A FINAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE LEOPOLD

CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICUTLURE

December 2015

Food Safety, Economics, and Environmental Impacts of

Aquaponics in Iowa
Leopold Center Grant Number: XP-2014-06

Principle Investigators:
o PI: Mr. Allen Pattillo
 Iowa State University
 Fisheries and Aquaculture Extension Specialist III
515-294-8616
 Pattillo@iastate.edu
o Co-PI: Dr. Angela Shaw
 Iowa State University
 Assistant Professor/Extension and Outreach
515-294-0868
 angelaml@iastate.edu
o Co-PI: Dr. Kurt Rosentrater
 Iowa State University
 Associate Professor
515-294-4019
 karosent@iastate.edu
o Co-PI: Linda Naeve (replaced by Dan Burden)
 Iowa State University
 Value Added Agriculture
515-294-8946 (515-294-9520)
 lnaeve@iastate.edu (djburden@iastate.edu)

Duration: February 1st, 2014 through October 31st, 2015

Key Words: Aquaponics; Barramundi; Lettuce; Basil; Techno Economic Analysis; Life
Cycle Assessment; Food Safety; E. coli; Salmonella; Ultraviolet Sterilization
 II. Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Contents
II. Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... 2
III. Nontechnical Summary ............................................................................................................................ 3
III. Detailed Report ........................................................................................................................................ 4
a) Background and Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4
b) Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 5
c) Strategies and Methods ............................................................................................................................ 6
d) Results and discussion ............................................................................................................................ 12
i. Food Safety ............................................................................................................................................ 12
ii. Techno-economic analysis and lifecycle assessment.............................................................................. 14
e) Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 19
f) Impact of the Results .............................................................................................................................. 19
g) Outreach and Information Transfer ........................................................................................................ 20
h) Evaluation .............................................................................................................................................. 24
i) Leveraging Resources ............................................................................................................................ 25
j) References .............................................................................................................................................. 25
IV. Budget Report ........................................................................................................................................ 30

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 2

 III. Nontechnical Summary
Our proposal titled “Food Safety, Economics, and Environmental Impacts of Aquaponics in Iowa”
was funded from February 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015. The lead investigators for this
project were Mr. D. Allen Pattillo, M.S. and Drs. Angela Shaw and Kurt Rosentrater from Iowa
State University. Mr. Allen Pattillo is the fisheries and aquaculture extension specialist in the
Department of natural Resource Ecology and Management and Chairman of the Extension Base
Workgroup for the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (515-294-8616). Dr. Angela
Shaw is an assistant Professor and Extension and Outreach Specialist in the Department of Food
Science and Human Nutrition (515-294-0868). Dr. Kurt Rosentrater is an Associate Professor in
the Agriculture Systems and Bioengineering Department (515-294-4019). And Linda Naeve,
M.S. is an Extension Specialist in the Value Added Agriculture Program (515-294-8946). During
the project Linda turned her duties over to Dan Burden, Extension Program Coordinator in Value
Added Agriculture (515-294-9520). Our team was successful in conducting two major
experiments, analyzing the results and disseminating the broadly (see Outreach and Information
Transfer).

The aim of this study was to determine the food safety status and the effectiveness of ultraviolet
sterilizers as a food safety intervention in a model aquaponic unit that is growing lettuce, basil and
Barramundi. Samples were collected throughout the 118 day production period and microbial
analysis was conducted for the presence of E.coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp. and the prevalence
of aerobic plate counts, coliforms, and fecal coliforms in the systems in triplicates. Absence of
foodborne pathogens were confirmed using ELISA technology and enumeration through Petrifilm.
A significant increase was observed in microbial counts over the trial period, in the presence and
absence of UV. Ultraviolet sterilization did not significantly reduce the aerobic plate counts,
coliform, and fecal coliform counts when compared to the control systems samples. The food safety
project revealed that, although E. coli is likely not a major threat to aquaponic food safety, there are
concerns with other potential pathogens. Also, the aquaponics system and protocols used for this
project did not create conditions conducive to utilizing ultraviolet sterilization as a food safety
intervention. Though the UV intervention method was not effective in reducing microbial presence,
future work should focus on improving the unit design and other food safety interventions that can
be effective in the presence of living system while maintaining fish homeostatic environment.
Further research is needed to refine the system and identify an effective kill step for food safety
pathogens. More detailed and specific information about our results can be found in the attached
food safety manuscript, which is currently under peer review at a scientific journal.

In this study, both Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA) of a
tilapia and basil aquaponic system were conducted. Three scales, including a truly running system,
pilot scale, and commercial scale of aquaponics were considered and analyzed. When the system
is maintained properly and is in a balance status, aquaponics will mimic the natural ecosystem, use
much less water than traditional aquaculture, and have almost no effluent. As a result, it is thought
more environmentally friendly and sustainable. This study provided environmental impacts and
profitability for operating aquaponics in the Midwest of U.S. It also showed that the operating
scale and basil price had obvious effect on profits. When the scale was large enough, such as with
the grow bed area of 75.6 m2 and when the basil price equals to or is great than $60/kg, operating
aquaponics was profitable. The LCA and TEA models revealed that small-scale aquaponics is not
likely to be a profitable business. However, due to efficiencies in economies of scale, larger
systems seem to have some promise for creating an economically viable aquaponics business.
PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 3
Further research is needed to refine the results and create economic models for species other than
tilapia and basil. More detailed and specific information about our results can be found in the
attached techno-economic / lifecycle assessment manuscript, which is currently under peer review
at a scientific journal.

III. Detailed Report

a) Background and Introduction
Aquaponics is an environmentally friendly agricultural practice that involves the cultivation of crops
in a non-soil medium (known as hydroponics) by feeding the plants with nutrient-rich water from
intensively cultured aquatic organisms such as fish (i.e., aquaculture). There are many benefits to
aquaponic crop production such as increased plant growth rates, smaller production footprint than
soil, reduced water resource inputs, and reduction of plant pathogens (Timmons and Ebeling 2007).

Aquaponics can be implemented using low-cost materials, which keeps capital overhead low and
thus feasible for small-farm applications. Additionally, the multiple crops produced in an
aquaponics system (plants and fish) allow small, family-scale farmers to diversify their incomes,
which both reduces risk of crop failure and increases revenue by providing products for multiple
market outlets. There is tremendous potential to increase economic, social, and environmental
sustainability of Iowa agriculture through aquaponics. However, there is currently minimal research
for aquaponics in Iowa.

Our proposed project assesses the potential for these systems to transmit bacterial contamination into
fish and vegetative tissues, as well as the production economics of aquaponics systems, including
capital equipment and facilities requirements, energy systems, water systems, and other operational
expenses. These types of assessments are required because data regarding food safety, economies of
scale, and facility/energy dynamics do not exist for aquaponics systems. Because the plants utilize
fish effluent within a closed system, aquaponic food production should be more sustainable and
environmentally friendly than many other livestock or agricultural production systems. But, winters
in the Midwest US necessitate high energy consumption to maintain proper environmental
conditions.

Food Safety - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that an estimated 48
million people (or 1 in 6 US residents) suffer from foodborne illnesses each year (Scannel et al.,
2011); 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases. Between 1998
and 2008, 46% of all reported foodborne illnesses were associated with fruits, vegetables, and nuts
(Painter et al., 2013). Identification and resolution of food safety hazards within the food system is
critical to the reduction of the foodborne burden in the country.

The specific food safety concern with aquaponics is with the proximity of the fish culture water,
containing fish excrement, to the edible plant culture component. Although fish, generally are not
regarded as a food safety threat because the temperature of the culture water are low enough to not
promote the establishment of pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella (Fox et al. 2013), the
potential for survival and growth still remains. Additionally, the potential for cross contaminations
from animal and insect vectors does raise concerns for food safety.

The usage of ultraviolet light (UV) sterilization in recirculating aquaculture has been suggested to be

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 4

able to reduce pathogen loads in the water column, without adding any chemicals into the water,
thereby increasing fish health, and decreasing the need for water exchange (Timmons and Ebeling
2007). Effective usage of a UV sterilizer should reduce the abundance of many bacterial and viral
pathogens suspended in the water, and thus reduce the probability of cross contamination between
the water and plant tissue, should those pathogens be present.

Techno-economic Analysis - Aquaponics has been in existence in some form for thousands of years;
however, the use of aquaponics in intensive fish culture has only been researched for the past three
decades. The majority of the research done for aquaponics has been in tropical climates using large
commercial-scale systems that lack adequate replication to yield scientifically sound results.
Additionally, most of the economic data that is available for aquaponics has been generated by
private industry researchers, and should be regarded as anecdotal at best. Replicated research for
aquaponic production in temperate climates is sorely needed to advance the industry.

