Quartz 5

Growth Performance and Nutrient Composition of Mustard Green (Brassica juncea) cultured in Aquaponics Systems and Hydroponic System

Properties1
tagsmeta/type/experiment, meta/region/southeast-asia, meta/fish/tilapia, meta/plant/mustard-green

25 min read

Growth Performance and Nutrient Composition of Mustard Green (Brassica juncea) cultured in Aquaponics Systems and Hydroponic System

Metadata

  • Cite key: prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021
  • Item type: Journal Article
  • Authors: Prayogo, Agustono, B.S. Rahardja, M. Amin
  • Affiliation: Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine, Universitas Airlangga, Jl. Mulyorejo, Mulyorejo, Surabaya 60115, Indonesia (all authors)
  • Journal: Journal of Aquaculture and Fish Health 10(3) (2021) 373-379
  • Date: 09/2021
  • Date added: 2026-08-10
  • DOI: 10.20473/jafh.v10i3.26593
  • Funding: Universitas Airlangga, scheme “Riset Kolaborasi Luar Negeri,” contract number 408/UN3.14/PT/2020
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.20473/jafh.v10i3.26593
  • PDF: Prayogo et al. - 2021 - Growth Performance and Nutrient Composition of Mustard Green (Brassica juncea) cultured in Aquaponic.pdf

Opinion

A small, tidy head-to-head of aquaponic-effluent vs. commercial-fertilizer hydroponic culture of mustard green, with genuine triplicate physical replication and a formal t-test throughout — structurally similar to pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012’s aquaponics-vs-hydroponics comparisons, but far thinner on system characterization: no pH, dissolved oxygen, EC, or water-temperature values are reported anywhere, despite a “TDS and EC Meter” being listed among the materials, and the fish side gets essentially no performance data (no final weight, survival, or FCR — this is a plant-quality paper wearing an aquaculture-journal cover). The core comparative claim (aquaponic mustard green statistically indistinguishable from hydroponic on growth, proximate composition, and nitrate availability) is plausible and consistent with several other papers this vault already holds (jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018, lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019), but the paper undercuts its own headline nitrate-parity claim: Table 3 marks aquaponic and hydroponic nitrate with different significance-letter superscripts (which, by the table’s own footnote, means “significantly different”), while the abstract, results text, and conclusion all state nitrate was not significantly different. That contradiction, plus a garbled pair of t/df statistics in the Results text (see Extraction notes), suggests this passed through review with limited statistical proofreading. Still worth keeping as an independent low-tech replicate of the aquaponics-hydroponics parity finding for a Brassica species not otherwise well represented in this vault.

Abstract

Aquaculture waste is rich in various nutrient contents from uneaten feed, feces, or urine including nitrogen in terms of total ammonium nitrogen (TAN) and nitrite. With the help of nitrifying bacteria, the nitrogen wastes can be converted into nitrate which is one of the main components of commercial fertilizer in agriculture. This study aimed at comparing the growth and nutrient contents (crude protein, crude fat, energy, and antioxidant) of mustard Green (Brassica juncea) cultured in different culture media (aquaculture waste which is generally known as the aquaponics system vs hydroponic system which used commercial inorganic fertilizer). The aquaponics system was prepared by previously growing Nile tilapia fingerling, Oreochromis niloticus, for ~2 weeks to reach nitrate concentration on the effluent water ~30mg/L. Mustard Green was cultured in the system for 30 days. Nutrient availability in both systems was also monitored by measuring nitrate content and total dissolved solids. The results showed that the growth, nutrient content including crude protein, crude fat, total energy, and antioxidant content of the vegetable were not significantly different between the system, p>0.05. Nutrient availability especially in terms of nitrate was also not significantly different between the culture system. These results suggest that the aquaponics system could be used to produce vegetables with the same growth and nutrient content as a vegetable grown in the aquaponics system. Furthermore, aquaculture waste can be used to replace inorganic fertilizer to grow vegetables which later contribute to the reduction of total production cost.

