Incentives and Barriers to Adopting Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems in Canada

Home , Aquaculture in Canada, Bottom trawling, Trawling

Hollie Matthews

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Geography Department University of Toronto

Incentives and Barriers to Adopting Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems in Canada

Hollie Matthews

Master of Arts

Department of Geography University of Toronto

2017

Abstract

Aquaponic and biofloc systems can contribute to increasing food security while reducing environmental impacts of aquaculture. Other countries are promoting and investing in aquaponics to increase their competiveness in the food and marine sector but there are a limited number of aquaponic and biofloc facilities in Canada. Give the limited research regarding the adoption of commercial aquaponic and biofloc systems, this thesis identifies influences and barriers of implementing biofloc and aquaponic systems in Canada. Through interviews with aquaponic facilities, aquaculture facilities, government officials and biofloc professionals, this research provides insight into the aquaponic and biofloc industry in Canada. This thesis found that there is potential for an increase in both systems in Canada. Adoption of these systems would increase with collaboration and partnership opportunities, examples of profitable systems, increased access to sustainable energy, grants or benefits for creating jobs, grants for implementation and support for sustainable initiatives.

Acknowledgments

First I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Harvey Shear, for being encouraging and supportive throughout my Master’s degree. I am truly grateful to have had his consistent guidance and support. I am also grateful for Professor Kathi Wilson for her insight and encouragement throughout my thesis process.

I would like to thank Professor Andrea Olive and Professor Kathi Wilson, my committee members, for being supportive of my research and providing insightful feedback.

I would like to acknowledge and thank all the participants that gave their time to speak with me. I greatly appreciate that each participant took time out of their busy lives to contribute and support my research. Insight provided by the participants was invaluable and this thesis would not have been possible without their contribution.

Finally, thank you to my friends and family for always having unwavering confidence in me and encouraging me through each step of my graduate degree. To my grandparents, Bernice and Oliver, who kept a roof over my head and lived with me through this process, thank you for your patience and support every day. Thank you to my Mom, Dad and Courtney for always being there when I needed someone I could talk to and for providing constructive feedback. Last but not least, I also would like to thank S.E., Renee, Yousra, Meaghan, Paulina, Katie, Léa, Mia, Marie-Line and my MA cohort for always being a support system, always having an ear to lend and for making long days and late nights at the library more enjoyable.

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iii

List of Tables ...... vii

List of Figures ...... viii

List of Appendices ...... x

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Background ...... 1

1.2 Research Question and Rationale ...... 6

Chapter 2 Literature Review ...... 7

2.1 Global Fisheries and Aquaculture ...... 7

2.1.1 Importance of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Human Society ...... 7

2.1.2 Pressures on Wild Fish Populations ...... 10

2.1.3 Recent Fish Populations ...... 11

2.2 Importance of Aquaculture ...... 13

2.2.1 Commercial Aquaculture in Canada ...... 13

2.2.2 Methods of Aquaculture ...... 19

2.2.3 Concerns of the Aquaculture Industry on the Environment and Commercial Fisheries ...... 22

2.3 Biofloc Technology (BFT) ...... 25

2.3.1 History of Biofloc Aquaculture Systems and Methods ...... 25

2.3.2 Species Grown in Biofloc Aquaculture Systems ...... 27

2.3.3 Benefits of Biofloc Aquaculture Systems ...... 28

2.3.4 Challenges of Biofloc Aquaculture Systems ...... 30

2.4 Aquaponic Systems ...... 31

2.4.1 History of Aquaponic Systems and Methods...... 31

2.4.2 Species Grown in Aquaponic Systems ...... 33

2.4.3 Benefits of Aquaponic Systems ...... 34

2.4.4 Challenges of Aquaponic Systems...... 35

2.4 Diffusion of Aquaponics and Biofloc in Aquaculture ...... 36

2.5.1 Adopting Innovation ...... 36

2.5.2 History of Biofloc and Aquaponics in Canada ...... 38

2.5.3 Research Purpose ...... 38

Chapter 3 Research Methods ...... 39

3.1 Geographic Location ...... 39

3.2 Study Population ...... 39

3.3 Sample Size ...... 40

3.4 Interview Questions ...... 43

3.5 Recruitment Strategy ...... 44

3.6 Data Collection Method ...... 45

Chapter 4 Interview Results ...... 47

4.1 Commercial Aquaculture Participants ...... 47

4.1.1 Aquaculture Facility Location and Production ...... 47

4.1.2 Stage of Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponics ...... 49

4.1.3 Stage of Aquaculture Facilities to Implement a Biofloc System ...... 50

4.1.4 Incentives for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc ...... 51

4.1.5 Barriers for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems ...... 53

4.1.6 Potential Influences for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems ...... 55

4.2 Commercial Aquaponic Participants ...... 58

4.2.1 Aquaponic Facility Location and Production ...... 58

4.2.2 Stage of Aquaponic Facilities in Canada ...... 61

4.2.3 Incentives to Implement Aquaponics...... 62 v

4.2.4 Barriers to Implement Aquaponics ...... 63

4.2.5 Potential Influences for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponics ...... 65

4.2.6 Recommendations ...... 68

4.2.7 Stage of Aquaponic Facilities to Implement a Biofloc System ...... 71

4.2.8 Incentives, Influences and Barriers for Aquaponic Facilities to Implement a Biofloc System ...... 72

4.3 Experts in the Biofloc Field ...... 74

4.4 Provincial Government Employees...... 78

Chapter 5 Discussion ...... 81

5.1 Adopting Innovations ...... 81

5.1.1 Stage of Adoption of Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems ...... 82

5.1.2 Incentives for Implementing Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems ...... 83

5.1.4 Potential Influences to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems ...... 93

Chapter 6 Conclusion ...... 97

Research Limitations ...... 100

Future Research ...... 100

References ...... 102

Appendices ...... 117

List of Tables

Table 1. Total Aquaculture Production in Canada 2003 to 2014 ...... 17

Table 2. Major Issues about Aquaculture that are of Concern to Environmentalists ...... 23

Table 3. Species Raised in Aquaponic Facilities ...... 33

Table 4. Interview Participants ...... 39

Table 5. Participant Sample Size and Response Rate ...... 40

Table 6. Crustacean and Fish Species Tried in Aquaponics in Canada ...... 60

Table 7. Plant Species Tried in Aquaponics in Canada ...... 61

Table 8. Challenges Faces by Aquaponic Participants ...... 65

Table 9. Top Four Skills that Assisted Aquaponic Owners with Implementing Aquaponics ...... 66

Table 10. Recommendations for Newcomers to the Aquaponic Industry ...... 68

Table 11. Suggestions to Reduce Challenges in Aquaponics ...... 69

Table 12. Potential Benefits Aquaponics can provide for Aquaculture Facilities ...... 70

Table 13. Recommended Species to Raise in Aquaponics ...... 70

Table 14. Changes Recommended by Aquaponic Facilities ...... 71

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Emissions from Producing Beef, Pork, Chicken, Fish and Bivalves...... 9

Figure 2. Employment in Wild Capture Fisheries and Fish Farmers (1990 to 2010) ...... 10

Figure 3. World Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production ...... 12

Figure 4. State of the Global Marine Fish Stocks (1974 - 2011) ...... 12

Figure 5. Reported Aquaculture Production in Canada (1950 - 2010) ...... 14

Figure 6. Aquaculture Production in Canada 1986-2013 ...... 18

Figure 7. Aquaculture Production in Canada by Province (Percentage of Volume) in 2013 ...... 19

Figure 8. Fed and Non-Fed Global Aquaculture Production, 2000 to 2012 ...... 20

Figure 9. Types of Aquaculture Operations in Canada ...... 21

Figure 10. Observations and Predictions for the Declining Use of Fishmeal in Aquaculture ...... 24

Figure 11. An individual biofloc (scale 100 microns) ...... 26

Figure 12. Biological Process of Biofloc ...... 27

Figure 13. Basic diagram of an aquaponic system ...... 32

Figure 14. Some countries with aquaponic and biofloc systems ...... 32

Figure 15. Simplified model of Rogers innovation-decision process ...... 37

Figure 16. Influences on innovation adoption ...... 37

Figure 17. Location of Aquaculture Facilities Interviewed ...... 48

Figure 18. Species Raised in Aquaculture Facilities ...... 48

viii

Figure 19. Stage of aquaculture facilities to adopt aquaponics systems in Rogers (2003) innovation-decision process ...... 50

Figure 20. Stage of aquaculture facilities to adopt biofloc systems in Rogers (2003) innovation- decision process ...... 51

Figure 21. Location of Aquaponic Facilities ...... 58

Figure 22. Stage of aquaponics facilities to adopt biofloc systems in Rogers (2003) innovation- decision process ...... 72

Figure 23. Willingness of Aquaponic Facilities to Pilot Biofloc ...... 73

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Recruitment E-mail for Aquaculture Owners ...... 117

Appendix B: Recruitment E-mail for Aquaponic Facilities ...... 118

Appendix C: Recruitment E-mail for Biofloc Experts ...... 119

Appendix D: Recruitment E-mail for Government Officials in Aquaculture Departments ...... 120

Appendix E: Interview Consent Details ...... 121

Appendix F: Interview Questions for Aquaculture Owners ...... 122

Appendix G: Interview Questions for Aquaponic Facilities...... 128

Appendix H: Interview Questions for Biofloc Experts...... 135

Appendix I: Interview Questions for Government Officials in Aquaculture Departments ...... 140

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background

An increase in food production by 50-70 percent is required to meet the increased demands of two billion people (World Bank, 2016; Searchinger et al., 2013: 17; UNFAO, 2013) by 2050 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNESA) 2015; UNFAO, 2016: 2). Aquaculture is an essential part of global food security, accounting for over half of the fish and seafood consumed by humans (The United Nations Fisheries and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), 2016: 98; Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), 2012; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2014; Moffitt & Cajas-Cano, 2014: 552). Boyd, Queiroz & McNevin (2013: 15) and the UNFAO does not expect the global supply of seafood from commercial wild fisheries to increase, as nearly ninety percent are fully or over- fished (UNFAO, 2016: 6). Aquaculture is vital to fulfill this gap between traditional capture of wild fish and food demand (UNFAO, 2016: 182; DFO, 2012; OECD, 2014; Boyd, Queiroz & McNevin, 2013: 15; Leung, Lee, & O’Bryen, 2007; House of Commons Canada, 2003). Aquaculture production is expected to double within the next four decades to keep up with seafood demands (National Research Council (NRC), 2015: 59). Since resources required for aquaculture, such as land and water, are expected to be less available in the future (Béné et al., 2015: 265), it is vital for aquaculture production to develop sustainably to contribute to global food security and economic growth, while minimizing ecological impacts (Mathiesen, 2014).

Aquaculture in Canada Aquaculture production is expected to increase substantially, however, growth is limited by the availability of suitable water and land (De Schryver, Crab, Defoirdt, Boon & Verstraete, 2008: 125; Avnimelech, 2011; Crab, Defoirdt, Bossier, & Verstraete, 2012; Naylor et al., 2000). The requirement to increase global aquaculture production provides an opportunity for the Canadian aquaculture industry (House of Commons Canada, 2003). Canada has extensive land, marine and freshwater resources as well as skilled scientists and a labour force that can work in the aquaculture industry (DFO, 2012). Despite having sufficient land and water resources, Canada’s aquaculture production of 133 583 tonnes (Statistics Canada, 2015) is small compared to global

1 production (DFO, 2012). Canada produces approximately 0.18 percent of the 73.8 million tonnes of aquaculture produced globally (UNFAO, 2016). Canada has the means to become a larger global producer of aquaculture (Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM), 2016: 7; DFO, 2012: 6) to contribute to the 140 million tonnes projected to be required in 2050 (NRC, 2015: 59; Waite et al., 2014: 2; Searchinger et al., 2013: 96).

Many current aquaculture practices cannot be used to meet the goal of increasing production by fifty percent because the resources required for those practices are limited and the environmental impacts are not conducive to extensive production (Waite et al., 2014: 25). Valuable resources, including available fresh water and appropriate land for aquaculture, are expected to become scarcer in the next decade and the cost of fishmeal, fish oil and other feed is expected to increase (UNFAO, 2014a: 202). As Canada increases aquaculture production, it is imperative that aquaculture practices become more sustainable to contribute to future food requirements and support the national economy in the long term (Mathiesen, 2014). Avnimelech (2011: 66) and

Waite et al. (2014: 2) have argued that intensive commercial aquaculture practices are a feasible and environmentally acceptable way to achieve growth in production. Aquaculture technologies that minimize negative environmental impacts are expected to be used more frequently as the demand for aquaculture products increases (Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (SSCFO), 2015b: 17). Aquaculture technologies such as recirculating facilities are required to intensify aquaculture sustainably (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 837). Recirculating facilities minimize the amount of water used and discharged to the environment by continuously reusing the water (Waite et al., 2014: 47; Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 838). An increase in the abundance of recirculating facilities in the aquaculture field is expected, particularly in Canada, to expand aquaculture production (SSCFO, 2015b: 17). The Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans “supports the development of land-based, closed-contained technologies in niche markets for which opportunities for growth exist” (SSCFO, 2015b: 18).

Land-based systems, such as recirculating facilities, have the advantage of being able to control and manage the wastewater produced to reduce impacts on the surrounding environment. Before being filtered or treated, effluent from aquaculture production is often considered waste from production as it contains nutrients that can cause significant environmental problems, such as

2 eutrophication (Amosu et al., 2016: 299; Kloas et al., 2015: 180; Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 837). These nutrients can also be considered valuable and can be used as fertilizer. Two aquaculture systems, aquaponic and biofloc, that utilize the nutrients in wastewater were chosen for this research because of the potential of the systems to increase food security, increase the environmental sustainability of aquaculture production and for the potential economic benefits for aquaculture facilities. Aquaponics reuse wastewater from aquaculture facilities to grow crops. Biofloc systems use the nutrients in wastewater to produce feed for fish, reducing the requirement of feed. Feed is often sourced from wild fish which is unsustainable for future aquaculture production.

Aquaponic Systems One method to utilize the nutrients in aquaculture effluent is to grow plants for human and animal consumption. Aquaponic systems combine aquaculture and plant production by reusing the wastewater from aquaculture production to supply plants with water and nutrients (Rakocy, 2012: 343, Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 838). After the plants utilize the nutrients in the effluent, the water can be returned to the aquaculture system (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 838). Removing waste in recirculating aquaculture systems is important since nutrient levels can accumulate to levels that are toxic for fish (Rakocy, 2012: 343). By reducing the nutrient levels in the water, aquaponic systems increase the amount of water that can be reused in the system providing environmental benefits including decreasing the amount of water discharged into the environment as well as the amount of water withdrawn from the environment (Rakocy, 2012: 344). Reusing water can also reduce the requirement to heat incoming water which can be a large expense (Rakocy, 2012: 344) as water heaters can be the most costly component of energy consumption in the system (Love, Uhl & Genello, 2015: 23).

Biofloc Systems Reducing the cost of fish feed is also important for aquaculture facilities as it is typically one of the highest expenses in aquaculture production (Hargreaves, 2013: 1). Affordable fish feed is imperative for the financial feasibility of production and often comprises 50 to 70 percent of operating expenses (Crab et al., 2009: 110; Rana, Siriwardena & Hasan, 2009: 12; UNFAO, 2014b: 6; Netherlands Business Support Office, 2010: 15; DFO, 2012). Biofloc systems are

3 considered a method of aquaculture that minimizes environmental impacts of production (Waite et al., 2014: 3, 30; UNFAO, 2010: 31) and can reduce the use of fish feed (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez- Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 91) up to 20 percent (Ogello, Musa, Aura, Abwao & Munguti, 2014: 21, Avnimelech, 2015: 78). By restricting water exchange, microscopic organisms including bacteria, fungi, algae, and/or protists accumulate in biofloc systems (Hargreaves, 2013: 1). The accumulation of microorganisms is a sustainable method to produce protein rich fish feed in situ in addition to improving and controlling water quality in a closed system with no effluent to the natural environment (Crab et al., 2012: 351). By producing fish feed, biofloc systems can assist in reducing the dependence on fish meal and fish oil from wild fish (De Schryver et al., 2008: 125; Avnimelech, 2011; Crab et al., 2012; Naylor et al. 2000). The current dependence on wild fish for aquaculture is another limiting factor on the growth of aquaculture production (De Schryver et al., 2008: 125; Avnimelech, 2011; Crab et al., 2012; Naylor et al., 2000). New technologies such as biofloc systems can reduce the dependence on wild fish (Ogello et al., 2014: 21) and are a cost effective and environmentally sustainable method of aquaculture (Waite et al., 2014: 34; UNFAO, 2010: 31; Crab et al., 2012: 352; Avnimelech, 2015: 15, 16). Many countries use biofloc systems including Israel (Emerenciano, Gaxiola & Cuzon, 2013b: 302), Belize (Taw, 2010: 20; Burford, Thompson, McIntosh, Bauman & Pearson, 2003), Indonesia (Avnimelech, 2015: 161; Taw, 2010: 20), Malaysia (Taw, 2016), Australia (Taw, 2010: 20), the United States of America, Tahiti, South Korea, Brazil, Italy, China and countries in Latin and Central America (Emerenciano et al., 2013b: 303). Biofloc systems are designed to increase environmental control in aquaculture (Hargreaves, 2013: 1) and can be viewed as a sustainable water treatment method (Crab et al., 2012) to recycle waste nutrients and provide a nutrient source to the farmed species (Hargreaves, 2013: 2; Boyd & McNevin, 2015: 11).

Economic Considerations Financial feasibility is essential for aquaculture operations to be sustainable. Improving the environmental performance of current operations should have a benefit to facilities. As an economic incentive, companies in Canada may be interested in participating in methods that reduce their environmental impact as people are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts involved with the food they consume (Ward et al., 2014: 701). Companies that reduce

4 environmental impacts may see a higher demand for their products and have the opportunity to sell their products for a higher price than companies that do not reduce environmental impacts. Public acceptance of aquaculture products is very important for the future sales of aquaculture production. More consumers are becoming interested in learning about where their food originates and how it is produced (Ward et al., 2014: 701). Companies that demonstrate the use of environmentally sustainable practices may have more public acceptance and may be more successful than companies that do not.

Within the aquaculture industry, there are various methods for producers to reduce environmental impacts. Two methods for addressing environmental issues with salmon aquaculture include closed containment aquaculture (CCA) and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) (Yip, Knowler, Haider, 2012: 4). Two studies demonstrate that consumers in the United States are willing to pay price premiums for IMTA and CCA Atlantic salmon (Yip, Knowler, Haider & Trenholm, 2016: 18; Yip, Knowler & Haider, 2012: 18). As the United States is the largest importer of Canadian farmed salmon, these studies are particularly important for Canadian salmon producers to maintain a strong consumer base and achieve economic success (DFO, 2015a). Both aquaponic and biofloc are relevant to these studies because they are produced in systems that can be described as closed containment or recirculating systems and aquaponics can be considered a form of fresh water IMTA (FIMTA) (Barrington, Chopin & Robinson, 2009: 10). Waite et al. (2014: 47) and UNFAO (2010: 31) have described both aquaponic and biofloc as systems that can reduce environmental impacts of intensive aquaculture.

Methods that reduce the environmental impact of aquaculture production in Canada should be considered by current producers as many stores and restaurants have committed to sell only sustainable or responsibly farmed seafood. Some large chains that have made this commitment include Metro (2016), Walmart (2016), IKEA (2015) and Loblaws (currently 94% of core seafood categories) (Loblaw, 2015: 11). The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (2015: 14) “believes that new opportunities for growth should be encouraged in the areas of land-based, closed-containment aquaculture, the monoculture of aquatic plants, and IMTA, given Canada’s comparative advantage in these sectors”. Other countries are also promoting and

5 investing in aquaponics, as it is has the potential to contribute to global food security (INAPRO, 2014). For example, the European Union (EU) contributed 6 million Euros for a large-scale aquaponics project (INAPRO, 2014). Iceland, Norway and Denmark are also working toward increasing their competiveness in the food and marine sector with aquaponics (Skar et al., 2015). As the increasing world population creates competition over valuable resources including water, land, food, and energy (INAPRO, 2014), the price of these resources will likely increase over the next four decades (Waite et al., 2014: 30). The increased price of resources may also persuade producers to decrease their use of resources and impacts on the environment (Waite et al. 2014: 30).

1.2 Research Question and Rationale

Intensive land-based aquaculture production is one method of aquaculture that the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans expects to increase to meet food demands of the future (SSCFO, 2015b: 17). Aquaponic and biofloc systems are methods of land based aquaculture that can provide benefits to facilities and may assist in decreasing negative environmental effects of production (UNFAO, 2010: 31; Waite et al., 2014: 18,30). There have been many experiments and considerable research on the processes and feasibility of both aquaponics and biofloc systems worldwide since the 1970s (biofloc: Browdy, Ray, Leffler & Avnimelech, 2012: 279; Emerenciano, Cuzon, Goguenheim, Gaxiola & AQUACOP, 2013a: 75, aquaponics: Somerville, Cohen, Pantanella, Stankus & Lovatelli, 2014: 7; Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 839).

Crab et al. (2012: 355) advise that more research is needed to make biofloc “a keystone of future sustainable aquaculture”. Love et al. (2015: 67) and Eatmon, Piso and Schmitt (2013: 197) acknowledge there is minimal research regarding commercial aquaponics and the adoption and diffusion of aquaponic systems. Given this gap in the literature, the purpose of this thesis is:

 To identify the influences and barriers of implementing biofloc and aquaponic systems in Canada as a potential environmental and economic benefit for land-based facilities. This thesis will examine reasons for the current lack of these systems and the extent to which there is potential to increase the use of both aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada.

Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Global Fisheries and Aquaculture

2.1.1 Importance of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Human Society

Fish and seafood are an important source of food and nutrition, containing high amounts of protein, essential vitamins and minerals (Béné et al., 2015: 261; Thilsted et al., 2014: 3). Globally almost one-fifth of the animal protein consumed was from fish and seafood products in 2014 (Moffitt & Cajas-Cano, 2014: 552). Fish and seafood are important for reducing poverty, increasing food security (UNFAO, 2014a: 105) as well as improving nutrition (Allison, 2011; Beveridge et al., 2013). Sustainable fish populations are particularly important to 400 million people for protein and mineral consumption (Multi-Agency Brief (MAB), 2009), in countries where protein intake levels are low (UNFAO, 2014a: 66) and for approximately one billion people who rely on fish and seafood for their primary source of animal protein (Van Os, 2011). In some countries, fish is the only affordable source of animal protein and can comprise over half of the dietary animal protein (UNFAO, 2012: 82; Béné et al., 2015: 263) and the minerals that people consume (MAB, 2009). Countries that rely on fish for more than 60 percent of their total dietary protein include Sierra Leone, Ghana, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives (UNFAO, 2014a).

Fish is typically low in saturated fats, carbohydrates, and cholesterol and provides essential micronutrients including, omega-3 fatty acids, minerals (calcium, phosphorus, iodine, zinc, iron and selenium), amino acids (lysine and methionine) and vitamins A, B and D (Béné et al., 2015: 262; UNFAO, 2012: 82). With high amount of macro and micronutrients, fish and seafood are important food sources to contribute to reducing malnutrition in human populations (Béné et al., 2015: 262). Fish can assist in reducing the effects of micronutrient deficiencies (Kawarazuka & Béné, 2010) such as cretinism (Béné et al., 2015: 264). Cretinism causes stunted growth and intellectual disabilities due to a deficiency in iodine (Béné et al., 2015: 264) and affects 20 million people worldwide (Thilsted et al., 2014: 5). The essential nutrients fish provide are also vital for the development of brain and neural systems in children (UNFAO, 2014a: 105). Given

7 the importance fish has for the development of children, some countries including Chile, Brazil and Zambia have added fish to their school food programs (Béné et al., 2015: 262). In addition to the benefits fish and seafood provide for children, there is solid evidence that adults who consume fish have a lower risk of stroke and high blood pressure (Béné et al., 2015: 264), as well as a decreased risk of dying from coronary heart disease (UNFAO, 2014a: 105).

Fisheries and aquaculture contribute to regional economic stability, supporting the livelihoods of millions of people. Fisheries and aquaculture are economically significant as fish (including seafood) is one of the highest traded food commodities worldwide (UNFAO, 2014a: 46, Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 6). This sector produced 167 million tonnes globally in 2014 (UNFAO, 2016: 4) and was worth over $217.5 billion (US in 2010) (UNFAO, 2012: 3), contributing to global trade (Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 3) and to the GDP of 200 countries (UNFAO, 2014a: 7).

Fisheries and aquaculture support the livelihood of approximately 10–12 percent of the global population (UNFAO, 2014a: 32), representing between 660–880 million people (UNFAO, 2016, 2012; Allison et al., 2013; High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE), 2014). This sector provides a source of income for millions of people in low-income households (Béné, 2006; Béné et al., 2015: 261), primarily in Asia (84%) and approximately ten percent in Africa (UNFAO, 2016: 5).

From an environmental point of view, it may be more beneficial to increase the production of fish to meet future food demands instead of other animal products since meat production has a higher carbon footprint than fish grown in aquaculture, per kilogram produced (Béné et al., 2015: 261; Hall et al., 2011). Nitrogen and phosphorus emissions are also lower in aquaculture compared to beef and pork production, see Figure 1 (per kg of nitrogen and phosphorus produced per tonne of protein produced) (Béné et al., 2015: 270).

Figure 1. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Emissions from Producing Beef, Pork, Chicken, Fish and Bivalves (Data from Hall et al., 2011, Flachowsky 2002 and Poštrk 2003 in Béné et al., 2015: 270)

Since fish are more efficient at converting feed into protein than other animals, it can be argued that it is better environmentally and economically to increase the production of fish instead of other animal husbandry practices (Béné et al., 2015: 261). Fish convert approximately 30 percent of their feed into protein while poultry and pigs convert approximately 18 and 13 percent respectively (Hannesson, 2015: 256; Hasan & Halwart, 2009). Fish are more efficient at converting proteins because of the smaller requirement for skeletal production and not needing to allocate energy to maintain their body temperature since fish are poikilotherms (cold-blooded) (Béné et al., 2015: 270).

Fish and seafood are an important food source for people, providing essential macro and micronutrients, while also having a better protein conversion efficiency and lower emissions and carbon footprint than other animal husbandry systems (Béné et al., 2015: 270). These qualities support the importance for improving the production of aquaculture and sustainability of fish populations to assist in meeting future food requirements, as well as reduce micronutrient deficiencies (HLPE, 2014: 18).

2.1.2 Pressures on Wild Fish Populations

Two major factors have contributed to the decline of global fisheries: increased capacity of fishing fleets and the over-exploitation of fish populations (Willmann & Kelleher, 2009). Advances in fishing technology have contributed to a significant increase in the amount of wild fish caught and the over-exploitation of fish stocks (Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 5; Kennelly & Broadhurst, 2002; NOAA, 2001), increasing global fish catches from 20 million tonnes in the 1950s to approximately 90 million tonnes in 2012 (Hannesson, 2015: 259). Advances in fishing technology include electronic equipment (sonar), bottom trawling nets, larger and faster fishing vessels and smaller mesh sizes in fishing nets (Kennelly & Broadhurst, 2002; NOAA, 2001). In addition to the advances in technology and increasing size of vessels, the number of fishers in the capture (wild) fishery has increased by 10 million in the past twenty years (UNFAO, 2012) (Figure 2) contributing to the increased pressure on fish stocks.

Figure 2. Employment in Wild Capture Fisheries and Fish Farmers (1990 to 2010) (UNFAO, 2012: 42)

Illegal fishing In addition to the advancements in fishing equipment and the increased number fishing fleets, illegal fishing also contributes to the decline of fish populations. Losses due to illegal and unreported fishing are estimated to be between 11 and 26 million tonnes, equivalent to $10 to $23.5 billion annually (US) (Agnew et al., 2009). Illegal fishing increases the difficulty in monitoring fish populations and in creating management plans for sustainable fisheries.

Other factors in the decline in global marine and fresh water fish populations include lack of long-term management (Kennelly & Broadhurst, 2002), pollution, habitat destruction, and invasive species (Ye et al., 2013: 174; Sumaila, 2011: 44). Coastal development, dams, and drilling oil can contribute to declining of aquatic populations as well (Béné et al., 2015: 265). These human impacts, coupled with climate change have significantly negative effects on freshwater ecosystems including the Aral Sea and Lake Chad (UNFAO, 2012: 8). The UNFAO states, “globally, inland fishery resources appear to be continuing to decline as a result of habitat degradation and overfishing” and that this trend “is unlikely to be reversed” (UNFAO, 2006: 34).

