Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

www.elsevier.com/locate/aqua-online

Accumulation and natural disintegration of solid wastes caught

on a screen suspended below a fish farm cage
Mardell Buryniuk a, Royann J. Petrell a,*, Susan Baldwin a, K. Victor Lo b
a

Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, 2360 East Mall,
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T1Z3
b
Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada
Received 7 April 2005; accepted 18 August 2005

Abstract
A new method consisting of a screen-like device to trap and manage solid waste from below a fish cage is proposed. To
examine its effectiveness, a mathematical model was developed to predict the amount of waste and its degradation over time
under low-current conditions. It was also used to examine the effects of fish stocking, feed conversion ratio, screen size, mesh
size and harvest rate on the total amount accumulated and time required to degrade the waste after harvest. The characteristics of
waste and fish feed used to develop the model were experimentally determined as they degraded in a tank of oxygenated 8 8C
saline water. As the solid waste degraded, the carbon (%) and COD (mg/(L g dry weight)) remained constant as N (%) increased
and C/N decreased. Bacteria degradation consisted of activities related to both mineralization and the physical breakdown of the
waste into tiny particles. After 3040 days in cold and saline water, approximately 50% of the waste matter disappeared from the
3 mm mesh screen ( p < 0.001). The experimental waste degradation rate (kg m
2 day
1) increased with increasing specific
area of waste (kg m
2) (r2 = 0.97). Model simulations indicated that staggering fish harvests was the most effective method for
reducing waste loads and the period for total waste removal after fish harvest. Future work will focus on the fate within the
environment of the tiny particles released by the degradation process and the effect of current on waste erosion rates.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: C/N ratio; Chemical oxygen demand; Benthic impacts; Environmental effects; Salmon farming

1. Introduction
Waste produced by fish farms contains carbon,
phosphorus and nitrogen in dissolved and suspended
solids (Ackefors and Enell, 1990; Naylor et al., 2000) as
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 604 822 3475;
fax: +1 604 822 5407.
E-mail address: rpetrell@chml.ubc.ca (R.J. Petrell).

well as metals, such as zinc and copper (Beveridge,

1996; Edwards, 1998; Kempf et al., 2002). In cage
farming, suspended solids that are the result of uneaten
food and faeces can accumulate beneath the cages
especially under low-current conditions (McGhie et al.,
2000; Naylor et al., 2000). High accumulation may
affect benthic fauna, sediment chemistry, degradation
rate and environmental quality (Clarke and Phillips,
1989). Through the process of decomposition, oxygen

0144-8609/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2005.08.008

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

in and above the sediments can become depleted, and

under anoxic conditions gases, such as nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, methane and hydrogen sulphide can be
generated. As well, waste degradation rates could
decrease as anaerobic decomposition generally proceeds at a slower rate than aerobic decomposition does.
High accumulation of waste solids beneath fish farming
sites can affect the caged fish since oxygen depletion
and formation of chemical species toxic to the fish can
lead to self-pollution and a reduction in production
(Folke and Kautsky, 1989).
Typically, the solution to solid waste accumulation is
a period of production inactivity, so that the solid wastes
on the sea floor have time to naturally degrade or erode.
This process is called site fallowing. The Canadian
Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA) has promoted
this practice to allow benthic recovery, and states that
below most farming sites the benthic community
recovers after 69 months post harvest (CAIA Salmon
Facts, 2003). Recovery appears to depend on site
characteristics and farming operation (e.g. Brooks et al.,
2003, 2004). Peer-reviewed studies do not exist that
could be used to suggest an appropriate fallowing time
valid for all farming conditions. Disadvantages of
fallowing include lost production potential, possible
negative impacts on fauna and negative public
perception. Due to these disadvantages, the development of an alternative waste management system is
required for a more sustainable industry.
The research described herein involves the development of a new waste management method that relies
on a screen-like device below fish farm cages.
Conceptually, the screen would trap the solids for
natural breakdown and/or on-site treatment. Landbased fish farming operations have used stationary
screens as an effective pre-treatment step to remove
particulates from effluent (e.g. Makinen et al., 1988;
Bergheim and Forsberg, 1993; Bergheim et al., 1993).
Clogging rapidly occurs if concentrations of suspended particles are too high or as with the case of fish
waste, the material tends to be adhesive (Wheaton,
1985; Cripps and Bergheim, 2000). Below a sea cage,
the clogging that is a problem for land-based treatment
would be used to an advantage to enhance solids
retention on the screen-like device.
It is anticipated that the new method would be
compatible with current infrastructure and could cover
the entire affected zone. The required screen area

79

would be site specific and dependant upon depth

below the cage, currents and bottom topography. In
general, screen area increases with suspension depth
below a cage. Locating the screens too close to the
cage bottom, however, could result in production
decline due to the outputs from waste degradation and
competition for dissolved oxygen.
Degradation rates on the screen are expected to be
higher than benthic rates, since the solid waste surface
area exposed to dissolved oxygen is higher on the screen
(both sides of the screen) and dissolved oxygen and
water temperature just under the cage are generally
greater than at benthic levels. The potential benefits of
the proposed method include compatibility with inplace infrastructure, collection of dispersed waste and
an increase in degradation rates and recovery times as
compared to the conventional fallowing periods.
The aim of the research was to characterize the
solid waste by measuring particle size, composition,
chemical oxygen and degradation rate, and to use this
information to develop a model that could be used to
predict accumulation and removal on a screen below a
typical fish farm. Promising results would help
generate an interest in a field trial wherein the benthic
recovery rates below screened and non-screened areas
could be compared.

