Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550

DOI 10.1007/s10499-006-9053-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

A comparison of three different hydroponic sub-systems

(gravel bed, floating and nutrient film technique)
in an Aquaponic test system

Wilson A. Lennard Æ Brian V. Leonard

Received: 18 August 2004 / Accepted: 7 April 2006 /

Published online: 27 May 2006

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii (Mitchell), and Green Oak
lettuce, Lactuca sativa, were used to test for differences between three hydroponic
subsystems, Gravel Bed, Floating Raft and Nutrient Film Technique (NFT), in a
freshwater Aquaponic test system, where plant nutrients were supplied from fish
wastes while plants stripped nutrients from the waste water before it was returned to
the fish. The Murray Cod had FCR’s and biomass gains that were statistically
identical in all systems. Lettuce yields were good, and in terms of biomass gain and
yield, followed the relationship Gravel bed > Floating > NFT, with significant dif-
ferences seen between all treatments. The NFT treatment was significantly less
efficient than the other two treatments in terms of nitrate removal (20% less effi-
cient), whilst no significant difference was seen between any test treatments in terms
of phosphate removal. In terms of dissolved oxygen, water replacement and con-
ductivity, no significant differences were observed between any test treatments.
Overall, results suggest that NFT hydroponic sub-systems are less efficient at both
removing nutrients from fish culture water and producing plant biomass or yield than
Gravel bed or Floating hydroponic sub-systems in an Aquaponic context. Aqua-
ponic system designers need to take these differences into account when designing
hydroponic components within aquaponic systems.

Keywords Aquaponic Æ Hydroponic Æ NFT Æ Biological nutrient removal Æ

Wastewater Æ Murray Cod Æ Nitrate Æ Phosphate

Introduction

Aquaponics is the integration of hydroponic plant production into recirculating fish

aquaculture systems (RAS). The hydroponics control the accumulation of waste

W. A. Lennard (&) Æ B. V. Leonard

School of Applied Sciences, Department of Biotechnology and Environmental Biology,
RMIT University, Building 223, Level 1, Plenty Road,
71, Bundoora, Vic. 3083, Australia
e-mail: S8702774@student.rmit.edu.au
123
540 Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550

nutrients from fish culture (Rakocy and Hargreaves 1993), which may lower overall
consumption of water (McMurtry et al. 1997) and produce additional, saleable crops
(Rakocy and Hargreaves 1993). Early researchers showed that waste nutrients could
be ‘‘stripped’’ from fish culture waters using hydroponically grown plants (Naegel
1977; Lewis et al. 1978; Waten and Busch 1984), with the hydroponic component
generally using a sand/gravel/aggregate culture bed (Lewis et al. 1978; Waten and
Busch 1984; McMurtry et al. 1993). Both floating (or ‘‘raft’’) and Nutrient Film
Technique (NFT) hydroponic plant growth components have also been indepen-
dently tested within the context of an Aquaponic system (Rakocy and Hargreaves
1993; Rakocy et al. 1997; Seawright et al. 1998; Adler et al. 2000a), but little liter-
ature is available that compares all three hydroponic growth systems against each
other in an Aquaponic context.
The choice of hydroponic growing system within an Aqauponics context may
be based on the independent advantages conferred by that particular hydroponic
component. For example, sand/gravel systems may remove the requirement for a
separate biofilter, as the substrate will also act as a substrate for nitrifying
bacteria, and therefore replaces conventional biofilters (McMurtry et al. 1997;
Seawright et al. 1998; Dontje and Clanton 1999). Similarly, the gravel/sand sub-
strate may also act as a solids filtering medium (McMurtry et al. 1997; Seawright
et al. 1998). On the other hand, proponents of floating or raft hydroponic com-
ponents argue that sand or gravel substrates are excessively heavy and may easily
clog, leading to water channelling, inefficient biofiltration and inefficient nutrient
delivery to plants (Rakocy and Hargreaves 1993; Rakocy et al. 1997). NFT, which
uses a thin film of water typically flowing down a narrow channel, with plant
roots partially in the water film, may confer advantages over gravel bed and
floating systems, such as the ease and economic advantages of construction and
the substantially lower weight of the components. However, NFT has not yet
received much research attention in aquaponics systems, despite it requiring
lower water volumes and being one of the most often used and best under-
stood hydroponic growing systems (Graves 1993; Morgan 1999; Adler et al.
2000a).
This experiment was devised to test whether alternative hydroponic components
(gravel bed, floating or NFT) conferred advantages in nutrient stripping, water
consumption, plant yields or fish growth in aquaponics systems. The fish species used
was the Australian native Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii and the
hydroponic vegetable was lettuce, Lactuca sativa (Green Oak variety).