Declining fish populations will affect local fishers, post-harvest workers and consumers (Hall et al., 2010: 78); sustaining fisheries and aquaculture are important for employment and food security worldwide. Declining fish populations will have a significant impact in areas that depend on local supplies oppose to markets that obtain seafood from a variety of international sources (Hall et al., 2010: 78). Models estimate that fisheries and aquaculture can maintain current fish consumption rates to meet population demands in the future only if wild fish are harvested at sustainable rates and technological development in aquaculture continues (Béné et al., 2015: 269).

2.1.3 Recent Fish Populations

Global seafood consumption has increased since the 1990s, but global harvests of wild fish have remained steady (Figure 3) (UNFAO, 2012; Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 5; Hannesson, 2015: 251). The tonnage of wild fish caught in global fisheries has declined slightly since 1996, from 86 million tonnes to 79 million tonnes in 2012 (UNFAO, 2014a: 37) despite increases in fishing effort. It is likely that wild fisheries are at their maximum sustainable harvest levels (Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 5) or are already at levels that are unsustainable (Coll et al., 2008). The majority of capture (wild) fisheries around the world are currently either fully fished or over-fished (Figure 4) (UNFAO, 2012; Boyd et al., 2013: 15). It is not likely that there will be an increase in yields from wild fisheries (Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 5).

Figure 3. World Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production (UNFAO, 2012: 4)

Figure 4. State of the Global Marine Fish Stocks (1974 - 2011) (UNFAO, 2014a: 37)

There are various predictions as to when global fisheries are expected to collapse. Worm et al. (2006) argue that most wild fish species are expected to be depleted by 2048 if current fishing trends continue, as fish populations are currently being fished at, or above, their maximum biological productivity (UNFAO, 2005). Froese, Stern-Pirlot & Kesner-Reyes (2009) expect “the global reservoir of unexploited fishable stocks is likely to be exhausted in (the year) 2020”. There are other estimates that indicate that a global collapse of fish stocks may not occur (Béné et al., 2015: 267) as recent estimates project stability in global fishery yields in the near future

(Béné et al., 2015: 267). The OECD and FAO (2013) estimated that wild fish yields will increase 5 percent to approximately 96 Mt by 2024 and the World Bank, FAO and IFPRI estimated that yields will increase to approximately 93 Mt in 2030 (Béné et al., 2015: 267).

There have been increases in catches of some species in the Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Pacific (Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 5). This may be an indication of the regulation and management that has occurred in these areas and may be an indicator that with proper management, yields can continue without depleting populations (Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 5). Despite the controversy about the depletion of wild fish stocks, there is consensus that wild marine and freshwater yields may not increase significantly in the future (Tidwell & Allan, 2012: 5).

2.2 Importance of Aquaculture

2.2.1 Commercial Aquaculture in Canada

Aquaculture is thought to have been utilized by ancient civilizations; for example, aquaculture has been depicted on Egyptian tombs 4000 years old; written in ancient Chinese books dating over 2000 years (Costa-Pierce, 2010) and indigenous populations have been involved in sustainable aquaculture for millennia (Aboriginal Aquaculture Association, 2015). In the 19th century, aquaculture began in Canada with the objective of enhancing wild stocks (Olin, 2012). The commercialization of aquaculture, however, did not begin until the 1950s, with trout farming and culturing oysters (DFO, 2013a). Aquaculture has grown significantly in value and production (tonnes) over the past 30 years (Diana et al., 2013: 255) (Figure 5) and is currently a commercial industry in Canada (DFO, 2016a).

Figure 5. Reported Aquaculture Production in Canada (1950 - 2010) (UNFAO, 2016)

In 1986, aquaculture production was valued at $35 million (Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA), 2015) and production has continued to increase in value to over $800 million in 2011 (Nguyen & Williams, 2013). Aquaculture has become an important industry in Canada, contributing over $1 billion to Canada’s GDP (in 2010) (SSCFO, 2015b: 15). Aquaculture plays a valuable economic role in the fisheries sector, contributing over a third of the total fish and seafood value in Canada (SSCFO, 2015b: 12), worth $733 million (in 2014) (DFO, 2015b). Although wild fisheries currently produce more seafood and fish in Canada, aquaculture produces high value products; aquaculture contributes to more than a third of the total fisheries value while producing one fifth of the fish and seafood (SSCFO, 2015b: 12).

Aquaculture contributes to the economies of all ten provinces and Yukon (CAIA, 2015). In Canada, the aquaculture industry sustains over 14 000 full time jobs (directly, indirectly and induced) (DFO, 2015c; SSCFO, 2015b: 15) and has the potential to double production, increasing employment and GDP in Canada (SSCFO, 2015b: 15). Many jobs in the aquaculture industry are a significant source of employment and economic growth for remote, rural and coastal communities, including over 50 First Nations communities (DFO, 2015c; SSCFO, 2015b:

15; Aboriginal Aquaculture Association 2015: 8). For example, a quarter of the jobs in Charlotte County, New Brunswick, are involved in the aquaculture industry, generating millions of dollars for the New Brunswick economy (SSCFO, 2015b: 15). Aquaculture creates year round employment and is particularly beneficial to areas that are susceptible to seasonal unemployment and areas where wild fishery, forestry and mining sectors have declined (DFO, 2015c; DFO, 2013a).

By increasing aquaculture production, Canada can make a significant impact on future global food requirements, assist in reducing the rates of malnutrition, and contribute to global food security (Mathiesen, 2013). Despite Canada’s potential for aquaculture production, Canada is a relatively small global producer (DFO, 2012). Canada produces about 0.25 percent of the total global aquaculture production (UNFAO, 2014c) and ranks 18th in the world for aquaculture production value (in 2010) (DFO, 2016b). Canada has a niche market with Atlantic salmon production (Nguyen & Williams, 2013) and is the fourth-largest producer of farmed salmon (DFO, 2015a). Canada produces about 7 percent of the farmed salmon worldwide in 2009, behind Norway, Chile and the U.K. (Scotland) (Nguyen &Williams 2013). Almost 90 percent of the value of the aquaculture industry in Canada is from Atlantic salmon sales (in 2010) (Olin, 2012). Blue mussels are another significant source of revenue for aquaculture in Canada, accounting for over 50 percent of the revenue from shellfish (Olin, 2012).

Currently over 85 percent of the aquaculture produced in Canada is exported, primarily to the United States (CAIA, 2016; DFO, 2016c). Canada is the largest fish and shellfish supplier to the United States (Chopin, 2015: 28; CAIA, 2015); 97 percent of farmed salmon exports and 99 percent of mussel exports from Canada were shipped to the United States in 2011 (Nguyen & Williams, 2013). Canada also exports aquaculture products to more than sixty countries (DFO, 2012). The amount of seafood Canada exports to China, Taiwan and Japan is increasing, for example, the amount of mussels that have been exported to China increased over 400 percent between 2008 and 2010 (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, 2013).

With growing markets, increasing global demand and available resources in Canada, the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA) estimates that Canada has the potential to

15 double aquaculture production in ten years (2014-2024) (SSCFO, 2015b: 15). Increasing aquaculture production in Canada can support local food requirements and increase food security internationally by exporting aquaculture products to countries that require additional sources of food. Doubling aquaculture production would result in an increase from approximately 173,000 to over 378,000 tonnes of finfish and shellfish (SSCFO, 2015b: 13), raising the annual GPD to $2.5 billion and expanding fulltime employment for an additional 18 000 people (SSCFO, 2015b: 15). Aquaculture in Canada currently uses about one percent of the areas biophysically suitable for aquaculture (37 000 hectares) (SSCFO, 2015b: 16). In order to double aquaculture production, it should not be necessary to double the environmental impacts on these areas. An increase of 0.35 percent of these areas could be utilized to double aquaculture production, amounting to an additional 14 400 hectares (SSCFO, 2015b: 16).

In Canada, total aquaculture production increased approximately 1.5 percent annually over a ten- year period, between 2003 and 2013 (see table 1 and figure 6). Whereas, other countries have grown at least six percent annually (ACFFA, 2014, Salmon, 2014), including competitors such as Norway (growing at 8% on average) (SSCFO, 2015b: 13). Aquaculture growth in Canada has not always been slow; annual growth was close to 20 percent between 1986 and 2002 (Figure 5 and 6) (SSCFO, 2015b:13). Canadian aquaculture production increased four-fold in ten years, from 1990 to 2002; however, growth has remained stagnant for the past fifteen years (Salmon, 2014). Figures 5 and 6 show that the volume of aquaculture produced in Canada has not changed significantly from 2002 to 2013. This stagnation has caused Canada to lose over 47 percent of its global market share to competitors (ACFFA, 2014: 21; Salmon, 2014).

The Canadian aquaculture industry has faced challenges including public opposition, infectious salmon anaemia (in the early 2000s), low global prices of salmon, dependence on the United States market and complex internal regulations (UNFAO, 2016; Nguyen & Williams, 2013). Public opposition of aquaculture has been most significant on the east and west coasts of Canada. In the early 2000s, the Deputy Minister of Nova Scotia said that recreational property owners and developers were concerned about the environment and “almost always oppose aquaculture development” (Underwood, 2001). Canada’s aquaculture industry has been constrained by complex federal and provincial regulations, resulting in lack of growth and investment funds

Year Aquaculture Production (tonnes) 2003 150 205 2004 141 580 2005 154 484 2006 171 629 2007 152 475 2008 155 362 2009 155 732 2010 162 146 2011 169 235 2012 183 106 2013 169 987 2014 133 583

Table 1. Total Aquaculture Production in Canada 2003 to 2014 (DFO, 2016d) allocated to businesses outside of Canada (Chopin, 2015: 30; ACFFA, 2014: 21; Salmon, 2014). Parker (2015) indicates that the Fisheries Act limits the growth of aquaculture in Canada. The Fisheries Act was created in 1868 (DFO, n.d.) to manage wild resources, not a commercial aquaculture industry, and therefore has resulted in regulations not suitable to growth of the industry (Chopin, 2015; ACFFA, 2014). Many stakeholders agree that a new federal Aquaculture Act is needed as the Fisheries Act does not provide an acceptable framework (Nguyen & Williams, 2013). A new federal Aquaculture Act is required to reduce regulatory confusion, eliminate jurisdictional overlap and duplication (Salmon, 2014). This new Aquaculture Act will assist the growth of responsible and sustainable aquaculture in Canada as well as support new technologies and practices within the aquaculture industry (Salmon, 2014).

Canada has faced other challenges in the aquaculture sector, for example the value of the Canadian dollar increased while the price for Atlantic salmon decreased (Nguyen & Williams, 2013). Moratoria have also negatively affected the growth of salmon production; a moratorium

17 occurred from 1995 to 2002 on new salmon farm licenses in British Columbia and another moratorium in 2009 followed a ruling that aquaculture regulation was the responsibility of the federal government (Nguyen & Williams, 2013).

Production in Canada All ten provinces and Yukon have aquaculture operations (DFO, 2015d, 2016a). The majority of the aquaculture production in Canada occurs on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts (DFO, 2013b) as seen in Figure 7. Over 90 percent of the aquaculture in Canada (by volume) is produced on the east coast (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island) and Pacific coast (British Columbia) (SSCFO, 2015b:12). Ontario, Quebec, the Prairies and Yukon Territory produce approximately 6 percent of the aquaculture produced in Canada (by volume in 2013) (SSCFO, 2015b: 12).

Figure 6. Aquaculture Production in Canada 1986-2013 (in Thousands of Metric Tonnes) (SSCFO, 2015b: 14)

Figure 7. Aquaculture Production in Canada by Province (Percentage of Volume) in 2013 (Yukon is not included in Figure 7 because production was too small) (SSCFO, 2015b: 12)

2.2.2 Methods of Aquaculture

A variety of aquaculture production methods are used worldwide. This section briefly introduces aquaculture methods, including methods used in Canada (figure 9). Extensive aquaculture systems are those where organisms find food in the natural environment within the system (non- fed aquaculture), whereas organisms produced in intensive systems depend on feed being added to the system (fed aquaculture) (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 5). Aquaculture has transitioned from an extensive practice to an intensive industry and this transition is likely to continue. Semi-intensive and intensive practices comprise almost 70 percent of the total aquaculture production, relying on outside feed inputs for production (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 6; Tacon, Hasan & Metian, 2011). The primary supply of marine farmed species utilizes intensive practices (Anras et al., 2010: 12). The amount of fresh water fed aquaculture (semi-intensive and intensive practices) has also

Figure 8. Fed and Non-Fed Global Aquaculture Production, 2000 to 2012 (UNFAO, 2014a)

significantly increased since 2000, increasing over 15 million tonnes, seen in Figure 8. Over 40 species of finish, shellfish and aquatic plants are commercially grown in Canada (DFO, 2015d) in a variety of intensive and extensive aquaculture production methods including net pen operations, land-based facilities, subtidal and intertidal operations (Figure 9). Net pens and land- based systems in Canada are typically intensive productions methods (fed aquaculture). Aquaculture in Canada typically involves fresh water or marine environments (see Figure 9), but aquaculture can also occur in brackish water. Brackish water is a mix of fresh water and salt water and is usually used for Penaeid shrimp farming (Boyd & McNevin, 2015: 3).

Land-based Operations Land-based aquaculture facilities are facilities built on land where fish can grow in tanks, raceways and ponds. Land-based facilities include flow-through facilities, closed-containment facilities also known as recirculating facilities and partial re-circulating facilities. Flow-through facilities are systems where the water used for aquaculture production returns to the environment, whereas, recirculating facilities reuse the water before it leaves the facility.

Figure 9. Types of Aquaculture Operations in Canada (DFO, 2014a)

Ponds are confined bodies of standing water that grow aquatic plants, crustaceans and fish for small-scale subsistence and large-scale commercial aquaculture (Tucker & Hargreaves, 2012: 191). Ponds can contain fresh, salt or brackish water and can be lined with impervious materials or made from soil (Tucker & Hargreaves, 2012: 193).

Flow-through systems can be earthen ponds, tanks, or other units, but are most concrete (Boyd, 2015: 9). Since water is a constant input in the system (Tucker & Hargreaves, 2012: 192), these systems can grow species at higher densities than pond operations (Boyd, 2015: 9).

Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) are also called closed loop systems, recycle systems or intensive recycle systems (Tidwell, 2012: 74). These systems grow species in a manmade operation, usually tanks, where operators have control over every aspect of the growing process (Tidwell, 2012: 73) including feed, pH, temperature, suspended solids and dissolved oxygen. Recirculating systems reuse the water in the system with the assistance of aeration and waste removal (Tidwell, 2012: 74). These systems provide the opportunity for facilities to operate close to market with minimal environmental impacts (Bostock, 2011: 136). With additional technology and environmental control there is a high cost involved in building and operating recirculating systems compared to other aquaculture operations (Ebeling & Timmons, 2012; Bostock, 2011: 136).

2.2.3 Concerns of the Aquaculture Industry on the Environment and Commercial Fisheries

Aquaculture without environmental mitigation can be detrimental to ecosystems and has received significant criticism from environmental advocate groups (Boyd & McNevin, 2015: 16). Concerns regarding the environmental impacts of aquaculture have contributed to the development, as well as perhaps hindered development, of aquaculture in Europe and North America (Bostock, 2011: 136). As the aquaculture industry develops, intensification of aquaculture methods result in the production of more fish and seafood in a smaller physical area. Higher stocking densities required for an increase in production in intensive systems also produce a larger amount waste per unit than extensive systems. These systems often rely less on the surrounding environment than extensive systems to operate but still require a significant amount of input from the natural environment. Potential environmental impacts include excessive fish feed, habitat degradation, pollution and sediments from waste, organisms escaping from farms, (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 5; UNFAO, 2016: 11; Moccia & Bevan, 2005: 16), consumption of water and the release of chemicals and antibiotics into the surrounding ecosystem (Tucker, Hargreaves & Boyd, 2008: 38). Environmental impacts from aquaculture can involve a decrease in local biodiversity due to land use or water pollution (Boyd et al., 2013: 17). Table 2 lists some of the major concerns regarding aquaculture. Some of these environmental concerns are discussed further in this section.

Aquaculture Feed The largest impact aquaculture has on the world’s natural resources is the use of fishmeal and fish oil (Boyd et al., 2013: 17). Feed is an essential input for intensive aquaculture systems. Extensive systems that do not add feed for production, contribute to a net increase of global animal protein (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 5), whereas intensive systems that require feed in the form of plant or animal protein, may not contribute to a net increase of global animal protein (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 5). The contribution of intensive aquaculture to global animal protein depends on the efficiency of the aquaculture species to convert feed into biomass (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 6). In intensive aquaculture systems, fish feed is often a high-protein feed called fishmeal; producers use fish oil as a feed additive (UNFAO, 2014a: 7). A sizeable amount of the world’s fish goes

22 into fishmeal and fish oil- about 75 percent of the fish production for non-human consumption is used to produce fishmeal and fish oil (UNFAO, 2014a: 42). Annual production of aquaculture feed increased 21 million tonnes in 13 years (1995-2008) (Tacon, Hasan & Metian, 2011).

Table 2. Major Issues about Aquaculture that are of Concern to Environmentalists (Boyd & McNevin, 2015: 14)

Fishmeal and fish oil primarily consist of small fish that have high rates of reproduction, such as anchovies, small sardines and menhaden (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 7). There are arguments suggesting that these fish used for fishmeal could be more useful as a protein source for direct human consumption (HLPE, 2014). Dependence on wild fisheries for fishmeal is unsustainable (Van Os, 2011: 15) and can be a barrier to increasing aquaculture production (Boyd et al., 2013: 17) because of the quantity that can be caught and the price. Aquaculture production will not be able to increase to the amount required for future food requirements if aquaculture feed continues to comprise of fishmeal and fish oil at the current levels (Boyd et al., 2013: 17). Aquaculture feed (fishmeal) is subject to global market shocks and volatility. Since 2005, the price of fishmeal increased by 55 percent (Rana et al., 2009). From 2005 to 2013, the price of fishmeal increased 206 percent before declining 20 percent the following year (UNFAO, 2014a: 61).

The dependence on wild fish is decreasing, about 35 percent of the fishmeal in 2012 was comprised of fisheries by-products (frames, off-cuts and offal from both wild and farmed fish) (Bernal & Oliva, 2016). The price of feed can be a motivating factor to increase the sustainability and affordability of feed (Béné et al., 2015: 268). There has been, and continues to be, attempts to develop feed that is more environmentally sustainable and that can reduce or replace fishmeal and fish oil from feed (UNFAO, 2014a: 44; Love et al., 2014: 9). Figure 10 shows the decrease in fishmeal production from 1995. Aquaculture production is expected to increase from 2010 to 2030 while only increasing the supply of fishmeal by 8 percent (UNFAO, 2014a: 205; World Bank, 2014).

Figure 10. Observations and Predictions for the Declining Use of Fishmeal in Aquaculture (Bernal & Oliva, 2016: 9)

Impact of Effluent and Water Quality High levels of nutrients and suspended solids are created within intensive aquaculture systems from excess feed, fish excrement (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 840) and organic and inorganic fertilizers (Tucker, Hargreaves & Boyd, 2008: 40). In some cases, 50 to 80 percent of the nutrients from feed is released into the aquaculture water, as species cannot consume the feed efficiently (Castine et al., 2013: 286). Only 20-50 percent of total nitrogen supplemented in feed contributes to the biomass of species; the remainder is released to the water or sediment (Boyd & McNevin, 2015: 199, Martinez-Porchas & Martinez-Cordova, 2012: 3). Similarly, other research

24 has shown that only 5-10 percent of the organic carbon and 30-40 percent phosphorus in feed contribute to the biomass of fish while shrimp only retain 5–10 percent of phosphorus (Boyd & McNevin, 2015: 199).

If this waste is not managed appropriately, there can be serious impacts to the ecosystem including eutrophication (Kloas et al., 2015: 180; Boyd & McNevin, 2015: 199; Martinez- Porchas & Martinez-Cordova, 2012: 2) and pathogens spread to wild fish (Diana et al., 2013: 260) through effluent (Tucker, Hargreaves & Boyd, 2008: 45). Hormones, antibiotics and pesticides are sometimes used in aquaculture and can have environmental impacts (Martinez- Porchas & Martinez-Cordova, 2012: 2; Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 837). Antibiotic use can change the composition of microbial communities and can lead to resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria (Tucker, Hargreaves & Boyd, 2008: 43). There has been limited research on the environmental impacts of hormones (Martinez-Porchas & Martinez-Cordova, 2012: 2) and antimicrobial use in aquaculture (LaPatra & MacMillan, 2008: 500).

Energy Requirements Intensive land-based aquaculture requires energy inputs for aeration, pumps and temperature regulation (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009: 370). Economic and environmental impacts of energy use in aquaculture vary between methods of production and sources of electricity. For example, hydropower and electricity produced from fossil fuels, in particular coal power plants produce higher levels of harmful emissions to air and water (Ayer & Tyedmers, 2009: 328). The average monthly electricity bill for one recirculating facility in Canada was approximately $3000 to operate the oxygen generator, influent and recirculating pumps using 35 000 kWh (in 2014) (Atkinson, Bibby & Atkinson, 2014: 12).

2.3 Biofloc Technology (BFT)

2.3.1 History of Biofloc Aquaculture Systems and Methods

Biofloc aquaculture is a system in which restricted water exchange results in the growth of microscopic organisms including bacteria, zooplankton, nematodes, fungi, algae, and/or protists

(Hargreaves, 2013: 1). Biofloc systems remove excess nutrients from the water through these micro-organisms, and in turn the microorganisms can be consumed by the cultured fish (or other organism) (De Schryver et al., 2008: 125; Ogello et al., 2014: 21; Crab et al., 2012: 351, Aquaculture Engineering Society (AES), 2014). Microorganisms increase water quality through microbial uptake of fish excreta and feed waste (Crab et al., 2012: 351; De Schryver et al., 2008: 126; Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 87, 91). Floc technology began in the 1970s at Ifremer-COP (Emerenciano et al., 2013a: 75). Other studies in the late 1970s also relating to biofloc began in the form of heterotrophic food web research (developed by Hepher, Schroeder, Moav and Wohlfarth) (Tidwell, 2012: 279; Avnimelech, 2015: 37), and organic detrital algae soup (ODAS) (researched by Steven Serfling and Dominick Mendola at Solar Aquafarms) (Tidwell, 2012: 279; Avnimelech, 2015: ii). Commercial production based on the concept of biofloc technology began in the 1980s (Serfling, 2006), however “the knowledge base concerning the technique is still undeveloped” (Azim & Little, 2008: 29).

Figure 11. An individual biofloc (scale 100 microns) (Hargreaves, 2013: 1)

Bioflocs are typically grown in the same water as the fish for two reasons: to control water quality and to provide additional food for the species in the aquaculture system (Lekang, 2013: 206, Hargreaves, 2013: 2). Figure 12 shows the biological process of the biofloc system. Biofloc systems are typically comprised of heterotrophic (e.g. bacteria) and autotrophic (algae) components (Lekang, 2013: 206). Solids must remain suspended in the water at all times or the system will not function (Hargreaves, 2013: 3). Water quality is maintained by mixing water and aeration (Hargreaves, 2013: 1). Biofloc systems are appropriate for species that can tolerate high

Figure 12. Biological Process of Biofloc (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 88)

solids concentrations (Hargreaves, 2013: 3) unless the biofloc production is in a separate tank from the species being produced (ex-situ biofloc technology) (Avnimelech, 2015: 87). BFT have low initial and maintenance costs for intensive aquaculture production (Avnimelech, 2015: 15).

High levels of inorganic nitrogen, ammonia (NH3) and transformed nitrite (NO2) are produced in intensive aquaculture systems (Lekang, 2013: 206). Bacteria in BFT systems remove nitrogen from the water for protein production (Avnimelech, 2015: 61). This system has several benefits including maximizing feed, improving biosecurity, reducing water use through zero or minimal water exchange and reducing environmental impacts of effluent (Avnimelech, 2015: 15).

2.3.2 Species Grown in Biofloc Aquaculture Systems

As noted above, species that grow most efficiently in in-situ biofloc systems are those that are able to thrive in water with a high amount of suspended solids and that can consume flocs and receive nutritional benefit from consumption (Hargreaves, 2013: 3). Shrimp, tilapia and carp are

27 the most common species used in biofloc systems (Hargreaves, 2013: 3). Other species grown in biofloc systems include: North African catfish (Clarias gariepinus), mullet, prawns including Malaysian prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández- Vergara, 2014), black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), giant gourami (Osphronemus goramy) and Asian green mussel (Perna viridis) (Ekasari et al., 2014). Aquatic species are continuously being experimented with biofloc systems.

Biofloc systems are used in many countries, seen in figure 14, including Israel (Emerenciano at al., 2013b: 302), Belize (Taw, 2010: 20; Burford, Thompson, McIntosh, Bauman & Pearson, 2003), Indonesia (Avnimelech, 2015: 161; Taw, 2010: 20), Malaysia (Taw, 2016), Australia (Taw, 2010: 20), the United States of America, Tahiti, South Korea, Brazil, Italy, China and countries in Latin and Central America (Emerenciano et al., 2013b: 303).

2.3.3 Benefits of Biofloc Aquaculture Systems

Biofloc systems align with consumers’ expectations that their food is beneficial to their health and has been produced in an environmentally responsible way (UNFAO, 2009: 64). Biofloc systems have less impact on land and water resources and support economic and social sustainability (Crab et al., 2012: 351). Intensive production systems, such as biofloc, are a practical and environmentally responsible way to increase aquaculture production (Avnimelech, 2011: 66).

Decreased Feed Use The expansion of aquaculture requires sustainable practices (Ogello et al., 2014: 22; Naylor et al., 2000: 117; Crab et al., 2012: 351); this includes reducing the amount of wild fish contained in fish feed (Naylor et al., 2000; Munguti et al., 2009). Biofloc systems address this requirement by reducing the dependence on feed up to 20 percent (Ekasari et al., 2010; Pérez-Rostro, Pérez- Fuentes, & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 91, 96), through the production of proteinaceous flocs for fish/crustaceans to feed on (Crab et al., 2012: 353; Lekang, 2013; Azim & Little, 2008: 29). By decreasing the use of fish feed, BFT systems also decrease the pressure on wild fish stocks (Crab et al., 2012: 353). Biofloc systems produce microalgae and bacteria that have high nutritional

28 content (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 96) and align with general aquaculture feed standards (Crab et al., 2012: 354). The BFT system reduces feed expenses by increasing the efficiency of protein utilization through reusing protein in feed (Crab et al., 2012: 351; AES, 2014; Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 91). Consumption of microbial protein contributes to 20 to 30 percent of shrimp and tilapia growth in BFT systems (Hargreaves, 2013: 2). BFT improves feed conversion, a good indicator of profitability and economic sustainability (Hargreaves, 2013: 2) as feed is one of the most expensive component in intensive aquaculture operations, typically comprising 50 to 70 percent of operating expenses (Charo-Karisa, 2008; Furuya et al., 2004; UNFAO, 2014d: 6; DFO, 2012). Improving feed conversion is significant as prices are not expected to decrease and fishmeal prices are volatile, having increased over 200 percent from 2005 to 2013 (UNFAO, 2014a: 61).

Increased Production Another benefit of biofloc systems include faster growth rates and increased biomass during cultivation, related to high survival rates, compared to traditional pond farming (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes, & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 96). For example, one study showed the net production of tilapia was 45 percent higher in the biofloc tanks than in tanks without biofloc (Azim & Little, 2008).

Efficient Water Treatment and Decreased Water Consumption Intensive aquaculture production usually requires a waste treatment system (Hargreaves, 2013: 1). BFT can also be viewed as a sustainable water treatment technique and can provide an economic advantage compared to conventional water treatment technologies in aquaculture production (Crab et al., 2012: 351). BFT can be viewed as a sustainable water treatment method, as the process to control water quality is achieved through microbial removal of excess nutrients from the water, balancing nitrogen and carbon levels (Crab et al., 2012: 351, 353; De Schryver et al., 2008: 126; Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 87, 91). Biofloc systems are a robust technique that are easy to operate (Crab et al., 2012: 353) and can decrease the cost of water use by 30 percent (Crab et al., 2012: 351), whereas conventional technologies require frequent maintenance, generate secondary pollution and are often expensive (Crab et al., 2012: 353).

By managing the nutrients in the water, less water is required for production (Serfling, 2006). Biosecurity increases in BFT systems since less water is exchanged as less water is required for production (Hargreaves, 2013: 1). Previous shrimp ponds exchanged ten percent of the water for production per day to manage the water quality, in areas where many shrimp farms were close together this resulted in the spread of disease (Hargreaves, 2013: 1).