2. Solid waste characterization and

degradation experiments
The purpose of these experiments was to track the
degradation and chemical composition of solid waste
and fish feed pellets on a screen suspended in water
under conditions similar to those found at a fish farm
with low-current conditions (i.e. a condition that would
favor degradation by microorganisms over physical
breakdown and dispersion by current). This would
provide information relating to a worst case scenario.
2.1. Solid waste material
Solid waste was collected every 23 h on three
Atlantic salmon fish farms using 1 m diameter funnels
suspended 15 m below the surface in fall and early
winter during three trips, each one lasting 4 days.
Samples were collected from three cages (sized
33 m  33 m in area) at once on each farm. The

80

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

amount collected, due possibly to current or low

appetite as a result of seasonally cold water, was not
large yet sufficient to conduct basic waste characterization and degradation tests. Samples from the
various cages were combined to form different
composite samples. Material was drained over number
18 US standard sieve mesh (nominal opening = 1.00 mm) and immediately frozen on dry ice.
An undetectable amount of particles passed through
the mesh. In the laboratory, they were stored in a
freezer at
10 8C.
2.2. Particle size distribution
Some of the collected waste was size fractionated on
site following a slightly modified method by Cripps
(1995). In the Cripps method of particle sizing, a
sample is poured over filter paper, then the filtrate is
poured over the next smaller size of filter paper and so
on. Residues on the filters are dried and measured. We
used small sieves (0.07525 mm) instead of filter paper.
2.3. Solid waste characterization
Solid waste dry mass (kg m
3) and ash analyses
were completed as per procedures (#s 208A and
208E) outlined in the Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (American
Public Health Association, 1998). The measurement
of total carbon, nitrogen, and sulphur content of
samples was done by the UBC Earth and Ocean
Sciences Laboratory with a Carlo Erba N2A-1500
Analyzer. The test for chemical oxygen demand
(COD) was performed on the total dried residue using
a pre-packaged mercury-free standard range digestion
kit (Lamotte Company). COD results were normalized
to the dry mass (g) present in the tested dilution.
Carbohydrates and lipids were assumed to be the
nitrogen free extract (NFE) (sample minus ash and
protein). Protein content was calculated from total
nitrogen content after multiplying the total nitrogen
content by 6.25, it was assumed that nearly all of
nitrogen was in the form of amino acids (FAO, 2003).
2.4. Degradation rate experiments
The rate of solid waste degradation on a screen
under environmentally relevant conditions was mea-

sured over 21 days. Frozen waste samples were placed

on 6 pre-weighed number 6 US stainless-steel
standard sieves (nominal opening of mesh =
3.36 mm). This mesh size was chosen because this
mesh could capture before the screen clogs over 65%
of the particle on the salmon farms (see Section 4,
Particle size determination). The structural properties
of the solid waste did not appear to be affected by
freezing and thawing. For the sake of comparison, two
screens containing fish food were also degraded. Each
15 cm  15 cm screen was suspended approximately
0.1 m below the surface in a tank (0.82 m 
0.67 m  0.41 m deep). To represent a worst case
scenario, each tank was filled with artificial seawater
(instead of natural water) at salinity between 25 and
30% prepared from Coralife scientific grade marine
salt (Energy Savers Unlimited, Inc.) and distilled
water. The tanks were kept in the dark at 8 8C (see
Model Development for rationale). Each tank was
equipped with air diffusers to promote a gentle mixing
action and maintain O2 concentration above 80%
saturation. pH (meter). Ammonia levels (LaMotte test
kit) were also regularly checked to ensure that the
water was maintained at a level required for salmonid
production (Shepherd and Bromage, 1988).
On the test screens, three amounts of dry waste
matter in units of specific area (kg m
2) were tested.
These amounts represented the daily waste production
of 3.5 kg fish at a stocking density of 18 kg m
3 to
nearly four times the daily waste production of 6.4 kg
fish at a stocking density of 20 kg m
3 as per
Bergheim et al. (1991) or approximately 4 days of
accumulated waste at this time. The highest amount of
waste reflects a case where the waste material does not
spread evenly over the screen but accumulates in a
pocket or fold (generated by current or net billowing).
A 23 g (wet basis) sample was removed from
randomly selected spots on each screen every 4 days
and analyzed for total carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and
COD. Test samples were centrifuged to concentrate
the solids before analysis. The test period of 20 days
was chosen to ensure a measurable and accurate
weight lost. A waste removal rate, R, was calculated as
the difference between the initial and final masses
divided by the trial period. In the calculation, we also
considered the weights removed for chemical analyses. For this, the following equation for calculating
mass, Mt, at the various sampling times was copied

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

into a column in a spreadsheet program.

