Technological approaches to grow-out: a comparative study of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) culture in three different production systems during the growing season

Technological app oaches o
g ow-ou : a compa a i e s udy
o pikepe ch (Sande luciope ca)
cul u e in h ee di e en
p oduc ion sys ems du ing
he g owing season
Va
´cla Kuc
ˇe a*, Toma
´s
ˇPe
ˇnka, Oleksand Malino skyi,
Ji ka Kola
´
ˇo a
´,Ja
´n Regenda and Toma
´s
ˇPolica
Facul y o Fishe ies and P o ec ion o Wa e s, Uni e si y o Sou h Bohemia in C
ˇ
eske
´Bude
ˇjo ice,
Sou h Bohemian Resea ch Cen e o Aquacul u e and Biodi e si y o Hyd ocenoses,
Vodn
ˇany, Czechia
This s udy compa es pikepe ch (Sande luciope ca) p oduc ion in h ee sys ems:
a eci cula ing aquacul u e sys em (RAS), an in-pond aceway sys em (IPRS), and
a adi ional pond polycul u e (POND). Each sys em was s ocked wi h 1500
ju eniles and cul u ed o 24 weeks. The RAS fish exhibi ed he mos in ensi e
g ow h, achie ing he highes final o al leng h, final body weigh , condi ion
ac o and specific g ow h a e, alongside he lowes ood con e sion a io (FCR).
Howe e , he inc eased hepa osoma ic index, in ape i oneal a and ammonia
le els sugges ed an inc eased me abolism. No ably, RAS fish displayed he
highes equency o fin e osion, pa icula ly in he caudal and fi s and second
do sal fins. The IPRS g oup exhibi ed slowe g ow h, highe FCR and highe
plasma glucose le els han he o he g oups. IPRS fish also showed fin e osion in
caudal and bo h pec o al fins. RAS and IPRS fish demons a ed simila su i al
a es. Con e sely, he POND g oup exhibi ed significan ly lowe su i al, likely
because o adap abili y and wa e quali y issues. Blood plasma analysis o POND
fish indica ed s a a ion, ma ked by ele a ed alanine amino ans e ase and lipase
le els, suppo ed by non-exis ing a ese es. In summa y, RAS yielded he bes
g ow h and eed e ficiency, al hough i was associa ed wi h inc eased me abolic
s ess and fin e osion. IPRS showed slowe g ow h bu p o ed cos -e ec i e
du ing he g owing season. T adi ional pond cul u e was unsuccess ul owing o
adap abili y in and he wa e quali y o ponds. An economic e alua ion e ealed
ha p oduc ion cos s pe pikepe ch ju enile we e significan ly lowe in he IPRS
compa ed wi h ha in he RAS, he eby compensa ing o slowe g ow h.
KEYWORDS
pikepe ch, p oduc ion, in ensifica ion, ea ing echnology, physiological
s a us, mo ali y
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g01
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Luca Pa ma,
Uni e si y o Bologna, I aly
REVIEWED BY
S e an Reise ,
Thuenen Ins i u B aunschweig, Ge many
Ami Ranjan,
Tamil Nadu Fishe ies Uni e si y, India
*CORRESPONDENCE
Va
´cla Kuc
ˇe a
[email p o ec ed]
RECEIVED 17 Feb ua y 2025
ACCEPTED 09 May 2025
PUBLISHED 02 June 2025
CORRECTED 22 Oc obe 2025
CITATION
Kuc
ˇe a V, Pe
ˇnka T, Malino skyi O, Kola
´
ˇo a
´J,
Regenda J and Polica T (2025) Technological
app oaches o g ow-ou : a compa a i e
s udy o pikepe ch (Sande luciope ca)
cul u e in h ee di e en p oduc ion
sys ems du ing he g owing season.
F on . Ma . Sci. 12:1578274.
doi: 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
COPYRIGHT
©2025Kuc
ˇe a, Pe
ˇnka, Malino skyi, Kola
´
ˇo a
´,
Regenda and Polica . This is an open-access
a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (CC BY).
The use, dis ibu ion o ep oduc ion in o he
o ums is pe mi ed, p o ided he o iginal
au ho (s) and he copy igh owne (s) a e
c edi ed and ha he o iginal publica ion in
his jou nal is ci ed, in acco dance wi h
accep ed academic p ac ice. No use,
dis ibu ion o ep oduc ion is pe mi ed
which does no comply wi h hese e ms.
