|
Project
Proposal
Kalb
Stevenson
Question:
What
will be the costs and benefits to growing fish in ponds that will be emptied to
irrigate field crops? Will there be sufficient nitrogen and phosphorus release
through fish waste and algae biomass to create significant differences in barley
and cotton growth?
Background:
Integrative
studies in Arizona are gaining popularity with the growing concerns of drought
and water conservation. Millions of
gallons of water are used each year in production agriculture that could be used
for aquaculture first. “Farming
the water” before using it to irrigate land has the potential to create
additional income for Arizona growers, increase organic nutrient content of
soils, decrease chemical fertilizer use, create an additional crop
Introduction:
The
purpose of this experiment is to examine the effects of fish effluent on western
cotton and poco barley growth. The
study is designed to look at the effects of chemical fertilizers, natural,
organic fertilizers (effluent), and the combination of both.
We will measure the costs and benefits of combining aquaculture and
agriculture in the field. Significant attention is paid to the vegetative growth and
yield of each crop, as well as nutrient content of the water and soils.
Another large part of this experiment is determining whether or not
healthy, aquatic life can be sustained in such an integrative system.
Catfish and tilapia are raised seasonally in cages throughout the
experiment, and koi are free-swimming in the pond year round.
In
this integrative study at the Maricopa Agricultural Center in Maricopa, AZ, the
effects of fish effluent irrigation on field crops were observed. A long,
perforated PVC pipe was constructed, secured, and attached to a pump at the
bottom of an elevated fish pond to collect a full distribution of fish waste and
algal biomass. Koi were stocked
into the pond free swimming during the winter, while tilapia and catfish were
interchangeably placed into floating cages depending on the season (see attached
map). The purpose of cages in aquaculture is to alleviate mid-season harvesting
difficulty. The weight and number of each fish was tracked closely throughout
the year to determine if normal growth and health persisted. Dry, floating feed
was given twice per day, 5 days per week, at a rate equal to 2-3% of the
estimated total pond biomass. A total of 669 lbs. of feed was given from May
through September. The nutrient-rich fish effluent was pumped onto the field to
act as an organic fertilizer by supplementing plant growth.
The
field portion of this experiment was conducted on 0.955 acres of sandy loam soil
on field 102, borders 5-6 from December 2001 to present. The experimental design
used in this study was a randomized complete block (RCB) design. The
randomization of treatments within each rep helped to decrease type II error by
eliminating any chance for researchers’ bias in the field, therefore
decreasing the probability that a true null hypothesis would be rejected.
It consisted of four treatments, each with four repetitions, and would be
considered a 4x2 factorial design (4 treatments x 2 kinds of field crops).
The
treatments differed according to their source of irrigation and applications of
fertilizer. The treatments were 1.) well water irrigation only (w.w.), 2.) well
water irrigation + standard chemical fertilizer applications (w.w.+s.f.),
3.) fish effluent irrigation (f.e.), 4.) fish effluent irrigation +
standard chemical fertilizer applications (f.e.+s.f.).
Each of the 16 plots was approximately 130ft x 20ft, or approximately
0.06 acres. Standard farm practices were used for planting, harvesting,
pesticide/herbicide application, and irrigation/fertilization when needed.
For the crop varieties, short-season barley was planted in the winter,
and late-season cotton was planted in the summer. This rotational crop system
simulates continual irrigation on a field throughout a season.
During
barley season, measurements were taken throughout the year for plant height, and
a final yield per acre was calculated at the end of the season. Throughout the
summer, cotton plants were measured for height and total nodes, while petiole
samples of were analyzed to determine plant tissue concentrations of nitrates
and phosphates. Height-node ratio was calculated twice during the year to
determine treatment influence on vegetative growth, and a final yield per acre
was recorded as well. Water sampling was also done during this study, but an
accurate total amount of nitrogen and phosphorous applied to the field cannot be
calculated until more data becomes available.
The
majority of the statistics used in this study were ANOVAs.
Descriptives and Post Hoc tests (LSD, Bonferroni, and Duncan) were also
computed to determine significance of the data. The comparisons within the test
that were of highest interest were between treatments 3&1,
4&2, and 3&2. It
was easy to predict that plots with chemical fertilizer would be more
significantly different than plots without, so the narrower focus was on the
fish effluent plots, and the differences between those and the plots irrigated
with well water. Chemical
fertilizer applications were applied only a few times per year, so adding
nutrients naturally within each irrigation may have produced significant
effects.