Mt Mt
1
RDt
Ms;t ;
where Mt
1 is the mass at time t
1 and Ms,t is the
mass removed for sampling at time t. Using this
equation, a value for R was sought that would yield
a final weight equal to the measured final weight.
2.4.1. Statistical analysis
To compare initial and final waste compositions for
waste and fish food pellets, t-tests and/or ANOVAs were
conducted. The maximum p-value for determining
statistical significance was p = 0.05. The waste removal
rates found via experiment as described above were
regressed against specific screen area, kg m
2 to
determine if there was a dependence on the initial
amount of waste on a screen (see Eq. (7), Section 3.3
Waste production generator under Model development). To estimate the parameters r, and n, in Eq. (7),
non-linear least squares regression was carried out.

3. Model development
A model was developed for simulating waste input,
accumulation and removal on a screen suspended
below a salmon fish pen. The major assumptions used
to develop the model were: (1) uneaten feed is
negligible because it can be managed via camera or
other waste prevention method (Juell et al., 1993; Ang
and Petrell, 1997). We did, however, check for the
effect of uneaten feed by comparing the rates of
decomposition of waste and food materials (see
results). (2) Bacterial action is the major degrading
force. The other mechanisms of solid waste breakdown, such as erosion and dispersion (that require
current) that can quickly breakdown solid waste, were
not considered in order to study the worst case or
maximum accumulation scenario. This would provide
information that would be most useful for low-current
sites. (3) The biomass of the bacteria growing on the
waste is negligible as compared to the waste itself
(Boyd, 1995). (4) To be similar to water just beneath a
salmon farm in British Columbia, the water temperature at the screen level was set equal to 8 8C (Ang and
Petrell, 1998). (5) Freshly produced waste falls on top
of older waste from the previous days, and the

81

resulting layers do not mix. This would provide

information useful for a worst case no replenishment
of nutrients condition. (6) Dissolved oxygen is not
limiting (meaning that the screen is suspended just
below the cage). Furthermore, oxygen probably would
not limit degradation in bottom waste layers. Our need
for water changes near the beginning of our
experiments (see Section 4.3) indicated that bacterial
action probably would be much higher near the time of
deposition when the layer is well exposed to oxygen
then after several days when remaining residue would
be covered with other layers.
3.1. Conceptual model
The three elements of the compartment screen
waste degrader model are the fish biomass predictor,
the waste production generator and the solid waste
degrader. The system equation used to calculate the
mass on the screen at a given time (t) is as follows.
dWs
I
B P I R
dt

(1)

where Ws is the solid waste accumulated on the screen,

dry mass (kg m
2), I the daily solid waste input
(kg m
2 day
1), B the bacterial degradation of solid
waste (kg m
2 day
1), P the physical disintegration of
solid waste due to bacteria action (kg m
2 day
1) and
R =
(B + P) is the removal of solid wastes from the
screen (kg m
2 day
1).
3.2. Fish biomass predictor
Waste output depends in part on fish size; therefore,
we required a model that could accurately estimate
fish growth. Fortunately, available to the researchers
were sets of actual farm production data that showed
how Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) weight changed
over time on a British Colombian fish farm at different
water temperatures. After evaluating a number of
existing growth models (Buryniuk, 2004), the data
were best represented by the following thermal growth
coefficient (TGC) model (Stigebrandt, 1999) (Fig. 1):
1=3

M1 M0

TGCt1
t0 Tm 3

(2)

where M1 is the fish mass (weight) after time interval

(t1
t0), M0 the initial fish mass (weight) (g), Tm the

82

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

maximum stocking density of 28.4 kg m
3:

SS 0:52F

Fig. 1. The thermal growth coefficient (TGC) growth model fit the
available data.

mean temperature during the time period (t1
t0) (8C)

and TGC is the thermal growth coefficient (kg
1/
3
day
1 8C
1).
The use of this TGC equation implies many
assumptions. One relates to t, the inverse temperature
scale, that is comparable in nature to the Q10 scale and
was used to calculate TGC in the original research for
Atlantic salmon in Norway (Stigebrandt, 1999).
Stigebrandts value for t equal is 0.080 8C
1. This
means that the biochemical metabolic rates of fish
double for every temperature increase of 8.6 8C.
Another major assumption used is TGC is constant
and equal to:
1=3

TGC

1=3

M2
M1



P
100
Tm t2
t1

(3)

3.3. Existing model review

Several waste output models exist in the literature.
Unfortunately, farms do not have measures of actual
waste output from which we could have used to select
an appropriate model for predicting waste output. We,
therefore, reviewed a number of models, and selected
a modern one that utilized readily available parameters and produced average waste loads (Buryniuk,
2004). Details follow.
One of the models we inspected is the empirically
derived Liao and Mayo (1974) model; it represents the
relationship between feeding rates and suspended
solids production for trout between 10 and 15 8C and a

(4)

where SS is suspended solids production (kg SS

(100 kg fish)
1 day
1) and F is the feeding rate
(kg food (100 kg fish)
1 day
1).
We also examined the Stigebrandts (1999)
monitoring-on growing fish farms-modelling
(MOM) model. In this model solid waste production
or maximum faecal loss, FLdw, in units of dry weight
of faecal matter per fish per day is expressed as a
fraction of the maximal food ration per fish (g day
1)
or appetite, APP as follows:
FLdw FLAPP

(5)