TYPE O iginal Resea ch
PUBLISHED 02 June 2025
DOI 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
1 In oduc ion
Eu opean inland aquacul u e has chosen di e sifica ion as a
ool o inc ease p oduc ion (Baekeland e al., 2018). Pikepe ch
was selec ed among o he species o in ensi e aquacul u e
(Polica e al., 2019) gi en i s high alue, apid g ow h and good
flesh quali y. Owing o hese ai s, pikepe ch p oduc ion in
aquacul u e is cons an ly inc easing. Con e sely, p oduc ion
om open wa e s has g adually dec eased o e he yea s,
d opping o ~50% since 1950 (FAO, 2022). This c ea es an
oppo uni y o a me s o u he inc ease hei p oduc ion o
fill he ma ke gap. In Wes e n Eu ope, such as Belgium and
F ance, insu ficien pond a ming a ea o ces a me s o p oduce
pikepe ch in closed aquacul u e sys ems (RAS). The ea e ,
con olled pikepe ch aquacul u e was highly indus ialised,
which led o high cos s o ini ial in es men and main enance
(O e on e al., 2015). Nume ous s udies ha e ocused on he
op imisa ion o b oods ock managemen (Malino skyi e al., 2018,
2019), ep oduc ion (Sama in e al., 2016;K is an e al., 2018),
ju enile and on-g owing eeding (Kowalska e al., 2015;Penka
e al., 2023;Schulz e al., 2007), ligh egimes (Luchia i e al.,
2006), s ocking densi ies (Ljubob a o ice al., 2016;Kozłowski
and Pio owska, 2023), bicul u e s ockings (Penka e al., 2021,
2024)anduseo li e eed o la alcul u e(Imen ai e al., 2019;
Yanes-Roca e al., 2018;2020) o u he ensu e he easibili y
o RAS ope a ion. In ecen yea s, a d as ic ise in ene gy cos s
has dec eased he p ofi abili y o pikepe ch in ensi e a ms,
p omp ing he need o less ene gy demanding p oduc ion
me hods. Ex ensi e o semi-in ensi e pond cul u e emains he
leas expensi e op ion o fish p oduc ion, bu he seasonal na u e
o fish supply, low species di e si y and inc easing empe a u es,
which cause algae blooms and oxygen deficiencies, make pond
cul u e unp edic able and less e ficien . Ne e heless, in CEER
coun ies (Cen al Eas Eu opean coun ies—Czech Republic,
Poland,Hunga y,Aus ia,Slo akiaandGe many), hemajo i y
o a med pikepe ch (FAO, 2022), as well as he o e all sha e o
aquacul u e p oduc ion o up o 80%–88% (Va ecka e al., 2019),
o igina es om ponds. The exis ing pond in as uc u e in he
combina ion wi h new echnological equipmen p o ides an
oppo uni y o inc ease he p oduc ion capaci y o ponds. One
o he p oduc ion possibili ies we e he cages ha we e used o
con olled fish p oduc ion in Cen al Eu ope du ing he 20
h
cen u y we e pa ially success ul. Howe e , cages ha e he
disad an ages o insu ficien wa e ci cula ion, which is di ec ly
ela ed o dec eased wa e quali y and low oxygen le els (B une
e al., 2003). The in-pond aceway sys em (IPRS) p o ides be e
wa e quali y, is easy o ins all in exis ing ponds and p o ides
be e wa e ci cula ion and ae a ion while using an ai li as a
powe medium (Masse , 2012). IPRS has been used in only wo
published s udies on pikepe ch cul u e ega ding b oods ock
managemen (Ljubob a o ice al., 2019)and heg ow-ou
phase o ju eniles (Nagy e al., 2022). The s udy by Nagy e al.
(2022) sugges s ha pikepe ch ea ing is compa ible wi h IPRS
and should be u he examined and economically e alua ed.
He ein, he ad an ages and disad an ages o adi ional fish
a ming in ponds, mode n fish a ming using RAS and he
hyb id sys em o IPRS, which combines bo h app oaches o fish
cul u e, a e e alua ed.
2 Ma e ials and me hods
2.1 Place and du a ion o he expe imen
The expe imen was conduc ed in he la ge scale-expe imen al
RAS and IPRS a he Labo a o y o In ensi e Aquacul u e, Facul y
o Fishe ies and P o ec ion o Wa e s, Uni e si y o Sou h Bohemia
in CeskeBudejo ice, Czechia and in h ee expe imen al ponds
belonging o he Expe imen al Fish Cul u e Facili y o he same
acul y as he p e ious p oduc ion sys ems. The du a ion o he
expe imen was 168 days (24 weeks) du ing he g owing season,
s a ing on Ap il 11
h
and finishing on Sep embe 26
h
.
2.2 P oduc ion sys ems
2.2.1 RAS
Fo his s udy, a semi-expe imen al RAS comp ising 10 cylind ical
anks, each wi h a olume o 1.5 m³, was used (Figu e 1). The bo om
ou flow o he ank was connec ed di ec ly o a d um mechanical fil e
1-FB (IN-EKO Team, Tisno , Czech Republic) wi h a flow a e o 28–
000 L.h
−1
and o a mo ing bed biofil a ion uni wi h a olume o 14.6
m³ powe ed by wo ai -pumps (Secoh El-S-250; 250 L.min
−1
,Secoh
L d., Shanghai). A e he s e ilisa ion p ocess using an ozone gene a o
OT 10 model (Ozon ech s. .o., Zlın, Czech Republic) wi h he dose o
10 g pe hou and 6 hou applica ion (Kola o ae al., 2021)and
sa u a ion wi h pu e oxygen, wa e was un om he dis ibu ion ank
g a i a ionally back in o he ea ing anks. The wa e flow in he anks
was se a an exchange a e o wice pe hou o consis en oxygen
sa u a ion and e ficien aeces disca d.
2.2.2 IPRS
The IPRS comp ised nine sepa a e floa ing plas ic anks
(Figu e 2). Each ank had a olume o 7.2 m³ (4 × 1.5 × 1.2 m)
and was fi ed wi h wo s ainless s eel g a ed openings on opposi e
sides. The fi s g a ed openingwas loca ed di ec ly unde he wa e
su ace and p o ided op inflow. The second g a ed opening was
loca ed a he bo om and enabled he disposal o unea en eed,
aeces and o he deb is om he anks in o he pond. The wa e
inflow was p o ided by an ai li loca ed in he siphon unde he
inle opening. The ai li h ough he siphon p oduced la ge bubbles
o ai , c ea ing a slow wa e cu en ha ca ied wa e o he su ace.
This cu en p o ided con inuous wa e exchange inside he ea ing
anks while also b inging esh oxygen- ich wa e . The IPRS was
powe ed by an ai -pump Kubıcek 3D19S-051E (940 L.min
−1
,
Kubıcek VHS s. .o., Czech Republic). The open op o he anks
was co e ed wi h a ne o p o ec he fish om p eda o s and alling
deb is. The pond used o his floa ing sys em had a o al a ea o 0.3
hec a e wi h an a e age dep h o 1.8 m and was filled by a wa e
om he Blanice Ri e .
