Turkey's Mediterranean aquaculture industry is the world leader in European seabass aquaculture and the European leader in meagre aquaculture. In this study, carbon footprint (CF) values of four partial harvests of European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture (EPES) and meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (EPM) were determined. The average values of total CF expended for EPES and EPM, which reached a final harvest weight of approximately 1,500 g in 1,061 and 633 days were 3.38 and 2.26 kg CO2e kg−1, respectively. The lowest and highest rates of CF expended on consumed compound diet (CFCD) were 63.92 and 65.59% in EPES, and 62.44 and 66.70% in EPM, respectively. The rates of CF general management were 32.0 and 33.57% in EPES and 30.98 and 34.98% in EPM, respectively. Against this high proportion of the compound diet, the second highest value was the lowest and highest proportion of partial harvests of electricity, 28.20 and 29.59% in EPES and 27.09 and 30.51% in EPM, respectively. CF input and CF output per kg values of meagre were decreased with increasing weight, therefore meagre can be defined as a species with high global food security and resilience against climate change.

  • The carbon footprint (CF) can be used to determine climate identity.

  • While the CF expended value decreased with increasing harvesting weight of meagre, it increased in European seabass.

  • Fast-growing species may be important in combating climate change.

  • The most important inputs of earthen pond farming are compound diet and electricity.

  • Meagre aquaculture should be carefully considered by policymakers.

With the prediction that the world population is expected to reach around 10 billion by 2050, the need for animal proteins such as meat, milk and fish will rise due to the increase in the economic income levels of developing countries (Wu et al. 2014; NRC 2015; UN 2019). Fish and seafood products have become a factor that is carefully evaluated by policymakers and governments in meeting the world's food needs due to their high protein, low fat and saturated fat content and long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, as well as their richness in essential mineral and trace element values compared to land-based meat and processed meat products (Tacon 2023). Aquaculture, which has become an important protein source for improving food security in preventing malnutrition because of the importance of animal protein, has become an important sector for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Pradeepkiran 2019; Naylor et al. 2021). This growing interest in aquaculture and the fact that fisheries resources have reached their limits have made aquaculture the fastest-growing animal food sector and investment instrument (Henriksson et al. 2012; Bohnes & Laurent 2019). World fisheries production, including aquatic plants, became an aquaculture-based sector in 2013 and beyond (FAO 2023a).

The 99.4 and 99.9% shares of Mediterranean countries in the world production of European seabass and meagre in 2000 and later, respectively, indicate that the sector is a Mediterranean-based industry (FAO 2023a). Since 2003, Turkey has become the world leader in European seabass production, and since 2018, it has been meeting more than half of the world production. Turkey, which follows Egypt in the world production of meagre, was the leading European country in 2020 and 2021 (FAO 2023a). Because the Mediterranean Basin countries' European seabass and gilthead seabream production, which have a steadily increasing trend, will continue in this way, sustainable management strategies of the aquaculture sector need to be addressed (Zoli et al. 2023). In addition, the Mediterranean Region requires the selection of aquaculture species and cultural methods that will adapt to environmental conditions because of climate change, especially in water availability and/or quality (Rosa et al. 2012).

Climate has changed in relation to the geological history of the world corresponding to natural conditions (Nica et al. 2019). With the Industrial Revolution in 1750, when humanity increased its impact on natural processes depending on the evolution and development process, the increase in the use of fossil fuels, where embedded carbon sources such as coal and petroleum derivatives are used more, and industrial activities based on deforestation increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane and put our planet into the ‘6. Mass Extinction’ process into the anthropogenic era (Crutzen & Stoermer 2000; Shahid & Behnassi 2014; Barnosky 2015; Livi-Bacci 2017; Köse 2018; Srivastav 2019; Steffen 2020; UN 2021; Huang et al. 2022). The atmospheric carbon dioxide value, which was 277 ppm in 1750, increased by 52.4% in 274 years and reached 422.14 ppm in July 2023 (CO2 Earth 2023). Climate change caused by the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations significantly affects agriculture and food security (IPCC 2014; Gul et al. 2020). The global impacts of climate change on agriculture, livestock and aquaculture production have been questioned from many perspectives (Phillips & Pérez-Ramírez 2017; Mubeen et al. 2020; Abisha et al. 2022; Froehlich et al. 2022; Kumari et al. 2022; Morgado et al. 2022; Park 2022). One of these assessments is global food security (D'Abramo 2021; FAO et al. 2022; Ahmed et al. 2023; Diken 2023). The carbon footprint (CF) resulting from fossil fuel-based greenhouse gas emissions, which is a criterion for these assessments, is calculated as CO2e (CO2 equivalent) per product and standardized with a value of kg CO2e kg−1 (Alley et al. 2007; Weidema et al. 2008; Winther et al. 2009; Shahid & Behnassi 2014; Liu et al. 2016; UN 2021; Islam et al. 2022; Jones et al. 2022; Diken 2023). The CF of aquaculture is lower than that of farm animal meat farming (beef, lamb, sheep, pig) and similar to poultry farming (Sonesson et al. 2010; MH 2017). Many seafood products with low emissions provide more nutrients than land animal proteins, especially red meat (Bianchi et al. 2022). Marine aquaculture, which is a high protein source, is a climate-friendly sector as a key to protection against greenhouse gas emissions as it has low greenhouse gas emissions compared to equivalent products grown on land (Jones et al. 2022).

Aquaculture has opportunities for adaptation to climate change, which has fragile effects on the growth of aquaculture, and is dependent on environmental conditions (Reid et al. 2019; Pernet & Browman 2021; Mugwanya et al. 2022). Aquaculture, which has activities and potential impacts based on extremely diverse and complex systems and species differences, is a potential and competitive production area in terms of sustainability with low CF value and energy use (Boyd et al. 2007, 2020; Winther et al. 2009; Angel et al. 2019; Macleod et al. 2020; Bianchi et al. 2022; Jones et al. 2022). In the face of these evaluations, it is difficult to find reliable figures on the CF of aquaculture species due to the diversity of production and different culture systems (Raul et al. 2020; Lutz 2021). In the estimates made on this subject, it was reported that the ratio of aquaculture to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 was estimated as 263 megatonnes (Mt) CO2e, and 0.49% (263 Mt/53.5 Gt, gigatonnes) of the CO2e anthropogenic emission value. It was reported that the total climate change value of 291.2 Mt CO2e in 2008 will increase by 132% and reach 674.6 Mt CO2e in 2030 (Hall et al. 2011).

The CF value of aquaculture per product varies largely depending on the feed ingredient and compound diet, transport, investment-based system differences, energy value and project capacity (Henriksson et al. 2015; Diken et al. 2022; Diken 2023). In this direction, it has been reported that innovation planning in feed, transport and operations of salmon farms will be effective in reducing carbon emissions in terms of combating climate change (Hogan 2021). In line with these objectives, sectoral studies are also being carried out. These include feed production using low-emission feed ingredients, production of feed ingredients that enable the conversion of methane emissions into protein-based solutions, feed formulation studies with low CF value, planning a feed production facility on the farm site to reduce the logistics and production-based CF values of salmon farming, and targets to reduce the CF of aquaculture by 30% by 2030 (HatcheryFeedManagement 2021; HatcheryInternationalPersonnel 2021, 2022; Cargill 2022; EFA 2022). In addition to applications such as eco-labelling and/or carbon labelling per product in sustainable production planning of aquaculture systems, the calculation of the CF value according to the edible food value of the harvested product can be considered as a quantitative criterion in the evaluation of sustainability, food and climate policies at the national and international levels to determine food security (Ziegler et al. 2013; Parker et al. 2018; Bohnes & Laurent 2019; OECD/FAO 2021; Diken 2022). Empirical studies within the scope of primary data from feed companies and producers are important for the accurate calculation of emissions (MacLeod et al. 2020). Empirical studies, modelling and farm observations should be used to investigate the impacts of climate change on aquaculture (Reid et al. 2019). Methodological choices in practice will provide important clues to the industry and policymakers working on sustainability (Henriksson et al. 2013). The results obtained should be adapted towards species and production methods with improved nutritional and climate performance, considering nutritional characteristics and climate impact, nutritional needs of production and consumption patterns and emission reduction targets (Bianchi et al. 2022).

Consequently, the adaptation processes of aquaculture to climate change need the special attention of policymakers and planners, as they require the collective integration of many exogenous factors from an ecosystem perspective (Rosa et al. 2012). Sustainable animal production with different nutritional characteristics is critical for designing effective food policies (Kuempel et al. 2023). The future of the aquaculture sector and its role and policies in global food and nutrition security evaluated in terms of climate change and policies that consider approaches that prioritize the reduction of carbon emissions should be determined (Gephart et al. 2020; Naylor et al. 2023). In short, more information is needed on the carbon emissions of aquaculture as a climate-friendly food source (Henriksson et al. 2013). Within the scope of these evaluations, the CF of aquaculture based on species differences at the micro level was evaluated. In addition, the CF of aquaculture based on harvesting processes, which is neglected in the literature, was analysed. For this purpose, the CF expended values of European seabass and meagre in earthen pond aquaculture harvested at four different stages were evaluated in relation to species differences. Assessments were made for policymakers in terms of food security, climate impact and sustainability of species differences based on partial harvesting.

Management of European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax L., 1758) and meagre (Argyrosomus regius Asso, 1801) in earthen pond aquaculture

This study was based on an inventory of earthen pond marine fish farms in Milas-Muğla, Türkiye. Aquaculture and management criteria for European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture (EPES) and meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (EPM) are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The water temperature of the earthen ponds was 13–27 °C and the oxygen level was 3–9 ppm. The compound diet used in earthen pond marine fish farming was obtained from the aquafeed factory, which was 18 km away, and the juveniles were obtained from the marine finfish hatchery at 0.6 km. The physical structure of the enterprise consisted of earthen ponds, a main aquafeed warehouse, container aquafeed warehouses, a resting-office area and a dining hall. There were two paddlewheel aerators (four paddles) for each earthen pond and submersible wells of different kWh were shared by earthen ponds. For water distribution, 300 m long 175 mm U-PVC and 400 mm U-PVC pipes were used. The earthen ponds were built by taking out 1,890 m3 excavation volume from each earthen pond and ponds were strengthened with gravel and concrete processes. Each earthen pond had an electrical control panel. There was one tractor shared by two separate earthen pond facilities, one broodstock facility and one adaptation facility.

