Challenges and Solutions for

Aquaponic Profitability
D. Allen Pattillo and Janelle V. Hager

I nterest in commercial aquaponics is expanding across the US.
Growers are drawn to aquaponics by improved resource use and
production of both fish and plants. As Extension specialists, we are
often tasked with grounding the starry-eyed stakeholder in the real-
world challenges they will face. The most common questions asked
by potential aquaponic producers are “What should I grow?” and
“Can I make any money?” As with most good questions, the answer
is “It depends.”
The most important factors in determining the financial
viability of an aquaponic business are economies-of-scale, crops
grown, sales opportunities, market prices, energy prices and
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 32)

W W W.WA S .O R G • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • M A RC H 2 02 3 31
 TABLE 1. Plant value comparison of lettuce varieties grown in an aquaponic system at the University of the
Virgin Islands. Adapted from Bailey and Ferrarezi (2017).

Let tuce D e n s i t y G r o w t h Va l u e Va l u e Va l u e
variet y (p l a n t s/m 2 ) p e r i o d (w k) ($/h e a d) ($/m 2 ) ($/m 2 p e r w k)

Parris Island Romaine 16 4 0.87-0.92 13.92-14.72 3.48-3.68

Boston Bibb 30 3 0.75-0.92 22.50-27.60 7.50-9.20

availability and labor cost and system efficiency adds

(Goddek and Kröer 2019). In years to a potential ROI. It is
simpler terms, to make a profit, not uncommon for aquaponic
the price and volume of product businesses in the temperate
sold must exceed production climate of Kentucky, for
costs with a reasonable return example, to spend upwards
on investment (ROI). With the of $300,000 on a system
emergence of YouTube experts, with automated temperature
what is practical and profitable controls. That is a big pill to
can be clouded by what is eye- swallow for most, but it
catching or new. allows for year-round
To develop a comprehensive production and is required to
overview of the aquaponics FIGURE 1. Proportion of aquaponics farms using Good Aquaculture Practices conserve heat and electricity.
industry, an international survey and Best Aquaculture Practices certification systems for their products. Facilities located in warmer
of aquaponic growers was climates (e.g., plant hardiness
conducted in 2019. Survey results identified current practices, zones 7 through 13) are 4.17 times more likely to be profitable
challenges for producers, production numbers and areas of (Love et al. 2015a).
need (Pattillo 2021). Ultimately, the challenges reported by 378 Over half of the 145 producers surveyed were in rural areas,
respondents were grouped into ten categories (Pattillo et al. 2022a), compared to 29 percent in urban or industrial areas. Rural land is
with the most relevant ones for economic viability presented less expensive and often does not have the same zoning restrictions
below. Respondents self-identified as a hobbyist, producer or as property located near cities. However, producers located in rural
educator. In this article, we will primarily discuss those who settings will likely need to travel farther to markets, which leads to a
identified as a producer. need to increase retail price to offset fuel and labor costs.
Controlled environment agriculture allows farmers to
Production Challenges Experienced manipulate temperature, humidity, light intensity and duration to
by Aquaponic Producers improve crop performance, extend the growing season, shield crops
from harmful weather conditions and exclude pests. The expense of
Challenge 1: Facilities, Location and constructing and operating these facilities can be quite high. In our
System Design survey, 47 percent of producers grew in a greenhouse, 35 percent
Perhaps the most logical place that financial challenges begin grew indoors and 21 percent grew outdoors.
is with the costs of construction and the structure where systems Although greenhouses don’t retain heat very well, they give
are housed. Eighty-five percent of producers surveyed were located growers access to sunlight for their plants. Conversely, it is easier for
in temperate or subtropical climate zones, necessitating the use of indoor production systems to maintain temperature, but they solely
a greenhouse or indoor facility to grow year-round. The upfront depend on light from artificial grow lights, leading to electrical costs
cost of building a facility that optimizes environmental control of up to seven times that of greenhouses (Avgoustaki and Xydis