Theoretically, aquaponics can be done almost anywhere, can be expanded modularly, can be an
affordable venture to initiate, can be economically viable on multiple scales, and have great potential
for providing an economic engine to diversify and strengthen the economies of rural communities.
Although the potential for earning is substantial, the number of producers is limited, and the costs of
production are largely unknown and determined by producers through trial and error. Quantifying
these costs, benefits, and other impacts, and developing standard operating procedures / best
practices can increase farmer knowledge, profitability, and facilitate the implementation of these
types of systems in a sustainable manner.

Environmental Impacts - Aquaponics is generally hailed as a very environmentally friendly and

sustainable agricultural practice because of its intensive and self-remediating nature. There are
resource inputs for aquaponics that need to be assessed and compared to other forms of agriculture
to gauge its net environmental impact.

b) Objectives
1) Determine food safety status and efficacy of UV sterilization as a food safety intervention for
aquaponics in Iowa.
 Objective 1A. Determine presence and load of Total and Fecal Coliforms, E. coli, and
Salmonella in the culture water of an aquaponics system
 Objective 1B. Determine presence and load of Total and Fecal Coliforms, E. coli, and
Salmonella in crop foliage grown in an aquaponics system.
 Objective 1C. Determine presence and load of Total and Fecal Coliforms, E. coli, and
Salmonella in fish tissue grown in an aquaponics system.
 Objective 1D. Publish results in a refereed journal and extension publications.
2) Perform a techno-economic analysis for an aquaponics system in Iowa.
 Objective 2A. Collect data for all resource inputs in an aquaponics system (i.e. –
materials, water, electricity, heat, labor, feed, etc.)
 Objective 2B. Collect data for all outputs from an aquaponics system (i.e. – fish and plant
biomass produced)
 Objective 2C. Use input and output data collected to construct model to assess aquaponic
economic efficiency.
 Objective 2D. Publish results in a refereed journal and extension publications.
3) Determine environmental impacts of an optimized aquaponics system in Iowa.
PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 5
  Objective 3A. Collect energy and water consumption data (Obj. 2A)
 Objective 3B. Collect plant and fish tissue composition data
 Objective 3C. Collect water and air quality parameter data (i.e. – characterize wastewater
effluent, quantify CO2 emissions)
 Objective 3D. Use data to create a mass balance model to determine the net
environmental effect of an aquaponics system in Iowa.
 Objective 3E. Publish results in a refereed journal and extension publications.

c) Strategies and Methods

This research will explore fish and plant species for aquaponics in Iowa, and evaluate their potential
for food safety hazards (obj. 1), economic viability (obj. 2), and environmental impact (obj. 3).
Pathogens in the water, plant, and fish tissue were evaluated throughout the experiment and
compared between UV sterilized and control treatments (obj. 1). Growth characteristics for
Barramundi will be evaluated with respect to increases in length, weight, growth efficiency, as well
as survival when grown in conjunction with high value crops (such as basil, lettuce, or other leafy
greens). Crop production will be evaluated for biomass growth and yield, composition, as well as
nutrient deficiencies, nutritive value, and moisture content. Growth parameters for fish and plants
were collected bi-weekly. Dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and specific conductance data were
collected daily from the recirculating water supply. Total ammonia nitrogen, nitrate, and nitrite data
were collected twice weekly, while total water nutrient data was collected weekly. Consumptive
input data will be collected continuously and was used to conduct a techno-economic analysis
(TEA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of all culture scenarios (obj. 2). Upon harvest, at the end
of a predetermined culture period, the fish and plants were weighed and sacrificed for nutrient
analysis. The collected data was analyzed for significant differences in growth, nutrient utilization,
and consumptive inputs via repeated measures ANOVA (a=0.05), and relationship correlations
between fish and plant species were evaluated to determine optimized growth parameters (obj. 3).
This data was used to evaluate the economic feasibility of aquaponics for potential producers in
Iowa. A written scientific publication and an outreach/extension publication is being produced from
this research and will be made available for the general public, and will also be used to direct
extension programming and workshops.

Aquaponics Systems - The system used for the TEA and LCA is depicted in figure 1. For the food
safety project six independent, closed loop floating raft systems were purchased and installed (figure
2). Each of these contains a single fish culture unit (figure 4), a mechanical/biological filter (figure
4), and one plant culture unit (figure 5). Within each of these units, eight floating rafts were used to
grow either basil (4 rafts) or lettuce (4 rafts), using a replicated design. All of the systems were
outfitted with a UV water sterilizer system; three of them were on (treatment) for the culture period,
the other three were off (control). The lettuce and basil were harvested every 30 days, then replaced
with a new seedling. Because food safety is a critical concern, we need to understand whether or not
UV sterilization affects water-borne pathogens in aquaponics systems, and ultimately the safety of
the produce and the fish for human consumption.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 6

 Figure 1. Floating-raft aquaponics prototype used for the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and
Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA).

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 7

Figure 2. Overview of a model aquaponic system used for the aquaponic food safety project.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 8

 Figure 3. Overview of aquaculture unit used for the aquaponic food safety project.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 9

Figure 4. Overview of hydroponic culture unit used for the aquaponic food safety project.

Objective 1 Strategy: Food Safety

Sample Schedule
Water (2 treatments * 3 tanks per treatment = 6 samples at each time)
 E. coli/ Coliform: Monthly (72 samples)
 E. coli O157 and Salmonella spp.: Initial, 3 month, 6 month, 9 month, and 12 month (30
samples)
Basil and Lettuce (2 treatments *3 tanks per treatment * 2 sample types = 12 samples at each
time)
 E. coli/ Coliform: Monthly end product sample (144 samples)
 E. coli O157 and Salmonella spp.: Monthly end product sample (144 samples)
Fish (2 treatments * 3 tanks per treatment * 3 fish per tank = 18 samples at each time)
 E. coli/ Coliform: One end sample (18 samples)
 E. coli O157 and Salmonella spp.: One end sample (18 samples)
Sample Preparation - Two heads of lettuce or two bunches of basil or 1 liter of water were collected
from each of the six tanks. For the lettuce, a sample of 25 grams were taken and added to 225ml of
1% peptone into a sterile stomacher bag. For the basil, a 10 gram sample of basil sample were taken
and added to 90ml of 1% peptone and added to the sterile stomacher bag. For the water a 100ml sub
sample were added to 900ml of 1% peptone and added to the sterile stomacher bag. For the fish
samples, a swab was taken of the body surface, gill, and alimentary canal and added to of 10 ml 1%
peptone test tube.
Microbial Analysis - Individual samples were homogenized either in a Stomacher or vortex and
enumerated using coliform/E. coli Petrifilm™ (3M, St. Paul, MN). Duplicate samples were used in
this experiment. Coliform and E. coli levels were enumerated using 3M Petrifilm E. coli/ Coliform
Count Plate TM (3M Microbiology Products, Minneapolis, Minnesota), following label directions.
Plates were incubated at 35°C and observed for changes at 24 and 48 h. Interpretation of the
petrifilm followed E. coli/Coliform petrifilm label directions and AOAC Official Method 991.14.
Blue to red-blue colonies associated with gas were counted as E. coli colonies. Red colonies
associated with gas will be counted as coliform colonies. Further analysis will be conducted on the
samples for presence of E. coli O157 and Salmonella spp. using ELISA system (3M™ Tecra™) and

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 10

latex agglutination for confirmation (Oxoid/Remel). Samples process through a series of enrichment
and selection methods prior to the ELISA test to reduce the presence of false positive samples.
These rapid detection kits are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use on
food samples. Conventional plating techniques were performed for any indeterminate results with
the enrichment on selective media based on FDA Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM).
Statistical Analysis - Data will be entered into an electronic spreadsheet and independently
validated. Data was then be imported into a commercially available software package. Mixed-
model methodologies were used to evaluate specific response variables to determine the amount of
difference in coliform and fecal coliforms counts. For all models, a significance of α=0.05 was used
to determine statistical significance. Based on the statistic model utilized all assumptions were
tested to ensure correct model is utilized for the data collected. E. coli O157 and Salmonella were
analyzed based on presence and absence of the bacteria in a “R Package” analysis (Freeman &
Moison, 2008). This software uses a collection of tools for evaluating the performance of binary
classification models to determine optimum threshold for translating a probability to a presence or
absence.

