Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

DOI 10.1007/s10499-017-0198-y

Integrated production of fish (pacu Piaractus

mesopotamicus and red tilapia Oreochromis sp.) with two
varieties of garnish (scallion and parsley)
in aquaponics system

Sara Mello Pinho 1 & Giovanni Lemos de Mello 2 &

Kevin M. Fitzsimmons 3 & Maurício Gustavo Coelho Emerenciano 2,4

Received: 16 February 2017 / Accepted: 22 September 2017 / Published online: 3 October 2017
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Abstract Aquaponics is emerging as an alternative for high-health food production. Being

able to identify the technical viability of non-conventional plants and fish species would help
to increase the interest and possibilities in aquaponic systems. The goal of the present study
was to evaluate the aquaponics production of two garnish species: scallion (S) and parsley (P),
using effluents of pacu and red tilapia culture. Two aquaponics devices were used, differing
according to the fish species, generating two different effluents. Thus, for plant performance,
four treatments were evaluated in a factorial design (plant species and fish effluent as main
factors), as followed: Pacu-S, Tilapia-S, Pacu-P, and Tilapia-P, with three replicates each, for
35 days. Fish performance was evaluated using Student’s t test. Each experimental device
included a fish tank, filters, and six experimental units for the plants (floating rafts). Results

Highlights • Comparison between different species of fish and garnish in aquaponics system.
• Pacu Piaractus mesopotamicus can be an alternative fish species for aquaponics production.
• Scallion had perform productive better than parsley in aquaponics.
• The major productive parameters of the plants were not affected by fish species cultured.

* Sara Mello Pinho

sara.pinhoo@hotmail.com

1
Universidade Estadual Paulista BJulio de Mesquita Filho^ (UNESP), Centro de Aquicultura da
UNESP (CAUNESP), Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
2
Departamento de Engenharia de Pesca, Laboratório de Aquicultura (LAQ), Universidade do Estado
de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Laguna, SC, Brazil
3
Department of Soil Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
4
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zootecnia (PPGZOO/UDESC), Chapecó, SC, Brazil
100 Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

indicated that feed conversion ratio (FCR) was higher in tilapia as compared to pacu
(p < 0.05); however, fish productivity and survival were similar between species. Plant
performance parameters were similar with no significant differences regardless of the fish
effluent (p > 0.05), except for higher number of leaves per plant in scallion cultured using pacu
effluent. Plant performance comparing both plant species indicated that scallion performed
better as compared to parsley in all parameters. In addition, scallion also performed better
related to the plant quality index. The results indicate that pacu presented a viable alternative
for the aquaponics production, and regarding to the garnish, scallion performed better results
as compared to parsley.

Keywords Alternative species . Diversification . Sustainability . Aquaculture . Effluent

Introduction

The global population has been growing rapidly, with a matching increase in global food
demand, especially for high-quality protein, which has been driving the development of
several agribusiness sectors such as aquaculture (Edwards 2015). However, large volumes of
water are required to produce these animal proteins. Livestock farming uses approximately
12,000 L of water to produce 1 kg of beef meat, and conventional aquaculture uses until
375,000 L to produce 1 kg of fish in a flow through system (Goddek et al. 2015). Conse-
quently, the industrial scale practice of these activities and recent population growth have
caused a serious water crisis (Mancosu et al. 2015). In order to avoid further crises related to
the use of natural resources, new approaches and technologies are needed in agriculture aiming
to achieve greater productivity with minimal environmental impact (Martins et al. 2010; Rijn
2013), when compared to conventional systems.
In this context, aquaponics is emerging as an alternative for food production (Buzby and
Lin 2014). The technique involves the integration of aquaculture recirculation systems (inten-
sive cultivation of aquatic organisms) with hydroponics (land plants growing in aqueous
solution), only possible by microorganism’s presence (Tyson et al. 2011; Rakocy 2012; Zou
et al. 2016). This is because, for the ammonia excreted by the fish to become the nutrient for
the plants, the system needs autotrophic nitrifying bacteria, which transform ammonia (NH3)
into nitrite (NH2) and then oxidize to nitrate (NO3−), the nitrogen form most required by plants
(Zou et al. 2016; Ru et al. 2017). Thus, the residual nutrients from fish farming are transformed
in absorbable products by plants, supporting the development of plants and the maintenance of
water quality (Endut et al. 2010; Moya et al. 2014).
The Benvironmental friendly^ approach of this cultivation method is due to the low use of
water, minimal effluent discharge, nearly full utilization of aquafeeds, and the high produc-
tivity of fish and plants compared with conventional productions (Al-Hafedh et al. 2008;
Dediu et al. 2012; Mariscal-Lagarda et al. 2012). In addition, the production of chemical and
antibiotics-free food (Goddek et al. 2015; Santos 2016) caters to an established consumer
market that demanding high-quality fish and vegetables and is willing to pay for the added-
value ecological benefits of aquaponic products (Edwards 2015).
Among the plants, options ranging from leafy vegetables, flowers, fruits, and garnishes are
available (Love et al. 2015; Bailey and Ferrarezi 2017). In recent years, leafy vegetables (i.e.,
herbs and lettuces) are responsible for most aquaponics production around the world (Love
et al. 2015; Knaus and Palm 2017), but the use of garnishes is becoming more popular because
Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112 101