Summary

The authors ran three independent replicate small-scale aquaponic units (25 L fish rearing tank + 20 L waste-treatment tank + 4 PVC pipes carrying a hydroponic component, each stocked with 24 Nile tilapia fingerlings, 1.12±0.1 g, fed a 41%-crude-protein commercial diet to satiation 4x/day) against three independent replicate hydroponic units (25 L reservoir, commercial AB-mix inorganic fertilizer solution), at an experimental field station in Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, over August-September 2020. Each system’s nutrient solution was allowed/adjusted to reach ~30 mg/L nitrate and a matching total-dissolved-solids band before a 7-day-old mustard green (Brassica juncea) seedling was transplanted in and grown for 30 days. They measured initial/final plant weight, weight gain and total harvested biomass per tank, proximate composition (water content, crude protein, crude fat, ash, energy) and antioxidant content of the harvested vegetable, and nitrate/TDS in the culture water, comparing aquaponic vs. hydroponic values with an independent t-test (p<0.05). No parameter — growth, proximate composition, antioxidant content, or nitrate/TDS availability — differed significantly between the aquaponic and hydroponic treatments. The paper concludes that fish effluent can substitute for commercial inorganic fertilizer to grow mustard green with equivalent growth and nutrient quality, framing this as a route to reduced production costs and more eco-friendly aquaculture. Notably, the paper reports essentially no data on the fish themselves beyond stocking weight and feed composition (no final weight, survival, or FCR) — the design and reporting are entirely oriented around the vegetable side of the comparison.

Experiment data

  • Location: Experimental field station, Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia; proximate analysis at the Laboratory of Chemistry, University of Mataram
  • Design: 2 treatments (aquaponic effluent water vs. hydroponic AB-mix fertilizer solution), each replicated with 3 independent physical units; each aquaponic unit = 25 L fish rearing tank + 20 L waste-treatment tank + 4 PVC pipes for the hydroponic component; each hydroponic unit = 25 L reservoir feeding the same style of PVC arrangement. Nitrate/TDS equalized (~30 mg/L nitrate) between treatments before transplanting. Not explicitly described as “randomized” (see Extraction notes on the experiment/quasi-experiment judgment call).
  • Replicates / n: 3 independent units per treatment
  • Duration: Aquaponic systems pre-conditioned with fish alone for ~2 weeks (abstract) to build nitrate to ~30 mg/L; mustard green then cultured for 30 days in both systems to harvest. Overall project period stated as 22 Aug-23 Sep 2020 (~32 days)
  • Organisms: Mustard green (Brassica juncea) / Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), fingerlings
  • Statistics: Independent-samples t-test, p<0.05, SPSS v22
  • Growth (Table 1): Final weight 37.38±25.23 g (AP) vs 43.38±32.65 g (HYD), ns; total harvested biomass 1,794.14±224.70 g/tank (AP) vs 2,082.16±142.92 g/tank (HYD), ns
  • Proximate composition (Table 2): water content, crude protein, crude fat, ash, energy, antioxidant content all ns between AP and HYD
  • Nitrate (NO3) and TDS (Table 3): Nitrate 32±1.25 mg/L (AP) vs 30±0.06 mg/L (HYD); TDS 1,001±83.29 mg/L (AP) vs 973.33±152.75 mg/L (HYD) — text/abstract/conclusion state nitrate ns, but Table 3’s own superscript convention marks nitrate as significant (see Extraction notes, WARN-MATERIAL)

Growth and biomass

This paper: Starting from statistically indistinguishable initial weights (~3.06-3.14 g, ns), mustard green final weight after 30 days did not differ significantly between the aquaponic (37.38±25.23 g) and hydroponic (43.38±32.65 g) treatments, nor did weight gain (33.02±0.76 vs 39.21±0.50 g) or total harvested biomass per tank (1,794.14±224.70 vs 2,082.16±142.92 g), all p>0.05 (Table 1). The very large SDs relative to the means for final weight (e.g. ±25.23 g on a 37.38 g mean) suggest substantial within-treatment variability, though the paper does not discuss this.

