in a two-step process called nitrification, into less toxic nitrate. The accumulation
of nitrate and the discharge of those nitrates is what brought concern to many of the interviewees
that mentioned nutrient pollution. Academics did not see nutrient pollution as a concern because
they were confident in the regulations set by the US EPA on discharge permits. Many of the
engineers and operators mentioned that nitrate was their main constituent of concern within the
effluent, and if they didn’t specifically say nitrate, they mentioned another form of nitrogen, being
either ammonia, nitrite, or total nitrogen. These concerns do not implicate that nitrogen pollution
will be a result of RAS, rather it means that nitrogen is one of the constituents that is being focused
on when considering treatment operations. High concentrations of nitrates can create harmful
water quality and promote hypoxia related events. Nitrogen, specifically nitrate, is difficult to
remove from the RAS waste stream and requires extra attention. Large-scale RAS waste
management strategies will have to focus efforts on ways to treat their nitrate laden wastewater.
However, there are many solutions to help remove excess nitrates as seen in the meta-analysis on
further treatment technologies, such as aquaponics and constructed wetlands.

In addition, towards focusing on nitrate removal, RAS waste management strategies need to focus
on the collection and thickening of solids. Solids management was another challenge relating to
the actual waste. Although it was not mentioned as frequently as the concern of nutrient pollution,
the management of solids in RAS poses concern with experts. The collection and thickening of the
solids from RAS is a difficult challenge. It is beneficial for large-scale RAS to thicken as much of
the solids as possible so that it is cheaper to transport off site, whether it is to a landfill or farm.

Concerns that related not to waste, but to the management of waste, included (1) permitting
variance and (2) lack of waste treatment expertise. Permitting variance was mentioned frequently
among consultants and engineers/operators. The levels at which a facility is required to treat their
discharge varies on numerous factors and is based on the location of the facility. Impaired

43
waterways are streams or bodies of water that are classified as impaired by the US EPA due to
contamination. Impaired waterways have Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits that restrict
certain constituent from being discharged at certain levels. If a facility is located near an impaired
waterway, they will have more strict treatment standards to attempt to limit concentrations of
specific constituents in the water column. Differences in TMDLs around the country may promote
the development of RAS in areas where there are not many TMDLs in place which brings concern
to some RAS professionals. It may promote RAS development in rural areas with limited TMDLs,
which would decrease its access to a large market and increase its carbon footprint in terms of
transporting product to a larger market. It also leaves room for certain RAS facilities to be able to
treat their waste at a less significant level than what should be done.

It is important to note, however, that RAS facilities do monitor and report to the US EPA regardless
of their discharge permitting intensity. The environmental parameters, mentioned by
engineers/operators, that are reported include: discharge volume, BOD, TSS, Total Nitrogen,
Nitrate, Nitrite, Total Ammonia, Total Phosphorous, Temperature, pH, and the number of fish that
are in their respective system. Additionally, farms must keep records on numbers and weights of
animals, amount of feed, and the frequency at which rearing and treatment operations are cleaned
and maintained (US EPA, 2004). Although there is permit variance depending on the location of
the farm, constituents are still monitored and analyzed by the EPA.

RAS discharge permits are intensive. The threat of pollution from RAS is minimal, if not non-
existent. Regulations are strict and enforce a number of cautionary measures to ensure the
receiving waters are not contaminated with pharmaceuticals, pesticides, or with constituents at
concentrations higher than what is already found in the receiving water body. Municipal
wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) operate similarly where their discharge does not contain
constituents at levels above those of the receiving waters and that their water quality is monitored
and reported. Many consumers will be able to find that RAS effluent compared to WWTP effluent
can be quite similar, if not less concerning.

Inadequate wastewater expertise was the other concern mentioned relating to the actual
management of the waste. Some interviewees mentioned that RAS hire fish experts and not
wastewater experts. There is concern that developing RAS will not hire the adequate personnel to
be able to properly manage their waste and maintain their treatment equipment. Despite this
concern, the interviewees still expressed their belief that developing large-scale RAS can properly
treat and handle their waste. RAS is an emerging field, especially in the United States. Because
RAS is so young in the US, it provides many opportunities to become more efficient and
sustainable. With increased research and utilizing the expertise of waste management
professionals, RAS facilities will close the knowledge gap on waste treatment.

5.2 Further Treatment of RAS Waste

There are a variety of further treatment options that are applicable to RAS (see Table 5). However,
there is no best practice set for the further waste treatment of RAS. Because of the variance in size
and operation of RAS, it is difficult to properly size and scale available tertiary treatments.
Additionally, there is very little research on RAS-minded tertiary treatment. Municipal waste
treatment and other agricultural waste treatments are standardized across the United States. They

44
have also been around and in operation for a lot longer than RAS, which alludes to the fact that
RAS will get to that level of acceptance with time and increased research on RAS-focused
treatments.