The
last comparison (3&2) is the only one that is of interest which will compare
a fertilized to non-fertilized treatments. As mentioned previously, it is
difficult to accurately estimate the total amount of N & P extracted from
the soil by an effluent irrigated plant. Assuming
leeching is slow and uptake of N & P is equal throughout treatments, data
for petiole sampling (NO3 & PO4), height, nodes, height-node ratio, and
yield may all be factors expressing the effects of effluent irrigations on
cotton.
Although
LSD and Duncan tests were performed, data from the Bonferonni Post Hoc will be
reported because of its decrease in type I error. If it can be shown through this study that the treatments
give a “rate” effect in regard to plant growth (low, med low, med high,
high), future tests using multiple regression and orthogonal comparisons would
occur. For this initial study, however, we will try to assess the significance
of the treatment comparisons listed above using one-way ANOVAs.
If the data are normally distributed, most of the data points will lie
within the standard deviations of the mean, and will therefore account for 95%
of the data. P-values of
significant data will be reported, but all analyses can be found in the back of
this report along with its original data.
*Pending
*Pending
Project
Proposal
Chad
King
Questions:
What
will be the impact on olive tree growth among treatments receiving as a water
source the following treatments: well
water, effluent water from low salinity shrimp ponds, and urea fertilizer
applied with well water at rates consistent with regular farm management?
What
is the effect of the land application of aged shrimp sludge from low salinity
culture on olive tree growth?
Background:
As
aquaculture grows in amount of production, variety of culture crops, and
geographic range, the environmental impacts of these concentrated animal feeding
operations must be addressed. One
of the main environmental concerns is nutrient management.
Nutrient-rich effluent waters and solid sludge remaining in ponds after
harvest have the potential to cause eutrophication of natural surface waters,
groundwater contamination, or increased rates of greenhouse gas release if
treatment and disposal of these wastes is not carefully controlled.
One method of safe disposal of these nutrients is application on
agricultural lands. This practice
will not only serve as aquacultural waste disposal, but also improve agriculture
production through the addition of nutrients.
In arid lands, environmental impacts due to the groundwater pumping may
also be decreased through this practice of reusing water, a resource more
valuable than the nutrient inputs. Research
must continue to focus on quantifying the benefits of land application in order
to provide the impetus for more sustainable and environmentally sound waste
management practices.
Experimental
Design:
120
olive trees (one gallon size, one year old from cuttings) were randomly planted
into ten rows of twelve trees. Trees
were randomly assigned to each row (treatment) according to water source, three
each of well water and well water and fertilizer, and four effluent water
treatments. Trees were planted in
the bottom of a single furrow – through which irrigation was applied to the
trees - in sandy soil, in an isolated field where the top layer of soil had
previously been removed during shrimp pond building.
Irrigation is performed at a frequency of one to three weeks (every week
in the summer and less in the winter, in accordance to plant needs).
Irrigation rates were 1000 gallons/row in year one from March to May and
October to December, and 2000 gallons/row in year one from May through October.
In year two, treatment rows will receive 2000 gallon/row each time, to
accommodate larger trees and larger water needs.
Duplicate water samples are taken from the water from each treatment, and
tested for nutrient content and salinity. The
effluent treatment receives water during periods of shrimp production, when the
ponds are full and discharging effluent. Other
times of the year, the effluent treatment receives well water.
Likewise, the well water + fertilization treatment groups receive
fertilizer applications with the scheduled fertilizer application for the rest
of the farm. This treatment group
receives well water only when the rest of the farm is not being fertilized.
Tree height and diameter are measured monthly.
At planting, 7.1 kg of sludge was applied around each of the last six
trees in each row (60 trees total). This
extrapolates to an application rate of 5461.5 kg/ha if only applied to the
planting furrows, or 32,769 kg/ha if applied at this rate to the whole field.
The experimental plot measures 0.133 ha (0.329 acres), and irrigation for
the first year (March to December) was 5,122.6 m3/ha/yr (1.67 AF/acre/yr).
Fertilizer was applied at the rate of 17.05 g of N/tree/application.
This experiment will preferably carried out for two full years, to
account for all of the growth cycle and to take advantage of a complete year of
treatments.