Economic Advantage Avnimelech (2011: 66) describes commercial biofloc systems as having a reasonable investment and operating costs. When compared to traditional pond farming, biofloc systems have faster growth rates, increased biomass from higher survival rates and require less feed (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes, & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 96). However, biofloc systems also have higher operating costs because they require aeration; increased costs can be between 10 and 40 percent (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 96). Even with higher operating costs Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara (2014: 96) found a 12.9 - 14 percent overall cost savings in shrimp, Malaysian prawn and tilapia biofloc systems compared to traditional pond farming. These savings are a result of less water pumping and a 20 percent increase in survival resulting in a 25 percent increase in biomass (Pérez-Rostro, Pérez-Fuentes & Hernández-Vergara, 2014: 96).

Similarly, Azim & Little (2008) found the net production of Nile tilapia was 45 percent higher in a biofloc system than in a system without biofloc. Apart from increasing production, biofloc systems can also provide an economic advantage to aquaculture production by increasing feed conversion (Azim & Little, 2008) and decreasing the requirement of feed by 20-30 percent (Eksari, 2010).

2.3.4 Challenges of Biofloc Aquaculture Systems

In-situ biofloc systems are beneficial for producing species that can survive in high concentrations of suspended solids (Hargreaves, 2013: 3). This limits the number of species that will grow in these systems. Species such as channel catfish and hybrid striped bass would not be suitable for BFT (Hargreaves, 2013: 3). Excessive solids can irritate or clog gills and increase the

30 oxygen required for production (Hargreaves, 2013: 10).

A barrier to implementing biofloc systems is the expectation of aquaculture operators that the water in an aquaculture system should be clear (Crab et al., 2012: 351; Avnimelech, 2009). When compared to RAS, BFT is less efficient and not more “attractive economically” (Watterson et al., 2012: 4). Other challenges of BFT systems include maintaining the microbial community (Haslun, Correia, Strychar, Morris & Samocha, 2012: 30). Although BFT has been used for decades, the knowledge base of BFT is undeveloped (Azim & Little, 2008: 29) and issues with the system are still not well understood (Hargreaves, 2013: 10). Ambiguity within BFT may be due to the diversity of systems, which can cause difficulties in creating general designs and standard practices (Hargreaves, 2013: 10).

2.4 Aquaponic Systems

2.4.1 History of Aquaponic Systems and Methods

Aquaponics is an interconnected system growing crops and fish. Plants grow without soil, using aquaculture effluent as a source of water and nutrients; a diagram of the system is seen in figure 13 (Rakocy, 2012: 343; Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 838). After the plants utilize the nutrients in the effluent, the water can be recirculated into the aquaculture system (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 838). Aquaponics is not a new concept and has been used for hundreds of years (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 838). However, modern aquaponics date to the 1970s with the New Alchemy Institute at the North Carolina State University (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 839). Other North American and European academic institutions in the late 1970s also contributed to the development of modern systems today (Somerville et al., 2014: 7). The University of Virgin Island’s Aquaculture Experiment Station (AES) has experimented and developed aquaponics and became a world leader in commercial aquaponics (Eatmon et al., 2013: 199; Tokunaga et al., 2015: 20). Currently aquaponics is used in over 40 countries and on every continent (Love et al., 2014: 6) with a variety of methods that can operate indoors and outdoors. Countries that use aquaponic systems, as identified in Love et al. (2014), can be seen in figure 14.

Figure 13. Basic diagram of an aquaponic system (Mssacay, 2013)

Figure 14. Countries with aquaponic and biofloc systems (Avnimelech, 2015; Burford, Thompson, McIntosh, Bauman & Pearson, 2003; Emerenciano et al., 2013b; Love et al., 2014; Taw, 2010; Taw, 2016)

2.4.2 Species Grown in Aquaponic Systems

Fish and Crustaceans Tilapia is the most common fish species grown in aquaponic systems (Rakocy et al., 2006: 2). In Love et al. (2014: 9), tilapia, ornamental fish and catfish were the species most often grown in aquaponics systems. Other species raised in aquaponics are listed in table 3. Most species that can grow in high densities are successful in aquaponics (Rakocy et al., 2006: 2). Species that cannot tolerate high levels of potassium, such as hybrid striped bass, will not grow well in aquaponic systems as potassium is often used for plant growth (Rakocy et al., 2006: 2).

Arctic char Goldfish Trout Barramundi Guppies Pacu Blue gill Koi Perch (including jade perch) Carp (including common Largemouth bass Pangasius carp) Minnows Shrimp Channel catfish Mosquito Fish Yabbies Crappies Murray cod Crawfish

Table 3. Species Raised in Aquaponic Facilities (Diver, 2006; Rakocy et al., 2006: 2; Love et al., 2014: 8; Nelson, 2008)

Plants Plants that have been grown in aquaponic systems include leeks, celery, eggplant, corn, taro, flowers, cauliflower, okra, collard greens, ornamental plants, melons, beets, watercress, squash, onions, cabbage, broccoli, bok choi, beans and peas, strawberries, chard, kale, cucumbers, head lettuce, peppers, herbs, salad greens, tomato and basil (Love et al., 2014: 5).

2.4.3 Benefits of Aquaponic Systems

Aquaponics are systems that can contribute to global food security (Kloas et al., 2015: 179; European Commission Community Research and Development Information Services (EU CORDIS), 2016). Aquaponics are often described as a sustainable method of food production because of the reduced environmental impacts and sustainable practices employed (Love et al., 2014: 2; Tokunaga, 2015: 20). Aquaponic production uses water efficiently (Love et al., 2014: 2; Tokunaga, 2015: 20; McMurtry et al., 1997), the same water recirculates from the fish species to the plants and returns back to the fish. Using water efficiently through re-use in the system increases profitability (Metaxa et al., 2006) and reduces environmental impacts of aquaculture wastewater (Rakocy, 2012: 344; McMurtry et al., 1997). Since water is reused, less water is extracted from surface or groundwater for production (Rakocy, 2012: 344). Areas with water scarcity can benefit from utilizing aquaponics to produce food (Goddek et al., 2015: 4199, 4213). Reducing the amount of water input into aquaponic systems also decreases the amount of heat required to maintain water temperature; this can be a significant expense (Rakocy, 2012: 344) and can have negative environmental impacts depending on the source of heat.

Aquaponics also provides the opportunity to sell additional products, diversifying potential revenue sources (Dediu et al., 2012: 2349; Chopin, 2015). With ancillary products and a unique food production system, aquaponics has the opportunity to create a “branding advantage” (Chopin, 2015). Aquaponics can also produce food on marginal land not suitable for other food production systems, as soil is not required for aquaponics (Tokunaga, 2015: 20). Aquaponic systems can be simple to operate if fish densities are sufficient for plant growth (Rakocy et al., 2006: 16). Aquaponics are also complex technological operations, as knowledge of horticulture, aquaculture and ecological processes are required (Eatmon et al., 2013: 218).

Continued innovation in aquaponics has contributed to the increased environmental sustainability of facilities. For instance, an aquaponic system for (nearly) emission free tomato and fish production in greenhouses (ASTAF-PRO) has been tested and created by Scientists at Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) in Berlin, Germany (Kloas et al., 2015: 179; EU CORDIS, 2016). The ASTAF-PRO produces both fish and crops in an ideal

34 growing environment simultaneously (EU CORDIS, 2016). This system uses even less water and has a smaller carbon footprint than other aquaponic systems (Kloas et al., 2015: 191; EU CORDIS, 2016), improving the sustainability of this food production system. Aquaponics have the potential to meet the “economic, environmental, and social goals of sustainable development” (Eatmon et al., 2013: 214). Socio-economic benefits of aquaponic systems include growing fish and produce year round, creating new jobs, community development opportunities, including education and workshops, partnerships with schools, volunteer opportunities, youth camps, local small business development and repurposing of abandoned buildings (Eatmon et al., 2013: 195, 214).

2.4.4 Challenges of Aquaponic Systems

Aquaponic operations require significant capital investments, energy sources and specialized operators, all of which can be challenging to obtain and maintain (Rakocy et al., 2006: 2). In order to make a profit, fish and plant growth should both be continuously near maximum production rates (Rakocy et al., 2006: 2). As the optimal levels of pH are different for fish and plants, it is challenging to grow both in optimal conditions simultaneously (Kloas et al., 2015: 180). Fish and aerobic bacteria (nitrifying bacteria) are grown in optimum pH levels of ~7 to 9 and hydroponic plants typically grow well in pH levels of 5.8 to 6.2 (Rakocy et al., 2006; Kloas et al., 2015: 180).

In addition to ideal growing conditions, access to niche markets may be necessary in order to make a profit (Rakocy et al., 2006: 2), which may limit where operators can establish facilities. Plant species chosen for cultivation in an aquaponic system are those that have a lower nutrient requirement, including herbs and lettuce (Kloas et al., 2015: 180). A higher than average feed conversion ratio can occur in aquaponic systems to raise the nitrogen waste levels (Kloas et al., 2015: 180). Increasing feed usage has environmental impacts, discussed in other sections, and increases expenses.

2.4 Diffusion of Aquaponics and Biofloc in Aquaculture

2.5.1 Adopting Innovation

An innovation is a new practice, or is perceived as new (Rogers, 2003: 12). The perception of the innovation can be new in terms of knowledge, persuasion or deciding to adopt it (Rogers, 2003: 12). Rogers (2003) discusses basic diffusion models for innovations, including diffusion of agricultural innovations. Rogers’ (2003) innovation-decision process is used as a way to understand adoption practices and it is used in this thesis to understand stages of adoption and what may influence facilities to implement biofloc and aquaponics systems.

The first stages of an innovation-decision process were conceptualized by Ryan and Gross in 1943 (Rogers, 2003: 169); Rogers presents a more recent model of the innovation-decision process beginning in 1962. According to Rogers (2003: 20) there are five main steps in the innovation-decision process; (i) knowledge, (ii) persuasion, (iii) decision, (iv) implementation and (v) confirmation (figure 15) (Rogers, 2003: 20). The first stage in the innovation-decision process is where the individual is introduced to the existence of the innovation and learns how it works (Rogers, 2003: 169). Persuasion occurs when an opinion is made (favourable or unfavourable) regarding the innovation (Rogers, 2003: 21). In this stage, the decision maker wants to know the advantages and disadvantages of the innovations for their specific situation (Rogers, 2003: 21). The decision stage involves activities that lead to a choice to either adopt or reject the innovation (Rogers, 2003: 169). Implementation occurs when the new idea is used and finally confirmation involves seeking further knowledge to support or oppose the adoption Rogers, 2003: 169, 189).

Perceived attributes of innovations influence adoption and are important components of the decision process (Rogers, 2003: 12). Adopters who perceive an innovation as having a greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability and observability and less complexity will adopt that innovation more rapidly than other innovations (figure 16) (Rogers, 2003: 16). This thesis examined some of the perceived attributes of aquaponic and biofloc systems, as these qualities are the most significant in explaining the rate of adoption, according to past research (Rogers, 2003: 17).

Figure 15. Simplified model of Rogers innovation-decision process (adapted from Rogers, 2003: 170)

Eatmon et al. (2013: 202) found Rogers’ framework useful to understand the adoption of aquaponics in the United States Great Lakes Region. The discussion section of this thesis compares Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation literature and the research of Eatmon et al. (2013) to the results of this thesis involving the perception and willingness to adopt biofloc and aquaponic systems in Canada.

Figure 16. Influences on innovation adoption (Rogers, 2003: 16)

2.5.2 History of Biofloc and Aquaponics in Canada

Commercial biofloc and aquaponic systems are relatively new practices in the aquaculture industry in Canada. Commercial aquaponic operations increased in number in Canada in the 1990s (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 839). These facilities often produced high-value crops, including trout and lettuce (Turcios & Papenbrock, 2014: 839). In this thesis, the majority of aquaponic facilities have been in operation for fewer than five years. Aquaponic operations are expected to increase in number in Canada (Chopin, 2015). Biofloc is a system that is even less utilized in Canada, to the researchers’ knowledge there are less than five known commercial operations in Canada and one facility began operation within the past year.

2.5.3 Research Purpose

Using qualitative research methods, this research seeks to contribute to the literature on commercial aquaponic production and the motivations for adopting aquaponic and biofloc systems. There have not been many studies involving commercial aquaponic operations (Love et al., 2015: 67) nor many studies that have involved the adoption and diffusion of aquaponics as a method for sustainable agriculture (Eatmon et al., 2013: 197). Therefore, this thesis research contributes to the limited literature on commercial aquaponic production (Love et al., 2015: 67) as well as the limited studies on the adoption of aquaponic (Eatmon et al., 2013: 197) and biofloc systems. This thesis will determine:

i) at what stage are aquaculture facilities in adopting aquaponic and biofloc systems? ii) what are the incentives and barriers to adopting aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada? iii) what may influence aquaculture owners’ to adopt aquaponic and biofloc systems and why did operators decide to implement aquaponics?

This research will assist the need to spread information throughout the aquaponic community by sharing this dissertation with all participants and industry professionals, as well as individuals who expressed interest in this research. This dissertation provides an opportunity for the aquaculture and aquaponic industry to locate other facilities as a publically accessible list of all facilities in Canada is not available. This research also provides recommendations and experiences from the aquaponic community in Canada.

Chapter 3 Research Methods

3.1 Geographic Location

To address the research questions in this thesis, aquaculture and aquaponic facilities and government representatives were recruited from all provinces and territories that had aquaculture operations (the Northwest Territories and Nunavut were not included because there was no aquaculture or aquaponic facilities in these territories to the researchers’ knowledge) (DFO, 2012; CAIA, 2015). As there were no biofloc operations in Canada, to the researchers’ knowledge at the time of recruiting participants, international scientists in the biofloc field were interviewed.

3.2 Study Population

This research involved participants from the following four categories; owners/operators of commercial aquaculture facilities in Canada; owners/operators of commercial aquaponic facilities in Canada; international biofloc experts; and Canadian government officials at the provincial and territorial levels. The number of participants that participated in this research from each participant group can be seen in table 4.

Participant Group Number of Participants

Commercial Aquaculture Facilities 10 (Owner/Operator)

Commercial Aquaponic Facilities 20 (Owner/Operator)

Government Officials 8

Biofloc Experts 4

Table 4. Interview Participants

3.3 Sample Size

The number of participants contacted to participate in this research and the response rates can be seen in table 5. More details about each participant group is discussed below.

Participant Group Number of Number of Response Rate Participants Participants Contacted

Commercial Aquaculture 10 79 12.7% Facilities (Owner/Operator)

Commercial Aquaponic 20 33 60.6% Facilities (Owner/Operator)

Government Officials 8 10 80%

Biofloc Experts 4 16 25%

Table 5. Participant Sample Size and Response Rate

Commercial Aquaculture Participants There were over 900 aquaculture establishments in Canada (in 2014) (DFO, 2015b: 3). Due to time constraints, the focus of this research narrowed the sample size to aquaculture license holders that operate land-based commercial aquaculture facilities producing food for human consumption. For the purpose of this research, commercial aquaculture was defined as companies that operate to make an income; therefore, hobby farms were not included in the sample. This research included land-based aquaculture facilities that operated flow-through or recirculating systems, including hatchery and grow-out operations. Companies that operated only open-water, net pen aquaculture were not included in the sample as the methods of biofloc and aquaponics were not currently applicable for these methods of aquaculture production.

It was difficult to identify the number of land-based aquaculture companies in Canada, as there was no available national database containing all aquaculture license holders. This posed a challenge to identify and contact potential participants. Some provincial websites (Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia) had available information regarding the name of aquaculture license holders in their province. These lists were a useful starting point to identify potential participants, however; most of the lists were not up to date and did not contain contact information. In addition to these challenges, provinces that had lists did not distinguish the aquaculture production method the license holders used. Seventy-nine aquaculture facilities relevant to this study were confirmed. Participants who were introduced to the author by government officials, other aquaculture operators or were on-line were included in this study.

Commercial Aquaponic Participants The aquaponic participants in this research were commercial facilities. Similar to Love et al., 2015 (68), commercial aquaponic participants were defined as facilities that sell fish or plants (or both) that have been grown in an aquaponic system. Facilities that were in construction and planned to be a commercial operation were also included in this research. It was difficult to identify the sample size of commercial aquaponic companies in Canada, as there was no publicly available national database containing all aquaponic companies. From research and communication with government officials from every province and territory in Canada, thirty- four commercial aquaponic facilities were identified.

Participants Knowledgeable About Biofloc The sample size of biofloc experts consisted of participants who had experience researching or working with biofloc systems. Participants with biofloc experience in temperate regions and indoor systems were contacted as their experience would be the most relevant to biofloc systems in Canada and would provide more insight into the potential benefits and challenges of biofloc systems in Canada. Biofloc experts were identified through academic, government and aquaculture association literature. This purposive sampling method, used in qualitative studies, was selected for the relevance to the research question (Schwandt, 2007: 270) to gain a better understanding of the feasibility of implementing biofloc systems in Canada through primary research of the opinions of biofloc experts. The criterion of purposive sampling consisted of

41 specialist knowledge (Oliver & Jupp, 2006: 245) of biofloc systems, based on literature published in the field.

Government Participants The sample of government participants included Canadian government officials from all ten provinces and Yukon. The Northwest Territories and Nunavut did not have aquaculture or aquaponic operations (DFO, 2014a) to the author’s knowledge, and were therefore not included in this research. The government officials included individuals knowledgeable about aquaculture in their province; participants were found online from provincial websites. Participants included individuals from the following provincial ministries and departments; Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture; Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ); Direction des affaires législatives et des permis Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs; Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques (MDDELCC); Manitoba Agriculture; Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment; Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture and two departments in Newfoundland.

Interviews inquired about aquaculture regulations and funding in each province and territory. One representative from each of the ten provinces and the Yukon Territory was contacted by e- mail. Additional participants from the same province were involved in this study when participants felt it was important for a colleague to provide insight.

3.4 Interview Questions

This section reviews the interview questions that participants were asked. A full list of interview questions is provided in Appendix F to I.

Aquaculture Facilities Aquaculture facility owners and operators were asked questions about current operations including species raised, waste management methods, community involvement, finances and the number of years in operation. Participants were also asked about their awareness of aquaponic and biofloc systems, compatibility of facilities with both systems and what would influence facilities to implement either system.

Aquaponic Facilities Owners of aquaponic facilities were asked a variety of questions about their operations, including fish and plant species raised, reasons for species chosen, challenges of aquaponic systems, community involvement and finances. Participants were also asked about their experience in the aquaponic industry (including training), recommendations for people interested in aquaponics and their opinion of aquaponics in Canada.

Experts in the Biofloc Field Academics with experience in biofloc systems were asked questions about their experiences including species raised, expenses, challenges and benefits of the system. Participants were also asked their opinion of biofloc systems in Canada.

Provincial Government Employees Provincial government employees involved in aquaculture licensing and regulations were asked about permits required, species restrictions, funding opportunities for aquaculture facilities to implement aquaponic and biofloc systems and limitations to implement either system.

3.5 Recruitment Strategy

All of the participants selected for this research fall into categories where internet usage is close to 100 percent: government officials, college and university faculty, and members of business and professional organizations (Guppy & Gray, 2008: 136). Therefore, initial participant contact occurred by e-mail to obtain agreement to participate in a telephone interview. Initial contact e- mails contained a description and intent of this study, the consent details if participants chose to participate and the interview questions. This initial e-mail also provided the foundation for snowball sampling, as this e-mail indicated that recipients could forward the e-mail to others in the industry that may be willing to participate.

E-mail was chosen as the first method of contact as it is the least intrusive approach and can be opened and answered by recipients at their convenience (James, 2006: 298). One hundred and thirty-eight people were contacted for this research and forty-two people participated. Potential participants who did not respond after one week were sent a follow up e-mail. In cases with no response after two weeks, a phone call was made to inquire if participants were interested in the study. For many aquaculture participants there was no e-mail available, therefore many of the recruitment and initial contact for aquaculture participants occurred over the phone.

Interview lengths varied from approximately thirty minutes to almost two hours, depending on the depth of participant answers. The average interview length was approximately one hour. Eight participants preferred to respond by e-mail or mail, instead of participating in a telephone interview, with the option to follow up with any questions that required further clarity on the phone. One participant preferred to discuss the research questions on Skype. Prior to every interview, consent was obtained verbally, by e-mail or mail, indicating that they read and understood the details of participation according to the University of Toronto Ethics Board and that the participants agree to be recorded during the interview for the sole purpose of the researcher being able to record their answers accurately. Participants who consented to participate in the interview received an ethics approved recruitment letter describing the research, purpose of the study, instructions of what they were being asked to do, how their information would be used and that they would have the opportunity to ask the researcher questions prior to the interview (University of Toronto (UofT), 2010). A sentence in the consent

44 details explained that participants could contact the Office of Research Ethics at [email protected] or 416-946-3273, if they had questions about their rights as participants (UofT, 2010). Participants were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.

3.6 Data Collection Method

The interviews, recruitment strategy and data collection methodology were approved by the University of Toronto Ethics Board. Telephone interviews were chosen for this research as an effective method to explore the opinion of participants. Telephone interviews are a time and cost efficient research method as well as effective for accessing participants within a large geographic area (Guppy & Gray, 2008: 149; Alreck & Settle, 1995: 38). Interviews over the telephone were also considered the best way to contact government officials to receive a detailed response (Guppy & Gray, 2008: 149). Interviews are recommended for more complex information collection (Guppy & Gray, 2008: 149), therefore telephone interviews were conducted to understand the motivations of aquaculture and aquaponic operators, gain expert opinions about biofloc systems and receive information from government officials regarding complex issues of regulations and funding opportunities. Interviews contained closed and open-ended questions; open-ended questions are included to explore new and changing areas (Bryman et al., 2012: 83), such as implementing a new technology (biofloc systems). Open-ended questions are important for this research to engage in participant knowledge (for example aquaculture operators’ awareness of biofloc technology), understand issues as well as to include responses outside the knowledge of the researcher (Bryman et al., 2012: 83). The analysis of open questions provides added depth and richness to the data set (Julien, 2008: 847).

The author was unable to find previous interview or survey literature regarding motivations to implement aquaponic and biofloc systems apart from Love et al.’s (2014, 2015) international survey of aquaponic practitioners and Eatmon, Piso and Schmitt’s (2013) case studies on factors influencing the adoption of commercial aquaponics in the Great Lakes region.

Love et al. 2014 (2) indicated that they were unable to find a survey tool to use for their study

45 regarding motivations and practices of aquaponic practitioners. Therefore, findings from Love et al. (2014, 2015) were utilized to assist in the formulation of some of the interview questions. For example, some of the motivating factors of aquaponic owners were compiled and used to see if the same motivating factors would be applicable to aquaponics in Canada. Love et al. (2015: 68) conducted a survey to document the production methods, crop and fish yields, and profitability of commercial aquaponics in the United States and internationally. This research contributed to the limited literature on commercial aquaponics but it left out the motivating factors for the implementation of commercial aquaponic systems. Love et al. (2014) discussed the experiences and motivations of participants involved with aquaponics, in addition to production methods and demographics. These results are relevant to this thesis as their findings identify aquaponic owner’s motivations to implement the system. In the study by Love et al. (2014, 2015), eighty percent of the participants were from the United States and 10 commercial aquaponic respondents were from Canada. I was not able to identify if the respondents who were surveyed in Canada were the same as those whom I interviewed, since Love et al. (2014: 2) included participants that sold aquaponic related materials, but were not aquaponic owners; this differs from the inclusion criteria for this thesis. The interviews conducted for this thesis included 20 commercial aquaponic facilities that either sold the fish or plants that were produced (or both) as well as facilities that were in construction and planned to be commercial facilities in Canada.

Interview Analysis Interviews were recorded and transcribed in Microsoft Word. Responses were combined or grouped with similar answers to understand common themes (Bryman et al., 2012: 83; Guppy & Gray, 2008: 184; Cope, 2005: 231). Organizing responses were done by hand and through NVivo. Basic principles for coding, identified by Bryman and Cramer (2004) were followed; categories did not overlap, categories covered all possibilities, and clear rules ensured consistency (Bryman et al., 2012: 84). A codebook contained how responses were combined and included categories for missing information or unanswered questions (Guppy & Gray, 2008: 185). Random error-checking throughout the coding process ensured minimal errors occurred in data analysis, including re-coding random samples, ensuring the number of responses correlated with the number of participants, double checking data-entry and original responses (Guppy & Gray, 2008: 191).

Chapter 4 Interview Results

4.1 Commercial Aquaculture Participants

Interviews with commercial aquaculture facilities provided insight into the stage of adoption, motivations and barriers to adopting aquaponic and biolfoc systems in Canada. The criteria for aquaculture participants in this research included land-based aquaculture facilities in operation to sell fish for human consumption. Facilities included nurseries, hatcheries, recirculating and flow through facilities. Fifteen aquaculture facilities participated in this study; five had a pilot aquaponic system and are not included in this section, as they are included in the aquaponic participant section. Three more aquaculture facilities with aquaponic experience, or undergoing construction at the time of the interview, were involved in this study. This was unknown before the interview and they have been included in the commercial aquaculture section. The discussion chapter will provide more information on the characteristics and qualities of all of the aquaculture participants with aquaponic systems.

4.1.1 Aquaculture Facility Location and Production

Ten aquaculture facilities participated in this section of the research. Aquaculture facilities were located in six provinces, seen in figure 17. Seven companies have been in operation between nine and thirty years, while three companies began operating more recently, between three and five years ago. Eight companies had a recirculating facility or partial recirculating system. One of the two companies that did not have a recirculating component to their operation indicated they had some interest in adopting a recirculating operation.

Newfoundland and Labrador 10% Nova Scotia 10% British Columbia 40% Ontario 10%

Alberta 10%

Manitoba 20%

Figure 17. Location of Aquaculture Facilities Interviewed

Aquaculture companies were growing ten different species, see figure 18, including trout (rainbow, brown and speckled), Arctic char, salmon (Coho, Atlantic, Sockeye, Chinook), eel and tilapia.

4 Trout (rainbow, brown, speckled) 3 Arctic char

2 Salmon (Coho, Chinook, Sockeye, Atlantic) 1 Eel

0 Tilapia

NumberofFacilities Trout Arctic char Salmon Eel Tilapia (rainbow, (Coho, brown, Chinook, speckled) Sockeye, Atlantic)

Species

Figure 18. Species Raised in Aquaculture Facilities (some facilities raise more than one species)

Five participants said they would consider growing another species in the future, especially if there was a market for it. Species that aquaculture facilities were interested in growing included white sturgeon, shrimp, barramundi, tilapia, char, bass, perch, trout and species in the salmon family. One facility specifically said they were interested in a species that can work with biofloc and aquaponics.

4.1.2 Stage of Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponics

This study found aquaponics to have potential in the aquaculture industry, as eight of the fifteen aquaculture facilities interviewed already had an aquaponic system, were in the process of constructing a system or have had experience with the system. These facilities with aquaponic systems were at the final three stages of Rogers’ innovation-decision model: decision, implementation and confirmation (figure 19). The remaining seven aquaculture facilities seem to have been at the beginning two stages of the innovation-decision model (knowledge and persuasion) since facilities were not knowledgeable about the system and were unaware of the potential benefits aquaponics could provide. For example, one facility owner said that they were unsure what plants could grow at their facility, another facility specified that the “commercial viability would have to be proven” before deciding to adopt the system. To move through the decision process, these facilities require more information about the system to make a decision to adopt it or not. The following results in this section focus on the responses from the ten aquaculture facilities that did not have an aquaponic system at the time of the interview, the additional five aquaculture facilities with aquaponic systems are discussed in the commercial aquaponic section.

Figure 19. Stage of aquaculture facilities to adopt aquaponics systems in Rogers (2003) innovation-decision process

4.1.3 Stage of Aquaculture Facilities to Implement a Biofloc System

Aquaculture facilities in this study were at the first two stages of Rogers’ innovation-decision model: knowledge and persuasion (figure 20) as nine of the ten aquaculture participants were not familiar with the biofloc system and were unaware of the potential benefits biofloc could provide. The visibility and knowledge of biofloc in Canada appears limited as only one aquaculture facility was aware of an operating biofloc system and no aquaculture facility was aware of a biofloc system in Canada. Some facilities never heard of the biofloc system before the interview, one facility said; “I hadn't thought about much until you asked about it, so it might be something we can look at”. These aquaculture facilities require more information about biofloc systems to make a decision to adopt it or not.