The concern is not the level at which the RAS waste is treated, rather the concern is at how it is
managed. There have been many failures of RAS due to many reasons, including mismanagement
of the waste stream leading to bankruptcy (Cherry & Mutter, 2019). With more time and
experiences, RAS can become a more standardized and trusted industry like that of wastewater
treatment plants or dairy farms.

Finding a balance of treatment that will help reduce costs, meet discharge standards, and
potentially provide some ecological or economic benefit should be the goal of RAS waste
treatment. Reducing costs is one of the driving factors of waste treatment. Mentioned by multiple
interviewees, the reason behind sludge thickening in waste management is to reduce the overall
volume of solids so that it is cheaper to transport. The solids at a large-scale facility will almost
certainly be required to be hauled away due to the high amounts of solids produced in a large-scale
system. So, the more a RAS facility can treat their solid waste and reduce its volume, the lighter
that load is and the cheaper it will be to remove the solids from the facility. Improved waste
management, especially solids, can be and should be seen as cost reducer.

The most discussed further treatments were anaerobic digestion, aquaponics/IMTA, and
constructed wetlands. Although dilution was mentioned frequently, it will not be discussed further
because it is only applicable to small- and medium-scale RAS. Anaerobic digestion is a further
treatment technology for treating solids. It is a technology utilized by municipal wastewater
treatment and is an established technology that should be used in RAS. It was mentioned the most
when discussing further treatment with interviewees in all stakeholder groups. However, there is
limited literature on aquaculturally focused anaerobic digestion. Many interviewees discussed that
there is a lot of promise with anaerobic digestion because of its ability to solubilize nutrients,
reduce sludge volume, and produce biogas. However, further research on anaerobic digestion in
an aquaculture setting, especially marine aquaculture, is needed to prove its applicability in RAS
and to develop a best practice in RAS design. This lack of research limits its growth in RAS, yet
the frequency at which it was mentioned proves that anaerobic digestion is a legitimate further
treatment for RAS that demands further research and investigation.

Aquaponics/IMTA and constructed wetlands are treatments that mainly treats the liquid portion of
RAS waste. These two were the most frequently mentioned treatments that had extensive literature
in an aquacultural setting. Aquaponics is a beneficial treatment because it provides an economical
gain. Some large-scale facilities are utilizing this method to produce fish and vegetables,
diversifying their market. Superior Fresh is a farm located in rural Wisconsin and utilizes
aquaponics to treat its water from its RAS. They are quite successful and able to utilize a
recirculation rate of 100% because of the further treatment their aquaponics system provides
(Moore, 2019). Aquaponics provides a second significant revenue stream and helps boost the
efficiency of their recirculating system. However, aquaponics would require an additional team
focused on the growth of plants to properly manage the waste coming from the RAS facility, which
would increase cost and drive away complete focus on the rearing of fish. In fact, Superior Fresh
produces much more produce than they do fish (Moore, 2019). Fish and the husbandry of the fish

45
is usually the main focus of RAS. Additionally, the development of an aquaponics system would
be an additional capital cost and is not a feasible application in all locations. Taking away complete
focus on the fish, despite the other benefits of aquaponics, may be difficult for RAS-focused
companies to adopt.

Constructed wetlands is another treatment option that is cheap and easy to maintain. Constructed
wetlands are simple and do not require a large investment in order to operate. It is a simple
treatment method that is effective at removing additional nutrients through natural biological
processes. One of the main disadvantages to constructed wetlands are that they are subject to the
weather and the amount of space available to the RAS facility. There would have to be a large
amount of area to adequately treat effluent from large-scale RAS. The large treatment area will
take away from the small, on-land footprint benefit that RAS boasts.

5.3 Value-added Products

Figure 14 provided a list of the many different reuse opportunities that RAS waste presents. In
every interview conducted, the interviewee expressed interest and desire for reuse in RAS. Many
interviewees discussed that the waste stream of RAS is more simple than municipal waste streams,
meaning that there are increased opportunities to reutilize the waste. It is almost certain that as
RAS grows as an industry, waste reuse will become a standard practice. An interviewee pointed
out that because RAS is such an intensive process, it is best practice to attempt to utilize everything
that comes out of the system, waste included.

Land-application was the most frequently mentioned reuse opportunity. The sludge, fish
mortalities, and fish trimmings from processing can all be used to produce some sort of land-
application material, whether it is a soil amendment or a fertilizer. The land-application products
are produced simply by composting. There are many composting facilities across the US that
would be available for RAS if the facility does not want to compost internally. Unfortunately, this
application is limited to freshwater RAS. Marine RAS leaves behind salt, which at high enough
concentrations, can be deadly for plants.

Biogas use for energy directly correlates with the number of times anaerobic digestion was
mentioned in further treatments, approximately 42% of interviewees. Biogas is a product of
anaerobic digestion. Biogas is an interesting value-added product that can be used to generate up
to 10% of the energy demand in RAS. It was mentioned by one interviewee that if all waste stream
products were digested, the resulting biogas could produce 20% of the energy demand required
for RAS, enhancing sustainability and reducing operating costs. The utilization of biogas is a
resourceful way that can promote a circular economy within the RAS. Similarly, to land
application, marine systems cannot completely utilize this value-added product as marine
anaerobic digestion is not as effective as freshwater. This further demonstrates the knowledge gap
between freshwater and saltwater treatment.