32 M A RC H 2 02 3 • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • W W W.WA S .O R G
2020). However, in extreme cold, the cost savings from reduced
heating requirements can offset the electrical cost of lighting and
even outperform greenhouse production profitability under optimal
conditions (Avgoustaki and Xydis 2020, Eaves and Eaves 2018).
Grow lights account for approximately 22 percent of capital costs
in indoor agriculture systems and as much as 25 percent of the
reoccurring electrical budget (Agrilyst 2017, Goodman et al. 2005).
Although LED lights are often thought to be more economical
due to their perceived operational efficiency, the cost per mole of
photons is 2.3 times higher for LEDs than for double-ended high-
pressure sodium (HPS) lights. With almost identical five-year
efficiency values, HPS is a better economic investment than LED
grow lights (Nelson and Bugbee 2014). The primary difference in
economic viability was the high fixture cost of LEDs, which should
decrease as technology progresses.
System scale. Aquaponic technology can be applied at many
scales, from industrial down to benchtop systems, implying a range
of resource use efficiency and profitability. As farm scale increases,
farmers should be able to produce more product, but this comes with
additional fixed and variable costs. The benefit to larger operations is
that building and production system infrastructure tends to become
cheaper on a unit area or water volume basis. Additionally, heating,
lighting, and labor costs can be spread out across more products for
sale, making the cost per unit production lower. Along with system
scale, retail produce price is critical in determining profitability.
Xie and Rosentrater (2015) demonstrated a greater profit potential
for larger systems (>75 m2 growing area) and higher sales prices
(>$60/kg for basil). Although the minimum system scale required
to make a profit is heavily dependent on local conditions, species
produced and market prices, König et al. (2016) suggest a minimum
scale of 1,000 m2.
The median facility size class for commercial producers in our
survey was 500-3000 ft2 (46-279 m2). Love et al. (2014) reported a
median facility footprint of 15 m2 (162 ft2), indicating an increase in
facility scale over time. As a frame of reference, for the minimum
recommended area 1000 m2 to be profitable, 3.5 standard 30 ft
× 100 ft greenhouses would be required. Only 17 commercial
producers in our survey met this criterion (Pattillo et al. 2022b).
Three of four producers expressed an interest in scaling up their
operations, indicating considerable growth potential for aquaponics.
System design. Interestingly, 73 percent of producers in
this study designed their own aquaponic system. Based on the
increasing size of aquaponic farms over time, these growers likely
learned their do’s and don’ts from making mistakes on a smaller have closed due to overdesign and over-investment.
scale. Additionally, the vast majority (84 percent) of producers The scale of operation is an important factor in assessing
used coupled systems in which the fish and plant sub-systems are economic viability; it is logical to conclude that bigger is better.
connected. Decoupled systems are gaining popularity because they It is easy to get stretched too thin, especially for owner-operators,
allow growers to isolate segments of the system, modify temperature and more employees adds another dimension of complexity.
and water quality conditions independently and apply pesticides. Most growers interested in aquaponics do not have the necessary
capital or skillset to build and operate a 1000-m2 system. The
Solutions majority of producers in this study operate pilot-scale (500-3000
Potential aquaponic farmers, particularly in temperate and ft2; n = 26) to small commercial farms (3000-22,500 ft2; n = 29)
sub-tropical environments, should enter facility and system planning (Pattillo et al. 2022b).
with eyes wide open. A common mistake is the “if I build it, they Aquaponics research should focus on applied studies to reduce
will come” mentality. Ensuring that the cost of the facility and production costs for small farmers. Results should not only be
system can achieve a ROI is of utmost importance. Although fully representative of smaller, replicated systems. Researchers should
automated greenhouses are attractive, many aquaponic businesses (CONTINUED ON PAGE 34)

W W W.WA S .O R G • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • M A RC H 2 02 3 33