Objective 2 Strategy: Techno-Economic Analysis

Plant growth analysis - Plant productivity was primarily be assessed through biomass production. At
planting and each harvest, fresh weight of plant material was weighed and fresh mass was recorded.
Plant material was then be placed in a drying over at 69°C for 3 d then weighed. For basil, the
relative growth rate growth rate (RGR) for each harvest period will be calculated as RGR =
(lnW2−lnW1)/(t2-t1), where W = dry mass and t = time (Lambers et al., 2008). Dried plant tissue
samples were analyzed for nitrogen (NO3-, NH4+, and NO2-), phosphorous (P), potassium (K),
calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn) were
measured using inductively coupled plasma spectrometry at the Iowa State University Plant and Soil
Analysis Lab. In addition to plant growth and mineral nutrient concentration, weekly samples of
solution in the plant growth unit of the aquaponic systems were sampled. Nutrients including
nitrogen (NO3-, NH4+, and NO2-), P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, Fe, and Mn were measured at the Iowa State
University Plant and Soil Analysis Lab as previously described and compared to commercial
recommendations for nutrient solutions used for hydroponic production of basil and lettuce (Raviv
and Lieth, 2008; Sonnevelt and Voogt, 2008).
System Analysis - To examine system performance and economics associated with combined fish/
plant culture systems, we evaluated growth characteristics for each. For the fish, measured length,
weight, growth efficiency (i.e., specific growth rate; feed conversion ratio; protein efficiency ratio),
and survival over time. Crop production was evaluated for biomass growth, growth rate, yield,
proximate composition, nutrient deficiencies, and moisture content. Growth parameters for the fish
were evaluated monthly; plant data was collected weekly. Other parameters collected include
dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and specific conductance data, all of which were collected daily
from the recirculating water supply. Total ammonia nitrogen, nitrate, and nitrite data will be
collected twice weekly, and total water nutrient data was collected weekly. Resource consumption
(input) data was collected continuously. All collected data was analyzed for significant differences
in growth, nutrient utilization, and resource inputs via repeated measures ANOVA (a=0.05), and
relationship correlations between fish and plant species were evaluated to determine optimized
growth parameters for each. These data were used to evaluate the economic feasibility of
aquaponics systems in Iowa. This analysis includes capital costs, operational costs, benefits (fish
and plant sales), breakeven points, and rates of return. Multiple scales were evaluated to determine
the economics for both small and large production systems.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 11

Objective 3 Strategy: Environmental Impact Assessment
In order to understand the net environmental impacts from an aquaponics system, several
performance metrics were determined based on the data collected (via sensors and instrumentation)
for Objective 2. These include total energy consumption, total water consumption, effluent
generation rates, and net CO2 emissions. Mass balances were constructed for each of these metrics,
and net environmental flows were determined. These were used to compare our system’s impacts to
other styles of production, including hydroponic-based plant production, land-based plant
production, and recirculating aquaculture production. It is anticipated that our combined system will
have significantly lower environmental impacts, due to synergies between the plants and fish.
The Cross-Cutting Initiative is aimed at improving agricultural sustainability by combining
multiple agricultural systems for ecosystem health, productivity, economic, and social well-being.
We have a closed-loop system, with no appreciable waste stream, and aquaponics is scalable
from small (hobby) sized, to family production, to large commercial systems. This project will
help diversify farm income for small and medium sized producers in Iowa.

d) Results and discussion

i.Food Safety
The aim of objective 1 of this research was to determine the food safety status and the effectiveness
of ultraviolet sterilizers (UV) as a food safety intervention in a model aquaponic unit that is growing
lettuce, basil and Barramundi. Since this microbial community is rich with different
microorganisms, if a zoonotic pathogens were introduced into the system, the risk for foodborne
illness from the fish and/or food crop is higher (Hollyer et al., 2009). There have been multiple
foodborne outbreaks with E. coli and Salmonella associated with fruit and vegetable that have been
attributed to water sources (CDC, 2015). If the water source is contaminated with one of these
zoonotic pathogens, then the entire system and the biofiltration system can continuously contaminate
the food crops and fish. Water testing is critical to ensure the system is pathogen free.

During this 118 day study, water, lettuce, basil and fish samples were collected throughout the
production period and microbial analysis was conducted for the presence of E.coli O157:H7 and
Salmonella spp. and the prevalence of aerobic plate counts, coliforms, and fecal coliforms in the
systems (in triplicates). For reference, high levels of fecal coliforms (E.coli) above 500 CFU/gram
are seen as unacceptable by the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for
Foods (ICMSF, 1986). Fecal coliforms are an indicator of poor water supply and poor sanitation
practices (Varga and Anderson, 1967). In our study, testing for E.coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp.
as well as fecal coliforms yielded negative results, meaning that no pathogens were found in any of
the systems or treatments (UV and no UV).

Absence of foodborne pathogens were confirmed using ELISA technology and enumeration through
Petrifilm. Aerobic microbial plate counts were used to assess spoilage bacteria abundance, which is
an indicator of the potential shelf life of the produce. Total coliform counts were used to assess the
presence and abundance of four genera in the gram-negative bacteria family Enterobacteriaceae:
Citrobacter, Escherichia, Enterobacter, and Klebsiella. Some Enterobacter spp. and Klebsiella spp.
are found naturally in soil, water or on plants and could be part of natural flora of leafy greens and
herbs. Within our study we did not find any fecal coliforms and the coliform counts were very low.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 12

A statistically significant increase in microbial counts was observed over the trial period (table 1), in
the presence and absence of UV. This means that ultraviolet sterilization did not significantly
reduce the aerobic plate counts or coliform counts when compared to the control systems samples.
More detailed and specific information about our results can be found in the attached food safety
manuscript, which is currently under peer review at a scientific journal. The inconsistent patterns
and variability between and amongst treatments observed in the microbial counts is likely due to the
dynamic ecosystem interactions that occur in a living system like aquaponics. It is known that the
microbial community through biofilms can be regenerated quickly, so this may explain the
variations and increase in the microorganisms over time in these systems. Though the UV
intervention method was not effective in reducing microbial presence, future work should focus on
improving the unit design and other food safety interventions that can be effective in the presence of
living system while maintaining fish homeostatic environment. More research is needed to solidify
this theory and identify the mechanisms that drive this variability.

Table 1. Aerobic plate counts and coliform counts resulting from testing of basil, lettuce, fish, and
water in an aquaponics system.

Test (log10) Aerobic Plate Counts Coliform Counts

Basil (CFU/g) 2.70 - 6.54 0.00 - 2.47

Lettuce (CFU/g) 2.29 - 6.97 0.00 - 2.25

Fish (CFU/g) 4.97 - 5.57 1.17 – 1.85

Water (CFU/mL) 0.00 - 6.55 0.00 - 2.47

Our results indicated that there were no E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella or fecal coliforms found
throughout the study, but the presence of other foodborne pathogens such as Listeria spp. were not
evaluated. Listeria spp. specifically can grow slowly in low temperatures and in aquaponics
conditions (Walker et al., 1990; Howgate, 1998). In addition to Listeria spp. presence of toxins
associated with aquatic species as well as skin acquired zoonotic diseases can be associated with
aquaponics. Edwardsiella, Erysipelothrix, Mycobacterium, Streptococcus (iniae), and Vibrio spp.
have been discussed by Harper (2002 and 2007) as potential microorganisms of concern.
Aeromonas hydrophila (synonyms: A. liquefaciens, A. formicans) is another pathogen of concern
that has been identified through research (Chalmers, 2004; Noga, 1996).

Future studies can be conducted using this method or in combination with UV treatment along with
the testing for Listeria monocytogenes and other aquaculture pathogens. Other food safety
interventions such as ozone and organic acids may also be potential within the living system of
aquaponics. Overall, given the many benefits associated with aquaponic food production system,
determining a stable system producing safe food would be a huge asset in increasing economic,
social, and environmental sustainability. Further studies in similar area of research are encouraged.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 13

 ii.Techno-economic analysis and lifecycle assessment
The term sustainable agriculture is described as integrated systems combing plant and animal
production using ecologic applications. The long term goals of sustainable agriculture include:1)
meeting human food needs; being environmentally friendly; 2) making full use of nonrenewable
resources; 3) sustaining both economy and ecology; 4) improving life quality for not only farmers,
but for the community and the society (NALC, 1990). The operation of aquaponic systems provides
the possibility and opportunity to produce fresh food in backyards and rooftops, which means urban
people have an opportunity to produce and consume local food. While some hobbyist operate small
scale aquaponics outdoors, most commercial aquaponics facilities, especially in areas with cold air
temperatures, are in a greenhouse or other indoor facility to control the growing environment
(Licamele, 2009), to maintain food quality and safety and maximize production yield. Greenhouses
can lengthen the growing season in cold areas while taking advantage of natural light to minimize
the expense of supplemental lighting (Hamamoto and Yamazaki, 2011), while simultaneously
minimizing weather and insect damage to crops.