Table 1

Management of European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture

DateDays fedAverage weight (g)Stock (N: number)
Partial harvest (H)
Diet
FCR
Biomass (kg)Live NDead NDead (kg)NWeight (kg)HNoΣ (kg)
 First earthen pound 
15.07.16 Initial 17.00 426.17 25,069  
01.02.18 566 622.83 10,606.17 17,029 231 80,89 7,809 4,238.50 H1 1,251.23 1.55 
553.74 
4,278.04 
7,539.25 
8,661.44 
15.03.18 608 669.18 8,742.12 13,064 25 16,03 3,940 2,582.50 H2 2,055.00 1.61 
15.12.18 883 1,289.80 9,780.56 7,583 783 650,74 4,698 4,003.00 H3 14,214.00 1.91 
11.06.19 1,061 1,512.19 6,797.29 4,495 46 63,82 3,042 4,289.50 H4 4,733.80 2.01 
Final harvest 4,495 6,797.29 
Σ & Ave 1,061 1,512.19   1,085 811,48 23,984 21,910.79   43,286.50 2.01 
 Second earthen pound 
03.07.16 Initial 21.40 536.35 25,063  
01.02.18 578 592.32 10.633,84 14,985 686 170,70 9,392 4,251.50 H1 938.34 1.57 
370.38 
2,917.61 
6,564.96 
6,520.21 
5,241.70 
15.03.18 620 649.73 9.717,37 14,956 29 16,80   H2 2,400.00 1.86 
15.12.18 895 1,056.82 9.015,73 8,531 1,203 910,72 5,222 5,638.40 H3 12,627.00 2.05 
11.06.19 1,073 1,192.58 6.890,70 5,778 732 725,34 2,021 4,356.00 H4 4,684.50 2.05 
Final harvest 5,778 6,890.70 
Σ & Ave 1,073 1,192.58   2,650 1,824 22,413 21,136.60   42,264.70 2.05 
 Third earthen pond 
10.08.16 Initial 17.00 436,61 25,683         
01.02.18 540 670.10 10.633,84 15,869 379 143,06 9,435 5,401.00 H1 768.00 1.51 
681.07 
2,614.24 
5,516.37 
6,581.84 
7,468.67 
15.03.18 582 722.86 11.435,58 15,820 49 33,76   H2 2,414.00 1.59 
15.12.18 857 1,114.26 10.311,33 9,254 732 562,76 5,834 4,313.50 H3 13,822.00 2.04 
11.06.19 1,035 1,445.60 8.151,73 5,639 26 33,90 3,589 4,681.00 H4 4,034.70 1.99 
Final harvest 5,639 8,151.73 
Σ & Ave 1,035 1,445.60   1,186 773,48 24,497 22,547.23   43,900.90 1.99 
DateDays fedAverage weight (g)Stock (N: number)
Partial harvest (H)
Diet
FCR
Biomass (kg)Live NDead NDead (kg)NWeight (kg)HNoΣ (kg)
 First earthen pound 
15.07.16 Initial 17.00 426.17 25,069  
01.02.18 566 622.83 10,606.17 17,029 231 80,89 7,809 4,238.50 H1 1,251.23 1.55 
553.74 
4,278.04 
7,539.25 
8,661.44 
15.03.18 608 669.18 8,742.12 13,064 25 16,03 3,940 2,582.50 H2 2,055.00 1.61 
15.12.18 883 1,289.80 9,780.56 7,583 783 650,74 4,698 4,003.00 H3 14,214.00 1.91 
11.06.19 1,061 1,512.19 6,797.29 4,495 46 63,82 3,042 4,289.50 H4 4,733.80 2.01 
Final harvest 4,495 6,797.29 
Σ & Ave 1,061 1,512.19   1,085 811,48 23,984 21,910.79   43,286.50 2.01 
 Second earthen pound 
03.07.16 Initial 21.40 536.35 25,063  
01.02.18 578 592.32 10.633,84 14,985 686 170,70 9,392 4,251.50 H1 938.34 1.57 
370.38 
2,917.61 
6,564.96 
6,520.21 
5,241.70 
15.03.18 620 649.73 9.717,37 14,956 29 16,80   H2 2,400.00 1.86 
15.12.18 895 1,056.82 9.015,73 8,531 1,203 910,72 5,222 5,638.40 H3 12,627.00 2.05 
11.06.19 1,073 1,192.58 6.890,70 5,778 732 725,34 2,021 4,356.00 H4 4,684.50 2.05 
Final harvest 5,778 6,890.70 
Σ & Ave 1,073 1,192.58   2,650 1,824 22,413 21,136.60   42,264.70 2.05 
 Third earthen pond 
10.08.16 Initial 17.00 436,61 25,683         
01.02.18 540 670.10 10.633,84 15,869 379 143,06 9,435 5,401.00 H1 768.00 1.51 
681.07 
2,614.24 
5,516.37 
6,581.84 
7,468.67 
15.03.18 582 722.86 11.435,58 15,820 49 33,76   H2 2,414.00 1.59 
15.12.18 857 1,114.26 10.311,33 9,254 732 562,76 5,834 4,313.50 H3 13,822.00 2.04 
11.06.19 1,035 1,445.60 8.151,73 5,639 26 33,90 3,589 4,681.00 H4 4,034.70 1.99 
Final harvest 5,639 8,151.73 
Σ & Ave 1,035 1,445.60   1,186 773,48 24,497 22,547.23   43,900.90 1.99 
Table 2

Management of meagre in earthen pond aquaculture

DateDays fedAverage weight (g)Stock (N: number)
Partial harvest (H)
Diet
FCR
Biomass (kg)Live NDead NDead (kg)NWeight (kg)NoΣ (kg)
 First earthen pond 
22.05.17 Initial 8.47 169.40 20,000  
30.04.18 343 540.49 9,176.44 16,978 391 18.27 2,631 1,276.98 H1 60 1.20 
779 
5,762 
3,061 
2,688 
31.07.18 435 912.14 11,609.72 12,728 1.8 4,247 2,971.61 H2 6,054 1.17 
31.10.18 527 1,306.44 12,790.05 9,790   2,938 3,243.75 H3 5,697 1.20 
31.03.19 678 1,424.31 5,439.44 3,819   5,971 7,624.06 H4 4,753 1.42 
Final harvest   3,819 5,439.44 
Σ & Ave 678 1,424.31   394 20.07 19,606 20,555.84   28,854 1.42 
 Second earthen pond 
23.05.17 Initial 8.47 169.40 20,000         
30.04.18 342 561.55 9,123.50 16,247 769 136.1 2,984 1,311.44 H1 25 1.20 
1,051 
5,982 
3,963 
1,340 
30.06.18 403 800.82 9,532.96 11,904   4,343 2,914.46 H2 4,459 1.24 
31.10.18 526 1,313.84 7,957.93 6,057 0.86 5,846 6,741.26 H3 5,735 1.20 
15.02.19 633 1,409.53 239.62 170 1.38 5,886 8,060.32 H4 3,054 1.34 
Final harvest   170 239.62 
Σ & Ave 633 1,409.53   771 138.34 19,229 19,267.10   25,609 1.34 
 Third earthen pond 
23.05.17 Initial 16.32 349.57 21,420         
30.04.18 342 551.36 9,442.59 17,126 248 75.92 4,046 2,013.12 H1 647 1.28 
5,519 
6,258 
1,803 
30.06.18 403 878.04 11,258.23 12,822 3.57 4,299 3,270.42 H2 6,109 1.26 
31.10.18 526 1,345.09 9,468.09 7,039 0.88 5,782 7,183.82 H3 5,620 1.20 
15.02.19 633 1,577.79 4,24110 2,688 5.84 4,347 6,189.33 H4 4,010 1.33 
Final harvest   2,688 2,120.55 
Σ & Ave 633 1,577.79   258 86.21 21,162 20,777.23   29,966 1.33 
DateDays fedAverage weight (g)Stock (N: number)
Partial harvest (H)
Diet
FCR
Biomass (kg)Live NDead NDead (kg)NWeight (kg)NoΣ (kg)
 First earthen pond 
22.05.17 Initial 8.47 169.40 20,000  
30.04.18 343 540.49 9,176.44 16,978 391 18.27 2,631 1,276.98 H1 60 1.20 
779 
5,762 
3,061 
2,688 
31.07.18 435 912.14 11,609.72 12,728 1.8 4,247 2,971.61 H2 6,054 1.17 
31.10.18 527 1,306.44 12,790.05 9,790   2,938 3,243.75 H3 5,697 1.20 
31.03.19 678 1,424.31 5,439.44 3,819   5,971 7,624.06 H4 4,753 1.42 
Final harvest   3,819 5,439.44 
Σ & Ave 678 1,424.31   394 20.07 19,606 20,555.84   28,854 1.42 
 Second earthen pond 
23.05.17 Initial 8.47 169.40 20,000         
30.04.18 342 561.55 9,123.50 16,247 769 136.1 2,984 1,311.44 H1 25 1.20 
1,051 
5,982 
3,963 
1,340 
30.06.18 403 800.82 9,532.96 11,904   4,343 2,914.46 H2 4,459 1.24 
31.10.18 526 1,313.84 7,957.93 6,057 0.86 5,846 6,741.26 H3 5,735 1.20 
15.02.19 633 1,409.53 239.62 170 1.38 5,886 8,060.32 H4 3,054 1.34 
Final harvest   170 239.62 
Σ & Ave 633 1,409.53   771 138.34 19,229 19,267.10   25,609 1.34 
 Third earthen pond 
23.05.17 Initial 16.32 349.57 21,420         
30.04.18 342 551.36 9,442.59 17,126 248 75.92 4,046 2,013.12 H1 647 1.28 
5,519 
6,258 
1,803 
30.06.18 403 878.04 11,258.23 12,822 3.57 4,299 3,270.42 H2 6,109 1.26 
31.10.18 526 1,345.09 9,468.09 7,039 0.88 5,782 7,183.82 H3 5,620 1.20 
15.02.19 633 1,577.79 4,24110 2,688 5.84 4,347 6,189.33 H4 4,010 1.33 
Final harvest   2,688 2,120.55 
Σ & Ave 633 1,577.79   258 86.21 21,162 20,777.23   29,966 1.33 

CF expended analysis

Four partial harvests were carried out in EPES and EPM (Tables 1 and 2). Based on the unit values (kg CO2e) of each partial harvest given in Table 3, the carbon footprint consumed for compound diet (CFCD), CF for general management (CFGM), CF for transport (CFT) and CF for machinery, equipment and construction (CFMEC) of EPES and EPM were calculated according to Diken (2023).

Table 3

The carbon footprint expended for inputs and outputs of the European seabass and meagre in earthen pond aquaculture

ItemsUnit(Mcal unit−1)References
Energy content of inputs (Mcal per kg of processed fish as) 
Fish fingerling, European seabass kg 1.78 Calculated according to Lupatsch et al. (2001)  
Fish fingerling, meagre kg 1.57 Calculated according to El-Dahhar et al. (2021)  
ItemsUnitkg CO2e unit−1References
CF expended on consumed compound diet (CFCD) 
Feed ingredients 
 Fish meal kg 0.99 Hognes et al. (2011)  
 Fish oil kg 0.99 Hognes et al. (2011)  
 Soybean meal kg 0.541 Moe et al. (2014)  
 Wheat flour kg 0.913 Ecoinvent database v3.4 
 Corn gluten kg 1.061 O'Brien et al. (2014)  
 Vitamin kg 1.62 Rotz et al. (2019)  
 Mineral kg 1.62 Rotz et al. (2019)  
 Pellets production kg 0.13 Hognes et al. (2011)  
Diet-1 (2 mm) kg 1.09 Calculated 
Diet-2 (2.5 mm) kg 1.08 Calculated 
Diet-3 (3 mm) kg 1.12 Calculated 
Diet-4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (4, 5, 6, 8, 10 mm) kg 1.08 Calculated 
CF expended on general management (CFGM) 
Labour 0.70 Nguyen & Hermansen (2012)  
Electricity KWh 0.24 Robertson et al. (2015) from Barber (2009)  
Diesel 3.11 Robertson et al. (2015) from Barber (2009)  
Engine oil 2.54 Mantoam et al. (2016) from EPE (2009)  
Limestone kg 0.032 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Hydrogen peroxide kg 1.13 Ecoinvent database v3.4 
Chlorine kg 6.24 Statista 
Formalin, 37% formaldehyde kg 0.267 Ecoinvent database v3.4 
CF expended on machinery, equipment, and construction (CFMEC) 
Aerator kg 3.49 Calculated (cast iron; Xie et al. (2020) and aluminium extruded, iron, steel, HDPE; Hammond et al. (2011)
Betopan kg 0.621 Caslli et al. (2014)  
Cage net and rope kg 8.13 Ecoinvent database V3.4 
Concrete kg 0.177 Sabnis et al. (2015)  
Concrete (pre-cast) kg 0.242 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Electric wire kg 6.60 Enertechnos Ltd (2019) (https://www.enertechnos.com/news/press-releases/world-leading-cable-manufacturers-issued-stark-warning-over-impact-of-energy-losses-and-copper-usage/
Excavation (0.6 m351.70 Kawai (2011)  
Glass kg 0.86 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Gravel kg 0.0048 Hammond et al. (2011)  
HDPE kg 1.93 Hammond et al. (2011)  
HDPE pipe kg 2.52 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Iron kg 1.91 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Iron strip kg 2.09 Pomponi & Moncaster (2018), Gan et al. (2017)  
Lead kg 1.57 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Metal sheets kg 2.45 Ecoinvent database V3.4 
Plastic (PE) kg 2.04 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) kg 2.61 Hammond et al. (2011)  
PVC profile kg 1.0659 González & Navarro (2006)  
U-PVC kg 3.16 Hammond et al. (2011), Menzies (2011)  
Rebar kg 1.06 Taffese & Abegaz (2019)  
Steel (stainless) kg 6.15 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Steel (general) kg 2.03 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Synthetic PVC pipe kg 1.0659 González & Navarro (2006)  
Synthetic PP pipe kg 1.4535 González & Navarro (2006)  
Tile kg 0.74 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Tile adhesive kg 0.589 Lourenço et al. (2022)  
Timber (sawn hardwood) kg 0.87 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Tractor kg 4.5 Mantoam et al. (2016)  
CF expended on transportation (CFT) 
Truck tonne × km 0.236 and 0.722 Robertson et al. (2015) from DEFRA (2011)  
Energy content of outputs (Mcal per kg of processed fish as) 
Harvested fish, European seabass  2.48, 2.50, 2.65, 2.71 Calculated according to Lupatsch et al. (2001)  
Fillet, European seabass  0.86, 0.88, 0.98, 0.94 Calculated according to Trocino et al. (2012)  
Harvested fish, meagre  1.58, 1.58, 1.58, 1.58 Calculated according to Vallecillos et al. (2021)  
Fillet, meagre  0.58, 0.60, 0.61, 0.60 Calculated according to Grigorakis (2017)  
ItemsUnit(Mcal unit−1)References
Energy content of inputs (Mcal per kg of processed fish as) 
Fish fingerling, European seabass kg 1.78 Calculated according to Lupatsch et al. (2001)  
Fish fingerling, meagre kg 1.57 Calculated according to El-Dahhar et al. (2021)  
ItemsUnitkg CO2e unit−1References
CF expended on consumed compound diet (CFCD) 
Feed ingredients 
 Fish meal kg 0.99 Hognes et al. (2011)  
 Fish oil kg 0.99 Hognes et al. (2011)  
 Soybean meal kg 0.541 Moe et al. (2014)  
 Wheat flour kg 0.913 Ecoinvent database v3.4 
 Corn gluten kg 1.061 O'Brien et al. (2014)  
 Vitamin kg 1.62 Rotz et al. (2019)  
 Mineral kg 1.62 Rotz et al. (2019)  
 Pellets production kg 0.13 Hognes et al. (2011)  
Diet-1 (2 mm) kg 1.09 Calculated 
Diet-2 (2.5 mm) kg 1.08 Calculated 
Diet-3 (3 mm) kg 1.12 Calculated 
Diet-4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (4, 5, 6, 8, 10 mm) kg 1.08 Calculated 
CF expended on general management (CFGM) 
Labour 0.70 Nguyen & Hermansen (2012)  
Electricity KWh 0.24 Robertson et al. (2015) from Barber (2009)  
Diesel 3.11 Robertson et al. (2015) from Barber (2009)  
Engine oil 2.54 Mantoam et al. (2016) from EPE (2009)  
Limestone kg 0.032 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Hydrogen peroxide kg 1.13 Ecoinvent database v3.4 
Chlorine kg 6.24 Statista 
Formalin, 37% formaldehyde kg 0.267 Ecoinvent database v3.4 
CF expended on machinery, equipment, and construction (CFMEC) 
Aerator kg 3.49 Calculated (cast iron; Xie et al. (2020) and aluminium extruded, iron, steel, HDPE; Hammond et al. (2011)
Betopan kg 0.621 Caslli et al. (2014)  
Cage net and rope kg 8.13 Ecoinvent database V3.4 
Concrete kg 0.177 Sabnis et al. (2015)  
Concrete (pre-cast) kg 0.242 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Electric wire kg 6.60 Enertechnos Ltd (2019) (https://www.enertechnos.com/news/press-releases/world-leading-cable-manufacturers-issued-stark-warning-over-impact-of-energy-losses-and-copper-usage/
Excavation (0.6 m351.70 Kawai (2011)  
Glass kg 0.86 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Gravel kg 0.0048 Hammond et al. (2011)  
HDPE kg 1.93 Hammond et al. (2011)  
HDPE pipe kg 2.52 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Iron kg 1.91 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Iron strip kg 2.09 Pomponi & Moncaster (2018), Gan et al. (2017)  
Lead kg 1.57 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Metal sheets kg 2.45 Ecoinvent database V3.4 
Plastic (PE) kg 2.04 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) kg 2.61 Hammond et al. (2011)  
PVC profile kg 1.0659 González & Navarro (2006)  
U-PVC kg 3.16 Hammond et al. (2011), Menzies (2011)  
Rebar kg 1.06 Taffese & Abegaz (2019)  
Steel (stainless) kg 6.15 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Steel (general) kg 2.03 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Synthetic PVC pipe kg 1.0659 González & Navarro (2006)  
Synthetic PP pipe kg 1.4535 González & Navarro (2006)  
Tile kg 0.74 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Tile adhesive kg 0.589 Lourenço et al. (2022)  
Timber (sawn hardwood) kg 0.87 Hammond et al. (2011)  
Tractor kg 4.5 Mantoam et al. (2016)  
CF expended on transportation (CFT) 
Truck tonne × km 0.236 and 0.722 Robertson et al. (2015) from DEFRA (2011)  
Energy content of outputs (Mcal per kg of processed fish as) 
Harvested fish, European seabass  2.48, 2.50, 2.65, 2.71 Calculated according to Lupatsch et al. (2001)  
Fillet, European seabass  0.86, 0.88, 0.98, 0.94 Calculated according to Trocino et al. (2012)  
Harvested fish, meagre  1.58, 1.58, 1.58, 1.58 Calculated according to Vallecillos et al. (2021)  
Fillet, meagre  0.58, 0.60, 0.61, 0.60 Calculated according to Grigorakis (2017)  