work cooperatively with aquaponic farmers to ensure on-farm
results are consistent with reported research. Economic viability for
the small farmer should be the priority of research.
System design can play a key role in efficiency and related
profitability of an aquaponic farm. For example, temperate
producers may consider using a decoupled aquaponic system that
separates fish and plant production for optimized energy, heating
and water quality control. Separating the systems allows a farmer
to shut down a portion of their operation when utility costs get too
high to break even. Only 16 percent of surveyed producers operate
decoupled systems, indicating a complexity and unfamiliarity with
alternate system designs. Coupled, or single loop, systems are by environments and low seasonal variation in temperature tend to be
far more common, largely due to the available design schematics
and years of production data from the University of the Virgin
Islands. Although most farms in the survey were under the of $6/kg of plants produced, ranging from $1/kg in the summer
1000-m2 profitability threshold, understanding local regulations on
energy buy-back programs from solar or a gas-based combined heat
and power unit may be the tipping point that brings a farm from loss
to profit.
34 M A RC H 2 02 3 • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • W W W.WA S .O R G
A cold-weather adaptation for aquaponics is indoor or
warehouse farming in well-insulated buildings where the
growing environment can be easily regulated (Eaves and Eaves
2018). Aquaponic producers operating indoors have flexibility to
design systems that maximize space and heat efficiency. Vertical
production systems use shallow trays on racks with three to
five layers and grow lights directly above the crops (Avgoustaki
and Xydis 2020, Eaves and Eaves 2018). These ‘plant factories’
produce more plant biomass per unit area than greenhouses
and consume only 2 percent of the water of a similar size
field operation by condensing and reusing moisture in the air
(Avgoustaki and Xydis 2020). Some farms use on-site generators
that create electricity, heat and CO2 for plant uptake in a cost-
effective way (Baganz et al. 2020). Urban growers can also take
advantage of off-peak power to maximize profit (Avgoustaki and
Xydis 2020). The ultimate profitability of these operations remains
to be seen, but they certainly look attractive.
Challenge 2: Operations and Management
Production. Surveyed producers most often grew tilapia,
ornamental fish and catfish, combined with lettuce, leafy
greens, basil and tomato. Selling fish on a small scale is a clear
bottleneck. Processing fish pushes retail prices beyond the
consumers’ willingness to pay, while live direct sales from farms
is sporadic and limited to specific clientele. Plant production
dominates in aquaponic systems. The rule-of-thumb that ¾ of all
revenue comes from plants appears reasonably accurate. Daily
operational tasks such as balancing fish and plants, sourcing/
availability of inputs, resource management (energy, electricity,
etc.) and finding reliable labor are key challenges identified by
producers (Pattillo et al. 2022a). Producers with more than five
years of experience reported these challenges more often than
those with less experience (Pattillo et al. 2022a). Aquaponics
takes time and effort to master, particularly for low-tech systems
without automation (Kyaw 2017). Seasoned operators find that
careful management of energy, labor, water, plant and fish inputs
are necessary for efficient production and minimized costs
(Quagrainie et al. 2017, Silva et al. 2019).
Reducing resource expenditures required to grow a crop is
one of the most attractive aspects of aquaponics, particularly water
and nutrient usage. However, the climate of the growing location
heavily influences production (Goddek and Kröer 2019). Love et
al. (2015) reported a 5:1 ratio by weight of leafy greens to feed
input to the system under optimal conditions. However, over a full
production year 1 kg of crops requires 104 L of water, 0.5 kg of
feed and 56 kWh of energy on average, making the plant to feed
ratio closer to 2:1.
Environmental control is a major cost constraint of growing
in a temperate environment. Locations with more stable
more energy and nutrient efficient (Goddek and Kröer 2019). Love
et al. (2015) reported an average monthly energy cost in Maryland
to as high as $55/kg in January. The energy cost for lettuce
production in Hawaii is $0.73/kg (Tokunga et al. 2015).
Labor. Finding reliable workers is a common challenge for
aquaponic producers given the multitude of skills required for
successful and safe operations. A lack of training opportunities
compounds the issue. An apparent trend at successful farms is that
one family member is responsible for the farm, and the other(s)
are employed outside of the aquaponics business. Fifty percent of
producers in this survey spent >20 hr/wk working on the farm,
with 20 percent devoting >40 hr/wk and a handful spending >60
hr/wk, with a positive correlation between farm size and labor
requirement (Pattillo et al. 2022b). With labor representing up to 49
percent of the total operating budget (Quagrainie et al. 2017), this
component often determines economic viability and longevity of
the farm (Love et al. 2015b).