Compared with:

  • lennardComparisonPlantGrowth2019 — found the growth rate of lettuce, dill, rocket, coriander and parsley cultured via NFT aquaponics matched an NFT hydroponic system, corroborating this paper’s no-difference finding across a different set of crops (p.375-376)
  • jordanYieldLettuceGrown2018 — lettuce yield in aquaponics was not significantly different from hydroponics using different substrates, directly corroborating (p.376)
  • todo Bittsanszky et al. 2016 — states green leafy vegetables such as mustard green thrive well in aquaponics although some micronutrient concentrations may be slightly lower than hydroponics (p.376)

Proximate composition and antioxidant content

This paper: No significant differences were found between aquaponic and hydroponic mustard green for water content (97.70±0.91% vs 91.68±0.16%), crude protein (30.22±3.22% vs 26.15±2.85%), crude fat (0.40±0.13% vs 0.37±0.18%), energy (3,227.00±409.26 vs 2,952.00±208.60 Joule/g), antioxidant content (70.78±4.36% vs 79.81±8.41%), or ash (1.40±0.19% vs 1.56±0.32%) (Table 2). The running text supporting this table contains a statistical-reporting oddity (two different “t=” values quoted per sentence with a non-standard degrees-of-freedom notation) that does not change any reported mean/SD but reflects poorly on the precision of the write-up (see Extraction notes, WARN-MINOR).

Compared with:

  • todo Delgadillo-Díaz et al. 2019 — creole tomato quality (antioxidant, flavonoid, carotenoid content) in an aquaponic system was very similar to organic soil culture, corroborating the general “aquaponic nutrient quality is comparable” finding across a different crop (p.376)

Nutrient availability (nitrate and TDS)

This paper: Culture-water nitrate (32±1.25 mg/L AP vs 30±0.06 mg/L HYD) and TDS (1,001±83.29 mg/L AP vs 973.33±152.75 mg/L HYD) were both targeted to ~30 mg/L nitrate before transplanting and monitored through the 30-day trial. The abstract, Results narrative, and Conclusion all state nitrate was not significantly different between systems (p>0.05), but Table 3 itself uses different significance-letter superscripts for the two nitrate values, which by the table’s own footnote convention denotes a significant difference — directly contradicting the text (see Extraction notes, WARN-MATERIAL). Separately, the paper never states whether “Nitrate” here means NO3 or NO3-N, a distinction that matters by a factor of 4.43 (WARN-CHECK).

Compared with:

  • todo Roosta and Hamidpour 2011 — reported hydroponic TDS should exceed 300 mg/L for adequate nutrient availability; both this paper’s systems (973-1,001 mg/L) are well above that threshold (p.377)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

  • todo Bittsanszky, A., Uzinger, N., Gyulai, G., Mathis, A., Junge, R., Villarroel, M., Kotzen, B. and Kőmíves, T. (2016) — Nutrient supply of plants in aquaponic systems, Ecocycles 2(2):17-20 — states micronutrient concentration in aquaponics may be slightly lower for green leafy vegetables
  • todo Delgadillo-Díaz, M., Gullian-Klanian, M., Sosa-Moguel, O., Sauri-Duch, E. and Cuevas-Glory, L.F. (2019) — Evaluation of physico-chemical characteristics, antioxidant compounds and antioxidant capacity in creole tomatoes in an aquaponic system or organic soil, International Journal of Vegetable Science 25(2):124-137
  • todo Roosta, H.R. and Hamidpour, M. (2011) — Effects of foliar application of some macro- and micro-nutrients on tomato plants in aquaponic and hydroponic systems, Scientia Horticulturae 129(3):396-402 — cited here for the >300 mg/L TDS adequacy threshold

Extraction notes

Type classification judgment call: Recorded as experiment. The paper reports a controlled comparison of two defined treatments (aquaponic effluent vs. hydroponic AB-mix), true physical replication (3 independent units per treatment), and formal statistical testing (independent t-test, p<0.05, SPSS v22) — meeting SCHEMA.md Part 1’s simpler test. As with pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012, the Methods section never uses the word “randomized” for how treatments were assigned to physical units, which is the specific wording SCHEMA.md Part 2’s decision rule 2 looks for to separate experiment from quasi-experiment. Given the complete, symmetric 3-vs-3 replicated design and the formal statistics actually reported, experiment was judged the better fit, consistent with the same judgment call made for pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012.

