Word count: 5180

Introduction

Throughout human history, agricultural products like fruits, sourced from conventional
farming, have been undoubtedly indispensable to our daily lives — they are essential as
sources of nutrients to sustain our metabolism, and ultimately, to keep us alive.

Although the terminology “conventional farming” is a rather diversified categorisation

(Sumberg & Giller, 2022), this dissertation regards all open-field fruit productions that involve
the non-recyclable and continuous over-input of agricultural resources as fruit farming of the
norm. However, whilst occupying a staggering 4.8 billion hectares of land (≈one-third of the
total land area) on Earth in 2021 according to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation),
the conventional fruit agriculture has led to heated debates in the contemporary era due to
its resource wasteful nature.

Evidently, such farming technique that operates on the one-way input of resources has a
glaring flaw, that is the inevitable wastage of materials. This is because conventional farming,
which bases itself on a flat open field, is not a cyclical system. Therefore, resources supplied
like water, fertilisers and amendments are prone to leave the system and are subsequently
lost forever by natural means, such as surface-runoff and evapotranspiration. Additionally, as
the world population is expected to escalate to 9.4 - 10.2 billion by 2050 (Boretti & Rosa, 2019),
so does the increase in food demand. Hence, the leakage of resources in conventional farming
will certainly cause a myriad of unwanted resource shortages if not dealt with.

Apparently, an alternative to conventional fruit farming is much needed to minimise resource

wastage for sustainability. Aquaponics, an alternative system that integrates the growth of
crops with aquatic organisms simultaneously may just be the solution. This is due to the fact
that aquaponics is a closed system of nutrient recycling. Therefore, minimum leakage of
resources is achieved by its symbiotic mechanism: the nutrients present in animal excrements
in water are first converted and recycled with the aid of microorganisms to irrigate the plants,
which in turn purify the water for the living of the aquatic animals in a “closed loop” (Goddek,
et al., 2015). However, there seems to be limited research on a comparison between the
actual quality and yield of aquaponics to conventional agriculture, especially when it comes
to fruit production. Whether this relatively new concept is really capable of substituting the
farming system we have had for more than 10000 years that guarantees for high yield and
quality of fruits is left for question. Although being a more resource-saving option, is it really
the better alternative to conventional farming?

Hence, the author, interested in applied biology, aims to carry out an experiment-based
comparison between strawberries planted by both farming mechanisms to deduce the
potentials and the practicality of this constructed shift towards aquaponics.
literature review

The unsustainable nature of conventional fruit farming

As aforementioned, resource wastage is apparent and inevitable in conventional fruit farming
due to its unrecyclable construction and wasteful nature. Admittedly, wastage is not only
bound to happen, but is also happening with critical severity as farmers deliberately
overestimate the resources applied to maximise their yield. This is evident in case studies of
prevalent fertiliser overuse, such as in China (Zhang et al., 2020). Furthermore, various sources
(eg. FAO in 1981) have estimated a striking 50% of irrigation water wastage through seepage
and evapotranspiration decades ago, a problem that seems to have only worsened in recent
years. Severe eutrophication also occurs near fruit fields as nitrogen-containing ions in NPK
(nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) fertilisers are leaked into nearby waterbodies by
surface-runoff during rain, killing aquatic organisms as well as polluting lakes and streams
whilst accounting for a staggering $2.4 billion financial loss in the United States alone
(Wurtsbaugh et al., 2019). Eventually, these overly nutrient-rich water would be drained into
the ocean, affecting the metabolism of aerobic and anaerobic respiring oceanic organisms
(Hutchins & Capone, 2022).

The resource saving nature of aquaponic farming

Aquaponics, a farming system that integrates aquaculture and plant growth has demonstrated
its resource saving advantages. Although current studies regarding the advantages of
aquaponics have focused on all produces in general, rather than specifically on fruits, the
benefits are applicable to all types of agricultural products. Evidently, energy efficiency on
culturing crops was improved by 77.61% with the semi-aeration aquaponic system compared
to its control (Fang et al., 2017). Furthermore, converse to the aforementioned severe loss of
water in conventional farming, aquaponics reduces this issue to minimum as wastewater is
purified by plants and then reused to nourish fish, this is greatly profound in regions where
water is not abundant such as Northern China (Zou at al., 2016a). In fact, the closed loop
cycling of water is claimed to have water savings by >90% (Nishanth et al., 2024). Moreover,
since the nutrients supplied for the fruit plants are from the fish excrements which are
enclosed within a tank, they are not leaked into the environment. Therefore, the wastage of
nutrients and the overuse of non-renewable resources are reduced dramatically as nutrients
are continuously re-produced by the aquatic organisms in these “symbiotic” conversions
(Huang et al., 2021; Tyson et al., 2011). Simultaneously, unlike the above mentioned “flat open
field” layout of conventional fruit farming, an aquaponic system offers potentials of saving
space, hence saving land resources with sustainable possibilities such as vertical arrangements
proposed by Khandaker & Kotzen in 2018. This is particularly significant as it solves problems
associated with the aforementioned excessive areas of valuable farmlands being occupied,
that were already decreased by 50% between just half a century from 1970 – 2013 (Goddek
et al., 2019a).