Materials and methods

Fish origin and holding

Murray Cod were obtained from Australian Aquaculture Products Pty. Ltd.,
Victoria, Australia. Fish were held indoors at the RMIT University Aquaculture
Annex and ranged in size from 120 g to 220 g. All fish were kept in 1000 l, cylindrical
tanks receiving flow-through water at a flow rate of 3000 l day)1, until required for
experimentation. Water was of domestic origin, carbon filtered and heated to
approximately 22C.

123
Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550 541

Experimental aquaponic system

The experimental aquaponic system consisted of 12 individual, identical aquaponic

units, allowing replication of experimental treatments. Each Aquaponic unit con-
sisted of fish holding tank, an associated biofilter and a hydroponic sub-system
(Fig. 1). The fish tank was a round 100 l, opaque, white plastic tank (570 mm
Diameter · 460 mm Deep). As well as fish, the tank contained an airlift pipe (to the
biofilter), a submersible water pump (to the hydroponic bed) and a 100 W ther-
mostatically controlled electrical resistance aquarium heater. A plastic ‘‘core flute’’
(3 mm) lids covered the tank to lower evaporation and stop fish from jumping from
the tank.
Each tank had an associated, 20 l biofilter (360 mm l · 330 mm W · 290 mm D),
made from a plastic storage box. This biofilter sat above the fish tank and was of a
wet/dry trickling design. Water entered the biofilter by way of a 20 mm airlift pipe
(at an average of 250 l h)1), running from the base of the fish tank and into the top of
the biofilter. A 6 mm plastic hose delivered air to the airlift pipe via an air stone.
Water from the airlift entered the top of the biofilter via a ‘‘spray bar’’, trickled
across the biological filter medium (polystyrene ‘‘bean bag’’ beads at approx.
300 m2 m)3: area/volume) and out a series of 6· 10 mm holes (drilled in the bottom,
front area of the biofilter) and back into the fish tank. The biofilter of each replicate
was pre-inoculated with nitrifying bacteria from experiments performed previously
to the one reported here, and therefore, was efficiently converting ammonia and
nitrite to nitrate.
Each tank and biofilter unit had an associated hydroponic plant growth compo-
nent which was configured depending on the test treatment (see Experimental
methodology below). This component was rectangular in shape (780 mm l ·
670 mm W · 220 mm D) and was placed above the fish tank/biofilter unit on a
separate shelving system. A submersible water pump (Rio 1700, 1200 l h)1 at 1.2 m
head) in the fish tank continuously delivered water to the hydroponic component via
a 19 mm pipe. Water from the hydroponic component was returned to the fish tank
via a 20 mm drainpipe, situated at the opposite end of the hydroponic bed from the
water inlet.

Fig. 1 Schematic
representation of the
Aquaponic test system

123
542 Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550

Water for all experimental tanks was supplied from the Aquaculture lab water
supply system. This water was carbon filtered and heated to approximately 22C.
Lighting (for plant growth in the hydroponic sub-systems) consisted of 6· 400 W
metal halide lamps. Lights were situated above the hydroponic beds at a height of
700 mm above the gravel surface, with one lighting unit located at the interface
between two hydroponic sub-systems. Lights were controlled by a digitally timed
electrical switch.

Experimental methodology

This experiment was designed to compare the three hydroponic growing sub-systems
within the Aquaponic unit(s). These three hydroponic sub-systems consisted of
gravel bed culture (the hydroponic component was filled with approximately 80 l of
7 mm, washed river gravel, with the rate of the return water flow set to produce a
water level in the hydroponic component that completely saturated the gravel
media), floating or raft culture (the drain point was configured so the hydroponic
component became a flooded tank containing approximately 48 l of water which
supported a 4 mm, polystyrene ‘‘raft’’, with holes for plant support, was floated on
top of the water) and NFT culture (the drain point was configured so only a thin film
of water, approximately 3 mm deep, flowed across the bottom of the hydroponic
component, and a 4 mm, polystyrene sheet, with holes for plant support, was fixed
into the bed so only the lower area of plant roots hung in the water). Four separate
treatments, each with three replicates, were tested:
1. Control: fish in tank, no plants in the hydroponic component (gravel); this was
a control treatment to compare nitrate and phosphate accumulation in the
absence of plants.
2. Gravel: fish in tank, plants and gravel in the hydroponic component.
3. Floating: fish in tank, plants in the floating ‘‘raft’’ hydroponic component.
4. NFT: fish in tank, plants in the NFT hydroponic component.