Solutions
Production. With high infrastructure costs, selecting crops
that maximize returns based on market value, time to harvest and
grow area required is key. Growers need to approach their grow
space with an economic lens. The cost of everything needed to
grow a crop needs to be less than the value of that product. Often
that does not translate to simply growing a higher-value crop.
Value/m2 per week can be greater with a crop that is planted
at a higher density and has reduced time to harvest, even if the
individual value (cost/head) is low (Table 1). A grower focused on
tomato production may not see a return on investment for three
months or more. Lettuce growing in that space would have been
harvested three times, injecting money into the business at quicker
intervals.
Producers expressed the desire to network with and receive
mentorship from skilled producers. Networking at state and
regional aquaculture association meetings can connect producers
and encourage grassroots solutions to local and regional challenges.
Labor. A shortage of skilled labor is not exclusive to
commercial aquaponics. To expand production capacity, workforce Challenge 3: Markets
development programs must be created and accessible to the Markets are the most important yet often overlooked factor to
public. Land-grant colleges, community colleges and high schools consider when planning a business. A proper market analysis of the
can work cooperatively to offer career training in aquaponics prices and volume that can be expected for a particular product in
through work-study opportunities, paid internships, certificate a specific location should be carefully researched. Overestimating
degrees, dual-credit programs and project-based learning sales price and volume is a big mistake in business planning. Sales
opportunities in the classroom. Exposure to diverse methods of strategies can vary, but generally large volumes can be sold to a few
aquaculture and agriculture can allow students and adult learners buyers for lower unit prices or small volumes can be sold to many
to fill positions as skilled workers, farm owners or managers, buyers for higher unit prices. Selling to a single buyer would be very
Extension agents and educators (Lakai et al. 2012). convenient for a grower, eliminating the need to spend time and fuel
The bottom line is that, even if there is an adequate number on searching for customers and doing deliveries. Often, growers will
of skilled workers, growers need to be able to afford to pay them. approach a chef or a market outlet to make a sale and after seeing
Research has a role to play here. The industry needs applied the quality of the product these buyers may commit to buying
research studies that move beyond successful fish and plant everything that can be produced, only to find later that the grower
combinations. We know how to grow fish and plants together, can’t sustain the volume or price needed to make a profit. Spreading
how do we make money doing it? A key question when planning sales out over multiple buyers helps mitigate this risk. Depending
research should be, “Does this make financial sense for the on the volume of product produced, farmers could create a portfolio
farmer.” If the answer is no, then it should not be billed as applied of buyers in the wholesale, retail and direct-to-consumer markets to
research. One way to do this is by considering how changes in balance profit potential and risk.
equipment or production styles influence potential profitability. Marketing Methods. Aquaponic products are substitutes for
“How much money can I save if I buy low-cost LEDs?” “If I had others currently on the market and therefore compete on price.
less fish, could the savings in feed cost make me more money, even Fortunately, competition from field-grown crops is lower during
if my plant growth is reduced?” Simple changes can make big cold weather, giving indoor growers a niche to exploit. Currently,
differences for producers. If investment and operational costs are aquaponic products need to be sold at a high unit price to turn a
reduced, the farm may be able to hire the skilled labor needed to profit. However, niche markets that are willing to pay a premium
expand to a profitable production capacity. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 36)

W W W.WA S .O R G • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • M A RC H 2 02 3 35