Existing studies on the working principles of aquaponics

Apparently, the existing studies regarding the theoretical working mechanisms of aquaponics
seem to be quite well-established. Overall, the biochemical working principles involved have
been explained with clarity. Multiple researchers, such as Goddek (2020), Spradlin (2022) and
Schmautz (2016) have all published considerable research on both the (in)organic
components, and the reaction details involved in aquaponics. Additionally, the different
components and minute changes in the variables of (eg. pH) aquaponics have also been
discussed (Ullah et al., 2022; Zou et al., 2016).

Regarding the principles of aquaponic farming, it is a symbiotic cultivation of aquatic

organisms together with plants that rely on the cycling of nutritious water. To sum up, the
microbial communities that naturally reside in the fish tank and soil are responsible for the
conversion of insoluble fish excrements to soluble mineral nutrients available for plant uptake
(Goddek et al., 2015) as the plants absorb the nutritious aquaculture wastewater.
Simultaneously, the nutrient uptake of the plants sanitises the water for the living of aquatic
organisms (Brandon et al., 2019).

Research gaps in existing studies regarding the potentials of aquaponics

Although the working mechanisms and the theoretical benefits of aquaponics seem to be
quite well-understood by scientists, admittedly, this method is still at its infancy stage. General
access to aquaponic fruits is extremely limited let alone the uncertainty found in products of
a system that only gained some momentum on an experimental level in the past half century.
Frankly, the existing studies mainly focused on the “system components, wastewater
treatment, nutrient management, and system production” (Hao et al., 2020) while few makes
quantitative comparisons between the aquaponic farming system and the conventional
farming system specifically. In fact, little miscellaneous research has made data-based
comparisons between the products of these two particular farming systems.

It is also apparent that the majority of aquaponic research has focused on the growth of crops
and vegetables, such as the Celosia argentea plant (Olanrewaju et al., 2022a), lettuce, mint
and mushroom herbs (Nozzi et al., 2018). However, little comparison between the two specific
systems has been done on fruits despite a number of successful comparisons but between
different variations of aquaponics only. For example, the growth of aquaponic strawberries in
northern latitudes by Abbey et al. in 2019; tomatoes produced by different aquaponic
methods (Schmautz et al., 2016); aquaponic melons by Piñero et al., 2020; and aquaponic
tomatoes by Suhl et al. (2016) and by Knaus & Palm (2017). Moreover, potentials of aquaponic
strawberries were gauged by Norashikin Anjur in 2020. Although the successes in these past
attempts have given the author much confidence in selecting strawberries as the fruit of
investigation; none of the previous research has made an actual comparison between
aquaponic strawberries and conventionally grown strawberries.

In order to assess the potentials and the practicality of aquaponics being a better alternative
to conventional fruit farming, it is not enough for us to just know its resource-saving benefits;
equal weight should be put on how the actual fruits produced from aquaponics compare with
the conventional method, only then can we deduce which one is superior when it comes to
fruit production. This dissertation aims for a quantitative examination regarding the growth of
strawberries by the two farming methods in order to determine whether aquaponics can
produce strawberries at similar/ equivalent yield, taste (sweetness) and nutritional quality to
conventionally grown strawberries. Hence, the extent of its potentials of being a better
alternative to conventional fruit production can therefore be subsequently discussed.

Finally, authoritative sources such as the USDA (Government Food Data Central, USA) were
used to verify the accuracy of data collected regarding the fruit nutrients.
Methodology

Overview
This dissertation combined both primary and secondary research in light of investigating the
potentials of aquaponics being a better alternative to conventional fruit production. Firstly,
the author conducted an experiment regarding strawberry growth to compare and analyse
the two farming methods and particularly their products. This data was then further evaluated
with current literature on the sustainability aspects of either production methods in order to
draw a thorough conclusion on the subject.

Experiment design
1) Aim
The author intended to make a valid comparison between the two aforementioned farming
techniques based on three factors of their products — yield, taste (sweetness) and nutrients.

