True Text False Overall sustainability Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium to low Medium Medium to high High GOOD Very High GOOD 00112011221122312234223440112211223122342234423444112231223422344234443444512234223442344434445444562234423444344454445644566 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 33.3333333333333;33.3333333333333;33.3333333333333 Environmental sustainability Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0000000011111111111111122000111111111111111222222211111111111112222222222221111111122222222222222222111222222222222222222233300011111111111111122222221111111111111222222222222111111112222222222222222211122222222222222222223332222222222222222233333333111111111111122222222222211111111222222222222222221112222222222222222222333222222222222222223333333322222222222233333333333331111111122222222222222222111222222222222222222233322222222222222222333333332222222222223333333333333222222233333333333333344411122222222222222222223332222222222222222233333333222222222222333333333333322222223333333333333334442233333333333333344444444 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 30;30;30;10 Reduce negative impacts on ecosystems Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0011211222122332233433344 +------------------+----+ 60;40 False Negative local impacts on ecosystems Very High BAD High Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD 011112223112223233122233344 +-------------------------+ 30;45;25 False Chemical and contaminant emissions High BAD Medium Low GOOD 012 Health costs High BAD Medium Low GOOD Contribution to local eutrophication High BAD Medium Low GOOD 001111122 +-------+ 70;30 False Total Nitrogen emissions High BAD Medium Low GOOD Suspended solid emissions High BAD Medium Low GOOD Local land competition High BAD Medium Low GOOD 012 On-farm land area used High BAD Medium Low GOOD Negative global impacts on ecosystems Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD 001011012011112122112122223223223233233334334 +--------+----------------------------------+ 40;25;35 Contribution to the climate change Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD 01234 Global warming potential Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Contribution to acidification High BAD Medium Low GOOD 012 Acidification potential High BAD Medium Low GOOD Contribution to eutrophication High BAD Medium Low GOOD 012 False Eutrophication potential High BAD Medium Low GOOD Respect availability of natural resources Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0012201222122232223422344 +-----------------------+ 50;50 Use sustainable resources Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 011111112122122222122223223223233333333334344 +---------+-------+-------------------------+ 45;25;30 Use sustainable resources for feed Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 01234 Fish in Fish out Ratio Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Sustainable supply of juveniles and seeds Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Percentage of wild juveniles and seeds used High BAD Medium Low GOOD Level of renewability of the activity Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Percentage of renewability Assessment of the capacity of the system to use sustainable resources using the emergy method Low BAD Medium High GOOD To limit the use of resources Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 011121112211222112231223311122112221122312233222331122211223122332223322333111221122312223122332233311223122231223322333223341222312233223332233423334112231223322233223332333412233222332233323334233442223322333233342334433344 ++-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----- 30;20;20;30 Pressure on water demand High BAD Medium Low GOOD 0122 +++- Water demand LCA High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Pressure on primary production High BAD Medium Low GOOD 012 Net primary production use High BAD Medium Low GOOD Pressure on land area Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD 01234 Global land competition Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Energy requirement Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD 01234 Total cumulative energy demand Midpoint life cycle assessment impact category: Total Cumulative Energy Demand (TCED) (GJ/Ton) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Increase ecological efficiency of the activity Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 00011111111112222222223330111111112122222223323333111111122222223223333333411122122222223333333333441122222223233333333434444 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+- 30;50;20 Limit waste production and increase recycling Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 001111112212223111221222322333122232233333344 +-------------------------------------------+ 100;100;46 Use of co-products as inputs Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Percentage of nitrogen derived from co-products Low BAD Medium High GOOD Wastes recycling Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Percentage of phosphorus recovered Low BAD Medium High GOOD Limit organic wastes production Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 01234 Production loss Quantity of biomass lost per year (% dead or discarded biomass) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Farm input efficiency Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0012201223122332233423344 ++---------------------+- 50;50 Productivity of energy used Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 001012223234344 ++-+--+----+-++ 50;50 On-farm energy efficiency Quantity of on-farm energy used (in MWh) per total biomass produced Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Percentage of renewable energy used Low BAD Medium High GOOD Feed efficiency Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 001011222233344 ++++---------++ 70;30 Total feed conversion rate Productivity of the feed use (kg of feed per kg total biomass produced) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Nitrogen-use efficiency Low BAD Medium High GOOD Use local resources Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 012123234 +-------+ 50;50 Feedstuff locally produced Low BAD Medium High GOOD Emergy Yield Ratio Low BAD Medium High GOOD Enhance biodiversity Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 001011112122011112122233112122233334122233334344 ++-------------------------------------------+++ 35;35;30 Protection of local fauna and flora species Very Low BAD Low Medium High GOOD 023223 +--+-+ 40.1197604790419;59.8802395209581 Predator control Use of lethal predator control Not acceptable BAD Acceptable GOOD Disease management Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Biosecurity and good practices Low BAD Medium High GOOD To foster polyculture and integration of