The lighting regime for plant growth was 10 h’s on–14 h’s off, with lights coming
on at approximately 08:30 am (AEST) and going off at 18:30 pm (AEST).
At the initiation of the experiment, systems were flushed and refilled with fresh,
Aquaculture system water to 100 l and initial nutrient levels (nitrate and phosphate)
were recorded. Fish were added to each system up to the treatment biomass of
approximately 1000 g (individual tank fish biomass was recorded). Twenty lettuce
plantlets (Lactuca sativa Green Oak variety) were planted using an evenly distrib-
uted planting scheme in each of the replicate hydroponic beds. The individual initial
weight (biomass) of these 20 plantlets was recorded (weight with attached soil plug).
Because plantlets had attached plugs of soil, initial leaf weight was estimated by
recording the weights of 15 plantlets with and without attached soil plugs. These
weights were used to establish a mean ratio of leaf only to leaf + plug weight. This
ratio was then used to estimate the initial leaf only weight of the tested plantlets.
Fish were fed at a percentage of the total initial fish biomass per day (for 6 out of
7 days per week) with a 9 mm, sinking pellet (43% protein) (Skretting Classic SS,
Skretting Pty. Ltd., Australia) (Table 1). Feeding rates were set at 1.0% of fish
biomass (per day) for the first 5 days, then adjusted to 1.5% for the remaining
15 days of the experiment.

123
Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550 543

Table 1 Murray Cod wet weight gain, specific growth rate (SGR), food conversion ratio (FCR) and
food consumption; lettuce mean biomass gain and mean yield; mean net phosphate and nitrate
concentrations, mean weights and removal rates for Control, Gravel, Floating and NFT treatments at
the end of the 21 day trial

Parameter Control Gravel Floating NFT

Fish
Wet weight1 (g/rep.) 220.0a – 16.1 206.7a – 13.3 266.7a – 29.6 250.0a – 25.2
SGR1 (%/rep./day) 0.90a – 0.05 0.89a – 0.06 1.13a – 0.13 1.09a – 0.10
FCR1 1.01a – 0.08 1.07a – 0.07 0.85a – 0.10 0.90a – 0.08
Feed fed (g/rep.) 220.0 220.0 220.0 220.0
Lettuce
Biomass gain1 (g/rep.) 2639.4k – 28.9 2338.1m – 14.5 2159.0n – 9.8
Yield1 (g plant)1)) 131.97k – 6.46 116.91m – 3.24 107.95n – 2.20
Yield1 (kg m)2) 5.05k – 0.25 4.47m – 0.12 4.13n – 0.08
Nutrients
Phosphate1 (mg l)1) 7.15a – 1.03 3.42b – 0.11 3.47b – 0.94 3.91b – 0.37
Nitrate1 (mg l)1) 51.23a – 1.58 4.63b – 2.85 2.60b – 1.84 15.70c – 2.57
Phosphate (g/rep.)y 0.80 0.38 0.51 0.40
Nitrate (g/rep.)y 5.74 0.52 0.39 1.62
Phosphate removal (%)y 52.5 36.3 50.3
Nitrate removal (%)y 90.9 93.2 71.8
1
Values are means – SE
k, m, n: values showing the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, n = 60) (ANOVA)
a, b, c: values showing the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, n = 3) (Mann–
Whitney)
y: values are calculated from mean final nutrient concentration per unit volume of test system
replicate
SGR: specific growth rate (% day)1): [(ln final wt. ) ln initial wt.)/(time (days))] · 100
FCR: food conversion ratio: feed fed/(wet weight gain)

Six out of seven-days a week (at the same time every day—9:30 am, AEST;
Monday to Saturday, inclusive), the amount of fish feed fed (g), air temperature
(C), water replaced per tank (L) (to adjust for evapotranspiration), sodium bicar-
bonate added (to adjust pH between 6.80 and 7.00; added directly to the fish rearing
compartment) (g), pH, temperature of the tank water (C), conductivity (lS cm)1)
and dissolved oxygen (mg l)1) were recorded. Twice a week, tanks were sampled for
ammonia (mg l)1) and nitrite (mg l)1), whilst once a week, tanks were sampled for
nitrate (mg l)1) and phosphate (mg l)1). All samples for analysis were taken from
the fish-rearing compartment of the Aquaponic unit(s).
The amount of feed provided and the bicarbonate added per tank (to maintain
pH) was measured using a top loading balance (A.N.D. HL-200). The amount of
water replaced per tank was determined by re-filling the tank to a pre-measured
100 l mark and recording the amount of water added (water added was fresh
aquaculture annex water to replace evapotransporation). Temperature (tank water),
pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen were determined using a TPS 90-FL multi-
parameter meter and associated probes. Ammonia, nitrite and nitrate were deter-
mined using a Hanna, C203 Multi-parameter ion specific meter (H025463) and
Hanna Ammonia LR reagent (HI 93700-01), Hanna Nitrite LR reagent (HI 93707-
01) and Hanna Nitrate HR reagent (HI 93728-01), respectively. Phosphate was
determined using a Merck spectroquant color reagent test (code: 1.1482.0001), read