Figure 20. Stage of aquaculture facilities to adopt biofloc systems in Rogers (2003) innovation-decision process

4.1.4 Incentives for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc

Relative Advantage Innovations that are perceived as having an advantage are adopted faster; the greater the perceived advantage, the higher the adoption rate (Rogers, 2003: 15). In this study, having a financial or economic advantage was the primary incentive for aquaculture facilities to implement aquaponic and biofloc systems. One facility expressed the importance of economics saying, “got to have a profit or else it doesn't work”.

All aquaculture participants said they would be interested in an aquaponic or biofloc system if it could provide a financial benefit to their facility, particularly if it saved their facility money. In addition to financial benefits, eight of ten facilities would be more interested in an aquaponic or biofloc system if there was funding to defray costs for facility changes.

An increase in the price of fish feed could be a potential influence for facilities to alter their business practices to offset costs. Nine out of ten facilities said feed was one of the highest operating expenses in aquaculture and eight facilities were concerned about fish feed prices increasing in the future. One facility said that they were concerned because “it’s (fish feed) been going up, I think it went up about 25% when we started, so that’s a pretty high cost. We started in 06/07”. The potential to reuse the nutrients from aquaculture effluent to make a profit growing plants with aquaponics or have an additional food source with a biofloc system could provide a financial incentive for aquaculture facilities to adopt aquaponics or biofloc. However, an increase in the price of fish feed price did not appear to be a significant incentive for aquaculture facilities in this study to implement either system. Only four of ten facilities would consider looking into aquaponics if prices continued to increase and even fewer facilities (two) said they would consider looking at a biofloc system.

Piloting Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems Since most innovations are not adopted unless they have been tried or tested (Rogers, 2003: 177), aquaculture facilities were asked about their willingness to pilot both an aquaponic and biofloc system to see the potential for adoption in Canada. Eight of ten facilities expressed some level of interest in piloting an aquaponic system; including one facility that was building an aquaponic system at the time of the interview. Only half of the aquaculture facilities would consider looking at piloting a biofloc system. To learn more about what might motivate facilities to pilot both systems, participants were asked a series of questions.

The two most prevalent incentives, after having an economic benefit, for aquaculture facilities to pilot both an aquaponic and biofloc system were: if the system was completely paid for by someone else and if the system was de-coupled from their aquaculture facility system and did not affect the operation. Having the aquaponic system de-coupled from the original aquaculture operation was essential for facilities to consider adoption; facilities expressed that it would be “a requirement to have it separate”, “probably definitely be a requirement, I couldn't mess around with the productive system, if it doesn't go well, it definitely screws the bottom line” and having a de-coupled system would “address the issue regarding the production cycle”. Participants were asked if they would be willing to pilot an aquaponic and biofloc system if it

52 was a partnership or managed by another company that had experience. A partnership did influence some facilities; five participants favoured a partnership while the other five said it would not influence them. This incentive varied between facilities as some facilities specified they “never work in partnerships” whereas other facilities said a partnership “would be a significant learning opportunity” and they would “actually prefer that (a partnership) just because of time” and “if it does not have a cost to the operation”. Therefore, the expansion of aquaponics and biofloc within aquaculture facilities could occur if more partnerships were available.

The benefits of aquaponic and biofloc systems were discussed with aquaculture facilities and facilities were asked if these benefits would affect their decision to pilot either system. The most prevalent benefits facilities said would motivate them to pilot either system were: if the system could reduce nutrient levels in the water (including nitrate, nitrite and ammonia), if the system could increase the efficiency of fish feed, supplement the cost of fish feed and provide an additional food and protein source.

Seven of the ten facilities were interested in the following other benefits aquaponics and biofloc could provide: reduce thirty percent of their water treatment expenses, reduce the amount of water exchange, assist with maintaining the temperature of the water, decrease the time to clean filters and decrease the requirement of external filters.

4.1.5 Barriers for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems

Lack of knowledge appears to be the largest barrier among aquaculture facilities to adopting aquaponic and biofloc systems. All facilities expressed concerns about not knowing enough about each system before adding it to their current operation. Limited knowledge of the systems included concerns about controlling water temperature, monitoring the system, biosecurity, the cost, not having an adequate return on investment and being unfamiliar with the system. Facilities were unfamiliar with aquaponics and were not sure what plants would grow well in the

53 water from their facility, for example one facility said; I was just wondering what plants would do good, let’s say, in a water temperature of eight to ten degrees celsuis. I don’t know anything about it. I have not really done any research on them (aquaponic systems). Our water is pretty cool and I don’t think it will make sense for us to grow anything in this cold water.

Another barrier discussed with aquaculture facilities was the lack of awareness of aquaculture regulations involving both systems, participants mentioned concerns about licensing, ministry involvement and the regulatory process required to adopt an aquaponic system. Aquaculture regulations vary provincially and can be a potential barrier due to the complexity of governance. Regulations in Canada involve two levels of governance, sometimes three, with various departments and agencies at each level (SSFO, 2015a: 2). There is often confusion around provincial and federal responsibilities of aquaculture as well as statutes involved as responsibilities overlap and statutes were not created to involve aquaculture but is often applied to the industry (Newfoundland and Labrador DFFA, 2016; SSCFO, 2015a: 2). Restrictions on the species that are allowed to be raised in aquaculture also vary provincially. Species restrictions can be a potential barrier if facilities would like to grow a species in aquaponics that is not on the list of acceptable species to raise in the province. Some species can be added to the list of species allowed to be raised in aquaculture, but this can also be a complex process, as one facility explained; the “licensing of new species or other species is a major undertaking, I've lost track of dealing with red tape and governments”.

Other concerns aquaculture facilities had about adopting an aquaponic and biofloc system included initial costs, time requirements and energy costs. Since electricity was the second most prevalent expense identified by aquaculture facilities in this research, this could be a barrier to adding an additional system onto current facilities as an aquaponic or biofloc operation would add to one of the largest production expenses. One facility said, “to become more electrically dependent is not something we would want to do because we already spend over $200 000 a year on hydro”. Another aquaculture facility expressed the following concerns about energy: Especially in Canada, or where we are anyways, winter time is a bit of an issue. It’s cold and the energy consumption is relatively huge for a system, we just have a small system

right now, but if you scale that up, the heat source required is going to be quite large unless you pair it with something that's already discharging heat or has waste heat.

Compatibility Innovations that are not perceived as not being compatible with existing values and norms will not be adopted as quickly as innovations that are perceived as being compatible (Rogers: 2003: 15). This was the case for four facilities that said that aquaponics did not coincide with the values and goals of their company, facilities explained “it (aquaponics) is not our core business”, “it’s a separate business” and “it would take off focus of business plan”.

The compatibility of biofloc with aquaculture operations is an important barrier in Canada. This is a significant concern as nine of the ten facilities were raising a species that was not compatible with a traditional biofloc system at the time of the interview and no facility said that biofloc was compatible with their aquaculture facility. Physical compatibility with biofloc systems was a concern expressed by four facilities. Traditional biofloc systems have biofloc accumulation in the same water as the fish. This system requires species that are able to thrive in water with a high amount of suspended solids and that can consume flocs and receive nutritional benefit from this consumption (Hargreaves, 2013: 3). Shrimp, tilapia and carp are the most common species used in biofloc systems (Hargreaves, 2013: 3).

4.1.6 Potential Influences for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems

Relative Advantage Since social status associations may also influence the perceived relative advantage of an innovation (Eatmon et al., 2013: 202), participants were asked if receiving recognition was important to their company. Although all nine of the respondents agreed that their company utilized environmentally sustainable practices, only three facilities said it was a goal of their company to receive recognition for being environmentally sustainable. Therefore, receiving

55 social recognition for using aquaponic and biofloc systems does not appear to be a significant influence to adopt either system.

Understanding how an innovation functions and forming an opinion of the innovation comprise the initial two stages of deciding to adopt an innovation (Rogers, 2003: 20). Participants were asked about their interest in learning more about aquaponic and biofloc systems, the first step in the decision process. Seven facilities had an interest in taking a course in both aquaponic and biofloc systems, and eight facilities were interested if there were funding for the course. All participants would be influenced to take a course if there was funding available for a third of the course fees, half the course fees and all of the course fees for a typical course costing approximately $1500.

Another method to learn the potential benefits of innovations is through consultations and conversations with those familiar with the innovation. Facilities were asked if they would be interested in having a consultant evaluate their facility. Seven participants said this would interest them and that they would be interested if there was funding for the consultant. Participants were told that typical consultation costs are approximately $2000. Participants said they would be influenced if there was funding for between half and a hundred percent of the consultation costs. One facility said there was no specific amount but if funding was available, they would be interested in it.

Compatibility Innovations are adopted faster when they are perceived as being compatible with the existing values and needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 2003: 15). Compatibility with the values and goals of aquaculture facilities was the most important influence found in this study for potential adoption of aquaponic and biofloc systems. Six facilities said that aquaponics did, or could, coincide with the values and goals of their company. Seven facilities indicated that community awareness was important to their company for reasons including education and market awareness. Aquaponics is a system that coincides with community engagement and can be used for education and marketing. Of the ten participants, one was busy and did not answer all the questions, therefore some of the following results include only nine facilities. All nine

56 respondents indicated that they were involved in contributing to their local community. Six participants hosted community events or planned to in the future. In addition to providing tours and educational events, facilities were also involved in charity events and supplied fish for community events. Six of ten facilities said that contributing plants to a food bank or community kitchen would be of interested to them. Aquaculture facilities that have compatible values and goals of community engagement, contributing plants to a food bank or community kitchen could be more interested in implementing aquaponics.

In this research, all of the facilities that were interested in adopting aquaponic systems perceived aquaponics to be environmentally sustainable and were also interested in environmentally sustainable practices. Therefore, other facilities in Canada interested in environmentally sustainable practices and perceive aquaponics and biofloc systems as being environmentally sustainable may be more willing to adopt these systems.

Participants were asked about the compatibility of aquaponics with existing aquaculture facilities as Alonge and Martin (1995: 38) found the most important influence of adopting sustainable practices is the compatibility with existing practices. There is potential for aquaponic adoption within the facilities interviewed, as well as other facilities in Canada, as eight of ten aquaculture facilities said that aquaponics was or could be compatible with their facility.

4.2 Commercial Aquaponic Participants

Interviews with commercial aquaponic facilities provided insight into the aquaponic industry in Canada including species raised, years of operation, recommendations and the potential of aquaponics in Canada in the future. Interviews also provided insight into the motivation for the adoption of aquaponic systems, barriers in the industry and the potential for aquaponic facilities to adopt biofloc systems. Aquaponic participants in this research were commercial facilities. Similar to Love et al. (2015, 68), commercial aquaponic participants were defined as facilities that sell fish or plants (or both) that have been grown in an aquaponic system. Commercial facilities that were in construction were also included in this research. From research and communication with government officials from every province and territory in Canada, thirty- four commercial aquaponic facilities were identified in Canada during this study. Of the thirty- four facilities identified and contacted in Canada, twenty agreed to participate in this research.

4.2.1 Aquaponic Facility Location and Production

Twenty aquaponic facilities participated in this section of the research. Aquaponic facilities were located in six provinces, seen in figure 21. Only seven facilities were initially built to be

Saskatchewan 10% New Brunswick 5%

British Columbia Ontario 50% 25%

Alberta 5% Manitoba 5%

Figure 21. Location of Aquaponic Facilities

58 aquaponic operations. The majority of aquaponic operations, including pilot systems, were added onto pre-existing aquaculture operations, built inside former greenhouses or inside buildings.

All of the participants were, or planned to be, involved in commercial activities selling their products. Participants operated their aquaponic facility as for-profit operations, or had plans to, except the community engagement facility. Twelve participants sold both the fish and plants they produced (or planned to), while six participants sold only the plants and the remaining facilities only sold the fish at the time of the interview.

When asked about the main source of revenue, or expected revenue, eight participants responded that they made most of the money from selling the plants, four participants indicated they made the most money from the fish, and four participants made money from both the fish and plants. One respondent did not indicate his or her revenue source, while another respondent was a community engagement facility. Some participants identified various sources of income in addition to aquaponics. Four participants expressed interest in not-for-profit work.

Species Grown in Aquaponics in Canada Facilities were asked about species grown in aquaponics in Canada, to learn about the industry and the potential for the future of aquaponics. Participants had experience growing eleven aquatic species. Of the eleven aquatic species raised for production and pilot tests, tilapia was the most commonly grown (nine facilities). Rainbow trout and koi were the second most common species, raised by four facilities respectively. All crustacean and fish species that facilities have been raised in aquaponics are shown in table 6. Species raised in aquaponics were primarily chosen for their hardiness and temperature tolerance. The second most common reason was for economic value and marketability. Participants discussed other reasons for species selection including; “research led us to tilapia”, “tilapia was also used often in aquaponics due to their fast growth rate”, “tilapia has been the most commonly used fish in aquaponics, so we went with them”, “you have to go within the ones (species) that are legal”, “quite durable fish”, “tilapia are edible”, “I wanted to stick with the species that I knew a lot more about”, “because they (fish) were easier for us to source”, “extremely hardy to a lot of cold weather temperatures” and “already producing (the fish species)”. One facility explained their species selection was

because they are native to the area and also their peak environmental temperature - the temperature at which the peak metabolic rate occurs is 15 degrees Celsius, which happens to coincide with our mean median temperature. So 15 degrees means that if we keep our water at 15 degrees, it means my heat pumps and everything will have to work the least to keep the water at that temperature.

Species with the qualities mentioned above may be more likely to be raised in aquaponic systems in future facilities in Canada. Thirteen facilities expressed an interest in producing other species of fish or crustaceans, expanding the potential of the industry in Canada.

Tilapia Coho salmon White sturgeon Rainbow trout/steelhead Blue gill Signal crayfish Salmon Rock bass Goldfish Koi Pumpkinseed

Table 6. Crustacean and Fish Species Tried in Aquaponics in Canada

When asked what plants participants had experience growing in aquaponics, fifteen participants said they grew a variety of leafy greens and herbs/botanicals. Not including varieties of herbs, the three most common crops produced by participants were varieties of lettuce (thirteen participants), kale (six participants) and Swiss chard (six participants). See table 7 for a list of all plants participants have grown in their aquaponic systems, to varying degrees of success. Nineteen facilities were interested in growing other species of plants from those that they were producing. Since all facilities except one were interested in growing other species of plants, there appears to be potential for the aquaponic industry to expand species that are raised in Canada.

Arugula Green beans Spinach Beets Kale Squash Bok choy Mesclun Swiss chard Cilantro Mustard greens Tomatoes Chives Onions Wasabi Cucumber Parsley Watercress Dill Peas Zucchini Duckweed Peppers Varieties of mint Eggplant Red dandelion Varieties of basil Endive Sorrel Varieties of lettuce

Table 7. Plant Species Tried in Aquaponics in Canada

4.2.2 Stage of Aquaponic Facilities in Canada

Thirteen participants self-identified as commercial facilities. Some indicated that they consider their facility a small-scale commercial operation or semi-commercial, one facility did not consider itself commercial although it sold to the public and to grocery stores. One facility indicated that it planned to be a commercial venture, but considered itself more of a community engagement education center and would have to increase the scale of its operations in order to be commercially viable. The remaining facilities were in construction or had a pilot operation and planned to be a commercial operation; five of these participants were aquaculture companies with a pilot aquaponic operation.

Participants were asked at the time of the interview how many years of experience they had in the aquaponic field, including training, research and pilot tests. All participants except two had five years or fewer in the aquaponic field, with the average time of experience being 2.42 years. Of the two participants having more than five years of experience, one participant had eighteen years of experience, while the second participant did not disclose the length of experience.

4.2.3 Incentives to Implement Aquaponics

Aquaponic facilities were asked what influenced them to pilot an aquaponic system. Almost half (nine participants) responded that the reason they decided to pilot aquaponics was to learn about the system. For example participants said; the “pilot project gave us all indications about data, about scale, and business plan”, “allowed us to figure out how to make the system work better”, “we wanted to improve the systems of the fish. We thought we better start with something small and see if it works”, and to “drive out a bunch of business data over the last two years to see if it's feasible”.

Eighteen of the twenty aquaponic participants had a pilot system before adopting a larger system, which aligns with Rogers’ (2003: 177) concept that most innovations are not adopted unless they have been tried or tested. Half the respondents identified having some source of external funding to assist with their pilot aquaponic systems, which may have increased the rate of adoption. Seven participants had both internal and external funding from various sources and to varying degrees. For example, some participants received funding for labour and an internship; others received full funding from a university program. Having access to external funding may be an important incentive to adopt a pilot aquaponic system.

Relative Advantage Innovations are adopted faster if they are perceived as having an advantage for the adopter (Rogers, 2003: 15). Participants that already raised fish indicated they piloted aquaponics in order to improve their existing system. Over half of the companies said conservation, reuse of water and reuse of waste were major benefits to aquaponics. Just over a quarter of the companies indicated other benefits including the fast growth of plants (six participants), growing organic or better than organic products (seven participants) and growing food in an environmentally friendly system (seven participants). Participants describe the benefit of aquaponics as being adaptable and explained aquaponics as an “incredibly versatile system - you can scale up or down or design to your space”, “you can farm this technology anywhere in the world as long as you have an electrical source”, “you can set up an aquaponics system anywhere. You're not dependent upon dirt, quality of dirt or land” and “it's local sustainable food that we're able to grow without the use of fertilizers”.

Participants also describe aquaponics as a transparent food system that can be more nutritional and taste better than soil based farming. Participants explained the advantages of aquaponics as “fresh, natural, organic, healthy food”, “transparency of the food, that you know where it's coming from”, “the produce is fresh and local, no chemicals, it has a good story”, “ I just think that it's the most amazing thing, because I will know for sure that there's no contamination anywhere within the system”, “our produce when you compare it to normal soil-based basil, is a lot higher in nutrients”, “the stuff tastes better, it's healthier because it's lower in nitrates and higher than magnesium and calcium”, “I like to think that it's better than organic in a lot of ways”, “I think our stuff tastes different. It has a really unique taste to it. I think that's a little bit of that it's so fresh, we harvest one day and it's in the stores by that afternoon. So there definitely is a fresh factor”, “let them taste our produce, it's easily our best salesperson” and “the simple fact of the taste profile, superior taste and quality”. One participant explained why they perceive aquaponics as being a good organic way to produce food;

I tend to think that it's almost self-policing as far as organic levels go and the reason for that is that using really any pesticides within aquaponics will then soak into the plants. The plants then excrete some of that through the roots. That gets into the water, which then kills off the microbacteria. When the microbacteria and the microorganisms start to die, then it starts to affect the entire system, so I call it self-policing, because if you do something wrong, the system will start to shut itself down. I kind of like that factor. To some degree, I argue that it almost forces a respect for the system and a respect for the environment. It's like a feedback loop.

4.2.4 Barriers to Implement Aquaponics

Aquaponic facilities were asked about the barriers and challenges they have experienced. The most prevalent answer, fourteen respondents, discussed financial barriers including capital required for initial costs and operating expenses. One participant discussed an initial financial barrier as; The lack of other aquaponic facilities being profitable. When you have money in your account that you're looking to invest, you want to know what the return is going to be on that investment. And it's very hard right now to convince somebody to invest in

aquaponics when there's not a whole bunch - again, this will come in time, but there's not an industry out there that's profitable.

Participants also identified financial barriers for operating aquaponic facilities. Energy was one of the highest operating expenses aquaponic facilities endured (nineteen participants identified). Labour was the second most prevalent expense aquaponic facilities discussed, feed and rent were the third most common expense.

Knowledge and expertise in the aquaponic field was the second most common barrier identified, despite most of the participants (16 participants), or someone at their facility, having received formal training in aquaponics in the form of a workshop or course. One participant stated; “In this country, I think the biggest barrier is knowledge and acquiring correct knowledge, because there's so much information on the Internet, which, in my opinion, is not 100% accurate”. Another participant suggested the importance of learning and taking a course; “If more people took courses before jumping into these big ventures - and experience with time, as well- then there would be less failures in the industry”. Another participant discussed the importance of knowledge said; I would say that's (more than general knowledge) a challenge when you start it just because if you learn about it in that wonderful simple home way, then that's really neat, but once you start scaling it up, I think it needs a different knowledge base.

The third most common barrier involved resources for aquaponics, including land and a good source of water. Participants described other barriers including; labour, regulations, viable size of operation and working with a northern climate. Managing fluctuating temperatures and having a temperature that worked well for both the fish and the plants was a prevalent challenge participants had. Four participants indicated they had challenges with understanding the system, including commercial production and managing nutrient deficiencies. Other challenges aquaponic participants identified are in table 8. Although some participants indicated there were always challenges, eight participants did not share any of their challenges with growing species in aquaponics. In some cases, the respondent skipped the question in the interview, or said there

64 were no challenges or the challenges were manageable.

Challenges Faced by Aquaponic Participants

Unsuccessful at breeding Trying to not stress young Pests fish

High oxygen requirements Slow growth Managing ph levels

Disease or massive fish Growing a mature bacteria Managing humidity to deaths colony maintain plant growth

Stabilizing heat and light Designing aquaponics and Educating public and learning throughout the year greenhouse the market

Table 8. Challenges Faces by Aquaponic Participants

4.2.5 Potential Influences for Aquaculture Facilities to Implement Aquaponics

Complexity The perception of aquaponics as not being a complex system appears to be an important influence for adoption and may be significant for future adoption of the system and growth in the industry. Eighty-five percent of aquaponic facilities thought aquaponics appeared to be a less complicated system before they began operation. This perception aligns with Rogers’ (2003: 16) decision model that explains adopters who perceive an innovation as being less complex will adopt that innovation more rapidly than other innovations.

Experience Interviewees at aquaponic facilities had a variety of experiences and backgrounds before entering the aquaponic field; this suggests that future adopters may also be from diverse industries.

Facilities had experience in industries that relate to aquaponics including aquaculture and farming/gardening while just over a third of participants (seven facilities) had no previous experience in aquaponics, aquaculture or farming prior to beginning their aquaponic facility. Seventeen participants identified skills that assisted with implementing aquaponics, the top four skills are identified in table 9. Individuals and companies with experience farming/gardening, aquaculture, trades and business may be more likely to adopt aquaponic facilities, as these were the top four skills participants identified having.

Top Four Skills That Assisted Aquaponic Owners with Implementing Aquaponics

Farming or gardening experience 31.5%

Business background 26%

Aquaculture experience 26%

Experience in trades* 37%

Table 9. Top Four Skills that Assisted Aquaponic Owners with Implementing Aquaponics (*Experience in trades include construction, woodworking, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and environmental engineering)

Observability and Communication Communication with other operating aquaponic facilities appears to be an important influence before adoption of the system in Canada. Aquaculture facilities that speak with aquaponic facilities may be more willing to adopt the system. Almost all of the aquaponic participants have spoken to another aquaponic facility (eighteen of twenty participants) and all of the participants indicated that they had spoken to others in the industry for advice, or planned to for their next facility. Rogers discussed how adoption increases with the visibility of innovation results (Rogers, 2003: 16). The visibility of aquaponics and ability to contact facilities appears to be important for adoption as most facilities interviewed that adopted aquaponics have

66 communicated with others in the industry. However, there does not appear to be consistent collaboration and communication across the aquaponic industry in Canada. For example, one participant said, “we have found that the community is very small and isolated. Everyone is head down right now and trying to get their operations off the ground, but with no form of association or community of practice, we are pretty isolated from each other”. Other participants express that they “received a great deal of assistance via email or the phone from another aquaponics facility” and “it's a very transparent industry and we do collaborate with each other as much as we can”.

Compatibility Innovations are adopted faster when they are perceived as being compatible with existing values and needs of adopters (Rogers, 2003: 15). Community engagement and involvement appear to be important values and goals of aquaponic facilities as all of the facilities interviewed contributed, or planned to contribute, to the local community. About half of the participants (11 participants) provided, or planned to provide, education to the community through tours, providing advice or through speaking at events. Seven participants supported the local community by donating products to local events, fundraisers, and the food bank. Other ways companies contributed to their community included supporting and purchasing from other local businesses, providing local food, employment and volunteer opportunities, contributing to local universities and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Community awareness was identified as important to eighteen participants. Most of the participants (fourteen) said community awareness was important to educate people about their food and it was important for their market share. Others indicated that they value community and it was their mission to contribute to the community. Most participants in this study (sixteen) gave advice to others in the field, or were willing to. Many facilities gave tours of their facility and spoke to people interested in setting up their own facility, while others provided workshops. Aquaculture facilities that value community engagement may be more willing to adopt aquaponic systems as this aligns with the values and goals of many aquaponic facilities in Canada.

Relative Advantage Social status associations may also influence adoption of an innovation (Eatmon et al., 2013: 202). However, similar to the interviews with aquaculture participants, the majority of aquaponic

67 participants (fifteen participants) said it was not a goal of their company to receive recognition. Despite the majority of participants not having a goal to receive recognition, fourteen participants have experienced some form of recognition, for example receiving an award, being nominated for an award or have been written about in a newspaper. Although social recognition was not identified as being an important relative advantage for adopting aquaponics in the interviews, social recognition is prominent in the facilities interviewed and could be a relative advantage that influences future adoption.

4.2.6 Recommendations

When asked about any advice aquaponic facilities have for newcomers to the industry, the most prevalent recommendation was to gain knowledge and experience. Additional advice for newcomers to the industry included to do research, take a course, visit aquaponic facilities, speak to people with experience, get hands on experience by working at a facility, or hiring someone with experience. Other recommendations for newcomers to the aquaponics industry are in table 10.

Start small and Have a business Understand the Understand Be good at have a pilot plan market costs problem system involved solving

Understand Understand Be prepared to De-couple Have a good processes impacts of constantly improve the system to knowledge of required for the seasonal the system and fix optimize fish fish and plant system variations problems and plant growth and growth behaviour

Table 10. Recommendations for Newcomers to the Aquaponic Industry

Minimizing Challenges Fifteen participants provided suggestions to reduce challenges for aquaponics in Canada. The most common suggestion was to reduce heat and lighting costs (seven participants). Table 11 shows suggestions to reduce some challenges in aquaponics in Canada.

Use LED lights Use species that work with Use alternative sources of local conditions energy (compost, off the grid)

Increase efficiency with the Be resourceful and creative Increase efficiency and design and position of the with inputs automation greenhouse

Learn from local farmers Get the appropriate price Grow when energy costs are when selling plants the lowest

Educate the public about Use natural gas Have volunteer positions operations

Do a lot of research

Table 11. Suggestions to Reduce Challenges in Aquaponics

Recommendations for Aquaculture The majority of respondents (eighteen) recommended aquaculture facilities consider adding aquaponics to their system and first pilot an aquaponic system before implementing one. Some participants specified that it depended on the stage of the aquaculture facility, if they could afford a pilot and if the business model made sense for the operation financially. Fourteen participants said aquaponics could benefit aquaculture facilities by adding an additional revenue stream and diversifying the company; this was the most common benefit identified by participants. Table 12 shows other potential benefits.

Species Recommendations There was no consensus from participants about what species they would recommend growing in aquaponics in Canada. Eight respondents said the species they would recommend depended on the market and competition. For plant species, respondents recommended finding a high value niche market, which varies seasonally. Four respondents recommended trying various plants based on what will work well with the fish species and the nutrient profile of the water. Species recommended by some aquaponics facilities are in table 13.

Potential Benefits Aquaponics can Provide for Aquaculture Facilities

 Recover the cost of feed  Branding and changing negative images of aquaculture

 Reuse wastewater  Filter effluent

 Produce crops for the local  Ability to grow feed for omnivorous community species

Table 12. Potential Benefits Aquaponics can provide for Aquaculture Facilities

Leafy Greens* Koi Tilapia Signal Crayfish

Yellow Perch Trout White Sturgeon Goldfish

Table 13. Recommended Species to Raise in Aquaponics (*leafy greens including lettuce, Swiss chard, kale)

Learning from Current Aquaponic Facilities Seventeen participants gave a variety of descriptions of what they would change if they were to build another aquaponic facility. Twelve participants described a specific change in the design of the aquaponics system. Changes that facilities would like to make are shown in table 14.

