4.4 Article

Resource use efficiency of warm-water fish culture upon different pond sizes

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ep.13778

关键词

aquaculture; energy efficiency; fish farming systems; resource productivity

资金

  1. Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focused on energy consumption and efficiency in warm-water fish production in Guilan province, Iran. Results showed that feed, electricity, and fossil fuel were the most energy-intensive inputs, with feed playing a dominant role. It highlighted the importance of reducing the use of nonrenewable energy sources and optimizing the use of inputs like fingerlings, labor, and electricity for better warm-water fish yield.
Improving the energy efficiency of fish culture has always been a concern for warm-water fish farming units. In this respect, the present study explored energy consumption flow and energy indices of warm-water fish production in Guilan province, northern Iran. The impact of the energy equivalent of the system inputs on the energy equivalent of fish yield was modeled by the Cobb-Douglas function. The results revealed that total energy input, energy ratio, energy productivity, and energy intensity were 3710.4 MJ per 100 m(2), 0.042, 0.009 kg MJ(-1), and 109.77 MJ kg(-1), respectively. Feed, electricity, and fossil fuel were the most energy-intensive inputs accounting for 70.09%, 11.95%, and 11.70% of total energy use, respectively; representing the dominant role of feed in the energy input of warm-water fish farming. Renewable and nonrenewable energy resources accounted for 6.97% and 93.03% of the total energy input of warm-water fish culture system, respectively; requiring more care to cut the share of nonrenewable energy inputs. The Pareto chart determined that fingerling, labor, and electricity had the highest effects on the warm-water fish yield. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the appropriate use of these inputs in warm-water fish culture in the study region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据