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g02
2.2.3 POND
In his expe imen , h ee iden ical expe imen al ponds we e used
by he POND g oup. Each pond had a o al a ea o 0.1 ha wi h an
a e age dep h o 1 m (Figu e 3). The ponds we e filled by he same
wa e channel om he Blanice Ri e as he pond whe e IPRS was
si ua ed. The bo om inflow was fi ed wi h a fine mesh bag o p e en
fish om he i e om en e ing he pond. The ou flow was fi ed wi h
fine ba s o p e en he fish om escaping om he pond.
2.3 Expe imen al g oups and eeding
In each ea ing sys em (RAS, IPRS and POND), pikepe ch
ju eniles wi h a mean ini ial body weigh (IBW) o 51.6 ± 10.33 g
we e s ocked. Each ea ing sys em was s ocked in iplica e wi h 500
indi iduals pe epe i ion (a o al o 1500 ju eniles pe g oup, 4500
ju eniles in o al). Pikepe ch was s ocked in o each ea ing sys em 2
weeks be o e he s a o he expe imen o ensu e he fish adap ed
o he new en i onmen . All ju enile pikepe ch o igina ed om a
RAS–POND combina ion p oduc ion sys em, acco ding o Polica
e al. (2016). These ju eniles we e ini ially ed floa ing eed,
Sk e ing Eu opa-15F (55% p o ein, 16% a , 10% fib e, 0.7% ash,
1.5% phospho us, 19.4 MJ.kg
−1
diges ible ene gy, size 2–3 mm),
which was subsequen ly p o ided o he fish du ing he IPRS and
RAS ials. Feed was dis ibu ed in o he RAS and IPRS anks using
bel eede s o >8 h pe day. Depending on he wa e empe a u e,
oxygen le els and appe i e o he fish, he daily eeding a io (DFR)
oscilla ed om 0.3% o 1.5% o biomass pe day. The mean ini ial
FIGURE 1
La ge-scale expe imen al RAS o LIA FFPW USB in Vodnany (V. Kuce a).
FIGURE 2
IPRS o LIA, FFPW USB Vodnany consis ing o 9 anks, 7.2m
3
each (V. Kuce a).
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g03
biomasses we e es ablished as ollows: 17.2 kg.m
−1
(RAS) and 3.58
kg.m
−3
(IPRS), depending on he cul u e in ensi y le el. Bo h
sys ems ope a ed unde a s ock monocul u e egime. In POND
condi ions, 258 kg.ha
−1
o pikepe ch we e s ocked. To help imi a e
he condi ions o ex ensi e pond cul u e in Cen al Eu ope, he
ollowing fish species we e added o he polycul u e in he ollowing
biomasses: common ca p (Cyp inus ca pio), 168 kg.ha
−1
(177
indi iduals, IBW 94.3 ± 0.1 g); b oods ock o ench (Tinca inca),
74.5 kg.ha
−1
(8 indi iduals, IBW 896.5 ± 27.4 g) and b oods ock o
udd (Sca dinius e y h op halamus), 101.5 kg.ha
−1
(60 indi iduals,
IBW 171.1 ± 0.9 g). The b oods ock o ench and udd was added o
p o ide p ey fish o pikepe ch ia na u al spawning.
2.4 Abio ic condi ions
In heRASandIPRSen i onmen s,wa e empe a u eandoxygen
le els we e measu ed daily a 7:00 using a YSI P oODO oxime e (YSI
Inc., Yellow Sp ings, OH, USA). The pH was measu ed once a day a
7:00 am using a WTW 3310 pH-me e (WTW, P ague, Czech
Republic). To al ammonia and ni i e le els we e de e mined daily a
7:30 am using simple i a ion and colou ime y e e ence ki s,
acco ding o Penka e al. (2021). All he p e iously men ioned
abio ic condi ions in he ponds we e measu ed h ice a week using
he same equipmen , and sampling was pe o med a he same ime as
in he RAS and IPRS. All wa e quali y pa ame e s in each p oduc ion
sys em a e summa ised in Table 1.
2.5 E alua ed p oduc ion pa ame e s
A hebeginningo heexpe imen ,100indi idualswe esubjec ed
o biome ic measu emen s (body weigh [BW], o al leng h [TL] and
s anda d leng h [SL]) using a measu ing boa d and digi al scale (KERN
KB 2400-2N; Ke n & Sohn, GmbH, Ge many). Fin e osion was
de e mined in 90 indi iduals, ollowing Polica e al. (2016).Be o e
manipula ion, fish we e anaes he ised using clo e oil (0.04 ml. l
−1
)
(K is an e al., 2014). Blood was collec ed om 12 indi iduals om he
ena caudalis using a hepa inised needle (5000 IU/ml, Leci a, P ague,
Czech Republic) and a sy inge. A e plasma cen i ugal sepa a ion, he
samples we e s o ed a −80°C un il biochemical analysis. The ollowing
biochemical pa ame e s in blood plasma we e analysed: o al p o ein
(TP), albumin (ALB), globulin (GLB), amylase (AMYL), lipase (LIPA),
o al choles e ol (TCHOL), glucose (GLU), ammonia (NH
3
),
iglyce ide (TAG), alanine amino ans e ase (ALP) and aspa a e
amino ans e ase (AST). The measu emen was made using he
biochemical analyse FUJI DRI-CHEM NX 500i (FUJIFILM Eu ope
GmbH, Dusseldo , Ge many). A e blood sampling, fish we e
eu hanised and dissec ed o de e mine he weigh o indi idual
in e nal o gans o he calcula ion o soma ic indices such as
hepa osoma ic index (HSI), in ape i oneal a index (IPFI),
spleensoma ic index (SSI), gonadosoma ic index (GSI) and ela i e gu
leng h (RGL). Dissec ions we e pe o med unde e e ina y guidance,
suppo ed by good p ac ice. Du ing he expe imen , he mo ali y o he
cul u ed fish was checked daily, and all deceased indi iduals we e
coun ed and eco ded o calcula e he su i al a e (SR). Fo he exac
calcula ion o he eed con e sion a io (FCR), unea en eed was checked
daily du ing he eeding o he fish and main enance o he ea ing anks.