Although aquaponics is not a new technology, but its popularity, research and development are
relatively recent. According to a survey conducted by Love et al. in 2013, the median year that
aquaponics operators began their practice was 2010, and a large proportion of labor is from
volunteers and part-time workers (Love et al, 2015). The survey also reported that most operators
designed their own aquaponic systems rather than hiring specific engineer or consultant, indicating
large knowledge gaps for public. Regardless, the increasing popularity of aquaponics has potential
for creating new job opportunities.

From the mid-1970s, aquaponics was introduced to recirculating aquaculture systems to help
maintain water quality in fish culture (Lewis et al., 1978). Early studies on aquaponics operation and
mechanism focus on research scale facilities (Rakocy et al., 2006; 2012). Recently, research focuses
on how to optimize aquaponics operation. A few studies relate to the cost and profit for commercial
scale aquaponics (Bailey et al., 1997; Tokunaga et al., 2013; Bunyaviroch et al., 2013), but these
studies were conducted in tropical area and without the consideration of harsh winter weather like
the midwest U.S. Bailey et al. (1997) evaluated a system in the U.S. Virgin Islands, so neither
greenhouse nor equipment designed to heat the greenhouse was considered in the analysis, and there
were no supplemental lights, either. Besides, this study was not a complete TEA, and did not
consider cost and profit on a base of a functional unit. Tokunaga et al. (2013) evaluated commercial
systems in Hawaii and it concluded that the economic performance for commercial scale aquaponics
had some potential, even though the potential might be not as promising as former studies suggested,
yielding only a moderate internal rate of return. Bunyaviroch et al. (2013) investigated a commercial
case in Puerto Rico and indicated that aquaponics was viable there but the profitability was limited.
Based on a techno-economic study of aquaponics in South Africa, Lapere (2010) concluded that
high capital and operating cost made it difficult to make profit; however, the natural and economic
environments are quite different in South Africa and in the mainland of U.S.

In 2013, Love et al. conducted a relatively comprehensive international survey on aquaponics

production and profitability indicating that energy, water, and fish feed were the three major
physical inputs in aquaponics (Love et al., 2015). Aquaponic facilities varied from tens to thousands
of US gallon water volume according to different operating purpose. It was reported that the average
size of commercial aquaponics was using 10,300 L water and was occupying 0.01 ha field. Less than
half operators also reported that they used supplemental light to help plant production. The survey
PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 14
also stated that electricity was the primary energy source for aquaponics. Small scale aquaponics
could be operated in the backyard as hobby while commercial scale aquaponics was considered as
agriculture which could make profit.

Aquaponics theoretically has potential for development and expansion. Love et al. (2013) reported
that 55% of commercial operators harvested less than 45 kg fish and 52% harvested less than 226 kg
plants in the previous year. Most commercial aquaponics producers sold products through direct
markets, such as on-farm sales, farmers market, and restaurants rather than indirect markets, such as
grocery store and wholesale; this indicates that aquaponics is still not a mature agricultural industry.
Only 31% of operators made profits during the previous year, and many of them were not only
selling fish and plants, but also selling aquaponics materials and services (Love et al., 2015).
Profitability in aquaponics is integral to industry advancement.

Therefore this study, focuses on both Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Techno-economic analysis
(TEA) of tilapia and basil aquaponics. Three scales, including an existing prototype research system
on Iowa State University campus (baseline) (figure 1), pilot-scale (10x baseline), and commercial-
scale (300x baseline) aquaponics facilities were analyzed. Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and basil
(Ocimum basilicum) are two common species that operators chose for aquaponic production (Love
et al, 2015), which can be considered as model species for aquaponics. Tilapia is the model species
for aquaponics because of its hardiness, popularity and market potential. According to the national
fishery institute, tilapia was reported to become the fourth popular sea food in the United States in
2012 (NFI, 2012). Tilapia have the ability to survive in poor water quality making them easy to
culture in tanks or ponds and have the potential to grow to high density in confinement (Popma et al,
1996). Basil is a model aquaponics plants because it is resistant to insects and is fast growing,
exhibiting a 28 days cycle from transplanting to harvest (Rakocy, 2004). Basil has a high retail value
in the Midwestern U.S., creating high profit potential. This study provides environmental impacts
and profitability for operating aquaponics in the Midwest U.S.A.

There were five main components in our aquaponics (figure 1): 1) fish culture tank, 2) mechanical
and biological biofilter, 3) plant grow bed, 4) sump tank with pump, and 5) air blower. There were
three independent systems in the greenhouse, used for replications during experiments. For each
system, the rectangular 158 L fish culture tank is of 74-cm long, 50-cm wide, and 65-cm high; the
total system fish capacity is 474 L. Plastic mesh cover was used to prevent the escape of fish, and air
stones were set inside the tank to provide aeration. The maximum stocking density of tilapia could
reach up to 120 kg/m3 at full capacity (Rakocy, 1989). Typically it takes 6 to 9 months for tilapia to
grow from a fingerling size of 50-100 g to a harvest size of 450-680 g (GAA, 2003). The feed
conversion ratio (FCR) for tilapia is between 1.6 and 2.0 (Rakocy, 2004). The filter tank is 56 cm
long, 40 cm wide, and 35 cm high, with a standing water depth of about 3 cm. About 0.0283 m3
PVC ribbon (biofill, Pentair Aquatic Ecosystems, Apopka FL, USA) provides approximately 52 m2
of surface area for bacteria attachment. A filter pad was set above the biofill to pre-filter solid waste
and materials, and was cleaned periodically. The hydroponic unit consists of four plant trays
measuring 76 cm wide, 81 cm long, and 18 cm deep per system, and four age stages of plants
planted at weekly intervals. The area of each tray was about 0.63 m2 and 16 basil seedlings were
transplanted planted per tray; this yielded a total growing area of 2.52 m2 and 64 basil plants per
system and a total facility capacity of 7.56 m2 growing area and 192 plants at full capacity. Basil is
sown into rockwool starter plug sheets (Growdan rockwool starter plugs, FarmTek, IA, USA) and
germinated for two weeks. Then basils were transplanted into the floating rafts for growout. After

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 15

four weeks’ growing in the grow beds (six weeks after sowing), basil plants were ready to harvest.
The analysis was based on the assumption that the system was stable and run at full capacity,
meaning no fish or plant disease issues, and no extra fertilizer was required. Both TEA and LCA
were directly conducted with the information from our ISU aquaponics (figure 1). The ISU
aquaponics was used as a baseline and then the results were scaled up to 10 and 300 times of the
baseline. Based on the survey conducted by Love et al. (2014), the water volumes varied from 3 to
600,000 gallon (about 11 to 2,271,247 L), and our 300 times of the baseline system had a water
volume of 216,900 L, which emulates a reasonable commercial-scale. For the baseline, most of the
information of building materials and aquaponics equipment was the same with those we used in
ISU aquaponics, with some minor substitutions. All the facility and equipment information came
from a variety of retail merchandise websites in 2014 and 2015. Costs of the baseline system
components can be seen in table 2 and operating costs in table 3.

Table 2. Capital cost of tilapia-basil aquaponics with grow bed area 7.56 m2.
Price Total cost
Component Type Quantity
($/each) ($)
Greenhouse 16’ x 18’ 11,250.00 1 11,250.00
Fan ValuTek™ 12" - 3 Speed 215.00 2 430.00
Modine™ Effinity 55K BTU
Heater 1,399.00 1 1,399.00
Nat Gas
Lumber 614.44
Hardware 530.96
PVC 591.44
Water pump Simer Portable 2305 50.37 3 151.11
Blower Aquatic Eco-systems SL22 272.65 3 817.95
UV clarifier TetraPond 9W UVC 9 103.11 3 309.33
400W Fixture w/HPS Lamp - 209.95 8 1,679.60
Light
120V
Tanks 1,416.22
Smartpond 1,100-Gallon
Rubber liner 159.00 1 159.00
Rubber
HQ11d Portable pH/ORP
pH/ ORP meter 514.00 1 514.00
Meter
Others 1,085.67
Equipment initial costs ($) 20,948.72
Electrical wiring and controls 837.95
equipment installation 1,920.00
equipment freight 96.99
Total equipment initial costs 23,803.66
($)
Engineering and design 1,666.26
Total capital costs ($) 25,469.92
Capital costs per year ($) 3,379.04

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 16

Table 3. Operating cost of tilapia-basil aquaponics with grow bed area 7.56 m2.