In this expression the unassimilated feed fraction

FL equals:
FL 1
Ap Ep 1
Al El 1
Ac Ec ;
and requires measures of the assimilated fraction of
protein Ap, lipid Al and carbohydrated Ac, as well as the
fractions of food supply by proteins Ep, lipid El and
carbohydrates Ec. The maximal appetite, APP, was
calculated using the following equation from Stigebrandt (1999):



aM g aCf M b tT
APP
e
e d
where M equals fish mass, T equals water temperature
in 8C, a, g, t, a and b are empirical constants, d equals
the specific energy content of the feed,
e* = (1
BC
EL)
(0.15EpAp),
Cf Cf
0:15Cp Pp , BC equals the fraction of
energy required for biochemical breakdown of feed,
Cf is the specific energy content of the fish (species and
age dependent), Cp equals the specific energy of
protein and Pp equals the protein content of fish
(%). The necessary parameters for running the model
for salmon are given in Table 1.
A simplified version of the previously described
model by Cromey et al. (2002) was also reviewed. In
this model or the DEPOMOD (deposition model)
model, solid waste production in dry weight is
calculated as:
Wfae Fc 1
Fdig

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

where Wfae is the solid waste production (faecal

material) (kg day
1 cage
1) and F dig is the digestible
proportion of feed (dimensionless). Dry weight of the
feed ingested by the fish, F c is calculated from:
Fc F1
Fw 1
Fwasted
where F c is the feed consumption (kg day
1 cage
1),
F the feed input (kg day
1 cage
1), F w the water
content proportion of feed (dimensionless) and F wasted
is the proportion of wasted feed (dimensionless).
Finally, we reviewed Bergheim et al. (1991)
relationship between suspended dry matter loadings
and feed conversion ratios (FCR: weight of feed given
per weight gain of fish) in a land-based tank
production system for Atlantic salmon. The relationship was developed for salmon from 30 g to 2 kg in
size (1 years growth in seawater) between 4 and
Table 1
Parameters used in the monitoring-on growing fish farms-modelling
model (MOM) and the waste degrader model
MOM
Specific energy content of protein, Cp (cal/g)

5650

Assimulated fractions
Ap
Al
Ac

0.89
0.05
0.5

Food energy fractions

Ep
El
Ec

0.39
0.57
0.037

Protein fraction per mass of fish, Pp

Specific energy content of feed, d (cal/g)
Specific energy of fish, Cf (cal/g)
Energy fraction for biochemical feed treatment, BC
a (cal day
1 g
0.8)
g
t
a
b

0.18
5470.5
2413
0.13
11
0.8
0.08
0.028
0.67

Screen waste degrader model

Thermal growth coefficient, TGC (kg
1/3 day
1 8C
1)
Time step (day)
Mean water temperature (8C)
Mean feed conversion ratio, FCR
Screen capture efficiency (%)
Initial fish number
Initial fish mass (kg)
Mortality (% day
1)
Screen surface area (m2)

0.21
1
9.19
1.24
100
441895
0.72
0.0003
3716

83

15 8C. Suspended dry matter loadings according to

this model or the BTM model (1991) is:
SDM 0:20100:49FCR

(6)

where SDM is the suspended dry matter loading (g

(kg fish)
1 day
1), and FCR is feed conversion ratio
(kg dry feed/kg fish weight gain).
3.3.1. Waste-model selection
To determine which of the waste output models
would be used in our screen degradation model, we
applied all but the DEPOMOD model to generate
curves representing the increase in solid waste over
time on a salmon farm (Fig. 2). The DEPOMOD
model was not applied because it requires parameters
including amount of ingested feed and digestibility of
that feed, which was not available to us. For the
simulations, fish mass (kg) was required, and it was
obtained by using the fish biomass predictor (Eq. (2)).
For the BTS model, FCRs were also required and these
were supplied by same salmon farm that had supplied
the fish growth data for the fish growth predictor
equation.
An inspection of the resulting curves (Fig. 2) shows
jagged lines that relate to drops in the temperature data
as supplied by the salmon producers. As one might
expect from older feed compositions and rations, the
model by Liao and Mayo (1972) gave waste loads far
above the two more recent models. We selected the
BTC model as the waste-production generator for the
compartment screen waste degrader model because it

Fig. 2. Comparison of different solid waste predictors: Liao and

Mayo (1974), monitoring-ongrowing fish farms (MOM) model, and
Bergheim et al. (1991) BTM model.

84

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

represented the worst case scenario of the two more

recent models. Comparably, the MOM model underestimated solid waste output, because the FCRs it
predicted were distinct from the actual farm records.
This model might be used as the best-case or ideal
scenario.
3.4. Solid waste degrader model
There are several waste degradation models
available from the literature. In one commonly used
model, the rate of solid waste removal is mathematically expressed as follows:
dW
R
rW n
dt

(7)

The removal rate constant, R, and the parameters r

and n are experimentally determined. The following
general equation (determined after integrating the
above equation with n 6 1) indicates how solid waste
decreases over time:
1
n 1=1
n