they have interesting characteristics such as fast growth, good adaptability, and applications for
cooking and flavoring (Moya et al. 2014). Tilapia (Oreochromis sp) is the most used species in
aquaponics (Tyson et al. 2011; Dediu et al. 2012; Love et al. 2015) due to good growth
performance, adaptation to different environments, and can be reared across a range of water
conditions (Moya et al. 2014; Goddek et al. 2015).
Other fish species are identified as potential candidates, such as catfish (Endut et al. 2010;
Palm et al. 2014), rainbow trout (Forchino et al. 2017), European sea bass, (Nozzi et al. 2016)
and carp (Haque et al. 2015; Shete et al. 2016), or shrimp species such as Pacific white shrimp
(Pinheiro et al. 2017) and giant river prawn (Sace and Fitzsimmons 2013). Another species
that could be cultivated in aquaponics is pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus). This fish is
relatively non-sensitive to water variations and is commercially produced in Latin America
(Fernandes et al. 2000; FAO 2016), however no reports of aquaponic production with pacu
were found.
For the integration between fish and plants to be successful in aquaponics, it is necessary to
choose the species carefully (Knaus and Palm 2017). Water parameters that are beneficial for
fish growth must be similar to those required by plants (Diem et al. 2017). Moreover, feeding
management and physiology of aquatic organisms are common factors that affect nutrient
availability to plants (Knaus and Palm 2017). Scarce research has been carried out to know the
influence of different fish species on plant production. Palm et al. (2014) evaluated the
performance of some vegetables influenced by rearing of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus)
and tilapia, during 53 days in an aquaponic system. The authors reported tilapia culture
effluent was better for lettuce, basil, and cucumber production, in contrast to African catfish
results. This tendency was observed by Knaus and Palm (2017); the production of plants (basil
and parsley) improved with effluent from tilapia compared with African catfish.
Knowing the technical feasibility of cultivating unconventional fish species for plant
production enables producers to diversify even more the aquaponics production and can also
be an important factor to reduce the risks related to market price fluctuations (Diver 2006).
Moreover, the increased number of potential fishes and plant cultivars allows investors to
choose species that will produce according to the local characteristics. Respectively, the market
and geographic and climatic conditions of each region are important to achieve a commercially
viable production (Goddek et al. 2015). With this in mind, the present study aimed to evaluate
the integrated production of two different types of garnishes: parsley (Petroselinum crispum)
and scallion (Allium sp.) using effluent from pacu Piaractus mesopotamicus and tilapia
Oreochromis sp. culture under aquaponics condition.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted at the Aquaculture Laboratory (LAQ), from the Santa Catarina State
University (UDESC), in Laguna, Santa Catarina, Brazil. The experiment was set up in a
greenhouse (18 m2, 3 m height), covered with 1.5-mm plastic liner and 50% luminosity
reduction sun shade net.

Experimental design

During 35 days, two different varieties of garnish were tested: parsley (Petroselinum crispum)
(P) and scallion (Allium sp.) (S), using two fish effluents (from pacu and tilapia culture),
102 Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

totaling four treatments (P-Pacu, P-Tilapia, S-Pacu, and S-Tilapia), with three replicates per
treatment. The experimental apparatus was composed of two independent recirculation sys-
tems: one containing pacu (P. mesopotamicus) and the other with red tilapia (Oreochromis sp.).
Each system had six rectangular plastic tanks (0.5 m2, 30 cm height) used as experimental
units for plant culture (hydroponic system) and one main 500 L circular plastic tank used for
fish culture (called Bmacrocosm^) (Fig. 1). The floating aquaponics (Lennard and Leonard
2006) utilized one styrofoam block (50 mm, 18 kg m−3 density) covering all the plant tank
surface in each experimental unit.
Both systems (pacu and tilapia) were equipped, in sequence, with a mechanical sedimen-
tation filter (100 L volume conical tank, 62 cm height), a biological filter (60 L volume
rectangular tank, 35 cm height and 0.23 m2 bottom area, with 0.1 m3 of PET caps as substrate
for nitrifying bacteria, aerated with a 26-cm long Aerotube® micro-perforated diffuser), a bag
filter (~ 500 μm mesh, 40 × 15 cm), and a 100 L sump plastic tank. In both systems,
sedimentation and bag filters were constantly used to avoid deposition of particulate matter
in the plant roots (Rakocy 2012). Water from the fish tank (macrocosm) passed through both
filters by gravity until the sump, where a submersible pump (800 watts, 3500 L h−1) pumped
the water to the experimental units (~ 8 L min−1 water flow) and returned by gravity to the
macrocosm. The biological filters were acclimated for 30 days for the establishment of
nitrifying bacteria. Throughout the experiment, no water was exchanged; only de-
chlorinated freshwater was added to compensate for evapotranspiration losses.