One of the limitations on creating value-added products is the location of the farm and the regional
opportunities available to that farm. Some farms may have advantageous opportunities with
entities around them. For example, seaweed farmers may want to be located near a RAS discharge
pipe due to the extra nutrients or land-based farmers can partner with RAS facilities for a consistent

46
supply of fish sludge-based fertilizers. However, those relationships aren’t available in every
location. Some RAS facilities won’t be located near an ocean or an ocean with seaweed farmers.
Some RAS facilities may be located in regions where farming only occurs for less than half a year,
in which they are forced to store their solids for that time or find another use. Reuse applications
in Maine differ from the reuse opportunities in Florida. Land application can only be utilized for
part of the year in colder climates like Maine, but land application can be utilized year-round in
Florida. Some farms may also be located far from reuse opportunities like composting facilities.
The location of the farm and the opportunities around the farm dictate what can be done with the
value-added products from the RAS waste stream.

RAS produces waste that requires treatment and disposal. Disposal leads to additional costs to the
operation. Therefore, it is in the best interest of RAS facilities to integrate reuse opportunities from
that collected waste to increase income. However, reuse of RAS waste is not profit driven. RAS
facilities will not invest in reuse to boost their profits. Rather, reuse is meant as a cost reducer. The
more reuse a facility can undergo, the less that they will have to pay to get rid of the collected
waste. As previously mentioned, there is no best practice for reusing RAS waste. Investments and
more research can greatly benefit RAS facilities and help save money, so that RAS facilities can
produce a high-quality and affordable fish.

5.4 Large-scale RAS Waste Management

Large-scale RAS waste management contains many challenges but is possible and efficient. There
are many decisions and considerations in implementing a waste management strategy. The goal of
waste management in RAS is to find a balance between the cost and the production of value-added
products, while meeting the discharge standards set by the respective NPDES permit. Figure 15 is
meant to be a summary figure that displays the inputs into RAS waste treatment design that will
help achieve an ideal balance.

Discharge
Permits

Benefits

Cost

RAS Waste
Treatment
Design

Figure 15 – Factors that will affect the decision of Treatment design in RAS waste management. The goal is to find a balance
between cost and benefits, while meeting all standards set by NPDES.

47
6. Conclusion and Recommendations

Many topics relating to RAS and RAS waste were explored and discussed, such as global food
supply, sustainability, RAS technology, fish waste, estuarine discharge, discharge regulations, and
further treatments and value-added waste products. The major conclusions to come from this paper
is that RAS waste (1) is a resource and (2) will be reutilized.

Further treatments of RAS waste and potential value-added products from the RAS waste stream
were explored utilizing literature and stakeholder interviews. It is clear from the results that it is
feasible for large-scale RAS to be able to both properly treat their waste with available further
treatment technologies and to create value-added products from their collected waste. Not only is
it feasible, but it is also a goal of many RAS operators/engineers to increase their reuse in their
respective systems and/or to create value-added products for other markets from their generated
waste. However, Large-scale RAS lacks the experience and economic support that other major
food systems have. The lack of defined best practices for the management and reutilization of
waste is one of the biggest obstacles for the development of large-scale RAS.

A significant finding from this study include the motivations behind further reuse of generated
waste. Typically, the motivation and methods of reusing waste stems from the scale of the farm.
Large-scale RAS will reutilize their waste in an effort to reduce costs of getting rid of the waste,
like land application, because of their focus on strictly raising fish. Land application is a simple
and sustainable method of reuse that reduces the need to haul off waste to landfills. Smaller-scale
farms will reutilize their waste to reincorporate valuable resources back into the farm, for example,
through the utilization of biogas generated from anaerobic digestion or the utilization of
aquaponics.

The main recommendation from this study is to develop a working group of potential partnerships
between RAS farms and agricultural and energy managers. RAS reuse has many available
synergies, especially with agricultural uses. A creation of a Co-Op that include leaders from RAS,
agriculture, and energy providers can help bring attention to large-scale RAS from governmental
entities to help further large-scale RAS development. Increased initial discussions between these
entities can also help large-scale RAS develop more robust waste management plans to better
achieve sustainable systems.

Further research of RAS-focused waste treatment and reuse is also recommended. Many of the
research articles used in this paper were studies consisting of bench-scale laboratory tests.
Applying the concepts from those studies in a large-scale context is needed, in order to confirm
technologies and to establish best practices, especially in terms of proper sizing of treatment
technologies. Additionally, marine waste treatment requires further understanding and will only
be achieved through continued research. Some treatments of marine RAS effluent are the same as
their freshwater counterpart, but the marine systems result in different removal efficiencies. There
is a missing gap of knowledge that needs to be addressed. RAS waste management can become
more cost effective and provide more towards other markets or ecosystems, all while meeting set
discharge standards. A deeper understanding of the waste produced by RAS, understanding of
enhanced RAS-minded treatment methods, and understanding of how to produce value-added
products from the RAS waste stream will be helpful for developing farms.