Component Total cost ($/y)

Fixed costs
Interest 1,400.85
Insurance 117.67
Tax 89.14
Subtotal ($/y) 1,607.66
Variable costs
Yearly use materials 1,399.36
Chemicals 26.47
Basil seeds 9.60
Fish feed 996.20
Fish fingerlings 278.63
Water 3.01
Electricity 1,121.50
Natural gas 718.74
Labor 6,240.00
Maintenance and repair 254.70
Subtotal ($/y) 11,048.21
Total fixed costs ($/y) 12,655.88

When the system is maintained properly and is in a balance status, aquaponics will mimic the
natural ecosystem, use much less water than traditional aquaculture, and have almost no effluent.
As a result, it is thought more environmentally friendly and sustainable. This study provided
environmental impacts and profitability for operating aquaponics in the Midwest of U.S. In this
study, both Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA) of a tilapia and
basil aquaponic system were conducted. Three scales, including a truly running system, pilot
scale, and commercial scale of aquaponics were considered and analyzed. It also showed that the
operating scale and basil price had obvious effect on profits, which can be seen in tables 4, 5, and
6. When the scale was large enough, such as with the grow bed area of 75.6 m2 and when the
basil price equals to or is great than $60/kg, operating aquaponics was profitable. System
profitability increases as the operational scale increases; a modeled system with 2,041.2 m2
growing area is predicted to be profitable when the market price of basil is approximately $40/kg.
More detailed and specific information about our results can be found in the attached techno-
economic / lifecycle assessment manuscript, which is currently under peer review at a scientific
journal.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 17

Table 4. Annualized total cost and system unit cost of tilapia-basil aquaponic systems with various
grow bed areas.
Grow bed area Annualized total Biomass quantity (kg) Annualized unit cost
(m2) cost ($/y) Tilapia Basil $/kg tilapia /y $/kg basil /y
7.56 $16,034.91 114.46 68.19 140.09 235.16
75.6 $45,771.08 1,144.58 681.88 39.99 67.13
2041.2 $756,952.07 34,337.52 20,456.28 22.04 37.00

Table 5. Annual total profit with various basil prices and tilapia price at $9/kg.
Grow Annual total profit with various basil price ($/y)
bed
$10/kg $15/kg $20/kg $40/kg $60/kg $80/kg $100/kg
area (m2)
7.56 -$14,322.91 -$13,981.97 -$13,641.04 -$12,277.28 -$10,913.53 -$9,549.78 -$8,186.03
75.6 -$28,651.07 -$25,241.69 -$21,832.31 -$8,194.79 $5,442.73 $19,080.25 $32,717.77
2041.2 $243,351.59 -$141,070.19 -$38,788.79 $370,336.81 $779,462.41 $1,188,588.01 $1,597,713.61

Table 6. System unit profit of tilapia-basil aquaponic systems with various grow bed areas.
Grow bed System unit profit with various basil price ($/y)
area (m2) $10/kg $15/kg $20/kg $40/kg $60/kg $80/kg $100/kg
7.56 -$210.05 -$205.05 -$200.05 -$180.05 -$160.05 -$140.05 -$120.05
75.6 -$42.02 -$37.02 -$32.02 -$12.02 $7.98 $27.98 $47.98
2041.2 -$11.90 -$6.90 -$1.90 $18.10 $38.10 $58.10 $78.10

In terms of environmental impacts from aquaponic production, water use, natural gas heat and
electricity use were evaluated. The corresponding greenhouse gas emissions from heating and
electricity production and consumption were modeled. These data can be seen in tables 7 thru 12.

Table 8. Air emission of producing electricity from coal and producing natural gas.

Emission Electricity Natural gas

category g/kWh g/m3

CO2 1,022a 1,248.000b

CH4 0.91a 247.600b
NOx 3.35a 5.158b

a: Spath, P. L., and Mann, M. K. (1999). Environmental Aspects of Producing Electricity from a Coal-Fired Power Generation System-A Life Cycle
Assessment. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA.

b: Riva, A., D'Angelosante, S., and Trebeschi, C. (2006). Natural gas and the environmental results of life cycle assessment. Energy, 31(1), 138-148.

Table 9. Annual water and energy use of tilapia-basil aquaponic systems with various grow bed areas.

Grow bed area Annual water use Annual electricity use Annual natural gas use
(m2) (m3/y) (kWh/y) (m3)
7.56 3.74 11,052.93 7,403.97
75.6 37.40 23,836.98 43,077.62
2041.2 1,121.87 641,830.89 387,698.58

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 18

 Table 10. Annual greenhouse gas emission of tilapia-basil aquaponic systems with various grow bed areas.

Grow beds Annual CO2 emission Annual CH4 emission Annual NOx emission
area (m2) (g/y) (g/y) (g/y)

7.56 20,536,243.01 1,843,280.15 75,216.97

75.6 78,122,261.77 10,687,710.46 302,048.24
2041.2 1,139,799,004.33 96,578,235.40 4,149,882.78

Table 11. Unit water and energy use of tilapia-basil aquaponic systems with various grow bed areas.

Grow bed Unit water use Unit electricity use Unit natural gas use
3
area m / kg m3/ kg kWh / kg kWh / kg m3/ kg m3/ kg
(m2) basil/y tilapia/y basil/y tilapia/y basil/y tilapia/y
7.56 0.05 0.03 162.10 96.57 108.58 64.69
75.6 0.05 0.03 34.96 20.83 63.18 37.64
2041.2 0.05 0.03 31.38 18.69 18.95 11.29

Table 12. Unit greenhouse gas emission of tilapia-basil aquaponic systems with various grow bed areas.
Grow bed Unit CO2 emission Unit CH4 emission Unit NOx emission
area
g/ kg basil/y g/ kg tilapia/y g/ kg basil/y g/ kg tilapia/y g/ kg basil/y g/ kg tilapia/y
(m2)
7.56 301,172.69 179,421.02 27,032.48 16,104.37 1,103.09 657.16
75.6 114,569.60 68,253.85 15,673.98 9,337.64 442.97 263.89
2041.2 55,718.78 33,193.98 4,721.20 2,812.62 202.87 120.86

e) Conclusions
Our team was successful in conducting two major experiments, analyzing the results and
disseminating the broadly (see Outreach and Information Transfer).

The food safety project revealed that, although E. coli and Salmonella are likely not major threats
to aquaponic food safety, there are concerns with other potential pathogens. Also, the aquaponics
system and protocols used for this project did not create conditions conducive to utilizing
ultraviolet sterilization as a food safety intervention. Further research is needed to refine the
system and identify an effective kill step for potential food safety pathogens.

The LCA and TEA models revealed that small-scale aquaponics is not likely to be a profitable
business. However, due to efficiencies in economies of scale, larger systems seem to have some
promise for creating an economically viable aquaponics business. Basil price is the single most
influential factor determining aquaponic business profitability, therefore high-yielding niche
marketing is recommended. Further research is needed to refine the results and create economic
models for species other than tilapia and basil.

f) Impact of the Results

These results will provide outreach and collaborative opportunities to many different individuals
within Iowa State University system and beyond. Twenty aquaponic-related extension and
PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 19
outreach activities were conducted over the granting period reaching over 600 participants from
Iowa, the Midwest and beyond. The peer-reviewed publications, extension publications, videos,
live and electronic presentation resulting from this research have been shared throughout the state
to partners such as ISU extension, the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center (NCRAC),
various current and potential aquaponic producers, educators, school students (from high school
to college level including the World Food Prize), community members, and, state agencies. This
project has been shared outside of Iowa borders with other food safety extension specialists
engaged with on farm outreach efforts and that also have active farm to school programs and/or
university research farms. Iowans can use the results of the project to educate their local schools,
community gardeners, community colleges, and universities on safe handling of produce.

g) Outreach and Information Transfer

To maximize the impact of this work, great lengths were taken to take advantage of as many
information transfer outlets as possible. These include peer-reviewed and extension publications,
conference, workshop and voice-over PowerPoint presentations, YouTube videos, televised
programs, news releases, student mentoring, facility tours and more. Table 13 highlights some of the
major deliverables from this research.