TABLE 1 Abio ic condi ions in all p oduc ion sys ems du ing
he expe imen .
Pa ame e RAS IPRS POND
O
2
(%) 131 ± 14.5 92.1 ± 16.6 90.5 ± 27.9
NO
2-
(mg. L
-
¹) 0.67 ± 0.31 0.26 ± 0.14 0.35 ± 0.10
NH
4+
(mg. L
-1
) 0.68 ± 0.30 0.53 ± 0.28 0.42 ± 0.11
pH 6.86 ± 0.21 7.16 ± 0.26 7.89 ± 0.92
T(˚C) 21.9 ± 2.64 17.0 ± 4.07 18.4 ± 4.24
FIGURE 3
Expe imen al ponds wi h ac eage o 0.1 ha and a e age dep h o 1m in Expe imen al Fish Cul u e Facili y o FFPW USB Vodnany (pho o by
V. Kuce a).
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g04
A he end o he expe imen , 300 indi iduals om each g oup
we e subjec ed o biome ic measu emen s (BW, SL and TL) using
he same echnological equipmen used a he beginning o he ial.
The e osion o fins was assessed in 90 indi iduals om each g oup
desc ibed abo e. The s a e o e osion was assessed by qualified
pe sonnel and di ided in o ou ca ego ies (0–4), and hei
pe cen age dis ibu ion was calcula ed o each g oup acco ding
o (Polica e al., 2016). Blood samples we e d awn om 12
indi iduals om each expe imen al g oup (36 fish in o al), and
hese fish we e, as a he beginning, dissec ed o in e nal o gan
inspec ion and subsequen de e mina ion o soma ic indices. The
ollowing p oduc ion pa ame e s we e calcula ed acco ding o he
ollowing o mulas om he de e mined BW, TL and SL: numbe o
su i ing fish, consumed eed, numbe o days o ial and weigh o
dissec ed o gans a he bo h beginning and e mina ion o he ial:
The specificg ow h a e(SGR)(%.d
−1
) was calcula ed as ollows:
SGR=ln FBW −ln IBW
x100
SR (%) was calcula ed as ollows:
SR =  NF
NI x100
Weigh gain (%) was calcula ed as ollows:
WG = ( FBW
IBW x100) −100
The eed con e sion a io (g. g
-
¹) was calcula ed as ollows:
FCR = F
BG
The condi ion ac o s we e calcula ed as ollows:
CF=BW
TL3100
The hepa osoma ic index (%) was calcula ed as ollows:
HSI =WL
BW x 100
The IPFI (%) was calcula ed as ollows:
IPFI =WIPF
BW x 100
The spleensoma ic index (%) was calcula ed as ollows:
SSI =WS
BW x 100
The gonadosoma ic index (%) was calcula ed as ollows:
GSI =WG
BW x 100
The RGL was calcula ed as ollows:
RGL =GL
SL
In all he o mulas, he ollowing measu emen s and eco ds
we e used: ini ial and final body weigh (IBW and FBW), final o al
leng h (FTL), numbe o days o he ial ( ), numbe o fish in he
sample (N), final numbe o fish (NF), ini ial numbe o fish (NI),
eed consump ion (F), biomass gain (BG), o al leng h (TL),
s anda d leng h (SL), body weigh (BW), weigh o he li e
(WL), weigh o IPFI (WIPF), weigh o spleen (WS), weigh o
gonad (WG) and gu leng h (GL).
2.6 Economic e alua ion
To calcula e p oduc ion cos s o pikepe ch ju eniles, he
ollowing cos ca ego ies we e e alua ed: eed, elec ici y, ap
wa e , oxygen, pe sonnel (including insu ance and ax), s ocking
ma e ial, chemicals and dep ecia ion cos s. The final p oduc ion
cos was compa ed wi h he final numbe o p oduced fish o
calcula e he exac p oduc ion cos pe fish. Pe sonal cos was
calcula edon hebasiso he imespen wo kingwi heach
sys em.Incaseo h ee anksinRASi wasona e age60
minu es pe day. In case o IPRS i was 45 minu es pe day. In
case o he POND p ice o pe sonell was calcula ed o co e he
pe sonal cos du ing he ha es , so ing he fish a e ha es and
occasional wo k like cleaning he ouflow and inflow o he ponds
du ing g owing season. To es ima e he p oduc ion cos o
pikepe ch in a polycul u e sys em, pe sonal labo , elec ici y, and
dep ecia ion expenses we e e enly alloca ed among he cul u ed fish
species (common ca p, pikepe ch, udd, and ench b oods ock),
wi h each g oup assigned 25% o he o al ope a ional cos s,
excluding hose ela ed o s ocking ma e ial. Al hough pikepe ch
accoun ed o only 2.38% o he o al ha es ed biomass a he
e mina ion o he expe imen , his imbalance was o se by i s
disp opo iona ely highe sha e a he beginning o he p oduc ion
cycle, when pikepe ch ep esen ed 42.3% o he o al s ocked
biomass due o he mo e complex and demanding na u e o i s
s ocking p ocess.All he ime spend on da a collec ion, sampling,
calcula ing o unea en eed e c was no included as i does no eflec
a s anda d p oduc ion p ac ices and i would a ificially inc ease
p oduc ion cos o he fish in his s udy
2.7 S a is ical analyses
Da a we e analysed using he Rs udio so wa e (R Co e Team,
2014). Be o e he s a is ical analysis, se e al p elimina y es s we e
conduc ed. The Shapi o–Wilk es was used o de e mine he no mali y
o he esiduals, whe eas Le ene’s es was employed o inspec he
homogenei y o a iance. Fu he mo e, he Kolmogo o –Smi no es
was used o assess da a no mali y. The p oduc ion pa ame e s we e
compa ed using one-way ANOVA, wi h a significance ma gin se a P
< 0.05. The homogenei y o he da a was assessed using he Tukey’s
Hones ly Significan Di e ence me hod. All da a a e p esen ed as he
mean ± s anda d de ia ion (SD).
