Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 30 issue 3 (september 2009) : 157-166

VIABLE APPROACH FOR PISCICULTURE IN SEWAGE WATER- A REVIEW

M
M.L. Bansal
J
Jaspal Singh1
1College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, india

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Bansal M.L., Singh1 Jaspal (2025). VIABLE APPROACH FOR PISCICULTURE IN SEWAGE WATER- A REVIEW. Agricultural Reviews. 30(3): 157-166. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Sewage water, treated or untreated, municipal or otherwise, contains potential
nutritional resources. Chemically it is difficult as well as uneconomical to extract
them. These can be eaten by fish directly or through food chains, and thus can be
converted to animal protein naturally. Pisciculture today is mainly dependent upon
fish- meal, which is a protein source. This fish- meal is expensive and not readily
available at all places. Fish and algae can extract the protein and nutrients from the
sewage water and in the process also treat the sewage water. In Kolkata the wastewater
aquaculture system receives about 55,000 cumec of untreated sewage per day
and an estimated production of Carp and Tilapia is seven tones per hectare (East
Kolkata wetlands Management 2007). The main potential of wastewater-fed
aquaculture and its major advantage over conventional wastewater treatment is the
large diversity of marketable products and therefore broad possibilities of income
generation. The combination of the two income generating options (wastewater
treatment and biomass production) is a very interesting feature

REFERENCES

  1. Anonymous . Annual Report ,Delhi Jal Board and terivision, (2002). June, 2002. Issue No.46.
  2. Anonymous . Enviro News, Feberuary,1999. www. envfor.nic.in/news
  3. Anonymous . Report on East Kolkata wetlands Management (2007)
  4. (www.enviswb.gov.in/ENV/env_drupal/?q=book/print/19,)
  5. http://www.keiponline.com/east_kolkata_wetland.htm
  6. Bansal, M.L. and Aggarwal, D.(1994).Haryana J.Agron.10(2):259-263.
  7. Bhimachar, B.S. and Tripathi, S.D.(2007). A Report on Internet website of FAO.
  8. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/61036T/61036T00.HTM
  9. Datta, A.K. (2000) Report on First International Conference on Waste Recycling and Resource Management in the Developing World. University of Kalyani, India and International Ecological Engineering Society, Switzerland.pp.97-104
  10. Das, F.B. (2000) Report on First International Conference on Waste Recycling and Resource
  11. Management in the Developing World. University of Kalyani, India and International Ecological
  12. Engineering Society, Switzerland. pp 125-133.
  13. Edwards, P. (2000) Report on first international conference on Waste recycling and resource management in the developing world. University of Kalyani, India and International Ecological Engineering Society, Switzerland.pp. 37-49
  14. Ganapati, S. V. and Chacko, P. I. (1950). Ind.Com.J., 5:248–52.
  15. Ghosh, C. (2004).Bioresource Technol. 93 (1):71-75.
  16. Gopalakrishnan,V. and. Srinath, E.C.(1963). Proc.Indian Acad.Sci.(B), 57(6):379–88.
  17. Govindan, V.S. (1987). Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergebn. Limnol. 28:95-104.
  18. Gumbricht,T.(1993).Ecol. Engg.2:49-61.
  19. Guterstam, B.(1996). Ecolo Engg. 6:73-97.
  20. Jana, B.B.(1998). Ecolo Engg.11:73-85.
  21. Mishra, S.et al (2000).Agriculture,Ecosystems and Enviornments, Elesvier science . 72(3):
  22. 213-218.
  23. Mitra, G.N. (1956a). Curr. Sci., 25(12):401.
  24. Mitra, G.N.(1956b). Progr.Fish.Dev. India.54–62.
  25. Mitra, G.N.(1957). Proc.Indo-Pacif.Fish.Coun., 7(2):183–185.
  26. Philipose, M. T.(1963). Indian Livestk, 1(2):20–1. 166 AGRICUTURAL REVIEWS
  27. Quality Criteria for Water.(1976). In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA#310/7-
  28. 76-003.
  29. Quality Criteria for Water,(1986). In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA#440/5-
  30. 86-001.
  31. Saha, K. C.(1958). Indian J.Fish., 5(1):144–9.
  32. Singh,S.B.(1962). Proc.Indo.Pacif.Fish.Coun., 10(2):141–5.
  33. Soeder,C.J.(1981). Proceedings of Workshop on Biological Production System and Waste
  34. Treatments. University of the OFS Bloemfontein, South Africa PP73-85
  35. Staudenmann, J. and Junge-Berberovic, R. (2000). Report on First International Conference
  36. on Waste Recycling and Resource Management in the Developing World. University of
  37. Kalyani, India and International Ecological Engineering Society, Switzerland.pp. 52-57.
  38. Water Quality Criteria .(1963). In: California Water Quality Resources Board, Publication
  39. No. 3-A.
  40. Water Quality Criteria.(1972). In: Environmental Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publication No.5.
Published In
Agricultural Reviews
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    volume 30 issue 3 (september 2009) : 157-166

    VIABLE APPROACH FOR PISCICULTURE IN SEWAGE WATER- A REVIEW

    M
    M.L. Bansal
    J
    Jaspal Singh1
    1College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004, india

    • Submitted|

    • First Online |

    • doi

    Cite article:- Bansal M.L., Singh1 Jaspal (2025). VIABLE APPROACH FOR PISCICULTURE IN SEWAGE WATER- A REVIEW. Agricultural Reviews. 30(3): 157-166. doi: .