123
544 Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550

against a standard curve using a spectrophotometer at 400 nm (Varian Cary 50 Bio

UV-Vis).
The entire experiment ran for 21 days from water flushing and planting to har-
vesting. At the end of the experiment, fish biomass was determined by wet weight
(A.N.D. HL-200) and plant (leaf only) biomass was determined by wet weight
(A.N.D. HL-200). Gains in both fish biomass and plant biomass per tank (or
hydroponic component) were determined by the difference between initial and final
wet biomasses recorded. Fish biomass was determined on a per tank basis, whilst
plant biomass (leaf only) was determined on an individual, per plant basis.
Comparisons between treatments and controls at the end of the experimental
period for Fish biomass, Fish FCR, Fish SGR, nitrate and phosphate were analysed
using Mann–Whitney, two independent population, non-parametric analysis. Com-
parisons between all other parameters were analysed using ANOVA and Least
Significant Difference (LSD) post-hoc analysis where appropriate. All statistical
analysis was performed using SPSS (Version 10.0) software.

Results

Fish

Survival of Murray Cod in all replicates (all treatments) was 100% for the 21 day
trial. Table 1 shows the increase in fish biomass, specific growth rate (SGR) and food
conversion ratio (FCR) for all treatments. No significant differences (P > 0.05,
n = 3) were detected between any treatments in terms of any fish growth parameters
measured (Table 1).

Lettuce

Lettuce production values (gram per treatment replicate) for Gravel, Floating and
NFT treatments are represented in Table 1. There was a significant difference (P<
0.05, n = 60) between all treatments in terms of biomass gain, following the asso-
ciation Gravel > Floating > NFT. Yields averaged 5.05, 4.47 and 4.13 kg m)2 for
Gravel, Floating and NFT treatments respectively (Table 1).

Metabolites, nitrates and phosphates

Ammonia (NH3/NH+4 ) and nitrite (NO)2 ) were recorded twice weekly to ascertain
biological filter conversion efficiency. All replicates in all treatments showed unde-
tectable ammonia concentrations (0 mg l)1) over the duration of the experiment.
Nitrite levels remained undetectable (0 mg l)1) for all replicates in all treatments for
the duration of the experiment.
Final net (final–initial) mean phosphate (PO3) 4 ) concentrations, mean phosphate
weights (per treatment replicate) and phosphate removal rates are represented in
Table 1. A significant difference (P < 0.05, n = 3) was detected between the Control
treatment and all other test treatments for final net phosphate concentration, whilst
no significant difference (P > 0.05, n = 3) was detected between any of the three test
treatments (Table 1).

123
Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550 545

Final net (final–initial) mean nitrate (NO2)

3 ) concentrations, mean nitrate weights
(per treatment replicate) and nitrate removal rates are represented in Table 1. A
significant difference (P < 0.05, n = 3) was detected between the Control treatment
and all other test treatments for final net nitrate concentration. A significant dif-
ference (P < 0.05, n = 3) was also detected between the Floating and NFT test
treatments, whilst no significant difference (P > 0.05, n = 3) was detected between
Gravel and Floating treatments and Gravel and NFT treatments in terms of final net
nitrate concentration (Table 1).

Physical/chemical parameters

Air temperature was measured daily and remained steady at 24.0C. Control,
Gravel, Floating and NFT tank temperatures averaged 22.08 – 0.03C,
21.94 – 0.05C, 22.03 – 0.03C and 21.96 – 0.03C, respectively (Data not shown).
Mean daily dissolved oxygen (D.O.) concentrations did not differ significantly
between any treatments (P > 0.05, n = 39) (Table 2). D.O. concentrations dropped
over the length of the experiment in all replicates, but remained above 7.0 mg l)1 for
all treatment replicates (Table 2) (final and initial D.O. shown).
Bicarbonate additions were used to maintain pH levels between 6.70 and 7.00,
hence, bicarbonate addition and pH are integrally linked. The level of sodium
bicarbonate additions required for test treatment pH maintenance followed the
order Control > Gravel > NFT > Floating (Fig. 2). Control treatment replicates
required significantly higher (P < 0.05, n = 51) sodium bicarbonate additions than all
test treatments, whilst the Floating treatment exhibited a significantly lower (P <
0.05, n = 51) sodium bicarbonate addition requirement than did the Gravel treat-
ment (Fig. 2). No significant difference (P > 0.05, n = 51) in terms of sodium
bicarbonate requirement was detected between the Gravel and NFT treatments or
the Floating and NFT treatments (Fig. 2).
Final and initial (and the difference) mean conductivity readings are represented
in Table 2. A significant difference (P < 0.05, n = 54) in conductivity was detected
between the Control and all test treatments. No significant difference (P > 0.05,
n = 54) was detected between the NFT treatment and the two other test treatments,
whilst a significant difference (P < 0.05, n = 54) was detected between the Gravel
and Floating treatments (Table 2.)