Wt rt1
n W0

(8)

where Wt is the mass of solid waste remaining at time

(t) and W0 is mass of solid waste at time zero.
In a Multi-G model as developed by Berner (1980),
a first order model (n = 1 in equation (18)) is assumed,
and the organic material is differentiated into
fractions, each with a corresponding negative reaction
rate constant (decay rate constant), k:
GT

n
X
Gi
0

where, GT is total concentration of organic matter

(kg m
3) and Gi is concentration of organic matter
in ith group (kg m
3).
dGi

ki Gi
dt
where ki is decay rate constant for ith organic matter
group (day
1). The fractions are differentiated by C:N
ratio, each with a corresponding decay rate constant.
The degradation expression for the total organic matter is a sum of the individual fractions.

n
dGT X

ki Gi
dt
0

Aquaculture waste is heterogeneous due to

distinct components. The Multi-G model can be
used for an accurate representation of waste
degradation, and is very useful for examining the
degradation of recalcitrant materials within the
waste. Multi-G modelling has been carried out in
pond aquaculture, where various components of the
waste can remain within the system for long time
periods (Jamu, 1998). Unlike in a pond, in our screen
removal system, solid waste materials that are less
degradable than others do not remain in the system
(i.e. on the screen) but break down into small
particles, dissolved particles or dissolved waste
products that then slowly settle/diffuse into a large
deep body of water for wide dispersal. For this reason
Eqs. (7) and (8) were chosen over the Multi-G model
as our choice for representing waste degradation.
The necessary parameters, r and n, were experimentally obtained as previously mentioned (see
Section 2.4 degradation rate experiments).
3.5. Model solution
The screen waste degrader model was used to predict
daily waste accumulation on the screen in the following
way. Fish mass was calculated from the thermal growth
coefficient model (Eq. (2)). The total daily number of
fish on the farm was calculated assuming a mortality
rate. Solid waste production loss per fish was then
evaluated using the BTS model developed by Bergheim
et al. (1991) (Eq. (6)). This waste was assumed to fall
over a specific area of screen on top of the waste from
the previous day. Waste materials in each layer decayed
according to Eq. (8). In that equation, the parameter W0
represented the initial amount of waste in each new
layer, and the parameters r and n were experimentally
determined as previously mentioned. W had units of
specific area or kg of waste per square meter of screen.
Accumulation was determined by adding the daily solid
waste input (I) to the amount of waste remaining on
each waste layer. For the solution, an accumulation
matrix was developed using Excel (Buryniuk, 2004). A
waste layer was assumed to be gone when it reached
0.0086 kg (dry basis) m
2, as then due to buoyancy, it is
nearly immeasurable. Output variables included days
after harvest for complete breakdown of solid waste, the
amount of waste on each layer at a given time, as well
as, the total amount of waste at any given time.

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

85

3.6. Model validation

Three possible options for model validation were
examined, and one was chosen based on accuracy and
technical feasibility. The options included:
 a bench scale experiment where pieces of solid
waste are daily dropped onto a screen,
 a pilot scale experiment where live fish are used to
produce the waste that falls onto a screen,
 a bench scale experiment where the disappearance
of a measurable amount of material is recorded over
time.
The third option was chosen because of the
difficulty of accurately weighing in water tiny waste
pellets of nearly equal density as water (a requirement
in the first two options) and of obtaining a suitable
amount of sample material. The last option guaranteed
a sufficiently measurable mass within the water with
the disadvantage being that only the solid waste
degrader part of the compartment model would be
validated. The experimental set up was similar to the
method used for the degradation experiments with the
exception that no samples were removed for COD,
etc., the initial mass represented 4 days of accumulated waste material from a fish cage near the end of a
fish production period, and the test period was 45 days.
During the test period, the submerged weight of a
screen plus the solid waste were measured every 4
days with a hanging scale (capacity: 2.7 kg, accuracy:
2 g), converted to above water dry weights using
published values of specific gravity and measured
moisture content (Chen, 1991), and compared to
model expectations. This validation experiment was
repeated twice.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Particle size determination
The results from 12 size fractionation experiments
are presented as cumulative fraction trapped (Fig. 3),
and indicate that approximately half of the solid waste
can be retained on a screen with an 8 mm mesh
opening; and more than 60% of the solid waste
collected can be retained on a screen with a 5 mm

Fig. 3. Solid waste particle size. Different symbols represent different fish sizes and the line is a trend line through the average at
each mesh opening.

mesh opening. These results assume no clogging of

the screen apparatus used to size fraction the waste.
Although a smaller mesh opening would support more
particles, it might be too heavy and costly to deploy in
the field. The optimum mesh opening for a screen used
in the field would depend on the following factors: the
unknown fate in the environment of the tiny particles
that resulted from bacterial action, mooring system
design and actual clogging rate. Fish size is a factor
too. The screen would function best for fish over 1 kg
in size as the fraction of large particles (>3 mm) in a
sample appeared to be quite low for 1 kg fish. The
effect of the particles and clogging rate would have to
be empirically determined in a field study.
4.2. Solid waste characterization
The solid waste characteristics were compared with
those of a typical fish feed pellet in Table 2. The C and N
contents of the solid waste were significantly less
( p < 0.05) that those found in the feed. These values are
within the range of those reported previously for solid
fish waste and feed (Bergheim et al., 1993). However,
the C:N ratio was significantly greater in the waste (11)
versus that in the feed (5.8). Higher COD values were
obtained for the solid waste despite its lower %C
content. This suggests that the waste contains more
reactive components that are potentially more harmful
on the environment than uneaten feed pellets.

