See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301991855

Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production

Systems

Chapter · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5797-8_191

CITATIONS READS

2 743

4 authors:

Patrik John Gustav Henriksson Nathan Pelletier

Stockholm Resilience Center / WorldFish University of British Columbia - Okanagan
70 PUBLICATIONS   1,751 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   2,998 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Max Troell Peter Tyedmers

Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien Dalhousie University
169 PUBLICATIONS   15,558 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   5,810 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Doctoral thesis View project

Improving Employment and Incomes through Development of Egypt’s Aquaculture Sector (IEIDEAS) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrik John Gustav Henriksson on 11 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems L 5893

Bullock KR, Vincent CA (1997) Secondary lead-acid cells. In: Vincent Co-product allocation Partitioning the input or out-
CA, Scrosati B (eds) Modern batteries, 2nd edn. University of put flows of a process or a product system between
Chicago Press, Chicago
the product system under study and one or more
Rand DAJ, Moseley PT, Garche J, Parker CD (2004) Valve-regulated
lead-acid batteries. Elsevier, Amsterdam other product systems.
Functional unit The quantified function provided by
the product system(s) under study, for use as
a reference basis in an LCA, e.g., 1,000 h of light.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) An ISO-standardized ana-
Life Cycle Assessments and Their lytical tool developed to evaluate environmental
Applications to Aquaculture performance of products and processes. It constitutes
a compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs,
Production Systems
and potential environmental impacts of a product
PATRIK J. G. HENRIKSSON1,2, NATHAN L. PELLETIER3, system throughout its life cycle; the term may refer
MAX TROELL4,5, PETER H. TYEDMERS3 to either a procedural method or a specific study.
1
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden System boundary Defines the inputs and outputs that
University, Leiden, The Netherlands are included in the study. System boundaries
2
Department of System Ecology, Stockholm University, should be set depending on what will be relevant
Stockholm, Sweden to the aim of the study.
3
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
4
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Beijer
Definition of the Subject
Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
5
L
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Aquaculture production has grown three times faster
Stockholm, Sweden than the livestock sector since the 1970s, becoming
a major source of edible seafood and other products.
This rapid expansion has, however, had a combination
Article Outline of positive and negative environmental, social, and
economic effects. A variety of tools are available to
Glossary
evaluate these impacts in an attempt to identify the
Definition of the Subject
most sustainable practices. One of the more recent
Introduction
tools that has been applied to the evaluation of aqua-
LCA – The Method and Its Applicability in
culture production is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), an
Aquaculture
ISO-standardized biophysical accounting framework
LCA in Food Production
that allows for multi-criteria environmental perfor-
Guiding the Way for More Sustainable Aquaculture
mance assessments. This chapter reviews studies that
and Alternative Farming Methods
have applied LCA to studying the environmental
Discussion
dimensions of aquaculture production to date. Meth-
Future Directions
odological differences and alternative approaches are
Bibliography
discussed, along with their influence on research
outcomes. There is little homogeneity between the
Glossary
studies when it comes to the choice of functional
Aquaculture The farming of aquatic organisms, unit, system boundaries, and basis for allocation. How-
including fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic ever, several clear trends do emerge that point toward
plants. Farming implies some form of intervention imperatives for sustainable practices in aquaculture
in the rearing process to enhance production, such and considerations for sustainable development of
as regular stocking, feeding, and protection from the industry moving forward. Recommendations for
predators. Farming also implies individual or cor- further methodological development of LCA for appli-
porate ownership of the stock being cultivated. cation to seafood sustainability research are advanced.
5894 L Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems

Introduction Aquaculture comprises an enormous diversity of

farming technologies, culture settings, and species.
Society is increasingly aware of both the drivers and
From monoculture to polyculture systems operated in
consequences of natural resource depletion and envi-
ponds, raceways, land-based tanks, along with cages,
ronmental degradation. Various analytical frameworks
pens, poles, rafts, and longlines in open water settings,
have therefore been developed for the purpose of eval-
well over 250 species are currently in culture. Produc-
uating the environmental performance of products and
tion technologies may also reflect traditional farming
processes. Finding a suitable tool for assessing sustain-
methodologies or more modern systems [3–5]. In turn,
ability in the rapidly developing aquaculture sector has
post-production processing yields a diverse range of
gained increasing profile over the past 2 decades. What
products, including salted, dried, smoked, and various
has emerged is the need for a tool that can incorporate
kinds of preserved fish. About 37% of all fish and
multiple environmental performance criteria in the
fishery products are traded internationally, with the
evaluation of diverse aquaculture production technol-
major importers being Japan, the USA, and Spain [1].
ogies. For this reason, there is increasing interest in,
and application of, life cycle assessment (LCA) as
Aquaculture and the Environment
a research framework to better understand environ-
mental performance in this sector. The interest has, It has been proposed that aquaculture represents the
however, not been coming from within the aquaculture most viable option for meeting future demands for fish,
industry itself, but rather outside. LCA is a versatile as well as providing economic and nutritional benefits
methodology that is well suited to address a broad to millions [1]. The recent rapid expansion of this
suite of resource use and emissions-related issues. Over sector has, however, been accompanied by a range of
the last decade, it has become an increasingly common environmental and social concerns, including localized
tool for characterizing an important subset of environ- nutrient enrichment or depletion, chemical pollution,
mental impacts in aquaculture and elsewhere. genetic pollution, introduction of non-indigenous spe-
cies, habitat destruction, greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
Aquaculture Development sions, depletion of wild fish stocks, inefficient energy
and biotic resource usage, and spread/amplification of
Even though global capture fisheries landings have
diseases and parasites [2, 3, 6–9]. Of these, local-scale
declined since the late 1980s, total production of
interactions have traditionally attracted the most
marine fisheries products has increased 67% between
attention. However, global scale interactions such as
1970 and 2007 (including brackish water fish). This has
greenhouse gas emissions associated with intensive
only been possible through a large increase in aquacul-
production strategies are of increasing interest. What
ture production over the last 4 decades. Aquaculture
has become clear is that each production strategy is
currently provides half of all finfish destined for human
characterized by a unique suite of environmental inter-
consumption. Seafood from all sources accounts for
actions at local, regional, and global scales. Informed
about 20% of all animal proteins consumed by humans,
decision making for improved environmental manage-
and demand continues to grow [1]. The aquaculture
ment in aquaculture, therefore, requires tools, which
industry is the fastest growing animal products’ sector,
can provide multi-criteria environmental performance
with an average annual growth rate of 6.9%. At present,
assessments and make clear the environmental
it provides almost 8 kg of seafood per capita year1
trade-offs associated with specific aquaculture technol-
globally [1]. In 2006, aquaculture accounted for
ogies and products.
more than 70% of global shrimp and prawn produc-
tion, 47% of total food fish production, and 36% of
Sustainability Tools in Aquaculture
total fish production. Mariculture of finfish dominates
production in developed countries [2]. By mass, how- Increasing aquaculture production to meet future
ever, the majority of global production is accounted demands is clearly attractive from a policy and devel-
for by carp farmed in extensive and semi-intensive opment perspective. However, a number of critical
farms in Asia. questions related to growth in this sector must be
 Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
addressed. These questions encompass complex issues
associated with sustainability objectives at local,
regional, and international scales. For example,
a spectrum of negative ecological and social externali-
ties associated with aquaculture and other food pro-
duction systems bear careful scrutiny and must be
weighed against anticipated benefits [10]. Such com-
parisons need to extend beyond short-term gains and
localized impacts and incorporate a long-term social-
ecological resilience perspective. This requires tools to
identify the most sustainable aquaculture practices,
drawing knowledge from both new and traditional
culture systems [5].
A wide range of tools/frameworks for assessing
various aspects of environmental performance have
been advanced [11], some focusing especially on food
production. These include techniques such as Risk
Assessment, Ecological Footprint, and Energy Analysis.
Frameworks more specific to assessing seafood produc-
tion systems are Fishprint and the Global Aquaculture
Performance Index (GAPI) [10, 12, 13]. Most of these,
however, encompass a limited range of the environ-
mental concerns associated with aquaculture and
some suffer from a lack of methodological standardi-
zation [10]. Moreover, the degree of scientific rigor in
both the methods and their application is also variable.
Data limitations and analytical scope have, therefore,
often led to misrepresentation of the environmental
consequences of specific management decisions.
LCA – The Method and Its Applicability in
Aquaculture
History of LCA
LCA has, since its emergence in the 1970s, evolved from
a tool whose primary application was waste manage-
ment and energy efficiency management to a more
general eco-efficiency measurement framework. It has
close links to energy analysis, but is unique among
biophysical accountancy-type tools in that it has been
internationally standardized (ISO 14040-14044)
[14, 15]. An LCA typically begins at the “cradle” of
a product or service life cycle (i.e., at the point of
primary resource extraction), and extends along the
supply chain to encompass all life cycle stages of inter-
est to a particular analysis. Single or multiple impact
assessment methods may be applied. Estimation of the
L 5895
cumulative environmental impacts along supply chains
permits attention to spatially and temporally discrete
impacts not typically considered in more traditional
environmental impact analyses. Impact categories
range from highly quantifiable effects, such as green-
house gas emissions or energy use, to (less frequently)
more diverse social consequences, such as human
health effects [16].
The outcome of a LCA is highly influenced by the
ambition, skill, and objectives of the practitioner. Mod-
ern software with built-in inventory databases and
impact assessment methods has simplified the LCA
process, to the extent that an aquaculture system may
be modeled in hours. However, the rigor of such
models is to a large extent dependent on data quality.
While use of generic data available in many public and
commercial life cycle inventory databases may provide
a starting point for scoping analyses, more context-
specific data is required for robust modeling of specific
production systems and technologies. Unfortunately,
the former (simplified analyses) are increasingly com- L
mon in the peer-reviewed literature, providing what
may be misleading signals and eroding the credibility
of the research framework, generally.
Software Tools and ISO
The rapid evolution and adoption of LCA have been
accompanied by the creation of a variety of guidelines,
manuals, and dedicated software [17]. The most com-
monly used LCA software platforms are GaBi and
SimaPro, which are commercial products. Others,
such as CMLCA and openLCA, are available free of
charge. There are also several life cycle inventory data-
bases, which have been developed, with the most exten-
sive being the EcoInvent database (www.ecoinvent.ch).
Such databases provide inventory data for materials
and processes common to most product systems – for
example, the production of materials such as concrete,
steel, and plastic; the provision of energy carriers such
as diesel or regionally specific electricity mixes; or
transportation modes like air freight, rail freight, or
private automobile transport. As these “background”
data are often premised on different methods, assump-
tions, and rigor, sourcing data should be done with care
as different databases apply different methodologies.
It is therefore recommended to be consistent when
5896 L Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
choosing sources of background systems data and also
to be aware of the methodology used before making
comparisons between studies. ISO compliance does
not require that studies are comparable, only that
they follow the same requirements. Individual studies
also often differ in functional unit (the unit of output
against which impacts are quantified), system bound-
aries, and allocation criteria.
A LCA study is, in accordance to ISO standards,
carried out methodically through four phases (Fig. 1).
As an initial phase, the goal and scope definition will
specify the main characteristics of the study. Goal is
specified as the application, audience, and reason for
the study, while scope outlines the product system to be
studied, functional unit, system boundaries, allocation
procedures, impact categories, data requirements,
assumptions, limitations, data quality, and format of
the report. System boundaries specify the processes
that are to be included in the product system and are
in turn set by the cutoff criteria. This is followed by
a Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI), which involves
the collection and calculation of data as well as
Life cycle assessment framework
Goal and scope
definition
Inventory
Interpretation
analysis
Impact
assessment
Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems. Figure 1
The general methodological framework for LCA studies according to ISO 14040 (2006) and its four comprised phases
allocation of burdens, in cases where input or output
flows involve more products or processes than the
defined unit. The impacts of these results are then, in
the third phase (Life cycle impact assessment, LCIA),
assessed according to their contribution to the impact
categories defined in the goal and scope phase. Finally,
the three previous phases are interpreted and commu-
nicated to the anticipated audience.
Functional Unit
Seafood commodities are farmed for different pur-
poses, which complicates the choice of functional
unit. Most LCA studies to date have used live weight
mass at the farmgate or mass of processed product as
the functional unit. Variable protein contents and edi-
ble portions between aquatic animals therefore may
complicate direct comparisons. For example, the edible
portion of an oyster is only about 18% of its wet weight,
a number that in turn is subject to local variation [18]
while the edible yield from an Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar) typically exceeds 50%. Local customs may
Direct applications:
- Product development
and improvement
- Strategic planning
- Public policy making
- Marketing
- Other
 Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
further confound the decision as certain parts of the
fish that may be discarded as inedible in one region are
considered good for human consumption in another
region. Two such examples are herring roe and catfish
stomachs; both of which are considered offal in the
western world but are prized in parts of Asia [19, 20].
Ideally, the functional unit should reflect the function
of the product system. For aquaculture products
intended for consumption as food, such functions
might include the provision of caloric energy, protein,
or omega fatty acids, etc.
Setting System Boundaries
System boundaries delineate those processes formally
included in an analysis from those that are excluded.