Table 2 Mean initial, final and difference recordings for dissolved oxygen (D.O.), conductivity and
mean water use for Control, Gravel, Floating and NFT treatments

Parameter Control Gravel Floating NFT

1 )1 a a a
D.O. Initial (mg l ) 7.77 – 0.07 7.84 – 0.03 7.96 – 0.06 7.93a – 0.07
D.O. Final1 (mg l)1) 7.23a – 0.04 7.20a – 0.01 7.28a – 0.03 7.28a – 0.01
D.O. Difference (mg l)1) 0.54a 0.64a 0.68a 0.65a
Conductivity initial1 (lS cm)1) 212.3k – 5.2 189.7m, p – 3.2 171.7m, q – 1.2 155.0m – 1.0
Conductivity Final1 (lS cm)1) 857.0k – 20.8 360.0m, p – 22.6 416.3m, q – 34.0 377.7m – 13.3
Conductivity Difference (lS cm)1) 644.7k 170.3 m, p 244.7m, q 222.7m
Daily Water Use1 (L replicate)1) 1.83a – 0.10 1.73a – 0.10 1.83a – 0.10 1.97a – 0.10
1
Values are means – SE
a, b: values showing the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, n = 54) (ANOVA)
k, m: values showing the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, n = 54) (ANOVA)
p, q: values showing the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, n = 54) (ANOVA)
123
546 Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550

Bicarbonate (g/Treatment replicate/Day)

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Control (a) Gravel (b)(x) Floating (b)(y) NFT (b)

Treatment
Fig. 2 Mean daily bicarbonate additions (per treatment replicate) for Control, Gravel, Floating and
NFT treatments. a, b; x, y: treatments showing the same letter are not significantly different
(P > 0.05, n = 51). Error bars represent standard errors

Water was replaced daily to compensate for evapotranspiration (Table 2).

Overall, daily water replacement averaged 1.83 l replicate)1, 1.73 l replicate)1, 1.83 l
replicate)1 and 1.97 l replicate)1 for the Control, Gravel, Floating and NFT treat-
ments, respectively, with no significant difference (P > 0.05, n = 51) detected
between any treatments (Table 2).

Discussion

The question of which hydroponic sub-system is best suited to integration with

recirculating fish culture (known as Aquaponics) is a complex one. Fish growth,
plant growth, net system nutrient accumulation and other water quality parameters
may be used as indicators of suitability. This study was set up to compare three
common hydroponic sub-systems within an aquaponic context to try and identify any
differences between them.
For any aquaculture system, fish survival and growth parameters are paramount.
In the present study, fish mortality in all treatments was zero. Ingram (2002) ob-
tained less than 5% mortality for Murray Cod exceeding 50 g in weight in culture
trials and therefore, the mortality in the present study is what should be expected for
Murray Cod of this size (250–400 g) in standard recirculating aquaculture. In terms
of food conversion efficiency, Ingram (2002) (feed containing 43% protein) obtained
a mean FCR for Murray Cod over 150 g in weight of 1.2, therefore the FCR values
obtained in the present study (Table 1) are comparable with research results using
industry standard recirculating culture methods. Whether the hydroponic sub-system
effects fish growth is also an important question. In the present study, no significant
differences in any fish growth parameter (biomass gain, SGR or FCR) were detected
between any treatments or controls (Table 1). This suggests that none of the
hydroponic sub-systems tested in this study had a deleterious effect on fish growth or
survival. However, it must be noted that this study ran for only 21 days, being
designed predominantly to test nutrient stripping efficiency by alternate hydroponic
systems, in advance of further experiments on aquaponic systems. Fish would have
to be in the system for a substantially longer period to grow to market size. Fish
results therefore, are only a short-term indication of how the fish reacted to the
systems tested. While long-term experimentation may be required to gain a more
123
Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550 547