tend to be small and easily saturated. Although aquaponics is
becoming more mainstream, the general public is still not very
familiar with the production practice or its benefits to health and
the environment. Thus, consumers may not be willing to pay more
for those products (Greenfeld et al. 2018).
Surveyed aquaponic producers identified ‘marketing of
food products’ as ‘very important’; however, there was a large
discrepancy between perceived importance and access to
information (Pattillo et al. 2021a, 2021b). Producers know the
importance of marketing but have difficulty accessing information
about successful strategies to reach consumers. Of 82 responses,
producers used 3.6±1.5 advertising methods, indicating that it is
important to diversify advertising efforts. The most commonly
used methods to advertise were word-of-mouth (n=66), point-
of-sale (n=59), social media (n=45) and email (n=42). The most
commonly desired methods were search engines (n=28), print
media (n=25), social media (n=23), signage (n=20) and radio
(n=20). The most common unused methods were television (n=50),
radio (n=38), signage (n=36) and no advertising (n=30). Types of
market outlets included schools, functional health clinics, farmer’s
markets, websites, virtual farmer’s markets and a state-provided list
of institutions.
Certifications. Product differentiation through certification
is one strategy to increase product value and attract discerning
customers. Some markets report a sales price for organically
produced lettuce around twice that of conventional. However,
36 M A RC H 2 02 3 • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • W W W.WA S .O R G
there are expenses and paperwork associated with receiving and
maintaining organic certification and organic standards exclude many
of the typical plant supplements used in aquaponics (e.g., chelated iron
and hydroxides). With the ever-changing policy on USDA organic
certification, this may not be a reliable marketing tactic for aquaponic
farmers.
Becoming ‘Certified Naturally Grown (CNG)’ is another
way to tap into higher produce prices at retail. As a sidestep to this
hurdle, some aquaponic farmers market their produce as “better
than organic.” Of 156 surveyed producers, we received certification
responses from 80 (51 percent) on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)
and 75 (48 percent) on Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP). Only 65
(42 percent) responded to both questions (Fig. 1). With significant
consumer education, farmers may convince consumers of their
produce’s superiority and command a premium price.
Solution
Whenever possible, written letters of commitment for a
specific volume of product with the agreed sales price should be
obtained. Farmers should have many market options for their product
throughout the year as competing products like field-grown crops
become more available during the growing season. A diversity of
crops produced can help farmers serve their clientele better and
generate additional sales. Lettuce growers might consider growing
different colors and varieties of leafy greens. Herbs like basil can be
particularly lucrative because they grow well in aquaponics and are
often sold at a higher price per unit. Cherry tomatoes can be sold in
small packages and there are varieties with outstanding flavor that
can remain productive over multiple seasons. Focusing on quality,
taste and freshness helps aquaponic growers be competitive (Junge
et al. 2017). Additionally, growers should consider the cost-benefit of
growing out of season and whether it makes financial sense. Finally,
think outside of the box. Food is not the only market for aquaponic
products. Consider ornamental, medicinal, recreational and stock
enhancement markets to find a niche. Market outlets for fish and plants
can include on-farm sales, grocery stores, restaurants, other producers
(e.g., stockers and fingerlings) and farmer’s markets (Love et al. 2015).
Smaller, unprofitable farms tend to focus on local food sales in limited
niche markets, which may be their only option considering their
production scale and volume produced (Love et al. 2015).
Challenge 4: Access to Capital
Startup Capital. Startup money is hard to come by for aquaponic
operations. Commercial aquaponic ventures are capital-intensive, with
median investment costs exceeding $20/ft2 and median total costs of
$47,000 (Pattillo 2021). Plus, aquaponics is generally perceived as
high risk, especially with a lack of readily accessible, viable business
models. According to our survey, 78 percent of commercial producers
used personal funds to start and maintain their aquaponic businesses.
Other private monies used included investor dollars (28 percent) and
loans (20 percent). Grant monies are also obtainable but can be much
more difficult to justify. Fifteen percent of commercial producers
took advantage of government grants and 13 percent obtained private
grants (Pattillo et al. 2022b). In general, loan officers unfamiliar
with aquaponics will not approve a loan. Thus, financing will only
be readily available when aquaponics can be demonstrated to be
reliably profitable. Interestingly, 9 percent of respondents in our survey
reported that they successfully secured loans, contrasting with no
loan usage by survey participants in Europe (Villarroel et al. 2016).
This suggests increased willingness among financial institutions to
support this new technology (Pattillo et al. 2022b).
Viable Business Models. As the industry matures and more
success stories make their way into mainstream media, the
likelihood of receiving a building or operational loan increases.
Success is attractive to lenders because it lowers their perceived
risk of recouping the investment. Profitability is critical for business
success, but growers should also consider the opportunity cost
and return on their investment. Internal rates of return (IRR) for
aquaponic operations range from 7 to 27 percent (Engle 2015).
A smart business person would compare the IRR of aquaponics
to other business and investment options. Consider also if the
aquaponic business model will yield a livable wage for its
employees, including the owner-operator.

Solutions
Startup Capital. Loan opportunities must be made available
to advance the industry. Government-backed loans would reduce
the risk to private lenders, allowing farmers to get the financing they
need (Brewer 2019, Greenfeld et al. 2020). One such opportunity is
the USDA beginning farmer and rancher loan program (USDA FSA
2021) but this program has very specific qualifications for farmers.

Viable Business Models. High infrastructure costs make

selecting crops that maximize returns critical. Some low-tech
options may provide economic sustainability for aquaponic farms.
Fern (2014) described one such tilapia-cucumber aquaponic
facility with a breakeven cost of $1.16/lb for tilapia and $0.25/lb for
cucumbers, which should promote profit in retail markets. High
turnover crops also promote profit. Leafy greens like lettuce and
herbs grow quickly, have a relatively high market value, and take up
a small growing area (Bailey and Ferrarezi 2017). Aquaponic farms
in the midwestern US were able to profit when basil prices were at
least $10/kg, and profits grew in proportion to farm size (Quagrainie
et al. 2017). Diversified farm income can also help growers achieve
profitability. Supplemental income from surplus electricity sales
from gas generators that co-produced heat, CO2 and electricity
pushed one German farm into profitability (Baganz et al. 2020).
Other income-generating activities like training and educational As the sector grows, so too will the solutions to these challenges.
opportunities, growing microgreens, material and supply sales and Improved sales price, consumer knowledge and acceptance of
other co-products were common in this study (Pattillo et al. 2022b). aquaponic products will be critical to enterprise profit in the future.