    ABSTRACT

    Sewage water, treated or untreated, municipal or otherwise, contains potential
    nutritional resources. Chemically it is difficult as well as uneconomical to extract
    them. These can be eaten by fish directly or through food chains, and thus can be
    converted to animal protein naturally. Pisciculture today is mainly dependent upon
    fish- meal, which is a protein source. This fish- meal is expensive and not readily
    available at all places. Fish and algae can extract the protein and nutrients from the
    sewage water and in the process also treat the sewage water. In Kolkata the wastewater
    aquaculture system receives about 55,000 cumec of untreated sewage per day
    and an estimated production of Carp and Tilapia is seven tones per hectare (East
    Kolkata wetlands Management 2007). The main potential of wastewater-fed
    aquaculture and its major advantage over conventional wastewater treatment is the
    large diversity of marketable products and therefore broad possibilities of income
    generation. The combination of the two income generating options (wastewater
    treatment and biomass production) is a very interesting feature

    REFERENCES

    1. Anonymous . Annual Report ,Delhi Jal Board and terivision, (2002). June, 2002. Issue No.46.
    2. Anonymous . Enviro News, Feberuary,1999. www. envfor.nic.in/news
    3. Anonymous . Report on East Kolkata wetlands Management (2007)
    4. (www.enviswb.gov.in/ENV/env_drupal/?q=book/print/19,)
    5. http://www.keiponline.com/east_kolkata_wetland.htm
    6. Bansal, M.L. and Aggarwal, D.(1994).Haryana J.Agron.10(2):259-263.
    7. Bhimachar, B.S. and Tripathi, S.D.(2007). A Report on Internet website of FAO.
    8. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/61036T/61036T00.HTM
    9. Datta, A.K. (2000) Report on First International Conference on Waste Recycling and Resource Management in the Developing World. University of Kalyani, India and International Ecological Engineering Society, Switzerland.pp.97-104
    10. Das, F.B. (2000) Report on First International Conference on Waste Recycling and Resource
    11. Management in the Developing World. University of Kalyani, India and International Ecological
    12. Engineering Society, Switzerland. pp 125-133.
    13. Edwards, P. (2000) Report on first international conference on Waste recycling and resource management in the developing world. University of Kalyani, India and International Ecological Engineering Society, Switzerland.pp. 37-49
    14. Ganapati, S. V. and Chacko, P. I. (1950). Ind.Com.J., 5:248–52.
    15. Ghosh, C. (2004).Bioresource Technol. 93 (1):71-75.
    16. Gopalakrishnan,V. and. Srinath, E.C.(1963). Proc.Indian Acad.Sci.(B), 57(6):379–88.
    17. Govindan, V.S. (1987). Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergebn. Limnol. 28:95-104.
    18. Gumbricht,T.(1993).Ecol. Engg.2:49-61.
    19. Guterstam, B.(1996). Ecolo Engg. 6:73-97.
    20. Jana, B.B.(1998). Ecolo Engg.11:73-85.
    21. Mishra, S.et al (2000).Agriculture,Ecosystems and Enviornments, Elesvier science . 72(3):
    22. 213-218.
    23. Mitra, G.N. (1956a). Curr. Sci., 25(12):401.
    24. Mitra, G.N.(1956b). Progr.Fish.Dev. India.54–62.
    25. Mitra, G.N.(1957). Proc.Indo-Pacif.Fish.Coun., 7(2):183–185.
    26. Philipose, M. T.(1963). Indian Livestk, 1(2):20–1. 166 AGRICUTURAL REVIEWS
    27. Quality Criteria for Water.(1976). In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA#310/7-
    28. 76-003.
    29. Quality Criteria for Water,(1986). In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA#440/5-
    30. 86-001.
    31. Saha, K. C.(1958). Indian J.Fish., 5(1):144–9.
    32. Singh,S.B.(1962). Proc.Indo.Pacif.Fish.Coun., 10(2):141–5.
    33. Soeder,C.J.(1981). Proceedings of Workshop on Biological Production System and Waste
    34. Treatments. University of the OFS Bloemfontein, South Africa PP73-85
    35. Staudenmann, J. and Junge-Berberovic, R. (2000). Report on First International Conference
    36. on Waste Recycling and Resource Management in the Developing World. University of
    37. Kalyani, India and International Ecological Engineering Society, Switzerland.pp. 52-57.
    38. Water Quality Criteria .(1963). In: California Water Quality Resources Board, Publication
    39. No. 3-A.
    40. Water Quality Criteria.(1972). In: Environmental Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publication No.5.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Agricultural Reviews

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)