Maximize vertical growing Build aquaponics as part of Produce koi or goldfish space the original design

Incorporate a nursery Use gravity to move the water Use sustainable energy

Take aquaculture out of the Find the right production Produce organic crops greenhouse ratio

Increase raft space Decrease the use of media Have insulation sheets on top beds of the greenhouse

Use fewer lights Less bulky infrastructure Have backup systems

Change location Decrease evaporation Have a cooler in the facility

Find a substitute for hydrogen Get assistance with building Rework heat issues in the clay pellets the system summer and heat retention in the winter

Have a drum filter Insulate the back wall of the Align greenhouse with the greenhouse sun

Table 14. Changes Recommended by Aquaponic Facilities

4.2.7 Stage of Aquaponic Facilities to Implement a Biofloc System

Aquaponic facilities were asked if they were familiar with biofloc aquaculture systems (BFT) to learn about what stage of the decision model facilities were at. Twelve respondents were not familiar, six were somewhat familiar, only two said they were familiar with biofloc systems. Facilities were at the knowledge and persuasion stage of Rogers’ decision model (figure 22), similar to aquaculture facilities interviewed in this research. Most aquaponic facilities were not knowledgeable about biofloc systems and were unaware of the potential benefits biofloc could provide. For example, participants said: “I didn’t know there were separate systems for it

(biofloc)”, “I wasn't (familiar with biofloc) until you sent an email. I'm very interested now”. One facility indicated that it already had a very similar system.

Figure 22. Stage of aquaponics facilities to adopt biofloc systems in Rogers (2003) innovation-decision process

4.2.8 Incentives, Influences and Barriers for Aquaponic Facilities to Implement a Biofloc System

The willingness of facilities to pilot a biofloc system was almost evenly divided between participants; opinions of yes, no and maybe, seen in figure 23. Learning more about the biofloc system was the most significant influence for aquaponic facilities to pilot a biofloc system. Fifteen out of twenty facilities explained they would need more information before they would pilot or implement a biofloc system, for example facilities said, “I would need to know more about this sort of a process”, “we would want to become more familiar with this first (before piloting a biofloc system)”, “I'd have to look at it, understand it, and find out more information about it before I could ever say yes or no”.

Yes 31% Maybe 37%

No 32%

Figure 23. Willingness of Aquaponic Facilities to Pilot Biofloc

Learning the benefits of a biofloc system, such as whether the system could reduce feed costs and save their facility money would also influence facilities to pilot a biofloc system. Almost half of the respondents (nine) would be interested in piloting a biofloc system if the system was paid for, if it was a partnership or if there was scientific support.

Compatibility Facilities that do not perceive biofloc systems as being compatible with their values and needs will not be adopted as often (Rogers, 2003: 15), and can be a potential barrier to adoption. One facility did not say anything would influence them to pilot a system because it did not fit their model. Concerns about compatibility with existing practices is also an important barrier for aquaponic facilities in Canada to adopt biofloc systems. For example, one facility mentioned a concern they had about the physical compatibility of a biofloc system; “if not filtered properly, large problems with suspended solid build up affect plant growth”.

4.3 Experts in the Biofloc Field Individuals with work or research experience in biofloc systems with similar conditions to Canada, such as temperate and indoor systems, were contacted to participate in this research to learn the potential of biofloc systems in Canada. Participants were asked questions about species raised, expenses, challenges and benefits of biofloc systems. Participants were also asked their opinion of biofloc systems in Canada.

Background of Participants Three of the four participants had over nine years of experience in the biofloc field and the fourth participant had approximately three years in the field. Experience of participants included indoor biofloc systems and commercial biofloc systems in temperate and tropical regions. All participants had publications on biofloc and had either taught courses, had given workshops or had presentations on biofloc systems. Participants had experience working with biofloc, conducting research, or being a part of the process of implementing biofloc systems in various countries including Britain, Mexico, Brazil, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, French Polynesia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, United States and South Africa.

Stages of Biofloc Systems Globally Participants were knowledgeable about numerous biofloc experiments and commercial biofloc operations. According to participants commercial biofloc operations were in at least 23 countries including Australia, Belize, Brazil, China, Costa-Rica, Czech Republic, Columbia, Ecuador, Germany, Guatemala, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Sweden, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, United States, Vietnam. Despite the number of commercial systems, participants agreed that more research is needed in the field. For example, participants said; “it (biofloc) is a baby, I have been studying biofloc for 10 years and still do not feel like I know anything” and “there is still a lot of opportunity to expand in terms of species, particularly high value species”.

Potential Incentives to Adopt Biofloc Participants discussed potential advantages biofloc systems could have for aquaculture facilities. This is an important component of adoption as innovations that are perceived as having an

74 advantage are adopted faster (Rogers, 2003: 15). Participants mentioned products grown in biofloc can be marketed as a high quality product and can receive a high market value. Having a product with high market value can increase the profitability of aquaculture production and can be a potential incentive. Participants discussed other potential benefits aquaculture facilities in Canada could receive from biofloc systems including: increased feed conversion “even small amounts (of feed conversion) can make a large difference”; decreased commercial feed required; “may be less cost than RAS”; “value of organic and high value species for consumer”; “reduced water use”; “conserve heat by retaining water and reducing water exchange”; “increase biosecurity”; “increase productivity”; “produce year-round”; “small areas can have large production”; and that it is an “environmentally friendly production”.

Potential Barriers to Implement Biofloc Systems Aa variety of potential barriers were identified by participants for adopting biofloc systems in Canada. Participants mentioned costs, because of “extreme weather” the “cost to maintain water temperature” can be expensive since most species produced in biofloc are warm water species. To reduce energy costs, participants suggested “seasonal production”, an “alternative source of energy”, designing the system with “increased insulation” and “can get solar input”. Other potential challenges participants identified include “marketing”, “technical challenges”, “limited funding” and potential “low farmer interest, a lot of species in Canada currently would not work with biofloc”. Participants discussed the highest expenses in biofloc operations are typically a combination of feed, labour, energy and the cost of young fish (fingerlings).

Compatibility Operational knowledge is essential for the adoption of biofloc systems. All participants discussed the challenge and importance of controlling the concentration of bioflocs in the water and to “know the right balance”. Solids control including “settling chambers” to settle and control particles were recommended. Other challenges identified by participants include controlling the microbial community (“consistency and reliability”) and suspended solids including very fine particles (pin floc). Carbonate and aeration are required for biofloc production; the system requires oxygen. Participants said it can be challenging to manage the “dissolved oxygen concentrations and fluctuations” during changes in temperature, feeding, day and night. Raising

75 appropriate species for biofloc systems can be a challenge because the system requires species that can grow in high densities and in high concentrations of suspended solids, one participant pointed out that “a lot of species in Canada currently would not work with biofloc”. Another challenge could be receiving an appropriate price for the product, since it is an added value for production but because it was produced in a different, environmentally sustainable, way that consumers may not be aware of. This could be a challenge.

The environmental sustainability of biofloc systems was discussed with participants. Some participants considered biofloc facilities to be an environmentally sustainable system. Biofloc systems do require inputs, which affect the sustainability of the system. One participant mentioned, “microbial community can use a lot of the oxygen, sometimes more than the species being raised”, increasing energy expenses of production. Another participant explained, “biofloc requires constant aeration and energy input to keep water moving, tapping into renewable energy sources could make it more sustainable”. Although biofloc systems have been developing since the 1970s, participants discussed that these systems are still developing and more work needs to be done to advance the field. Participants expressed that “work still needs to be done”, “biofloc systems are not an off-the-shelf system” and one participant said they “have been studying biofloc for ten years and still do not feel like know anything”.

Potential Influences to Implement Biofloc Systems in Canada

Compatibility One of the most important influence of adopting sustainable practices is the compatibility with existing practices (Alonge & Martin, 1995: 38). Participants were asked about the physical compatibility of biofloc systems within existing aquaculture facilities. All participants said it is possible to integrate biofloc systems into current aquaculture facilities, although it may be best to design the facility to include a biofloc system from the start. One participant explained “biofloc systems can be integrated into current facilities. For example, in the UK a farm house was converted to produce aquaculture and made efficient use of energy and heat”. One participant thought biofloc could be suitable for hatcheries in Canada with species that consume

76 zooplankton. Participants specified that for aquaculture participants in Canada to implement biofloc systems, it would depend on the species being raised, that are morphologically capable of growing in the system and can consume the flocs, and whether it would be economical. All participants recommended aquaculture facilities try a pilot biofloc system if they are producing a compatible species to understand the system and economic potential.

When asked about species that could utilize biofloc systems in Canada, participants said tilapia and white-leg shrimp were the most common species raised. Three of four participants discussed the potential to expand the species grown in biofloc systems. Species that have a natural environment similar to biofloc typically grow better in the system, particularly if they are morphologically able to benefit from the consumption of biofloc particles. Species such as carp, barramundi, bass and crustaceans, at different life stages, may also be able to benefit from biofloc systems. It may be possible for mussels, oysters and clams to benefit from biofloc systems, however, none of the participants had direct experience with these species and therefore could not recommend it.

Biofloc and Aquaponics When asked about combining aquaponic and biofloc systems, only one participant was familiar with this. This participant was familiar with a combined system in Mexico and had also worked on experiments and said, “the plants grew better in biofloc mainly because of the availability of nutrients for plant growth”. One participant, without experience with combining aquaponic and biofloc said combining the systems “is possible, but would probably not recommend it. Biofloc systems have moderately high biosolids concentrations and aquaponics would want clear water, water that has been treated (without solids)”. Another participant (without experience combining both systems) mentioned the following concern about combining the systems; “there is potential, concern is the flocs interfering -fouling- the plant roots however engineering is required. Biofloc can be used to fertilize plants, however if biofloc is in the same system it can also accumulate and negatively impact the plant roots”. More research is required to identify the potential of combining biofloc and aquaponics systems in Canada.

4.4 Provincial Government Employees

Provincial government employees involved in aquaculture licensing and regulations were asked about permits required, species restrictions, funding opportunities and limitations for aquaculture facilities to implement aquaponic and biofloc systems. Government officials from eight of the ten provinces in Canada that are known to have aquaculture facilities were interviewed to learn more about the industry in each province and the potential for aquaponic and biofloc systems. Representatives from ministries in Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland participated in this research.

Incentives and Influences to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems From discussions with government employees in eight provinces, there does not appear to be any significant incentive or influence for aquaculture companies to adopt aquaponic or biofloc systems in Canada, including funding opportunities to implement a new system. Participants explained there is a “huge gap for funding for aquaculture”, it has been “limited in recent years”, there is “no funding from the department directly, more of an ad hoc basis, if people come with a proposal and there may be some discretionary funds for it, did have funding for something back in the day but that was cut” and there is “a lot disappointment around lack of funding for aquaculture”. There were several federal funding programs, but they are described as constrained towards specific primary research opportunities. The Aquaculture Innovation and Market Access Program to develop innovation and new technologies was a good opportunity, however, it is no longer available. Quebec seems to have the most consistent funding available for aquaculture. The Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ) has funding available for aquaculture companies, including funding for experiments, pilot tests and commercial operations (MAPAQ, 2016: 4). One participants discussed more funding options are available through regional economic development programs and the Industrial Research Assistantship Program through the National Research Council. Overall, there does not appear to be funding or other incentives to adopt a new system in aquaculture facilities in Canada and there are not a lot of funding opportunities specifically for aquaculture and increasing sustainability within aquaculture.

Barriers to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems Interviews with provincial government officials found that there do not appear to be limitations or regulations that would negatively affect facilities wanting to implement biofloc or aquaponic systems in Canada. However, understanding and being aware of regulations and approvals involving the adoption of aquaponic and biofloc systems can be a potential barrier to implementation. For some interviews the involvement of three provincial ministries were required to answer questions regarding potential influences, incentives and barriers provincially. The complexity of regulations and intra-provincial involvement can be a potential barrier to adoption as facilities may find the process confusing and overwhelming, as the researcher did.

Aquaculture regulations vary provincially and can be a potential barrier as there are some limitations as to what species can be raised in certain provinces. For example, only sixteen species can be farmed in Alberta. This is also a potential barrier for facilities that are interested in aquaponic and biofloc systems in Quebec and Saskatchewan as both provinces do not allow raising tilapia, one of the most common species raised in both systems. At the time of the interview, fresh water tilapia was banned in Quebec and tilapia production in Saskatchewan required approval.

Additional approvals may be required for facilities that want to adopt aquaponics and biofloc. One potential barrier for aquaculture facilities to implement aquaponic or biofloc systems in Canada is the requirement to raise a different species from the one(s) that they are currently producing. There is often a one-time fee to amend current aquaculture licenses. However, these fees are minimal (under $300). Any non-native species or species not on the approved list of species to be raised in aquaculture must be reviewed by the appropriate committees and agencies. This process can be a potential barrier as various approvals are required, which may deter facilities. For example, approval for a species not on the approved list requires approval by an introduction and transfers committee and any applicable Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) working groups. After approval of the aforementioned requirements, a Live Fish Handling Permit and other requirements for inter and intra provincial movement of live fish or eggs under the CFIA’s Domestic Movement Program may also be required. With more than 70 federal and provincial acts and regulations regarding aquaculture (SSCFO, 2015a: 4), it is not

79 surprising that the complexity of regulations in Canada has hindered growth in the industry, and can be a perceived barrier to adopting new systems by aquaculture companies.

Regulations in Canada involve two levels of governance, sometimes three, with various departments and agencies at each level (SSFO, 2015a: 2). There is often confusion around provincial and federal responsibilities of aquaculture as well as statutes involved as responsibilities overlap and statutes were not created to involve aquaculture but is often applied to the industry (Newfoundland and Labrador DFFA, 2016; SSCFO, 2015a: 4).

Chapter 5 Discussion

5.1 Adopting Innovations

This research addresses the limited literature on the awareness of aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada and incentives and barriers to adopting each system. This study conducted interviews in Canada to provide insight into the aquaculture and aquaponic industry. The results offer an opportunity for data sharing in various sectors of the industry across the country as all participants expressed interest in receiving the findings of this research.

This chapter discusses the potential of aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada. The interviews in this study suggest that the aquaponic and biofloc industry in Canada is in the early stages of adoption. This section discusses barriers to adoption and potential ways to overcome these barriers including influences and incentives of adopting of both systems. Comparisons are made with Rogers’ (2003) innovation-decision process and the international aquaponics survey by Love et al. (2014) to gain a deeper understanding of the stages of adoption in Canada. Eatmon et al. (2013: 202) found Rogers’ (2003) framework useful to begin to understand the adoption process of aquaponics in the United States Great Lakes Region. Rogers’ (2003) perceived attributes of innovations and the case studies of Eatmon et al. (2013) are compared to research findings to discuss incentives, barriers and influences of adoption of aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada.

Economic benefits were the primary incentive for aquaculture facilities in this study to adopt aquaponic and biofloc systems, but facilities were unaware of economic benefits both systems could provide. Lack of awareness and knowledge were the largest barriers for participants in this study to adopt of aquaponic and biofloc systems. An increase in knowledge sharing and collaboration appears to be of significant importance to increase adoption of both systems in Canada.

5.1.1 Stage of Adoption of Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems

Commercial biofloc and aquaponic systems are both relatively new practices in the aquaculture industry. In this study, the majority of aquaponic facilities were in operation for fewer than five years. Biofloc is a system that is even less well known in Canada, with fewer than five known commercial operations and one facility beginning operation within the past year. Biofloc systems were not well known by participants in this study as over half the participants did not know what a biofloc system was.

Stage of Adoption of Aquaponic Systems The aquaponics industry appears to have potential and to be a growing industry as the majority of the aquaponic respondents in this research and in the global study of Love et al. (2014) have recently began operating within the past five years. Although the aquaponic participants in this study and in Love et al. (2014) may suggest that most facilities are new to the industry, this may not be an accurate sample of the experience of aquaponic facilities globally. New entrants to the field may be more willing to participate, collaborate and share than those with more experience. New facilities may also have more to benefit from participating in research, including receiving research results and learning more about the industry. This may lead to a misrepresentation of experience in the aquaponic industry.

The aquaculture industry appears to be knowledgeable about aquaponics; 90 percent of aquaculture facilities in this research have heard of aquaponic systems before and just over half the aquaculture facilities had begun to experiment with aquaponics. These facilities were in the second or third stage of the innovation decision model (persuasion and decision) process. The other half of the aquaculture facilities were still in the first stage (acquiring knowledge). Although most facilities in the first stage of the decision process were not ready to implement an aquaponic system, all facilities expressed an interest in learning more about the system and about innovation in general. This suggests that more knowledge, the first stage of Rogers’ (2003) decision model, is necessary before more aquaculture facilities adopt aquaponic systems.

Stage of Adoption of Biofloc Systems This thesis researched the willingness of aquaponic and aquaculture facilities to implement biofloc systems. The majority of aquaponic and aquaculture participants were unaware of the potential benefits biofloc can provide to facilities as ninety percent of participants had limited knowledge of biofloc systems. Therefore, the majority of aquaculture and aquaponic facilities were at the first or second stage of the biofloc innovation decision process (knowledge and persuasion). To make a decision to adopt the innovation, facilities need more knowledge about the system to learn the advantages and disadvantages for their situation (Rogers, 2003: 21).

Approximately a third of aquaponic participants responded that they would be interested in piloting a biofloc system (31 percent) and just over a third (38 percent) said maybe and that they would have to learn more about the system before they would consider piloting it. There was more interest in biofloc within aquaponic facilities compared to aquaculture facilities, although most aquaponic facilities had no prior knowledge about the system. Although knowledge is the first stage in Rogers (2003) decision model, those facilities that were interested in biofloc without prior knowledge of the system indicated that many aquaponic owners were very innovative and were willing to try various technologies through a hands-on learning approach. Rogers (2003) specifies that adoption of a system is more likely through a trial first, which aligns with aquaponic participants’ willingness to learn from hands-on experience.

5.1.2 Incentives for Implementing Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems

Economic benefits were the primary motivation for aquaculture facilities in this study to adopt aquaponics systems. Interviews found that most facilities were more interested in saving money rather than gaining access to funding. This may indicate that aquaculture facilities and future adoption of aquaponics will be more influenced by what will make their business money, or reduce expenses, versus gaining access to external capital. All aquaculture facilities expressed an interest in the aquaponic system if they could make a profit from the system, however these aquaculture facilities did not see a relative advantage for their company, including a return on investment.

Eatmon et al., (2013: 213) found that economic profitability did not appear to be the most significant incentive to adopt aquaponics compared to other perceived attributes. This correlates to the motivations of aquaponic participants in this study. Although all of the aquaponic companies in this thesis were commercial facilities and intended to make a profit, their perceived relative advantage of aquaponics was not primarily about economics. Aquaponic companies indicated other incentives including fast growth of plants and producing organic or better than organic products. More than half of the aquaponic companies discussed incentives that involved producing food in an environmentally conscious way by conserving and reusing water and reusing waste.

Since the incentive of environmental consciousness and reusing water and waste was a significant incentive for aquaponic adopters, the benefit of reusing waste was discussed with aquaculture facilities to see if this could be an incentive for aquaculture facilities to adopt aquaponic or biofloc systems. This study found half the aquaculture facilities that were not piloting aquaponics were satisfied with their current method of waste management, whereas the other half of facilities were interested in improving their waste management. Many aquaculture facilities in this study already reuse their waste for plant growth by spreading waste onto domestic or agricultural fields, producing compost, or through biofiltration in wetlands. The benefit of biofloc and aquaponics as being an environmentally sustainable method to manage waste from aquaculture production may not be a significant incentive for Canadian aquaculture facilities since the majority of facilities in this study already have environmentally sustainable methods for managing solid waste and effluent. Of the facilities that would like to improve their system, four of five facilities were interested in piloting aquaponics and three of five would be interested in piloting a biofloc system. This may suggest that aquaculture facilities that are not satisfied with their waste management may be more willing to implement an aquaponic or biofloc systems as a method to improve waste management practices.

All aquaculture facilities were asked about factors that could influence their decision to try aquaponics. Similar incentives to implement aquaponics were identified between aquaculture facilities that have tried aquaponics and those facilities that have not. These incentives involved improving existing aquaculture operations, including utilizing aquaponics as a nitrate filter and

84 for conserving water. Between 60 to 70 percent of facilities expressed an interest in an aquaponic system if it was a partnership, assisted with maintaining water temperature, decreased the amount of water exchange required, decreased nitrate levels and decreased water treatment expenses respectively. Aquaculture facilities that were interested in aquaponics for the aforementioned benefits were unaware that aquaponics can provide these benefits. An increase in adoption of aquaponics in the aquaculture industry may occur when facilities learn more about the benefits of aquaponics and successes in the Canadian aquaponic industry. This can be compared to the second stage in Rogers’ decision process, persuasion, where the advantages and disadvantages for individual situations are learned (Rogers, 2003: 21, 175) as well as the opinion of others in the industry (Rogers, 2003: 175). As the industry continues to grow and a larger workforce in aquaponics develops in Canada, adoption of aquaponics within aquaculture facilities may also increase as many facilities would prefer to work in a partnership. Having an experienced workforce could increase the number of partnerships available and growth in the industry can provide more opportunities to demonstrate the potential benefits for aquaculture companies.

Biofloc The majority of respondents (seventy-five percent) said that learning more about the biofloc system, and learning specifically the benefits of biofloc, would motivate them to pilot the system. For example, facilities said if the system could reduce feed costs and save their facility money, they would be more interested in piloting a biofloc system. Both benefits were identified by biofloc experts in interviews as potential incentives for adoption. Biofloc experts also identified an increase in feed efficiency as being a potential incentive for aquaculture facilities to adopt biofloc systems. From interviews with aquaculture facilities, feed efficiency could be a potentially significant incentive to adoption as ninety percent of aquaculture facilities were interested in increased feed efficiency. Interviews found almost half the respondents (44 percent) would be interested in piloting a biofloc system if the system was paid for, if it was a partnership or if there were scientific support, therefore these factors can significantly impact adoption. Ninety percent of aquaculture participants were also interested in biofloc if it could provide an additional source of food and protein for the fish or could supplement the cost of fish feed. Biofloc systems have the potential to decrease feed, one of the highest operating expenses in

85 aquaculture. Biofloc also has the economic benefit of faster growth rates, increase in survival, decrease costs of water use and less water pumping. The economic feasibility of biofloc systems in Canada is not known as facilities have only recently began operation. As biofloc systems develop in Canada, the economic feasibility will be determined. The rate of adoption of biofloc is significantly affected by the majority of participants having no perceived attributes of the system, knowledge of the aforementioned benefits and long-term examples of successful biofloc systems in Canada.

Trialability and Importance of Piloting Piloting or testing an innovation is an important part of the decision process (Rogers, 2003: 177) and can be an incentive to implement an innovation. Most innovations are not adopted unless they have been tried or tested (Rogers, 2003: 177). Piloting appears to be an important aspect of adoption of aquaponic systems in Canada prior to implementation since almost 90 percent of aquaponic respondents indicated they had a pilot aquaponic system. Similarly, pilot aquaponic systems were used by all facilities in Eatmon et al. (2013) and was recommended by Goodman (2011). Piloting an innovation is important for facilities to learn the benefits of the system for their operation (Rogers, 2003: 177). There is potential for growth in biofloc and aquaponic operations in Canada as participants are willing to pilot both systems, an important step in the adoption process. Interviews identified sixty percent of the aquaculture participants expressed an interest in piloting an aquaponic system and thirty percent of aquaculture and aquaponic participants expressed an interest in piloting biofloc.

5.1.3 Overcoming Barriers of Adopting Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems

Relative Advantage Most aquaculture and aquaponic systems in this research had limited knowledge of biofloc systems; this affected the willingness and ability of facilities to implement the system. The majority of respondents (90 percent) were not very familiar with biofloc systems, and no participants were aware of any biofloc systems in Canada. The primary concern facilities had with biofloc systems was that they were unfamiliar with the system and the benefits it could provide for their facility. The limited visibility of biofloc systems negatively affect adoption as

86 there is a lack of awareness of the biofloc system and the benefits biofloc can provide to the aquaculture and aquaponics industry. Similarly, the most prevalent concern aquaculture participants with aquaponic systems was lack of familiarity. One aquaculture facility did not know if aquaponics could work with their aquaculture operation expressed, “I don’t think it will make sense for us to grow anything in this cold water”. Interviews with aquaponic participants confirmed that knowledge is a barrier to adoption of aquaponics in Canada and recommended facilities to first take the time and acquire knowledge before adopting the system. Obtaining accurate information about aquaponics in Canada appears to be a significant barrier to the adoption and long-term success of the industry; one aquaponic facility explained that “in this country, I think the biggest barrier is knowledge and acquiring correct knowledge”. Another aquaponic participant said, “If more people took courses before jumping into these big ventures, and experience with time as well, then there would be less failures in the industry”.

To overcome the barriers of limited knowledge, an increase in the awareness of the benefits of aquaponic and biofloc is an important influence to increase the willingness to implement these systems. Overcoming this barrier appears to be possible in Canada as many aquaculture and aquaponic facilities were interested in taking a workshop or course and were interested in learning more about both systems. The majority of respondents (seventy-five percent) said that learning more about the biofloc system, and learning specifically the benefits of biofloc, would influence them to pilot the system. Therefore, taking a course and getting hands on experience before adopting a biofloc or aquaponic system would overcome the barriers of unfamiliarity and limited knowledge, and is the first step in Rogers (2003) decision model, acquiring knowledge. The number of aquaculture facilities interested in taking a workshop in aquaponics or biofloc increased from 80 to 90 percent if there were funding provided for the workshop. Providing education through workshops could be an important step for both systems to expand. Therefore, having a course or workshop on aquaponics and biofloc systems may be a useful way to overcome the barriers of lack of knowledge in Canada. Results from this study show a course that was $750 or less would interest aquaculture participants. Having a free introduction or funding for a course would increase attendance and decrease the barrier of lack of knowledge. Knowledge sharing and collaboration appear to be necessary to overcome these barriers and may be essential for the growth and success of both aquaponic and biofloc industries in Canada.

The visible results of an innovation increases the probability of adoption (Rogers, 2003: 16). In this study, 90 percent of aquaculture facilities were familiar with aquaponic systems. Eighty-four percent of aquaponic companies in this study were visible online and 68 percent were visible through two or more social media platforms. The high visibility of aquaponics may be an important factor for the adoption of aquaponics in Canada. Eatmon et al. (2013: 217) also demonstrated the high observability of aquaponic facilities in the Great Lakes region through the availability of aquaponic facility tours and features in newspapers, magazines, television and online platforms. Since biofloc facilities have only recently started operating in Canada, many participants were not familiar with this system and no participants were aware of facilities in Canada. As biofloc systems become more established in the Canadian aquaculture industry, the awareness and observability of these system may increase as well. An increase in observability of biofloc systems can also increase the potential of future adoption in Canada.

Compatibility Species compatibility may be the most significant barrier to the adoption of biofloc systems in Canada. Of the aquaculture facilities in this research, 90 percent of the species grown cannot tolerate a high level of solids concentration. A high concentration of solids is required by typical biofloc systems. Biofloc experts in this research also discussed the barrier of species compatibility with biofloc systems in Canada. For example, one biofloc expert said a potential barrier to adoption could be “low farmer interest- a lot of species in Canada currently would not work with biofloc”. This is a barrier to adoption in Canada as ninety-four percent of aquaculture production occurs with species that cannot tolerate a high level of suspended solids; this includes salmon, trout, and steelhead (DFO, 2014b). Therefore, the adoption of ex-situ biofloc systems may be more prevalent in Canada as in-situ biofloc systems can be expected to only occur in facilities that produce species that can tolerate the aforementioned conditions that biofloc systems require. To overcome the barrier of limited species compatibility with biofloc systems, it is possible to have ex-situ operations. Some facilities specified that if they were to pilot a biofloc system they would require it to be in a separate tank from the fish. It is possible to have a biofloc system operate in a separate tank from the species being grown, but this does not provide facilities with all the benefits of biofloc, as fish cannot consume the flocs. With species that will not eat the flocs or cannot tolerate the level of suspended solids, a biofloc system in a separate

88 tank could be a useful method to decrease ammonia and nitrate levels, grow another species in the biofloc tank or bioflocs can be made into fish feed.

No aquaculture facility interviewed indicated that biofloc was compatible with their operations. It is difficult to assess the compatibility of biofloc within aquaponic facilities, as the majority of aquaponic respondents were not familiar with biofloc systems. The second most common concern with aquaponic facilities adopting a biofloc system involved the interaction of the biofloc system with the fish and plants. This concern was also identified by biofloc experts that did not have experience with a combined aquaponic and biofloc system. One biofloc expert did have experience with a combined system and discussed that the system worked well on an experimental level. More research and data sharing is required to discuss the potential of aquaponic and biofloc combined systems.