2) Experimental procedure
The author grew Albion strawberries (Fragaria Ananassa) with two handmade farming models
that correspond to the two farming techniques of investigation. The purpose of this
experiment was to compare the yield of these two cultivating methods along with the
nutrients of their individual products. Hence, the author was able to deduce and to gauge the
potentials of aquaponic fruit production.

It should be pointed out that the main factor which differentiates aquaponic from
conventional fruit production is the way the plants obtain their nutrients: either by absorbing
from ionic compounds dissolved in water that originates from animal excrements or by active
transport of nutrients directly from soil. The difference in the systematic components catering
for the above two ways of nutrient attainment, which each correspond to either of the two
farming techniques was therefore, the only independent variable in this experiment.

Allowing for a valid comparison between the two farming systems, several control variables
were kept constant throughout the experiment. Firstly, the species, age and mass of
strawberry seeds were identical to ensure that any differences in the produced fruits were
due to the systems they were planted in only. Furthermore, the external environment
(including temperature, humidity and light intensity) was kept identical for the two systems.
Finally, other factors that could interfere with plant growth, namely the proportion of
nutrients in soil, the volume of water available to plants and the composition of fertilisers
applied were kept constant by applying the same brand of soil; by watering the conventional
fruit plants correspondingly to the volume of water flow in the aquaponic system, and by
utilising the same mass and type of fertiliser.

Additionally, in order to calculate average values from data collected for the reliability of this
study and to overcome the potential contingency of failure in plant growth due to
unpredictable random errors, 3 planting pots with identical contents were used for each
farming system.

Finally, the conduction and recording of the experiment were adhered to a series of
procedures after planting 10g of Fragaria Ananassa seeds into each pot with 100g of loam
soil:

On a daily basis:
1) 100mL of distilled water was poured into each pot of the conventional system at 07:00 and
at 16:00 as the same volume of water was delivered to each aquaponic pots simultaneously
via pipes with electric pumps.
2) All the planting pots were exposed under the same sunlight intensity regardless of weather
from 06:00 to 20:00.
3) The fish in the aquaponic tank were fed at 07:00 and at 16:00.

On a weekly basis:
1) 15g of fertiliser was applied to each pot on Monday.

3) Instruments and apparatus setup

The systematic makeup varied between the two fruit production systems:

For both farming systems, materials needed were an electrical balance (absolute uncertainty:
+/-0.05g); a calibrated beaker; 6 identical planting pots (dimension: 40cm*20cm); Albion
strawberry seeds (60g); loam soil; strawberry NPK fertilisers and general farming tools
(including shears and shovels). The equipments can be seen in figures 2.1 - 2.5.
The author adopted the media-based aquaponic model as it is considered to be the most
common thus the most representative type of aquaponics. Based on a survey done by Love et
al. in 2014 of which 86% of the respondents who were aquaponic farmers claimed to adopt
this type of aquaponic setup. This means the strawberry plants were grown in a “grow bed”
filled with growing media, in this case loam soil.

Additional materials needed for the aquaponic system were a fish tank (dimension:
30cm*25cm*20cm); an electric water pump; interconnected water pipes (dimension: 35cm*
15cm, diameter 5cm); 3 plastic holders and 3 foam filters (to be applied at the bottom of the
plant pots). As shown in the figures 2.8 – 2.10:

In addition, the presence of microbial communities that reside in the fish tank and soil
naturally is essential in the aquaponic system as they are responsible for the conversion of fish
excrements to mineral nutrients available for plant uptake. This is done as organic materials
in the solid form being converted into mineral ions in the ionic form — which can only then
be assimilated by plants. The most dominant breed of microorganism responsible for such
procedure is the nitrifying bacteria (Nitrobacteraceae), which is an autotrophic microbe
consists of the nitroso-bacteria (Nitrosomonas) and the nitro-bacteria (Nitrobacter). In short,
ammonia found in the fish excrements is first converted into nitrite ions (NO2−) by the nitroso-
bacteria, then, the nitrite ions are converted into nitrate ions (NO3−) by the nitro-bacteria
(Goddek et al., 2015). The full balanced chemical equations are as follows:
 2 NH4+ + 3 O2 → 2 NO2– + 2 H2O + 4 H+ (by nitrosomonas)

2 NO2– + O2 → 2 NO3– (by nitrobacter)

Subsequently, the water with the dissolved nitrate ions is then pumped to the soil so the
strawberry plants can obtain the nitrogen available in the nitrate ions by facilitated diffusion
and active transport. Additionally, the aforementioned synthesis of nitrogen is just one of the
macronutrients generated by fish excrements. Other useful elements of macronutrients,
including phosphorus, potassium, sulfur and magnesium are converted in similar ways and
are dissolved in the water as mineral ions (Spradlin & Saha, 2022) for the growth of the
strawberry plant in the aquaponic system.