There are only general requirements on how to set these
boundaries, though they should be decided relative to
the research objectives and include all elements having
a non-trivial influence on research results. Most LCA
studies in aquaculture limit their system boundary to
the farmgate, whereas some include processing, pack-
aging, marketing, and consumption phases [21–23].
Thrane [24] evaluated the effects of post-harvest stages
of the life cycle of seafood products and concluded that
they have a significant impact on the overall environ-
mental performance of most seafood products. For
example, inclusion of the processing phase contributed
an additional 10% to life cycle energy use, while inclu-
sion of the consumption phase resulted in an average
25% increase in cumulative energy demand [24].
Allocation
A common issue faced by many LCA practitioners is
how to allocate environmental burdens to products
and materials that are co-produced with other
Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems. Table 1 The most commonly used
bases for allocation and their characteristics
Allocation factor Accessibility Physical relationship
Mass Good Yes
Value Average No
Nutritional energy content Average Yes
System expansion Poor Sometimes
L 5897
products [25]. Examples in aquaculture include the
allocation of environmental burdens between targeted
catch and bycatch used in fishmeal production, the
multiple products derived from corn and other com-
modity crops used in feeds, and alternative uses of fish
by-products or aquaculture wastewater used to fertilize
other crops. The ISO standards for LCA do provide
guidelines for an allocation decision hierarchy, but
leave considerable room for interpretation. According
to the standard, environmental burdens are primarily
to be allocated according to an underlying physical
relationship, if subdivision is unavoidable. The stan-
dard further states that where such relationships can-
not be established, the allocation should reflect other
relationships between the input system and output
system. In reality, the final choice of allocation basis
will likely reflect the goals of the study, as well as
the worldview of the practitioner. Some of the more
common bases for allocation in aquaculture and their
characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Accessibility
of the different allocation factors differs depending L
on location and situation, where regional differences
will play a large role in making generalizations. Time
and spatial scales will also have a great influence on
the allocation factors that do not represent physical
relationships, as these will not remain static.
There are several things to keep in mind when
choosing a basis for allocation. The first is that nothing
limits a study to only one allocation factor; each allo-
cation scenario may be treated differently depending
on the circumstances. Results may also be presented
using several of the allocation factors, thus enabling
readers to interpret results according to their own
perspective or worldview. No matter how the alloca-
tion problem is approached, it is very important to be
clear in the supporting text about which methods have
Static Market oriented
Yes No
No Yes
Yes No
Sometimes Sometimes
5898 L Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
been used. It is, however, important to keep in mind
that the basis of allocation can influence the allocated
burden by as an order of magnitude [26].
Impact Categories and Impact Assessment
Any quantifiable performance measure can be included
within the LCA methodology, from emissions to the
well-being of workers, as long as: (a) a causal relationship
between the variable of interest and the provision of the
functional unit can be established and (b) a defensible
impact assessment methodology is available [27]. A wide
variety of impact assessment methods are available for
use in LCA, most of which have been applied to assess-
ments of seafood production systems [27]. These
methods may describe environmental interactions that
have relevance at local (e.g., eutrophication), regional
(e.g., acidification), or global (e.g., greenhouse gas emis-
sions) scales. Generally, impact assessment methods are
based on peer-reviewed, internationally accepted envi-
ronmental accounting protocols. Some of these continue
to evolve, and novel methods emerge in response to
newly identified issues [27, 28].
Labor
Labor is rarely accounted for in LCA due to the difficulty
of establishing defensible system boundaries and quan-
tifying associated environmental impacts. It can also be
debatable if the number of employees should be consid-
ered as a negative or positive input. It is, however,
important to keep labor in mind when comparing tra-
ditional and modern production systems. Labor can be
presented in a number of different ways, either sepa-
rately or incorporated into the individual impact cate-
gories [28, 29]. Several methods have been suggested on
how to quantify the environmental impacts of labor.
Suggested reference units include metabolic energy,
calorific content of food consumed, national fuel
share, or other more complex equations [29].
LCA in Food Production
Working with non-Static Systems
The adaptation of LCA from the characterization of
static industrial systems to food production systems
typified by significant variability has brought with it
new challenges. Annual fluctuations occur both on the
farm, as productivity will depend on water tempera-
ture, extreme weather events, algae blooms, etc., as well
as on indirect variables such as oil prices and public
demand. Fisheries providing fishmeal and fish oil for
use in aquafeeds offer a good example of such variability,
as fuel inputs per tonne of fish landed will fluctuate with
season, stock status, gear type, and skipper [30, 31].
The aquaculture sector is particularly dependant on
annual production of the anchoveta fishery off South
America for both of these commodities, which in turn
is strongly influenced by El Niño-Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) events [32]. Increased use of compound feeds
and higher oil prices have also boosted prices of both
fishmeal and oil over the last decade [1]. Such fluctu-
ations not only affect economic allocation but also catch
per unit effort. It can therefore be hard to set average
fuel consumption for fishing fleets, especially since the
species and status of the stocks used for fishmeal pro-
duction often are unknown [33]. The situation is fur-
ther complicated in certain parts of the world where
low value fish are used directly as fish feed [33].
Agricultural crops – the other major source of
aquafeed inputs – may also experience significant
annual fluctuations, with larger variability in devel-
oped countries, for crops such as maize and wheat
[1, 34]. Farmgate prices will further affect the LCA as
many feed formulators and aquaculturists quickly
adjust to price trends in their choice of feed inputs or
cultured species in efforts to maximize profits [20, 35].
One such example is the constant push toward higher
stocking densities of shrimp in SE Asian polyculture
systems, where the large profits that are to be made
often outweigh the risk of white-spot disease [36].
Farming practices, as for feed composition, are also
under constant change, which emphasizes the impor-
tance of considering the time scales used in LCA stud-
ies. Ultimately, a balance must be struck between
feasibility and the goals of the study in pursuing repre-
sentative data and models.
The relevance of such variability will, in part, be
determined by the scope of the analysis and specific
research questions of interest. Variability might be
accommodated when modeling at regional scales by
applying average data over specified spatial and tem-
poral horizons. It is increasingly common to account
for and report such variability in published outcomes.
In other cases, quantifying variability might comprise
 Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
research foci – for example, understanding the influ-
ence of variable field-level nitrous oxide emissions on
the overall greenhouse gas intensity of crop production
at local scales.
LCA in Aquaculture
The first LCA studies focusing on aquaculture systems
were conducted in the beginning of the new millen-
nium, with an increasing application of the methodol-
ogy to aquaculture issues toward the end of its first
decade [37–39]. As the number of studies increased, so
too did the seeming detail of analysis and possibly also
the accuracy of the results. Most have focused on pro-
duction systems in developed countries (see Table 2).
The methodological detail used between studies does,
however, vary widely and makes broad comparisons
between studies difficult. This includes differences in
functional unit, system boundaries, data sources and
quality, and choice of allocation criteria.
A common theme that has emerged from LCA
research of intensive, finfish aquaculture production
systems is the importance of feed provision in supply
chain environmental impacts [21, 22, 42–44]. For
example, Pelletier et al. (2009) found that feed provi-
sion accounted for, on average, 92% of quantified
impacts in global salmon farming systems. Of particu-
lar importance are fisheries and livestock products,
which typically have higher impacts per unit mass
relative to crop-derived feed inputs (Fig. 2). Also of
note is that on-site processes have only made
a substantial contribution in highly mechanized sys-
tems, where industrial energy inputs are required to
maintain water quality [3, 20, 21, 40, 44].
Although animal-derived feed ingredients usually
have a higher impact per unit mass compared to crop-
derived inputs [22, 43, 45, 46], their inclusion may
support more rapid growth of the cultured organisms
and, in some cases, result in a higher quality product
[47]. By including a larger portion of agriculturally
sourced materials in feeds, environmental burdens
may be reduced. In this light, it might be anticipated
that rearing herbivorous or omnivorous species is envi-
ronmentally preferable. However, both feed composi-
tion and feed conversion efficiency must be considered
in determining and comparing impacts between cul-
tured organisms [44].
L 5899
The choice of impact categories in aquaculture
LCAs varies widely (Table 2). These include resource
depletion and emissions-related environmental con-
cerns, as well as toxicological potentials. The only cat-
egories almost consistently applied are global warming
potential, acidification, and eutrophication, while
cumulative energy demand is also very commonly eval-
uated. There is an expected but imperfect correlation of
cumulative energy demand and global warming poten-
tial (Table 3), since much of the feed-related emissions
for agricultural inputs do not arise from fossil fuel
combustion. Rather emissions of nitrous oxide and
methane are typically as or more important. It is only
in systems where ecosystem services have been replaced
to a large extent by anthropogenic processes that on-
farm energy demand has a significant impact on the
total energy consumption.
Guiding the Way for More Sustainable
Aquaculture and Alternative Farming Methods
Feed Production L
Improvements of feed conversion ratios (FCRs) for
piscivorous fish in addition to an increased inclusion
of non-fish ingredients has led to great environmental
improvements over the last decades [46]. Additional
improvements are to be made by identifying and sourc-
ing for the least-environmental-cost feed formulations;
especially for sources of fishmeal and oil [22]. In reduc-
tion fisheries, effective management will play a major
role in reducing fuel consumption along with associ-
ated environmental impacts while sustaining output
from the industry [30, 50]. In many fisheries, boats
today have to travel further to find productive fishing
grounds and invest more fishing effort to maintain
catches. This has resulted in a sixfold increase in energy
consumption for some capture fisheries over the last
two decades [51]. A collapse of one of the large reduc-
tion fisheries, of the scale that occurred to the ancho-
veta fishery in the 1970s, would further drive up the
energy intensity of aquafeeds and culture products as
well as have devastating effects on the aquaculture
industry as supply of fishmeal and oil supplies already
are outpaced by demand [1, 52].
Decreasing fishmeal inclusion has, to a large extent,
been driven by increasing public awareness about “fish-
in to fish-out” ratios, as a result of labeling and
 5900
L

Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems. Table 2 Overview of species, functional unit, system boundary, allocation
factor, and impact categories applied for a selection of published LCA studies on aquaculture systems. One ton at farmgate is the most prominent functional unit
while global warming potential, acidification, and eutrophication are the only impact categories that are included in all studies

Functional System Allocation

Phtotochemical oxidant
formation
Freshwater aquatic
ecotoxicity
Respiratory impacts from
inorganics

Cumulative energy demand

Fossil fuel use
Biotic resource use
Abiotic depletion potential
Water dependence
Surface use
Global warming potential
Ozone depletion potential
Acidification
Eutrophication
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Human toxicity
Carcinogens

Species Reference unit boundary factor

Blue Iribarren 1 kg of dry Post System ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
mussels et al. [23] edible consumption expansion
mussel waste
flesh
Shrimps Mungkung 1.8 kg Post Monetary ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
[70] block of consumption
frozen waste
shrimp
Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems

Rainbow Aubin et al. 1 t live Farmgate Monetary ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

trout, sea- [21] weight
bass, and
turbot
Salmon, Ayer and 1 t live Farmgate Gross ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
different Tyedmers weight nutritional
farming [40] energy
methods content
Arctic char Ayer and 1 t live Farmgate Gross ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
Tyedmers weight nutritional
[40] energy
content
Atlantic Pelletier and 1 t live Farmgate Gross ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
salmon, Tyedmers weight nutritional
different 2007 [43] energy
feeds content
Trout, flow d’Orbcaster 1 t live Farmgate Monetary ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
through/ et al. [41] weight
recirculating
system
Trout Papatryphon 1 tonne Farmgate Monetary ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
et al. [37] live weight
Atlantic Ellingsen 200 g fillet Processed Mass/ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
salmon and fillets Monetary
Aanondsen
[39]
Atlantic Pelletier 1 tonne Farmgate Gross ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖
salmon et al. [22] live weight nutritional
energy
content
Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
L
5901

L
5902 L Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems

100%

90%

80%

70%
Farm energy
60% Smolt production

50% Feed tranport

Feed, milling
40%
Feed, livestock
30%
Feed, fisheries
20% Feed, crop derived

10%

0%
Cumulative energy use, GHG emissions, kg CO2
MJ eq.

Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems. Figure 2
Cumulative Energy Use and Greenhouse gas emissions from salmon production. Feed production is by far the largest
contributor to environmental concerns, constituting 93% of the energy use and 94% of the GHG emissions. The feed
represents an average from farms in Norway, UK, Canada, and Chile with 41.8% of the ingredients derived from crops,
49.4% from fish, and 8.8% from livestock. Data from: Pelletier et al. [22]

certification initiatives [9, 46]. It has also been strongly
influenced by rising prices for these commodities, due
to increased competition from the aquaculture sector
[1]. The overall demand for fishmeal and oil in aqua-
culture has, despite this, increased due to a larger share
of farmers using compound feeds and increasing aqua-
culture production over time [46, 53]. At present, in
most aquaculture LCAs, the amount of fishmeal and oil
used is only reported as life cycle inventory data.
Beyond the standard impact categories, methods to
account for the ecological impacts of producing these
products are underdeveloped. To date, only a few
researchers have, e.g., applied a measure of biotic
resource use in life cycle assessment, following the
methods originally advanced by Pauly and Christensen
[54]. This method quantifies the net primary productiv-
ity, as measured in carbon, required to support the
provision of a specified amount of fish-derived material,
taking into account trophic level and species-specific
meal and oil yield rates. Biotic resources used can differ
by as much as an order of magnitude between different
sources of fishmeal and oil [22]. Alternative sources of
proteins that could in part replace fishmeal include
soy meal, wheat gluten, bone, feathers, blood, livestock
co-product meal, and seafood processing materials
[46, 55]. A variety of vegetables oils may also be par-
tially substitutable for fish oils. The environmental
performance of systems using, e.g., agriculture alterna-
tives for fishmeal and oil needs, however, to be carefully
analyzed as such substitution does not guarantee
improved performance. Switching to the culture of
low-trophic species is often described as a solution for
more sustainable aquaculture [6]. While this would
allow for great reductions in fish inclusion rates, the
higher FCRs associated with lower quality feeds may
result in only marginal improvements in GHG and
related life cycle impacts [44]. In contrast, a switch to
more energy and climate-friendly fertilizer production
either through efficiency improvements in existing
fertilizer plants or the use of biological nitrogen fixa-
tion in place of conventional N fertilizers could, how-
ever, offset some of the impacts associated with crop
production [56, 57].
Improvements of feeding practices on farms can
both reduce costs, emissions, and FCR [58]. The
amount of feed added is often calculated according to
feeding charts or as a percentage of the fish biomass.
These generalizations often result in inefficient feed
 Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems L 5903

Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems. Table 3 Summary of the different
results for 1 t of seafood product at farmgate

