See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264414522

A PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF CLEARWATER RAS AND BIOFLOC-

BASED SHRIMP LITOPENAEUS VANNAMEI CULTURE SYSTEMS

Conference Paper · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 3,007

2 authors, including:

Andrew J. Ray
Kentucky State University
43 PUBLICATIONS   414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effects of clove oil (eugenol) on proprioceptive neurons, heart rate, and behavior in model crustaceans View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew J. Ray on 01 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A PRELIMINARY COMPARISON OF
CLEARWATER RAS AND BIOFLOC-
BASED SHRIMP LITOPENAEUS
VANNAMEI CULTURE SYSTEMS

Andrew J. Ray and Jeffrey M. Lotz

 Introduction
• Clear water recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS)
– External Filters
• Solids Removal
• Biofilters
• Disinfection
• Biofloc-Based Systems
– Microbial Community
• Internal Biofilter
• Nutrient Recycling (lower FCR)
– External Filters
• Solids Management
 Clear Water RAS Versus Biofloc

• Both System Types

– High Level of Biosecurity
– Inland/Indoor Shrimp Farming
– Environmentally Sustainable
• Purpose of this Study
– Preliminary Comparison of Clear Water RAS and
Biofloc Systems
– Evaluate Shrimp Isotope Levels
• Pelleted Diet Only in Clear Water
• Examine Biofloc Nutritional Contribution
 Methods
• 4, 1.5 m Diameter x 1 m Deep Tanks
• 2 Randomly Assigned Treatments
– Clear Water (CW) = 2.75 m3 each
• Bead filter, foam fractionator, moving bed bioreactor,
2 pumps
– Biofloc (BF) = 1.5 m3 each
• Settling chamber, aeration,
oxygenation, sucrose
– Shrimp stocked at 250 m-3
– Partially Reused Water
• Shrimp Fed Based on
Number Stocked
 Results CW
Treatment
BF
Ammonia (mg TAN L-1) 0.2 ± 0.0 (0.0-0.4) 0.6 ± 0.2 (0.0-1.8)
• pH
Nitrite (mg NO2-N L-1) 0.1 ± 0.0 (0.0-0.7) 6.1 ± 2.2 (0.0-26.7)
-1
96 ± 14 (45-166) 38 ± 12 (0-80)
• TSS? Nitrate (mg NO3-N L )

TSS (mg TSS L-1) 105 ± 13 (60-190) 288 ± 50 (185-560)

• Nitrite VSS (mg VSS L )

-1
20 ± 5 (0-50) 216 ± 51 (80-490)
-1
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3 L ) 87 ± 12 (61-135) 330 ± 61 (128-482)
• Nitrate Turbidity (NTU) 0.7 ± 0.2 (0.1-1.4) 106.8 ± 48.0 (19.1-301.3)
Data are reported as mean ± SE (range)

Treatment
CW BF
Temperature (⁰C)
AM 29.9 ± 0.1 (25.5-32.8) 29.6 ± 0.1 (26.7-30.7)
PM 29.2 ± 0.1 (26.7-31.6) 29.6 ± 0.1 (27.1-30.6)
-1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg L )
AM 7.5 ± 0.1 (5.8-8.9) 8.2 ± 0.3 (5.5-21.0)
PM 7.5 ± 0.1 (3.5-8.8) 7.4 ± 0.1 (5.0-13.1)
pH
AM 7.8 ± 0.0 (7.1-8.1) 8.1 ± 0.0 (7.5-8.5)
PM 7.7 ± 0.0 (7.1-8.1) 7.8 ± 0.1 (3.9-8.5)
Salinity (‰)
20.4 ± 0.0 (19.4-21.3) 20.6 ± 0.1 (19.3-22.7)
 1.8

Results 1.6
1.4
1.2

mg TAN L-1
• Growth rate 0.7 g wk-1 1.0
0.8
• Survival 0.6
0.4
- 61% CW 0.2

- 43% BF 0.0
30

25 CW
BF
20

mg NO2-N L-1
15

10

0
160
140
mg NO3-N L-1 120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Week
 Isotopes
• Heavy/Light, compared to a standard
• Light isotopes preferentially excreted = animal tissues are heavier
than food items = fractionation
13 13 13 15 15 15
δ C ∆δ C δ C-∆ δ N ∆δ N δ N-∆
a a
CW Shrimp -21.8 ± 0.1 1.3 9.1 ± 0.0 2.1
b b
BF Shrimp -20.2 ± 0.1 -21.5 ± 0.1 11.2 ± 0.3 9.1 ± 0.3
Feed -23.1 ± 0.1 7.1 ± 0.5
Biofloc -17.4 ± 0.3 10.6 ± 0.6
Data are reported as mean ± SE

• Significant differences between shrimp isotope levels

(P ≤ 0.02)
• Δ = fractionation factor
– Subtract from shrimp to make them “look” like their food source
 Biofloc C and N Contributions
• Two Sample Mixing 12

11

Model 10

δ15N
– Source 1 (f1) = feed 9
Feed
8
– Source 2 (f2 ) = 7
Biofloc
Shrimp
biofloc 6
-24 -23 -22 -21 -20 -19 -18 -17
δ13C
𝑓1 = (𝛿𝑆𝐴𝑀𝑃𝐿𝐸 − 𝛿𝑆𝑂𝑈𝑅𝐶𝐸 2 )/(𝛿𝑆𝑂𝑈𝑅𝐶𝐸 1 − 𝛿𝑆𝑂𝑈𝑅𝐶𝐸 2 )

𝑓2 = 1 − 𝑓1
f1 f2
Carbon 72.3% 27.7%
Nitrogen 41.5% 58.5%
 Summary
• Nitrogen
– Reliable nitrification in
CW  NO3
– ↑ NH3 + NO2 in BF, ↓ NO3
• Nutritional contribution
of biofloc
– Incentive to use this
technology
– Overfed BF, underfed
CW?
View publication stats