4) Data and information needed

In order to quantify the yield, taste and nutritional quality of the two fruit production methods,
a number of tables were designed to record the relevant data.

Noticeably, the author selected vitamin C and reducing sugars as the nutrients of comparison
and discussion for the following reasons:

Firstly, the vitamin C level was examined it is the most abundant vitamin in strawberries
(Giampieri et al., 2012). Moreover, the reducing sugar content (strictly glucose and fructose)
that gives the strawberries their sweet characteristics is the main source of energy from this
fruit, thus it was also selected to represent the nutritional quality of the strawberries.

1) Yield
All the strawberries produced were collected and weighted by mass, the masses were
recorded using the table below (figure 2. 13). Noticeably, all the masses were recorded as the
net weight, meaning the masses were exclusively for the fruits collected, excluding their sepals,
leaves etc.

Figure 2. 13: Yield table and Relavent calculations.

2) Taste/ Reducing sugar content
The subject of taste is a multi-faceted matter and due to the limitations of this dissertation,
the author chose sweetness as the only indicator for good taste. This is because studies have
shown that our likings for sweetness as good tasting fruits seem to be innate and universal as
people’s preference towards sweetness might be our perception of ripe fruit and readily
available source of energy. (Beauchamp, 2016) (Venditti et al., 2020a).

The reducing sugars, which were the only molecules that gave the fruits their sweetness, were
tested with Benedict’s reagent which undergoes colour changes accordingly in the presence
of different concentrations of reducing sugar, in this case fructose and glucose (figure 2.17).
The data was then recorded in the table below (figure 2. 16):
3) Nutritional quality — Vitamin C (VC)
It was possible to determine the concentration of VC present in strawberry extractions by
using the DCPIP (dichlorophenolindophenol) reagent and a standard solution with known VC
concentration to compare against with.

VC, being a reducing agent, can reduce the DCPIP by donating electrons to the DCPIP causing
a visible colour change in the DCPIP solution from dark blue to colourless (figure. 2.18):

Figure 2. 18.

Hence, by measuring the volumes of each of the VC-containing strawberry juices needed to
decolourise a common volume of DCPIP solution and by comparing these to the volume of a
chosen standard VC solution* needed to decolourise the same volume of DCPIP. Hence, it was
possible to determine the concentration of VC in the two strawberry juices being tested. The
results were recorded in the table below (figure 2. 19):

Figure 2. 19: Concentration of VC in strawberry extractions.

Experimental results

1) Fruit yield

Interestingly, the number of strawberries produced was identical amongst the two farming
systems, regardless of which sample (numbered planting pot) they were from. This is shown
in figure 3.1 b — three strawberries were produced in samples 1 and 2 while one less
strawberry were produced in sample 3s of both farming systems.

According to figure 3.1 c, it is evident that all samples from the conventional farming model
had a higher mean net weight of individual fruits than that of the aquaponic model. Although
this increase is relatively small and may have resulted from random errors due to the presence
of close or overlapping maximum-minimum range bars, it is still significant as this increase is
consistent across all samples — the mean net weights of individual fruits from the three
conventional farming samples are 33.5%, 19.1% and 23.7% higher than fruits produced in the
corresponding three aquaponic samples respectively. Additionally, this statement was
reinforced as the mean strawberry net weight per farming system was 1.45g higher with the
conventional system according to figure 3.1 a. Furthermore, the standard deviations in the
mean net weight of individual fruits across all sample pots were exceptionally small (figure
3.1a), this indicates the recorded net weight values cluster together and were all close to their
mean. Hence, this set of data did not have anomalies and was thus representative — the
conclusion of conventional farming samples produced individual strawberries with higher
mean net weight (yield) stayed valid.

2) Reducing sugar content

*V2 = V1 + 20mL of distilled water.