All aquaponic facilities and half the aquaculture participants said they would consider growing another species in the future, especially if there was a market for it. Therefore, future market demands could play a role in the expansion of biofloc and aquaponics in Canada. It may be more likely for biofloc to increase in Canada with the development of new species being raised. An interest in diversifying species may be an important factor of adopting aquaponic and biofloc systems, as facilities that would consider raising another species may be more open to innovation and willing to diversify their business operations compared to facilities that are not. This also suggests that the physical compatibility of aquaponics and biofloc with aquaculture systems in Canada could be less important than the compatibility with the values and goals of the company. Adoption of biofloc in existing aquaponic facilities may be more likely than in aquaculture operations, as more aquaponic participants had experience raising a species that would be compatible with biofloc systems and all facilities expressed an interest in producing other species in the future. Species compatibility and a willingness to raise other species may suggest why more aquaponic participants were interested in biofloc systems than were aquaculture participants.

Canadian aquaponic facilities appear to be raising different species than in other countries identified in Love et al. (2014, 2015). Three species that appear to be unique to Canadian

89 aquaponics, compared to Love et al. (2014, 2015), are sturgeon, salmon and pumpkinseed. Raising new species may be important for the success of aquaponics in the Canadian and international market, as well as temperate climate. The expansion of the aquaponic industry with new species can provide access to larger markets. Having access to various markets by being able to produce a variety of species to match demands is essential for the financial feasibility of aquaponics. Seeing this variation of aquaponics may be an important part of industry growth and expansion. The species raised in Canadian aquaponic systems will likely continue to diversify since 95 percent of participants were interested in growing other species and many facilities were continuously experimenting.

Some studies indicate it can be challenging to establish a bacterial community in biofloc systems as it requires constant monitoring (Haslun et al., 2012: 30). Controlling the microbial community was also a challenge that biofloc participants identified. Therefore, technical challenges may be a barrier to adoption of biofloc systems. Some participants may find that traditional biofilters may be more useful for their production rather than trying a biofloc system since they do not have to learn to manage a new system. However, facilities that have experience with biofilters or those that understand how to balance microbial communities because of the similarities with biofloc systems may adopt biofloc systems faster. As Rogers (2003: 16) suggests, if individuals already possess knowledge, skills and perceive the innovation as simple, they may adopt the systems faster. Cost, infrastructure and staff required for a biofloc system was a concern aquaculture participants discussed and would be a part of the requirement for establishing a bacterial community. A way to overcome the barrier of establishing a biofloc system could include data sharing amongst the industry, particularly new facilities, and collaboration. Since biofloc facilities have begun operation Canada, the opportunity for data sharing and collaboration across the Canadian industry has increased and has potential to increase if the success of the systems continue.

Adding an additional system and learning a new technology, such as aquaponics or biofloc, may have a negative impact on aquaculture facilities that have a small number of employees. Facilities with a small number of employees was common with the majority of the Canadian land-based aquaculture facilities that were contacted for this study. Some of the staff at

90 aquaculture facilities who were interviewed, said they were very busy, therefore adding an additional responsibility to the operation might be a significant barrier to implementation. One way to overcome the barrier of adding an additional responsibility could be collaboration and learning the return on investment. Knowledge sharing and collaboration again may be the most important way to overcome the barrier of adding an aquaponic and biofloc system to the aquaculture industry in Canada.

Aquaculture facilities discussed concerns about licensing, ministry involvement and regulatory processes involved with adding aquaponics and biofloc systems to their current operation. With more than 70 federal and provincial legislations regarding aquaculture (SSCFO, 2015a: 4), it is not a surprise that regulations can be a perceived barrier to adopting new systems by aquaculture companies. However, interviews with various governments in this study did not discover regulations that would restrict the adoption of aquaponic and biofloc systems within the aquaculture industry. Although there are no specific regulations that would affect aquaculture companies from adopting an aquaponic or biofloc system directly, additional approvals may be required if aquaculture facilities wanted to raise a different species from the one(s) that they were producing. Another potential barrier is the approval required for non-native species or species not on the approved list of species to be raised in aquaculture. This process can be a potential barrier as various approvals are required, which may deter facilities from adoption. One aquaculture facility described their experience in this process as “licensing of new species or other species is a major undertaking, I've lost track of dealing with red tape and governments”. However, regulations in adopting aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada only appear to be a potential barrier to facilities that want to add an additional species, and if that species is not on an approved list for aquaculture production. This could be a more significant barrier for facilities that are interested in aquaponics systems in Quebec and Saskatchewan as both provinces do not allow tilapia aquaculture, one of the most common species raised in aquaponic and biofloc systems. At the time of the interview, fresh water tilapia was banned in Quebec and tilapia production in Saskatchewan would require approval. It is necessary for governments to clarify regulations for aquaculture companies regarding the adoption of new systems, such as aquaponics and biofloc. Those in the industry that have adopted new systems also need to share their knowledge and experience with others so that the industry can expand and improve to stay

91 competitive with other countries.

Aquaculture participants also had concerns about the costs, commercial viability and return on investment of adopting aquaponics. Aquaponic participants confirmed costs and obtaining funding can be a barrier. Participants explained that, “it's very hard right now to convince somebody to invest in aquaponics when there's not a whole bunch - again, this will come in time, but there's not an industry out there that's profitable”. Although external funding for aquaponic projects may be a current barrier in Canada, this may not be a barrier in the future if successful and profitable aquaponic facilities are established.

Aquaculture participants mentioned energy costs as a potential barrier to adoption. This may be a significant barrier to adoption in Canada as this research found that 95 percent of aquaponic participants identified energy as one of the highest operating expenses. Large changes in energy can significantly impact the profitability of aquaponic operations (Goodman, 2011: 78). Unless energy costs in Canada decrease, renewable energy sources or alternative energy sources may be vital to the economic viability of aquaponics in Canada. To reduce expenses in aquaponics, some aquaponics facilities in this research suggested renewable energy, off the grid power, or an alternative source of heat could be useful. This appears to be a common practice in the aquaponic industry, as 57 percent of respondents in Love et al.’s (2014: 5) international study used forms of renewable energy to supplement their energy costs. If renewable energy decreases in price or becomes more accessible, the number of aquaponic facilities and the quantity of products grown in aquaponic systems in Canada may increase. If facilities want to produce food year round, a sustainable, relatively inexpensive source of energy is required. This is particularly important for Canadian aquaponics, as the natural growing season is temperature dependent. As previously noted, aquaponics has the potential to provide local and international organic produce year round, contributing to food security. Aquaponics can be particularly beneficial in remote areas that have limited food available and high prices, particularly if energy costs are affordable.

However, access to alternative energy may also be a potential barrier. For example, high initial costs and long repayment plans can be challenges for implementing alternative energy sources (Adachi & Rowlands, 2010). Energy policies and companies promoting sustainable energy may

92 find aquaponic facilities to be of interest. More research is required to understand the economic impact of using renewable energy compared to other energy sources in aquaponic systems (Love et al., 2014: 9) and if energy costs will be a barrier to adoption in Canada. Government and private sector initiatives to increase food production in Canada should assist with increasing accessible and sustainable energy options and for the food sector.

5.1.4 Potential Influences to Implement Aquaponic and Biofloc Systems

Compatibility Compatibility of an innovation refers to the perception of the innovation as being in line with the adopters’ values and needs (Rogers, 2003: 15). In Eatmon et al.’s (2013: 213) case studies, the compatibility with community development values and sustainable food production values were important influences for the adoption of aquaponics. Community development includes providing workshops, education and job creation (Eatmon et al., 2013: 214). The values of community and sustainable food production were also important influences of Canadian aquaponic adopters interviewed in this research. Community awareness was identified as important to 90 percent of aquaponics participants; participants said that community awareness was important to them as a way to educate people about their products, that they value community and it was their mission to contribute to the community. To see if community development would influence aquaculture facilities to adopt aquaponics, aquaculture participants were asked if they would consider adopting aquaponics to create more jobs. Just over half (fifty- five percent) of the aquaculture participants said that they would consider aquaponics as a way to create more jobs. Therefore, initiatives to increase employment in Canada can promote aquaculture facilities to add aquaponic systems.

The environmental opinion of aquaponics appears to be an important influence for adoption. Love et al. (2014: 6) found one of the main motivations to implement aquaponics was environmental sustainability, this motivation is similar to aquaponic facilities in this study. When asked about how aquaponics aligns with the values of their company, all aquaponic participants discussed the importance of sustainability and being able to produce healthy food particularly for

93 local or nearby communities. In addition, seventy-five percent of the aquaculture facilities that had piloted aquaponics systems, indicated that the environmental sustainability of the system was an important motivation. Therefore, aquaponics may be adopted more quickly within companies that value the importance of environmental sustainability. The use of aquaponics for education and training was another motivation for adoption identified by Love et al. (2014: 6), similar to the interest of facilities in this research. The perception of the environmental sustainability of aquaponics and the importance of delivering education are the two most common influences found in research that relate to research of Love et al. (2014) research. Environmental sustainability and education can also be an important aspect of economic viability and the success of aquaponic facilities. To increase income and decrease expenses in aquaponics, Goodman (2011: 79) suggests to have various business models and diversify revenue sources. Therefore, aquaponic operations that have multiple sources of income, such as a farm, aquaculture operation or tourism and education components may have more economic success and may be important for future and current aquaponics facilities to consider.

Physical compatibility of adopting an innovation is another important component of compatibility. Alonge and Martin (1995: 38) indicated that the most important influence of adopting sustainable practices is the compatibility with existing practices. Although aquaponics has been added to pre-existing facilities, some aquaculture companies specified they would have preferred to have built and designed the facility with aquaponics included from the beginning. Since all of the facilities that have a pilot aquaponic system also had a RAS operation, this may suggest that aquaculture facilities with existing RAS, or facilities interested in a RAS, may be more influenced to try an aquaponic system as it requires fewer changes to their existing facility and operation. However, this research found the physical compatibility of aquaponics with aquaculture systems in Canada appears to be less important in the decision to adopt aquaponics than the compatibility of aquaponics with the values and goals of the company.

Infrastructure and Operation Biofloc systems have the potential to increase in Canada within current, and future, aquaculture facilities. Aquaculture operations have used biofloc in various systems, including in ponds, buildings, greenhouses as well as in a separate tank from aquaculture production. Therefore, the

94 adoption of biofloc systems may not be limited geographically, or by aquaculture operation, in Canada since biofloc systems have a variety of designs and methods of production.

The most prevalent influence for aquaculture to adopt aquaponics was profit and if it was a decoupled system, where the fish and plant units can be independently controlled (Goddek et al., 2016: 2). A decoupled system correlates with practices and recommendations with others in the aquaponics industry. Peloguin (2015: 28) recommended large-scale aquaponic operations decouple fish and plants, both financially and physically, and have skilled workers working on each system. This set up could be ideal for those willing to work in a business partnership.

Similar to Love et al. (2015: 69), this study found that aquaponic facilities in Canada utilize various locations and infrastructure, including greenhouses, inside buildings, on rooftops and other outdoor locations. The diverse infrastructure used in aquaponic suggests growth in aquaponics may not be limited to a specific design or location and may continue to expand within a variety of infrastructures. This diversity increases the potential for aquaponics to provide a local source of protein and vegetables close to markets in rural and urban areas and in areas where traditional farming cannot occur. It can be particularly beneficial to produce food locally as consumers are becoming more aware of the source of their food (Ward et al., 2014: 701) and more interested in purchasing local food (Love et al., 2015: 74). Since all the aquaponic participants in this research were, or planned to operate year round, aquaponics may be a method of food production that can provide protein and vegetables year round and may be able to supply niche markets in Canada and internationally. Rakocy et al. (2006: 2) suggests access to niche markets may be necessary in order to make a profit with aquaponics. Aquaponics can be of particular value to isolated and remote areas that have limited and expensive sources of food. Aquaponic operations can locate near consumers by re-using existing infrastructure, including warehouses, buildings and greenhouses. This commonly occurred with participants in this research as forty-five percent of participants set up their aquaponics in a pre-existing building. However, greenhouses may be the most beneficial infrastructure to utilize in aquaponics as 65 percent of participants in this study and almost half of participants in Love et al. (2015) had aquaponics, or a portion of aquaponics, in a greenhouse. Therefore, areas with unused or underutilized greenhouses may have an increased potential to adopt aquaponics operations.

Greenhouses may be a particular economic benefit to use because of the ability to utilize sunlight and heat, therefore reducing expenses.

Although this research represents a small sample of the aquaculture and aquaponic facilities in Canada, it provides insight into practices and motivations that may be shared with other facilities in Canada. Aquaponic participants in this research were motivated to implement aquaponics for a variety of reasons. Some participants wanted to improve their system while others were more motivated because they thought it was important for the future, they had an interest in social enterprise, they enjoyed trying new technology and were entrepreneurial. Others were motivated after learning about it from e-mails, videos and workshops or from other members of their company. If the diverse motivations for aquaponics in Canada continue to influence adoption, new entrants to the industry may also continue to be from a variety of industries, including the nonprofit sector. Since the majority of aquaponic participants in this research did not have an aquaculture facility before having an aquaponics operation, this may indicate that continued growth of the aquaponic industry in Canada may occur from both inside and outside the aquaculture field.

This research found there is potential for an increase in aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada within the aquaculture industry. Adoption of these systems would increase with collaboration and partnership opportunities, examples of profitable systems, increased access to sustainable energy, grants or benefits for creating jobs, grants for implementation and support for sustainable initiatives in the food sector. Aquaponics, biofloc and other innovations within the Canadian aquaculture industry are important to stay competitive in the food industry, in particular for maintaining local and international expectations of environmentally sustainable food production. Other countries, including the European Union, Iceland, Norway and Denmark are also promoting and investing in aquaponics to increase their competiveness in the food and marine sector (INAPRO, 2014; Skar et al., 2015). Aquaponics are systems that can contribute to global food security (Kloas et al., 2015: 179; EU CORDIS, 2016) and is a potential method of food production in Canada to contribute to exporting food to countries that require food imports.

Chapter 6 Conclusion

Aquaculture is an essential part of global food security as the global supply of seafood from commercial wild fisheries is not expected to increase (UNFAO, 2016: 6, 98). As competition increases over valuable resources including water, land, food, and energy (INAPRO, 2014), it is important to have continued sustainable food production. Both aquaponic and biofloc systems can reduce environmental impacts of intensive aquaculture and contribute to food security (Waite et al., 2014: 47; UNFAO, 2010: 31). Countries including the European Union, Iceland, Norway and Denmark are promoting and investing in aquaponics to increase their competiveness in the food and marine sector with aquaponics (Skar et al., 2015) but there are a limited number of aquaponic and biofloc facilities in Canada. It is important for the Canadian aquaculture industry to stay competitive and to adhere to public expectations of the production of aquaculture products. More consumers are becoming interested in learning about where their food originates, how it is produced and many stores and restaurants have committed to selling only sustainable or responsibly farmed seafood. Canada has the means to become a larger global producer of aquaculture (CCFAM, 2016: 7; DFO, 2012: 6), contribute to increasing food security and can play a significant role in producing food for countries where food imports are required.

Given the limited research regarding the adoption of commercial aquaponic and biofloc systems, this thesis provides insight into the aquaponic and biofloc industry in Canada and identifies influences and barriers of implementing both systems in Canada and potential ways to address barriers. This study found economic benefits to be the primary incentive for aquaculture facilities in this study to adopt aquaponic and biofloc systems but facilities were unaware of economic benefits both systems could provide. Unfamiliarity was the largest barrier to adopting both aquaponic and biofloc systems in this study. An increase in knowledge sharing, visible examples of profitable systems and collaboration are methods to overcome the barrier of unfamiliarity and potentially increase adoption of both systems in Canada. Overcoming this barrier appears to be possible in Canada as many aquaculture and aquaponic facilities were interested in learning more about both systems and were willing to take a workshop or course. Participants in this study were willing to take a workshop to learn more about both systems particularly if the cost was $750 or

97 less.

Piloting is also an important aspect to acquiring knowledge and is a significant component of adoption of aquaponic systems in Canada. Participants in this study were willing to pilot both systems, and other innovations, if they were given adequate knowledge, materials, funding or collaboration opportunities. Therefore, there is an opportunity for those in the aquaponics and biofloc industry to promote and share their experiences and collaborate with the aquaculture and aquaponics industry in Canada. It is also important for provincial and federal government departments to be a part of sustainable innovation in the aquaculture industry in Canada. Government involvement is important to clarify regulatory impacts and promote growth in the industry in order for the industry to stay competitive and contribute to food security. There has often been confusion around complex provincial and federal responsibilities of aquaculture, negatively impacting the growth of Canada’s aquaculture industry (Chopin, 2015: 30; ACFFA, 2014: 21; Salmon, 2014, Newfoundland and Labrador DFFA, 2016; SSCFO, 2015a: 4). To increase global market share and limit international companies taking over aquaculture opportunities in Canada, the government should play a key role in maintaining competiveness of the industry. To increase the knowledge and accessibility of sustainable innovations in the aquaculture industry, governments and industry partners can promote and fund education, workshops, provide opportunities to pilot innovations, provide collaboration opportunities as well as financial support. Having the government and industry involved in the aforementioned ways to increase knowledge in the aquaculture industry would also assist in reducing the barrier of misunderstandings of government regulations identified by participants in this research.

This research also identified energy costs as a potential barrier to adoption in Canada. The majority of aquaponic participants in this study identified energy as one of the highest operating expenses, this is significant to the success of facilities since large changes in energy can significantly impact profitability (Goodman, 2011: 78). Unless energy costs in Canada decrease, renewable energy sources or alternative energy sources may be vital to the economic viability of aquaponics in Canada. This appears to be a common practice in the aquaponic industry (Love et al., 2014: 5). Aquaponics has the potential to provide local organic produce year round and can be particularly beneficial in remote areas that have limited food available and high prices. More

98 research is required to understand the economic impact of using renewable energy compared to other energy sources in aquaponic systems (Love et al., 2014: 9) and if energy costs will be a barrier to adoption in Canada. In order to stay competitive and profitable, government and industry incentives should promote and support sustainable and accessible energy initiatives and options for those in the food production industry, including aquaculture.

This research found species compatibility may be the second most significant barrier to the adoption of biofloc systems in Canada since the majority of participants and ninety-four percent of aquaculture production occurs with species that cannot tolerate a high level of suspended solids, namely salmon, trout, and steelhead (DFO, 2014b). Adoption of in-situ biofloc systems in Canada can be expected to only occur in facilities that produce species that can tolerate the aforementioned conditions biofloc systems require. Future market demands could play a role in the expansion of biofloc systems in Canada, as it may be more likely for biofloc to increase in Canada with the development of new species being raised that can be compatible with the system. Species compatibility and a willingness to raise other species may suggest why there could be a larger adoption rate within the aquaponic industry. It is possible to have ex-situ operations which can be a potentially useful method to decrease ammonia and nitrate levels, grow another species in the biofloc tank or bioflocs can be made into fish feed. More research and data sharing is required to discuss the potential of ex-situ systems and aquaponic and biofloc combined systems.

This thesis identifies that there is potential for an increase in adoption of both aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada. Government and industry involvement is important to assist with the adoption of aquaponic, biofloc and other important innovations in the Canadian aquaculture industry. The aquaculture industry and government departments should be involved in promoting and assisting with access to sustainable and affordable energy for aquaculture facilities, access to collaboration and partnership opportunities, opportunities to learn about innovations in the industry (courses, workshops, etc.), access to job creation benefits and support for sustainable initiatives in aquaculture. Aquaponics, biofloc and other innovations within the Canadian aquaculture industry are important to stay competitive in the food industry, in particular for maintaining local and international expectations of environmentally sustainable food production

99 as well as to contribute to global food security.

Although aquaculture facilities in Canada can utilize both biofloc and aquaponic systems, the economic advantage and profitability of these systems are unclear. Whether aquaponic and biofloc systems will be economically, socially and financially sustainable in Canada will be determined through implementation and trials over time. As technology develops and industry practices change, it appears that many facilities in Canada are willing to learn about new technologies and are willing to adopt new practices if benefits are known. Therefore, it is essential for the industry and government to support innovations in aquaculture and provide opportunities for knowledge sharing.

Research Limitations

This research may be useful to compare with other facilities in Canada and internationally; however, only a small number of the aquaculture facilities in Canada were interviewed. This may provide a limited understanding of the industry. Only participants available during the interview time period were included in this research.

Concerning interview questions, some participants may not have been willing to disclose information regarding current and future practices for competitive and business reasons; this may be considered a limitation of this research. All data collected in this thesis is solely from what participants were willing to share with the researcher.

Future Research

This study does not provide information needed to evaluate the economic, social and environmental sustainability of aquaponic and biolfoc systems. More research is required to address the overall sustainability of aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canada and whether they will be profitable methods to produce food for local and international markets. This research does identify energy challenges of aquaponics in Canada. Addressing the economic viability of aquaponics with renewable or off the grid energy, compared to other sources could provide

100 valuable insight into the direction and viability of aquaponics in temperate regions. More research is required to understand the economic impact of using renewable energy compared to other energy sources in aquaponic systems (Love et al., 2014: 9).

This thesis research begins to provide insight into the aquaponic and aquaculture industry in Canada. As research involving these industries continues it would be beneficial to gain feedback from participants and others in the industry to learn their opinion of what future research should entail.

This study involved interviews with commercial aquaponic operations and did not include the motivations and challenges of small hobby farms in Canada. Although this study focused on aquaculture as a commercial source of food for humans, aquaculture also plays an important role in small-scale food production, restocking and enhancing water bodies. The potential that aquaponics and biofloc could have in these facilities was not included in this research. Further research could provide beneficial information for the development of the industry and for local and international food security.

101

References

Aboriginal Aquaculture Association. (2015). Aquaculture Partnerships: A Guide for Aboriginal Communities. Retrieved from http://static1.squarespace.com/static/532c61f8e4b0d901d03ed249/t/55c2317fe4b068d751 040088/1438790015332/Aquaculture+Partnerships+Guide+FINAL+Aug6.pdf

Adachi, C., & Rowlands, I. H. (2010). The role of policies in supporting the diffusion of solar photovoltaic systems: Experiences with Ontario, Canada’s Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program. Sustainability, 2(1), 30-47.

Aquaculture Engineering Society (AES). (2014). Biofloc Working Group. Retrieved from https://www.aesweb.org/biofloc.php

Allison, E. H. (2011). Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security. Working Paper 2011- 65. Penang: WorldFish Center. Retrieved from http://pubs.iclarm.net/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf

Allison, E. H., Delaporte, A., & Hellebrandt de Silva, D. (2013). Integrating fisheries management and aquaculture development with food security and livelihoods for the poor. Report submitted to the Rockefeller Foundation. Norwich: School of International Development, University of East Anglia.

Alonge, A. J., & Martin, R. A. (1995). Assessment of the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Implications for agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural education, 36(3), 34-42.

Alreck, P.L. & Settle, R.B. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook Second Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Atlantic Canada Fish Farmers Association (ACFFA). (2014). Strengthening Atlantic Canada. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56e827cb22482efe36420c65/t/570ed76a22482eaf3 303d90e/1460590453180/ACFFA_annual2014final_web.pdf

Agnew, D. J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., Watson, R., Beddington, J. R., & Pitcher, T. J. (2009). Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS one, 4(2), e4570.

Atkinson, J., Bibby, A., & Atkinson, S. (2014). Taste of BC Aquafarms Inc. Nanaimo Land Based Steelhead Model Aquafarm.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. (2013). Aquaculture in Atlantic Canada. Retrieved from http://www.acoa- apeca.gc.ca/eng/publications/FactSheetsAndBrochures/Pages/B_Aquaculture.aspx

Amosu, A.O., Robertson-Andersson, D.V., Kean, E., Maneveldt, G.W., & Cyster L. (2016).

102

Biofiltering and Uptake of Dissolved Nutrients by Ulva armoricana (Chlorophyta) in a Land-based Aquaculture System. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 18 (2): 298-304. Doi: 10.17957/IJAB/15.0086

Avnimelech, Y. (2009). Biofloc technology: A Practical Guide Book. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States: The World Aquaculture Society.

Avnimelech, Y. (May/June 2011). Tilapia Production Using Biofloc Technology: Saving Water, Waste Recycling Improves Economics. Global Aquaculture Advocate. Retrieved from http://pdf.gaalliance.org/pdf/GAA-Avnimelech-May11.pdf

Avnimelech, Y. (2015). Biofloc technology: A Practical Guide Book (3rd Edition). Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States: The World Aquaculture Society.

Ayer, N. W., & Tyedmers, P. H. (2009). Assessing alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle assessment of salmonid culture systems in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(3), 362-373.

Azim, M.E. & Little, D.C. (2008). The biofloc technology (BFT) in indoor tanks: water quality, biofloc composition, and growth and welfare of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Aquaculture, 283, 29–35.

Barrington, K., Chopin, T. & Robinson, S. (2009). Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine temperate waters. In D. Soto (ed.). Integrated mariculture: a global review. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 529. Rome, FAO. pp. 7–46.

Béné, C. (2006). Small-scale fisheries: assessing their contribution to rural livelihoods in developing countries. FAO Fisheries Circular, No. 1008. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G., & Williams, M. (March 2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050- Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security. Doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z

Bernal, P. and Oliva, D. (2016). Chapter 12 Aquaculture. In L. Inniss & A. Simcock (Eds.), The First Global Integrated Marine Assessment. World Ocean Assessment I. United Nations, New York. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/Chapter_12.pdf

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2004). Constructing Variables in M. Hardy and A. Bryman (eds.), Handbook of Data Analysis (London: Sage).

Bryman, A., Teevan, J.J. and Bell, E. (Eds). (2012). Social Research Methods (Third Canadian Edition). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Bostock, J. (2011). Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures: The application of

103

science and technology development in shaping current and future aquaculture production systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, 149, 133–141. doi:10.1017/S0021859610001127

Boyd, C. E., Queiroz, J., & McNevin, A. (December 2013). World Aquaculture. 14-21.

Boyd, C. E., & McNevin, A. (2015). Chapter 1: An Overview of Aquaculture. Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Doi: 10.1002/9781118857915.ch1

Browdy, C.L., Ray, A.J., Leffler, J.W. & Avnimelech, Y. (2012). Chapter 12: Biofloc-based Aquaculture Systems. Aquaculture Production Systems, First Edition. Edited by James Tidwell. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Doi: 10.1002/9781118250105.ch12

Burford, M. A., Thompson, P. J., McIntosh, R. P., Bauman, R. H., & Pearson, D. C. (2003). Nutrient and microbial dynamics in high-intensity, zero-exchange shrimp ponds in Belize. Aquaculture, 219(1), 393-411. Doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00575-6

Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA). (2015). Economic Benefits. Retrieved from http://www.aquaculture.ca/files/economic-benefits.php

Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance (CAIA). (2016). Production Markets. Retrieved from http://www.aquaculture.ca/files/production-markets.php

Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM). (2016). Aquaculture Development Strategy 2016-2019. Ottawa, Ontario: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Castine, S. A., McKinnon, A. D., Paul, N. A., Trott, L. A., & de Nys, R. (2013). Wastewater treatment for land-based aquaculture: improvements and value-adding alternatives in model systems from Australia. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 4, 285-300.

Charo-Karisa, H., H. Komen, H. Bovenhuis, M. A. Rezk, and R. W. Ponzoni. (2008). Production of genetically improved organic Nile tilapia. Dynamic Biochemistry, Process Biotechnology and Molecular Biology 2 (1, Special Issue): 50–54.

Chopin, T. (2015). Marine aquaculture in Canada: Well-established monocultures of finfish and shellfish and an emerging integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) approach including seaweeds, other invertebrates, and microbial communities. Fisheries, 40(1), 28- 31. Doi:10.1080/03632415.2014.986571

Coll, M., Libralato, S., Tudela, S., Palomera, I. & Pranovi, F. (2008). Ecosystem Overfishing in the Ocean. PLoS ONE 3(12): e3881. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003881

Cope, M. (2005). Coding qualitative data. In. I. Hay (Ed.) Qualitative Methodologies for Human Geographers. London: Oxford University Press.

104

Costa-Pierce, B. A. (2010). Sustainable ecological aquaculture systems: The need for a new social contract for aquaculture development. Marine Technology Society Journal 44: 88–112.

Crab, R., Kochva, M., Verstraete, W., & Avnimelech, Y. (2009). Bio-flocs technology application in over wintering of tilapia. Aquaculture Engineering, 40 (3), 105-112. Doi: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2008.12.004

Crab, R., Defoirdt, T., Bossier, P., & Verstraete, W. (2012). Biofloc Technology in aquaculture: Beneficial Effects and Future challenges. Aquaculture, 356acu7 351-356. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.04.046

De Schryver, P., Crab, R., Defoirdt, T., Boon, N., Verstraete, W. (2008). The basics of bioflocs technology: the added value for aquaculture. Aquaculture 277, 125-137.