Table 13. Deliverables for the Granting Period

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Techno-economic analysis (TEA) of
tilapia-basil aquaponics
Master’s Thesis  Xie Kun and Kurt A. Rosentrater
 http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=
abe_eng_conf

Introduction to Aquaponics
 Overview of large- and small-scale aquaponics with an emphasis
on critical considerations and standard best operating
procedures.
 Dan Burden, AgMRC Content Specialist
D. Allen Pattillo, Department of Natural Resources Ecology &
Management, Iowa State University; North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center (NCRAC)
Aquaponics Extension  In Review
Fact Sheet
Aquaponics Food Safety
 Overview of general food-safety best practices with an emphasis
on the unique challenges posed by the use of animal-produced
nutrient in a water-based aquaponics system.
 Dan Burden, AgMRC Content Specialist
D. Allen Pattillo, Department of Natural Resources Ecology &
Management, Iowa State University; North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center (NCRAC)
 In Review
Use of ultraviolet sterilization as a food safety intervention in a model
Peer-Reviewed
aquaponics system
Publications
 Sai Deepikaa Elumalai, Angela M. Shaw, D. Allen Pattillo,
PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 20
 Christopher Currey, Kurt A. Rosentrater, and Kun Xie
 In Review
 Target Journal: Aquaculture
Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Techno-Economic Analysis of
Tilapia-Basil Aquaponics.
 K. Xie, K. A. Rosentrater, and Pattillo, D. A.
 In Prep
 Target Journal: Aquaculture
New Fisheries and Aquaculture Extension Youtube Channel
 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyDHx-
rmZpCljgr4za05H2eHKwmMhJYI1

Extension Videos

“Roots as Nutrients”
 D. Allen Pattillo
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAudq28n8l0&list=PLyDHx-
rmZpCljgr4za05H2eHKwmMhJYI1&index=1
“Aeration”
 D. Allen Pattillo
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsVmj6jKs0&index=2&list
=PLyDHx-rmZpCljgr4za05H2eHKwmMhJYI1
“Biofilter Tank”
 D. Allen Pattillo
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGLt5SV5tcQ&list=PLyDHx-
rmZpCljgr4za05H2eHKwmMhJYI1&index=3

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 21

 “Ultraviolet Light Sterilizer”
 D. Allen Pattillo
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4Q7ptx3UjY&index=4&list
=PLyDHx-rmZpCljgr4za05H2eHKwmMhJYI1

“Buttercrunch Bibb Lettuce”

 D. Allen Pattillo
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM4kFjhvjmM&list=PLyDHx
-rmZpCljgr4za05H2eHKwmMhJYI1&index=5
“Italian Large Leaf Basil”
 D. Allen Pattillo
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHQ8Aht_3JU&index=6&list
=PLyDHx-rmZpCljgr4za05H2eHKwmMhJYI1

Food Safety and Human Health Considerations in Aquaponics

 D. Allen Pattillo
 In Prep.
Voiceover PowerPoint
Presentations
Techno-Economic Analysis of Small-Scale Aquaponics
 D. Allen Pattillo
 In Prep.

 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaponics: What’s Going on in Iowa. “Growing

Your Dream” 3-Day Aquaponics Workshop, September 18-20, 2015
 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaponic Production Data: Loss or Profit? Ohio
State University Extension Aquaponics Workshop. July 10, 2015.
 Pattillo, D. A. Food Safety and Human Health Considerations in
Aquaponics. Ohio State University Extension Aquaponics Workshop.
July 10, 2015.
 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaculture Opportunities for Iowa Beginning
Farmers. Iowa Farm Transition and Beginning Farmer Working
Group Meeting. June 5, 2015.
Extension Presentations
 Pattillo, D. A. An Overview of Aquaculture. NCR-
SARE Aquaculture, Hydroponics, and Aquaponics Train the Trainer
Workshop. 9-3-2014.
 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaponic System Design and Management. NCR-
SARE Aquaculture, Hydroponics, and Aquaponics Train the Trainer
Workshop. 9-3-2014.
 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaponic System Design and Management. Reiman
Gardens Brown-bag Lunch Seminar. 5-29-2014
 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaponic System Design and
Management. FarmTek’s Spring 2014 Controlled Environment

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 22

 Agriculture School. 5-22-2014.
 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaponic System Design and Management. Ames
Anglers Meeting. 5-22-2014
 Pattillo, D. A. Aquaponic System Design and Management. Tristate
Forestry Conference. 3-8-2014.
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/tri_state/tristate_2014/talks/
PDFs/Aquaponic_System_ Design_and_Management.pdf

 Pattillo, D. A., K. Xie, and K. A. Rosentrater. Techno-Economic

Analysis of a Small-Scale Aquaponics System in Iowa. Aquaculture
America 2015, New Orleans, LA. February 20, 2015.
Research Presentations  Pattillo, D. A., A. M. Shaw, C. J. Currey, K. Xie, and K. A.
Rosentrater. Efficacy of UV-Sterilization in Reducing Food-Borne
Pathogens in an Aquaponics System. Aquaculture America 2015,
New Orleans, LA. February 20, 2015.
GRADUATE STUDENTS MENTORED
Xie Kun – Dr. Kurt Rosentrater
 Life cycle assessment (LCA) and Techno-economic analysis (TEA)
of tilapia-basil aquaponics
Sai Deepikaa Elumalai – Dr. Angela Shaw
 Use of ultraviolet sterilization as a food safety intervention in a
model aquaponics system
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS METORED
(By D. Allen Pattilo)
 Kailey James (2012-2015) - Aquaponics
o “Effects of water exchange on fish and plant production in an
aquaponics system”
Student- Mentored o “Comparison of light sources for aquaponic economic viability”
Research  Presented poster at Aquaculture America 2014, Seattle, WA
 Received “Yellow Book” travel award
 Zachary Johnson (2013-2014; 2015) – Aquaponics
 Nicholas Goss (2015) – Aquaponic food safety
o “The Effects of UV Sterilization on the Food Safety of
Aquaponics”
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS METORED (By Dr. Angela Shaw)
George Washington Carver Summer Internship Program
 Neha Manu
 Asana Zilk
 Che Deer
 Manu, N, A. Zilk, C. Deer, and A. Shaw. Food Safety and

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 23

 Environmental Impacts of Aquaponics Systems. 2014 George
Washington Carver Summer Internship Program, Ames, IA.
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS METORED (By Dr. Kurt
Rosentrater)
ISU Summer Internship Program
 Nelja Memic
 Iowa Public Television – Market to Market – Entrepreneurs Combine
Land and Lake for Value-Added Agriculture. – Aired July 1, 2014.
Available:
http://www.iptv.org/mtom/story.cfm/feature/11947/mtom_20140701
_3945_feature
Televised Programs
 AGRIBUSINESS: Iowa Bio-Dome, A Way To Live In Space? –
Aired May 27, 2014. Available:
http://whotv.com/2014/05/27/agribusiness-iowa-bio-dome-a-way-to-
live-in-space/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdreZf0i5ew

 Bio-dome at Reiman Gardens Imagines Future of Food in Space,

May 21, 2015. Available:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/article/bio-dome-reiman-gardens-
imagines-future-food-space (October 27, 2015)
 Futuristic gardening on display at ISU’s Reiman Gardens. By: Matt
Kelley. Radio Iowa. June 9, 2014.
News Releases Available: http://www.radioiowa.com/2014/06/09/futuristic-
gardening-on-display-at-isus-reiman-gardens/ (October 27, 2015)
 Can future of farming be found in space? Reiman Gardens’ bio-
dome display analyzes possibilities. By: Kelsey Johnson. Ames
Tribune. May 24, 2014. Available: http://amestrib.com/news/can-
future-farming-be-found-space-reiman-gardens-bio-dome-display-
analyzes-possibilities (October 27, 2015)

h) Evaluation
The evaluation has two components:
1. The first was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency (i.e., performance) of the designed
aquaponics systems (LCA & TEA) and the presence or absence of E. coli/Coliform, and
Salmonella species in aquaponics water and crop foliage (food safety). This portion of the
evaluation was completed and the results reported in the peer-reviewed publications.
2. The second component will include a survey and extension publication developed from results
of this project sent to approximately 125 participants who previously-attended one of four
aquaponics workshops hosted by FarmTek between 2012 and 2013. Appropriate IRB approval
will be obtained prior to conducting the survey. The extension publications are in review for
PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 24
 publication at present, and will be delivered to the FarmTek workshop participants upon
completion for survey and evaluation.
This evaluation will determine the educational value of this project for production, budget
development, and Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) preparation. This evaluation tool, which is
directed toward those with established aquaponics systems, will help us understand the impact of
this work, by helping us determine economic and operational benefits that producers have realized
in their own operations.