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g05

3 Resul s
3.1 G ow h and eed u ilisa ion o he
pikepe ch
Pikepe ch ju eniles cul u ed in di e en ea ing sys ems
achie ed significan ly di e en g ow h a es. The highes FBW
was 190.0 ± 67.72 g (RAS, almos quad upled hei BW du ing
he expe imen ) compa ed wi h 121.0 ± 36.39 g (IPRS, mo e han
doubled hei BW du ing he expe imen ), and he lowes FBW was
62.5 ± 19.26 g in he POND g oup, which was ully co ela ing wi h
he FTL o 278.6 ± 32.5, 249 ± 23.20 and 208 ± 15.76 mm,
espec i ely. The same end was obse ed in weigh gain, which
was he highes (268.0% ± 21.23%) in he RAS, 132.7% ± 1.25% in
he IPRS and he lowes (28.3% ± 18.56%) in POND. FCR eached
1.0 ± 0.03 and 1.6 ± 0.10 in he RAS and IPRS, espec i ely. In e ms
o SGR, his esul co esponds o he highes alue (0.7 ±
0.01%.day
−1
) in he RAS, 0.4 ± 0.02%.day
−1
in he IPRS, and he
lowes alue (0.1 ± 0.08%.day
−1
) in he POND g oup. Rega ding CF,
fish om he RAS had he highes CF alue o 1.3 ± 0.10 compa ed
wi h 1.2 ± 0.11 in he IPRS and 1.1 ± 0.17 in he POND g oup. The
o al mean BG in he RAS was 53,120 g, whe eas i was 26,208 g in
he IPRS. In he ponds, no gain in biomass was obse ed owing o
he low SR o pikepe ch ju eniles. All men ioned p oduc ion da a
a e p esen ed in Table 2.
3.2 G ow h o o he fish species in pond
polycul u e
In he polycul u e egime o s ock in ponds, o he fish species
also displayed g ow h. The highes g ow h a e was obse ed in
common ca p, which inc eased om an IBW o 94.3 g o an FBW o
515.0 ± 75.0 g, esul ing in a WG o 446.4% and an SGR o 1.0 ±
0.1%.day
−1
. The ench eached an FBW o 908.3 ± 53.6 g om an
IBW o 896.5 ± 27.4 g, esul ing in a WG o 1% and an SGR o
0.052%.day
−1
. The b oods ock o udd eached almos a simila
esul , g owing om an IBW o 171.1 ± 0.9 g o an FBW o 183.7 ±
9.6 g, esul ing in a WG o 7.3% and an SGR o 0.042%.day
−1
.
3.3 Su i al a e
The SRs we e s a is ically simila be ween he RAS and IPRS
(83.9% ± 3.65% and 88.9% ± 0.81%, espec i ely). The SR in he
pond was significan ly lowe (5.9% ± 4.11%). The mean BW o
mo bid fish in he RAS was 68.9 g, whe eas ha in he IPRS was 42.2
g. Mo eo e , he size o mo bid fish in he IPRS dec eased
h oughou he ial, as shown in Figu e 4,al hough hefish
displayed inc easing g ow h and BW. The dynamics o mo ali y
di e ed be ween he RAS and IPRS, as shown in Figu e 5. The
su i al a es o o he cul u ed fish in polycul u e s ock in ponds
we e as ollows: common ca p, 70.3% ± 8.3%; ench, 71.8% ± 15.9%
and udd, 64% ± 28.6%.
3.4 Fin e osion o pikepe ch
Du ing he assessmen o fin e osion, only ca ego ies 0 (no
damage) and 1 (mino damage) we e obse ed. Ca ego ies 2,3 and 4
we e no ound on inspec ed indi iduals indica ing ha he fish
su e ed om only mino fin e osion. F om he 90 assessed
indi iduals in each g oup, 68.9% ± 12.86% in he RAS, 40.0% ±
7.2% in he IPRS and 27.2% ± 16.5% in he POND g oup we e
a ec ed by he fin e osion in ca ego y 1. Fish om he RAS g oup
mos ly expe ienced e osion (ca ego y 1) o he caudal fin (25.6% ±
3.1%), fi s do sal fin (11.3% ± 4.10%) and second do sal fin (26.7%
± 2.72%). Fish om he IPRS mos ly su e ed om he e osion o
bo h pec o al fins (8.89% ± 1.54% le ; 11.3% ± 1.54% igh ) and
caudal fins (11.1% ± 4.16%). Fish om he POND g oup exhibi ed
une en e osion ac oss all fins, wi h he highes equency o e osion
(ca ego y 1) ound on he caudal fin (7.8% ± 6.85%), le pec o al fin
(9.06% ± 5.50%) and igh en al fin (6.67% ± 7.20%). A de ailed
desc ip ion o he e osion o all fins is p esen ed in Table 3.
3.5 Soma ic indices o pikepe ch
Analysis o he soma ic indices o cul u ed pikepe ch showed
he ollowing: fish om he RAS displayed significan ly highe
TABLE 2 P oduc ion ma ke s o pikepe ch ju eniles in h ee di e en ea ing sys ems a e 24 weeks o ea ing.