Diet formulations were created according to the label values of the compound diets given in Table 4, and the CF expended values of the compound diets were determined (Table 5) by considering the CF values of feed ingredients (Table 3). In the calculations, the carcass ratios of European seabass at the harvest 1, 2, 3 and final were taken as 89.02, 88.86, 86.77 and 84.68% and fillet ratios as 50.32, 51.57, 57.01 and 59.96%, respectively (Poli et al. 2001). When calculating the energy deposited in the fillet of harvest 1, 2, 3 and final of the European seabass, it was assumed that the dressing percentage was 50.32, 51.57, 57.01 and 59.96 (Poli et al. 2001) and that the juvenile fish would contain 17.1% crude protein and 8.57% crude fat (Lupatsch et al. 2001) and the fillet would have 20.04% crude protein and 5.86% crude fat (Trocino et al. 2012). In the calculations, the carcass ratios of meagre at the harvest 1, 2, 3 and final were taken as 94.78, 94.44, 93.97 and 94.5% and fillet ratios as 42.77, 43.74, 44.28 and 43.51%, respectively (Poli et al. 2003). When calculating the energy deposited in the fillet of harvest 1, 2, 3 and final of the meagre, it was assumed that the dressing percentage was 42.77, 43.74, 44.28 and 43.51 (Poli et al. 2003) and that the juvenile fish would contain 18.58% crude protein and 5.46% crude fat (El-Dahhar et al. 2021) and the fillet would have 20.50% crude protein and 2.12% crude fat (Grigorakis 2017). Energy values were taken as 5.7 and 9.4 kcal for 1 g protein and fat, respectively.

Table 4

Proximate composition of feed ingredients and formulation of compound diets

FIFish mealFish oilSoybean mealWheat flourCorn gluten mealVitaminMineral
CP 66.95 46.40 12.73 43.15   
CO 8.83 100 1.09 1.75 4.00   
CA 15.40 7.95 1.33 1.5 100 100 
CF 0.70 6.08 1.26 2.25   
Constituent of Diet-1 (Ø 2 mm) providing (48.00% CP, 18.00% CO, 10.64% CA and 1.28% CF) 
56.44 12.27 8.00 10.24 12.05 0.50 0.50 
CP 37.79  3.71 1.30 5.20   
CO 4.98 12.27 0.09 0.18 0.48   
CA 8.69  0.64 0.14 0.18 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.40  0.49 0.13 0.27   
Constituent of Diet-2 (Ø 2.5 mm) providing (48.00% CP, 18.00% CO, 10.76% CA and 1.41% CF) 
55.88 12.38 11.00 9.98 9.76 0.50 0.50 
CP 37.41  5.10 1.27 4.21   
CO 4.93 12.38 0.12 0.17 0.39   
CA 8.61  0.87 0.13 0.15 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.39  0.67 0.13 0.22   
Constituent of Diet-3 (Ø 3 mm) providing (46.00% CP, 19.00% CO, 8.44% CA and 1.47% CF) 
41.63 13.82 5.94 2.81 34.80 0.50 0.50 
CP 27.87  2.76 0.36 15.02   
CO 3.68 13.82 0.06 0.05 1.39   
CA 6.41  0.47 0.04 0.52 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.29  0.36 0.04 0.78   
Constituent of Diet-4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Ø 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 mm) providing (45.00% CP, 20.00% CO, 8.74% CA and 1.79% CF) 
39.89 15.23 14.70 3.68 25.50 0.50 0.50 
CP 26.71  6.82 0.47 11.00   
CO 3.52 15.23 0.16 0.06 1.02   
CA 6.14  0.17 0.05 0.38 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.28  0.89 0.05 0.57   
FIFish mealFish oilSoybean mealWheat flourCorn gluten mealVitaminMineral
CP 66.95 46.40 12.73 43.15   
CO 8.83 100 1.09 1.75 4.00   
CA 15.40 7.95 1.33 1.5 100 100 
CF 0.70 6.08 1.26 2.25   
Constituent of Diet-1 (Ø 2 mm) providing (48.00% CP, 18.00% CO, 10.64% CA and 1.28% CF) 
56.44 12.27 8.00 10.24 12.05 0.50 0.50 
CP 37.79  3.71 1.30 5.20   
CO 4.98 12.27 0.09 0.18 0.48   
CA 8.69  0.64 0.14 0.18 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.40  0.49 0.13 0.27   
Constituent of Diet-2 (Ø 2.5 mm) providing (48.00% CP, 18.00% CO, 10.76% CA and 1.41% CF) 
55.88 12.38 11.00 9.98 9.76 0.50 0.50 
CP 37.41  5.10 1.27 4.21   
CO 4.93 12.38 0.12 0.17 0.39   
CA 8.61  0.87 0.13 0.15 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.39  0.67 0.13 0.22   
Constituent of Diet-3 (Ø 3 mm) providing (46.00% CP, 19.00% CO, 8.44% CA and 1.47% CF) 
41.63 13.82 5.94 2.81 34.80 0.50 0.50 
CP 27.87  2.76 0.36 15.02   
CO 3.68 13.82 0.06 0.05 1.39   
CA 6.41  0.47 0.04 0.52 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.29  0.36 0.04 0.78   
Constituent of Diet-4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Ø 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 mm) providing (45.00% CP, 20.00% CO, 8.74% CA and 1.79% CF) 
39.89 15.23 14.70 3.68 25.50 0.50 0.50 
CP 26.71  6.82 0.47 11.00   
CO 3.52 15.23 0.16 0.06 1.02   
CA 6.14  0.17 0.05 0.38 0.50 0.50 
CF 0.28  0.89 0.05 0.57   

Diet-1 (Ø 2 mm); 48% CP, 18% CO, 10.5% CA and 1.3% CF; Diet-2 (Ø 2.5 mm); 48% CP, 18% CO, 11.5% CA and 1.7% CF; Diet-3 (Ø 3 mm); 46% CP, 19% CO, 10% CA and 1.5% CF; Diet-4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Ø 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 mm); 45% CP, 20% CO, 9.5% CA and 2% CF. The proximate composition of the feed ingredients was taken from IAFFD (2020) and the proximate compositions of the formulation are arranged. FI, feed ingredient; CP, crude protein; CO, crude oil; CA, crude ash; CF, crude fibre. Eight compound diets were used in European seabass rearing (proximate compositions of diets: The difference is reflected in the calculation due to rounding).

Table 5

The carbon footprint expended of compound diets (kg CO2e kg−1)

Diet NoFeed ingredients (FI)FMFOSMWFCGVMPPDiet CF*
CFFI diet*0.990.990.5410.9131.0611.621.620.13
1 (Ø 2) FI diet (%) 56.44 12.27 8.00 10.24 12.05 0.50 0.50  1.09 
CFFI diet* 0.56 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.13 
2 (Ø 2.5) FI diet (%) 55.88 12.38 11.00 9.98 9.76 0.50 0.50  1.08 
CFFI diet* 0.55 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.13 
3 (Ø 3) FI diet (%) 41.63 13.82 5.94 2.81 34.80 0.50 0.50  1.12 
CFFI diet* 0.41 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.13 
4–8 (Ø 4–10) FI diet (%) 39.89 15.23 14.70 3.68 25.50 0.50 0.50  1.08 
CFFI diet* 0.39 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.31 
Diet NoFeed ingredients (FI)FMFOSMWFCGVMPPDiet CF*
CFFI diet*0.990.990.5410.9131.0611.621.620.13
1 (Ø 2) FI diet (%) 56.44 12.27 8.00 10.24 12.05 0.50 0.50  1.09 
CFFI diet* 0.56 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.13 
2 (Ø 2.5) FI diet (%) 55.88 12.38 11.00 9.98 9.76 0.50 0.50  1.08 
CFFI diet* 0.55 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.13 
3 (Ø 3) FI diet (%) 41.63 13.82 5.94 2.81 34.80 0.50 0.50  1.12 
CFFI diet* 0.41 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.13 
4–8 (Ø 4–10) FI diet (%) 39.89 15.23 14.70 3.68 25.50 0.50 0.50  1.08 
CFFI diet* 0.39 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.31 

*kgCO2e kg−1, Ø: mm. FM, fish meal, anchovy; FO, fish oil; SM, soybean meal; WF, wheat flour; CG, corn gluten meal; PP, pellets production; V, vitamin; M, mineral; CF, carbon footprint; CFFI, carbon footprint value of feed ingredients; FI diet, feed ingredients ratio in the compound diet; CFFI diet, carbon footprint value of feed ingredients in compound diet.

Partial harvest day and fish growth

Meagre, which is a species that is suitable for earthen pond aquaculture as an alternative to marine systems, can be cultivated in all kinds of facilities, and is essential for the species diversity of Mediterranean aquaculture, FCR can reach 1.7–1.8 (1.7–1.8 for earthen ponds), and even 0.9–1.1, the specific growth rate is 1.49 and tolerant to stress and environmental conditions (Queméner 2002; Gamsız & Neke 2008; Monfort 2010; Duncan & Myrseth 2011; Duncan et al. 2013; Gracia & Jofre 2013; Bodur et al. 2014; Parisi et al. 2014; Vargas-Chacoff et al. 2014). In addition, the cortisol stress values of meagre are lower than European seabass (Samaras et al. 2015). Meagre, which has the advantages of physiological development, FCR and abiotic and biotic conditions of cultivation, has low CF values (Tables 2 and 6).