⚠️MATERIAL Nitrate significance, Table 3 vs. running text (Abstract p.373, Results p.377, Conclusion p.378, vs. Table 3 p.378). Abstract: “Nutrient availability especially in terms of nitrate was also not significantly different between the culture system.” Results (Nutrient Availability): “Average values of nitrate in both culture systems were not significantly different, all p>0.05.” Conclusion repeats the same claim. However, Table 3 reports Nitrate as “Aquaponics 32 ± 1.25 (superscript N)” and “Hydroponics 30 ± 0.06 (superscript M)” — DIFFERENT superscript letters — and the table’s own note states “Values with the different superscripts in the same row indicated that there was a significant difference at p<0.05.” By the table’s own stated convention this marks nitrate as significantly different, directly contradicting the three text passages. TDS in the same table uses matching superscripts (p/p), consistent with its own “not significantly different” text. Recorded ns as the basis for the trials.csv NO3-N cell, since three independent text statements agree and only one notational detail (plausibly a superscript-letter typo) disagrees; the raw values (32±1.25 AP, 30±0.06 HYD mg/L) are unaffected either way and are what is recorded, prefixed ⚠️ in the cell. Unresolved, verify before citing. Added to REVIEW.md.

⚠️CHECK NO3-N basis unstated, Table 3 (p.378). The paper reports “Nitrate” concentration (Aquaponics 32±1.25, Hydroponics 30±0.06 mg/L) measured with a HANNA HI 96786 Nitrate Portable Photometer, but never states whether this is on an NO3 (nitrate ion) basis or an NO3-N (nitrate-nitrogen) basis — a difference of a factor of 4.43, per SCHEMA.md’s own listed example of this ambiguity. Recorded as stated (32, 30 mg/L) in the NO3-N column since that is the schema’s water-nitrate column and no other candidate value exists, but the basis itself is UNCLEAR. Added to REVIEW.md.

⚠️MINOR statistical reporting, Table 2 discussion (p.377). Running text gives “Water content of mustard green ranged from 91-97% (t=1.74, df 10,9, t=0.11)” and “crude protein was quite high which was 26-30% (t=1.50, df 4,2, t=0.24)” — each sentence states “t=” twice with two different numbers, and the df notation is internally non-standard (an independent t-test of two n=3 groups has df=4; “df 10,9” and “df 4,2” do not match this). Most likely the second “t=” value in each pair was meant to be “p=” (i.e., t=1.74, p=0.11 and t=1.50, p=0.24, both consistent with Table 2’s shared-superscript “a” = ns on every row). No cell is affected — the water content and crude protein percentages themselves (Table 2) are unambiguous — flagged only for transparency about source copy-editing quality.

[not reported] fields, grouped:

  • Fish: Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K% (only crude protein 41% given), % of body weight, Fish size final, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days) — the paper reports NO fish-side growth/harvest/mortality data at all beyond stocking count, stocking weight, and feed identity/frequency; only the vegetable’s own weight and biomass are measured.
  • Water: Water recycle (L/min), Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, Dissolved Oxygen, EC (only TDS is reported, not EC, despite a “TDS and EC Meter” being named in Materials), Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N — pH is never mentioned anywhere in this paper; DO, EC and water temperature are likewise absent despite being commonly-monitored aquaponics parameters.
  • Plant: Plant Category, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter, System type, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD — tissue nitrate was never assessed (only water-column nitrate).
  • Site: Lat, Long (only the place name “Mataram, West-Nusa Tenggara” is given, no coordinates stated; not filled from outside knowledge per the prime directive), Average room Temperature.

NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (24 fish per 25 L tank stated, no kg/m3 — computing one would be derivation); FCR, SGR (feed actually consumed is never quantified, only “fed to satiation for 5 min”); Fish size final, Fish weight gain, Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Total Feed (kg) (no fish-side data given at all). Fish trial duration (days) — the Abstract states the aquaponics system was grown with fish alone for “~2 weeks” before mustard green was added, and separately states mustard green was cultured “for 30 days”; these are two different quantities (a pre-conditioning/cycling phase vs. the plant’s own culture period), not a conflicting statement of one figure, so this is not flagged as a contradiction per SCHEMA.md’s “not a contradiction” rule. No single total fish-in-tank duration is ever stated, and summing the two phases (~44 days) would be derivation; recorded NR. Plant dry matter (%) — the paper reports Water content (%) in Table 2 but never states a “dry matter” or “dry weight” percentage; the arithmetic complement (100 minus water content) is not itself an authors’ stated value, so left NR; the water-content values are instead recorded in plant.csv. System type, Plant Category, Fish Category, Water classification — the paper never applies a categorical term to any of these.

NO COLUMN items (full values preserved in the trial row’s Experimental Remarks): Total Dissolved Solids (TDS, Table 3) — 1,001±83.29 mg/L (AP) vs 973.33±152.75 mg/L (HYD), ns; no dedicated trials.csv column and not routed to plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (water chemistry does not belong there regardless of shape). AB-mix hydroponic fertilizer full recipe (p.375, from Zamriyetti et al. 2019). HYD-side Plant fresh weight (43.38±32.65 g/plant; AP-side value occupies the trials.csv column per vault convention). Initial Weight and Weight gain from Table 1 (both treatments) — the paper’s own directly-stated per-plant WG = Wt − Wo, with no dedicated trials.csv column separate from the fish-specific “Fish weight gain” column.

plant_measurements.csv scope: Table 2’s proximate panel (water content, crude protein, crude fat, ash, energy) and antioxidant content were extracted to plant.csv (categories proximate and biochemistry respectively), one row per analyte per system (AP/HYD), 12 data rows total. Table 1’s growth/biomass data was NOT duplicated into plant.csv since it is not a tissue analyte (it belongs in trials.csv’s Plant fresh weight / AP / HYD columns, per SCHEMA.md’s plant.csv scope, which covers biochemistry/mineral/microbiology/proximate analytes only). Table 3’s nitrate/TDS water-chemistry data was also excluded from plant.csv per the same water-chemistry exclusion rule; nitrate has a dedicated trials.csv column (NO3-N) and TDS has no column home anywhere (see NO COLUMN above) — flagging per SCHEMA.md’s instruction to say so rather than force-fit or silently drop it.

Tags judgment call: Tagged Meta/Fish/Tilapia (Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, the sole aquaculture species, reusing the existing tag) and Meta/Plant/Mustard-Green (reusing the tag introduced by endutaNutrientRemovalAquaculture2011 rather than creating a new leaf). Meta/Region/Southeast-Asia reused from the same paper (Indonesia falls under this existing leaf; no new region tag needed).

New wikilink targets introduced: Prayogo, Agustono, B.S. Rahardja, M. Amin (no existing notes for these authors found in the vault; Prayogo and Agustono appear to be single/mononymous Indonesian author names — Crossref repeats the same string in both the given-name and family-name fields for each). Mustard green (Brassica juncea) and Nitrate (NO3) introduced as new concept-link candidates (not found as existing notes; the vault does have a related but distinct Tissue nitrate content / Tissue nitrate (NO3) pair used for plant-tissue nitrate elsewhere — this paper’s nitrate is water-column only, so linked separately rather than reusing those). Reused existing canonical form Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) (matches pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012’s usage).

PDF quality: Clean, fully extractable text layer throughout (7 pages, single-/two-column JAFH layout), no OCR issues. Minor source typos transcribed as printed: “socket” for “Soxhlet” (fat extraction method, p.376) and the Indonesian row label “Antioksidan” in Table 2 (English “antioxidant content” used in the surrounding prose and in this note).