**C1 = (C2*V2) / V1
***M = <C1> as a percentage * 100g

According to figure 3.2 b, the original strawberry extraction from the second sample pot of
the conventional farming system had a 0.9% increase in the mean reducing sugar
concentration than the second aquaponic sample. On the contrary, the reducing sugar
concentration in strawberry extractions from the aquaponic system in sample pots 1 and 3
were both higher than their corresponding conventional system samples, specifically 2.4% and
0.6% higher respectively. Whereas, since the reducing sugar concentrations of five sample
pots were all higher than 4.0% and are exceptionally close to each other, the author regarded
the unexpectedly low result from the first conventional sample as an anomaly and thus its
calculated mass was excluded in figure 3.2 c allowing for a more accurate comparison.
From figure 3.2 c, it is apparent that the expected masses of reducing sugars per 100g of
strawberries produced by both farming systems were significantly close to each other, with
only a 0.2mg of difference between their averages. Noticeably, the largest difference in the
reducing sugar mass (1.5mg) is from the two samples (2 and 3) of the same farming system
(aquaponic), hence the reducing sugar difference between the two separate farming systems
can be considered as negligible.

3) Vitamin C (VC) content

Similarly, there seems to be no significant difference between the VC content (highlighted in

the clustered scatter graph as shown in figure 3.3 b) between the strawberries produced by
the two farming systems despite some minor variations. For example, the concentration of VC
in strawberry extractions sourced from the aquaponic system were 0.2 mg mL^-1 and 0.1 mg
mL^-1 higher than that of the conventional system between their second and third sample
pots respectively despite being 0.2 mg mL^-1 less than the conventionally grown in the first
planting pot according to figure 3.3 b again.

However, when both V2 and C2 are taken in account to calculate the theoretical mass of VC
per 100g of strawberry, the aforementioned minor differences seem to be enlarged in this
derived calculation. Evidently, the mass of VC present in 100g of aquaponic strawberries were
28.3% and 13.5% higher compared to that of the conventional strawberries of sample pot 2
and 3 respectively. In parallel, there was a relatively high 33.3% increase in the theoretical
mass of VC in the first sample of conventional strawberries than the aquaponic strawberries
despite the fact that all the contents in samples of the same farming system were identical.
Discussion

According to the results obtained, it can be concluded that both the aquaponic and the
conventional farming methods are equally capable of fruit production to an equivalent
standard. It is evident that both farming mechanisms yielded Albion strawberries with
significantly similar nutrition and sweetness (reducing sugar content), whose statistics are
both in agreement with previous research. For example, the negligible difference between the
mean masses of reducing sugars from the aquaponic (4.9g) and the conventional production
(5.1g), were both within 1g difference compared and according to the USDA, who stated 4.43g
of reducing sugars (1.99g glucose, 2.44g fructose) in 100g of strawberries as a standard, a set
of data that has not been edited since 2006 due to its accuracy and authority.

In parallel, the vitamin C concentration/mL showed little variation between strawberries

produced by either method. However, it should be pointed out that although some greater
differences between the theoretical masses of vitamin C were listed in the results section, the
author regarded these differences to be caused by derived calculations only, which were
bound to enlarge numerical differences when expressed as percentages. Moreover, other
authoritative sources have also shown some disagreements of vitamin C concentration in
strawberries as well. For instance, the USDA has stated this number to be 58.8mg while
another study has given a range of 40 – 70mg (Sapei & Hwa, 2014). Nevertheless, these values,
including the ones collected by the author, were all of the same magnitude and were most
likely due to random errors like variation in strawberry species or more likely, the storage time
of the fruits when tested, since this factor is believed to reduce vitamin C concentration (Sapei
& Hwa, 2014). Hence, the variation in vitamin C content of strawberries grown by either
system is not significant enough.

On the contrary, based on the data obtained alone, the conventional farming method was
superior in terms of fruit production of higher net weights (yield). Although this increase in
yield was small, its prevalence amounted to all samples is worth discussion. Evidently, the
lighter strawberries produced using the media-based aquaponic method agree with other
researchers, who have also put forward an intrinsic issue with aquaponics that seems to
explain this reduction in yield — the common iron-deficiency of aquaponic plants (Kasozi et
al., 2019; Abbey et al., 2019). Apparently, the comparatively poorer attainment of this
macronutrient seems to be exclusive in the media-based aquaponic system, which was proven
to hinder the production of chlorophyll for photosynthesis, consequently caused the lower
produce yield by net weight. Admittedly, the NPK fertiliser utilised by the author did not
contain any iron compound supplements which was likely to cause the low yield. This theory
was again highlighted by Abbey et al., in 2019, whose aquaponic model had a particularly
similar low yield of 2.91 Albion strawberries plant^-1 (mean), 19.51g of total net weight and
5.43g of average net weight of an individual Albion strawberry compared to the ones
cultivated by the author.