Plants

Seedlings of parsley (mean initial weight 1.15 ± 0.36 g and mean initial height 1.08 ± 0.22 cm)
and scallion (1.16 ± 0.29 g and 15.55 ± 1.71 cm) were distributed in the styrofoam trays at a
density of 15 plants m−2, seven seedlings from each variety per experimental unit (microcosm).

Fig. 1 Schematic overview of experimental setup, with two independent recirculation systems for the aquaponic
production of garnishes (parsley and scallion) using effluent from pacu and red tilapia culture
Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112 103

Plant roots were constantly aerated with one airstone (20 mm diameter, 30 mm height), placed
in the center of experimental units, connected to an air blower (2 hp). Final plant parameters
measured were the following: height of leaves (cm), yield (kg m−2), number of leaves per
plant, and specific growth rate (SGR = [(ln final leaves wet weight − ln initial leaves wet
weight) time−1] 100) (% day−1).
Additionally, a plant quality index (PQI) was evaluated by grades based upon visual
aspects of the leaves. Visual parameters included abnormalities in the leaf surface such as
yellowish color and/or imperfections (wrinkles and burns). The grades were from A to D
as followed: (A) excellent, up to 5% of the leaf surface with imperfections; (B) good, up
to 33% imperfections; (C) average, up to 66% imperfections; (D) poor, 100% of leaves
surface with imperfections. To avoid deviations, only one trained evaluator determined
the plant grades.

Fish

The fish, pacu (P. mesopotamicus) and tilapia (Oreochromis sp) (BFlorida Red^ strain) were
obtained from a local commercial hatchery (Piscicultura Panamá, Paulo Lopes-SC, Brazil).
Juvenile pacu (initial weight of 31.5 ± 12.3 g) and tilapia (31.5 ± 10.8 g) were stocked in each
system, totaling initial biomass of 1.6 kg per system. Due to unavailable macrocosm repetition,
fish were individual tagged with colored beads allowing fish statistical analysis.
Aeration was provided by a 30-cm diameter circle made of AeroTube® connected to the air
blower (2 hp) and placed at the bottom of the tank. Fish were fed a commercial diet (32%
crude protein, Nutricol, São Ludgero-SC, Brazil) three times a day (0900 h, 1400 h, and
1800 h) totaling 5% of fish biomass, which represented ~ 2 g feed day−1 plant−1, adapting the
method of Rakocy (2012). At the end, fish parameters evaluated were mean final weight (g),
feed conversion ratio (total feed intake × biomass−1), specific growth rate (SGR), productivity
(kg m−3), and survival rate (%).

Water quality

The water quality parameters of temperature and dissolved oxygen DO (YSI Mod. 55, YSI
Incorporated, Yellow Springs-OH, USA) were monitored daily in the experimental units and in
the macrocosms. The pH (EcoSense pH10A Pen Tester, YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs-
OH, USA) and concentrations of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrate (NO3-N), nitrite (NO2-
N), and orthophosphate (PO4) in the macrocosms were monitored twice a week using photo-
colorimetric protocols (Alfakit AT 101, Alfakit, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil). Alkalinity was also
measured twice a week, using titration method (Alfakit 2460 and 2058, Alfakit, Florianópolis,
SC, Brazil).

Statistical analysis

For plant performance, data homogeneity and homoscedasticity were determined (Zar 1984),
followed by analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA; using Bplant species^ and Bfish effluent^
as main factors). The Tukey test was applied to detect significant differences between
treatments (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). For fish performance and water quality parameters,
Student’s t test (p < 0.05) was applied, also respecting normality and homogeneity assumptions
(Sokal and Rohlf 1995).
104 Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

Table 1 Water quality parameters measured in the fish tanks (macrocosm) during the experimental period
(35 days). SD standard deviation, Min minimum values, max maximum values

Parameters Pacu macrocosm Tilapia macrocosm Value of p*

Mean SD Min. Max. Mean SD Min. Max.

Dissolved oxygen (mg L−1) 6.95 0.57 5.92 8.06 6.95 0.61 6.02 8.15 0.91
Temperature (°C) 27.10 2.54 21.40 29.70 27.14 2.41 20.70 29.80 0.74
pH 7.56 0.37 6.92 7.85 7.47 0.61 6.45 7.92 0.81
Ammonia nitrogen (mg L−1) 0.70 0.38 0.29 1.32 0.43 0.29 0.13 0.85 0.12
Nitrite (mg L−1) 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.76
Nitrate (mg L−1) 1.07 0.33 0.47 1.46 0.99 0.59 0.22 1.85 0.44
Orthophosphate (mg L−1) 9.42 3.73 5.45 14.80 8.89 3.04 4.10 12.55 0.28
Alkalinity (mg L−1 de CaCO3) 54.00 14.19 36.00 80.00 51.14 10.70 40.00 64.00 0.77