Source: Prayogo et al. - 2021 - Growth Performance and Nutrient Composition of Mustard Green (Brassica juncea) cultured in Aquaponic.pdf

Data Tables

Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's trials.csv / plant_measurements.csv datasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).

Trial Parameters

prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1

Fish

FieldValue
FishNile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), fingerlings
Protein41
Fish size initial1.12 +/- 0.1
Feed routineFour times daily (8 a.m., 11 a.m., 2 p.m., 5 p.m.), fed to satiation for 5 minutes each feeding (p.375)
Feed regimeCommercial diet containing 41% crude protein (p.375)

Water

FieldValue
Water volume in the system25 (fish rearing tank only; each aquaponic unit also has a separate 20 L waste-treatment tank and 4 PVC pipes for the hydroponic component, combined system total not stated)
Water typeWell water (p.375)
NO3-N⚠️32 +/- 1.25

Plant

FieldValue
PlantMustard green (Brassica juncea)
Details7-day-old seedlings transplanted into each system once aquaponic effluent nitrate reached ~30 mg/L (TDS 900-1200 mg/L) or hydroponic AB-mix solution was set to ~30 mg/L nitrate (TDS 900-1000 mg/L); cultured for 30 days to harvest (p.375)
Days Plant after transplant30
Plant fresh weight37.38 +/- 25.23

System & Setup

FieldValue
Media DetailsAquaponic unit = 25 L rearing tank + 20 L waste treatment tank + 4 PVC pipes for the hydroponic component (holder/media type in the PVC pipes not stated); hydroponic unit = 25 L sum/reservoir tank (same volume as the aquaponic rearing tank), PVC arrangement not explicitly restated for HYD (p.374-375)
Biological system already in useY (20 L waste treatment tank per aquaponic unit, positioned between the 25 L fish rearing tank and the PVC hydroponic component; system pre-conditioned by growing fish alone until effluent nitrate reached ~30 mg/L before mustard green was introduced (p.373, p.375). Specific biofilter media/nitrifying inoculant not described.)
Iron supplementedN (Aquaponic system received no added iron, only fish-effluent water; the hydroponic control’s AB mix fertilizer contains two chelated-iron sources (4.75 g/kg C10H12N2O8FeNa.3H2O and 2.47 g/kg C18H16N2O6FeNa, HYD only, p.375; recipe from Zamriyetti et al. 2019))
RemineralizationN (Aquaponic water not remineralized/fertilized beyond fish waste; used once effluent nitrate naturally reached ~30 mg/L (p.373, 375))
Nutrient supplementedN (Aquaponic treatment received no supplemental fertilizer (fish effluent only); hydroponic control used commercial AB mix inorganic fertilizer diluted per manufacturer protocol, full macro/micronutrient salt recipe given in Methods p.375 (from Zamriyetti et al. 2019), targeted to ~30 mg/L nitrate and TDS 900-1,000 mg/L)
EquipmentHANNA HI 96786 Nitrate Portable Photometer; TDS/EC meter; ruler; digital balance; Kjeldahl apparatus (crude protein); Soxhlet extractor (crude fat, printed as ‘socket’); bomb calorimeter (energy); SPSS v22 (statistics)
Control ParametersNitrate targeted to ~30 mg/L in both systems before mustard green introduction; TDS targeted 900-1200 mg/L (AP) and 900-1000 mg/L (HYD); nitrate measured daily and TDS analyzed twice weekly throughout the 30-day culture period; water lost to evaporation replaced with well water
CombinationNile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and mustard green (Brassica juncea); aquaponic fish-effluent water vs hydroponic AB-mix inorganic fertilizer, PVC-pipe hydroponic component in both systems

Site

FieldValue
RegionSoutheast Asia
CountryIndonesia

Results & Statistics

FieldValue
Measured Unitg (initial/final weight, weight gain, total biomass per tank); % (water content, crude protein, crude fat, ash, antioxidant); Joule/g (energy); mg/L (nitrate, TDS)
Statistic DetailsIndependent samples t-test, p<0.05, SPSS version 22 (p.376)
Statistically analysedY
Replicates (n)3
AP1794.14 +/- 224.70
HYD2082.16 +/- 142.92