complete analysis of the suitability of the system to culture fish to market sizes, these
interim results look promising.
Plant growth is another criteria on which to base the suitability or efficiency of a
hydroponic sub-system. Lettuce production as wet, leaf weight gain or yield (weight
gain per unit area) within the three test treatments in the present study followed the
relationship Gravel bed > Floating > NFT (Table 1). The choice of hydroponic sub-
system therefore, did affect the efficiency of the entire aquaponic system. The Green
Oak lettuce in the gravel bed system of this study reached the standard marketable size
(leaf weight only) of approximately 130 g. However, plants in both the floating and
NFT treatments would require additional time to reach this time in the systems tested.
All treatments in the present study (yields of 5.05, 4.47 and 4.13 kg m)2 for gravel,
floating and NFT, respectively) compared well with other Aquaponic studies in
terms of plant growth. Yields were equal to or better than the studies of Burgoon
and Baum (1984) (lettuce yields of 3.3–4.5 kg m)2) and Seawright et al. (1998)
(Romain lettuce yield of 2 kg m)2). Wren (1984), in a comparison of gravel culture
with NFT culture in an Aquaponic test system, produced 34.5 kg of cucumber fruit
in the gravel bed treatment system (over 50 days), compared with no (zero) fruit
production in the NFT treatment system, again suggesting that gravel bed subsys-
tems in an Aquaponic context are more efficient, in terms of plant or fruit yield, than
NFT sub-systems.
Net nutrient accumulation within the entire aquaponic system may be another
criterion used to assess the suitability or efficiency of the integrated hydroponic sub-
systems. In the present study, floating raft hydroponic replicates removed more
nitrate from the fish culture water than any other test treatment (Table 1). Final net
nitrate concentrations (for the entire aquaponic system) followed the association
Floating < Gravel < NFT < Control (Table 1). However, the three different treat-
ments contained different water volumes, therefore, to compare them directly, total
final mean nitrate-nitrogen weights within each treatment system were calculated.
Table 1 shows that mean final nitrate removal was significantly lower in NFT rep-
licates, suggesting that plants in NFT replicates were approximately 20% less effi-
cient at nitrate-nitrogen removal than the other two treatments.
The lower nitrate removal of the NFT treatment may be due to the fact that the
plants in the NFT treatments had a root-water contact area of less than 50% (typical
in NFT systems; Graves 1993). Plants in both Gravel and Floating treatments had
100% of the root area inundated, probably providing more opportunity to assimilate
nitrate from the respective culture waters. Wren (1984) also found that NFT culture
was less efficient in terms of nutrient removal than Gravel bed culture. In his test
system, 31% of nitrate was removed when using gravel beds and 20% of nitrate was
removed using an NFT system (Wren 1984). Wren’s (1984) nitrate removal effi-
ciency values are below the present study and this difference may be due to a lower
plant–fish ratio within his aquaponic system. Nonetheless, Wren’s (1984) study
supports a similar conclusion to the present study, that gravel hydroponics is more
efficient than NFT hydroponics in removing nitrate from fish culture waters.
Phosphate has also been recalculated from concentrations to total grams per
replicate to allow for water volume differences across different treatments (Table 1).
These results suggest that, unlike plant nitrate assimilation, plant phosphate assim-
ilation was not simply dependent upon the amount of root area available to the
water column, since Floating replicates removed less phosphate than the other two
plant containing treatments, even though the roots in the Floating treatment were
123
548 Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550