Pa ame e Ini ial RAS IPRS POND F-s a is ics P- alue
FTL (mm) 197 ± 11.6
c
278.6 ± 32.6
a
249 ± 23.2
b
208 ± 15.8
c
F(3,784) = 37.2 P < 0.005
FBW (g) 51.6 ± 10.3
c
190.0 ± 67.7
a
121 ± 36.4
b
62.5 ± 19.3
c
F(3,784) = 312 P < 0.005
WG (%) –268.0 ± 21.2
a
132 ± 1.25
b
28.3 ± 18.6
c
F(2,6) = 109 P < 0.005
SR (%) –83.90 ± 3.65
a
88.9 ± 0.81
a
5.91 ± 4.11
b
F(2, 6) = 421 P < 0.005
CF 1.1 ± 0.10
c
1.3 ± 0.10
a
1.2 ± 0.11
b
1.1 ± 0.17
c
F(3,784) = 67.5 P < 0.005
SGR (%.d
−1
)–0.7 ± 0.01
a
0.4 ± 0.02
b
0.1 ± 0.08
c
F(2,6) = 57.0 P < 0.005
FCR (g.g
1
)–1.0 ± 0.03
a
1.6 ± 0.10
b
–F(1,4) = 70.9 P < 0.005
FTL, Final o al leng h; FBW, Final body weigh ; WG, Weigh gain; SR, Su i al a e; CF, Condi ion ac o ; SGR, Specific g ow h a e; FCR, Feed con e sion a io.
Values wi h di e en supe sc ip s (a, b, c) di e significan ly (p< 0.05).
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g06
IPFI oge he wi h he IPRS compa ed wi h POND- aised fish.
RAS- aised fish also exhibi ed significan ly enla ged li e s (highe
HSI) compa ed wi h he o he g oups. Consequen ly, he spleen
(SSI) was significan ly smalle in he RAS and la ge in he
POND g oup. The RGL o POND- aised fish was significan ly
highe han ha o he RAS and IPRS- aised fish. No s a is ically
significan di e ences we e ound in he GSI. All pa ame e s a e
desc ibed in Table 4.
3.6 Biochemical pa ame e s o pikepe ch
blood
The plasma le els o TP, ALB, GLOB, NH
3
and LIPA we e
wi hin he anges no mally ound in pikepe ch in good condi ions
(Kola o aand Velısek, 2012). TP was s a is ically highe in fish
om he RAS and IPRS compa ed wi h ha om he POND g oup.
The concen a ion o ALB di e ed significan ly among all he es ed
FIGURE 5
Dynamics o mo ali y in he expe imen al IPRS and RAS, episodes o bac e ial in ec ion in RAS (8.6., 17.6. and 22.6.) and inc ease o mo ali y in IPRS
due o he wa e quali y in he pond in la e summe and inc eased he e ogenei y among he ank s ock.
FIGURE 4
Mean body weigh s o deceased indi iduals du ing he expe imen in IPRS and RAS g oups.
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g07
g oups, wi h he highes le els in he RAS and he lowes in he
POND g oup. GLOB was s a is ically highe in he RAS compa ed
wi h he POND g oup. GLU was s a is ically he highes in he IPRS
and exceeded he alues no mally de e mined in pikepe ch unde
good condi ions. AMY showed s a is ically significan di e ences
among all he g oups, being he highes in he RAS and he lowes in
he POND g oup. Fish om POND we e he only ones no
exceeding he no mal alues o AMY o pikepe ch in good
condi ions. TCHO did no show any s a is ically significan
di e ences among he g oups. LIP was significan ly he highes in
he POND g oup. NH
3
was he highes in he RAS bu did no
exceed he no mal alues o pikepe ch. TG le els in pikepe ch
ac oss all he g oups, including he fish a he s a o he es , we e
highe han he epo ed no mal alues o pikepe ch. Among he
g oups, he TGs we e s a is ically lowe in he POND g oup, which
only sligh ly exceeded he alues o pikepe ch in good condi ions.
Inc eased ac i i y o he li e enzyme ALP was highe in fish om
he POND g oup, wi h ALP le els in he POND g oup being wo
imes highe han hose in he uppe ange o pikepe ch in good
condi ions. Pikepe ch om he IPRS had he highes AST alues
compa ed wi h hose om he POND g oup and RAS. All
biochemical pa ame e s a e lis ed in Table 5.
3.7 Economical e alua ion
The e alua ion o each pa o he p oduc ion cos e ealed he
ollowing. The highes sha e ep esen s s ocking and pe sonnel
cos s. These ca ego ies a e closely ollowed by eed, dep ecia ion
TABLE 3 F equency o fin e osion on ju enile pikepe ch ea ed in
di e en sys ems.
Pa ame e Ini ial RAS IPRS POND
LP (%) 3.33 ± 2.72 1.10 ± 1.60 8.89 ± 1.54 9.06 ± 5.50
RP (%) 5.56 ± 1.57 1.12 ± 1.54 11.3 ± 1.54 1.12 ± 1.50
LV (%) 0.00 ± 0.00 1.09 ± 1.52 0.00 ± 0.00 1.28 ± 1.81
RV (%) 0.00 ± 0.00 1.10 ± 1.50 2.31 ± 1.52 6.67 ± 7.20
FD (%) 8.89 ± 1.58 11.3 ± 4.10 2.20 ± 1.62 1.28 ± 1.81
SD (%) 17.8 ± 1.62 26.7 ± 2.72 2.22 ± 3.14 0.00 ± 0.00
Ca (%) 16.7 ± 2.72 25.6 ± 3.14 11.1 ± 4.16 7.78 ± 6.85
An (%) 7.78 ± 4.16 1.00 ± 1.58 2.22 ± 3.14 0.00 ± 0.00
LP, Le Pec o al fin; RP, Righ Pec o al fin; LV, Le Ven al fin; RV, Righ Ven al fin; FD,
Fi s Do sal fin; SD, Second Do sal fin; Ca, Caudal fin; An, Anal fin
TABLE 4 Soma ic indexes o expe imen al pikepe ch om di e en p oduc ion sys ems a e 24 weeks o ea ing.