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = the aquaponic treatment (mustard green grown on Nile tilapia effluent water, 3 independent replicate systems). Paired control = the hydroponic treatment (mustard green grown on AB-mix commercial inorganic fertilizer solution, 3 independent replicate systems), recorded in the HYD-labelled cells/remarks. Only one aquaponic treatment in this paper (single fish stocking density, single nitrate target), so one row. | WARN-MATERIAL Nitrate significance, Table 3 vs running text (Abstract p.373, Results p.377, Conclusion p.378, vs Table 3 p.378). Abstract: ‘Nutrient availability especially in terms of nitrate was also not significantly different between the culture system.’ Results (Nutrient Availability): ‘Average values of nitrate in both culture systems were not significantly different, all p>0.05.’ Conclusion repeats the same claim. However Table 3 reports Nitrate as ‘Aquaponics 32 +/- 1.25 (superscript N)’ and ‘Hydroponics 30 +/- 0.06 (superscript M)’ — DIFFERENT superscript letters — and the table’s own note states ‘Values with the different superscripts in the same row indicated that there was a significant difference at p<0.05.’ By the table’s own stated convention this marks nitrate as significantly different, directly contradicting the three text passages. TDS in the same table uses matching superscripts (p/p), consistent with its own stated ‘not significantly different’ pattern. Recorded ns (not significantly different) as the basis for the NO3-N cell, since three independent text statements agree and only one notational detail (plausibly a superscript-letter typo) disagrees; the raw values (32+/-1.25 AP, 30+/-0.06 HYD mg/L) are unaffected either way and are what is recorded. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-CHECK NO3-N basis unstated, Table 3 (p.378). The paper reports ‘Nitrate’ concentration (Aquaponics 32+/-1.25, Hydroponics 30+/-0.06 mg/L) measured with a HANNA HI 96786 Nitrate Portable Photometer, but never states whether this is on an NO3 (nitrate ion) basis or an NO3-N (nitrate-nitrogen) basis — a difference of a factor of 4.43 per SCHEMA.md’s own example of this ambiguity. Recorded as stated (32, 30 mg/L) in the NO3-N column since that is the schema’s water-nitrate column and no other candidate value exists, but the basis itself is UNCLEAR. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MINOR statistical reporting, Table 2 discussion (p.377). Running text gives ‘Water content of mustard green ranged from 91-97% (t=1.74, df 10,9, t=0.11)’ and ‘crude protein was quite high which was 26-30% (t=1.50, df 4,2, t=0.24)’ — each sentence states ‘t=’ twice with two different numbers, and the df notation is internally non-standard (an independent t-test of two n=3 groups has df=4; ‘df 10,9’ and ‘df 4,2’ do not match this). Most likely the second ‘t=’ value in each pair was meant to be ‘p=’ (i.e., t=1.74, p=0.11 and t=1.50, p=0.24, both consistent with Table 2’s shared-superscript ‘a’ = ns on every row). No cell is affected — the water content and crude protein percentages themselves (Table 2) are unambiguous — flagged only for transparency about source copy-editing quality. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (paper gives 24 fish per 25 L tank, no stated kg/m3 — computing one would be derivation); FCR, SGR (feed amount actually consumed is never quantified, only ‘fed to satiation for 5 min’, so neither can be computed or extracted); Fish size final, Fish weight gain, Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Total Feed (kg) — the paper reports NO fish-side growth/harvest/mortality data at all; only the vegetable’s initial/final weight and biomass are measured (Table 1). All fish inputs given (24 fish/tank, 1.12+/-0.1 g stocking weight, 41% crude protein feed, 4x/day feeding to satiation) are recorded in their own fields but not combined into any derived output. Fish trial duration (days) — the Abstract states the aquaponics system was ‘previously’ grown with fish for ‘~2 weeks’ before mustard green was added, and separately states mustard green was ‘cultured in the system for 30 days’; these are two different quantities (a