*From Student’s t test

Results

Water quality

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and Student’s t test results of water quality parameters
measured in the macrocosms (fish tanks), while Figs. 2 and 3 presents nitrogenous com-
pounds, alkalinity, and orthophosphate fluctuations over time. All the parameters measured
were similar (p > 0.05) between treatments. DO, temperature, and pH means were 6.95 and
6.95 mg L−1, 27.10 and 27.14 °C, and 7.56 and 7.47 for pacu and tilapia macrocosm,
respectively; while ammonia nitrogen, nitrite, nitrate, orthophosphate, and alkalinity were
0.70 and 0.43, 0.06 and 0.04, 1.07 and 0.99, 9.42 and 8.89, and 54.00 and 51.14 mg L−1,
respectively. In the experimental units (plant tanks), temperature mean values (±SD) from P-
Pacu, P-Tilapia, S-Pacu, and S-Tilapia were 25.56 ± 2.20, 25.70 ± 2.01, 25.59 ± 2.28, and
25.81 ± 2.03 °C; respectively. DO mean values were 7.49 ± 0.48, 7.33 ± 0.48, 7.44 ± 0.49, and
7.32 ± 0.42 mg L−1, respectively.

Plants performance

Table 2 presents the plant performance in pacu and tilapia devices. All the plant parameters
were higher in scallion as compared to parsley (p < 0.05), regardless of fish effluent type. On
the other hand, when comparing the fish effluent, just the number of scallion leaves per plant
was higher in pacu device (27.5 ± 2.13) as compared to tilapia (21.33 ± 1.44). Plant mortality
rates were higher for parsley (in both devices) as compared to scallion with no mortalities. In
addition, plant quality index (Fig. 4) also indicated better results for scallion. Only scallion
received grade A’s, with higher percentage in pacu device (S-Pacu). For parsley, no grade A’s
were observed, and this species was the only one to receive grade D, with higher percentage in
P-Tilapia (Fig. 4).

Fish performance

Fish performance results are presented in Table 3. Survival and productivity were similar
between species, with mean values of 99% and 7.1 kg m−3. Feed conversion ratio was
Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112 105

1.4

(Ammonia Nitrogen (mg L-1)

1.2

Pacu Tilapia
1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.12

0.1
Nitrite (mg L-1)

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

2
1.8
1.6
Nitrate (mg L-1)

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Experimental period (35 days)

Fig. 2 Variation of nitrogenous compounds (ammonia nitrogen, nitrite, and nitrate, expressed in mg L−1) in the
macrocosm of pacus and red tilapias

significantly higher in tilapia (2.00) as compared to pacu with 1.59. Final weight and SGR
were similar between treatments (p > 0.05).

Discussion

Except for orthophosphate values, all the water quality parameters were similar to those
reported in previous studies of red tilapia culture (Al-Hafedh et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2016)
106 Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

14.00

12.00

Orthophosphate (mg L-1)

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00
Pacu Tilapia

0.00

90
Alkalinity (mg L-1 de CaCO3)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Experimental period (35 days).

Fig. 3 Variation of orthophosphate (mg L−1) and alkalinity (mg L−1 of CaCO3) in the macrocosm of pacus and
red tilapias

and pacu (Polese et al. 2010; Fiod et al. 2010). Although with higher values compared to other
published work, orthophosphate tended to stabilize at the end of the trial (Fig. 3), probably due
to the plant absorption (Bakhsh and Chopin 2012; Rakocy 2012; Roy 2017). Moreover,
temperature, DO, pH, nitrogen compounds, and alkalinity mean values corroborated with
usual values observed in aquaponics systems (Sikawa and Yakupitiyage 2010; Roosta 2014).
Literature is scarce regarding parsley and scallion performance in aquaponics. Regarding
other garnish species, Roosta (2014) cultivated mint, radish, parsley, and cilantro in an
aquaponics system integrated with common carp. The authors tested the influence of supple-
mental potassium application on the leaf area and its effects on plant growth. Without the K
application, parsley reached an average height of 19 cm and yield of 757 g m−2. In our study,
the mean values were close (~ 17.8 cm), although the yields were lower (~ 87 g m−2). These
results could be attributed to many general factors: nutrient availability (Ru et al. 2017),
production design, types and physiological stages of plants (Goddek et al. 2015), and
environmental or water quality variations (Delaide et al. 2017). In addition, some specific
factors possibly contributed to the non-maximal growth of the parsley in our experiment,
compared with the following Roosta (2014): (i) differences in g feed day−1 plant−1 with 4.5 g
as compared to 2.0 g feed day−1 plant−1 in the present study, (ii) days of culture (45 versus
35 days in our study), and (iii) number of plants per square meter with 13 plants m2.
Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112 107

Table 2 Mean (± standard error) of productive performance of parsley and scallion in aquaponics system,
influenced by production of pacu and red tilapia during the experimental period (35 days)

Height of Leaves wet Yield (g m−2) SGR Number of Plant

leaves (cm) weight (g) (% day−1) leaves plant discard
−1
(%)