Despite this, the author still holds a strong opinion on the potentials of aquaponics to produce
fruits at equivalent yield to the conventional method based on a number of studies which
focus on a variety of modifications to the basic media-based aquaponic model. Apparently,
additional components, changes in cultivation techniques and other alterations could be
made to the simple aquaponic model to improve fruit yield. Take, for example in research
conducted by Ullah et al. in 2022, a simple change in the transplantation date based on the
environmental temperature from January to February increased the individual net weight of
aquaponic strawberries from approximately 4.74g to 7.00g, a 48% increase which is more than
sufficient to increase the masses of the aquaponic Albion strawberries in this dissertation to
the equivalent of the conventionally grown ones. Furthermore, Iranian researchers S.
Afsharipoor and H. R. Roosta (2010) highlighted their scheme of an aquaponic system
integrated with a 300-litre hydroponic tank that has demonstrated to produce strawberry
leaves with higher masses and chlorophyll content, which are both beneficial for yield due to
catalysed photosynthesis. In addition, different variations of the basic aquaponic model as
such were utilised in studies with other fruits. In particular, a method called drip irrigation has
demonstrated its superiority of average cumulative yield and number of tomatoes produced
compared to the raft culture and NFT (nutrient film) aquaponic systems (Schmautz et al.,
2016).

All in all, regarding the three aspects of yield, sweetness and nutrition, aquaponic fruit
production indeed has the capability to cultivate fruits at equivalent quality to conventional
fruit production albeit this statement is not in complete agreement with results of yield
obtained from the author. This is not only because the author has located the area of
incompetence of his simplistic aquaponic system but also because the current advancements
on the matter, all aiming to achieve (or have already achieved) significant higher fruit yield for
aquaponics. For example, regarding the poor utilisation of fertiliser by the author, numerous
studies have shed light on potential improvements to aid the issue of lower yield of aquaponic
fruits founded in the primary research. For example, researchers S. Afsharipoor and H. R.
Roosta (2010) recommend “50% perlite + 50% cocopeat and 25% perlite + 75% cocopeat” as
substrates for the grow bed of aquaponic strawberries as these combinations have shown an
increase in root mass and chlorophyll density in strawberry plants. Other modifications
include increased weight by synthetic fertiliser or foliar application of carbonate ions that
increased both the weight and the size of aquaponic melons (Cucomis melo L.) (Piñero et al.,
2020). Specific fish types could also be selected to improve yield, evidently, a combination
with the fish O. ninoticus is said to double the gross biomass of tomatoes and higher plant
growth was found when aquaponic cucumber is paired with the fish C. cardio (Palm & Knaus,
2017). Significantly, researcher Johanna Suhl and her colleagues managed a yield of 29.2 kg
m^2 of tomatoes, a higher yield than the 20.5 kg m^2 by Kloas et al. in 2015, both working on
the double recirculating aquaponic system (DRAPS).
Conclusion

Based on experimental data collected and with the aid of past research, it was concluded that
aquaponic fruit production has the capability in terms of fruit production at equivalent yield,
reducing sugar content and vitamin C content as conventional fruit production. Alongside with
the previously highlighted resource saving nature of such system, such as resource saving in
energy (Yingke et al., 2017); in water (Johanne et al., 2012); in space (Victor et al., 2022)…
Aquaponics is indeed the better alternative to conventional fruit production under the
conclusion that there is little difference between the quality of produce by either systems of
investigation — opting for a more resource-saving option is undoubtedly preferable. The
author strongly advocates for a more thorough examination on products cultivated by
aquaponics and future research regarding further improvements in aquaponic fruit
production is much encouraged for a sustainable shift in fruit agriculture.
Evaluation

The study has a number of highlights. First, the study fills the research gap regarding a
deduction on whether aquaponic fruit production is preferable in great detail, the study has
provided much insight into the reasons in regard to substituting conventional fruit production
with aquaponics is better. Also, the study’s starting approach to aquaponics that includes
analytical comparison based on multidimensional factors differ from previous research, this
makes the study innovative. Finally, the study followed several experimental guidelines such
as parallel replication and application of control variables to a high standard.

The study has a number of limitations too. Although a valid conclusion is drawn from the
prevalence of trend in data demonstrated by all samples, the sample size is insufficient for a
more representative comparison between aquaponic and conventional fruit production that
allows for reduction in sampling error and the transformation of trivial differences to
statistically significant differences which could affect results (Fabre & Fonseca., 2014). Further
research that involves a much larger sample size is much encouraged by the author to improve
reliability for industrial applications of the shift towards aquaponic fruit production.

