Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

why is food so expensive ? How to yield 20 tons of camel and kangaroo meat and tons of prawns and tons of massive lobsters , per hectare in a desert

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by kangarooistan on September 1, 2008, 7:15 pm
will your country be left behind or at the front of this rapidly
evolving new method to produce vast amounts of high quality food
almost anywhere using sea water and waste land at very very low cost
and nil waste or pollution

One hectare test farm in Australian deserts  was designed  to yield 20
tons of camel and kangaroo meat by feeding the algae , as well as the
135 tons of mixed sea foods including mainly prawns and crayfish/
lobster from a one hectare salt water aquaculture  farm
The largest spiny lobster on record was over 1 m (3 ft) long and
weighed over 11.8 kg (26 lb)[3].
it is not uncommon to catch individuals weighing 10 kg.and they lay
half a million eggs at a time
prawns lay up to a million eggs at a time
they all eat algae or its by product that will grow in salt water /
sea water

there really is no limit to the potential variations possible ,

there is no shortage of food , unless the governments choose it to be
that way

 including camel meat or  milk  , they tolerate  saline algae well ,
as do red kangaroos , even the waste salt from evaporation ponds has
commercial value, match your farm to suit your market , its all in the
original careful design , so start with a aquarium size system , and
learn as you  grow slowly , it will soon fund itself once you master
the system , it is an art and no 2 will be the same

There is nil input feeds required  and nil waste produced , it is
possible to grow truly vast amounts of food in salt water in the

 This would, of course, be a technically demanding farm, requiring
experienced hands

Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
fish farming
inland saline
This box: view  talk  edit

   Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) is a practice in which
the by-products (wastes) from one species are recycled to become
inputs (fertilizers, food) for another.

    Fed aquaculture (e.g. fish, shrimp) is combined with inorganic
extractive (e.g. seaweed) and organic extractive (e.g. shellfish)
aquaculture to create balanced systems for environmental
sustainability (biomitigation), economic stability (product
diversification and risk reduction) and social acceptability (better
management practices).[1]

    * 1 IMTA versus Polyculture
    * 2 IMTA systems
    * 3 Modern history of land-based IMTA
    * 4 IMTA as a method of sustainability
    * 5 Nutrient flow in IMTA
          o 5.1 Nutrient recovery efficiency
    * 6 Food safety and quality
    * 7 Selected IMTA projects
          o 7.1 Asia
          o 7.2 Canada
                + 7.2.1 Bay of Fundy IMTA project
                + 7.2.2 Pacific SEA-lab research initiative
          o 7.3 Chile
          o 7.4 Israel
                + 7.4.1 SeaOr Marine Enterprises Ltd.
                + 7.4.2 PGP Ltd.
          o 7.5 South Africa
          o 7.6 United Kingdom
          o 7.7 Other IMTA projects
    * 8 See also
    * 9 References and notes
    * 10 External links

[edit] IMTA versus Polyculture
Harvesting of kelp (Saccharina latissima, previously known as
Laminaria saccharina) cultivated in proximity to Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) at Charlie Cove, Bay of Fundy, Canada. Note the salmon
cages in the background.
Harvesting of kelp (Saccharina latissima, previously known as
Laminaria saccharina) cultivated in proximity to Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) at Charlie Cove, Bay of Fundy, Canada. Note the salmon
cages in the background.
b  refers to the incorporation of species from different trophic or
nutritional levels in the same system.[2] This is one potential
distinction from the age-old practice of aquatic polyculture, which
could simply be the co-culture of different fish species from the same
trophic level.