Treatments
Pacu-scallion 29.26 ± 1.13 10.8 ± 1.18 144.10 ± 34.5 7.77 ± 0.37 27.50 ± 2.13 0
Pacu-parsley 17.93 ± 1.05 7.39 ± 1.1 88.69 ± 32.4 7.13 ± 0.49 NA 14
31.59 ± 0.50 9.37 ± 0.75 139.20 ± 6.95 7.58 ± 0.23 21.33 ± 1.44 0
Tilapia--
scallion
17.65 ± 1.02 6.94 ± 0.77 85.57 ± 12.9 6.76 ± 0.35 NA 5
Tilapia--
parsley
Mean
Pacu 23.59 ± 1.09 9.10 ± 1.14 116.40 ± 33.5 7.45 ± 0.43 27.50 ± 2.13 7.0
a
Tilapia 24.62 ± 0.76 8.16 ± 0.76 112.40 ± 9.93 7.17 ± 0.29 21.33 ± 1.44 2.5
b
Scallion 30.42 ± 0.82 10.10 ± 0.97 141.70 ± 20.7 7.68 ± 0.30 24.41 ± 1.79 0
A A A A
Parsley 17.79 ± 1.04 7.17 ± 0.94 B 87.13 ± 22.7 B 6.95 ± 0.42 NA 9.5
B B
Values of p*
Plant < 0.01 < 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02** –
Efluent fish 0.11 0.15 0.74 0.43 – –
P×E 0.06 0.96 0.86 0.81 – –

Capital letters indicate differences between the varieties of plants and lowercase letters between the fish species
NA data not available
**From Student’s t test

In the same study, Roosta (2014) observed the positive effect of K application in yields of
the parsley, 757 to 1247 g m−2, respectively. This increase in production could be explained by
the lack or incorrect balance of nutrients in the fish feeds, i.e., Ca, K, and Mg, essential
nutrients for plant growth (Seawright et al. 1998; Rakocy et al. 2006; Ru et al. 2017). In
hydroponic production, the nutrients are usually added respecting the specific requirements of
each plant species, aiming to maximize the productive results (Chekli et al. 2017). When
comparing the parsley production of the present study with the hydroponic data of Chondraki
et al. (2012), it is also possible to determine why this species did not reach the best yield. These
authors tested if the production of hydroponic parsley (with balanced solution of nutrients in
water) is influenced by sodium chloride and calcium foliar spray. They reached an average leaf
wet weight (~ 17 g) and height (~ 23 cm) greater than the present study (~ 7.0 g and 17.8 cm,
respectively).
On the other hand, in relation to scallion produced in a hydroponic system, Kane et al.
(2006) evaluated different solutions of nutrients and pH ranges in the growth of three types of
onion (Allium cepa L. (BDeep Purple^ and BPurplette^) and A. fistulosum L. (BKinka^)). For
all treatments tested, after 30 days of cultivation, the wet weight (~ 5.5 g) was lower than that
found in the present study (~ 10 g), with significant differences between the treatment
cultivated at pH 5.8 (5.3 g) and 6.5 (6.21 g). Evidencing that possibly the experimental
conditions were more suitable for the scallion than for the parsley culture. In this sense,
differences in performance of the two garnishes evaluated in our study may be related to the
108 Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

70%
Plant Quality Index (PQI)
60%

50%
Percentage of plants

40%
A - Excellent
30% B - Good
C - Average
20%
D - Poor
10%

0%

Treatments
Fig. 4 Mean (± standard error) percentage of plants that received grade: A excellent, up to 5% of the leaf surface
with imperfections, B good, up to 33% imperfections, C average, up to 66% imperfections, and D poor, 100% of
leaf surface with imperfections, per treatment

deficiency of a particular nutrient, the wrong balance between them and/or intrinsic charac-
teristics of such species, e.g., regarding to the environment conditions.
Plant quality index also indicated that scallion developed better than parsley in aquaponics
system. Nevertheless, most of plants from both species presented imperfections in the leaf
surfaces, especially leaf yellowing. This anomaly may be related, among other factors, to the
deficiency of nutrients, i.e., nitrogen (Rakocy 2012; Petrazzini et al. 2014). It is important to
note that nitrate concentrations did not show a decreasing trend, which may indicate deficiency
in nutrient absorption. In addition, the absence of some nutrients that are poorly available in
fish feeds (Medina et al. 2016) could also cause the plant’s imperfections.
The importance of supplementation and correct balance of nutrients can be seen in the
results of Delaide et al. (2016). These authors tested the lettuce production in a hydroponic
system, conventional aquaponic (without supplementation), and aquaponic with supplemen-
tation, and obtained a 39% increase in the vegetable production in the supplemented aquaponic
compared to the other two treatments. The production data of the present study show that it is
possible to cultivate scallion and parsley in aquaponics, however mineral supplementation
evaluations, such as the experimental design by Delaide et al. (2016), are strongly encouraged.