86

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

Table 2
Mean solid waste and fish feed characteristics at time = 0 and after 20 days of degradation at 8 8C in saline water

C (% dry weight)
N (% dry weight)
S (% dry weight)
C/N
Ash (% dry weight)
COD (mg L g
1 dw)
NFE (% dry weight)
Moisture content
(% dry weight)

Solid waste initial

Final

Fish feed initial

Final

37.5  0.7a (3)

3.4  0.4a (3)
0.3  0.1 (3)
11.1  1.3a (3)
29.1  3.8a (25)
9.6  105  4.2  105a (16)
49.0  2.0a (4)
79.2  4.9 (8)*
81.7  3.1 (13)**

40.3  2.3 (5)

4.8  0.6b (5)
0.7  0.5 (5)
8.5  0.6b (5)
32.0  3.4 (26)
7.7  105  2.4  105 (12)
36.5  3.8b (5)
77.0  1.5 (10)*
78.9  4.2 (18)***

49.3  0.4b (2)

8.5  0.6b (2)
0.5  0.2 (2)
5.8  0.4b (2)
7.7  0.7b (11)
2.9  105  9.3  104b (8)
39.4  4.1b (2)
5.4  1.2 (5)****

51.8  2.1 (2)

8.4  0.0 (2)
0.3  0.4 (2)
6.2  0.3 (2)
9.8  1.0 (10)
1.2  106  7.3  105a (4)
37.4  0.3 (2)
62.5  2.0 (3)*
66.1  4.3 (5)***

Error bars represent one standard deviation. Sample size, n, is in parenthesis. Means with common superscipt (a and b) are not significantly
different.
*
From a centrifuged sample.
**
From a frozen sample.
***
Not centrifuged.
****
Fresh feed pellets.

4.3. Suspended screen waste degradation

experiments
During the degradation experiments, ammonia
concentrations increased requiring the tank water to
be changed (24 times depending on the amount of
waste within the tank). In addition, bubbles and the
formation of foam were noted. The water was brown
for most of the study period, and clear near the end of
the experiment. From the beginning a tiny layer of
small particles started to accumulate on the sides and
bottoms of the tanks.
The solid waste characteristics measured at the end
of the 20 days degradation experiments revealed that
the C:N (from 11 to 8.5) and NFE content (from 48.6
to 36.5% dry wet) of the solid waste decreased
significantly. In contrast, for the fish feed pellet
degradation, only COD mg L
1 g
1 dry weight
changed significantly (from 2.9  105 to 1.2  106).
We expected the mass specific COD for the solid waste
to also decrease with time as the easily degradable
material mineralizes and the ash content remains
constant. However, this was not the case since no
significant change in COD solids was observed. We
believe that ammonia formation specially near the
beginning, bubbling and the decreasing C:N with
decreasing total carbon and increasing fraction of total
N (%) were due to bacterial activity resulting in solid
waste breakdown. The fine particles accumulated on
the tank surface were probably transported there
through the screen by sedimentation or by convection

current in the tank. These particles would be the most

likely particles to be transported away from an actual
site. In future investigations, the amount and nature of
the particles transported from the screen and their
potential effect on the benthos needs to be addressed.
Our data suggests that carbon may be limiting the
degradation rate of the solid wastes. The C:N ratios of
both the degraded feed and the collected solid waste
material were well below the suggested ratio of 30
generally considered optimum for organic matter
degradation (Boyd, 1995; Hamoda et al., 1998;
Avnimelech, 1999). As bacterial cells have a C:N
ratio of roughly 45:1, they require a feed source with
a much higher C/N ratio in order for the available C to
meet both growth and other metabolic requirements
(Avnimelech, 1999; Boyd, 1995; Gaudy and Gaudy,
1980). Protein can be metabolized to meet energy
requirements under carbohydrate limitation but
growth would be slower. When the C:N ratio of the
degrading material is smaller than the optimal ratio of
30, excess organic nitrogen is mineralized; carbon
from other sources is required for continual degradation of the nitrogen material (Boyd, 1995; Avnimelech, 1999). To promote heterotrophic bacterial
breakdown, Avnimelech (1999) suggested an input
of carbon into the feed that would result in waste
production by the fish with a C:N ratio closer to 30.
Since it was not possible to distinguish between
mineralization, biological breakdown and transport by
sedimentation of the waste from the screen, overall
degradation rates (R + P) as in Eq. (1) were

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

87

Fig. 5. Output from the model fell within the range of the experimental values. The bars represent the accuracy of the scale used to
measure the submerged solid waste.

5. Model applications
Fig. 4. The waste removal rate depended on the amount of waste
material on the screen.

determined from the data. Degradation rates calculated from all experiments were plotted against area
density (Fig. 4) and used to fit an exponential kinetic
model (Eq. (7)). The order of solids degradation rate
with respect to initial areal concentration on the mesh
or n in Eq. (7) was found to be 1.19. The rate constant
(r) was 0.026 day
1 (Eq. (7), Fig. 4). The coefficient
of determination of the non-linear least squares
regression curve was 0.97. Since the order of reaction
was not much greater than 1. Linear regression was
also attempted, however, the resulting coefficient of
determination was less at 0.93. The coefficients
determined from the non-linear regression were,
therefore, used in Eq. (8), the waste degrader model.