Dediu, L., Cristea, V., & Xiaoshuan, Z. (2012). Waste production and valorization in an integrated aquaponic system with bester and lettuce. African Journal of Biotechnology, 11(9), 2349-2358.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (n.d). A Practical Guide to the Fisheries Act and to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Retrieved from http://www.dfo- po.gc.ca/Library/282791.pdf

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2012). Aquaculture in Canada 2012: A Report on Aquaculture Sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/lib-bib/asri-irda/asri-irda-2012-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2013a). Socio-Economic Impact of Aquaculture in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector- secteur/socio/index-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2013b). Aquaculture Statistics, Facts and Figures. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector-secteur/stats- eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2014a). Farmed Species Profiles. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector-secteur/species- especes/index-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2014b). Aquaculture Production Quantities and Values. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/aqua/aqua-prod-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2015a). Farmed Salmon. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector-secteur/species-especes/salmon-saumon- eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2015b). Canada’s Fisheries Fast Facts

105

2015. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/FastFacts_15-eng.pdf

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2015c). Communities and Employment. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector-secteur/commun/index- eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2015d). Farming the Seas – A Timeline. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/sector-secteur/frm-tml-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2016a). Aquaculture. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/aquaculture-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2016b). Canada’s Position Among the World’s Fisheries. Retrieved from http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/stats/commercial/cfs/2012/section4-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2016c). Facts on Canadian Fisheries. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sustainable-durable/fisheries- peches/species-especes-eng.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2016d). Aquaculture Production Quantity and Values. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/aqua/aqua-prod-eng.htm

Diana, J. S., Egna, H.S., Chopin, T., Peterson, M. S., Cao, L., Pomeroy, R., Verdegem, M., Slack, W.T., Bondad-Reantaso, M. G., & Cabello, F. (2013). Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innovations Will Be Key to Success. BioScience 63: 255–262.

Diver, S. (2006). Aquaponics - Integration of hydroponics with aquaculture. ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (National Center for Appropriate Technology).

Eatmon, T.D., Piso, Z.A., & Schmitt, E. (2013). Chapter 8 Perception is Reality: Factors Influencing the Adoption of Commercial Aquaponics in the Great Lakes Region. In H. E. Muga, & K. D. Thomas (Eds.), Cases on the Diffusion and Adoption of Sustainable Development (195-222). IGI Global. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2842-7.ch008

Ebeling, J. M. & Timmons, M. B. (2012). Chapter 11 Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. In Tidwell, J. (Ed.), Aquaculture Production Systems First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ekasari J., Crab, R., & Verstraete W. (2010). Primary Nutritional Content of Bio-flocs Cultured with Different Organic Carbon Sources and Salinity. HAYATI Journal of Biosciences, 17 (3), 125-130. Doif: 10.4308/hjb.17.3.125

Ekasari, J., Angela, D., Waluyo, S. H., Bachtiar, T., Surawidjaja, E. H., Bossier, P., & De Schryver, P. (2014). The size of biofloc determines the nutritional composition and the

106

nitrogen recovery by aquaculture animals. Aquaculture, 426, 105-111.

Emerenciano, M., Cuzon, G., Goguenheim, J., Gaxiola, G., & AQUACOP. (2013a). Floc contribution on spawning performance of blue shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris. Aquaculture Research, 44, 75-85. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2011.03012.x

Emerenciano, M., Gaxiola, G., & Cuzon, G. (2013b). Chapter 12 Biofloc Technology (BFT): A Review for Aquaculture Application and Animal Food Industry in Biomass Now- Cultivation and Utilization, Dr. Miodrag Darko Matovic (Ed.), InTech. Doi: 10.5772/53902.

European Commission Community Research and Development Information Services (EU CORDIS). (2016). INAPRO Report Summary. Retrieved from http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/176818_en.html

Flachowsky, G. (2002). Efficiency of energy and nutrient use in the production of edible protein of animal origin. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 22(1), 1–24.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2005). Depleted fish stocks require recovery efforts. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/Newsroom/en/news/2005/100095/index.html

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2006). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. Rome, Italy: Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/A0699e/A0699E05.htm

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2009). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome, Italy: Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0250e/i0250e.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2010). Aquaculture Development: 4. Ecosystem approach to aquaculture. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 5, Suppl. 4, 1-53. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2012). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e00.htm

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2013). 2050: A Third More Mouths to Feed. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/35571/icode/

107

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2014a). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720e.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2014b). Fish farms to produce nearly two thirds of global food fish supply by 2030. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/213522/icode/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2014c). World fisheries production, by capture and aquaculture, by country. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/STAT/summary/a-0a.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2014d). FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific: Thirty-second session- Sustainable intensification of aquaculture for food and nutritional security in the Asia-Pacific region (APRC/14/INF/6- MJ303E). Retrieved from www.fao.org/bodies/regconf2014/aprc32/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO). (2016). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. 1-200. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf

Furuya, W. M., L. E. Pezzato, M. M. Bar- ros, A. C. Pezzato, V. R. B. Furuya and E. C. Miranda. (2004). Use of ideal protein concept for precision formulation of amino acid levels in fish-meal-free diets for juvenile Nile tilapia (Oreo- chromis niloticus L.). Aquaculture Research, 35: 1110-1116.

Goddek, S., Delaide, B., Mankasingh, U., Ragnarsdottir, K. V., Jijakli, H., & Thorarinsdottir, R. (2015). Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability, 7 (4), 4199-4224.

Goddek, S., Espinal, C. A., Delaide, B., Jijakli, M. H., Schmautz, Z., Wuertz, S., & Keesman, K. J. (2016). Navigating towards decoupled aquaponic systems: A system dynamics design approach. Water, 8 (7), 303.

Goodman, E. R. (2011). Aquaponics: Community and Economic Development (Masters thesis). Retrieved from DSpace@MIT. (759095898). Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/67227

Guppy, Neil and George Gray. (2008). Successful Surveys: Research Methods and Practice Fourth Edition. Nelson, Thomson Canada Limited.

Hall, S. J., Dugan, P., Allison, E. H., & Andrew, N. L. (2010). The end of the line: who is most at risk from the crisis in global fisheries?. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 39(1), 78-80.

108

Hall, S. J., Delaporte, A., Phillips, M. J., Beveridge, M., & O’Keefe, M. (2011). Blue frontiers: managing the environmental costs of aquaculture. Penang: The WorldFish Center.

Hannesson, R. (2015). World Fisheries in Crisis? Marine Resource Economics, 30 (3), 251-260.

Hargreaves, J.A. (2013). Biofloc Production Systems for Aquaculture. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. Publication No. 4305: 1-12.

Hasan, M. R., & Halwart, M. (Eds.). (2009). Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture; practices sustainability and implications. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 518. Rome: FAO.

Haslun, J. A., Correia, E., Strychar, K., Morris, T., & Samocha, T. (2012). Characterization of bioflocs in a no water exchange super-intensive system for the production of food size pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. International Journal of Aquaculture, 2(1).

High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). (2014). Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition. A report by the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the committee on world food security. Rome: FAO.

House of Commons Canada. (2003). The Federal Role in Aquaculture in Canada Report of The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Committee/372/FOPO/Reports/RP1032312/foporp03/f oporp03-e.pdf

IKEA. (2015). IKEA Canada makes responsibly produced seafood available to its customers. Retrieved from http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/about_ikea/newsitem/2015_seafood_certification

INAPRO (Innovative Aquaponics for Professional Applications). (February 11 2014). Press Release Kick Off Meeting: New large-scale aquaponics project funded by the EU – optimized food and water management. Retrieved from http://www.inapro- project.eu/page/publications-media_p120/

James, A. (2006). Critical moments in the production of ‘rigorous’ and ‘relevant’ cultural economic geographies. Progress in Human Geography 30 (3): 289-308.

Julien, H. (2008). Survey research. In L. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. (pp. 847-849). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.4135/9781412963909.n441

Kawarazuka, N., & Béné, C. (2010). Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: a review of the literature. Food Security, 2(4), 343–357.

Kennelly, S. J., & Broadhurst, M. K. (2002). By‐catch begone: changes in the philosophy of

109

fishing technology. Fish and Fisheries, 3(4), 340-355.

Kloas, W., Groß, R., Baganz, D., Graupner, J., Monsees, H., Schmidt, W., Staaks, G., Suhl, J., Tschirner, M., Wittstock, B., Wuertz, S., Zikova, A., & Rennert, B. (2015). A new concept for aquaponics systems to improve sustainability, increase productivity, and reduce environmental impacts. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. 7: 179-192. Doi: 10.3354/aei00146

LaPatra, S. E., & MacMillan, J. R. (2008). Chapter 13 Fish Health Management and the Environment. In Tucker, C. S., Hargreaves, J. A. (Eds.), Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. Wiley-Blackwell.

Lekang, O. I. (ed). (2013). Chapter 15 Natural Systems, Integrated Aquaculture, Aquaponics, Biofloc. Aquaculture Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford. doi: 10.1002/9781118496077.ch15

Leung, P., Lee, C., & O’Bryen, P.J. (2007). Chapter 1 Introduction. Species and System Selection for Sustainable Aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470277867

Loblaw. (2015). Loblaw Companies Limited 2015 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Retrieved from http://www.loblaw.ca/en/responsibility/reports.html

Love, D.C., Fry, J.P., Genello, L., Hill, E.S., Frederick, J.A., Li, X., & Semmens, K. (2014). An International Survey of Aquaponics Practitioners. PLoS ONE 9(7): e102662. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102662

Love, D.C., Uhl, M.S., & Genello, L. (2015). Energy and water use of a small-scale raft aquaponics system in Baltimore, Maryland, United States. Aquaculture Engineering, 68, 19-27. Doi: 0.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.07.003

Martinez-Porchas, M., & Martinez-Cordova, L. R. (2012). World aquaculture: environmental impacts and troubleshooting alternatives. The Scientific World Journal, 2012.

Mathiesen, Á. M. (2013). FAO Highlights Importance of Canadian Aquaculture to Global Food Security and Hunger Alleviation. Retrieved from http://www.aquaculture.ca/files/11- 19.php

Mathiesen, Á. M. (2014). Fish farms to produce nearly two thirds of global food fish supply by 2030. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/213522/icode/

McMurtry, M. R., Sanders, D. C., Cure, J.D., Hodson, R.G., Haning, B. C., St. Amand, P.C. (1997). Efficiency of water use of an integrated fish/vegetable co‐culture system. Journal of the world aquaculture society, 28(4), 420-428.

Metaxa, E., Deviller, G., Pagand, P., Alliaume, C., Casellas, C., Blancheton, J.P. (2006). High

110

rate algal pond treatment for water reuse in a marine fish recirculation system: water purification and fish health. Aquaculture, 252: 92-101.

Metro. (2016). Our Sustainable Fisheries Policy. Retrieved from https://www.metro.ca/en/products-to-discover/fish-seafood/our-sustainable-fisheries- policy

Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ). (2016). Programme d’appui Financier au Développement du Secteur des Pêches et de L’aquaculture Commerciales. Retrieved from http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Formulaires/Pgm_Develop.pdf

Moffitt, C. M. & Cajas-Cano, L. (2014). Blue Growth: The 2014 FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Fisheries, 39:11, 552-553, Doi: 10.1080/03632415.2014.966265

Mssacay. (2013, January 15). Aquaponics Diagram. Retrieved from http://aquaponicsphilippines.com/aquaponics-diagram/

Multi-Agency Brief (MAB). (2009). Fisheries and Aquaculture in a Changing Climate. FAO, Rome, Italy, 6 pp. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/brochure/climate_change/policy_brief.pdf.

Munguti, J. M., Waidbacher, H., Liti, D. M., Straif, M., & Zollitsch, W. (2009). Effects of substitution of freshwater shrimp meal (Caridina nilotica Roux) with hydrolyzed feather meal on growth performance and apparent digestibility in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) under different culture conditions. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 21(8), 1-13.

National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. doi: 10.17226/19000. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285722/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK285722.pdf

Naylor R.L., Goldburg R.J., Primavera J.H., Kautsky N., Beveridge M.C.M., Clay J., Folke C., Lubchenco J., Mooney H. and Troell M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405: 1017–1024.

Nelson, R. L. (2008). Aquaponics Food Production: Raising fish and plants for food and profit. Montello: Nelson and Pade Inc.

Netherlands Business Support Office (NBSO). (2010). An Overview of China’s Aquaculture. Retrieved from http://china.nlambassade.org/binaries/content/assets/postenweb/c/china/zaken-doen-in- china/import/kansen_en_sectoren/agrofood/rapporten_over_agro_food/an-overview-of- chinas-aquaculture

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods (DFFA). (2016).

111

About the Department. Retrieved from http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/department/index.html

Nguyen, T., & Williams, T. (February 28 2013). Aquaculture in Canada. Publication No. 2013- 12-E. Ottawa, Canada; Library of Parliament.

National Oceanic and Atmosphere Association (NOAA). (2001). Brief History of Groundfishing Industry. Retrieved from http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/history/stories/groundfish/grndfsh1.html

Ogello, E.O., Musa, S.M., Aura, C.M., Abwao, J.O., Munguti, J.M. (2014). An Appraisal of the Feasibility of Tilapia Production in Ponds Using Biofloc Technology: A review. International Journal of Aquatic Science, 5 (1), 21-39.

Olin, P. (2012). National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Canada. National Aquaculture Section Overview Fact Sheets. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_canada/en

Oliver, Paul and Jupp, Victor (2006). Purposive sampling. In: The SAGE dictionary of social research methods. Sage, pp. 244-245.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). Aquaculture. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/tad/sustainable-agriculture/48258799.pdf

Parker, P. (2015). In The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Evidence. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/pofo/52020- e.htm?Language=E&Parl=41&Ses=2&comm_id=7

Peloquin, J. (March/April 2015). Commercial-scale aquaponics still has a way to go. Hatchery International. 16 (2).

Pérez-Rostro, C. I., Pérez-Fuentes, J. A., & Hernández-Vergara, M. P. (2014). Chapter 3: Biofloc, a Technical Alternative for Culturing Malaysian Prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. In Hernandez-Vergara, M. P. and Perez-Rostro, C. I. Sustainable Aquaculture Techniques 87-104. Doi: 10.5772/57501

Poštrk, V. (2003). The livestock revolution: dietary transition: global rise in consumption of animal food products. Environmental Science. Lund. Master: 50 pp. Lund, Sweden.

Rakocy, J. E., Masser, M. P., & Losordo, T. M. (2006). Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: aquaponics—integrating fish and plant culture. SRAC publication, 454, 1-16.

Rakocy, J. E. (2012). Chapter 14: Aquaponics- Integrating Fish and Plant Culture. Aquaculture Production Systems, First Edition. Edited by James Tidwell. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Doi: 10.1002/9781118250105.ch14

112

Rana, K. J., Siriwardena, S., & Hasan, M. R. (2009). Impact of rising feed ingredient prices on aquafeeds and aquaculture production. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 541. Rome, FAO. 63p.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Salmon, R. (2014). New Aquaculture Act best way forward for Canadian industry. Retrieved from http://aquaculturenorthamerica.com/News/new-aquaculture-act-best-way-forward- for-canadian-industry/

Searchinger, T., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Lipinski, B., Waite, R., Winterbottom, R., Dinshaw, A. & Heimlich, R. (2013). Creating a Sustainable Food Future: Interim Findings: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future-interim-findings

Serfling, S. A. (2006). Microbial flocs: Natural treatment method supports freshwater, marine species in recirculating systems. Global Aquaculture Advocate, 9, 34-36.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry. SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781412986281

Skar, S. L. G., Liltved, H., Kledal, P. R., Høgberget, R., Björnsdottir, R., Homme, J. M., Oddsson, S., Paulsen, H., Drengstig, A., Savidov, N. & Seljåsen, R. (May 2015). Aquaponics NOMA (Nordic Marine) New Innovations for Sustainable Aquaculture in the Nordic Countries. Nordic Innovation Publications. Retrieved from http://www.nordicinnovation.org/Global/_Publications/Reports/2015/P11090%20- %20Aquaponics%20RAPPORT%20-13%2001%2016.pdf

Statistics Canada. (November 2015). Aquaculture Statistics 2014 Catalogue no. 23-222-X. ISSN 1703-4531. Ottawa. Agriculture Division, Commodities Section.

Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (SSCFO). (2015a). Volume One- Aquaculture Industry and Governance in Canada. Senate, Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/421/POFO/RMS/01sep16/Report- e.htm

Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (SSCFO). (2015b). Volume Three- An Ocean of Opportunities: Aquaculture in Canada. Senate, Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/421/POFO/RMS/01sep16/Report-e.htm

Somerville, C., Cohen, M., Pantanella, E., Stankus, A. & Lovatelli, A. (2014). Small-scale aquaponic food production. Integrated fish and plant farming. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No.589. UNFAO, Rome. 262 pp.

Sumaila, U. R., Cheung, W. W., Lam, V. W., Pauly, D., & Herrick, S. (2011). Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries.Nature climate change, 1(9),

113

449-456.

Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R., & Metian, M. (2011). Demand and supply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans: trends and prospects. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 564. UNFAO, Rome. 87 pp.

Taw, N. (May/June 2010). Biofloc Technology Expanding At White Shrimp Farms: Biofloc Systems Deliver High Productivity with Sustainability. Global Aquaculture Advocate, 20-22.

Taw, N. (February 2016). Shrimp Biofloc Production Trials in Saudi Arabia. Global Aquaculture Advocate. Retrieved from http://advocate.gaalliance.org/shrimp-biofloc-production- trials-in-saudi-arabia/

Thilsted, S. H., James, D., Toppe, J., Subasinghe, R. & Karunasagar, I. (November 2014). Maximizing the contribution of fish to human nutrition. Background paper. ICN2 Second International Conference on Nutrition.

Tidwell, J. H. (2012). Chapter 4 Characterization and Categories of Aquaculture Production Systems. In Tidwell, J. (Ed.), Aquaculture Production Systems First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tidwell, J. H and Allen, G. (2012). Chapter 1 The Role of Aquaculture. In Tidwell, J. (Ed.), Aquaculture Production Systems First Edition (3-14). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tokunaga, K., Tamaru, C., Ako, H., & Leung, P. (2015). Economics of Small‐scale Commercial Aquaponics in Hawai ‘i. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 46(1), 20-32.

Tucker, C. & Hargreaves, J. (2012). Chapter 10 Ponds. In Tidwell, J. (Ed.), Aquaculture Production Systems First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tucker, C. S., Hargreaves, J. A., & Boyd, C. E. (2008). Chapter 1 Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. In Tucker, C. S., Hargreaves, J. A. (Eds.), Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. Wiley-Blackwell.

Turcios, A. E., & Papenbrock, J. (2014). Sustainable Treatment of Aquaculture Effluents- What Can We Learn from the Past for the Future? Sustainability, 6, 836-856. Doi: 10.3390/su6020836

Underwood, P. (2001). In The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries Interim Report. Aquaculture in Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific Regions. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/fish/rep/repintjun01part1-e.htm

University of Toronto (UofT). (2010). Guide for Informed Consent. Retrieved from http://www.research.utoronto.ca/wp- content/uploads/documents/2013/05/GUIDE-FOR- INFORMED-CONSENT-April-2010-1.pdf

114

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNESA). (2015). Population Division 2015. World Population 2015. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/World_Population_2015_Wallchart.pdf

Van Os, N. (June 2011). Tilapia Culture Without the Use of Fishmeal Relieves Pressures on Natural Fish Stocks. World Aquaculture. Vol 42 (2) 13-15.

Waite, R., Beveridge, M., Brummett, R., Castine, S., Chaiyawannakarn, N., Kaushik, S., Mungkung, R., Nawapakpilai, S. & Phillips, M. (June 2014). “Improving Productivity and Environmental Performance of Aquaculture.” Working Paper, Installment 5 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/publication/improving-aquaculture

Walmart. (2016). Seafood Policy. Retrieved from http://corporate.walmart.com/policies

Ward, J. D., Ward, P. J., Mantzioris, E. & Saint, C. (2014). Optimizing diet decisions and urban agriculture using linear programming. Food Security. Doi: 10.1007/s12571-014-0374-0

Watterson, A., Little, D., Young, J.A., Murray, F., Doi, L., Boyd, K. A., & Azim, E. (2012). Scoping a Public Health Impact Assessment of Aquaculture with Particular Reference to Tilapia in the UK. ISRN Public Health, 2012. Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/203796/ doi:10.5402/2012/203796

Willmann, R., & Kelleher, K. (2009). The sunken billions: the economic justification for fisheries reform. Agriculture and rural development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/656021468176334381/The- sunken-billions-the-economic-justification-for-fisheries-reform

World Bank. (2014). Fish to 2030 Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture. World Bank Report, No. 83177-GLB. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank Group. (2016). Food Security: Overview. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/foodsecurity/overview#1

Worm, Boris., Barbier, Edward B., Beaumont, Nicola., Duffy, J. Emmett., Folke, Carl., Halpern, Benjamin S., Jackson, Jeremy B. C., Lotze, Heike K., Micheli, Fiorenza., Palumbi, Stephen R., Sala, Enric., Selkoe, Kimberley A., Stachowicz, John J. and Reg Watson. (Nov 3 2006). Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science, 314 (5800): 787-790.

Ye, Y., Cochrane, K., Bianchi, G., Willmann, R., Majkowski, J., Tandstad, M., & Carocci, F. (2013). Rebuilding global fisheries: the World Summit Goal, costs and benefits. Fish and Fisheries, 14(2), 174-185.

Yip, W., Knowler, D. & Haider, W. (2012) Valuing the Willingness-to-pay for Ecosystem Service Benefits from Integrated Multi-trophic and Closed Containment Aquaculture in

115

British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Resource and Environmental Economics Study Group Annual Conference. British Columbia.

Yip, W., Knowler, D., Haider, W., & Trenholm, R. (2016). Valuing the Willingness-to-pay for Sustainable Seafood: Integrated Multi-trophic versus Closed Containment Aquaculture. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Doi: 10.1111/cjag.12102

116

Appendices

Appendix A: Recruitment E-mail for Aquaculture Owners

Dr./Ms./Mr.,

My name is Hollie Matthews, I am a graduate student at the University of Toronto. For my research, I am trying to identify approximately how many commercial land-based aquaculture facilities there are in Canada, not including pond, lake or U-catch operations. I am including hatcheries, recirculating and flow through operations in the land-based category for my research and any facilities that manage their effluent.

For my thesis I am conducting interviews with aquaculture facilities, aquaponic facilities and provincial government officers to understand funding opportunities, regulations and what may influence or deter facilities from implementing aquaponic and biofloc systems.

I hope that you, or someone at your facility, would be willing to participate in a phone interview to learn about your experience in aquaculture. As a subject matter expert, I greatly appreciate your opinion and experience of aquaculture in Canada and the potential of aquaponic and biofloc systems. Specific knowledge about these systems is not necessary to answer my questions as it adds valuable insight to address my research questions.

There is no cost for participating and will only require an hour of your time. The interview consent details and interview questions are attached for your perusal or should you prefer to respond by e-mail. I hope that you, or someone at your facility, would be willing to contribute your experience to my research. Please provide a date and time that is convenient for you to be contacted if you agree to participate. Any questions that you (and your facility) are not comfortable answering please disregard. I understand there may be questions facilities will not be willing to answer and greatly appreciate insight on the questions that can be discussed. You can also choose to remain anonymous in my research.

The results of my research will be made available to all participants should it be of interest. If you know of other aquaculture facilities who may be willing to speak with me, please forward this email and my contact information to them for consideration. If you are not able to participate in my research please let me know and I will take you off my follow-up list as to not inconvenience you.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (1) 647-457-1804 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your time, I look forward to speaking with you.

Sincerely, Hollie Matthews

117

Appendix B: Recruitment E-mail for Aquaponic Facilities

Dr./Ms./Mr.,

My name is Hollie Matthews, I am a graduate student at the University of Toronto currently researching factors that influence the implementation of aquaponic and biofloc systems in commercial aquaculture facilities in Canada.

I am contacting you, as current aquaponic owners, in the hopes that you would be willing to participate in a phone interview as I would greatly appreciate your opinion of aquaponic and biofloc systems and the potential of their implementation in Canada.

There is no cost associated with participating and I will gladly provide the results of my completed research should it interest you. The interview consent details are attached for your convenience. Please provide a date and time that is convenient for you to be contacted for the interview.

The results of my research will be made available to all participants should it be of interest. Should you know of any other individuals who might be willing to be interviewed please forward this information or my contact information to them for consideration.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (1) 647-457-1804 or [email protected]. Interview questions can be sent in advance of the interview.

Thank you very much for your time, I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Sincerely, Hollie Matthews

118

Appendix C: Recruitment E-mail for Biofloc Experts

Dr./Ms./Mr.,

My name is Hollie Matthews, I am a graduate student at the University of Toronto researching the economic and environmental feasibility of commercial aquaponic and biofloc aquaculture systems in Canada. I aim to identify barriers and incentives to implementing aquaponic and biofloc systems in Canadian aquaculture facilities.

I am contacting you, as a person knowledgeable in biofloc aquaculture systems to find out more information about the potential of implementing biofloc systems in Canada.

I would like to conduct an interview with you over the phone to discuss questions provided in the document attached (PDF). The interview will take approximately 15 minutes; it is comprised of 20 questions regarding bioloc systems in general and 13 questions regarding biofloc systems in Canada. Interview consent details are also attached for your convenience.

Please provide a time and date that will be convenient for you to be contacted for the interview. There will be no cost associated with participating in the interview.

If you are not able to participate in this interview or if you know of another individual that would be willing to participate in an interview please feel free to forward this e-mail to them.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions via (1)647-457-1804 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your time, I hope to speak with you soon.

Sincerely, Hollie Matthews

119

Appendix D: Recruitment E-mail for Government Officials in Aquaculture Departments

Dr./Ms./Mr.,

Thank you for your help with answering my questions regarding aquaculture operations in (province). I am following up on our previous e-mails regarding my Masters research at the University of Toronto. I am interested in researching the economic and environmental feasibility of aquaponic and biofloc aquaculture systems in Canada and the readiness of aquaculture facilities to implement these systems. Through interviews with Canadian government officials, aquaculture associations, aquaponic and biofloc experts and aquaculture facility owners I aim to identify barriers and incentives to implementing aquaponic and biofloc systems; potential financial incentives for implementing these systems and current nutrient management methods and regulations relating to aquaculture facilities across Canada.

I am contacting you, as an aquaculture government official in (province) to find out more information about the potential of implementing aquaponic and biofloc systems in (province).

I would like to conduct a telephone interview with you to discuss questions provided in the document attached (PDF). The interview will take approximately 15 minutes.

If you are not able to participate in this interview or if you know of another individual that would be willing to participate in an interview please feel free to forward this e-mail to them. I would like to interview government officials and aquaculture associations from every province in Canada.

As per university requirements, if you agree to the interview, please respond to this e-mail after reading the consent details.

Please provide a time and date that would be convenient for you to complete the telephone interview. There will be no cost associated with participating in the interview.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions via 647-457-1804 or [email protected].

Thank you very much for your time. I hope to speak with you soon.

Sincerely, Hollie Matthews

120

Appendix E: Interview Consent Details

I have read the information provided in the recruitment e-mail about the study being conducted by Hollie Matthews for her Masters of Arts thesis for the Department of Geography at the University of Toronto Mississauga. I also have had the opportunity to ask the researcher any questions related to this study, to receive adequate answers to my questions, and any further information I wanted.

I am aware that I may withdraw from the interview without penalty at any time. After the interview has been completed, I can withdraw from the study by simply contacting the researcher, Hollie Matthews, and inform her of my decision. If at the time of withdrawal, the project has entered the stages of data analysis, the researcher will attempt, as much as possible, to remove my data from the research but after data analysis is completed the material that has been provided cannot be withdrawn. I am aware that excerpts from the interview may be included in the Master’s thesis and/or publications to come from this research, with the understanding that the quotations will be anonymous, unless I request to be identified.

The interviewer, Hollie Matthews, would like to audiotape the interview to ensure that the conversation and data is recorded accurately. I may still participate in the research even if I decide not to be recorded. By participating in the interview I will receive a summary of the findings of this research, as well as the option to obtain the full report.

This project has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Toronto. I understand that if I have any concerns or comments resulting from my participation in this study, I may contact the Office of Research Ethics at [email protected] or 416-946-3273.

121

Appendix F: Interview Questions for Aquaculture Owners

Preliminary Questions

Have you read the consent details provided?