Table 3 Mean (± standard error) of productive performance of pacu and red tilapia in aquaponics system, during
the experimental period (35 days)

Zootechnical parameters Macrocosm Values of p*

Pacu Tilapia

Initial weight (g) 31.50 ± 1.71 A 31.56 ± 1.50 A 0.89

Final weight (g) 68.68 ± 2.18 A 70.13 ± 3.98 A 0.92
FCR 1.59 ± 0.08 B 2.00 ± 0.28 A 0.02
SGR (% day−1) 2.35 ± 0.10 A 2.23 ± 0.08 A 0.49
Productivity (kg m−3) 7.14 7.15
Survival (%) 100 98

Capital letters indicate differences between the fish species

Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112 109

We did not find any literature studies related to pacu raised in aquaponics system. The mean
survival values observed in our study were similar to those reported in RAS for pacu (Furuya
et al. 2008; Fiod et al. 2010) and for tilapia in aquaponics systems (Al-Hafedh et al. 2008;
Bakhsh and Chopin 2012; Wang et al. 2016). Regarding feed conversion ratio (FCR), the
higher value observed in tilapia could be related to the worse adaptation to low water
temperatures (~ 20 °C) as compared to pacu in the beginning of the trial. The pacu, an
endemic species from the Pantanal region and Uruguay basin (Urbinati and Gonçalves 2005),
is more adapted to low temperatures, which could be the reason for the better FCR. Even so,
our tilapia FCR was similar to those reported by Rakocy et al. (2004) and Kamal (2006) with
tilapias raised in aquaponics system (~ 1.85).
In addition, Kamal (2006) testing different densities of pepper (10, 15, and 20 plants m−2)
in aquaponics with tilapia (initial weight of 10.5 g and initial biomass of 1.05 kg m−3) during
180 days obtained an average yield of 17.95 kg m−3 in the density of 15 plants m−2 (same
density to our study). This value cited above is higher than ~ 7.1 kg m−3 reached in our study.
On the other hand, SGR of 1.6 (Kamal 2006) and 0.7 and 0.6 day−1 observed by Palm et al.
(2014) for tilapia and African catfish, respectively, were lower than 2.35 and 2.23% day−1 for
pacu and tilapias in the present study. This was possibly due to differences in initial weight and
initial biomass, modifying the growth rates between studies.
Regarding pacu growth performance, Signor et al. (2010) and Polese et al. (2010) evaluated
different diets for pacu in cages and RAS, respectively and reached mean FCR’s of 3.0 and 1.5
and SGR of 0.7 and 1.1% day−1, respectively. The mean values of FCR obtained by Polese
et al. (2010) corroborates with our study, but those found by Signor et al. (2010) and both SGR
values were lower than the 2.35% day−1 reached in our study. These results could indicate a
good adaptation of pacu to the aquaponics system. In contrast, Fiod et al. (2010) evaluated
different feeding frequency in pacu juveniles (initial weight of ~ 24 g) also in RAS, obtained
superior performance. The authors reached FCR and SGR of 0.7 and 3.15% day−1, respec-
tively. These differences may be associated to factors such as water quality, nutrition, health,
and genetics (Watanabe et al. 2012). Certainly, more studies should be conducted to improve
the yield of pacu in aquaponics and make it commercially applicable.
The plant performance results presented in our study showed that both garnish species,
scallion and parsley, have potential to be cultivated in aquaponics system, regardless of fish
effluent type, only if nutrient deficiency/balance is understood and resolved. In addition, both
tilapia and pacu had similar growth performance, showing that pacu can be grown in
aquaponics, which allows farmers and investors to select the best species according to their
market and location. Such technology may be an alternative to different production systems,
including urban aquaculture (Goddek et al. 2015). On the other hand, aiming to optimize the
production and make it commercially viable, the authors emphasize the importance of more
research related to the correct balancing of nutrients to improve the visual aspects, followed by
financial analysis aimed at the use of these garnish plants in larger production scale.

Conclusion

The results indicated that pacu is an alternative fish species for aquaponics production and
productive performance of garnish plants was similar to those obtained with tilapia. Regarding
the garnish species, scallion obtained the better production performance and visual aspects
compared to parsley, showing better productive potential.
110 Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

Acknowledgements The authors thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development-
CNPq (Project Number 455349/2012-6) and Scientific and Technological Research Foundation of Santa Catarina
State-FAPESC (Project Number 2013TR3406) and all LAQ-UDESC staff for technical support.