Species Country Source CED (MJ) t1 GWP kg CO2-e t1

Turbot, recirculating France Aubin et al. [21] 290,986 6,017
Sea-bass, cages Greece Aubin et al. [21] 54,656 3,601
Rainbow trout, flow through France Aubin et al. [21] 78,229 2,753
Atlantic salmon, net-pen Canada Ayer and Tyedmers [40] 26,900 2,073
Atlantic salmon, Land base Canada Ayer and Tyedmers [40] 97,900 2,770
Atlantic salmon, Bag Canada Ayer and Tyedmers [40] 32,800 1,900
Atlantic char, land-based recirculating Canada Ayer and Tyedmers [40] 353,000 28,200
Trout, recirculating system Denmark d’Orbcastel et al. [41] 63,202 2,043
Trout, flow through Denmark d’Orbcastel et al. [41] 34,869 2,015
a
Atlantic salmon Norway Ellingsen and 65,000 N.A.
Aanondsen [39]
Blue mussels, fresh Spain Iribarren et al. [23] N.A. 472
White-legged shrimps Thailand Zimmo et al. [49] and 45,600 N.A.
Mungkung [70]
Trout, portion sized France Papatryphon et al. [37] 37,842 1,851 L
Trout, large sized France Papatryphon et al. [37] 62,774 2,499
Atlantic salmon, organic crop/25% soy meal Canada Pelletier and 9,860 690
and 100% canola oil substitute Tyedmers [43]
Atlantic salmon, organic crop ingredients/ Canada Pelletier and 26,900 1,810
fisheries by-product meals and oils Tyedmers [43]
Atlantic salmon, organic crop/conventional Canada Pelletier and 17,100 1,250
animal meals and oils Tyedmers [43]
Atlanti salmon, conventional Canada Pelletier and 18,100 1,400
Tyedmers [43]
Atlantic salmon Worldwide Pelletier et al. [22] 31,100 2,160
Tilapia, Lake Indonesia Pelletier and 18,200 1,520
Tyedmers [44]
Tilapia, Pond Indonesia Pelletier and 26,500 2,100
Tyedmers [44]
Energy use in Norwegian salmon farming reported by Ellingsen and Aanondsen [39] was calculated by assuming that 15% of total
reported energy use was used in the processing and distribution phases