Conclusion
Successful farmers consider key economic considerations
like overall investment, annual operating cost, market competition,
realistic market prices and projected revenue (Engle 2015). Only
31 percent of commercial aquaponics producers claimed to be
profitable, and the amount invested did not necessarily correlate
with profit (Love et al. 2015). Profitable farmers 1) chose aquaponics
as their primary income source, 2) were located in warmer regions,
3) had greater gross sales revenue, 4) had greater aquaponics
knowledge levels, and 5) sold non-food products (e.g., materials,
supplies, consulting services, workshops and agritourism). The
combination of determination, forethought, effort, wisdom and
ingenuity can make all the difference between success and failure.
Notes
D. Allen Pattillo, Ph.D. is a Faculty Extension Specialist in
Aquaculture at the University of Maryland-College Park. He has
been working with aquaponics since 2009 and aquaculture since
2003. The research contained in this article reflects the findings of
an international aquaponics industry survey that was conducted for
his Ph.D. dissertation work at Auburn University from 2018-2021.
Janelle V. Hager is a Research and Extension Associate focused on
aquaponics at Kentucky State University. She works directly with
fish farmers and aquaponic growers in Kentucky, conducts several
workshops annually, is currently on the board of the Aquaponics
Association, and has over 15 years of experience in the field.
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 38)