Do you agree to the consent details?

Do you agree to be audiotaped as part of the interview for the sole purpose of the interviewer to ensure your responses are recorded accurately? You can still participate in the interview without agreeing to be audiotaped.

Do you agree to the use of your name, employee position and employer/company for the purpose of recognizing interview participants in my thesis or publication that results from this research?

Do you agree to the use of your answers verbatim in my thesis or publications that results from this research? Any answers that I would like to quote in my thesis will be sent to you first for your acceptance. If you agree would you prefer quotes to be identified as yours or remain anonymous?

Aquaculture Facility Questions

1. When did your aquaculture facility begin operation?

2. Do you consider your aquaculture facility to be a commercial operation?

3. How many aquaculture facilities do you (or your company) currently own?

4. Does your facility operate year round or during specific months?

5. Is your facility a hatchery, nursery and/or a growout facility?

6. Approximately what is the stocking density at your facility/facilities?

7. Approximately how many tonnes of seafood are produced at your facility annually?

8. Is your aquaculture facility a recirculating facility? If yes: approximately what percent of the water used in your facility is recirculating? approximately how many recirculating facilities does your company operate? does your company operate recirculating facilities in multiple provinces? are the recirculating facilities for hatcheries, nurseries and/or growout? do you have to remove water periodically, for example for cleaning?

122

If no: is your company interested in becoming a recirculating facility? where is the effluent discharged?

9. Where does your facility get the water for aquaculture production from?

10. Are there regulations for extracting water or discharging water? If yes: what governing body is responsible for these regulations? what do these regulations entail? has your company had any difficulties in meeting these regulations?

11. Do you have to pay for extracting water or discharging water?

12. Is all the water discharged from your facility treated first?

13. How does your facility treat the water?

14. Is nutrient management or reduction a concern at your facility?

15. What does your facility currently do with the fish waste and wastewater?

16. Are you satisfied with the management of fish waste and wastewater at your facility?

17. In your opinion, are there beneficial methods of utilizing fish waste or wastewater?

18. Is your facility interested in other methods of using fish waste or wastewater other than the current method? 19. What do you currently do with the sludge produced at your facility?

20. Are you satisfied with the management of sludge at your facility or would you like to change or improve it? 21. In your opinion does your facility utilize environmentally sustainable practices? If yes: what sustainable practices are utilized?

22. Are other sustainable practices of interest to your facility? If yes: what sustainable practices are of interest?

23. In your experience, what are the highest operating expenses in aquaculture systems?

24. What species of fish are currently grown at your facility?

25. Why were these species chosen?

26. Have you grown other fish species in the past? If yes: What species did you grow? Why are you no longer growing those species?

123

27. Is your company interested in growing other species of fish in the future? If no: Why not? If yes: What species are you interested in growing?

Species that have been used in aquaponic and biofloc systems include bluegill, perch, tilapia, catfish, bass, trout, carp, shrimp and ornamental fish such as koi and gold fish, are you interested in producing any of these species?

28. Biofloc systems are typically used for species that can tolerate a high solids concentration unless the biofloc production is in a separate tank from the species being produced, can the species you produce tolerate a high solids concentration?

29. Are your fish sold locally?

30. Is it important to your company to produce food for your community or nearby communities?

31. Do you currently use or produce insect meal?

32. Are you interested in using or producing insect meal?

Aquaponic and Biofloc Questions

1. Are you (or the owner of this company) familiar with aquaponic systems or biofloc aquaculture systems?

Biofloc systems consist of high fish stocking densities and restricted water exchange resulting in the growth, from fish waste, of microscopic organisms including bacteria, fungi, algae, protists, and/or zooplankton as feed for the species in the aquaculture system. Water quality is controlled by maintaining aeration and mixing. Solids must be suspended in the water at all times or the system will not function. Biofloc systems are appropriate for species that can tolerate high solids concentration unless the biofloc production is in a separate tank from the species being produced.

If yes: are you aware of aquaponic or biofloc facilities in Canada or other areas of the world? do you know any aquaculture companies that have added aquaponic or biofloc systems to their facilities? have you or another member of your company visited or talked to other facilities that have aquaponic or biofloc systems?

are you aware of facilities that have combined aquaponic and biofloc systems? If yes: are you aware of challenges or benefits of combining these systems?

124

2. Are you aware of any benefits aquaponic or biofloc systems can provide to your facility?

3. Do you consider aquaponics or biofloc to be environmentally responsible or sustainable?

4. Has your company conducted a trial or pilot aquaponic or biofloc system?

If yes: what influenced you to pilot the system? was the pilot system externally or internally funded? approximately how long did you have a pilot system for? in your opinion approximately how much could piloting a system cost? 5. Do you, or staff at your facility, have training or experience in farming, aquaponics or biofloc systems?

6. In your opinion, are aquaponic or biofloc systems compatible with your current facility?

7. Does aquaponic or biofloc systems coincide with the values and goals of your company?

8. Are you interested in learning more about biofloc or aquaponic systems?

Aquaponic and Biofloc Implementation Questions

1. Would you be interested in implementing an aquaponic or biofloc system at your facility in Canada? If yes for biofloc, would your facility be interested in a system the produces biofloc in a separate tank from the fish or within the same water as the fish?

2. Would your company be interested in piloting an aquaponic or biofloc system?

3. What may influence you to pilot or implement a biofloc or aquaponic system?

For example, would you be willing if the operation was a partnership or managed by another company with experience? If the system was a de-coupled system and did not affect the current operation? If the system was completely funded? If the system decreased water treatment expenses by 30%? If the system assisted in reducing nitrate levels in the water? If the system reduced the amount of water exchange required? For example if the system could reduce the make-up water by 50%. If the system assisted in maintaining heat in the water? If the system reduced the amount of time to clean the water filters and decreased the requirement of external filters? If the system increased the efficiency of fish feed by reusing the fish feed? If the system provided additional food and protein source for the fish? If the system supplemented the cost of fish feed?

125

4. Do you have concerns about implementing aquaponics or biofloc systems to your facility? (Is there anything that deters you from implementing either system?)

5. Why have you not implemented a biofloc or aquaponic system?

6. Would you be interested in implementing aquaponics if you could make a profit from selling the plants produced?

7. Would you be interested in implementing aquaponics if you could donate or contribute the plants to a food bank or community kitchen?

8. Would you be interested in implementing an aquaponic system to produce crops to supplement the cost of fish feed, such as duckweed?

9. Are you concerned about the price of fish feed in the future?

10. If there was an increase in the price of fish feed, would you consider (i) a biofloc system, (ii) producing fish feed, or (iii) growing aquaponics to supplement your income?

11. Would your facility be interested in a biofloc or aquaponic system if there were a subsidy to defray costs for facility changes? If yes or maybe, what percentage of the installation costs would you like to have subsidized in order to implement the system?

12. Would your facility be interested in a biofloc or aquaponic system if you had a consultant evaluate your facility?

13. Consultation costs for an initial study to integrate an aquaponic or biofloc system typically involve a site visit, a business plan and project construction plan. Is your facility interested in having an aquaponic or biofloc consultation?

14. Would your facility be interested in a biofloc or aquaponic system if a percent of consultation cost was subsidized? If yes or maybe, what percentage of the consultation costs would you like to have subsidized if the consultation costs approximately $2000?

15. Would your facility be interested in a biofloc or aquaponic system if a percent of the initial costs were subsidized? If yes or maybe, what percentage of the initial costs would you expect to have funded in order to implement the system?

16. Would you or someone at your facility be interested in taking a workshop or course on biofloc or aquaponic systems?

17. Would your facility be interested in a biofloc or aquaponic system if a percent of the workshop or course was subsidized?

126

If yes or maybe, if the course costs approximately $1500 what percentage of the cost of the course would you expect to have subsidized?

18. Would your facility be interested in a biofloc or aquaponic system if it saved your facility money?

19. Would your facility be interested in a biofloc or aquaponic system if you qualified for additional grants or subsidies?

Community Involvement 1. Is your company visible online through a website, live webcam available to the public or social media?

2. Does your company advertise in newspapers, magazines, television or online?

3. Does your company currently host events for the community or plan to in the future?

4. In your opinion, does your company contribute to the local community? If yes: how?

5. Is community awareness important to your company and why?

6. Has your company received awards, a fellowship or been recognized publically in some way?

7. Is it a goal of your company to receive recognition, for example for being environmentally sustainable?

8. Is your company interested in creating more jobs in your community? If yes, would you be interested in aquaponic or biofloc systems as a way to create employment? If not, would you be interested in aquaponic or biofloc systems if there are grants to assist with creating new jobs?

Economic Related Questions

1. Does your company provide tours in person or online? If yes: Is there a fee associated with the tour?

2. Does your company currently provide camps for youth, workshops, sell supplies or materials, rental spaces, education, training or research opportunities? If yes: Are these provided for a fee? If not: Is your company interested in providing youth camps, workshops, supplies or materials, rental spaces, education, training or research opportunities in the future?

127

3. Is the main revenue source of your company from selling the fish? If not: Are you comfortable indicating what other sources of income your company has?

4. Is your aquaculture facility a for-profit operation? If yes: Is your company considering becoming a non-profit, not-for-profit operation or creating a not-for-profit arm? If not: Is your facility a non-profit, not-for-profit operation or does it have a not- for-profit arm?

5. Does or has your company received funding, tax incentives, zero-tax liability, grants, donations, volunteer services or other benefits?

6. Are you aware of potential funding, tax incentives, zero-tax liability, grants, donations volunteer service opportunities or other benefits for aquaculture?

7. Are employees of your company owners of the business and involved in making business decisions?

Participant Background

How many years have you worked in the aquaculture field?

Have you had experience working in the aquaculture field in countries other than Canada?

Conclusion

Would you like to receive the full report of my research?

Do you have any questions or suggestions regarding this interview or further comments you would like to add?

If you know of another person that operates an aquaculture facility who may be willing to participate in an interview please feel free to forward my contact information or my initial e-mail to them.

128

Appendix G: Interview Questions for Aquaponic Facilities

Preliminary Questions Have you read the consent details provided in the e-mail?

Do you agree to the consent details?

Do you agree to be audiotaped as part of the interview? You can still participate in the interview without agreeing to be audiotaped.

Do you agree to the use of your name, employee position and employer for the purpose of recognizing interview participants in my thesis or publication that results from this research?

Aquaponic Facility Questions

1. When did your aquaponic facility begin operation?

2. What plant and fish species are currently grown at your aquaponic facility?

3. Why were these species chosen?

4. Are there any challenges in growing the current fish and plant species?

5. Have you grown other species in your aquaponic system in the past? If yes: What species did you grow? Why are you no longer growing those species? Were there any challenges in growing those species?

6. Do you consider your aquaponic operation to be commercial?

7. Is your company interested in growing other species of fish or plants in the future? If not: Why not? If yes: What species are you interested in growing?

8. Do you sell either or both the fish and plants that are produced from your facility?

9. Are your plants and/or fish sold locally? If not: Would you consider selling locally in the future? Why are your plants and/or fish not sold locally? Where are your plants and/or fish sold?

10. Did your company conduct a trial or pilot aquaponic system prior to the start of your aquaponic operation? If yes: What influenced you to pilot an aquaponic system? Was the pilot system externally or internally funded? Approximately how long did you have a pilot system for? In your opinion

129

approximately how much could piloting an aquaponic system cost?

11. How many aquaponic facilities do you (or your company) currently own?

12. Have you received training in aquaponics?

13. Have staff at your facility received training in aquaponics? If yes: What did the aquaponic training consist of?

14. Have you hired or received advice from another person with aquaponic experience to assist with implementing your aquaponic system?

15. Does your facility correspond or receive advice from others in the aquaponic field?

16. Does your facility correspond or give advice to others in the aquaponic field?

17. Are you aware of online aquaponic forums?

18. In your opinion, do you consider aquaponics to be a complicated or fairly simple facility to operate?

19. Has your opinion of the complexity or simplicity of operating an aquaponic facility changed from when you first began operation?

20. With your experience if you were to build and operate another aquaponic facility what things you would do differently from your current facility?

21. Approximately when did you (or the founder of this company) first become aware of aquaponic systems?

22. Have you or another member of your company visited or talked to other facilities that have aquaponics?

23. Are you familiar with aquaponic systems in Canada, the United States or other temperate regions?

24. How does aquaponics coincide with the values of your company?

Aquaponics and Other Food Production Systems

1. Have you or another member of your company previously owned or operated an aquaponic facility, farm or aquaculture facility?

2. In your opinion do you or another member of your company have previous experience that has assisted you in aquaponics? For example farming, engineering, etc.

130

3. Why did your company decide to operate an aquaponic system?

4. In your opinion what in general are the benefits of aquaponic systems?

5. In your experience were there benefits to implementing aquaponics that you expected but did not receive?

6. Was there a reason why aquaponics was chosen instead of another food production system?

7. In your opinion what are the advantages to aquaponics compared to other land-based food production systems?

8. In your opinion what are the disadvantages to aquaponics compared to other land-based food production systems?

9. What is your opinion of the environmental sustainability of aquaponics?

Community Involvement

1. Is your company visible online through a website, live webcam available to the public or social media?

2. Does your company advertise in newspapers, magazines, television or online?

3. Does your company currently host events for the community or plan to in the future?

4. In your opinion, does your company contribute to the local community? If yes: How?

5. Is community awareness important to your company and why?

6. Has your company received awards, a fellowship or been recognized publically in some way?

7. Is it a goal of your company to receive recognition? For example for being environmentally sustainable or contributing to the local community.

Aquaponic Facility Technical Operation Questions

1. Was your facility originally built as an aquaponic operation or was the aquaponic system added later?

2. Does your system operate in a greenhouse or inside a building?

3. Does your system operate year round or during specific months?

131

4. Is your aquaponic system a recirculating system? If yes: Approximately what percent of the water is recirculated?

5. In your opinion can plants reduce all nutrients to appropriate levels for the system or are other nutrient management methods required? If not: In your experience how do the plants you grow effect the nutrient levels of the system?

6. In your experience have you modified or added components to the aquaponic system to improve production? If yes: Please explain

7. In your experience, what are the highest operating expenses in aquaponic systems?

8. In your experience are there methods to reduce expenses in aquaponic systems?

9. In your experience are there methods to increase income in aquaponic systems?

10. In your opinion could it be beneficial to produce diatoms, duckweed or other sources of fish feed in an aquaponic system?

11. In your experience, have off flavours been a concern in your aquaponic system?

12. Does your facility use the fish waste or wastewater for purposes other than aquaponics?

13. In your opinion, are there other beneficial methods of utilizing waste from aquaponics or the wastewater?

Economic Related Questions

1. Does your company provide tours in person or online? If yes: Is there a fee associated with the tour?

3. Is the main revenue source of your company from selling the fish or plants?

4. Are you comfortable indicating what other sources of income your company has?

5. Is your aquaponic facility a for-profit operation? If yes: Is your company considering becoming a non-profit, not-for-profit operation or creating a not- for-profit arm? If not: Is your facility a non-profit, not-for-profit operation or does it have a not-for-profit arm?

132

6. Does or has your company received funding, tax incentives, zero-tax liability, grants, donations, volunteer services or other benefits?

7. Are you aware of potential funding, tax incentives, zero-tax liability, grants, donations volunteer service opportunities or other benefits for aquaponic systems?

8. What are the barriers to starting an aquaponic facility?

9. Are employees of your company also owners of the business?

Questions About Aquaponics in Canada

1. In your opinion, would you recommend Canadian on-land aquaculture owners to implement an aquaponic system?

2. Would you recommend Canadian aquaculture facilities to pilot an aquaponic system?

3. In your opinion what are some benefits aquaculture facilities could obtain from implementing an aquaponic system?

4. What fish and plant species do you recommend growing in aquaponics systems in Canada?

5. In your opinion what in general are some challenges of implementing and operating aquaponic systems in temperate regions?

6. In your opinion are there methods that may reduce some of these challenges?

7. Do you have advice or recommendations for other people or companies interested in implementing aquaponics?

Biofloc Questions

1. Are you familiar with biofloc aquaculture systems?

If yes: Are you aware of facilities that have combined aquaponic and biofloc systems? If yes: Are you aware of challenges or benefits of combining these systems?

2. Would your company be willing to pilot a biofloc system?

3. What may influence you to pilot a biofloc system? For example, would you be willing to pilot a biofloc system if it was paid for or if another person was running it?

133

Participant Background

What experience do you have with aquaponic systems?

How many years have you worked with aquaponic systems?

What countries have you had experience working with aquaponic systems?

Do you teach courses or workshops on aquaponic systems?

Are you aware of other aquaponic courses or workshops? Would you recommend any specific courses/workshops to people or companies that are interested in implementing aquaponic systems?

Do you currently consult people or companies interested in implementing aquaponic systems?

Are you willing to be contacted by aquaculture facilities or people interested in aquaponic systems?

Conclusion

Would you like to receive the full report of my research?

Do you have any questions or suggestions regarding this interview or further comments you would like to add?

If you know of another person that operates an aquaponic system who may be willing to participate in an interview please feel free to forward my contact information or my initial e-mail to them.

134

Appendix H: Interview Questions for Biofloc Experts

Preliminary Questions

Have you read and do you agree to the consent details provided in the e-mail in the attached PDF document?

Do you agree to be audiotaped as part of the study? You can still participate in the interview without agreeing to be audiotaped.

Do you agree to the use of your name, employee position and employer in any thesis or publication that results from this research? If no: Do you agree to the use of anonymous quotations in any thesis or publication that results from this research?

1. General Biofloc Questions

1. To your knowledge, what are some countries that have implemented commercial biofloc systems?

2. In your experience, what are the most profitable species grown in commercial biofloc systems?

 Blue Tilapia  Asian Green Mussel  Nile Tilapia  Pacific White Shrimp  Mozambique Tilapia  Blue Shrimp  Super-male Tilapia (YY)  Pink Shrimp  Hybrid Tilapia  Carpas Shrimp  Carps  Northern Pink Shrimp  Mullet  Malaysian prawn  African sharptooth catfish  Black tiger shrimp  The giant gourami  Banana shrimp  Hybrid striped bass  Other

3. In your opinion what are some potential benefits of biofloc systems?

4. In your opinion, how does biofloc systems influence system efficiency, profit, costs and production time?

5. In your opinion how do biofloc systems effect the requirement to use other methods to control nutrient levels?

135

6. Can biofloc be the sole method of managing nutrients in aquaculture systems? In commercial or non-commercial systems?

7. In your opinion how do biofloc systems compare economically to other nutrient management systems?

In your opinion how do biofloc systems compare to other nutrient management systems in terms the amount and consistency of nutrient removal?

8. In your experience, what are some useful methods to manage nutrients in indoor recirculating systems?

9. In your experience have you modified or added other components to the biofloc system to improve production?

If Yes please explain what modifications or additional components have you used to improve production

10. In your opinion what in general are some challenges of biofloc systems?

11. In your experience, are off flavours a common concern in biofloc systems?

Are you aware of approaches to reduce off flavours?

12. In your experience, what is the highest operating expense in commercial biofloc systems?

Would this also be the highest operating expense in indoor biofloc systems?

13. In your opinion, does the price of fish feed influence the viability of biofloc systems?

14. Do you consider biofloc a sustainable or environmentally friendly component of commercial aquaculture production?

15. In your opinion can biofloc systems be incorporated with aquaponic systems?

If Yes/possibly, Are you aware of any facilities that have combined these systems?

Are there challenges or benefits of combining these systems that you are aware of?

16. In your opinion, are there beneficial methods of utilizing aquaculture effluent from indoor systems? (for example environmental or economic benefits)

136

2. Biofloc Questions Specific to Canada

In your opinion can aquaculture in Canada utilize biofloc technology?

If No: What are some reasons why aquaculture in Canada cannot utilize biofloc technology?

If Yes: 1. Can biofloc technology be used for commercial aquaculture production in Canada?

2. In your opinion can biofloc systems be used in hatcheries and grow-out facilities in Canada?

3. Would you recommend in-situ or ex-situ biofloc systems in Canada?

4. In your opinion, can biofloc technology be implemented in current facilities or are new facilities required?

5. Would you recommend Canadian aquaculture owners to implement biofloc systems?

If Yes; What steps would you recommend Canadian aquaculture facilities to take in order to implement a biofloc system?

6. Would you recommend aquaculture facilities to engage in a pilot biofloc system? If Yes; What steps would you recommend Canadian aquaculture facilities to take in order to implement a pilot system? In your opinion approximately how long could it take to start a pilot system? Approximately how much could this cost?

7. In your opinion what are some incentives or potential benefits for Canadian aquaculture owners to implement biofloc systems?

8. Since Asian Green Mussels (Perna viridis), have been grown in biofloc systems, do you think other mussel species could also be produced in biofloc systems? For example blue mussels, which is a species produced in Canada? In your opinion what could be challenges of producing blue mussels in biofloc systems in Canada?

9. Are other species currently produced in Canada able to utilize biofloc systems? Listed below are species produced in Canada.

137

Arctic Char Eel: American, Wolf Scallop: Bay, Pacific Hybrid, Barramundi Halibut: Pacific, Atlantic Japanese, Sea, Giant Rock, Bass: Largemouth, Kokanee Weathervane Smallmouth, Striped Lingcod Sea Urchin: Green, Purple, Bigmouth Buffalo Fish Mussel: Gallo/ Mediterranean, Red California Sea Cucumber Eastern Blue, Western Blue Signal Crayfish Carp: Grass Nuttall Cockle Sturgeon: Atlantic, Short- Clam: Hard (Quahog), Soft Oyster: Pacific, American, nose, White Shell, Varnish, Manila, European, Eastern Tilapia Geoduck, Littleneck, Butter, Perch: Yellow Trout: Rainbow/Steelhead, Horse Sablefish Eastern Brook/Speckled, Cod Salmon: Chinook, Coho, Brown, Lake (Char) Cunner Atlantic, Sockeye Walleye/Pickerel Dulse White-leg Shrimp

10. In your opinion is it possible to use wastewater from inland aquaculture systems to produce a biofloc system for shellfish?

If Yes/possibly, Are you aware of any facilities that have combined these systems? In your opinion what could be some challenges and benefits of combining these systems?

11. In your opinion what are some challenges of implementing biofloc systems in Canada, a northern temperate climate?

12. In your opinion are there methods that could reduce challenges of implementing biofloc systems in Canada?

13. In your opinion, is it feasible to produce fish (and/or other species) in a biofloc system with no addition of commercial feed?

If Yes/Possibly, is this possible in Canada? Is this possible for commercial production? Is this possible in indoor systems?

138

3. Participant Background

What experience do you have with biofloc systems?

What countries have you had experience working with biofloc systems?

Are you familiar with biofloc systems in temperate regions?

Are you aware of research or literature regarding implementing new systems or technology in aquaculture? How many years have you worked with biofloc systems?

Do you teach courses or workshops on biofloc systems? Are you aware of other biofloc courses or workshops? Would you recommend any specific courses/workshops to aquaculture facilities that are interested in implementing biofloc systems? Do you currently consult facilities interested in implementing a biofloc systems? Are you willing to be contacted by aquaculture facilities interested in biofloc systems?

Conclusion

Would you like to receive the full report of my research?

Do you recommend literature for me to review?

Do you have any questions or suggestions regarding this interview or further comments you would like to add?

If you know of another person knowledgeable in biofloc systems who may be willing to participate in the interview please feel free to forward my contact information or my initial e- mail to them.

139

Appendix I: Interview Questions for Government Officials in Aquaculture Departments

Preliminary Questions

Have you read the consent details provided in the e-mail?

Do you agree to the consent details?

Do you agree to be audiotaped as part of the interview? You can still participate in the interview without agreeing to be audiotaped.

Do you agree to the use of your name, employee position and employer/company for the purpose of recognizing interview participants in my thesis or publication that results from this research?

Questions Regarding Aquaculture Effluent

1. Are there currently aquaculture effluent water quality regulations in your province? (If no skip to Question 6)

2. What are the water quality parameters that aquaculture effluent is required to maintain?

3. Are the water quality parameters dependent on the body of water into which the effluent is discharged?

4. Have the effluent water quality standards recently changed or are they expected to change in the near future?

5. Are there consequences to not meeting the required effluent standards?

6. Is there a limit on the volume of water that can be discharged into water bodies from aquaculture facilities in your province?

7. Do aquaculture facilities in your province experience challenges meeting current effluent regulations?

8. Are you aware of any recommended practices or best practices used to reduce the impacts of aquaculture effluent in your province?

140

Aquaponic and Biofloc Questions

9. Are there currently or has there been any facility in your province that has used biofloc or aquaponic aquaculture systems? (If no skip to question 12) Biofloc systems consist of high fish stocking densities and restricted water exchange resulting in the growth, from fish waste, of microscopic organisms including bacteria, fungi, algae, protists, and/or zooplankton as feed for the species in the aquaculture system. Water quality is controlled by maintaining aeration and mixing. Solids must be suspended in the water at all times or the system will not function. Biofloc systems are appropriate for species that can tolerate high solids concentration unless the biofloc production is in a separate tank from the species being produced.

If yes: approximately how many facilities operate(d) biofloc or aquaponic systems? are/were these commercial facilities?

10. Are you aware of any aquaculture facilities in your province implementing a biofloc or aquaponic system?

11. To your knowledge, what species are grown in aquaponic/biofloc systems in your province?

12. To your knowledge, are current aquaculture facilities in your province interested in implementing biofloc or aquaponic aquaculture systems?

If yes, is there a species of fish or crop that aquaculture facilities are particularly interested in producing? What is the main reason for the interest?

Questions Regarding Funding

13. Are there current funding opportunities from the provincial or federal government for aquaculture facilities to implement sustainable technologies?

If yes: would biofloc or aquaponic systems be included in these sustainable funding opportunities?

what would aquaculture facilities with biofloc or aquaponic systems be required to do to be eligible to receive funding?

14. Are you aware of funding opportunities available for facilities with biofloc or aquaponic systems from the government or other sources?

15. Is there funding available for facilities that would like to open a new facility with a biofloc or aquaponic system?

141

16. Is there funding available for facilities that would like to implement a biofloc or aquaponic system to their current facility?

17. Are there funding opportunities for new aquaculture facilities or current facilities to hire consultants, to attend training courses or to improve their system?

18. Are aquaculture facilities currently subsidized by the government in your province? If applicable, please explain what type of subsidies occur, for example what is the time period and amount of these subsidies.

19. Is there potential for aquaculture facilities to receive subsidies from the government? For example to have reduced energy rates.

20. Are aquaculture facilities in your province able to receive farm status? If no, can aquaculture facilities with aquaponics receive farm status?

21. Can aquaponics facilities be acceptable for both aquaculture and agriculture grants and funding opportunities?

22. Are non-Canadian owned aquaculture companies allowed to operate in your province?

23. Are non-Canadian owned aquaculture companies eligible for the same or additional funding opportunities?

Questions Regarding Regulations, Permits and Certification

24. Are there species that are not allowed to be farmed in aquaculture in your province?

If yes, are shrimp and tilapia allowed to be farmed?

25. Do aquaponic facilities require a licence in your province?

If yes, if aquaculture facilities add an aquaponics system would they require a different licence?

26. Do aquaponic facilities require different licences based on what they sell to the public? For example would an aquaponic facility that sells fish require a different licence than a facility that only sells plants?

27. Can aquaponic plants be certified and sold as organic in your province?

28. In your province, or in Canada, are there eco-certifications related to effluent management of aquaculture facilities?

142

29. Are there different procedures or requirements of non-Canadian owned companies to obtain an aquaculture lease in your province?

30. Would different permits be required for land–based recirculating biofloc or aquaponic systems compared to other land–based recirculating aquaculture facilities?

31. Are you aware of any limitations or regulations that would impact facilities wanting to implement biofloc or aquaponic systems?

32. Approximately how long does it take to obtain a license/permit for various aquaculture facilities in your province?

33. How much does it cost to obtain a license/permit for recirculating, flow through and open water aquaculture facilities?

34. What is a common reason recirculating or aquaponic license/permits are refused?

35. What is a common barrier or reason facilities do not apply for a recirculating or aquaponics license/permit?

36. Is this barrier/are these barriers unique to recirculating or aquaponic facilities, or common across various types of aquaculture facilities?

37. What ministries are involved in aquaculture licencing in your province?

38. Are you aware of information or documents that compare aquaculture regulations across Canada?

Conclusion

Would you like to receive the full report of my research?

Do you have any questions or suggestions regarding this interview or further comments you would like to add?

If you have a colleague within or outside the province who may be willing to participate in the interview please feel free to forward my contact information or initial e-mail to them.

143