Results:
Results
will be based around the following analysis:
Question
1:
Focus
will be on the growth differences between the three water treatments.
Analysis
of the amount of nutrient applied in effluent and fertilizer on a kg/ha
basis
Analyze
leaf nutrient content in July for a measurement of tree health and nutrient
uptake compared among treatments
Question
2:
Analyze
leaf nutrient content in July for a measurement of tree health and nutrient
uptake compared among treatments
Analyze
the growth difference between trees with sludge and with no sludge
application, across water treatments.
Determine
the amount of nutrients applied on a kg/ha basis.
Analyze
survival rates as a function of sludge application
For
more detailed information on this topic, please visit:
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/aquaculture_images/shrimp/Olive/Olive%20Web.htm
Project
Proposal
Chad
King
Question:
What
application rate of dried shrimp sludge will produce greatest rates of above
ground plant biomass growth and fruit production?
Background:
Aquaculture
sludge accumulates at 11-38% of feed input to growout ponds.
This produces significant accumulation over the course of a 90+ day
growing season. While much of this
material is consumed by bacteria or suspended in the water column and lost with
harvest water, many cubic meters are left on the bottom of inland shrimp ponds
after harvest. This material is
typically removed in preparation for the next growing season.
Rather than dispose of this nutrient rich matter, this study examines the
use of sludge as a garden or field amendment.
Were these applications to prove to be beneficial, sludge could be used
in field application to improve agricultural crop yields, or sold to gardeners
as a high quality soil amendment alternative to mined fertilizers.
Experimental
Design:
Dried
shrimp sludge is mixed with an organic but nutrient-poor potting soil mix across
a ranges of percentages of shrimp sludge to soil by volume (0%, 5%, !0%, 25%).
These 4 soil mixes are placed into 6 liter pots (n=7 for each treatment).
The pots are placed randomly into 4 rows of 7, evenly spaced at .5 meters
apart in a greenhouse. One tomato
seedling is added to each pot. Watering
is uniformly applied by drip irrigation, three times per day for 30 minutes each
time, at a rate of one gallon per hour. As
the tomatoes grow they are pruned according to standard greenhouse procedure,
with trimmings from each plant weighed and recorded.
Support is provided by string each plant up.
Fruit is weighed and measured as it is produced, and at the end of the
season each plant is weighed and measured.
Samples of plant and fruit biomass will be weighed fresh then oven dried
to determine dry weight randomly throughout the experiment, to determine a
standard ratio of fresh weight to dry weight from which dry weight of plants and
fruit can be calculated without drying all samples.
This experiment will continue for the length of one growing season,
terminating between one and two months after fruiting begins.
Total time of the experiment will therefore be between four and five
months total. Upon termination, all
plants and remaining fruit will be harvested and weighed.
Conclusions:
The
treatment which produces the most above ground plant biomass and fruit will be
identified as the best application rate for tomatoes. Extrapolations will be drawn to determine the amount of
sludge needed for field application, the area of shrimp ponds needed to provide
ample sludge to treat one hectare, and the amount of N, P, and K initially
applied to each tomato plant.
Project
proposal
Kalb
Stevenson
Question:
Can
alligators be raised as a sustainable aquaculture crop in arid environments
using mortalities from chicken farms as a high-protein dietary supplement?
Background:
Alligator
farming is a thriving industry in the Southeast, and has increased tremendously
in the past decade. The expensive
hides and tasty meat are the main output crops from gator farming.
In large farms, however, gator feed can get quite expensive, as these
ferocious reptiles take years to grow to mature size.
Chicken
farms, such as Hickman’s Egg Ranch in Arizona, house millions of chickens in
their facilities. Each week,
hundreds of chickens die and must be buried, wasting a valuable crop. These dead
chickens could be gathered together, frozen, sanitized, and transported to
alligator farms to use as a high-protein supplement in gator food to produce
shiny hides and strong, healthy reptiles!
This
integration of aquaculture (alligator farming) and agriculture (chicken farming)
would decrease the cost of burial for chicken farmers and decrease the cost of
feed for alligator farmers. Alligators
also produce waste that is full of concentrated and pungent ammonia. This
waste could be harnessed in aquaculture facilities to use as fertilizer on
agricultural fields that would grow grain to once again feed chickens.
Much of integrative aquaculture and agriculture is nutrient cycling,
which allows growers to save money and resources to be conserved.