48
RAS is a technology that allows for the intensification of aquaculture and allows for the
diversification of food systems, which can lead to an increase in the resilience of the global food
supply (Troell et al., 2014). With increased research, organized agricultural and aquacultural
management, and governmental support, RAS can become a significant and sustainable food
system.

49
7. Impact Statement

It is more important than ever that sustainable food systems become common and prevalent in the
future world. Global population increase and global climate change is creating pressures on our
current food systems and there is a call for an improved food system to emerge. RAS is a method
of aquaculture that can produce finfish in a sustainable way where resources are saved, waste is
reused, energy is reduced, and the natural environment is protected. This paper’s goals were to
explore the waste management of RAS and how value-added products can be produced from the
waste stream. This paper was written in the lens of sustainable development and attempted to
understand the further effects of large-scale RAS on food demand.

Efficient RAS waste management is feasible. There are a number of different treatment
technologies available for RAS and numerous opportunities of reuse in the waste stream.
Importantly, there is a desire from stakeholders in RAS to reuse the waste produced in RAS and
improve waste treatment technologies. There is, however, a gap of knowledge and application of
waste management in large-scale systems.

This paper will hopefully give a review of the current state of RAS waste management and help
organize RAS farms, research groups, and government entities together to help create a story for
RAS. RAS can provide sustainable seafood, and with increased collaboration with agricultural
leaders and further research in waste treatments and reuse opportunities at scale, then can large-
scale RAS become a solidified food system.

50
8. References

Adler, P.R., Harper, J.K., Wade, E.M., Takeda, F., & Summerfelt, S.T., (2000). Economic analysis
of an aquaponic system for the integrated production of rainbow trout and plants. Int. J. Recirc.
Aquacult. 1 (1), 15–34.

Akinwole, A., Dauda, A., & Ololade, A. (2016). Haematological response of Clarias gariepinus
juveniles reared in treated wastewater after waste solids removal using alum or Moringa oleifera
seed powder. Internatinal Journal of Acarology, 6(11), 1-8.

Anderson, J.L., (2002). Aquaculture and the future: why fisheries economists should care. Mar.
Resour. Econ. 17, 133–151.

Ansari, F., Singh, P., Guldhe, A., & Bux, F. (2017). Microalgal cultivation using aquaculture
wastewater: Integrated biomass generation and nutrient remediation. Algal Research, 21, 169-177.

Asche, F., Cojocura, A.L., Roth, B. (2018). The development of large scale aquaculture
production: A comparison of the supply chains for chicken and salmon. Aquaculture, 493, 446-
455.

Bebak-Williams, J., Noble, A., Browser, P.R., & Wooster, G.A., (2001). Fish health management.
In: Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., Wheaton, F.W., Summerfelt, S.T., Vinci, B.J. (Eds.),
Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, New York.

Belton, B., Bush, S.R., Little, D.C. (2018). Not just for the wealthy: Rethinking farmed fish
consumption in the Global South. Global Food Security, 16, 85-92.

Bergheim, A., Brinker, A. (2003). Effluent treatment for flow through systems and European
Environmental Regulations. Aquac. Eng., 27, 61-77.

Biswas, G., Kumar, P., Ghoshal, T.K., Kailasam, M., De, D., Bera, A., Mandal, B., Sukumaran,
K., & Vijayan, K.K. (2020). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) outperforms
conventional polyculture with respect to environmental remediation, productivity and economic
return in brackishwater ponds. Aquaculture, 516, 734626.

Boeije, H. (2002). A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis
of Qualitative Interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36(4), 391-409.

Bregnballe, J. (2015). A Guide to Recirculation Aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations (FAO) and EUROFISH International Organization.

Browdy, C.L. & J.A. Hargreaves (editors). (2009). Overcoming Technical Barriers to the
Sustainable Development of Competitive Marine Aquaculture in the United States. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD USA. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS F/SPO100.
114pp.

51
Bryaden, W.C., Noblet, C.L., Evans, K.S., & Rickard, L. (2018). Consumer preferences for
seafood attributes of wild harvested and farm-raised products. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 22 (3), 362-382.

Chen, S., Coffin, D.E., & Malone, R.F., (1993). Production, characteristics, and modeling of
aquaculture sludge from a recirculating aquaculture system using a granular media biofilter. In:
J.K. Wang (Ed.), Techniques for modern aquaculture. St. Joseph, MI, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, 16–25.

Cherry, D. & Mutter, R. (2019) Analysis: Here’s a list of high profile land-based aquaculture
failures. https://www.intrafish.com/finance/analysis-heres-a-list-of-high-profile-land-based-
aquaculture-failures/2-1-712748

Christianson, L., Hanly, J., & Hedley, M. (2011). Optimized denitrification bioreactor treatment
through simulated drainage containment. Agricultural Water Management, 99, 85-92.