Compared to EPES, the daily weight gains of the second and third partial harvests of EPM from the beginning of May to the end of October increased further with the rise in water temperature (Tables 1, 2 and 6). This can be explained by the fact that European seabass is an eurythermic species (5–28 °C), whereas meagre is a fast-growing species in summer with an optimum water temperature of 19–24 °C (10–32 °C) and a significant decrease in feeding activity when the seawater temperature drops below 13–15 °C (Parisi et al. 2014; Pereira et al. 2015; FAO 2023b, 2023c). Similarly, the European seabass reached a weight of about 1,500 g in 1,061 days and the meagre in 633 days which can be explained by the species difference related to the effect of water temperature on fish growth.

Table 6

Partial harvest days and fish growth

HarvestFirst earthen pond
Second earthen pond
Third earthen pond
thhwwwgthhwwwgthhwwwg
European seabass 
566 622.83 1.10 578 592.32 1.02 540 670.10 1.24 
42 46.35 1.10 42 57.41 1.37 42 52.76 1.26 
275 620.62 2.26 275 407.09 1.48 275 391.40 1.42 
Final 178 222.39 1.25 178 135.76 0.76 178 331.34 1.86 
Meagre 
343 540.49 1.58 342 561.55 1.64 342 551.4 1.61 
92 371.65 4.04 61 239.27 3.92 61 326.7 5.36 
92 394.30 4.29 123 513.02 4.17 123 467.1 3.80 
Final 151 117.87 0.78 107 95.69 0.89 107 232.7 2.17 
HarvestFirst earthen pond
Second earthen pond
Third earthen pond
thhwwwgthhwwwgthhwwwg
European seabass 
566 622.83 1.10 578 592.32 1.02 540 670.10 1.24 
42 46.35 1.10 42 57.41 1.37 42 52.76 1.26 
275 620.62 2.26 275 407.09 1.48 275 391.40 1.42 
Final 178 222.39 1.25 178 135.76 0.76 178 331.34 1.86 
Meagre 
343 540.49 1.58 342 561.55 1.64 342 551.4 1.61 
92 371.65 4.04 61 239.27 3.92 61 326.7 5.36 
92 394.30 4.29 123 513.02 4.17 123 467.1 3.80 
Final 151 117.87 0.78 107 95.69 0.89 107 232.7 2.17 

thh, time from harvest to harvest (day); ww, wet weight (g); wg, weight gain (day).

CF expended budget

CF expended on consumed compound diet (CFCD)

Partial harvest CF expended inputs of EPES and EPM are given in Tables 7 and 8. Considering the values of the first and third earthen ponds with approximately the same harvest-final weight, the budget value of the final CFCD harvest-final of European seabass was 32.23% higher (Tables 1, 2, 7 and 8). This is a result of the fact that European seabass consumes a more compound diet due to the longer time to reach the partial harvest weight and higher FCR values. The average shares of CFCD of partial harvests of European seabass ranged from 63.92 to 65.59% (Figure 1). The CFCD value per kg EPES partial harvests increased with the increase in fish weight, from 1.67 to 2.16 kg CO2e kg−1 (Figure 2). The average share of CFCD of meagre partial harvests was similar to that of European seabass between 62.44 and 66.70% (Figure 1). CFCD values of the first three partial harvests per kg EPM decreased from 1.35 to 1.31 kg CO2e kg−1 with the increase in fish weight (Figure 3). The increase in the CF expended value of the harvest-final in the winter period and later was a species-specific condition that can be explained by the fact that the water temperature is at or below the limit of optimal growth and feeding activity of meagre (FAO 2023b). Therefore, the increase in the FCR value of the harvest-final from November to February caused an increase in the CFCD value per kg EPM during this period of partial harvest (Figure 3).
Table 7

Carbon footprint expended budget of European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1)

ItemsHarvestFirst EPSecond EPThird EPMean ± SD
CF expended on consumed compound diet 24,186.72 24,408.23 25,550.02 24,714.99 ± 731.59 
26,397.01 26,989.59 28,146.45 27,177.68 ± 889.75 
41,685.14 39,547.02 43,012.95 41,415.04 ± 1,748.68 
Final 46,776.67 44,585.52 47,352.55 46,238.24 ± 1,459.98 
CF expended on general management 12,988.14 13,258.98 12,401.10 12,882.74 ± 438.55 
13,917.10 14,213.91 13,356.77 13,829.26 ± 435.27 
20,292.37 20,561.48 19,709.22 20,187.69 ± 435.67 
Final 24,376.87 24,645.01 23,795.91 24,272.60 ± 434.05 
CF expended on transportation 97.26 98.41 102.98 99.55 ± 3.03 
105.99 108.60 113.23 109.28 ± 3.67 
166.37 162.24 171.95 166.85 ± 4.87 
Final 186.48 182.14 189.09 185.90 ± 3.51 
CF expended on machinery, equipment and construction 871.59 890.07 831.55 864.41 ± 29.91 
936.27 954.75 896.23 929.08 ± 29.91 
1,359.75 1,378.23 1,319.71 1,352.56 ± 29.91 
Final 1,633.85 1,652.33 1,593.81 1,626.67 ± 29.91 
Total CF expended* 38,143.71 38,655.68 38,885.65 38,561.68 ± 379.80 
41,356.37 42,266.85 42,512.68 42,045.30 ± 609.16 
63,503.63 61,648.96 64,213.83 63,122.14 ± 1,324.31 
Final 72,973.87 71,065.00 72,931.36 72,323.41 ± 1,090.02 
ItemsHarvestFirst EPSecond EPThird EPMean ± SD
CF expended on consumed compound diet 24,186.72 24,408.23 25,550.02 24,714.99 ± 731.59 
26,397.01 26,989.59 28,146.45 27,177.68 ± 889.75 
41,685.14 39,547.02 43,012.95 41,415.04 ± 1,748.68 
Final 46,776.67 44,585.52 47,352.55 46,238.24 ± 1,459.98 
CF expended on general management 12,988.14 13,258.98 12,401.10 12,882.74 ± 438.55 
13,917.10 14,213.91 13,356.77 13,829.26 ± 435.27 
20,292.37 20,561.48 19,709.22 20,187.69 ± 435.67 
Final 24,376.87 24,645.01 23,795.91 24,272.60 ± 434.05 
CF expended on transportation 97.26 98.41 102.98 99.55 ± 3.03 
105.99 108.60 113.23 109.28 ± 3.67 
166.37 162.24 171.95 166.85 ± 4.87 
Final 186.48 182.14 189.09 185.90 ± 3.51 
CF expended on machinery, equipment and construction 871.59 890.07 831.55 864.41 ± 29.91 
936.27 954.75 896.23 929.08 ± 29.91 
1,359.75 1,378.23 1,319.71 1,352.56 ± 29.91 
Final 1,633.85 1,652.33 1,593.81 1,626.67 ± 29.91 
Total CF expended* 38,143.71 38,655.68 38,885.65 38,561.68 ± 379.80 
41,356.37 42,266.85 42,512.68 42,045.30 ± 609.16 
63,503.63 61,648.96 64,213.83 63,122.14 ± 1,324.31 
Final 72,973.87 71,065.00 72,931.36 72,323.41 ± 1,090.02 

EP, earthen pound.

*It also stands for CF expended per kg live weight gain.

Table 8

Carbon footprint expended budget of meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1)

ItemsHarvestFirst EPSecond EPThird EPMean ± SD
CF expended on consumed compound diet 13,553.20 13,574.90 15,559.71 14,229.27 ± 1,152.25 
20,064.69 18,370.86 22,130.35 20,188.63 ± 1,882.81 
26,192.20 24,539.24 28,175.05 26,302.16 ± 1,820.40 
Final 31,304.38 27,824.03 32,488.08 30,538.83 ± 2,424.44 
CF expended on general management 7,954.00 7,948.95 7,948.95 7,950.64 ± 2.91 
10,054.90 9,360.47 9,360.47 9,591.95 ± 400.93 
12,186.81 12,191.47 12,191.47 12,189.91 ± 2.69 
Final 15,733.14 14,712.21 14,712.21 15,052.52 ± 589.43 
CF expended on transportation 55.06 55.11 63.04 57.74 ± 4.59 
80.78 74.05 88.99 81.27 ± 7.48 
104.98 98.41 112.86 105.42 ± 7.23 
Final 125.17 111.39 129.89 122.15 ± 9.62 
CF expended on machinery, equipment and construction 528.19 526.65 526.65 527.16 ± 0.89 
669.86 620.59 620.59 637.01 ± 28.45 
811.54 810.00 810.00 810.51 ± 0.89 
Final 1,044.06 974.77 974.77 997.87 ± 40.01 
Total CF expended* 22,090.45 22,105.61 24,098.35 22,764.80 ± 1,154.91 
30,870.23 28,425.96 32,200.39 30,498.86 ± 1,914.42 
39,295.52 37,639.12 41,289.37 39,408.00 ± 1,827.72 
Final 48,206.75 43,622.40 48,304.95 46,711.37 ± 2,675.58 
ItemsHarvestFirst EPSecond EPThird EPMean ± SD
CF expended on consumed compound diet 13,553.20 13,574.90 15,559.71 14,229.27 ± 1,152.25 
20,064.69 18,370.86 22,130.35 20,188.63 ± 1,882.81 
26,192.20 24,539.24 28,175.05 26,302.16 ± 1,820.40 
Final 31,304.38 27,824.03 32,488.08 30,538.83 ± 2,424.44 
CF expended on general management 7,954.00 7,948.95 7,948.95 7,950.64 ± 2.91 
10,054.90 9,360.47 9,360.47 9,591.95 ± 400.93 
12,186.81 12,191.47 12,191.47 12,189.91 ± 2.69 
Final 15,733.14 14,712.21 14,712.21 15,052.52 ± 589.43 
CF expended on transportation 55.06 55.11 63.04 57.74 ± 4.59 
80.78 74.05 88.99 81.27 ± 7.48 
104.98 98.41 112.86 105.42 ± 7.23 
Final 125.17 111.39 129.89 122.15 ± 9.62 
CF expended on machinery, equipment and construction 528.19 526.65 526.65 527.16 ± 0.89 
669.86 620.59 620.59 637.01 ± 28.45 
811.54 810.00 810.00 810.51 ± 0.89 
Final 1,044.06 974.77 974.77 997.87 ± 40.01 
Total CF expended* 22,090.45 22,105.61 24,098.35 22,764.80 ± 1,154.91 
30,870.23 28,425.96 32,200.39 30,498.86 ± 1,914.42 
39,295.52 37,639.12 41,289.37 39,408.00 ± 1,827.72 
Final 48,206.75 43,622.40 48,304.95 46,711.37 ± 2,675.58 

EP, earthen pound.

*It also stands for CF expended per kg live weight gain.

Figure 1

Average percentage shares of total CF expended budget values of partial harvest of European seabass and meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (%).

Figure 1

Average percentage shares of total CF expended budget values of partial harvest of European seabass and meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (%).