utilization as it does not take factors such as species, Replacing Ecosystem Services with Anthropogenic
genetic stock, feed composition, water temperature, or Processes at Farm Site
growth rate into account [58]. In addition, feeding
Traditional extensive aquaculture systems depend, to
efficiency is also influenced by the type of farming
a large extent, on labor and natural energy inputs [3].
facility as confined bodies of water, such as raceways
Solar energy inputs promote in-situ production utilizable
or bags, allow for more efficient feeding practices and
by some farmed animals while tidal energy or other
effluent management [59].
5904 L Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
natural watercourse flows provide means for water
exchange. As for energy consumed in highly mechanized
production systems, such as most intensive land-based
systems, the energy for farm-site activities often originates
from fuel as farm-sites typically lack access to alternative
sources of energy. It is therefore recommended to consider
the location characteristics of the farm-site before
implementing artificial services. Farms situated in areas
with high water turnover, i.e., in streams, tidal zones, or
exposed coasts, may cause little or no impact on the local
ecosystem. Farms situated in areas without such hydro-
dynamic conditions need to treat their wastewater to
avoid negative impact on the environment or run as
closed systems. It is, however, important to acknowledge
that environmental impacts from farm release need to be
analyzed from an ecosystem perspective, which implies
considering additional pollution sources and more
regional scale effects and thresholds.
LCA has limited capacity to predict the actual con-
sequences of many of the estimated impact potentials
[60]. It may be justifiable to have such an approach for
the impact categories that are operational on a global
scale, such as global warming potential or ozone deple-
tion. For more regional consequences, however, it can
be highly misleading to make comparisons of the
impacts between two localities. To address this in
a more justifiable manner, several country-specific fac-
tors, such as RECIPE, TRACI, EDIP2003, and LUCAS
[61], have been developed and arguments have been
raised for similar factors on regional scales [62].
Transmission of disease and parasites between wild
and farmed stock and introduction of non-indigenous
species are both major concerns associated with aqua-
culture that have yet have not been addressed by LCA
methodology [63, 64]. Nor is the framework necessar-
ily conducive to accommodating such interactions
since it is necessary to be able to link the impact to
the production of a functional unit following a clear
and quantifiable cause-effect pathway. Both of these
types of impacts have attracted much public attention
and have been major incentives for closed farming
facilities. Transmission of sea lice has, apart from hav-
ing potentially detrimental effects on wild fish stocks,
been estimated to account for 6% of the product cost in
salmon farming [64]. Floating cages and net cultures
allow for free movement of pathogens from farmed to
wild stocks [64]. They also run an increased risk of
large escape events of domesticated fish due to their
vulnerability to extreme weather events, marine mam-
mal interactions, failing infrastructure, and manage-
ment errors. Such events can lead to the introduction
of non-indigenous species as well as undermining the
genetic fitness of wild stocks. It has been estimated that
aquaculture is responsible for 16% of all introductions
of non-indigenous species to European coastal waters,
and further introductions are to be expected with
changing climate [63].
The use of chemicals and antibiotics on farm sites is
still only generally covered by existing impact categories.
These practices can result in long-term effects such as
antibiotic-resistant bacteria or other public health risks
[10]. They may also lead to contaminated water sources
and loss of biodiversity [10]. Shrimp farms are impli-
cated most frequently for using large amounts of anti-
biotics to reduce stock losses. On several occasions, this
has resulted in product recalls and import bans by the
EU, Canada, and the USA [10]. The social conse-
quences of this might be direct (e.g., lower water qual-
ity) or indirect, as import bans can seriously affect the
financial viability of many farmers [65]. Even if LCA has
the potential to account for such social and economic
consequences, there is a lack of metrics to describe how
to include socioeconomic indicators [28]. Overcoming
the hurdles associated with the development of such
impact categories would allow for better estimations of
overall sustainability, including environmental, social,
and economic variables [28]. However, it should be
recognized that LCA is not necessarily conducive to
accounting for the full spectrum of sustainability con-
cerns. As such, it should be considered a complement to,
rather than a replacement for, other metrics.
Discussion
As the number of LCA studies describing aquaculture
systems increases, so too does our understanding of
a broader suite of the environmental costs of aquacul-
ture production. In some cases, it would appear that
aquaculture may indeed provide an inexpensive and
sustainable source of food and other products; how-
ever, this will depend on numerous factors including
cultured species, production technology, and socioeco-
nomic characteristics. To date, LCA research has helped
to identify those aspects of the life cycle that contribute
 Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
disproportionately to environmental degradation,
allowing for the identification of improvements oppor-
tunities. There is, however, always the danger of over-
simplification where results get misinterpreted as
a result of inaccurate data or where results are not
put into their relevant context. LCA should therefore
not be seen as an all-encompassing tool, but rather as
a screening tool, which allows for the mapping of good
practices. Additional environmental and socioeco-
nomic analyses can thereafter be applied to strengthen
assessment of sustainability.
As for advancements that can be made within the
sector, the major challenge will be to find good sources
of low impact feed inputs for fed aquaculture systems,
especially for fish oil that currently drives the demand
for wild marine resources [46]. This would, of course,
ideally be combined with further advances in feed
utilization by fish in culture. A shift toward organically
produced crop inputs may also reduce the impacts of
fed aquaculture, while bringing other benefits such as
biodiversity improvements and superior soil quality
[57, 66]. However, the choice of some resource inten-
sive “organic” inputs can negate much of the life cycle
environmental benefits associated with organic crop
production [57]. Another alternative protein source is
offal meal from fish processing. Tilapia, for example,
has an offal yield of about 67% of live weight [59]. This
does, however, increase the risk of disease transmission
and/or recycling of environmental contaminants [53].
Moreover, the environmental costs of producing these
materials from a life cycle perspective may be high [22].
Recently, there has been increased interest in the use
of fish processing co-products for biofuel feedstock
[67]. Conversion of high-quality protein into biofuels
appears rather wasteful when the environmental bur-
dens associated with producing certain high protein
feed inputs are taken into account. It is clearly desirable
to identify and implement optimal uses of high-quality
protein toward the overarching sustainability objective.
This must include, among other things, attention to the
environmental dimensions of alternative protein pro-
duction and use strategies. Since our ability to make
informed decisions will be strongly influenced by the
robustness of our models and the extent to which they
actually reflect the environmental impacts associated
with the products and systems of interest, methodo-
logical decisions such as choice of allocation criterion
L 5905
should be clearly communicated and defended in the
context of each analysis.
Increasing trade flows of aquatic products from
developing to developed countries highlights the need
for more LCA work beyond production systems in the
developed world. It also indicates that there are sub-
stantial opportunities for expansion of aquaculture in
developed countries. Tyedmers et al. [2] points out that
the USA only accounts for 1% of global aquaculture
production, half of which is made up by channel cat-
fish. Future developments may also to be expected
within mariculture, as much recent effort has focused
on the development of marine fin-fish hatcheries and
offshore cages.
Impacts involved with on-site activities can more
easily be avoided by selecting for better farm locations,
use of renewable energy, improved utilization of
ecosystem services, and farming of more tolerant spe-
cies. One example of such a species is Pangasius catfish,
which has reached high production levels in Vietnam
over the last decade. This fish does not require aeration L
as it can utilize aerial respiration when the oxygen level
drops. The farms also often utilize tidal floods for water
exchange [20]. As for tilapia, the tolerance toward
hypoxia and changes in pH is much higher than other
species normally found in western aquaculture. This
would, again, lower the inputs needed for maintaining
water quality. Wastewater quality can also be improved
by the use of settlement ponds and/or plant production
to remove nutrients. Cultivation of plants such as
Azolla spp. and duckweed within ponds can also
enhance carbon fixation and be used as feed inputs
[48, 68]. Duckweed may further reduce GHG emis-
sions as it will shade the pond and thereby limit the
ammonia volatilization rate [49]. Some of these feed
inputs may, however, negatively influence the color and
the taste of the final product, which makes them less
suitable as feed inputs [48].
Converting to energy conserving practices will not
only have environmental benefits, it can also improve
the economic profitability of farms and reduce vulner-
ability to peaks in the price of oil. Lower intensity
systems are also less sensitive to mechanical or infra-
structure failures, such a black outs, which otherwise
can cause mass mortality. This is especially important
in developing countries where there is less access to
spare parts and power failures are recurring events.
5906 L Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
Open systems are, on the other hand, more vulnerable
to other events such as algae blooms, pollution, and
extreme weather events, which may cause the loss of an
entire crop. Areas ravaged by extreme storm events,
such as typhoons, may suffer from weeks of poor
water quality as large quantities of sediments may
lead to high turbidity for long periods of time.
More knowledge on the true carbon emissions asso-
ciated with aquaculture is needed as there is increasing
interest in its potential as a climate-friendly source for
food and biofuels [68, 69]. LCA can play an essential
part in the screening for sustainable farming practices
and also provide information for the implementation
of carbon credit schemes. This need is especially critical
for developing countries, as this is where the majority
of production occurs and exports are increasing. This
will, however, pose a challenge as farming methods are
highly diverse and data on farm practices are usually
limited.
Also, some important environmental impacts from
aquaculture are at present not quantifiable using the
LCA framework, such as spread of diseases and para-
sites. These impacts have been attracting widespread
public concerns and have influenced development of
farming methods in many countries. The associated
consequences could, for example, be accounted for as
biotic resource use. Concerns associated with defores-
tation to produce agricultural land should also be fur-
ther discussed, as it is only partially covered in current
LCA practice and literature.
Future Directions
LCA provides a robust tool for dealing with an impor-
tant subset of sustainability concerns, many of which
have historically been overlooked in discussions of
environmental management in aquaculture. However,
it must be kept firmly in mind that decisions made
during the analytical process strongly influence
research outcomes.
It is, therefore, important to continue the discus-
sion about such methodological decisions, including
the kind of LCA framework applied (i.e., attributional
versus consequential LCA), systems boundaries, and
choice of allocation methods for LCAs of aquaculture
production. In the least, it would be constructive for all
practitioners to clearly communicate and defend all
methodological choices, as they may ultimately send
different signals to the industry and policy makers
working with sustainability issues.
A more standardized methodology within the sec-
tor would certainly facilitate the advancement of the
field. This could be achieved by better communications
between major practitioners or by the development of
a manual to guide the community toward one common
framework. Even still, there will always be deviations
from common practice as each study serves a unique
purpose, stressing the need for more transparency.
Even though ongoing initiatives for developing the
LCA framework exist, it is important to acknowledge
that the present framework has limited ability to
accommodate the other two pillars of sustainability,
namely, social and economic impacts [28]. Thus, even
if LCA provides a tool with great potential to guide the