References

Al-Hafedh YS, Alami A, Beltagi MS (2008) Food production and water conservation in a recirculating
aquaponic system in Saudi Arabia at different ratios of fish feed to plants. J World Aquacult Soc 39:510–520
Bailey DS, Ferrarezi RS (2017) Valuation of vegetable crops produced in the UVI Commercial Aquaponic
System. Aquac Rep 7:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2017.06.002
Bakhsh HK, Chopin T (2012) A variation on the IMTA theme: a land-based, closed-containment freshwater
IMTA system for tilapia and lettuce. Aquac Can 22:57–60
Buzby M, Lin L (2014) Scaling aquaponic systems: balancing plant uptake with fish output. Aquac Eng 63:39–
44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2014.09.002
Chekli L, Kim JE, Saliby IE, Kim Y, Phumtsho S, Li S, Ghaffour N, Leiknes T, Shon HK (2017) Fertilizer drawn
forward osmosis process for sustainable water reuse to grow hydroponic lettuce using commercial nutrient
solution. Sep Purif Technol 181:18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.03.008
Chondraki S, Tzerakis C, Tzortzakis N (2012) Influence of sodium chloride and calcium foliar spray on
hydroponically grown parsley in nutrient film technique system. J Plant Nutr 35:1457–1467. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01904167.2012.689906
Dediu L, Cristea V, Xiaoshuan Z (2012) Waste production and valorization in an integrated aquaponic system
with bester and lettuce. Afr J Biotecnol 11:2349–2358. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.2829
Delaide B, Goddek S, Gott J, Soyeurt H, Haissam J (2016) Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine) growth
performance in complemented aquaponic solution outperforms hydroponics. Water 8:467–468. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w8100467
Delaide B, Delhaye G, Dermience M, Gott J, Soyeurt H, Jijakli MH (2017) Plant and fish production
performance, nutrient mass balances, energy and water use of the PAFF Box, a small-scale aquaponic
system. Aquac Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.06.002
Diem TNT, Konnerup D, Brix H (2017) Effects of recirculation rates on water quality and Oreochromis niloticus
growth in aquaponic systems. Aquac Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.05.002
Diver S (2006) Aquaponics—integration of hydroponics with aquaculture. ATTRA National Sustainable
Agriculture Information Service National Center for Appropriate Technology, 1–25
Edwards P (2015) Aquaculture environment interactions: past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture 447:
2–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.001
Endut A, Jusoh A, Ali N, Nik WBW, Hassan A (2010) A study on the optimal hydraulic loading rate and plant
ratios in recirculation. Bioresour Technol 101:1511–1517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.040
FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) Aquaculture big numbers.
http://wwwfaoorg/3/a-i6317epdf Cited 09 Jul 2017
Fernandes JBK, Carneiro DJ, Sakomura NK (2000) Fontes e níveis de proteína bruta em dietas para alevinos de
pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus). Rev Bras Zootec 29:646–653
Fiod MSR, Ducatti C, Cabral M, Texeira RBG, Abimorad EG, Jomori RK (2010) Efeito da frequência alimentar
sobre o crescimento e composição isotópica (δ13c e δ 15N) de juvenis de pacu Piaractus mesopotamicus.
Nuc Anim 2:42–52. https://doi.org/10.3738/1982.2278-466
Forchino AA, Lourguioui H, Brigolin D, Pastres R (2017) Aquaponics and sustainability: the comparison of two
different aquaponic techniques using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Aquac Eng 77:80–88. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2017.03.002
Furuya WM, Michelato M, Silva LCR, Santos LD, Silva TSC, Shamber CR, Vidal LVO, Furuya VRB (2008)
Fitase em rações para Juvenis de Pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus). Bol Inst Pesca 34:489–496
Goddek S, Delaide B, Mankasingh U, Ragnarsdottir KV, Jijakli H, Thorarinsdottir R (2015) Challenges of
sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability 7:4199–4224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199
Haque MM, Alam R, Alam M, Basak B, Sumi R, Beltond B, Murshed-E-Jahan K (2015) Integrated floating cage
aquageoponics system (IFCAS): an innovationin fish and vegetable production for shaded ponds in
Bangladesh. Aquac Rep 2:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2015.04.002
Kamal SM (2006) Aquaponic production of nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and bell pepper (Capsicum
annuuml) in recirculating water system. Egypt J Aquat Biol Fish 10:85–97
Kane CD, Jasoni RL, Peffley EP, Thompson LD, Green CJ, Pare P, Tissue D (2006) Nutrient solution and
solution pH influences on onion growth and mineral content. J Plant Nutr 29:375–390. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01904160500477028
Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112 111