 In this case, these organisms may all share the same biological and
chemical processes, with few synergistic benefits, which could
potentially lead to significant shifts in the ecosystem. Some
traditional polyculture systems may, in fact, incorporate a greater
diversity of species, occupying several niches, as extensive cultures
(low intensity, low management) within the same pond.
 The "Integrated" in IMTA refers to the more intensive cultivation of
the different species in proximity of each other (but not necessarily
right at the same location), connected by nutrient and energy transfer
through water.
Ideally, the biological and chemical processes in an IMTA system
should balance. This is achieved through the appropriate selection and
proportions of different species providing different ecosystem
The co-cultured species should be more than just biofilters; they
should also be harvestable crops of commercial value.[2] A working
IMTA system should result in greater production for the overall
system, based on mutual benefits to the co-cultured species and
improved ecosystem health, even if the individual production of some
of the species is lower compared to what could be reached in
monoculture practices over a short term period.[3]

Sometimes the more general term "Integrated Aquaculture" is used to
describe the integration of monocultures through water transfer
between organisms.[3] For all intents and purposes however, the terms
"IMTA" and "integrated aquaculture" differ primarily in their degree
of descriptiveness.
 These terms are sometimes interchanged. Aquaponics, fractionated
aquaculture, IAAS (integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems), IPUAS
(integrated peri-urban-aquaculture systems), and IFAS (integrated
fisheries-aquaculture systems) may also be considered variations of
the IMTA concept.
[edit] IMTA systems
Harvesting blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) cultivated in proximity to
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Note the
salmon cage (polar circle) in the background.

The IMTA concept is very flexible. IMTA systems can be land-based or
open-water systems, marine or freshwater systems, and may comprise
several species combinations.[3]
Some IMTA systems have included such combinations as shellfish/shrimp,
fish/seaweed/shellfish, fish/shrimp and seaweed/shrimp.[4] What is
important is that the appropriate organisms are chosen based on the
functions they have in the ecosystem, their economic value or
potential, and their acceptance by consumers.

 While IMTA likely occurs due to traditional or incidental, adjacent
culture of dissimilar species in some coastal areas,[3] deliberately
designed IMTA sites are, at present, less common.
Moreover, they are presently simplified systems, like fish/seaweed/
shellfish. In the future, more advanced systems with several other
components for different functions, or similar functions but different
size brackets of particles, will have to be designed.[2] There are
also a number of regulatory issues that will have to be addressed.[5]
[edit] Modern history of land-based IMTA

The inception of modern integrated intensive mariculture on land has
been the work of Ryther and co-workers[6][7] who approached, both
scientifically and quantitatively, the integrated use of extractive
organisms - shellfish, microalgae and seaweeds - in the treatment of
household effluents. They described the concept and provided
quantitative experimental results of integrated waste-recycling marine
aquaculture systems.
 A domestic wastewater effluent, mixed with seawater, was the source
of nutrients for phytoplankton culture, which in turn was fed to
oysters and clams. Other organisms were cultured in a separate food
chain, based on the organic sludge of the farm. Dissolved remnants of
nutrients in the final effluent were filtered by seaweed (mainly
Gracilaria and Ulva) biofilters.
 The weakness of this approach was the questionable value of organisms
grown on human waste effluents.
 Adaptations of this principle to the treatment of intensive
aquaculture effluents in both inland and coastal areas was proposed,
[8] and quickly followed by the integration to their system of
carnivorous fish and the macroalgivore abalone.[9]

What is arguably the first practical and quantitative integrated land-
based cultures of marine fish and shellfish; including phytoplankton
as both the biofilter and shellfish food, were described by Hughes-
Games (1977)[10] and Gordin et al. (1981)[11].
 A semi-intensive (1 kg fish m-3) "green-water" seabream and grey
mullet pond system on the coast of the Gulf of Aqaba (Eilat), on the
Red Sea, supported dense populations of diatoms, excellent for feeding
Hundreds of kg of fish and oysters cultured in this experiment were
actually sold. Neori et al. (1989)[12] and Krom and Neori (1989)[14]
quantified the water quality parameters and the nutrient budgets in
more intensive (5 kg fish m-3) green water seabream ponds. For the
most part, the phytoplankton in their ponds maintained a reasonable
water quality and converted on average over half the waste nitrogen
into algal biomass. The development of a practical intensive culture
of bivalves in these phytoplankton-rich effluents, and the extremely
fast bivalve growth rates achieved under these conditions, were
described in a series of papers (Shpigel and Friedman, 1990;[15]
Shpigel and Blaylock, 1991;[16] Shpigel et al., 1993a,[17] 1993b;[18]
Neori and Shpigel, 1999;[19] Neori et al., 2001[20]).
[edit] IMTA as a method of sustainability
IMTA promotes economic and environmental sustainability by converting
solid and soluble nutrients from fed organisms and their feed (e.g.
intensive fish and shrimp farming) into harvestable crops (extractive
organisms), thereby reducing the potential for eutrophication, and
increasing economic diversification.[4][3][21]