Costa-Pierce, B. (2016). Ocean foods ecosystems for planetary survival in the Anthropocene.
World Nutrition Forum.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
SAGE Publications, 3, Los Angeles, CA.

Dalsgaard, J., Lund, I., Thorarinsdottir, R., Drengstig, A., Arvonen, K., & Pederson, P.B. (2013).
Farming different species in RAS in Nordic countries: Current status and future perspectives.
Aquacultural Engineering, 53, 2-13.

Dauda, A., Ajadi, A., Tola-Fabunmi, A., & Akinwole, A. (2018). Waste production in aquaculture:
Sources, components and managements in different culture systems. Aquaculture and Fisheries,
4(3), 81-88.

Davis, K. F., Gephart, J. A., Emery, K. A., Leach, A. M., Galloway, J. N., & D’Odorcio, P. (2016).
Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Global Environmental Change,
39, 125-132.

Diaz, R.J. (2010). Agriculture’s impact on aquaculture: Hypoxia and eutrophication in marine
waters. OECD, Advancing the Aquaculture Agenda: Workshop Proceedings, OECD Publishing.

Diaz, R.J., & Rosenburg, R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine
ecosystems. Science, 321(5891), 926-929.

d’Orbcastel, E.R., Blancheton, J.P., & Aubin, J., (2009). Towards environmentally sustainable
aquaculture: comparison between two trout farming systems using Life Cycle Assessment.
Aquacult. Eng., 40(3), 113-119.

EPA. (2004). Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category.

52
Estim, A., Saufie, S., & Mustafa, S. (2019). Water quality remediation using aquaponics sub-
systems as biological and mechanical filters in aquaculture. Journal of Water Process Engineering,
30, 100566.

European Union. A Short History: Aquaculture. (2020). Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/aquaculture_methods/history_en#:~:text=The%20e
arliest%20form%20of%20aquaculture,around%204000%20B.C.%20in%20Europe.

Ewart, J.W., Hankins, J., & Bullock, D. (1995). State Policies for Aquaculture Effluents
and Solid Wastes in the Northeast Region. NRAC Bulletin No. 300.

Fantom, L. (2019). All eyes on Maine as future RAS hub. Aquaculture North America. Retrieved
from: https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/made-in-maine/.

FAO. (2018). The future of food and agriculture - Alternative pathways to 2050. Summary version.
Rome. 60 pp. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

FAO. (2016). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016: Contributing to food security
and nutrition for all. Rome.

Frankfort-Nachmais, C., Nachmais, D., DeWaard, J, (2014) Research Methods in the Social
Sciences Worth Publishers; Eighth edition

Fry, P., Mailloux, N., Love, D., Milli, M., & Cao, L. (2018). Feed conversion efficiency in
aquaculture: Do we measure it correctly? Environmental Research Letter, 13 (2):024017.

Gaikowski, M., Larson, W., Steuer, J., & Gingerich, W. (2004). Validation of two dilution models
to predict chloramine-T concentrations in aquaculture facility effluent. Aquacultural Engineering,
30, 127-140.

Gephart, J., Froehlich, H., & Branch, T. (2019). Opinion: To create sustainable seafood industries,
the United States needs a better accounting of imports and exports. PNAS, 116 (19), 9142-9146.

Godfray, H., Beddington, John., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., Pretty, J., Robinson,
S., Thomas, S., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People.
Science, 327 (5967), 812-818

Good, C., Davidson, J., Earley, R., Styga, J., & Summerfelt, S. (2017). The effects of ozonation
on select waterborne steroid hormones in recirculation aquaculture systems containing sexually
mature Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Aquacultural Engineering, 79, 9-16.

Gregory, S., Dyson, P., Fletcher, D., Gatland, P., & Shields, R. (2012). Nitrogen removal and
changes to microbial communities in model flood/drain and submerged biofilters treating
aquaculture wastewater. Aquacultural Engineering, 50, 37-45.

53
Jones, R., & Scott, J. (2019). Catalyzing the Blue Revolution: How Investors can Turn the Tide
on Aquaculture. Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-
insights/perspectives/how-investors-can-turn-the-tide-on-aquaculture/.

Kapetsky J., Aguilar-Manjarrez J. & Jenness J. (2013). A global assessment of potential for
offshore mariculture development from a spatial perspective. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper, Rome, 549, 181.

Kim, J., Duston, J., Corey, P., & Garbary, D. (2013). Marine finfish effluent bioremediation:
Effects of stocking density and temperature on nitrogen removal capacity of Chondus crispus and
Palmaria palmata (Rhodophyta). Aquaculture, 414-415, 210-216.

Kristensen, T., Atland, A., Rosten, T., Urke, H.A., & Rosseland, B.O., (2009). Important influent-
water quality parameters at freshwater production sites in two salmon producing countries.
Aquaculture Eng. 41 (2), 53–59.