Close modal
Figure 2

CF expended input values per kg European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Figure 2

CF expended input values per kg European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Close modal
Figure 3

CF expended input values per kg meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Figure 3

CF expended input values per kg meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Close modal

In the comparative LCA analysis of meagre and European seabass from feeding to harvesting, feed has the highest share (Konstantinidis et al. 2021). This high share of feed is like the high share of CFCD in total CF expended in the present study. This superiority of meagre is due to its low FCR value and being a fast-growing marine teleost (Konstantinidis et al. 2021; Pfalzgraff et al. 2023). It is seen that different kg CO2e values of crop-derived or fish-derived ingredients affect the kg CO2e value of compound diet depending on their ratios in the formulation (Pelletier & Tyedmers 2007, 2010). Very different kg CO2e values of crop-derived ingredients were used to substitute these fish meal, fish-derived and poultry-derived ingredients or used in omnivorous diets that will have significant effects on compound diets' kg CO2e values (Pelletier & Tyedmers 2007, 2010). For example, Indian major carp and other cyprinids have low CF values, while trout values are more affected by soybean emissions from fishmeal production and land use changes (Lutz 2021). But although freshwater fish such as carp, catfish and tilapia are omnivorous or herbivorous species, they require relatively low levels of protein and fishmeal in their feed (MacLeod et al. 2020), species differences associated with omnivorous and carnivorous diets, cages and land-based aquaculture systems such as RAS and concrete ponds, which are more energy-dependent, have a significant impact on the CF of aquaculture (Ziegler et al. 2022; Diken 2023; Diken et al. 2022). The high FCR value should also be considered due to the impact of feed on greenhouse gas emission values, which leads to the most significant emission difference between striped catfish, Nile tilapia and Indian major carp aquaculture systems (Robb et al. 2017). In this report, the emission value of Indian major carp was also higher due to the high FCR value. However, the greenhouse gas emission values of all three feed species are lower than the results of the present study. The value of 0.787 kg CO2e of tilapia feed fed with plant-based feed ingredients was lower than the values of carnivore ration feeds used in the study (Pelletier & Tyedmers 2010). Similarly, feed material production EI (kg CO2e/kg live weight gain) values of 0.72, 0.74 and 0.91 for Nile tilapia, striped catfish and carp, respectively, were lower than the CFCD results of the present study, indicating species differences (Robb et al. 2017). Boissy et al. (2011) reported that the climate change potential (kg CO2) of a plant-based low-aquaculture diet in trout feeds was 6% lower than that of a fishmeal-based diet. This situation reveals the arrangements and relationship of feed formulations in the CF value of feed. MacLeod et al. (2020) reported that a similar relationship between feed ingredient preferences of fishmeal with high protein value and feed ingredient preferences with high emission values due to land use on the emission increase of salmonid feeds varied depending on the ingredient utilization rates of compound diet used in European seabass and meagre feeding (Table 5). The 85% feed share of the total CF in cage salmon production was higher than the feed share of EPES and EPM (Ziegler et al. 2022). In contrast, the 66.42–79.59% and 59.64–61.85% CFCD shares of rainbow trout cage and concrete pond farming, respectively, which were harvested around 250–300 g, were more similar to the CFCD shares of EPES and EPM (Diken 2023; Diken et al. 2022). Among the average CFGM values per kg of harvested fish, the value of the first three harvests of meagre aquaculture was more similar to the value of rainbow trout farmed in concrete ponds than cage rainbow trout (Diken 2023; Diken et al. 2022). The results reveal differences in compound diet CF based on species and aquaculture system differences (Ziegler et al. 2022; Diken 2023; Diken et al. 2022).

Based on the relationship between FCR and feed consumption reported by Ziegler et al. (2022), the higher FCR values of European seabass compared to meagre affected the CFCD budget value and CF expended value per kg harvested fish. da Silva Pires et al. (2022), in the aquaculture LCA, revealed the necessity to prefer strategies that reduce the environmental impact of feed ingredients obtained from different production systems and distances in feed production. This means that aquaculture diet production will have less global warming impact. Although aquaculture has a low CF, there is a need for feed safety, including the utilization of feed ingredients for sustainability (Hognes et al. 2011; D'Abramo 2021). The high CFCD value in the results of the current study reveals the necessity of sectoral innovations working on the production and certification of feed based on low-emission feed ingredient sources, the search for low-carbon emission feed ingredient sources and the creation of feed formulations without compromising feed quality and creating a price increase in the direction of reducing the CF of sustainable aquaculture (HatcheryFeedManagement 2021; EFA 2022; HatcheryInternationalPersonnel 2022).

CF expended on general management (CFGM), CF expended on transportation (CFT) and CF expended on machinery, equipment and construction (CFMEC)

The CFGM budget value was increased due to the longer cultivation period of European seabass compared to meagre (Tables 1, 2, 7 and 8). CFGM rates of the first three harvests of both species showed a decreasing trend from 33.41 to 32% in European seabass and from 34.98 to 30.98% in meagre (Figure 1). On the other hand, the average value of CFGM per kg fish from harvest-1 to harvest-finish increased from 0.87 to 1.14 kg CO2e (Figure 2). The mean value of EPM in the first three harvests CFGM per kg decreased from 0.75 to 0.61 kg CO2e with the increase in fish weight as in CFCD values (Figure 3). As explained above, due to the decrease in the winter-feeding activity of the meagre, the average weight and therefore biomass did not change much due to the decrease in feeding activity during the winter period, the average CFGM value of the harvest-final was calculated as 0.73 kg CO2e kg−1. Approximately 88% of the CFGM items of both species were composed of electricity (Figure 4).
Figure 4

Item rates of CF expended on general management (%).

Figure 4

Item rates of CF expended on general management (%).

Close modal

When the conversion of electricity was made in the overall CF budget of the EPES (share of CFGM in the overall budget × item share in the CFGM), the total CF expended shares of electricity consumption were 29.49, 29.07, 28.20 and 29.59%, the total CF expended shares of labour were 1.96, 1.92, 1.89 and 1.98% and the total CF expended shares of diesel were 0.78, 0.77, 0.75 and 0.79%, respectively (Figures 1 and 4). The CF expended electricity values per kg harvested fish were 0.77, 0.82, 0.92 and 1.00 kg CO2e kg−1, respectively. When CFGM item conversions were made in the total CF budget of EPM, the average values of harvest-1, harvest-2, harvest-3 and harvest-final, the CF expended shares of electricity consumption were 30.51, 27.53, 27.09 and 28.14%, the CF expended shares of labour were 2.03, 1.85, 1.86 and 1.89% and the CF expended shares of diesel were 0.81, 0.73, 0.72 and 0.75, respectively. The CF expended electricity value per kg harvested fish was 0.66, 0.56, 0.53 and 0.64 kg CO2e, respectively. The average share of 4.93% CFGM in concrete pond rainbow trout farming was considerably lower than EPES and EPM results given in Figure 1 (Diken 2023). This is due to the dependence of earthen pond farming on electricity use. The shares of labour, diesel and electricity items in the total CF expended on the CFGM of concrete pond rainbow trout farming were 2.30, 1.63 and 0.62%, respectively (Diken 2023).

The CFT shares were 0.26% for EPES and 0.25–0.27% for EPM, which were quite low due to the proximity of the earthen pond marine finfish farm to the hatchery and aquafeed factory (Figure 1). The CFT values per kg fish in partial harvests increased in EPES and decreased in EPM similar to the above situation but were around 0.01 kg CO2e kg−1 in both species (Figures 2 and 3).

The CFMEC shares of the first three partial harvests of both species decreased from 2.24 to 2.14% in European seabass and from 2.32 to 2.06% in meagre, respectively (Figure 1). The mean CFMEC value of European seabass per kg partial harvests increased from 0.0586 to 0.0761 kg CO2e, while it decreased from 0.0500 to 0.0404 kg CO2e in meagre (Figures 2 and 3). The highest shares of CFMEC items of all harvesting stages of both species were metal sheets, aerator and U-PVC, respectively (Figure 5). However, there will be differences in the kg CO2e kg−1 values of all partial harvests per kg harvested fish (%CFMEC × %CFMEC share of the item). Their value in the overall budget can also be calculated (total CF expended share of CFMEC partial harvest × CFMEC partial harvest item share × total CF expended value of the partial harvest). The results show that the relationship between transport and CF in aquaculture should not be ignored. In this study, the increased CFT value of concrete pond rainbow trout, which was at a greater distance from the feed factory, decreased the CFGM and CFMEC values. On the other hand, low CFT values of EPES and EPM were effective on CFGM and CFMEC values due to the proximity of the earthen pond marine finfish farm to the aquafeed factory (Diken 2023). Similar to this assessment, a private sector's planning of a farm-specific feed production facility to reduce the CF of salmon farming based on feed transport, feed logistics and production costs reveals that the contribution of sustainable aquaculture to global climate change can be further reduced (HatcheryInternationalPersonnel 2021).
Figure 5

Item rates of CF expended on machinery, equipment and construction (%). The value of each of the other items (Tractor, HDPE, HDPE pipe, plastic (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), PVC profile, synthetic PP pipe, synthetic PVC pipe, excavation, gravel, concrete, concrete (pre-cast), betopan, steel (general), lead, iron, glass, tile, tile adhesive, electric wire, timber (sawn hardwood), cage net and rope) was under %1.

Figure 5

Item rates of CF expended on machinery, equipment and construction (%). The value of each of the other items (Tractor, HDPE, HDPE pipe, plastic (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), PVC profile, synthetic PP pipe, synthetic PVC pipe, excavation, gravel, concrete, concrete (pre-cast), betopan, steel (general), lead, iron, glass, tile, tile adhesive, electric wire, timber (sawn hardwood), cage net and rope) was under %1.

Close modal

Total CF expended

The average values of total CF expended in EPES increased from 2.61 to 3.38 kg CO2e kg−1 (Figure 2). In the first earthen pond, which had the highest harvest-final average weight gain of European seabass, the total CF expended increase per kg fish was 28.39% compared to the first harvest. In the third and second earthen ponds, the total CF expended increase per kg fish according to the first harvest was 32.31 and 28.05%, respectively. The basic correlation relationship between fish weight and total CF expended was evaluated and the total CF expended for 1 kg fish weight was calculated. The total CF expended values based on the linear regression analysis of the total CF expended values per kg fish converted to per kg harvested weight of the first, second and third earthen ponds of the partial harvests with different average weight values considering the total CF expended values as 2.99 kg CO2e (y = 0.0008x + 2.1865, R2 = 0.9889), 3.32 kg CO2e (y = 0.001x + 2.317, R2 = 0.7662) and 2.94 (y = 0.0011x + 1.8356, R2 = 0.8739) kg CO2e, respectively. In the face of increasing weight gain of meagre, the average total CF expended values of the first three partial harvests had a decreasing trend from 2.16 to 1.96 kg CO2e kg−1 (Figure 3). The total CF expended value per kg harvested fish from the third earthen pond, which had the highest average weight increase compared to harvest-3, decreased by 11.85% compared to the first harvest. These values of other earthen ponds were decreased by 9.05 and 6.81%. According to the total CF expended values of the first three partial harvests, the total CF expended values per kg harvested weight based on the polynomial regression analysis of the first earthen pond and the linear regression analysis of the second and third ponds were 1.95 kg CO2e (y = 0.0000005876x2 − 0.0013290409x + 2.6887845382, R2 = 1.0000000000), 2.05 kg CO2e (y = −0.0002x + 2.252, R2 = 0.9867) and 2.01 kg CO2e (y = −0.0003x + 2.3079, R2 = 0.8925), respectively. A similar relationship between fish size and decreased feed efficiency in rainbow trout, a cold-water species, was also found in meagre (Papatryphon et al. 2004). CFCD and total CF expended values decreased with the increase in fish weight due to temperature change in meagre.

In contrast to the average value of 1.78 kg CO2e kg−1 of concrete pond rainbow trout farming, the total CF expended values of the first harvest of EPES and EPM, which were close to the portion weight of rainbow trout, were 2.61 and 2.16 kg CO2e kg−1, respectively. Considering the CF values, which is an evaluation against climate change and a sustainability criterion at the same time, it reveals that EPM was a promising species against rainbow trout farming. Similarly, when Figure 6 is analysed, it is seen that the total CF expended values of the partial harvests of EPES had similar values with the rainbow trout, large-size rainbow trout RAS and land-based Atlantic salmon aquaculture systems. The total CF expended value of the partial harvests of EPM, which has a lower value, is similar to the values of rainbow trout portion weight, and Atlantic salmon farmed in marine systems (Figure 6). In terms of nutrient density and greenhouse gas emissions of the world's aquaculture and aquaculture species, Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout are among the species groups with the highest nutrient density, while they are among the lowest species groups in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the greenhouse gas emission value per kg of edible product, Atlantic salmon is among the lowest and rainbow trout is among the medium-level species groups (Bianchi et al. 2022). Konstantinidis et al. (2021) reported that in the LCA analysis comparing meagre and European seabass from feeding to harvesting, meagre was superior in terms of environmental impact. Similarly, in terms of total CF expended values, meagre is superior to European seabass. The results of both studies reveal the advantage of meagre aquaculture in combating climate change. With these evaluations, the CF expended values of both species given in Tables 2 and 3 were found to be lower than 4 and 6 per kg carcass weight at the farm-gate in aquaculture (Lutz 2021).
Figure 6

Carbon footprint values of finfish farming species. Adapted from Diken (2022). RAS, Recirculation Aquaculture System. (References: (1) Diken et al. (2022), (2) Pelletier & Tyedmers (2010), (3 and 12) Robb et al. (2017); the average emissions intensities (EI) from cradle to farm-gate, excluding emissions arising from land use change (LUC) and the average EI from cradle to farm-gate, including emissions arising from LUC (based on the FeedPrint area-specific values), (4) Diken (2023), (5) Robb et al. (2017), (6) Papatryphon et al. (2004), (7, 10 and 17) Ayer & Tyedmers (2009), (8, 9, 22 and 23) Hagos (2012), (11) Pelletier & Tyedmers (2010), (13 and 20) Present study, (14) Pelletier & Tyedmers (2007), (15 and 25) Aubin et al. (2009); (16) Ayer & Tyedmers (2009), (18) MH (2017), (19) Pelletier et al. (2009), (21) Aubin et al. (2009) and (24 and 26) Henriksson et al. (2015).