If properly selected and placed, co-cultured species will have
accelerated growth from the uptake of extra nutrients provided by the
fed culture species.[5][22][23][24] This increases the overall
environmental assimilative capacity of a site thereby reducing the
potential for negative environmental impacts.

IMTA enables farm operators to diversify, often without the need for
new locations or sites. Initial capital budgeting research suggests
that recycling the waste of one crop as feed for another can increase
profits in an IMTA system. Scenario analysis also indicate that IMTA
can reduce financial risks due to weather, disease and market related
risks.[25] Over a dozen studies have investigated the economics of
IMTA systems since 1985.[3]

[edit] Nutrient flow in IMTA

Typically, the fed culture species (i.e. upper trophic level) in an
IMTA system have been carnivorous fish or shrimp, whose wastes augment
the natural food supply or nutrient uptake of co-cultured extractive
 Fish and shrimp excrete soluble ammonia and phosphorus
(orthophosphate), which are inorganic nutrients readily available to
inorganic extractive species such as seaweeds.[1][4][3] Fish and
shrimp also release organic solids which can become food for shellfish
and deposit feeders,[4][26][23] the organic extractive species.

Not all supplemental nutrients flow directly from the waste by-
products of the fed species. For example, some ammonia may be
generated by organic extractive species (e.g. shellfish) and also
extracted by seaweeds.[4] Waste feed may also be a source of
additional nutrients; either directly available for consumption by
organic extractive species (e.g. deposit feeders) or from the release
of soluble nutrients by decomposition, for inorganic extractive

[edit] Nutrient recovery efficiency

Nutrient recovery efficiency in an IMTA system is a function of
several factors. Culture system, harvest schedule, management, spatial
configuration/proximity, production, selection of fed and extractive
species, biomass ratio of species involved, availability of natural
food sources, particle size, digestibility, season, light,
temperature, and water volumes (flushing rate) all have the potential
to influence growth rates and nutrient recovery efficiency.[26][4][3]
 Since these factors will vary significantly between sites, systems
and regions, a general percentage of IMTA nutrient recovery can not be
simply reported. A site-by-site determination must be made.

Some of the first attempts to quantify nutrient recovery of an IMTA
farm were reported by Neori et al. (2004).[3] Shpigel et al. (1993b)
[18] presented the first quantitative performance assessment of a
hypothetical family scale fish/microalga /bivalve/seaweed farm, based
on actual pilot scale culture data.
They showed that at least 60% of the nutrient input to the farm could
reach commercial products, nearly three times more than in modern fish
net pen farms.
 Expected average annual yields of the system (recalculated for a
hypothetical 1 ha farm) were 35 tons of seabream, 100 tons of bivalves
and 125 tons of seaweeds. This would, of course, be a technically
demanding farm, requiring experienced hands to control changes in
water quality and in suitability for bivalve nutrition, due to the
inherently unstable phytoplanton populations.[18][14]

Troell et al. (2003)[4] reviewed 28 studies that reported dissolved
nitrogen uptake efficiency of seaweeds in IMTA systems. Reported
values ranged from 2 to 100% for 23 land-based studies. None of the 5
reviewed open-water studies reported nutrient recovery values. It is
difficult to determine nutrient recovery in an open-water IMTA site
due to the inherent "leaky nature" of the system. However, such
information is necessary for ecosystem and integrated coastal zone
management, and research on this aspect is ongoing.[27]