Another limitation of the primary research lies within the methodology of quantifying the
reducing sugar concentration with Benedict’s reagent. The method which bases on the linear
relationship between the concentration of Cu2O precipitate and the colour intensity due to
the presence of Cu2O, the author, who has taken averages of the range percentage
concentration of reducing sugar which likely results in lack of precision in practice that led to
the small difference between reducing sugar content between the author and past research.
Hence, a more precise quantitative method of determining the exact concentration of CU2O
is much recommended by the author for future further studies: by using spectrophotometric
detection on the wavelength absorbance of Cu2O precipitate which is more widely used in
more professional sugar analysis, which paired up with the method adopted by the author, is
claimed to have the ability to determine the glucose content with an R^2 (coefficient of
determination) of 0.997 and an accuracy >97% (Lopez et al., 2020). However, it should be
clarified that the intention of the author is for a comparison between the reducing sugar
content, thus, although the results are not as precise as anticipated, they serve the purpose
of a comparison well.
Bibliography

Abbey, M. et al. (2019). ‘An Analysis of Strawberry (Fragaria χananassa) Productivity in

Northern Latitudinal Aquaponic Growing Conditions.’ Journal of the American Pomological
Society, 73(1), pp.22-37. PDF available from: URL: https://assets.people.bsu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/3/2021/10/19133848/AbbeyEtal2019a.pdf.

Beauchamp, G.K. (2016) ‘Why do we like sweet taste: A bitter tale?’, Physiology & amp;
Behavior, 164, pp. 432–437. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.05.007.

Boretti, A. and Rosa, L. (2019) ‘Reassessing the projections of the World Water Development
Report’, npj Clean Water, 2(1). Available from: DOI: 10.1038/s41545-019-0039-9.

Faber, J. and Fonseca, L.M. (2014) ‘How sample size influences research outcomes’, Dental
Press Journal of Orthodontics, 19(4), pp. 27–29. Available from: DOI: 10.1590/2176
9451.19.4.027-029.ebo.

Fang, Y. et al. (2017) ‘Increasing economic and environmental benefits of media-based

aquaponics through optimizing aeration pattern’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, pp.
1111–1117. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.158.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021) ‘Land Statistics and
Indicators 2000-2021’. Available from: URL: https://www.fao.org/3/cc6907en/cc6907en.pdf.

Giampieri, F. et al. (2012) ‘The strawberry: Composition, nutritional quality, and impact on
human health’, Nutrition, 28(1), pp. 9–19. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2011.08.009.

Goddek, S. et al. (2015) ‘Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics’, Sustainability,

7(4), pp. 4199–4224. Available from: DOI: 10.3390/su7044199.

Goddek, S. et al. (2019) ‘Aquaponics and global food challenges’, Aquaponics Food Production
Systems, pp. 3–17. Available from: DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6_1.

Hao, Y. et al. (2020) ‘States, trends, and future of Aquaponics Research’, Sustainability, 12(18),
p. 7783. Available from: DOI: 10.3390/su12187783.

Hernández-López et al. (2020) ‘Quantification of reducing sugars based on the qualitative

technique of Benedict’, ACS Omega, 5(50), pp. 32403–32410. Available from: DOI:
10.1021/acsomega.0c04467.

Huang, C.C. et al. (2021) ‘Evaluation of the water quality and farming growth benefits of an
intelligence aquaponics system’, Sustainability, 13(8), p. 4210. Available from: DOI:
10.3390/su13084210.
Hutchins, D.A. and Capone, D.G. (2022) ‘The marine nitrogen cycle: New Developments and
Global Change’, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 20(7), pp. 401–414. Available from: DOI: 10.10
38/s41579-022-00687-z.

Kasozi, N. et al. (2019) ‘Iron Supplementation and management in Aquaponic Systems: A

Review’, Aquaculture Reports, 15, 100221. Available at: DOI: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2019.100221.

Khandaker, M. and Kotzen, B. (2018) ‘The potential for combining living wall and vertical
farming systems with aquaponics with special emphasis on substrates’, Aquaculture Research,
49(4), pp. 1454–1468. Available from: DOI: 10.1111/are.13601.

Kloas, W. et al. (2015) ‘A new concept for aquaponic systems to improve sustainability,
increase productivity, and reduce environmental impacts’, Aquaculture Environment
Interactions, 7(2), pp. 179–192. Available from: DOI: 10.3354/aei00146.

Knaus, U. and Palm, H.W. (2017) ‘Effects of the fish species choice on vegetables in
aquaponics under spring-summer conditions in northern Germany (mecklenburg western
pomerania)’, Aquaculture, 473, pp. 62–73. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.a
quaculture.2017.01.020.

Love, D.C. et al. (2014) ‘An international survey of Aquaponics Practitioners’, PLoS ONE, 9(7).
Available from: DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102662.

Nishanth, D. et al. (2024) ‘Aquaponics as a climate-smart technology for Sustainable Food

Production: A comparison with conventional production system in United Arab
Emirates’, Journal of the World Aquaculture Society [Preprint]. Available from: DOI:
10.1111/jwas.13049.

Nozzi, V. et al. (2018) ‘Nutrient management in aquaponics: Comparison of three approaches

for cultivating lettuce, mint and Mushroom Herb’, Agronomy, 8(3), p. 27. Available from: DOI:
10.3390/agronomy8030027.

Olanrewaju, G.O. et al. (2022a) ‘Aquaponics versus conventional farming: Effects on the
growth, nutritional and chemical compositions of Celosia argentea L., Corchorus Olitorius L.,
and Ocimum gratissimum L’, bioRxiv. Available from: URL: https://www.biorxiv.
org/content/10.1101/2022.10.06.511176v1.full.

Piñero, M.C. et al. (2020) ‘Differential effects of aquaponic production system on melon
(cucumis melo L.) fruit quality’, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 68(24), pp. 6511–
6519. Available from: DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c01124.

Roosta, H.R. and Afsharipoor, S. (2012) ‘Effects of different cultivation media on vegetative
growth, ecophysiological traits and nutrient concentration in strawberry under hydroponic
and aquaponic cultivation systems’, Advances in Environmental Biology, 6(2), pp.543-555. PDF
available to download from: URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2341149_
Effects_Of_Different_Cultivation_Media_On_Vegetative_Growth_Ecophysiological_Traits_An
d_Nutrients_Concentration_In_Strawberry_Under_Hydroponic_And_Aquaponic_Cultivation
_Systems.

Sapei, L. and Hwa, L. (2014) ‘Study on the kinetics of vitamin C degradation in fresh strawberry
juices’, Procedia Chemistry, 9, pp. 62–68. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.proche.2014.05.008.

Schmautz, Z. et al. (2016) ‘Tomato productivity and quality in aquaponics: Comparison of

three hydroponic methods’, Water, 8(11), p. 533. Available from: DOI: 10.3390/w8110533.

Spradlin, A. and Saha, S. (2022) ‘Saline Aquaponics: A review of challenges, opportunities,

components, and system design’, Aquaculture, 555, 738173. Available from: DOI:
10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738173.

Suhl, J. et al. (2016) ‘Advanced aquaponics: Evaluation of intensive tomato production in

Aquaponics vs. conventional hydroponics’, Agricultural Water Management, 178, pp. 335–344.
Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.013.

Sumberg, J. and Giller, K.E. (2022) ‘What is “conventional” agriculture?’, Global Food Security,
32, 100617. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100617.

Tyson, R.V., Treadwell, D.D. & Simonne, E.H. (2011) ‘Opportunities and challenges to
sustainability in Aquaponic Systems’, HortTechnology, 21(1), pp. 6–13. Available from: DOI:
10.21273/horttech.21.1.6.

Ullah, S. et al. (2022) ‘Performance of strawberry in a closed loop aquaponics system’, Journal
of Weed Science Research, 28(3), pp. 331–341. Available from: DOI: 10.28941/pj
wsr.v28i3.1048.

Venditti, C. et al. (2020) ‘Determinants of sweetness preference: A scoping review of human

studies’, Nutrients, 12(3), p. 718. Available from: DOI: 10.3390/nu12030718.

Wurtsbaugh, W.A., Paerl, H.W. & Dodds, W.K. (2019) ‘Nutrients, eutrophication and harmful
algal blooms along the freshwater to marine continuum’, WIREs Water, 6(5). Available from:
DOI: 10.1002/wat2.1373.

Zhang, Y. et al. (2020) ‘The hidden mechanism of chemical fertiliser overuse in rural
China’, Habitat International, 102, pp. 102-210. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102210.

Zou, Y. et al. (2016) ‘Effects of pH on nitrogen transformations in media-based aquaponics’,

Bioresource Technology, 210, pp. 81–87. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.
2015.12.079.

Zou, Y. et al. (2016) ‘Effect of seasonal variation on nitrogen transformations in aquaponics of

Northern China’, Ecological Engineering, 94, pp. 30–36. Available from: DOI: 10.1016/j.ecole
ng.2016.05.063.
Appendix

Figure 1: Experimental apparatus and reagents used.

Figure 2: Results of CuCO3 precipitate from Benedict’s test

for reducing sugars in strawberry extractions.
Figure 3: Blue DCPIP solution when oxidised (before
reduced by vitamin C content in strawberry extractions)

Figure 4: Strawberry samples cultivated in primary

research.

Figure 5: Extraction making.