i) Leveraging Resources
Funding from this grant and other seed monies from the Leopold Center and donations from
FarmTek were utilized in the justification of the “Biodome” display at Reiman Gardens from April
to November 2014. “Biodome” had over 41,000 visitors and several news releases and televised
pieces highlighting the potential of aquaponics as a method of food production in space.

j) References
Adler, P.R., Harper, J.K., Takeda, F., Wade, E.M., Summerfelt, 2000. Economic evaluation of
hydroponics and other treatment options for phosphorus removal in aquaculture effluent.
HortScience. 35(6), 993-999.
AGMRC. 2014 b. Tilapia Profile. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. Available at
http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/aquaculture/tilapia-profile/. Accessed 17 December
2014.
Bailey, D. S., Rakocy, J. E., Cole, W. M., Shultz, K. A., and St Croix, U. S. 1997. Economic analysis of
a commercial-scale aquaponic system for the production of tilapia and lettuce. In Tilapia Aquaculture:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, Orlando, Florida (pp.
603-612).
Bintsis, T., Litopoulou-Tzanetaki, E., Robinson, R.K., 2000. Existing and potential applications of
ultraviolet light in the food industry - A critical review J. Sci. Food Agr. 80 (2000), pp. 637–645.
Blidariu, F., and Grozea, A. 2011. Increasing the Economical Efficiency and Sustainability of Indoor
Fish Farming by Means of Aquaponics Review. Scientific Papers Animal Science and
Biotechnologies, 44(2), 1-8.
Bunyaviroch, C., Ding, X., Mamayek, S., and Manning, B. 2013. Aquaponic Systems in Puerto Rico:
Assessing Their Economic Viability BS thesis. Worcester Massachusetts Worecester Polytechnic
Institute.
CDO. 2014. Climate: Ames. Climate-Data.ORG. Available at: http://en.climate-data.org/location/17149/
Accessed 17 December 2014.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2015. Surveillance for Foodborne Disease
Outbreaks, United States, 2013, Annual Report. US Department of Health and Human Services,
CDC. Accessed November 5, 2015. Retrieved from:
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/pdfs/foodborne-disease-outbreaks-annual-report-2013-508c.pdf
Chalmers, G.A., 2004. Aquaponics and Food Safety Lethbridge, Alberta.
Economic Research Service, 2015. Trends in U.S. local and regional food systems. Report to
Congress. Administrative Publication Number 068. USDA. Washington, DC 20250.
EDIS. 2012 Ammonia in Aquatic System. Electronic Data Information Source of UF/IFAS Extension.
Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fa031. Accessed 17 December 2014.
Elford, W.J., van den Ende, J., 1942. An investigation of the merits of ozone as an aerial
disinfectant. J. Hygiene, 42 (1942), pp. 240–265.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 25

Endut, A., Jusoh, A., Ali, N., Wan Nik, W. B., and Hassan, A. 2010. A study on the optimal hydraulic
loading rate and plant ratios in recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresource technology, 101(5), 1511-
1517.
Fox, B.K., Tamaru, C.S., Hollyer, J., Castro, L.F., Fonseca, J.M., Jay-Russell, M., Low, T., 2012. A
preliminary study of microbial water quality related to food safety in recirculating aquaponic fish
and vegetable production systems. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Extension Publication FST-
51(2012).
FishChoice. 2014 Tilapia: Market Report Updated September 2014. Available at:
http://www.fishchoice.com/buying-guide/tilapia#Market_Report. Accessed 17 December 2014.
Friedberg, E.C., Walker, G.C., Siede, W., Wood, R.D., Schultz, R.A., Ellenberger, T., 2006. DNA
repair and mutagenesis. ASN Press, Washington (2006).
GAA. (2003) Prison Aquaculture Program. The Global Aquaculture Alliance. Available
at:http://www.gaalliance.org/newsroom/aquasolutions-detail.php?Prison-Aquaculture-Program-11.
Accessed 17 December 2014.
Graber, A., and Junge, R. 2009. Aquaponic Systems: Nutrient recycling from fish wastewater by
vegetable production. Desalination, 246(1), 147-156.
Guerrero-Beltrán, J.A., Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V., 2004. Advantages and limitations on processing
foods by UV light. Food science and technology international, 10(3), 137-147.
Hamamoto, H., and Yamazaki, K. 2011. Supplemental Lighting inside the Plant Canopy Increased the
Yield and Quality of Three-Truss-Ordered Tomato. Acta Horticulturae, (907), 283-286.
Harper, C., 2002. Disease risks associated with the importation of aquatic animals. Aquaculture
magazine 28: 62-66.
Harper, C., 2007. Zoonotic diseases acquired from fish. Aquaculture magazine 28: 55-58.
Hollyer, J., Tamaru, C., Riggs, A., Klinger-Bowen, R.E., Howerton, R., Okimoto, D., Castro, L.,
Ron, T.B., Fox, B. K., Troegner, V., Martinez, G., 2009. On-Farm Food Safety: Aquaponics.
College of Tropical Agriculture and Resources. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Food Safety and
Technology, July 2009, FST-38.
Howgate, P., 1998. Review of the public health safety of products from aquaculture. International
journal of food science & technology, 33(2), 99-125.
Jensen, M. H 1997. Hydroponics. HortScience. 32(6), 1018-1021.
ICMSF, 1986. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods Sampling
plan and recommended microbiological limits for seafood Microorganisms in Foods: 181.
Accessed November 4, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.icmsf.org/pdf/icmsf2.pdf.
Keyser, M., Műller, I.A., Cilliers, F.P., Nel, W., Gouws, P.A., 2008. Ultraviolet radiation as a non-
thermal treatment for the inactivation of microorganisms in fruit juice. Innovative Food Science
& Emerging Technologies. Volume 9, Issue 3, July (2008), Pages 348–354.
Khater, E.S.G., Ali, S.A., 2015. Effect of flow rate and length of gully on lettuce plants in aquaponic
and hydroponic systems. J Aquac Res Development 6: 318. doi:10.4172/2155-9546.1000318.
Kim, J.G., Yousef, A.E., Khadre, M.A., 2003. Ozone and its current and future application in the
food industry. Advances in food and nutrition research, 45, 167-218.
Lacheta A. 2010 The future of food, Well Being Natural Health and Living News, Available at:
http://www.wellbeing.com.au/article/Greenliving/Natural-Skincare/The-future-of-food_863.
Accessed 17 December 2014.
Lambers, H., F.S. Chapin, and T.L. Pons. 2008. Plant physiological ecology. 2nd ed. Springer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Lapere, P. 2010. A techno-economic feasibility study into aquaponics in South Africa MS thesis,