natural cycles Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium GOOD High GOOD 012123233 +------++ 50;50 Multi-trophic integration Low BAD Medium High GOOD Production diversification Low BAD Medium High GOOD Maintenance of genetic diversity Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Escapee management % of escapees per year High BAD Medium Low GOOD Social sustainability Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0011101111011121112211222011121111211122112221222211122111221122212223222231122211222122232223322233122221222322233223332233300111011121112211222112220111211122112221222212223111221122212222222232223311222122222222322233223331222322223222332233323334011121111211122112221222211122111221122212223222231122211222122232223322233122221222322233223332233322223222332233323333233340111211122112221222212223111221122212222222232223311222122222222322233223331222322223222332233323334222332223322333233343334411122111221122212223222231122211222122232223322233122221222322233223332233322223222332233323333233342223322333233343333433344 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 15;30;25;30 Relationship with other stakeholders Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 012123234 +-------+ 50;50 Quality of the relationship with professional institutions Low BAD Medium High GOOD 001111122 +-------+ 60;40 Interactions with professional institutions Low BAD Medium High GOOD Professional involvement Low BAD Medium High GOOD Quality of the relationship with customers and suppliers Low BAD Medium High GOOD 000111222 +-------+ 100;0 False Independence from suppliers % inputs self-produced Low BAD Medium High GOOD Independence from customers Low BAD Medium High GOOD Employment and working conditions Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0012201222122232223422344 +-----------------------+ 50;50 Guarantee of staff protection and fulfillment Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 011012112112122122122223223012112122122123223223233234122122223223223233233234334 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 25;30;15;30 Workload High BAD Medium Low GOOD Health and safety Low BAD Medium High GOOD Assessment of job difficulty High BAD Medium Low GOOD Labour remuneration Low BAD Medium High GOOD Conditions of employment Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 011220122312233012231123312234112231223422334 +-------------------------------------------+ 25;35;40 Working status Percentage of permanent employees Low BAD Medium High GOOD Education level Low BAD Medium High GOOD Equal opportunities Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 012234 +----+ 70;30 Gender equality Low BAD Medium High GOOD Employment of worker with disabilities No BAD Yes GOOD Meeting societal expectations Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 00112011221122312233223330112211222122232223322334112221222322233223342334412223222332233423344334441223322333233343334433444 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----+------------------------- 30;35;35 Respect of animal welfare Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0011201122112231223322333 +----------------------+- 50;50 Production health management Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 001112222233344 +-------------+ 70;30 Production loss Quantity of biomass lost per year (% dead or discarded biomass) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Fish physical damage High BAD Medium Low GOOD Rearing environment Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 012123344 +------++ 60;40 Stocking density High BAD Medium Low GOOD Biosecurity and good practices Low BAD Medium High GOOD Contribution to food security Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0000000000000001111311144 ++-------------+---+---++ 50;50 Assured supply of food products Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Accessibility of products Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Production of quality-based products Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 01234 Level of product quality Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 012112123233234 +-------------+ 40;60 Nutritional quality Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Fish physical damage High BAD Medium Low GOOD Contribution to local development Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 000001111011111122112222223222223333233333344 +++---------------------------+----------+-++ 45;35;20 Contribution to employment Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Local supply Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Feedstuff locally produced Low BAD Medium High GOOD Multifunctionality Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012 Education contribution Low BAD Medium High GOOD Economic sustainability Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0112201223112331223422334 +-----------------------+ 40;60 Production efficiency Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0112201223112331223422334 +-----------------------+ 45;55 False Productivity Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0011211122122232233323344 +-----------------------+ 59.8802395209581;40.1197604790419 False Resource productivity Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 00111011111111211122112220111211122112221222222223111221122212223222332233311222122232223322333233342222322233223332333433344 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 40;30;30 False On-farm energy efficiency Quantity of on-farm energy used (in MWh) per total biomass produced Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Labour productivity Average output per worker (Gross Value Added per total costs of labour) Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Total feed conversion rate Productivity of the feed use (kg of feed per kg total biomass produced) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Production management Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0000000000000000000000000 ------------------------- 60;40 Production loss Quantity of biomass lost per year (% dead or discarded biomass) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Level of products quality Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 012112123233234 +-------------+ 40;60 Nutritional quality Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Fish physical damage High BAD Medium Low GOOD Sales price sufficient given production costs Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 0000200123012231223422344 +-+++----+---+-+-------++ 50;50 False Production value Evaluation of the value of products Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 01234 Average sales price Average sales prices of products sold in €/kg Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Production cost Very High > 1€/kg BAD High 0.8:1€/kg BAD Medium 