In this section the compartment screen waste

degrader model was used to simulate different
scenarios. After inputting parameters from actual
farm data (Table 1), and assuming a 100% capture
efficiency and no erosion due to current, the model
simulation of waste accumulation and recovery
indicated that the solid waste produced from a typical
farm operation and collected on a screen-like device
would be completely degraded within 8 months of a
total fish harvest, and 90% degradation would be
achieved within 4.5 months (Fig. 6). Eight months is in
line with site fallowing times as suggested by the
industry. A site with sufficient current to erode and
transfer away the waste on the screen may not
experience waste accumulation and therefore need to
be left fallow after harvest. A pilot scale investigation
could be used to show this.

4.4. Model validation

Fig. 5 is a plot of areal concentration of solids or
specific area (kg dry wet m
2) versus time (days) for
two experiments with solid waste. Over 3045 days
there was a significant drop in mass on the screen from
0.35 to 0.100.15 kg dry weight m
2 as compared to
the initial 5 days ( p < 0.001). Simulations from the
solid waste degradation rate equation (Eq. (8)) model
fell within experimental values. Experimental error
bars in the figure were generated based on the accuracy
of the scale employed in the trials (see validation
experiment, Section 3.6).

Fig. 6. Output from the model indicated that after harvesting, the
screen would be empty of waste in 4.5 months.

88

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

Fig. 7. Effect of initial fish numbers (IFN) on solid waste accumulation and breakdown on a screen-like device.

Fig. 9. Effect of capture efficiency (CE) on solid waste accumulation and breakdown on a screen-like device.

McGhie et al. (2000) studied the degradation of

solid waste from an Atlantic salmon farm in Australia.
To compare the predictions of this model to their data,
the following parameters were changed in the model.
The number of fish on the farm was set at 15,000 with
an initial weight of 1 kg. The production period was
273 days. This resulted in stocking densities approximately the same as those reported by McGhie et al.
(2000). All the remaining parameters were kept the
same as before (Table 1). Model simulations suggest
that the solid waste on a screen below this fish farm
would have been completely degraded in 169 days or
approximately 6 months. McGhie et al. (2000) found
evidence through fatty acid analysis that the sediments
were still affected by the fish farm 12 months after the
start of fallowing. This comparison suggests, although
a direct comparison is not possible due to the fate and
effect of the small particles from the screen-like
device is not known, that the recovery on a screen-like

device without current for eroding the waste could be

faster than benthic recovery at a site with current.
The biomass of fish on the farm and the feed
conversion ratio of the fish directly affect the input of
solid waste onto the screen-like devices. A change in
these parameters (25% initial fish numbers and
10% FCR) did not, however, greatly affect the time
required to degrade the waste (Figs. 7 and 8). In terms
of fish farm management, this suggests that the
biomass of fish on the farm or the feed conversion ratio
will not greatly affect the engineering parameters of
the screen-like device and that the device, provided the
fish produce a sufficiently large waste particle, will be
of use over a greater range of applications.
The capture efficiency of the screen below the fish
farm greatly affects the simulated accumulation of
solid waste particles on the screen (
50% capture
efficiency) (Fig. 9). The size (spread of the solid
waste) over the screen has an effect on accumulation
but little on the time required for complete waste

Fig. 8. Effect of feed conversion ratio (FCR) on solid waste

accumulation and breakdown on a screen-like device.

Fig. 10. Effect of screen area on solid waste accumulation and

breakdown on a screen-like device.

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

Fig. 11. Effect of a staggered harvest on solid waste accumulation

and breakdown on a screen-like device.

removal (Fig. 10). This is important as depending on

the stiffness of the screen-like device, the waste could
pile up in one area. Fish farm practices such as a
staggered harvest will greatly affect the accumulation
of solid waste on the net and the time to completely
degrade the accumulated waste (Fig. 11). This is an
example of a farm management practice that can affect
accumulation and degradation of solid waste regardless of the engineered design of the screen-like device.
Over 25% less waste would accumulate on the screenlike device, potentially significant in terms of
engineering, and the time to degrade the waste
completely would be shorter by approximately 2
months. This is a farm management strategy that may
also be valid with current fish farm infrastructure.
Before the impacts of farm management strategies
such as the staggered harvest are examined, further
study is first required to determine the effect of a
screen on the benthic community.

Acknowledgments
Appreciation for their financial support is extended
to Stolt Sea Farm and the National Science and
Engineering Research Council of Canada.
References
Ackefors, H., Enell, M., 1990. Discharge of nutrients from Swedish
fish farming to adjacent sea areas. Ambio 19, 2935.
Ang, K.P., Petrell, R.J., 1997. Control of feed dispensation in
seacages using underwater video monitoring: effects on growth
and food conversion. Aquacult. Eng. 16, 4562.
Ang, K.P., Petrell, R.J., 1998. Pellet wastage, and subsurface and
surface feeding behaviours associated with different feeding