Kumar, S., Santhanam, P., Park, M., & Kim, M. (2016). Development and application of a novel
immobilized marine microalgae biofilter system for the treatment of shrimp culture effluent.
Journal of Water Process Engineering, 13, 137-142.

Leary, H., Walker, A., (2018). Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis Methodologies: Rigorously
Piecing Together Research. Association for Educational Communications & Technology, 62, 525-
534.

Lin, Y., Jing, S., & Lee, D. (2003). The potential use of constructed wetlands in a recirculating
aquaculture system for shrimp culture. Environmental Pollution, 123, 107-113.

Liu, Y., Rosten, T., Henriksen, K., Hognes, E., Summerfelt, S., & Vinci B. (2016). Comparative
economic performance and carbon footprint of two farming models for producing Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar): Land-based closed containment system in freshwater and open net pen in seawater.
Aquacultural Engineering, 71, 1-12.

Lepine, C., Christianson, L., McIsaac, G., & Summerfelt, S. (2020). Denitrifying bioreactor inflow
manifold design for treatment of aquacultural wastewater. Aquacultural Engineering, 88, 102036.

Lepine, C., Christianson, L., Sharrer, K., & Summerfelt, S. (2016). Optimizing Hydraulic
Retention Times in Denitrifying Woodchip Bioreactors Treating Recirculating Aquaculture
System Wastewater. Journal of Environmental Quality, 45, 813-821.

Letelier-Gordo, C., Huang, X., Aalto, S., & Pederson, P. (2020). Activated sludge denitrification
in marine recirculating aquaculture system effluent using external and internal carbon sources.
Aquacultural Engineering, 90, 102096.

Mirzoyan, N., Tal, Y., & Gross, A. (2010). Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive
recirculating aquaculture systems: Review. Aquaculture, 306, 1-6.

54
Moore, G. (2019). Superior Fresh outlines its big salmon leap forward. Fish farming expert.
Retrieved from: https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/superior-fresh-outlines-big-salmon-
leap-forward/

Ng, J.C.Y. & Chiu, J.M.Y. (2020). Changes in biofilm bacterial communities in response to
combined effects of hypoxia, ocean acidification and nutrients from aquaculture activity in Three
Fathoms Cove. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 156.

NOAA, What is Aquaculture https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/aquaculture.html

Oppedal, F., Vagseth, T., Dempster, T., Juell, J., & Johansson, D. (2011) Fluctuating sea-cage
environments modify the effects of stocking densities on production and welfare parameters of
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture, 315 (21), 361-368.

PETA. (n.d.). Is aquaculture bad for the environment?. Retrieved from:

https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/is-aquaculture-bad-for-the-environment/

Ramírez-Godínez, J.,, Beltrán-Hernández, R.I., Coronel-Olivares, C., Contereas-López, E.,

Quezada-Cruz, M., & Vásquez-Rodríguez, G. (2013). Recirculating Systems for Pollution
Prevention in Aquaculture Facilities. Journal of Water Resources and Protection, 5, 5-9.

Ranganathan, J. & Waite, R. (2016). Sustainable Diets: What You Need to Know in 12 Charts.
World Resources Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/sustainable-diets-
what-you-need-know-12-charts.

Rijn, J. (2013). Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering,

53, 49-56.

Roleda, M.Y. & Hurd, C.L. (2019). Seaweed nutrient physiology: application of concepts to
aquaculture and bioremediation. Phycologia, 58(5), 552-562.

Roleda, M. & Hurd, C. (2019). Seaweed nutrient physiology: application of concepts to

aquaculture and bioremediation. Phycologia, 58:5, 552-562.

Sharrer, K., Christianson, L., Lepine, C., & Summerfelt, S. (2016). Modeling and mitigation of
denitrification ‘woodchip’ bioreactor phosphorous releases during treatment of aquacultural
wastewater. Ecological Engineering, 93, 135-143.

Shi, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, J., Zhu, Y., & Xu, J. (2011). Performance of a constructed wetland in
treating brackish wastewater from commercial recirculating and super-intensive shrimp growout
systems. Bioresource Technology, 102, 9416-9424.

State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (2020). Maine Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge License. ME0002771. W009200-6F-A-N

55
Stevens, J., Newton, R., Tlusty, M., & Little, D.C. (2018). The rise of aquaculture by-products:
Increasing food production, value, and sustainability through strategic utilization. Marine Policy,
90, 115-124.

Suhr, K.I., Letelier-Gordo, C.O., & Lund, I. (2015). Anaerobic digestion of solid waste in RAS:
effect of reactor type on the biochemical acidogenic potential (BAP) and assessment of the
biochemical methane potential (BMP) by batch assay. Aquacultural Engineering, 65, 65-71.

Suhr, K.I., Pederson, P.B., & Arvin, E. (2013). End-of-pipe denitrification using RAS effluent
waste streams: Effect of C/N-ratio and hydraulic retention time. Aquacultural Engineering, 53,
57-64.

Summerfelt, S., Adler, P. R., Glenn, D. M., & Kretschmann, R., (1999). Aquaculture sludge
removal and stabilization within created wetlands. Aquacult. Eng., 19(2), 81-92.