Figure 6

Carbon footprint values of finfish farming species. Adapted from Diken (2022). RAS, Recirculation Aquaculture System. (References: (1) Diken et al. (2022), (2) Pelletier & Tyedmers (2010), (3 and 12) Robb et al. (2017); the average emissions intensities (EI) from cradle to farm-gate, excluding emissions arising from land use change (LUC) and the average EI from cradle to farm-gate, including emissions arising from LUC (based on the FeedPrint area-specific values), (4) Diken (2023), (5) Robb et al. (2017), (6) Papatryphon et al. (2004), (7, 10 and 17) Ayer & Tyedmers (2009), (8, 9, 22 and 23) Hagos (2012), (11) Pelletier & Tyedmers (2010), (13 and 20) Present study, (14) Pelletier & Tyedmers (2007), (15 and 25) Aubin et al. (2009); (16) Ayer & Tyedmers (2009), (18) MH (2017), (19) Pelletier et al. (2009), (21) Aubin et al. (2009) and (24 and 26) Henriksson et al. (2015).

Close modal

When the CF expended results of the present study and the general evaluation in this report and Figure 6 are taken into consideration, it is revealed that the meagre species and its earthen pond aquaculture culture system are at least as sustainable as Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout in terms of climate change emission values. While the world CF values of aquaculture are similar to those of world poultry farming, they are relatively lower than those of livestock pig farming and considerably lower than those of sheep and cattle farming (Nemry et al. 2001; Nijman et al. 2012; Boyd 2013; MH 2017; MacLeod et al. 2020; FEAP 2022). Aquaculture species have lower emissions than ruminant monogastric species because they cannot produce CH4 through enteric fermentation, excrete ammonia directly, have lower FCR, require less energy for locomotion and are cold-blooded (MacLeod et al. 2020, 2021). The differences in every stage of production in each of the three different aquaculture systems for striped catfish, Nile tilapia and Indian major carp species in Asia have resulted in differences between greenhouse gas emission values. These are raw materials used, energy used in the mills, transport methods for moving the feed to the farm, farming methods, survival of fish to harvest and feed conversion ratios (Robb et al. 2017). Reducing energy in feed production, improving feed utilization rate, increasing feed ingredient diversity, selecting species with edible portion weight depending on feed change rates and management practices that increase production efficiency will enable CF values to be reduced along with energy savings in aquaculture (Flos & Reig 2017). It has been reported in many studies that the CF of aquaculture per product will vary largely depending on the feed and feed ingredient components, transport, investment-induced system differences, energy value and project capacity (Henriksson et al. 2015; Diken et al. 2022; Diken 2023). The study results support the results of these reports. Especially in this study, very low transport values showed a distribution to the operating and capital (CFGM and CFMEC) ratios.

Compared to EPES and EPM, the study results given in Figure 6 are within the scope of single-harvest analysis. The partial harvest analysis of European seabass and meagre, which were harvested intermittently due to the increase in fish weight and duration of cultivation, allowed the results to be interpreted accurately. The necessity of partial harvesting in EPES and EPM aquaculture is related to the market demand for fish length and weight and to the balancing of the carrying capacity of earthen ponds due to increased biomass. In a study where a similar methodology was applied, Diken et al. (2022) and Diken (2023) evaluated the CF of rainbow trout harvested at once. In these studies, rainbow trout are harvested once at a size of around 250–300 g. However, in the present study, European seabass and meagre are harvested at different sizes up to approximately 1,500 g. Therefore, the CF values of each harvest were analysed, and the CF values of the partial harvest were given. According to the results obtained from this study, the CF analysis of partial harvesting, which shows significant differences, should be taken into consideration in future studies (Figures 2 and 3).

The aquaculture industry's carbon emission reduction targets in building public awareness and corporate positioning to tackle climate change should include planning for innovation in feed, transport and operations specific to salmon farming (Hogan 2021). In 2021, a private company with approximately 2 million tonnes of aquafeed production aims to save 2 billion kg of CO2 per year by reducing the CF of seafood farming by 30% until 2030 (Cargill 2022). As stated in this report, meagre with a high FCR-dependent portion weight is an important aquaculture species in reducing CF values and ensuring global food security in the face of increasing world population and climate change. Also, according to a report by Zoli et al. (2023), the meagre should be considered as a species that will contribute to the development of sustainable management strategies of aquaculture in the Mediterranean Basin. The results express the necessity of determining the CF values based on species and species-specific farming systems, the share of feed in the CF budget and transportation evaluations in this study, together with the innovation plans in feed, transportation and operations specific to the salmon farm reported by Hogan (2021), support the necessity of creating public awareness and institutional positioning within the scope of the aquaculture industry targets to reduce carbon emissions to combat climate change.

CF for outputs

CF expended per kg carcass and fillet gained during feeding

While the weight increase of European seabass increased the CF expended per kg carcass and fillet gained during feeding values of partial harvests, it decreased in the first three harvests of meagre despite the increase in fish weight (Figures 7 and 8). The mean values of CF expended per kg carcass gained during feeding of partial harvests of European seabass and meagre ranged between 2.93–3.99 and 2.08–2.40 kg CO2e kg−1, respectively (Figures 7 and 8). On the other hand, the mean values of CF expended per kg fillet gained during feeding of these species were 5.19–5.64 and 4.42–5.20 kg CO2e kg−1, respectively. The average value of CF expended per kg was 2.20 kg CO2e kg−1 carcass and 3.10 kg CO2e kg−1 fillet gained during feeding and these values of rainbow trout (Diken 2023), which are grown in portion size, and meagre can be defined as species with high sustainability in terms of CF values and resistant to climate change in the fight against climate change. However, the average CF expended for kg carcass of EPES (Tables 6 and 7) was similar to the 2–7 kg CO2 kg−1meat CF of the aquaculture fish reported by Boyd (2013). A similar comparison can be made for the emission intensity of 2–4 kg (kg CO2/carcass weight) of salmon aquaculture in the European Region (MacLeod et al. 2020). The meagre harvest-1 carcass value was below these average values (Boyd 2013; MacLeod et al. 2020). This situation reveals the importance of rainbow trout and meagre in green deal seafood assessments in terms of meeting the world's food needs.
Figure 7

CF expended output per kg European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Figure 7

CF expended output per kg European seabass in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Close modal
Figure 8

CF expended output for per kg meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Figure 8

CF expended output for per kg meagre in earthen pond aquaculture (kg CO2e kg−1).

Close modal

CF expended per Mcal energy deposited in fillet during feeding and CF expended per kg of protein deposited in fillet gained during feeding

While CF expended per Mcal energy deposited in fillet gained during feeding and CF expended per kg of protein deposited in fillet gained during feeding values of the partial harvests increased with weight increase in EPES, they decreased with weight increase of the first three harvests in EPM (Tables 6 and 7). The average value of CF expended per Mcal energy deposited in fillet during feeding of European seabass, which has a higher fillet ratio compared to meagre, was 2.93–3.26 kg CO2e kg−1, which was lower than the average value of 3.20–3.76 kg CO2e kg−1 of meagre. The average value of 2.46 kg CO2e kg−1 CF expended per Mcal energy deposited in fillet during feeding of rainbow trout harvested at portion length is similar to the value of European seabass harvest-1, which is closest to the portion weight of rainbow trout (Diken 2023). This is due to the similar fillet ratios of rainbow trout and European seabass (Diken et al. 2022). This value was higher in meagre with a low fillet ratio (Table 7). A similar interpretation can be made for CF expended per kg of protein deposited in fillet gained during feeding. The mean values of 25.43 and 24.60 kg CO2e kg−1 harvest-1 for European seabass and meagre, respectively, given in Table 6 were higher than the mean value of 17.24 kg CO2e kg−1 of concrete pond aquaculture (Diken 2023).

CF values of compound diet and compound diet consumption are important criteria in CF expended assessments and determination of CF expended value. It is important to standardize the assessments according to the production amount for more accurate interpretations. While there is an increase in the CFCD percentage shares of the total CF expended budget of the first three harvests of the meagre given in Figure 1, the kg CO2e kg−1 value standardized according to the number of fish produced was decreased. Monitoring the CF of compound diet and compound diet consumption in aquaculture tracking and monitoring programmes used in aquaculture will enable the planning of the harvest periods of aquaculture species in the period with a low CF. In this respect, the lowest CF label values can be created in terms of the product. For this reason, it is extremely important to create CF values and consumer awareness in the fight against climate change in terms of global food security.

Species and cultivation system differences should be taken into consideration in establishing food security against global climate change. Species with tolerance to water temperature and temperature increase, which is the physicochemical evaluation element of the most important bioecological criterion of species differences, may also be specified with high resistance to global climate change. The results of this study may be important in this respect. Compared to European seabass, meagre reaches the same harvest weight in a shorter time. At the same time, when the first three harvests were taken into consideration, the CF expended value of the meagre, which is a species that increases in weight and grows rapidly due to the increase in water temperature, decreased. Therefore, meagre, which has both a shorter harvest period and a lower CF expended value, is an extremely important species in terms of global food security in the fight against climate change, at least as much as trout and salmon farming. Comparative evaluations of partial harvests of European seabass and meagre reveal the importance of fast-growing species in terms of food security in the fight against global climate change. Sectors in search of substitute food and feed ingredient sources should consider the indirect impacts of these resources on the global ecosystem in addition to product-based CF values. For example, the effects of ecosystem responses that are approaching the breaking point because of deforestation and/or increased chemical use in the face of agricultural product demands on global climate change should not be ignored. As a source of food and feed ingredients, emphasizing the preferences of climate-friendly marine-derived plant products, which are factors in reducing CO2 emissions, will make a significant contribution to the global ecosystem. Due to the high protein, PUFA values, essential mineral, and trace element values of aquaculture products reported by Tacon (2023), we recommend the production of remarkable and permanent policies in the fight against climate change in terms of global food security for the Mediterranean Basin, which has the most important fish culture species richness of aquaculture. In future studies, we recommend that in CF expended analysis, which is a climate change assessment criterion, partial harvest analysis should be considered in harvests over portion size.