aquaculture industry toward more sustainable produc-
tion, its framework needs to be reinforced by other
analytical tools to capture a wider range of sustainabil-
ity concerns. The need to include other tools alongside
LCA has already been recognized and recent projects,
such as the SEAT project (www.seatglobal.eu), include
complementary tools to give a more holistic measure-
ment of sustainability. Limitations aside, however, the
rapid development of this sector, coupled with the
diverse range of possible culture species and technolo-
gies, demands careful attention to environmental
effects at all relevant scales. LCA can and should play
an important role in guiding decisions oriented toward
sustainability in aquaculture.
Bibliography
Primary Literature
1. FAO (2009) State of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. FAO,
Rome
2. Tyedmers P, Pelletier N, Ayer N (2007) Biophysical sustainabil-
ity and approaches to marine aquaculture development pol-
icy in the United States, A Report to the Marine Aquaculture
Task Force
3. Troell M, Tyedmers P, Kautsky N, Rönnbäck P (2004)
Aquaculture and energy use. Encyclopedia Energy 1:97–108
4. Troell M, Joyce A, Chopin T, Neori A, Buschmann A, Fang J-G
(2009) Ecological engineering in aquaculture – potential for
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine off-
shore systems. Aquaculture 297:1–9
5. Troell M (2009b) Integrated marine and brackish water
aquaculture in tropical regions: research, implementation
 Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
and prospects. In: Soto D (ed) Integrated mariculture: a global
review. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, 529.
FAO, Rome, pp 47–131
6. Naylor R, Goldburg R, Primavera J, Kautsky N, Beveridge M,
Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H, Troell M (2000) Effect
of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405:1017–1024
7. Naylor R, Williams S, Strong D (2001) Aquaculture – a gateway
for exotic species. Science 294:1655–1656
8. Naylor R (2005) Aquaculture and ocean resources: raising
tigers of the seat. Annu Rev Environ Resources 30:185–218
9. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2008) Life cycle considerations for
improving sustainability assessments in seafood awareness
campaigns. Environ Manage 42:918–941
10. Bartley D, Brugére C, Soto D, Gerber P, Harvey B (2007)
Comparative assessment of the environmental costs of
aquaculture and other food production sectors, Methods for
meaningful comparisons, FAO/WFT Expert Workshop, 24–28
April 2006, Vancouver, Canada. FAO Fisheries Proceedings,
no. 10, Rome
11. Finnveden G, Moberg Å (2005) Environmental systems analy-
sis tools – an overview. J Cleaner Prod 13:1165–1173
12. Folke C, Kautsky N, Berg H, Jansson Å, Troell M (1998) The
ecological footprint concept for sustainable seafood
production: a review. Ecol Soc Am 8(1):S63–S71
13. Volpe JP, Beck M, Ethier V, Gee J, Wilson A (2010) Global
aquaculture performance index. University of Victoria, Victo-
ria, British Columbia, Canada
14. International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environ-
mental management – life cycle assessment – principles and
framework (ISO 14040:2006). International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland
15. International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environ-
mental management – life cycle assessment – requirements
and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006), Geneva, Switzerland
16. Cordella M, Tugnoli A, Spandoni G, Santarelli F, Zangrando T
(2008) LCA of an Italian Beer. Int J LCA 13(2):133–139
17. Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The Hitch Hicker’s Guide to
LCA. Studentlitteratur, Lund
18. Wright DA, Hetzel EW (1985) Use of RNA: DNA ratios as an
indicator of nutritional stress in the American oyster
Crassostrea virginica. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 25:199–206
19. Thrane M, Nielsen E, Christensen P (2009) Cleaner production
in Danish fish processing – experiences status and possible
future strategies. J Cleaner Prod 17:380–390
20. Henriksson P (2009) Energy Intensity in Tropical Aquaculture,
MSc thesis, Stockholm University
21. Aubin J, Papatryphon E, van der Werf H, Chatzifotis S (2009)
Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous
finfish production systems using life cycle assessment.
J Cleaner Prod 17(3):354–361
22. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P, Sonesson U, Scholz A, Zeigler F,
Flysjo A, Kruse S, Cancino B, Silverman H (2009) Not all
salmon are create equal: life cycle assessment (LCA) of
global salmon farming systems. Environ Sci Technol
43(23):8730–8736
L 5907
23. Iribarren D, Moreira M, Gumersindo F (2010) Revisiting the life
cycle assessment of mussels from a sectorial perspective.
J Cleaner Prod 18(2):101–111
24. Thrane M (2004) Environmental impacts from Danish fish
products – hot spots and environmental policies, PhD thesis,
Ålborg University, Ålborg, Denmark
25. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of
unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 13:290–300
26. Thrane M (2006) LCA of Danish fish products. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 11(1):66–74
27. Pelletier N, Ayer N, Tyedmers P, Kruse S, Flysjo A, Robillard G,
Ziegler F, Scholz A, Sonesson U (2007) Impact categories for
life cycle assessment research of seafood production: Review
and prospectus. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):414–421
28. Kruse S, Flygsjö A, Kasperczyk N, Scholz A (2009) Socioeco-
nomic indicators as a complement to life cycle assessment –
an application to salmon production systems. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 14:8–18
29. Zhang T, Dornfeld D (2007) Energy use per worker-hour, eval-
uating the contribution of labor to manufacturing energy use,
part 3:B1, pp 189–193. In: Takata S, Umeda Y (eds) Advances in
life cycle engineering for sustainable manufacturing busi-
nesses, Proceedings of the 14th CIRP conference on life cycle
engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo L
30. Tyedmers P, Watson R, Pauly D (2005) Fueling global fishing
fleets. Ambio 34(8):635–638
31. Ruttan L, Tyedmers P (2007) Skippers, spotters and seiners:
analysis of the “skipper effect” in US menhaden (Brevoortia
spp.) purse-seine fisheries. Fish Res 83(1):73–80
32. Sandweiss D, Maasch K, Chai F, Andrus C, Reitz E (2004)
Geoarchaeological evidence for multidecadal natural climatic
variability and ancient Peruvian fisheries. Quatern Res 61:
330–334
33. Tacon A, Metian M (2009) Fishing for aquaculture: non-food
use of small pelagic forage fish – a global perspective. Rev Fish
Sci 17(3):305–317
34. Naylor R, Falcon W, Zavaleta E (1997) Variability and growth in
grain yields, 1950-94: does the record point to greater insta-
bility? Populat Dev Rev 23(1):41–58
35. Tacon A, Silva S (1997) Feed preparation and feed manage-
ment strategies within semi-intensive fish farming systems in
the tropics. Aquaculture 151:379–404
36. Kautsky N, Rönnbäck P, Tedengren M, Troell M (2000) Ecosys-
tem perspectives on management of disease in shrimp pond
farming. Aquaculture 191:145–161
37. Papatryphon E, Petit J, Kaushik S, van der Werf H, Kaushik S
(6–8 October 2003) Life cycle assessment of trout farming in
France: a farm level approach. In: Halberg N (ed) Life Cycle
Assessment in the Agri-food sector, Proceedings from the 4th
International Conference. Bygholm, Denmark
38. Aubin J, Papatryphon E, van der Werf H, Petit J, Morvan Y (2006)
Characterisation of the environmental impact of a turbot
(Scophtalmus maximus) re-circulating production systems
using Life Cycle Assessment. Aquaculture 261:1259–1268
5908 L Life Cycle Assessments and Their Applications to Aquaculture Production Systems
39. Ellingsen H, Aanondsen S (2006) Environmental impacts of
wild caught cod and farmed salmon – a comparison with
chicken. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:60–65
40. Ayer N, Tyedmers P (2009) Assessing alternative aquaculture
technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture sys-
tems in Canada. J Cleaner Prod 17:362–373
41. d’Orbcaster RE, Blancheton J-E, Belaud A (2009) Water quality
and rainbow trout performance in a Danish Model Farm
reciculating system: comparison with a flow through system.
Aquacult Eng 40:135–143
42. d’Orbcaster RE, Blancheton J-E, Aubin J (2009) Towards envi-
ronmentally sustainable aquaculture: comparison between
two trout farming systems using Life Cycle Assessment.
Aquacult Eng 40:113–119
43. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2007) Feeding farmed salmon: Is
organic better? Aquaculture 272:399–416
44. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2010) A life cycle assessment of frozen
Indonesian tilapia fillets from lake and pond-based production
systems. J Ind Ecol (in press)
45. Alder J, Campbell B, Karpouzi V, Kaschner K, Pauly D (2008)
Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annu Rev Environ
Res 33:7.1–7.14
46. Naylor R, Hardy R, Bureau D, Chiu A, Elliott M, Farrell A,
Forster I, Gatlin D, Goldburg R, Hua K, Nichols P (2009) Feeding
aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci
106(36):15103–15110
47. de Francescoa M, Parisia G, Médaleb F, Lupia P, Kaushikb S,
Poli B (2004) Effect of long-term feeding with a plant protein
mixture based diet on growth and body/fillet quality traits of
large rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture
236(1–4):413–429
48. Edwards P, Anh Tuan L, Allan G (2004) A survey of marine trash
fish and fishmeal as aquaculture feed ingredients in Vietnam.
ACIAR Working Paper No. 57
49. Zimmo O, van der Steer N, Gijzen J (2003) Comparison of
ammonia volatilization rates in algae and duckweed-based
waste stabilization ponds treating domestic wastewater.
Water Res 37:4587–4594
50. Driscoll J, Tyedmers P (2010) Fuel use and greenhouse gas
emission implications of fisheries management: the case of
the New England Atlantic herring fishery. Marine Policy
34(3):353–359
51. Tlusty M, Lagueux K (2009) Isolines as a new tool to assess the
energy costs of the production and distribution of multiple
sources of seafood. J Cleaner Prod 17:408–415
52. Pauly D, Christensen V, Guénette S, Pitcher T, Sumaila U,
Walters C, Watson R, Zeller D (2002) Towards sustainability in
world fisheries. Nature 418:689–695
53. Tacon A, Metian M (2008) Global overview on the use of
fishmeal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds:
trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285:146–158
54. Pauly D, Christensen V (1995) Primary production required to
sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255–257
55. Tacon A, Hasan M, Subasinghe R (2006) Use of fishery
resources as feed inputs for aquaculture development: trends
and policy, implications. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 1018.
Rome, FAO, 99 p
56. Rafiqul I, Weber C, Lehmann B, Voss A (2005) Energy efficiency
improvements in ammonia production-perspectives and
uncertainties. Energy 30:2487–2504
57. Pelletier N, Arsenault N, Tyedmers P (2008) Scenario-
modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to
organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian
canola, corn, soy and wheat production. Environ Manage
42:989–1001
58. Cho C, Bureau D (2001) A review of diet formulation strategies
and feeding systems to reduce excretory and feed wastes in
aquaculture. Aquac Res 32:349–360
59. Boyd C, Tucker C, McNevin A, Bostick K, Clay J (2007) Indica-
tors of resource use efficiency and environmental perfor-
mance in fish and Crustacean aquaculture. Rev Fish Sci
15:327–360
60. Potting J, Hauschild M (1997) Spatial differentiation in life-
cycle assessment via the site-dependent characterisation of
environmental impact from emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2(4):209–216
61. ILCD handbook (International Reference Life Cycle Data Sys-
tem) (2010) Analysis of existing environmental impact assess-
ment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment, JRC
background document, 1st edn, European Union
62. Gallego A, Rodrı́guez L, Hospido A, Moreira1 M, Feijoo G (2010)
Development of regional characterization factors for aquatic
eutrophication. J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):32–43
63. Occhipinti-Ambrogi A (2007) Global change and marine com-
munities: alien species and climate change. Mar Pollut Bull
55:342–352
64. Costello M (2009) How sea lice from salmon farms may
cause wild salmonid declines in Europe and North America
and be a threat to fishes elsewhere. Proc R Soc 276:
3385–3394
65. Cato J, Lima dos Santos C (1998) European Union 1997
seafood-safety ban: the economic impact on Bangladesh
shrimp processing. Mar Resource Econ 13(3):215–227
66. Reijnders L, Soret S (2003) Quantifications of the environmen-
tal impacts of different dietary protein choices. Am J Clin Nutr
78:664S–668S
67. Wiggers V, Wisniewski A, Madureira L, Chivanga Barros A,
Meier H (2009) Biofuels from waste fish oil pyrolysis: continu-
ous production in a pilot plant. Fuel 88(11):2135–2141
68. Bunting S, Pretty J (2007) Global carbon budgets and aqua-
culture – emissions, sequestration and management options.
Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper 2007-1.
University of Essex, Essex
69. Hossain S, Salleh A, Boyce A, Chowdhury P, Naqiuddin
M (2008) Biodiesel fuel production from algae as renewable
energy. Am J Biochem biotechnol 4(3):250–254
70. Mungkung R (2005) Shrimp aquaculture in Thailand: applica-
tion of life cycle assessment to support sustainable develop-
ment, PhD thesis, Center for Environmental Strategy, School of
Engineering, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK
 Life Cycle Comparison of Waste-to-Energy to Sanitary Landfill L 5909

