Optimization of Aquaponics System in Hawaii: Preliminary data

Marissa LeeUniversity of Hawaii, Manoa: College of Tropical Agriculture and

Human Resources Department: Molecular Bioscience and Bio-Engineering

November 21, 2009Bilger Hall 150

Presentation Agenda

• Project Rationale

• Experiment 1: Effects of Lighting– Shade– No Shade

• Experiment 2: Effects of Different Feeds– Protein Content– Fat Content

Project Rationale

• Partial fulfillment of MBBE graduation requirement– Senior thesis

• Partial fulfillment of CTAHR vision and mission– Generate and transfer science based

information for stake holders to make informed decisions.

• Experiment 1: Test the effects of light

– How are nutrients in fish effluent affected?

– How are the fish’s growth affected?

– What is the crop output per treatment?

The experiment was held at UH Freshwater Aquaculture Facility at Windward

Community College

Experiment 1

• Fish: Oreochromis sp.

• Plant: Lactuva sativa- Red sail Lettuce

Experiment 1:Test the effects of light-

Two treatments

Treatment 1 Treatment 2

Experimental Design: Tank Setup

• Each tank stocked with 323 Tilapia.• Average body weight = 1.64g• Stocking density = 0.28 kg/m3

• Salmon Starter Feed– 52% crude protein– 16% crude fat

• Biofilm

Lettuce Trays

Flow rate =1.35 seconds to fill 1 Liter

Air Lift

Experiment 1

Temporal Changes in Dissolved Oxygen in Covered and Uncovered Tanks

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33Days

Dis

solv

ed O

xyg

en (

mg

/L)

Treatment 1- No Shade Cloth

Treatmen 2- With Shade Cloth

p < 0.01=Difference is statistically significant

Temporal Changes in pH in Covered and Uncovered Tanks

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Days

pH

Treatment 1- No Shade Cloth

Treatment 2- With Shade Cloth

p < 0.01=Difference is statistically significant

• Turbidity tube

measuring the amount of particles.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Days

Tu

rbid

ity

(cm

)

Treatment 1- No Shade Cloth

Treatment 2- With Shade Cloth

p < 0.01=Difference is statistically significant

Lettuce Growth- Leaf Width Averages Between Treatments in Phytoplankton Experiment

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

Days

Le

ttu

ce

Le

af

Wid

th (

cm

)

Treatment 1-No Shade Cloth

Treatment 2- With Shade Cloth

P < 0.0001=Difference is statistically significant

Summary: Experiment 1

Nutrient Water Quality

Fish Growth

Lettuce Growth

No Shade Cloth

Low Optimal Faster Slower

Shade Cloth

High Minimal Slower Faster

Results: Experiment 1

FCR Survival(Initial 323 Fishes)

Harvest Density

(kg/m3)

No Shade Cloth-1

0.61 95% (307) 2.23

No Shade Cloth-2

0.76 98% (317) 1.87

With Shade Cloth-1

0.96 96% (310) 1.57

With Shade Cloth-2

0.92 99% (320) 1.63

• Experiment 2: Effects of different feeds

– How are nutrients in fish effluent affected?

– Is fish growth affected?

– Is crop out put affected?

Experiment 2Fish: Oreochromis sp.-Tilapia

Plant: Lactuva sativa- Manoa Lettuce

Plant: Lactuva sativa- Red sail Lettuce

Plant: Brassica juncea- Mustard Cabbage

Experiment 2:Two treatments

Treatment 1- Rangen 350 Treatment 2- Silver Cup

Silver Cup

Rangen 350

Different Treatments• Rangen:

– Crude Protein………35.0%– Crude Fat…………….5.0%– Crude Fiber…………..5.0%– Ash…………………..10.0%– Phosphorus…………..1.0%

• Silver Cup: – Crude Protein…….45.0%– Crude Fat………...16.0%– Crude Fiber.……….3.0%– Ash………………..12.0%– Phosphorus………..1.2%

$ 0.77/ lb$ 0.63/ lb

Experiment Design: Tank Setup• Each tank was stocked with

200 Tilapia• Tank average = 26.4 g• Stocking density = 2.78 kg/ m3

Bioflim

Experiment 2

Water QualityRangen 350 Silver Cup Statistics

(p-values)

Temperature 25.5 ± 0.945 25.4 ± 0.856 0.618

DO 4.60 ± 0.619 4.91 ± 0.557 p < 0.01

pH 6.52 ± 0.400 6.22 ± 0.420 p < 0.01

Ammonia 1.05 ± 0.354 11.3 ± 3.54 p < 0.01

Nitrate 437.5 ± 35.4 768.8 ± 8.83 p < 0.01

Nitrite 6.43 ± 0.177 10.2 ± 0.707 0.066

Trace Minerals in Water

• Rangen– N = 14.9 ppm– P = 1.0– K = 10.6– Ca = 6.0– Mg = 5.1– Na = 10.9– Fe = 0.1**– Mn = 0.1**– Zn = 0.04– Cu = 0.01– B = 0.03

• Silver Cup– N = 17.8 ppm– P = 1.9– K = 7.7– Ca = 9.8– Mg = 5.0– Na = 6.3– Fe = 0.1**– Mn = 0.1**– Zn = 0.1– Cu = 0.0– B = 0.0

Agricultural Diagnostic Service, ** = supplmented

T-Test for last sampling dayp > 0.05=not statistically different

Analysis of Covariancep > 0.05=not statistically different

Rangen

Silver Cup

p < 0.05

Lettuce Growth- Kai Choi Leaf Width Comparison of Treatment Averages in Feed Experiment

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Days

Lea

f W

idth

(cm

)

Treamtment 1- Rangen

Treatment 2- Silver Cup

Rangen

Silver Cupp< 0.01

Lettuce Growth- Manoa Leaf Width Average Comparison Between Treatments in Feed Experiment

02468

10121416

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Days

Lea

f W

idth

(cm

)

Treamtment 1-Rangen

Treatment 2-Silver Cup

Rangen

Silver Cup

p>0.05

Lettuce Growth- Red Sail Leaf Width Average Compariosn Between Treatments in Feed Experiment

0

5

10

15

20

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Days

Lea

f W

idth

(cm

) Treamtment 1-Rangen

Treatment 2-Silver Cup

Potassium Hydroxide

Tank 1 Tank 2

Rangen Treatment

150 150

Silver Cup Treatment

220 250

Summary: Experiment 2

Nutrient Water Quality

Fish Growth

Crop out put

Rangen High Minimal No difference

Variable

Silver Cup

Higher Minimal No difference

Variable

Experiment 2 Summary

FCR Survival(Initial 200 Fishes)

Kg/m3

Rangen-1 1.2 99.5% (199) 4.05

Rangen-2 0.72 99.5% (199) 4.72

Silver Cup-1

1.01 96% (192) 5.23

Silver Cup- 2

1.28 91% (182) 4.98

Acknowledgements

• Clyde Tamaru

• Kathy McGovern-Hopkins

• Harry Ako

• Mom and Dad

• My friends