Pa ame e Ini ial RAS IPRS POND F-s a is ics P- alue
SSI (%) 0.10 ± 0.02
b
0.01 ± 0.03
a
0.04 ± 0.02
ab
0.07 ± 0.06
b
F(3,42) = 522 P < 0.005
HSI (%) 1.58 ± 0.21
a
1.34 ± 0.23
a
1.05 ± 0.12
b
0.87 ± 0.37
b
F(3,42) = 51.6 P < 0.005
IPF (%) 3.23 ± 1.06
a
3.61 ± 0.91
a
3.12 ± 0.66
a
0.07 ± 0.18
b
F(3,42) = 50.2 P < 0.005
GSI (%) 0.34 ± 0.18 0.52 ± 0.42 0.70 ± 0.73 0.54 ± 0.60 F(3,42) = 0.76 P = 0.524
RGL 0.47 ± 0.08
c
0.67 ± 0.10
b
0.69 ± 0.10
b
0.80 ± 0.10
a
F(3,42) = 155 P < 0.005
SSI, Spleensoma ic index; HSI, Hepa osoma ic index; IPFI, In ape i oneal a index; GSI, Gonadosoma ic index; RGL, Rela i e gu leng h.
Values wi h di e en supe sc ip s (a, b, c) di e significan ly (p< 0.05).
TABLE 5 Biochemical pa ame e s o he blood o pikepe ch ju eniles.
Pa ame e Ini ial RAS IPRS POND F-s a is ics P-Value
TP (g.L
−1
) 34.7 ± 2.06
a
37.3 ± 5.56
a
32.4 ± 2.97
a
24.8 ± 9.15
b
F (3,42) = 6.56 P < 0.005
ALB (g.L
−1
) 3.90 ± 1.52
c
8.33 ± 1.87
a
5.92 ± 1.16
b
2.83 ± 2.17
c
F (3.42) = 18.3 P < 0.005
GLU (mmol.L
−1
) 4.99 ± 1.83
c
11.8 ± 4.12
b
20.5 ± 6.51
a
9.47 ± 4.76
b,c
F (3,42) = 25.9 P < 0.005
AMY (μka .L
−1
) 11.7 ± 3.04
b
17.5 ± 3.60
a
10.1 ± 1.22
b
7.00 ± 2.74
c
F (3,42) = 21.1 P < 0.005
LIPA (μka .L
−1
) 0.45 ± 0.06
a
0.48 ± 0.05
a
0.44 ± 0.06
a
0.56 ± 0.08
b
F (3,42) = 6.68 P < 0.005
TCHO (mmol.L
−1
) 4.46 ± 3.87 2.87 ± 1.17 2.29 ± 0.58 3.73 ± 1.96 F (3,42) = 19.6 P = 0.049
ALP 1.51 ± 0.89
b
1.17 ± 0.52
b
0.72 ± 0.42
b
2.77 ± 1.25
a
F (3,42) = 10.5 P < 0.005
AST 3.05 ± 2.04
a
1.29 ± 0.61
b
2.68 ± 1.06
a
2.12 ± 0.91
a,b
F (3,42) = 6.87 P < 0.005
GLOB (g.L
−1
) 30.8 ± 1.87
a
28.9 ± 3.80
a
26.5 ± 2.0
a,b
21.9 ± 7.40
b
F (3,42) = 11.3 P < 0.005
TG (mmol.L
−1
) 7.61 ± 3.02
a,b
9.08 ± 4.89
a
5.71 ± 2.4
a,b
4.41 ± 5.65
b
F (3,42) = 2.43 P = 0.092
NH
3
(μmol.L
−1
) 496.3 ± 95
b
871.0 ± 263
a
526.8 ± 65
b
602.6 ± 172
b
F (3,42) = 7.23 P < 0.005
TP, To al p o ein; ALB, Albumin; GLU, Glucose; AMYL, Amylase; LIPA, Lipase; TCHOL, To al choles e ol; ALP, Alanine amino ans e ase; AST, Aspa a e amino ans e ase; GLOB, Globulin;
TG, T iglyce ids; NH
3
, Ammonia.
Values wi h di e en supe sc ip s (a, b, c) di e significan ly (p< 0.05).
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g08
and elec ici y cos s (excep o he POND g oup). In he RAS, one
o he mos impo an p oduc ion cos s is ela ed o oxygen
consump ion. Con e sely, no oxygen was adminis e ed du ing he
ial pe iod in he IPRS and POND g oups. Finally, he less
significan ca ego ies o p oduc ion cos s included consumed ap
wa e and chemicals. P oduc ion cos s we e hen co ela ed wi h he
numbe o p oduced fish. This calcula ion esul ed in he ollowing
p oduc ion cos s pe ju enile: RAS = 4.24 EUR pe fish (FBW 190
g), IPRS = 3.05 EUR pe fish (FBW 120g) and POND = 21.98 EUR
pe fish (FBW 62.5g). The p oduc ion cos o pikepe ch ju eniles in
RAS 22.3 EUR.kg
−1
. While in IPRS i was 25.4 EUR.kg
−1
and in
POND351.9 EUR.kg
−1
. The p oduc ion cos s o POND- aised
ju eniles a e p esen ed as an illus a ion o he economic losses
induced by he low SRs. All ca ego ies con ibu ing o he final
p oduc ion cos a e p esen ed in absolu e numbe s (EUR) and as
pe cen ages (%) in Table 6.