89

systems in sea cage farming of salmonids. Aquacult. Eng. 18,

95113.
American Public Health Association, 1998. Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater. APHA, Washington,
DC, USA, 1192 pp.
Avnimelech, Y., 1999. Carbon/nitrogen ratio as a control element in
aquaculture systems. Aquaculture 176, 227235.
Bergheim, A., Forsberg, O., 1993. Attempts to reduce effluent
loadings from salmon farms by varying feeding frequencies
and mechanical effluent treatment. In: Barnabe, G., Kestemont,
P. (Eds.), Production, Environment and Quality. European Aquaculture Society, Special Publication No. 18, pp. 115124.
Bergheim, A., Sanni, S., Indrevik, G., Holland, P., 1993. Sludge
removal from salmonid tank effluent using rotating microsieves.
Aquacult. Eng. 12, 97109.
Bergheim, A., Tyvold, T., Seymour, E.A., 1991. Effluent loadings
and sludge removal from landbased salmon farming tanks.
Aquacult. Environ. 14, 29.
Berner, R.A., 1980. Early Diagenesis: A Theoretical Approach.
Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 241 pp.
Beveridge, M.C.M., 1996. Cage Aquaculture. Fishing News, Cambridge, MA, USA, 346 pp.
Boyd, C.E., 1995. Bottom Soils, Sediment, and Pond Aquaculture.
Chapman and Hall, New York, 348 pp.
Brooks, K.M., Stierns, A.R., Backman, C., 2004. Seven year remediation study at the Carrie Bay Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
farm in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia Canada.
Aquaculture 239, 81123.
Brooks, K.M., Stierns, A.R., Mahnken, C.V.W., Blackburn, D.B.,
2003. Chemical and biological remediation of the benthos near
Atlantic salmon farms. Aquaculture 219, 355377.
Buryniuk, M., 2004. Solid waste degradation on a screen in a cold,
oxygenated, saline environment: applications for salmon farming. Masters of Science Thesis. University of British Columbia,
135 pp.
CAIA, 2003. Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance. , www.aquaculture.ca.
Chen, S., 1991. Theoretical and experimental investigation of foam
separation applied to aquaculture. Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell U.,
Ithaca, NY, 239 pp.
Clarke, R., Phillips, M., 1989. Environmental impacts of
salmon aquaculture. Bull. Aquacul. Assoc. Canada 89-4, 24
31.
Cripps, S., 1995. Serial particle size fractionation and characterization of an aquacultural effluent. Aquaculture 133, 323339.
Cripps, S., Bergheim, A., 2000. Solids management and removal for
intensive land-based aquaculture production systems. Aquacult.
Eng. 22, 3356.
Cromey, C.J., Nickell, T.D., Black, K.D., 2002. DEPOMOD
modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids
from marine cage farms. Aquacult. 214, 211239.
Edwards, P., 1998. A systems approach for the promotion
of integrated aquaculture. Aquacult. Eco. Manage. 2 (1),
112.
FAO, 2003. Food energy-methods of analysis and conversion factors. Report of a Technical Workshop. Rome, 36 December
2002, 100 pp.

90

M. Buryniuk et al. / Aquacultural Engineering 35 (2006) 7890

Folke, C., Kautsky, N., 1989. The role of ecosystems for a sustainable development of aquaculture. Ambio 18, 234243.
Gaudy, A.F., Gaudy, E.T., 1980. Microbiology for Environmental
Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York, 736 pp.
Hamoda, M.F., Abu Qdais, H.A., Newham, J., 1998. Evaluation of
municipal solid waste composting kinetics. Resour. Conserv.
Recycling 23, 209223.
Jamu, D.M., 1998. Modeling organic matter and nitrogen dynamics
in integrated aquaculture/agriculture systems: effects of cycling
pathways on nitrogen retention and system productivity. Ph.D.
Thesis. Office of Graduate Studies, Ecology, University of
Calfornia, Davis, CA.
Juell, J.E., Furevik, D.M., Bjordal, A., 1993. Demand feeding in
salmon farming by hydroacoustic food detection. Aquacult. Eng.
12, 155167.
Kempf, M., Merceron, M., Cadour, G., Jeanneret, H., Mear, Y.,
Mirammand, P., 2002. Environmental impact of a salmonid farm
on a well flushed marine site: II. Biosedimentology. J. Appl.
Ichthyol. 18, 5160.
Liao, P.B., Mayo, R.D., 1972. Salmonid hatchery water reuse
systems. Aquaculture 1, 317335.

Liao, P.B., Mayo, R.D., 1974. Intensified fish culture combining

water reconditioning with pollution abatement. Aquaculture 3,
6185.
Makinen, T., Lindgren, S., Eskelinen, P., 1988. Sieving as an effluent
treatment method for aquaculture. Aquacult. Eng. 7, 367
377.
McGhie, T., Crawford, C., Mitchell, I., OBrien, D., 2000. The
degradation of fish-cage waste in sediments during fallowing.
Aquaculture 187, 351366.
Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Primavera, J.H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M.C.M., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H.,
Troell, M., 2000. Effect of aquaculture of world fish supplies.
Nature 405, 10171024.
Shepherd, J., Bromage, N., 1988. Intensive Fish Farming. BSP
Professional Books, 404 pp.
Stigebrandt, A., 1999. Turnover of energy and matter by fisha
general model with application to salmon. Fisken og Havet 5, 29
pp.
Wheaton, F.W., 1985. Aquacultural Engineering. Wiley, New York,
NY, 708 pp.