View
218
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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