0.6:0.8€/kg Low 0.4:0.6€/kg GOOD Very Low <0.4€/kg GOOD 00011011111112222222222330011111112122222222322333111111122222222222333333311122122222222323333333441122222222223333333433444 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 30;50;20 Paid labour costs Paid labour cost including salary expenses and owners’ wages per quantity of biomass produced (€/kg) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Feed costs Feed cost including purchased feed and self-produced feed per quantity of biomass produced (€/kg) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Juvenile and seedling costs Costs of juveniles and seedling per quantity of biomass produced (€/kg) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Viability Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 001120112211223112231122312233122332233422334223342334433444 +---------------------------------------------------------+- 50;20;30 False Profitability Low BAD Medium High GOOD 001000122 +++---+++ 50;50 False Net Present Value Low BAD Medium High GOOD Internal Rate of Return Low BAD Medium High GOOD Level of autonomy Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD 012122123 +-------+ 40;60 False Subsidy dependence High BAD Medium Low GOOD 012 Subsidies weight High BAD Medium Low GOOD Resource dependence High >5 BAD Medium 2:5 Low <2 GOOD 012 Emergy Yield Ratio Low BAD Medium High GOOD Vulnerability Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD 00110112112212232233011211221223223322331122112212232233233411221223223323343344 +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 25;35;40 False Level of sensitivity to pathological risks Very High BAD High Medium Low GOOD 012123123 +----+-++ 40;60 Production diversification Low BAD Medium High GOOD Biosecurity and good practices Low BAD Medium High GOOD Resistance to environmental constraints Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Resistance to commercial risks Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD 001120011200112011220112201122112221122211222011220112201122112221122211222122231222312223112221122211222122231222312223222332223322233 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 33;33;0;33 Specialization rate Ratio of the most sold product turnover compared to the total turnover High BAD Medium Low GOOD Independence from suppliers % inputs self-produced Low BAD Medium High GOOD Independence from customers Low BAD Medium High GOOD Dependence on fisheries Fish in/Fish out Very High > 2.2 BAD High 1.8:2.2 BAD Medium 1.6:1.8 Low 1.3:1.6 GOOD Very Low <1.3 GOOD 01234 Fish in Fish out Ratio Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD On-farm energy efficiency Quantity of on-farm energy used (in MWh) per total biomass produced Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Total feed conversion rate Productivity of the feed use (kg of feed per kg total biomass produced) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Labour productivity Average output per worker (Gross Value Added per total costs of labour) Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Production loss Quantity of biomass lost per year (% dead or discarded biomass) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Nutritional quality Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Average sales price Average sales prices of products sold in €/kg Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Paid labour costs Paid labour cost including salary expenses and owners’ wages per quantity of biomass produced (€/kg) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Feed costs Feed cost including purchased feed and self-produced feed per quantity of biomass produced (€/kg) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Juvenile and seedling costs Costs of juveniles and seedling per quantity of biomass produced (€/kg) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Net Present Value Low BAD Medium High GOOD Internal Rate of Return Low BAD Medium High GOOD Subsidies weight High BAD Medium Low GOOD Emergy Yield Ratio Low BAD Medium High GOOD Production diversification Low BAD Medium High GOOD Biosecurity and good practices Low BAD Medium High GOOD Resistance to environmental constraints Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Specialization rate Ratio of the most sold product turnover compared to the total turnover High BAD Medium Low GOOD Independence from suppliers % inputs self-produced Low BAD Medium High GOOD Independence from customers Low BAD Medium High GOOD Fish in Fish out Ratio Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Interactions with professional institutions Low BAD Medium High GOOD Professional involvement Low BAD Medium High GOOD Workload High BAD Medium Low GOOD Health and safety Low BAD Medium High GOOD Assessment of job difficulty High BAD Medium Low GOOD Labour remuneration Low BAD Medium High GOOD Working status Percentage of permanent employees Low BAD Medium High GOOD Education level Low BAD Medium High GOOD Gender equality Low BAD Medium High GOOD Employment of worker with disabilities No BAD Yes GOOD Fish physical damage High BAD Medium Low GOOD Stocking density High BAD Medium Low GOOD Assured supply of food products Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Accessibility of products Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Contribution to employment Very Low BAD Low BAD Medium High GOOD Very High GOOD Feedstuff locally produced Low BAD Medium High GOOD Education contribution Low BAD Medium High GOOD Health costs High BAD Medium Low GOOD Total Nitrogen emissions High BAD Medium Low GOOD Suspended solid emissions High BAD Medium Low GOOD On-farm land area used High BAD Medium Low GOOD Global warming potential Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Acidification potential High BAD Medium Low GOOD Eutrophication potential High BAD Medium Low GOOD Percentage of renewability Assessment of the capacity of the system to use sustainable resources using the emergy method Low BAD Medium High GOOD Percentage of wild juveniles and seeds used High BAD Medium Low GOOD Water demand LCA High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Net primary production use High BAD Medium Low GOOD Global land competition Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Total cumulative energy demand Midpoint life cycle assessment impact category: Total Cumulative Energy Demand (TCED) (GJ/Ton) Very High BAD High BAD Medium Low GOOD Very Low GOOD Percentage of nitrogen derived from co-products Low BAD Medium High GOOD Percentage of phosphorus recovered Low BAD Medium High GOOD Percentage of renewable energy used Low BAD Medium High GOOD Nitrogen-use efficiency Low BAD Medium High GOOD Predator control Use of lethal predator control Not acceptable BAD Acceptable GOOD Multi-trophic integration Low BAD Medium High GOOD Escapee management % of escapees per year High BAD Medium Low GOOD