W W W.WA S .O R G • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • M A RC H 2 02 3 37
References
Abbey, M. 2018. Market Analysis and Productivity of Aquaponics
in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Thesis. hdl.handle.
net/11299/202105
Agrylist. 2020. State of Indoor Farming 2020. artemisag.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/State-of-Indoor-Farming-2020.pdf
Avgoustaki, D.D. and G. Xydis. 2020. Indoor vertical farming in
the urban nexus context: Business growth and resource savings.
Sustainability 12(5):1965. doi.org/10.3390/su12051965
Baganz, G., D. Baganz, G. Staaks, H. Monsees, and W. Kloas. 2020.
Profitability of multi-loop aquaponics: Year-long production
data, economic scenarios and a comprehensive model case.
Aquaculture Research 50:2711-2724. doi.org/10.1111/are.14610
Bailey, D and R. Ferrarezi. 2017. Valuation of vegetable crops
produced in the UVI Commercial Aquaponic System.
Aquaculture Reports 7:77-82. 10.1016/j.aqrep.2017.06.002
Brewer A. 2019. Barriers and Incentives to Engaging with
Aquaponic Systems: Empirical Evidence from São Carlos,
Brazil. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Michigan. hdl.handle.
net/2027.42/148828
Engle, C. R. 2015. Economics of Aquaponics. SRAC Publication
No. 5506. Available: srac-aquaponics.tamu.edu/fact-sheets/serve/8
Eaves, J. and S. Eaves. 2018. Comparing the profitability of a
greenhouse to a vertical farm in Quebec. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 66:43-54. doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12161
Fern, M.P. 2014. An Economic Comparison of Three Intensive Fish
Production Systems. Auburn University M.S. Thesis. etd.auburn.
edu/handle/10415/4142
Goddek, S. and O. Körner. 2019. A fully integrated simulation
model of multi-loop aquaponics: A case study for system sizing
in different environments. Agricultural Systems 171:143-154. doi.
org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.010.
Goodman, E.R. 2005. Aquaponics: Community and Economic
Development. M.S. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, USA.
Greenfeld, A., N. Becker, J.F. Bornman, M.J. dos Santos and
D. Angel. 2020. Consumer preferences for aquaponics: A
comparative analysis of Australia and Israel. Journal of
Environmental Management 257:109979. doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109979
Junge, R., B. König, M. Villarroel, T. Komives and M.H. Jijakli.
2017. Strategic points in aquaponics. MDPI Water 9:182. doi.
org/10.3390/w9030182
König, B., R. Junge, A. Bittsansky, M. Villarroel, T. Komives. 2016.
On the sustainability of aquaponics. Ecocycles 2(1):26-32. doi.
org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i1.50
Kyaw, T.Y. and A.K Ng. 2017. Smart aquaponics system for
urban farming. Energy Procedia 143:342-347 doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2017.12.694
Lakai, D., K. Jayaratne, G.E. Moore and M.J. Kistler. 2012. Barriers
and effective educational strategies to develop extension agents’
professional competencies. The Journal of Extension 50(4):1-7.
tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol50/iss4/18
Love, D.C., J.P. Fry, L. Genello, E.S. Hill, J.A. Frederick, X. Li,
and K. Semmens. 2014. An international survey of aquaponic
practitioners. PLOS One 9(7):e102662. doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0102662
38 M A RC H 2 02 3 • W O R L D A Q UACU LT U R E • W W W.WA S .O R G
Love, D.C., M.S. Uhl and L. Genello. 2015a. Energy and water
use of a small-scale raft aquaponics system in Baltimore,
Maryland, United States. Aquacultural Engineering 68:19-27. doi.
org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.07.003
Love, D.C., J.P. Fry, X. Li, E.S. Hill, L. Genello, K. Semmens and
R.E. Thompson. 2015b. Commercial aquaponics production and
profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture
435:67-74. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023
Nelson, J.A. and B. Bugbee. 2014. Economic analysis of greenhouse
lighting: Light emitting diodes vs. high intensity discharge
fixtures. PLOS One 9(6):e99010. doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0099010
Pattillo, D.A. 2021. Needs Assessment and Practical Solutions for the
Aquaponics Industry. Auburn University, Ph.D. Dissertation. etd.
auburn.edu//handle/10415/7618
Pattillo, D.A., D.J. Cline, J.V. Hager, L.A. Roy and T.R. Hanson.
2021a. Knowledge levels and training needs of aquaponic
stakeholders. NACAA Journal 14(2). www.nacaa.com/file.
ashx?id=42052aa8-07d7-4dd5-b3c5-a47784d72d9f
Pattillo, D.A., D.J. Cline, J.V. Hager, L.A. Roy and T.R. Hanson.
2021b. Information accessibility and resource usage by aquaponic
stakeholders. NACAA Journal. 14(2). www.nacaa.com/file.
ashx?id=a4cc304a-fc37-48ea-868f-e134168a92b3
Pattillo, D.A., D.J. Cline, J.V. Hager, L.A. Roy and T.R. Hanson.
2022a. Challenges experienced by aquaponic hobbyists,
producers, and educators. The Journal of Extension 60(4). doi.
org/10.34068/joe.60.04.13
Pattillo, D.A., J.V. Hager, D.J. Cline, L.A. Roy and T.R. Hanson.
2022b. System design and production practices of hobbyists,
producers, educators. PLOS One 17(4): e0266475. doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0266475
Quagrainie, K.K., R.M.V. Flores, H. Kim and V. McClain. 2017.
Economic analysis of aquaponics and hydroponics production in
the U.S. Midwest. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 30:1-14. doi.org/
10.1080/10454438.2017.1414009
Short, G., C. Yue, N. Anderson, C. Russell and N. Phelps. 2017.
Consumer perceptions of aquaponic systems. HortTechnology
27(3):358-366. doi:10.21273/HORTTECH03606-16
Silva, L., R. Dutra, S. Pinho, J. Costa and M.C. Portella. 2019.
Main Difficulties Faced by Aquaponics Practitioners in Brazil.
Aquaculture Europe 2019. www.was.org/AquaEas/Program/
PaperDetail/32645
Tokunaga, K., C. Tamaru, H. Ako and P.S. Leung. 2015. Economics
of small-scale commercial aquaponics in Hawaii. Journal of
the World Aquaculture Society 46(1):20-32. doi.org/10.1111/
jwas.12173
USDA FSA. 2021. Beginning farmers and ranchers loans. United
States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency. www.fsa.
usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/beginning-
farmers-and-ranchers-loans/index
Villarroel, M., R. Junge, T. Komives, B. König, I. Plaza and A.
Bittsánszky. 2016. Survey of aquaponics in Europe. MDPI Water
8:468. doi.org/10.3390/w8100468
Xie, K. and K.A. Rosentrater. 2015. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
and Techno-economic analysis (TEA) of tilapia-basil aquaponics.
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Conference Proceedings
and Presentations 446. lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_conf/446