[edit] Food safety and quality

A possible concern with the wastes of one species being the
nutritional inputs for another is the potential for contaminants.
 To date, this does not appear to be a problem for IMTA systems.
.Mussels and kelps growing adjacent to Atlantic salmon cages in the
Bay of Fundy, Canada, have been examined since 2001 for evidence of
contamination by therapeutants, heavy metals, arsenic, PCBs and
 Concentrations have always been either non-detectable or well below
the regulatory limits established by the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency, the USA Food and Drug Administration and the European
Community Directives.[28][29]

Some taste testing of IMTA products has also been conducted. These
tests have indicated that mussels grown adjacent to Atlantic salmon
cages have been free of "fishy" taint and could not be distinguished
from wild mussels by the testers.[23] Their meat yield is, however,
significantly higher, reflecting the increase in food availability and

[edit] Selected IMTA projects

Several IMTA research projects have been ongoing over the last few
years. These are described below.
[edit] Asia

Variants of IMTA in Japan, China, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam,
Indonesia, etc. have occurred for centuries in marine, brackish and
freshwater.[1][3] Fish, shellfish and seaweeds have been placed next
to each other in bays, lagoons and ponds.
Through trial and error, optimal integration has been achieved over
time.[3] However, while seemly quite common, there is no readily
available data on the proportion of Asian aquaculture production that
occurs in IMTA systems.

[edit] Canada

[edit] Bay of Fundy IMTA project

The Bay of Fundy IMTA project is a collaborative project with
industry, academia and government and is presently expanding
production to commercial scale.[2] The current system includes
Atlantic salmon, blue mussels and kelps; deposit feeders are being
 Phase one of the project was funded by AquaNet (one of Canadas
Networks of Centres of Excellence) and phase two is presently funded
by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The project leaders are
Thierry Chopin (University of New Brunswick in Saint John) and Shawn
Robinson (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. Andrews Biological
Station). See Chopin et al. (2004, 2007)[5][29] and Robinson et al.
(2007)[30] for additional details.
[edit] Pacific SEA-lab research initiative
Pacific SEA-lab is licensed for the co-culture of sablefish, scallops,
oysters, blue mussels, urchins and kelps ("SEA" stands for Sustainable
Ecological Aquaculture). The project presently aims to balance four
species in an intensive IMTA design. The project is headed by Stephen
Cross under a British Columbia Innovation Award at the University of
Victoria [Coastal Aquaculture Research & Training (CART) network]. See
Cross (2007)[31] for further details.

[edit] Chile

Science and technology towards the reduction of environmental impact
of intensive salmon culture is carried out at the Universidad de Los
Lagos, in Puerto Montt, at the [www.i-mar.cl i-mar Research Center].
Initial research included integrated land-based aquaculture
development with trout, oysters and seaweeds. Present research is
focusing on IMTA in open waters with salmon, seaweeds and abalone. The
project leader is Alejandro Buschmann. See Buschmann et al. (2007)[32]
for further details.

[edit] South Africa

Three farms currently grow seaweeds for feed in abalone effluents in
land-based tanks. Up to 50% of re-circulated water passes through the
seaweed tanks.[33] This is a somewhat unique IMTA system, as fish or
shrimp do not comprise the upper trophic species. In this case, the
driver is not nutrient abatement in the effluents, but avoiding
overfishing of natural seaweed beds and avoidance of periods with red
tides by turning the system in the recirculation mode.
 This commercially successful system was produced in research
collaboration between the abalone farms (Irvine and Johnson Cape
Abalone) and scientists from the University of Cape Town and the
University of Stockholm.[33]

[edit] United Kingdom

The Scottish Association for Marine Science, in Oban, is working on
the development of IMTA systems by co-culturing salmon, oysters, sea
urchins, and brown and red seaweeds under different projects
 Research focuses on biological and physical processes, as well as
production economics and implications for integrated coastal zone
management. Researchers include: M. Kelly, A. Rodger, L. Cook, S.
Dworjanyn, and C. Sanderson. See Kelly et al. (2007)[34] and Rodger et
al. (2007)[35] for further details.
[edit] Other IMTA projects
Several other IMTA projects from the last three decades are reviewed
by Troell et al. (2003)[4] and Neori et al. (2004)[3].

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread