Introduction For some years now, IMTA (Integrated MultiTrophic Aquaculture) concept has gained worldwide attention. Integrating complementary species such as fed aquaculture species (e.g. finfish), inorganic extractive aquaculture species (e.g. phytoplankton and seaweeds) and organic extractive species (e.g. bivalves, sea-urchins, and sea-cucumbers) is an attractive concept to enhance the efficiency of aquaculture (Neori et al., 2004). IMTA has the potential to increase profitability while simultaneously act as bioremediator of effluents. The environmental and economic costs of feed are high and the expected increase of aquaculture in the future, demands a more efficient use of nutrients highlighting the potential role of recycling mass and energy in the systems (Naylor et al., 2000). Some advantages of the use of IMTA are (1) decrease the dependence on external inputs, (2) increase the system efficiency by optimizing the use of nutrients and energy in the production loop, (3) decrease the waste effluents and bio-deposit impacts by limiting the loss of nutrients (in water, sediments and air), (4) diversify farm- products and generate a more robust source of income (less dependent on mono-product markets), and (5) generate and use different types and levels of ecosystem functions and services. Despite the potential benefits of IMTA its development is still limited in Europe. Many factors can explain this situation and among them, the performance of the extractive organisms and the economic performance of the systems (Hughes and Black, 2016). The lack of knowledge, expertise and reference data for dimensioning and optimizing the systems, and their intrinsic complexity are still prevalent. There is need for greater body of evidence of the financial benefit to the farmer, better ways to reduce the system complexity, and better support from policy and regulation to reinforce the increase in social license associated with IMTA. The proof of concept has to be established a