In this study, animals were not used.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Abisha
R.
,
Krishnani
K. K.
,
Sukhdhane
K.
,
Verma
A. K.
,
Brahmane
M.
&
Chadha
N. K.
2022
Sustainable development of climate-resilient aquaculture and culture-based fisheries through adaptation of abiotic stresses: a review
.
J. Water Clim. Change
13
(
7
),
2671
2689
.
Ahmed
M.
,
Asim
M.
,
Ahmad
S.
&
Aslam
M.
,
2023
Climate change, agricultural productivity, and food security
. In:
Global Agricultural Production: Resilience to Climate Change
(
Ahmed
M.
, ed.).
Springer International Publishing
,
Cham
, pp.
31
72
.
Alley
R.
,
Berntsen
T.
,
Bindoff
N. L.
,
Chen
Z.
,
Chidthaisong
A.
,
Friedlingstein
P.
,
Gregory
J.
,
Hegerl
G.
,
Heimann
M.
,
Hewitson
B.
,
Hoskins
B.
,
Joos
F.
,
Jouzel
J.
,
Kattsov
V.
,
Lohmann
U.
,
Manning
M.
,
Matsuno
T.
,
Molina
M.
,
Nicholls
N.
,
Overpeck
J.
,
Qin
D.
,
Raga
G.
,
Ramaswamy
V.
,
Ren
J.
,
Rusticucci
M.
,
Solomon
S.
,
Somerville
R.
,
Stocker
T. F.
,
Stott
P.
,
Stouffer
R. J.
,
Whetton
P.
,
Wood
R. A.
,
Wratt
D.
,
Arblaster
J.
,
Brasseur
G.
,
Christensen
J. H.
,
Denman
K.
,
Fahey
D. W.
,
Forster
P.
,
Jansen
E.
,
Jones
P. D.
,
Knutti
R.
,
Le Treut
H.
,
Lemke
P.
,
Meehl
G.
,
Mote
P.
,
Randall
D.
,
Stone
D. A.
,
Trenberth
K. E.
,
Willebrand
J.
&
Zwiers
F.
2007
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers
.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
,
Geneva
. .
Angel
D. L.
,
Jokumsen
A.
,
Lembo
G.
,
2019
Aquaculture production systems and environmental interactions
. In:
Organic Aquaculture Impacts and Future Developments
(
Lembo
G.
&
Mente
E.
, eds.).
Springer
,
Cham
,
Switzerland
, pp.
103
118
.
Aubin
J.
,
Papatryphon
E.
,
Van der Werf
H. M. G.
&
Chatzifotis
S.
2009
Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivorous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment
.
J. Cleaner Prod.
17
(
3
),
354
361
.
Barber
A.
2009
NZ Fuel and Electricity-Total Primary Energy Use, Carbon Dioxide and GHG Emission Factors
.
Paper for Ministry of Economic Development by AgriLINK NZ Ltd.
,
Kumeu
,
New Zealand
.
Bianchi
M.
,
Hallström
E.
,
Parker
R. W.
,
Mifflin
K.
,
Tyedmers
P.
&
Ziegler
F.
2022
Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice
.
Commun. Earth Environ.
3
(
1
),
188
.
Bodur
T.
,
Günaydın
C. O.
&
Toplu
S.
2014
A Preliminary Research on Meagre (Argyrosomus regius, Asso 1801) Culture in Earthen Pond During Summer Season in Turkey. Aquaculture Europe 14, 14–17 October, Donostia–San Sebastián, Spain, pp. 150–151
.
Bohnes
F. A.
&
Laurent
A.
2019
LCA of aquaculture systems: methodological issues and potential improvements
.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
24
,
324
337
.
Boissy
J.
,
Aubin
J.
,
Drissi
A.
,
van der Werf
H. M. G.
,
Bell
G. J.
&
Kaushik
S. J.
2011
Environmental impacts of plant-based salmonid diets at feed and farm scales
.
Aquaculture
321
(
1
),
61
70
.
Boyd
C. E.
2013
Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Aquaculture. Pond Aquaculture Often Is Carbon Dioxide Neutral
.
Available from: https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/assessing-carbon-footprint-of-aquaculture/ (accessed 25 April 2022)
.
Boyd
C. E.
,
Tucker
C.
,
McNevin
A.
,
Bostick
K.
&
Clay
J.
2007
Indicators of resource use efficiency and environmental performance in fish and crustacean aquaculture
.
Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac.
15
(
4
),
327
360
.
Boyd
C. E.
,
D'Abramo
L. R.
,
Glencross
B. D.
,
Huyben
D. C.
,
Juarez
L. M.
,
Lockwood
G. S.
,
McNevin
A. A.
,
Tacon
A. G. J.
,
Teletchea
F.
Jr
,
Tomasso
J. R.
,
Tucker
C. S.
&
Valenti
W. C.
2020
Achieving sustainable aquaculture: historical and current perspectives and future needs and challenges
.
J. World Aquac. Soc.
51
(
3
),
578
633
.
Cargill
2022
Sustainability Reporting Cargill Aqua Nutrition Sustainability Report 2021
. .
Caslli
S.
,
Shehu
E.
&
Elezi
D.
2014
Two other important indicators for the assessment of eco dwelling
.
J. Build. Construct. Plann. Res.
2
(
1
),
39
49
.
CO2 Earth
2023
CO2 Earth's CO2 Home Page
.
Available from
: https://www.co2.earth
(accessed 21 August 2023)
.
Crutzen
P. J.
&
Stoermer
E. F.
2000
The ‘Anthropocene’
.
Glob. Change News Lett.
41
,
17
18
.
da Silva Pires
P. G.
,
Andretta
I.
,
Mendéz
M. S. C.
,
Kipper
M.
,
de Menezes Lovatto
N.
&
Loureiro
B. B.
,
2022
Life cycle impact of industrial aquaculture systems
. In:
Sustainable Fish Production and Processing
(
Galanakis
C. M.
, ed.).
Academic Press
,
Vienna
,
Austria
, pp.
141
172
.
DEFRA
2011
Guidelines to DEFRA/DECC's GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting
.
Available from
: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69314/pb13625-emission-factor-methodology-paper-110905.pdf
(accessed 12 August 2012)
.
Diken
G.
,
2022
Sürdürülebilir su ürünleri yetiştiriciliğinin karbon ayak izi
. In:
Zirat, Orman ve Su Ürünleri Alanında Uluslararası Araştırmalar
, 1st edn (
Akar
T.
&
Tozlu
İ.
, eds.).
Serüven Publishing
,
İzmir
,
Türkiye
, pp.
41
67
.
Duncan
N.
&
Myrseth
B.
2011
New Species for Aquaculture Production Including Ornamentals
. .
Duncan
N. J.
,
Estévez
A.
,
Fernández-Palacios
H.
,
Gairin
I.
,
Hernández-Cruz
C. M.
,
Roo
J.
,
Schuchardt
D.
&
Vallés
R.
,
2013
Aquaculture production of meagre (Argyrosomus regius): hatchery techniques, ongrowing and market
. In:
Advances in Aquaculture Hatchery Technology
(
Allan
G.
&
Burnell
G.
, eds.).
Woodhead Publishing Limited
,
Cambridge
, pp.
519
541
.
EFA News
2022
European Food Agency Feed4Future Carbon Neutral Offering Now Available for Skretting Customers
. .
El-Dahhar
A. A.
,
El-Ebiary
E. S. H.
,
Abdel-Rahim
M. M.
,
Refaee
W. M.
&
Lotfy
A. M.
2021
Stocking density effects on survival, growth performance, feed utilization, and carcass composition of meagre, Argyrosomus regius (Asso, 1801) fingerlings reared in fiberglass tanks using underground saltwater
.
Aquac. Aquar. Conserv. Legis.
14
(
1
),
495
505
.
Enertechnos Ltd
2019
Leading UK Innovator Enertechnos Sets Out Solution to Demand and Decarbonisation Challenges Facing UK Power Industry
. .
EPE
2009
Brazilian Energy Balance
.
Ministry of Energy and Mines
,
Brasilia
, p.
274
.
FAO
2023a
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Fishery Statistical Collections Global Aquaculture Production Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistical Query Panel
.
Available from: https://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics-query/en/home (accessed 25 May 2023)
.
FAO
2023b
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture Fisheries and Aquaculture Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus 1758)
. .
FAO
2023c
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture Fisheries and Aquaculture Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme Argyrosomus regius (Asso 1801)
. .
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO
2022
The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022 Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable
.
FAO
,
Rome
, p.
231
.
https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en
FEAP
2022
We Are the Solution We Are the Future. The Key Role of Aquaculture for Safe and Healthy Food. Available from: https://feap.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20190829_feap_depliant.pdf (accessed 25 April 2022)
.
Flos
R.
&
Reig
L.
2017
Improving energy efficiency in fisheries and aquaculture
.
Aquac. Europe
42
(
2
),
29
34
.
Froehlich
H. E.
,
Koehn
J. Z.
,
Holsman
K. K.
&
Halpern
B. S.
2022
Emerging trends in science and news of climate change threats to and adaptation of aquaculture
.
Aquaculture
549
,
737812
.
Gamsız
K.
&
Neke
M.
2008
Embryonic development stages of meagre Argyrosomus regius Asso 1801 under rearing conditions
. In
8th Larval Biology Symposium
,
6–11 July 2008
,
Lisbon, Portugal
.
Available from: https://egemar.net/media/bulletins/6_20170315122203.pdf (accessed 17 August 2023)
.
Gephart
J. A.
,
Golden
C. D.
,
Asche
F.
,
Belton
B.
,
Brugere
C.
,
Froehlich
H. E.
,
Fry
J. P.
,
Halpern
B. S.
,
Hicks
C. C.
,
Jones
R. C.
,
Klinger
D. H.
,
Little
D. C.
,
McCauley
D. J.
,
Thilsted
S. H.
,
Torell
M.
&
Allison
E. H.
2020
Scenarios for global aquaculture and its role in human nutrition
.
Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac.
29
(
1
),
122
138
.
Gracia
E. P.
&
Jofre
A. G.
2013
Cultivo de esciénidos. I: la corvina
. In:
Diversificación de Especies en la Piscicultura Marina Española
(
Fundación Martínez
E. A.
&
Atarés
I. A.
, eds.).
Observatorio Español de Acuicultura Instituto Español de Oceanografia
,
Madrid
, pp.
117
153
.
Hagos
K. W.
2012
Survey of Resource Use Efficiency and Estimation of Carbon and Water Footprints in Fish Farming Systems Using Life Cycle Analysis
.
Dissertation
,
University of Rhode Island Kingston
.
Hall
S. J. A.
,
Delaporte
M. J.
,
Phillips
M. B.
&
O'Keefe
M.
2011
Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture
.
The WorldFish Center
,
Penang
,
Malaysia
.
Hammond
G.
,
Jones
C.
,
Lowrie
E. F.
&
Tse
P.
2011
Embodied Carbon, The Inventory of Carbon and Energy
.
BSRIA Limited
,
Berkshire
.
HatcheryFeedManagement
2021
Aller Aqua Starts Labelling Carbon Emission Equivalents on Its Feeds
. .
HatcheryInternationalStaff
2021
Skretting and Atlantic Sapphire Partner on Local Feed Supply Venture
. .
Henriksson
P. J.
,
Guinée
J. B.
,
Kleijn
R.
&
de Snoo
G. R.
2012
Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems – a review of methodologies
.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
17
,
304
313
.
Henriksson
P. J.
,
Pelletier
N. L.
,
Troell
M.
&
Tyedmers
P. H.
2013
Life cycle assessments and their applications to aquaculture production systems
. In: Sustainable Food Production (Christou, P., Savin, R., Costa-Pierce, B. A., Misztal, I. & Whitelaw, C. B. A., eds.).
Springer
,
New York, USA
, pp.
1050
1066
.
Henriksson
P. J.
,
Heijungs
R.
,
Dao
H. M.
,
Phan
L. T.
,
de Snoo
G. R.
&
Guinée
J. B.
2015
Product carbon footprints and their uncertainties in comparative decision contexts
.
PLoS ONE
10
(
3
),
e0121221
.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121221
.
Hognes
E. S.
,
Ziegler
F.
&
Sund
V.
2011
Carbon Footprint and Area Use of Farmed Norwegian Salmon (SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture Report: A22673)
. .
Huang
S.
,
Wang
B.
,
Li
X.
,
Zheng
P.
,
Mourtzis
D.
&
Wang
L.
2022
Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0—Comparison, complementation and coevolution
.
J. Manuf. Syst.
64
,
424
428
.
IAFFD
2020
Feed Ingredient Composition Database
.
Internatiınal Aquaculture Feed Formulation Databes (IAFD)
.
Available from: https://www.iaffd.com/feed.html?v1⁄44.3 (accessed 25 April 2022)
.
IPCC
2014
Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
.
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge and New York
, pp.
1
32
.
Islam
S. M.
,
Gaihre
Y. K.
,
Islam
M. R.
,
Ahmed
M. N.
,
Akter
M.
,
Singh
U.
&
Sander
B. O.
2022
Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated rice cultivation through improved fertilizer and water management
.
J. Environ. Manage.
307
,
114520
.
Jones
A. R.
,
Alleway
H. K.
,
McAfee
D.
,
Reis-Santos
P.
,
Theuerkauf
S. J.
&
Jones
R. C.
2022
Climate-friendly seafood: the potential for emissions reduction and carbon capture in marine aquaculture
.
BioScience
72
(
2
),
123
143
.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab126
.
Kawai
K.
2011
Application of performance-based environmental design to concrete and concrete structures
.
Struct. Concr.
12
(
1
),
30
35
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201000025
.
Konstantinidis
E.
,
Perdikaris
C.
&
Ganias
K.
2021
Life cycle assessment of seabass and meagre in marine cage farming: from feeding plant to harvesting
.
Mediterr. Mar. Sci.
22
(
1
),
125
136
.
Kuempel
C. D.
,
Frazier
M.
,
Verstaen
J.
,
Rayner
P. E.
,
Blanchard
J. L.
,
Cottrell
R. S.
,
Froehlich
H. E.
,
Gephart
J. A.
,
Jacobsen
N. S.
,
Mclntyre
P. B.
,
Metian
M.
,
Moran
D.
,
Nash
K. L.
,
Többen
J.
,
Williams
D. R.
&
Halpern
B. S.
2023
Environmental footprints of farmed chicken and salmon bridge the land and sea
.
Curr. Biol.
33
(
5
),
990
999
.
Kumari
A.
,
Lakshmi
G. A.
,
Krishna
G. K.
,
Patni
B.
,
Prakash
S.
,
Bhattacharyya
M.
,
Singh
S. K.
&
Verma
K. K.
2022
Climate change and its impact on crops: a comprehensive investigation for sustainable agriculture