Summerfelt, S., Bebak-Williams, J., & Tsukuda, S. (2001). Controlled Systems: Water Reuse and
Recirculation. Fish Hatchery Management, 2, 285-395.

Tilburg C. et al. (2011) Characteristics of a Shallow River Plume: Observations from the Saco
River Coastal Observing System. Estuaries and Coasts, 34:785-799.

Timmons, M.B., Guerdat, T., & Vinci B.J., (2018). Recirculating Aquaculture. Ithaca Publishing
Company, 4th edition, Ithaca, NY.

Troell, M., Naylor, R. L., Metian, M., Beveridge, M., Tyedmers, P. H., Folke, C., Arrow, K. J.,
Barrett, S., Crépin, A., Ehrlich, P. R., Gren, A., Kautsky, N., Levin, S. A., Nyborg, K., Osterblom,
H., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Walker, B. H., Xepapadeas, T., & de Zeeuw, A. (2014). Does
Aquaculture add resilience to the global food system?. PNAS, 37, 13257-13263.

Tsukuda, S., Christianson, L., Kolb, A., Saito, K., & Summerfelt, S. (2015). Heterotrophic
denitrification of aquaculture effluent using fluidized sand biofilters. Aquacultural Engineering,
64, 49-59.

Turcios, A. & Pappenbrock, J. (2014). Sustainable Treatment of Aquaculture Effluents - What Can
We Learn from the Past for the Future? Sustainability, 6, 836-856.

Undercurrent News (2019) PETA takes on RAS, runs bus ads against Nordic’s California site.
Retrieved from: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/10/10/peta-takes-on-ras-to-run-bus-
ads-against-nordics-california-site/.

USAID https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-
security#:~:text=What%20is%20Food%20Security%3F,a%20productive%20and%20healthy%2
0life.&text=In%20order%20to%20feed%20a,double%20its%20current%20food%20production.

USAID. (2011). Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR). Harvest Helping Address Rural Vulnerabilities
and Ecosystem Stability.

56
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). U.S. and World Population Clock. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/popclock/world

Valin, H. (2019). United Nations Group Meeting on Population, Food Security, Nutrition, and
Sustainable Development for Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York.

Valin, H., Sands, R. D., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Nelson, & G. Cand (2014). The Future of Food
Demand: Understanding Differences in Global Economic Models. Agricultural Economics, 45(1),
51- 67

Viegas, C., Gouveia, L., & Goncalves, M. (2021). Aquaculture wastewater treatment through
microalgal. Biomass potential applications on animal feed, agriculture, and energy. Journal of
Environmental Management, 286, 112187.

Von Ahnen, M., Pedersen, P.B., & Dalsgaard, J. (2020). Improving denitrification in an
aquaculture wetland using fish waste – a case study. Ecological Engineering, 143, 105686.

Von Ahnen, M., Pedersen, P., & Dalsgaard, J. (2016). Start-up performance of a woodchip
bioreactor operated end-of-pipe at a commercial fish farm – A case study. Aquacultural
Engineering, 74, 96-104.

Von Ahnen, M., Pedersen, P., Hoffmann, C., & Dalsgaard, J. (2016). Optimizing nitrate removal
in woodchip beds treating aquaculture effluents. Aquaculture, 458, 47-54.

Wang, Y., Chi, L., Liu, Q., Xiao, Y., Ma, D., Xiao, Z., Xu, S., & Li, J. (2019) Effects of stocking
density on the growth and immunity of Atlantic salmon salmo salar reared in recirculating
aquaculture system (RAS). Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 37, 350-360.

Wik, T.E.I., Lindén, B.T., & Wramner, P.I. (2009). Integrated dynamic aquaculture and
wastewater treatment modelling for recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquaculture, 287, 361-370.

Xiao, X., Agusti, S., Lin, F., Li, K., Pan, Y., Yu, Y., Zheng, Y., Wu, J., & Durate, C.M. (2017).
Nutrient removal from Chinese coastal waters by large-scale seaweed aquaculture. Science Report,
7.

Yanong, R. & Erlacher-Reid, C. (2012). Biosecurity in Aquaculture, Part 1: An Overview.

Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, 4707.

Yogev, U., Barnes, A., Giladi, I., & Gross, A. (2020). Potential environmental impact resulting
from biased fish sampling in intensive aquaculture operations, Science of the Total Environment,
707.

57
9. Appendices

9.1 Appendix 1 List of Questions for Different Stakeholder Groups

Semi-Structured Interview Questions for the Engineers of Current/Developing RAS Farms

Researcher: Franco Pilone

1. What are the environmental parameters you must meet in order to be granted discharge
permits?
· Prompt: Is your system designed to meet or exceed those thresholds?
· Are there any main constituents of concern from the waste effluent?
· How does the water quality of the effluent compare to the water quality of the in-take?
Are there any water quality issues with your current in-take?