completely inundated. Also, the NFT treatment removed a large amount of phos-
phate (50%) relative to the Control, even though the roots were only partially
submerged. Adler et al. (2000b) state that a plant’s productivity is determined by the
nutrient(s) present in lowest supply and that phosphorous uptake may be increased
by supplying those nutrients in shortest supply. In the present study, the Floating
treatment system contained the highest volume of water (148 l), compared to
Control (112 l) and Gravel treatments (112 l) and the NFT treatment (103 l). All
systems were fed the same daily amount of fish food and contained approximately
the same biomass of fish, which exhibited statistically identical FCR’s, so the total
nutrient production from the fish (nitrate and phosphate) in each different treatment
system should have been approximately equal. However, because Floating treatment
replicates had a higher total water volume, due to the larger volumes within the
hydroponic component, then other macronutrients (e.g. Ca, K) and micronutrients
(e.g. Fe, Mg, Mn, S, Mo) may have been less concentrated in the Floating treatment.
If so, one of these macro or micronutrients may have acted as a limiting factor,
leading to lower phosphate removal by plants than would otherwise have occurred if
the micronutrient had not been in limited supply.
Dissolved oxygen maintenance may also be affected by the hydroponic sub-sys-
tem employed. Goto et al. (1996) found that the D.O. concentration for vigorous
lettuce growth needed to be greater than 2.1 mg l)1. For nitrifying bacteria (i.e. the
aerobic bacteria living in biofilters), D.O. levels above 2.0 mg l)1 are required for
efficiency (Masser et al. 1999; Alleman and Preston 2002) and for warm water fish
species (like Murray Cod), D.O. concentrations of 5.0 mg l)1 are recommended
(Masser et al. 1999). From this, it may be concluded that D.O. concentration min-
imums in aquaponic systems should be set to the fish D.O. requirements. All
treatment replicates in the present study easily exceeded this minimum, fish based
requirement (Table 2).
In this recirculation system, bicarbonate was added (Fig. 2) to modify pH and so
the two are integrally linked. In terms of bicarbonate addition, all test treatments
only exhibited a significant difference in bicarbonate addition when compared with
controls, but not when compared with each other, which follows a trend established
in earlier reported experiments (Lennard and Leonard 2004). Treatments containing
plants counteracted acidification caused by bacterial mediated nitrification, as plants
are known to release either hydroxyl (OH)) or bicarbonate (HCO)3 ) ions when they
are actively assimilating nitrate (NO)3 ) ions across the root wall (Salsac et al 1987;
Graves 1993; Imsande and Touraine 1994).
It has been suggested (Rakocy and Hargreaves 1993) that potassium and calcium-
based buffers are more suited to aquaponic applications, as plants have a require-
ment for these ions, whereas they have little requirement for sodium. The present
study was part of a series, and therefore, a sodium-based buffer was used so that
results could be compared to the previous experiments. Sodium-based buffers would
be detrimental in a longer-term study or in a commercial situation, as sodium build-
up would most likely eventually lead to sodium toxicity problems for the plants
(Rakocy and Hargreaves 1993).
Conductivity followed trends expected for fish-only culture (Table 2), with
Control treatment replicates exhibiting a steady increase in mean conductivity over
the course of the experiment (Table 2). With conventional recirculation systems
operated in the absence of plants, as in the fish-only controls used here, there is
no way for these nutrient accumulations to be counteracted, except via water
123
Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550 549

exchanges, and so these nutrient and salt accumulations contribute to increasing

conductivity in closed systems (Rakocy and Hargreaves 1993). Treatments con-
taining plants (Gravel bed, Floating and NFT) exhibited significantly (P < 0.05,
n=54) lower accumulations in mean conductivity (Table 2) than did the control
treatment. This is due to the fact that plants actively uptake and remove nutrients
(NO2) 3)
3 and PO4 ) from the system, as well as other ions and salts.
One of the advantages of Aquaponic systems is that water replacement can be
theoretically lowered, since nutrient build-ups are not as great, because plants up-
take the nutrients (Rakocy and Hargreaves 1993). Alternatively, fish only recircu-
lating systems may have daily water replacement rates as high as 15% (Singh et al.
1996) from filter back-washes or dilution in order to control nutrient and waste
build-ups. In Aquaponic systems, water is replaced (not exchanged) only to account
for the water lost through plant-mediated evapotranspiration. In the present study,
water was lost from the experimental systems through one of two mechanisms, the
transpiration mediated by plants (test treatments) or evaporation from the surface of
the hydroponic component (Control and Gravel treatments). With no significant
differences between Control and test treatments, it appears that evaporative losses
were the main mechanism for the loss of water in these experiments, and any
transpiration losses by plants in the test treatments were not sufficient to produce a
significant difference from the Controls, where plants were not present.
In summary, aside from the MSc thesis of Wren (1984), little information is
available on the relative efficiencies of different hydroponic plant growth compo-
nents in an Aquaponic context. The present study, comparing Gravel, Floating and
NFT hydroponic sub-systems for lettuce yield, nitrate and phosphate removal, water
use and buffering capacity, showed that the NFT hydroponic subsystem was sig-
nificantly less efficient than either Gravel bed or Floating raft hydroponic culture
technologies. The poorer result for NFT is probably due to low levels of root contact
with water, compared with Gravel bed and Floating raft hydroponic systems (100%)
(Graves 1993). Nonetheless, growth of Murray Cod over the time frame of the
experiment (21 days) was good, and not affected by treatment. NFT may still be an
appropriate technology for aquaponics for other reasons, such as capital cost and
ease of use, but system designers will need to take account of the lower nutrient
removal capacity of the NFT methodology.

Acknowledgements This research was partially funded by the Australian Federal Governments
Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). The authors also wish to thank
Boomaroo Nurseries (Lara, Victoria, Australia) for the provision of the many lettuce seedlings used
to complete this study and Dr. Brett Ingram of the Victorian Institute of Marine and Freshwater
Research for his invaluable knowledge of Murray Cod culture.