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 26

 Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch, Department of Industrial Engineering.
Lewis, W.M., Yopp, J.H, Schramm JR, H. L., and Brandenburga, A. M. 1978.Use of hydroponics to
maintain quality of recirculated water in a fish culture system. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society. 107(1), 92–99.
Liang, J. Y., and Chien, Y. H 2013. Effects of feeding frequency and photoperiod on water quality and
crop production in a tilapia–water spinach raft aquaponics system. International Biodeterioration and
Biodegradation, 85, 693-700.
Licamele, J. D. 2009. Biomass production and nutrient dynamics in an aquaponics system. PhD diss,
Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona, Department of Agricultural and Biosystems
Engineering.
Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Genello, L., Hill, E. S., Frederick, J. A., Li, X., and Semmens, K. 2014. An
international survey of aquaponics practitioners. PLoS One. 9(7), e102662.
Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Li, X., Hill, E. S., Genello, L., Semmens, K., and Thompson, R. E. 2015.
Commercial Aquaponics Production and Profitability: Findings from an International Survey.
Aquaculture (435)67-94.
Moeller, R., Douki, M.T., Cadet, J., Stackebrandt, E., Nicholson, W.L., Rettberg, P., 2007. UV-
radiation-induced formation of DNA bipyrimidine photoproducts in Bacillus subtilis endospores
and their repair during germination. International Microbiology, 10 (2007), pp. 39–46.
NALC. 1990. Food Agriculture Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. The National Agriculture Law
Center. Available at: http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/farmbills/1990-1.pdf.
Accessed 17 December, 2014.
NFI 2012. Top 10 Consumed Seafoods National Fisheries Institute Website. Available at:
http://www.aboutseafood.com/about/about-seafood/top-10-consumed-seafoods. Accessed 17
December, 2014.
Nichols, M. A., and Savidov, N. A. 2012. Aquaponics: Protein and vegetables for developing countries.
Acta Hort. (ISHS) 958:189-193.
Noga, E.J., 1996. Fish Disease. Diagnosis and Treatment. Mosby-Year Book, Inc., St Louis,
Missouri, 63146, 367 pps.
Painter, J. A., R. M. Hoekstra, T. Ayers, R. V. Tauxe, C. R. Braden, F. J. Angulo, and P. M. Griffin.
2013. Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by
using outbreak data, United States, 1998–2008. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 19(3): 407–415.
Palm, H. W., Seidemann, R., Wehofsky, S., Knaus, U., 2014a. Significant factors influencing the
economic sustainability of closed aquaponic systems. Part I: system design, chemo-physical
parameters and general aspects. AACL Bioflux 7(1):20-32.
Palm, H. W., Bissa, K., and Knaus, U. 2014. Significant factors affecting the economic sustainability of
closed aquaponic systems. Part II: Fish and plant growth AACL Bioflux, 7(3), 162-175.
Pattillo, D. A. and J. E. Morris. 2013. Implications of substrate type for aquaponics. 2013
Aquaculture America / World Aquaculture Society Conference. Feb. 21-25. Nashville, TN.
Petrea, S., Cristea, V., Dediu, L., Contoman, M., Lupoae, P., (Cretu) Mocanu, M., Coada, M., 2013.
Vegetable production in an integrated aquaponic system with rainbow trout and spinach. Bulletin
of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Animal Science
and Biotechnologies, North America, 70, Nov. 2013. Accessed October 10, 2015. Retrieved
from: http://journals.usamvcluj.ro/index.php/zootehnie/article/view/9485.
Petrea, S. M., Cristea, V., Dediu, L., Contoman, M., Ion, S. P., Mocanu, M. C., and Antache, A. 2013. A
Study of Nitrogen Cycle in an Integrated Aquaponic System with Different Plant Densities. Bulletin

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 27

 of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Animal Science and
Biotechnologies, 70(1), 55-64.
Petrea, S. M., Cristea, V., Dediu, L., Contoman, M., Cretu, M., Antache, A., and Bandi, A. C. 2014. A
Study of Phosphorus and Calcium Dynamics in an Integrated Rainbow Trout and Spinach (Nores
variety) Aquaponic System with Different Crop Densities. Scientific Papers Animal Science and
Biotechnologies, 47(2), 196-206.
Popma, T. J., and Lovshin, L. L. 1996. Worldwide prospects for commercial production of tilapia.
International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments.
Rakocy, J. E., and Brunson, M. W. 1989.Tank culture of tilapia. College Station, Texas: Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center. SRAC Publication No. 282
Rakocy, J., Shultz, R. C., Bailey, D. S. and Thoman, E. S. 2003. Aquaponic production of tilapia and
basil: comparing a batch and staggered cropping system. In South Pacific Soilless Culture
Conference-SPSCC 648 (pp. 63-69).
Rakocy, J. E., Bailey, D. S., Shultz, R. C., and Thoman, E. S. 2004. Update on tilapia and vegetable
production in the UVI aquaponic system. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on
Tilapia in Aquaculture. (pp. 12-16).
Rakocy, J.E., Masser, M.P., and Losordo, T.M. 2006. Recirculating Aquaculture Tank Production
Systems: Aquaponics—Integrating Fish and Plant Culture. SRAC Publication. No: 454.
Rakocy, J.E., 2012.Aquaponics-Integrating Fish and Plant Culture. Aquaculture Production Systems.
344-386.
Raviv, M. and J.H. Lieth. 2008. Soilless culture: Theory and practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Riva, A., D'Angelosante, S., and Trebeschi, C. 2004. Natural gas and the environmental results of life
cycle assessment. Energy. 31(1), 138-148.
Scallan, E., R.M. Hoekstra, F.J. Angula, R.V. Tauxe, M. Widdowson, S.L. Roy, J.L. Jones,a nd P.M.
Griffin. 2011. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States-Major Pathogens. Emerging
Infectious Diseases 17(1): 7-15
Schreier, H.J., Mirzoyan, N., Saito, K., 2010. Microbial diversity of biological filters in recirculating
aquaculture systems. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 21, 318-325.
Schroeder, J. P., Croot, P. L., Von Dewitz, B., Waller, U., Handel, R., 2011. Potential and
limitations of ozone for the removal of ammonia, nitrite, and yellow substances in marine
recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering 45, 35-41.
Sirsat, S.A., Neal, J.A., 2013. Microbial profile of soil-free versus in-soil grown lettuce and
intervention methodologies to combat pathogen surrogates and spoilage microorganisms on
lettuce. Foods 2013, 2(4), 488-498; doi:10.3390/foods2040488.
Sonnevelt, C. and I.W. Voogt. 2008. Plant nutrition of greenhouse crops. Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Sace, C. F., and Fitzsimmons, K. M. 2013. Vegetable production in a recirculating aquaponic system
using Nile tilapia (Oreochomis niloticus) with and without freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium
rosenbergii). Academia Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(12), 236-250.
Spath, P. L., Mann, M. K., and Kerr, D. R. (1999). Life cycle assessment of coal-fired power production
(No. NREL/TP-570-25119). National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (US). Available at:
http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/44_1_ANAHEIM_03-99_0090.pdf.
Accessed 17 December 2014.
Stermer, R. A., Lasater-Smith, M., Brasingtoni, C.F., 1987. Ultraviolet radiation—an effective
bactericide for fresh meat. Journal of Food Protection®, 50(2), 108-111.
PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 28
Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., 2007. Recirculating aquaculture. NRAC Publication NO. 01-007.
Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, NY.
Tokunaga, K., Tamaru, C., Ako, H, and Leung, P. 2013. Economics of Commercial Aquaponics in
Hawaii. Aquaponics in Hawaii Conference.
Tran, M.T.T., Farid, M., 2004. Ultraviolet treatment of orange juice. Innovative Food Science and
Emerging Technologies, 5 (2004), pp. 495–502.
Tyson, R. V., Treadwell, D. D., and Simonne, E. H. 2011. Opportunities and challenges to sustainability
in aquaponic systems. Horttechnology, 21(1), 6-13.
USCD. 2014. Climate Ames-Iowa U.S. climate data. Available at:
http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ames/iowa/united-states/usia0026 Accessed 17 December
2014.
Varga, S., Anderson, G.W., 1968. Significance of coliforms and enterococci in fish products.
Applied microbiology, 16(2), 193-196.
Villarroel, M., Rodriguez Alvariño, J. M., and Duran Altisent, J. M. 2011. Aquaponics: integrating fish
feeding rates and ion waste production for strawberry hydroponics in Spain. journal of agricultural
research, 9(2), 537-545.
Von Gunten, U., Hoigne, J., 1994. Bromate formation during ozonization of bromide-containing
waters: interaction of ozone and hydroxyl radical reactions. Environmental Science &
Technology, 28(7), 1234-1242.
Walker, S.J., Archer, P., Banks, J.G., 1990. Growth of Listeria monocytogenes at refrigeration
temperatures. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 68: 157–162 (1990). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2672.1990.tb02561.x.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 29

 IV. Budget Report

A. TOTAL REQUESTED

Total Requested: $48,751.00

Total Expenditure: $48,750.49

B. PRIMARY EXPENDITURE AREAS

Area Grant Estimate Actual Expense Balance

Personnel Salary/
$17,147.00 $16,011.96 $1,135.04
Fringe Benefits
Student Tuition $2,965.00 $1,442.75 $1,522.25
Travel $1,500.00 1,620.35 ($120.35)
Supplies/Material $25,139.00 $23,628.96 $1,510.04
Other Direct Costs $2,000.00 $6,046.47 ($4,046.47)
Total $48,751.00 $48,750.49 $0.51
 The salaries for student support were lower than estimated but the fringe benefits were
slightly more than estimated.
 The graduate student graduated a semester earlier than anticipated, thus funds reserved for
tuition were saved and re-directed.
 Travel funds for traveling to professional conferences for dissemination of results were
higher than anticipated.
 Supplies/Materials were lower than anticipated because the original grant application placed
the services of plant tissue nutrient analysis under supplies/materials when it actually belong
under other direct costs.
 Other direct costs were higher than anticipated because services rendered by the plant and
soil analysis lab were incorrectly categorized in the original grant application. Additionally,
the cost of the analysis was higher than anticipated.
C. ADDITIONAL FUNDING

No additional funds have been utilized for this grant.

PATTILLO – AQUAPONICS – FOOD SAFETY, ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Page 30