2. Beyond the functioning RAS water treatment, are there any additional treatments needed or
elected to be done before wastewater is discharged back into the environment? If so, can you
explain how that system works?
· Prompt: With a lot of focus on the culture of the fish and recirculating the water, would
your company consider a third-party firm to contract for additional wastewater treatment
on the end-of-pipe water?

3. What are the differences and similarities between human waste and fish waste and how do
those differences affect the management of the wastewater?

4. How does [insert] plan to eliminate high nutrient loads from its effluent? Is it to a comparable
level to conventional wastewater treatment plants around the area?

5. Are there potential value-added products that can be utilized from the waste stream of RAS?
For example, can the high nutrient loads from RAS waste be utilized for another segment or
market?
· Prompt: What are the challenges associated with handling the waste stream by-product?
· Are value-added products from the waste steam possible in a marine system?
· Is there enough value in the by-product to create demand and/or profit from the waste
steam for the company?

6. Is the wastewater management strategy practiced at your farm similar to other RAS companies
at your scale?

7. What is done to the solid waste that is collected from your filtration system?
· Prompt: Is the waste dumped at the landfill or will it be re-purposed for other uses?

8. Is there an emergency holding tank for poor water quality in the case of an operational
emergency?

9. What sort of factors of safety are in place to protect the environment from potential
contamination from the concentrated waste stream?

58
Semi-Structured Interview Questions for RAS Consultants/Advisors
Researcher: Franco Pilone

1. Typically, RAS can recirculate their water very efficiently, but there is a point where the water
is exhausted and discharged. Are there any major constituents of concern that RAS facilities
should be concerned about?

2. Beyond the functioning RAS water treatment, do you recommend any additional treatment to
be done before the wastewater is discharged back into the environment? For example, additional
denitrification systems like bioreactors or constructed wetlands? If so, can you explain what kind
of systems or treatment methods you recommend?
· Prompt: Is it common to see additional treatment systems on RAS wastewater, before
discharge?
· RAS’s main focus is on the culture of the fish and the recirculation of water. Would you
recommend that a RAS company consider a third-party firm to contract for additional
wastewater treatment on the end-of-pipe water?

3. How can RAS facilities eliminate and manage high nutrient loads from its effluent?
· Nutrient pollution can arguably be considered one of the biggest concerns of the
wastewater from RAS. Approximately 85% of Nitrogen is removed in RAS wastewater
from the current technology used for recirculating the water in most RAS. Is it possible
for RAS facilities to reduce nitrogen loads further? If unknown, should it be, if we
assume that the total nitrogen concentration of the effluent is 20 ppm greater than the
background levels of the receiving waters?

4. Are there potential value-added products that can be utilized from the waste stream of RAS,
specifically marine RAS? For example, can the high nutrient loads from RAS waste be utilized
for another segment or market?
· Prompt: Is there enough value in RAS waste stream by-products to support the creation
of ancillary industries?
· Are any RAS companies looking at vertical integration of waste reuse or value-added
products from the waste stream?

5. What are the differences and similarities between human waste and fish waste? How does that
affect the management of RAS wastewater?
· Prompt: Is the water quality of RAS effluent of similar quality to wastewater treatment
plant effluent?

59
Semi-Structured Interview Questions for RAS/Wastewater focused Academics
Researcher: Franco Pilone

1. There are a lot of up-and-coming RAS facilities being proposed in the United States. Do you
have any concerns with these facilities, specifically, their waste streams discharging into the
ocean/natural waterways?
· Prompt: Do you believe RAS facilities can properly handle their wastewater in an
environmentally acceptable way?

2. What are the differences and similarities between human waste and fish waste? How does that
(or how should that) affect the management of RAS wastewater?
· Prompt: Is the water quality of RAS effluent of similar quality to that of wastewater
treatment plants?
· Nutrient pollution can arguably be considered one of the biggest concerns of the
wastewater from RAS. Approximately 85% of Nitrogen is removed in RAS wastewater
from the current technology used for recirculating the water in most RAS. Is it possible
for RAS facilities to reduce nitrogen loads further? If unknown, should it be, if we
assume that the total nitrogen concentration of the effluent is 20 ppm greater than the
background levels of the receiving waters?

3. Do you believe that there Should there be a standardized or common practice for RAS
facilities to handle their wastewater to ensure proper treatment and proper effluent quality,
universally?
· Prompt: If so, how should RAS facilities go about it?

4. What is missing from current RAS wastewater management?

· Prompt: Is there a technology, that you know of, being developing to help improve
wastewater management?

5. Are there potential value-added products that can be utilized from the waste stream of RAS,
specifically marine RAS? For example, can the high nutrient loads from RAS waste be utilized
for another segment or market?
· Prompt: What are the challenges associated with handling the waste stream by-product?
· Are value-added products from the waste steam possible in a marine system?
· Is there enough value in the by-product to create demand and/or profit from the waste
steam for the company?

60
9.2 Appendix 2 IRB Approval – Non-human Research Designation

61
62
63
9.3 Appendix 3 Consent Form

64
65
66
67