References

Adler PR, Harper JK, Takeda F, Wade EM, Summerfelt ST (2000a) Economic evaluation of
hydroponics and other treatment options for phosphorous removal in aquaculture effluent.
Hortic Sci 35:993–999
Adler PR, Harper JK, Wade EM, Takeda F, Summerfelt ST (2000b) Economic analysis of an
aquaponic system for the integrated production of rainbow trout and plants. Int J Recirculat
Aquacult 1:15–34
Alleman JE, Preston K (2002) Behaviour and physiology of nitrifying bacteria. Web archive of the
Aquaculture Network Information Centre. http://www.aquanic.org/publicat/state/il-in/ces/
ces-240_biology.htm
123
550 Aquacult Int (2006) 14:539–550

Burgoon PS, Baum C (1984) Year round fish and vegetable production in a passive solar greenhouse.
In: Proceedings of the 6th international congress on soiless culture, Luntern, Netherlands,
28 April–5 May, pp 151–172
Dontje JH, Clanton CJ (1999) Nutrient fate in aquaculture systems for waste treatment. Trans Am
Soc Agric Eng 42:1073–1085
Goto E, Both AJ, Albright LD, Langhans RW, Leed AR (1996) Effect of dissolved oxygen
concentration on lettuce growth in floating hydroponics. Proceedings of the international
symposium in plant production in closed systems. Acta Horticult 440:205–210
Graves CJ (1993) The nutrient film technique. Horticult Rev 5:1–44
Imsande J, Touraine B (1994) N demand and the regulation of nitrate uptake. Plant Physiol 105:3–7
Ingram B (2002) Murray Cod aquaculture: now and into the future: outcomes from a project
investigating the intensive commercial production of Murray Cod. In: Murray Cod aquaculture:
now and into the future. Proceedings from a workshop held at the Victorian Institute of Animal
Sciences, Attwood, Victoria, Australia, 5 August 2002
Lennard WA, Leonard BV (2004) A comparison of reciprocal flow verses constant flow in an
integrated, gravel bed, aquaponic test system. Aquacult Int 12:539–553
Lewis WM, Yopp JH, Schramm HL, Brandenburg AM (1978) Use of hydroponics to maintain
quality of recirculated water in a fish culture system. Trans Am Fish Soc 197:92–99
Masser MP, Rakocy JE, Losordo TM (1999) Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems:
management of recirculating systems. Southern Regional Aquaculture Centre Publication
No. 452. Southern Regional Aquaculture Centre, USA
McMurtry MR, Sanders DC, Patterson RP, Nash A (1993) Yield of tomato irrigated with recircu-
lating aquaculture water. J Prod Agric 6:429–432
McMurtry MR, Sanders DC, Cure JD, Hodson RG, Haning BC, St. Amand PC (1997) Efficiency of
water use of an integrated fish/vegetable co-culture system. J World Aquacult Soc 28:420–428
Morgan L (1999) Hydroponic lettuce production. Casper Publications, Narrabeen, NSW, Australia
Naegel LCA (1977) Combined production of fish and plants in recirculating water. Aquaculture
10:17–24
Rakocy JE, Hargreaves JA (1993) Integration of vegetable hydroponics with fish culture: a review.
In: Wang JK (ed) Techniques for modern aquaculture. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph Michigan USA, pp 112–136
Rakocy JE, Bailey DS, Shultz KA, Cole WM (1997) Evaluation of a commercial-scale aquaponic
unit for the production of Tilapia and lettuce. In: Tilapia aquaculture: proceedings from the
4th international symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture. Northeast Regional Agricultural
Engineering Service, Ithaca, New York, pp 603–613
Salsac L, Chaillou S, Morot-Gaudry JF, Lesaint C (1987) Nitrate and ammonium nutrition in plants.
Plant Physiol Biochem 25:805–812
Seawright DE, Stickney RR, Walker RB (1998) Nutrient dynamics in integrated aquaculture-
hydroponic systems. Aquaculture 160:215–237
Singe S, Marsh LS, Vaughan DH, Libey GS (1996) A computer simulation model to optimise
greenhouse size for an integrated (fish production, hydroponics) system. Trans Am Soc Agric
Eng 39:2241–2248
Waten BJ, Busch RL (1984) Tropical production of Tilapia (Sarotherodon aurea) and tomatoes
(Lycopersicon esculentum) in a small-scale recirculating water system. Aquaculture 41:271–283
Wren SW (1984) Comparison of hydroponic crop production techniques in a recirculating fish
culture system. MSc thesis, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA

123