Books and Reviews Results and Discussion

Conclusions and Future Directions
Mungkung R, Gheewala SH (2006) Use of life cycle assessment
(LCA) to compare the environmental impacts of aquaculture
Bibliography
and agri-food products. In: Barley DM, Brugére C, Soto D,
Gerber P, Harvey B (eds) Comparative assessment of the envi- Glossary
ronmental costs of aquaculture and other food production
sectors: methods for meaningful comparisons, FAO/WFT APCS Air pollution control systems
Expert Workshop, 24–28 April 2006, Vancouver, Canada. FAO ASCC Alaska Systems Coordinating Council
Fisheries Proceedings, no. 10, Rome, FAO, pp 87–96, 207 BOD Biological oxygen demand
Ayer N, Tyedmers P, Pelletier N, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) CAA Clean air act
Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood
COD Chemical oxygen demand
production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):480–487 EGU Electric generating unit
Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitchhiker’s guide to LCA: an FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council
orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and applica- HDPE High-density polyethylene
tion. ISBN 91-44-02364-2 HICC Hawaiian Islands Coordinating Council
Guinée J (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, ICE Internal combustion engine
de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de
LCA Life cycle assessment
Haes H, de Bruijn J, van Duin R, Huijbregts M (2002) Handbook
on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO LCI Life cycle inventory
Standards. Series: Eco-efficiency in industry and science. LFG Landfill gas
Springer, Dordrecht LFGTE Landfill gas to energy
MRO Midwest reliability organization
MSW Municipal solid waste L
NERC North American Energy Reliability Council
Life Cycle Comparison of Waste-to- NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council
OCC Old corrugated cardboard
Energy to Sanitary Landfill
ONP Old newsprint
P. OZGE KAPLAN1, JOSEPH F. DECAROLIS2 PET Polyethylene terephthalate
MORTON A. BARLAZ2 RFC Reliability first corporation
1
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, SERC SERC reliability corporation
Office of Research and Development, SPP Southwest power pool
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research TRE Texas Regional Entity
Triangle Park, NC, USA US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
2
Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA WTE Waste-to-energy

Definition of the Subject

Article Outline
This entry provides a detailed life cycle assessment
Glossary (LCA) of combustion vs. landfilling of post-recycling
Definition of the Subject municipal solid waste (MSW). LCA can be used to
Introduction evaluate the environmental footprint of products, pro-
Background on Life Cycle Assessment cesses, and services. An LCA allows decision makers to
System Boundaries of the WTE LCI compare products and processes through systematic
Life Cycle Inventory evaluation of supply chains. LCA takes a “cradle-to-
Method to Generate Emission Factors per MWh of grave” approach, by including each stage of life for
Electricity Generated a given product or process, which includes the extrac-
Method to Generate Emission Factors for Landfill Gas tion of raw materials, transportation, manufacturing,
to Energy distribution, use, and final disposal. LCA has been

View publication stats