Knaus U, Palm HW (2017) Effects of fish biology on ebb and flow aquaponical cultured herbs in northern
Germany (Mecklenburg Western Pomerania). Aquaculture 466:51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2016.09.025
Lennard WA, Leonard BV (2006) A comparison of three different hydroponic sub-systems (gravel bed, floating
and nutrient film technique) in an aquaponic test system. Aquac Int 14:539–550. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10499-006-9053-2
Love DC, Fry JP, Li X, Hill ES, Genello L, Semmens K, Thompson RE (2015) Commercial aquaponics
production and profitability: findings from an international survey. Aquaculture 435:67–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023
Mancosu N, Snyder LR, Kyruakakis G, Spano D (2015) Water scarcity and future challenges of food production.
Water 7:975–992. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7030975
Mariscal-Lagarda MM, Páez-Osuna F, Esquer-Méndez JL, Guerrero-Monroy I, Vivar AR, Félix-Gastelum R
(2012) Integrated culture of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum
Mill) with low salinity groundwater: management and production. Aquaculture 366:76–84. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.09.003
Martins CIM, Eding EH, Verdegem MCJ, Heinsbroek LTN, Shneider O, Blancheton JP, Roque E, Verreth JAJ
(2010) New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: a perspective on environmental
sustainability. Aquac Eng 43:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2010.09.002
Medina M, Jayachandran K, Bhat MG, Deoraj A (2016) Assessing plant growth, water quality and economic
effects from application of a plant-based aquafeed in a recirculating aquaponic system. Aquac Int 24:415–
427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-015-9934-3
Moya EAE, Sahagún CAA, Carrillo JMM, Alpuche PJA, Álvarez-González CA, Martínez-Yáñez R (2014)
Herbaceous plants as part of biological filter for aquaponics system. Aquac Res 42:1716–1726. https://doi.
org/10.1111/are.12626
Nozzi V, Parisi G, Crescenzo DD, Giordano M, Carnevali O (2016) Evaluation of Dicentrarchus labrax meats
and the vegetable quality of Beta vulgaris var. cicla farmed in freshwater and saltwater aquaponic systems.
Water 8:423–434. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100423
Palm HW, Bissa K, Knaus U (2014) Significant factors affecting the economic sustainability of closed aquaponic
systems. Part II: fish and plant growth. Aquac Aquar Conserv Legis (AACL) Bioflux 7:162–175
Petrazzini LL, Souza GA, Rodas CL, Emrich EB, Carvalho JG, Souza RJ (2014) Nutritional deficiency in
crisphead lettuce grown in hydroponics. Hortic Bras 32:310–313. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-
05362014000300012
Pinheiro I, Arantes R, Santo CME, Vieira FN, Lapa KR, Gonzaga LV, Fett R, Barcelos-Oliveira JL, Seifferta WQ
(2017) Production of the halophyte Sarcocornia ambigua and Pacific white shrimp in an aquaponic system
with biofloc technology. Ecol Eng 100:261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.12.024
Polese MF, Vidal MV, Mendonça PP, Tonini WC, Radael MC, Andrade DR (2010) Efeito da granulometria do
milho no desempenho de juvenis de pacu, Piaractus mesopotamicus (Holmberg, 1887). Arq Bras Med Vet
Zootec 62:1469–1477
Rakocy JE (2012) Aquaponics—integrating fish and plant culture. In: Tidwell JH (ed) Aquaculture production
systems, 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 343–386
Rakocy JE, Shultz C, Bailey DS, Thoman ES (2004) Aquaponic production of tilapia and basil: comparing a
batch and staggered cropping system. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of the Virgin Islands, 1-8
Rakocy JC, Masser MP, Losordo TM (2006) Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: aquaponics—
integrating fish and plant culture. SRAC Publication n° 454, 1–16
Rijn J (2013) Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquac Eng 53:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.aquaeng.2012.11.010
Roosta HR (2014) Effects of foliar spray of K on mint, radish, parsley and coriander plants in aquaponic system.
J Plant Nutr 37:2236–2254. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2014.920385
Roy ED (2017) Phosphorus recovery and recycling with ecological engineering: a review. Ecol Eng 98:213–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.10.076
Ru D, Liu J, Hu Z, Zou Y, Jiang L, Cheng X, Lv Z (2017) Improvement of aquaponic performance through micro
and macro-nutrient addition. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9273-1
Sace CF, Fitzsimmons KM (2013) Vegetable production in a recirculating aquaponic system using Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus) with and without freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). J Agric Res 1:
236–250. 10.15413/ajar.2013.0138
Santos MJPL (2016) Smart cities and urban areas—aquaponics as innovative urban agriculture. Urban For Urban
Green 20:402–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.004
Seawright DE, Stickney RR, Walker RB (1998) Nutrient dynamics in integrated aquaculture–hydroponics
systems. Aquaculture 160:215–237
112 Aquacult Int (2018) 26:99–112

Shete AP, Verma AK, Chadha NK, Prakash C, Peter RM, Ahmad I, Nuwansi KKT (2016) Optimization of
hydraulic loading rate in aquaponic system with Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Mint (Mentha
arvensis). Aquac Eng 72:53–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2016.04.004
Signor AA, Boscolo WR, Bittencourt F, Coldebella A, Reidel A (2010) Proteína e energia na alimentação de
pacus criados em tanques-rede. Rev Bras Zootec 39:2336–2341
Sikawa DC, Yakupitiyage A (2010) The hydroponic production of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L) by using hybrid
catfish (Clarias macrocephalus x C. gariepinus) pond water: potentials and constraints. Agric Water Manag
97:1317–1325
Sokal R, Rohlf J (1995) Biometry, the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W H Freeman,
New York
Tyson RV, Treadwel DD, Simonne EH (2011) Opportunities and challenges to sustainability in aquaponic
systems. HortTechnology 21:6–13
Urbinati EC, Gonçalves FD (2005) Pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus). In: Baldisseroto B, Gomes LC (eds)
Espécies nativas para a piscicultura no Brasil. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, pp
225–255
Wang C, Chang C, Chien Y, Lai H (2016) The performance of coupling membrane filtration in recirculating
aquaponic system for tilapia culture. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 107:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ibiod.2015.10.016
Watanabe WO, Losordo TM, Fitzsimmons K, Hanley F (2012) Tilapia production systems in the Americas:
technological advances, trends, and challenges. Rev Fish Sci 10:465–498. https://doi.org/10.1080
/20026491051758
Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Zou Y, Hu Z, Zhang J, Xie H, Guimbaud C, Fang Y (2016) Effects of pH on nitrogen transformations in media-
based aquaponics. Bioresour Technol 210:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.12.079