4 Discussion
In ecen yea s, an unp eceden ed inc ease in ene gy cos s has
been obse ed ac oss Eu ope. New and less ene gy-demanding
app oaches o fish cul u e should be es ed and implemen ed
alongside cu en aquacul u e echnologies. Al hough ene gy-
in ensi e, RASs s ill o e easible solu ions. Ne e heless he
sea ch o new p oduc ion me hods mus be encou aged. The
p esence o as pond in as uc u e in Cen al and Eas e n
Eu ope opens he possibili y o di e sifica ion h ough pond
aquacul u e along wi h new echnological equipmen such as he
IPRS. To p o ide comp ehensi e in o ma ion on he p os and cons
o fish keeping in he RAS, POND and he hyb id IPRS, his s udy
was conduc ed. He ein, ju eniles o pikepe ch o igina ing om
POND–RAS combined p oduc ion (Polica e al., 2013)we e
cul u ed in he RAS, IPRS and POND o de e mine g ow h, eed
u ilisa ion, su i al and wel a e o cul u ed fish. The SGR o he
expe imen al fish in his s udy eached 0.7%.d
−1
(RAS) and
0.4%.d
−1
(IPRS) compa ed wi h 0.6%.d
−1
(RAS) and 0.6%.d
-1
(IPRS) epo ed by Nagy e al. (2022). The lowe SGR may eflec
di e ences in he clima e o Sou heas Hunga y (s udy published by
Nagy e al., 2022) and Sou h Bohemia (p esen s udy),pa icula ly in
he empe a u e du ing he g owing season. Mo eo e , he
expe imen conduc ed in Hunga y began in June and ended in
Sep embe , whe eas he expe imen al pe iod in his s udy began in
Ap il and ended in Sep embe . A he beginning o he ial, a lowe
DFR was applied because o he physiological ac i i y o he
pikepe ch, and hei appe i e was educed owing o he lowe
wa e empe a u e in he pond whe e he IPRS was si ua ed. The
SGR o RAS- aised fish was sligh ly lowe in his s udy (0.7%.d
-1
)
han in he o he s udies ocusing on in ensi e RAS-based
pikepe ch ea ing (Penka e al., 2023,2021,Ronyai and Csenge i,
2008). Pikepe ch ju eniles in he POND g oup achie ed only 28.3%
± 18.56% WG and an 0.1 ± 0.08%.day
−1
SGR. This was likely due o
unsuccess ul adap a ion and an inabili y o hun p ey fish. Feed
u ilisa ion in his s udy esul ed in FCR = 1 g.g
−1
(RAS) and 1.6
g.g
−1
(IPRS), which is consis en wi h he findings o o he s udies
on RAS-cul u ed ju enile pikepe ch (Penka e al., 2023,2021;
Zimme man e al., 2019). Nagy e al. (2022) epo ed an FCR o
2.1 g.g
−1
o IPRS- aised fish. A possible explana ion o he high
FCR in he IPRS, obse ed in bo h his s udy and he one conduc ed
by Nagy e al. (2022), is ha fish ea ed in ou doo condi ions we e
ed o sa ia ion bu we e unable o ully diges d y pelle ed eed
because lowe oxygen sa u a ion du ing he second pa o he
expe imen (mo nings be o e sun ise inla e July and Augus )
esul ing in slowe g ow h. Addi ionally, he la ge anks in he
IPRS combined wi h he wa e flow may ha e disca ded some
unea en eed, a ificially inc easing he obse ed FCR. O e he las
20 yea s, ex ensi e esea ch on eed managemen in RAS- aised
pikepe ch p oduc ion has been conduc ed (Schulz e al., 2007;
Ronyai and Csenge i, 2008;Wang e al., 2009;Kowalska e al.,
2015;Penka e al., 2023). Howe e , no s udies on eed managemen
in IPRS-based pikepe ch p oduc ion ha e ye been published.
Owing o di e ences in ligh ing egimes, ligh in ensi y, wa e
empe a u e and quali y, u bidi y and s ocking densi y, di e en
eeding managemen p ac ices should be de eloped and applied o
imp o e eed u ilisa ion in he IPRS. In he RAS, he unea en eed
was p ope ly eco ded and sub ac ed o calcula e he exac eed
in ake. In he ponds, na u al p eda ion o p ey fish led o an
unknown eed in ake, which excluded his expe imen al g oup
om he de e mina ion o FCR.
The SR is one o he mos impo an p oduc ion pa ame e s
influencing he easibili y o pikepe ch cul u e. The SRs o fish in he
IPRS and RAS we e s a is ically simila (88.9% and 83.9%
espec i ely). Howe e , he mo ali y o fish in he IPRS di e ed
by he size o he deceased fish and he dynamics o mo ali y, which
mos ly occu ed in wo pe iods. The fi s pe iod occu ed 2 weeks
TABLE 6 P oduc ion cos s o pikepe ch ju eniles aised in h ee
di e en p oduc ion sys ems.
RAS IPRS POND
EUR % EUR % EUR %
Feed 629 12 491 12 0 0
Tap wa e 69 1 0 0 0 0
Elec ici y 380 7 320 8 12.5 0.6
Oxygen 642 12 0 0 0 0
S ocking fish 1786 33 1786 44 1786 92
Chemicals 135 3 77 2 0 0
Pe sonal cos + insu ance and ax 1375 26 1069 26 102 5.3
Dep ecia ion 317 6 317 8 34 1.8
FBW (g) 190.0 121.0 62.5
Su i al (pcs) 1258 1333 88
Eu os pe ju eniles 4.24 3.05 21.98
Eu os pe 1kg o ju eniles 22.3 25.4 351.9
FBW, final body weigh o he aised fish
All ca ego ies a e displayed as absolu e numbe s (in Eu os) and as a pe cen ual sha e (%).
Kuc
ˇe a e al. 10.3389/ ma s.2025.1578274
F on ie s in Ma ine Science on ie sin.o g09