Abstract
There have been some arguments concerning supplementary feed (cereals) based common carp production in fishponds and water pollution, mostly in Central Europe. Using Czech Republic (top producer in EU) as a benchmark and combining data on nutrient digestibility of feedstuffs used combined with analyses of literature data, we have assessed – nutrient footprint (∼9.4–10.8 kg N ha−1, ∼2.7–3.2 kg P ha−1; 1.5–4 × < EU crop-livestock sectors); nutrient utilization efficiencies (NUEN ∼36%, NUEP ∼50%; 1.5–1.7 × > EU livestock average); autochthonous nutrient removal (∼8–9.2 kg N ha−1, 1.4–1.6 kg P ha−1); eco-cost burden (13–29 × ≪ positive services); eco-services (∼74.5–100.6 million € country−1; ∼2375 € ha−1) of carp production in Central Eastern European Region (CEER). Digestible nutrients offered by natural prey (7.9% N, 1% P on dry matter basis) to carp are ∼5–8 times higher than those provided by cereals and remains the key determinant for production. Despite this, 70–90% of nutrient footprint from feeding is contributed by cereals. Neutral footprint (∼374 kg ha−1) and exclusively natural (up to 300 kg ha−1) carp production intensities were identified, following which, commercial interest of carp farming may falter (costing intangible losses >56.5 million € in CEER), despite achieving ‘greener-goals’. Per production cycle, carp aquaculture in CEER fishponds offer at least 579 million € worth of services. Our results show that carp production in ponds have lesser nutrient burden than crop and livestock productions in EU. Existing management of fishponds ‘barely meet’ optimum P requirements of common carp and present production intensity should not be vilified as a pollution causing activity. Risks and solutions for achieving both environmental (minimized footprint) and aquaculture goals (uncompromised production) are discussed.
Highlights
The ‘land-locked’ central European countries have been relying mostly on carp culture for fisheries production (Adamek et al, 2012; Gal et al, 2015; Woynarovich et al, 2011)
The existing feeding regimen (FCRcereals 2e2.5; FCRnatural prey 0.3e0.4) in European fishponds already has its own bottlenecks; detailed in the supplementary text. On both sides of the proposed trade-off FCRs, it is either forcing farmers to reduce carp production, or inadequate supply of digestible nutrients for carp’s optimum growth. In the former case, at least eco-subsidies should be offered to the farmers for their environmental contribution
The present study revealed that carp production in fishponds has the least nutrient burdens to environment compared to other food production sectors in Europe
Summary
The ‘land-locked’ central European countries have been relying mostly on carp culture for fisheries production (Adamek et al, 2012; Gal et al, 2015; Woynarovich et al, 2011). Czech Republic followed by Poland, Hungary and Germany (ranked in order of production) support ~80% of carp production in the European Union (EU) (Eurostat fish_aq2a 2017). Present practices include semi-intensive farming with a low to moderate stocking density (0.2e0.4 ton haÀ1) and having a production ceiling of ~0.5e1 ton haÀ1, partly supported by supplementary feeding (Sternisa et al, 2017). In most of these fishponds, ~50e60% of carp growth (protein growth) is believed to be supported by natural food while cereals (rich source of energy) are provided as Abbreviations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