.
Agronomy
12
(
12
),
3008
.
Livi-Bacci
M.
2017
A Concise History of World Population
.
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
.
Lupatsch
I.
,
Kissil
G.
&
Sklan
D.
2001
Optimization of feeding regimes for European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax: a factorial approach
.
Aquaculture
202
(
3–4
),
289
302
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00779-7
.
Lutz
C. G.
2021
Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Aquaculture
. .
MacLeod
M. J.
,
Hasan
M. R.
,
Robb
D. H.
&
Mamun-Ur-Rashid
M.
2020
Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture
.
Sci. Rep.
10
(
1
),
1
8
.
MacLeod
M. J.
,
Hasan
M. R.
,
Robb
D. H.
&
Mamun-Ur-Rashid
M.
2021
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Global Aquaculture
. .
Mantoam
E. J.
,
Romanelli
T. L.
&
Gimenez
L. M.
2016
Energy demand and greenhouse gases emissions in the life cycle of tractors
.
Biosyst. Eng.
151
,
158
170
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.028
.
Menzies
G. F.
2011
Embodied Energy Considerations for Existing Buildings
.
Historic Scotland Technical Paper 13
.
MH
2017
Marine Harvest ASA, Salmon Farming Industry Handbook 2017
.
Available from: http://hugin.info/209/R/2103281/797821.pdf (accessed 11 September 2022)
.
Moe
A.
,
Koehler-Munro
K.
,
Bryan
R.
,
Goddard
T.
&
Kryzanowksi
L.
2014
Multi-criteria decision analysis of feed formulation for laying hens
.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
,
USA
,
October 2014
, pp.
8
10
.
Monfort
M. C.
2010
Present Market Situation and Prospects of Meagre (Argyrosomus regius), as an Emerging Species in Mediterranean Aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Studies and Reviews No: 89, FAO, Rome
.
Morgado
J. N.
,
Santeramo
F.
,
Lamonaca
E.
,
Ciliberti
M. G.
&
Caroprese
M.
2022
Meta-analysis and systematic literature review of climate change effects on livestock welfare
.
EFSA Journal
20
,
e200413
.
Mubeen
M.
,
Ahmad
A.
,
Hammad
H. M.
,
Awais
M.
,
Farid
H. U.
,
Saleem
M.
,
ul Din
M. S.
,
Amin
A.
,
Ali
A.
,
Fahad
S.
&
Nasim
W.
2020
Evaluating the climate change impact on water use efficiency of cotton-wheat in semi-arid conditions using DSSAT model
.
J. Water Clim. Change
11
(
4
),
1661
1675
.
Mugwanya
M.
,
Dawood
M. A.
,
Kimera
F.
&
Sewilam
H.
2022
Anthropogenic temperature fluctuations and their effect on aquaculture: a comprehensive review
.
Aquac. Fish.
7
(
3
),
223
243
.
Naylor
R. L.
,
Hardy
R. W.
,
Buschmann
A. H.
,
Bush
S. R.
,
Cao
L.
,
Klinger
D. H.
,
Little
D. C.
,
Lubchenco
J.
,
Shumway
S. E.
&
Troell
M.
2021
A 20-year retrospective review of global aquaculture
.
Nature
591
(
7851
),
551
563
.
Naylor
R.
,
Fang
S.
&
Fanzo
J.
2023
A global view of aquaculture policy
.
Food Policy
116
,
102422
.
OECD/FAO 2021 OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021–2030. Available from: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb5332en (accessed 07 November 2022)
.
Nemry
F.
,
Theunis
J.
,
Brechet
T.
&
Lopez
P.
2001
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction and Material Flows
. .
Nguyen
T. L. T.
&
Hermansen
J. E.
2012
System expansion for handling co-products in LCA of sugar cane bio-energy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol production
.
Appl. Energy
89
(
1
),
254
261
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.023
.
Nica
A.
,
Popescu
A.
&
Ibanescu
D. C.
2019
Human influence on the climate system
.
Curr. Trends Nat. Sci.
8
(
15
),
209
215
.
Nijdam
D.
,
Rood
T.
&
Westhoek
H.
2012
The price of protein: review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes
.
Food Policy
37
(
6
),
760
770
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.08.002
.
NRC
2015
National Research Council, Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability
.
National Academies Press
,
Washington
.
https://doi.org/10.17226/19000
.
O'Brien
D.
,
Capper
J. L.
,
Garnsworthy
P. C.
,
Grainger
C.
&
Shalloo
L.
2014
A case study of the carbon footprint of milk from high-performing confinement and grass-based dairy farms
.
J. Dairy Sci.
97
(
3
),
1835
1851
.
OECD/FAO
2021
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021–2030
Available from: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb5332en (accessed 07 November 2022)
.
Papatryphon
E.
,
Petit
J.
,
Van der Werf
H. M. G.
&
Kaushik
S. J.
2004
Life Cycle Assessment of Trout Farming In France: A Farm Level Approach
.
DIAS Report 71
.
Parisi
G.
,
Terova
G.
,
Gasco
L.
,
Piccolo
G.
,
Roncarati
A.
,
Moretti
V. M.
,
Centoducati
G.
,
Gatta
P. P.
&
Pais
A.
2014
Current status and future perspectives of Italian finfish aquaculture
.
Rev. Fish Biol. Fish.
24
,
15
73
.
Parker
R. W.
,
Blanchard
J. L.
,
Gardner
C.
,
Green
B. S.
,
Hartmann
K.
,
Tyedmers
P. H.
&
Watson
R. A.
2018
Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries
.
Nat. Clim. Change
8
(
4
),
333
337
.
Pelletier
N.
&
Tyedmers
P.
2007
Feeding farmed salmon: is organic better?
Aquaculture
272
(
1–4
),
399
416
.
Pelletier
N.
,
Tyedmers
P.
,
Sonesson
U.
,
Scholz
A.
,
Ziegler
F.
,
Flysjo
A.
,
Kruse
S.
,
Cancino
B.
&
Silverman
H.
2009
Not all salmon are created equal: life cycle assessment (LCA) of global salmon farming systems
.
Environ. Sci. Technol
.
43
,
8730
8736
.
Pereira
T. G.
,
Saavedra
M.
,
Carvalho
L.
,
Grade
A.
,
Pousão-Ferreira
P.
,
Nunes
M. L.
&
Gonçalves
A.
2015
Variacões na Textura e Estrutura Muscular de Corvina Argyrosomus regius de Três Tamanhos Comerciais
. In
XV Congreso Nacional Y I Congreso Ibérico de Acuicultura
,
13–16 Octubre
,
Huelva, España
, pp.
456
457
.
Pernet
F.
&
Browman
H. I.
2021
The future is now: marine aquaculture in the Anthropocene
.
ICES J. Mar. Sci.
78
(
1
),
315
322
.
Pfalzgraff
T.
,
Borges
P.
,
Robaina
L.
,
Kaushik
S.
&
Izquierdo
M.
2023
Essential fatty acid requirement of juvenile meagre (Argyrosomus regius)
.
Aquaculture
572
,
739532
.
Phillips
B. F.
&
Pérez-Ramírez
M.
2017
Climate Change Impacts on Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2 Volumes: A Global Analysis (Vol. 1)
.
John Wiley & Sons
,
Hoboken, NJ
, p.
1048
.
Poli
B. M.
,
Parisi
G.
,
Zampacavallo
G.
,
Mecatti
M.
,
Lupi
P.
,
Gualtieri
M.
&
Franci
O.
2001
Quality outline of European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) reared in Italy: shelf life, edible yield, nutritional and dietetic traits
.
Aquaculture
202
(
3–4
),
303
315
.
Pomponi
F.
&
Moncaster
A.
2018
Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: the next performance gap made manifest
.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
81
,
2431
2442
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.049
.
Queméner
L.
2002
Le Maigre Commun (Argyrosomus regius). Biologie, Pêche, Marche et Potential Aquacole
.
IFREMER
,
Plouzané
, p.
32
.
Raul
C.
,
Pattanaik
S. S.
&
Prakash
S.
2020
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aquaculture Systems
. .
Reid
G. K.
,
Gurney-Smith
H. J.
,
Marcogliese
D. J.
,
Knowler
D.
,
Benfey
T.
,
Garber
A. F.
,
Forster
I.
,
Chopin
T.
,
Brewer-Dalton
K.
,
Moccia
R. D.
,
Flaherty
M.
,
Smith
C. T.
&
De Silva
S.
2019
Climate change and aquaculture: considering biological response and resources
.
Aquac. Environ. Interact.
11
,
569
602
.
Robb
D. H.
,
MacLeod
M.
,
Hasan
M. R.
&
Soto
D.
2017
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aquaculture: A Life Cycle Assessment of Three Asian Systems
.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 609
.
Robertson
K.
,
Symes
W.
&
Garnham
M.
2015
Carbon footprint of dairy goat milk production in New Zealand
.
J. Dairy Sci.
98
(
7
),
4279
4293
.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9104
.
Rosa
R.
,
Marques
A.
&
Nunes
M. L.
2012
Impact of climate change in Mediterranean aquaculture
.
Rev. Aquac.
4
(
3
),
163
177
.
Rotz
C. A.
,
Asem-Hiablie
S.
,
Place
S. E.
&
Thoma
G.
2019
Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States
.
Agric. Syst.
169
,
1
13
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005
.
Sabnis
A.
,
Mysore
P.
&
Anant
S.
2015
Construction Materials-Embodied Energy Footprint-Global Warming; Interaction. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310022790_Construction _Materials-Embodied_Energy_Footprint-Global_Warming_Interaction (accessed 25 April 2021)
.
Shahid
S. A.
&
Behnassi
M.
2014
Climate change impacts in the Arab region: review of adaptation and mitigation potential and practices
. In:
Vulnerability of Agriculture, Water and Fisheries to Climate Change: Toward Sustainable Adaptation Strategies
(
Behnassi
M.
,
Syomiti Muteng'e
M.
,
Ramachandran
G.
&
Shelat
K. N.
, eds.).
Springer
,
Dordrecht
, pp.
15
38
.
Sonesson
U.
,
Davis
J.
&
Ziegler
F.
2010
Food Production and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: An Overview of the Climate Impact of Different Product Groups
.
The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology SIK-Report No 802
.
Available from: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:943607/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed 11 September 2022)
.
Srivastav
A.
,
2019
A glimpse of natural climatic history
. In:
The Science and Impact of Climate Change
(
Singh
R. B.
, ed.).
Springer
,
Singapore
, pp.
21
37
.
Steffen
W.
2020
The ‘Anthropocene’ by Crutzen, P. J. & Stoermer, E. F. The International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Newsletter, Vol. 41, pp. 17–18
.
Taffese
W. Z.
&
Abegaz
K. A.
2019
Embodied energy and CO2 emissions of widely used building materials: the Ethiopian context
.
Buildings
9
(
136
),
1
15
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9060136
.
Trocino
A.
,
Xiccato
G.
,
Majolini
D.
,
Tazzoli
M.
,
Bertotto
D.
,
Pascoli
F.
&
Palazzi
R.
2012
Assessing the quality of organic and conventionally-farmed European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax)
.
Food Chem.
131
(
2
),
427
433
.
UN
2019
United Nations 2019, World Population Prospects 2019: Data Booklet
.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division
. .
UN
2021
United Nations 2021, Climate Action, What Is Climate Change?
Available from: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change (accessed 14 August 2021)
.
Vallecillos
A.
,
María-Dolores
E.
,
Villa
J.
,
Rueda
F. M.
,
Carrillo
J.
,
Ramis
G.
,
Soula
M.
,
Afonso
J. M.
,
Armero
E.
&
Armero
E.
2021
Phenotypic and genetic components for growth, morphology, and flesh-quality traits of meagre (Argyrosomus regius) reared in tank and sea cage
.
Animals
11
(
11
),
3285
.
Vargas-Chacoff
L.
,
Ruiz-Jarabo
I.
,
Páscoa
I.
,
Gonçalves
O.
&
Mancera
J. M.
2014
Yearly growth and metabolic changes in earthen pond–cultured meagre Argyrosomus regius
.
Sci. Mar.
78
(
2
),
193
202
.
Weidema
B. P.
,
Thrane
M.
,
Christensen
P.
,
Schmidt
J. H.
&
Løkke
S.
2008
Carbon footprint: a catalyst for life cycle assessment?
J. Ind. Ecol.
12
(
1
),
3
6
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00005.x
.
Winther
U.
,
Ziegler
F.
,
Hognes
E. S.
,
Emanuelsson
A.
,
Sund
V.
&
Ellingsen
H.
2009
Carbon Footprint and Energy Use of Norwegian Seafood Products.
SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture Report, p. 91
.
Wu
G. Y.
,
Fanzo
J.
,
Miller
D. D.
,
Pingali
P.
,
Post
M.
,
Steiner
J. L.
&
Thalacker-Mercer
A. E.
2014
Production and supply of high-quality food protein for human consumption: sustainability, challenges, and innovations
.
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
1321
,
1
19
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12500
.
Xie
J. B.
,
Fu
J. X.
,
Liu
S. Y.
&
Hwang
W. S.
2020
Assessments of carbon footprint and energy analysis of three wind farms
.
J. Cleaner Prod.
254
,
120159
.
Ziegler
F.
,
Winther
U.
,
Hognes
E. S.
,
Emanuelsson
A.
,
Sund
V.
&
Ellingsen
H.
2013
The carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood products on the global seafood market
.
J. Ind. Ecol.
17
(
1
),
103
116
.
Ziegler
F.
,
Winther
U.
,
Hognes
E. S.
,
Emanuelsson
A.
,
Sund
V.
&
Ellingsen
H.
2022
Greenhouse gas emissions of Norwegian seafoods: from comprehensive to simplified assessment
.
J. Ind. Ecol.
26
(
6
),
1908
1919
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13150
.
Zoli
M.
,
Rossi
L.
,
Bibbiani
C.
&
Bacenetti
J.
2023
Life cycle assessment of seabass and seabream production in the Mediterranean area: a critical review
.
Aquaculture
573,
739580
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).