pre-conditioning/cycling phase vs the plant’s own culture period), not a conflicting statement of one figure, so this is not flagged as a contradiction — SCHEMA.md’s ‘not a contradiction’ rule applies. No single total fish-in-tank duration (e.g., ~44 days summing both phases) is ever stated by the paper, and summing them would be derivation; recorded NR. Plant dry matter (%) — the paper reports Water content (%) in Table 2 (97.70+/-0.91 AP, 91.68+/-0.16 HYD) but never states a ‘dry matter’ or ‘dry weight’ percentage; the arithmetic complement (100 minus water content) is not itself a value the authors stated, so left NR per the no-derivation rule; the water-content values are instead recorded in plant.csv. System type, Plant Category, Fish Category, Water classification — the paper never applies a categorical term to any of these (per SCHEMA.md’s own-wording rule, not substituted). | NO COLUMN: Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Table 3 (p.378) — Aquaponics 1,001 +/- 83.29 mg/L, Hydroponics 973.33 +/- 152.75 mg/L, same superscript ‘p’ on both (not significantly different, consistent with running text); has no dedicated column in trials.csv and was not routed into plant.csv per SCHEMA.md (water chemistry, however well-shaped, does not belong there). AB mix (hydroponic) fertilizer full recipe (p.375, from Zamriyetti et al. 2019): 204.3 g/kg 5Ca(NO3)2.NH4NO3.10H2O, 21.5 g/kg KNO3, 4.75 g/kg C10H12N2O8FeNa.3H2O, 2.47 g/kg C18H16N2O6FeNa, 49 g/kg K2SO4, 44.7 g/kg KH2PO4, 92.2 g/kg MgSO4.7H2O, 8.4 g/kg (NH4)2SO4, 0.573 g/kg H3BO3, 0.134 g/kg ZnEDTA, 0.770 g/kg MnEDTA, 0.143 g/kg CuEDTA, 0.025 g/kg Na2MoO4.2H2O. HYD Plant fresh weight (Final Weight, Table 1): 43.38 +/- 32.65 g/plant (the AP-side value, 37.38 +/- 25.23 g, is what occupies the Plant fresh weight column, per vault convention established in pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012/mourantianBasilFunctionalGrowth2023). Initial Weight, Table 1: 3.06 +/- 0.42 g (AP) / 3.14 +/- 0.57 g (HYD), ns (same superscript ‘a’) — starting weight of the transplanted seedlings, no dedicated column. Weight gain, Table 1: 33.02 +/- 0.76 g (AP) / 39.21 +/- 0.50 g (HYD), ns (same superscript ‘x’) — the paper’s own directly-stated WG = Wt - Wo per plant, not derived by extraction, but has no dedicated trials.csv column separate from ‘Fish weight gain’ (which is fish-specific). | [not reported], grouped: Fish — Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, feed N/P/K% (only crude protein 41% given), % of body weight, Fish size final, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (days). Water — Water recycle (L/min), Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, Aq pH, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, Dissolved Oxygen, EC (only TDS is reported, not EC, despite the ‘TDS and EC Meter’ instrument named in Materials), Water temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N — pH is never mentioned anywhere in this paper; DO, EC and water temperature are likewise absent despite being commonly-monitored aquaponics parameters. Plant — Plant Category, Plants/m2, SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter, System type, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD. Site — Lat, Long (only the place name ‘Mataram, West-Nusa Tenggara’ is given, no coordinates stated; not filled from outside knowledge per the prime directive), Average room Temperature. | Type classification judgment call: Recorded as experiment. The paper reports a controlled comparison of two defined treatments (aquaponic effluent vs hydroponic AB-mix), true physical replication (3 independent units per treatment), and formal statistical testing (independent t-test, p<0.05, SPSS v22) — meeting SCHEMA.md Part 1’s simpler test. As with pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012, the Methods section never uses the word ‘randomized’ for how treatments were assigned to physical units, which is the specific wording SCHEMA.md Part 2’s decision rule 2 looks for to separate experiment from quasi-experiment. Given the complete, symmetric 3-vs-3 replicated design and the formal statistics actually reported, experiment was judged the better fit, consistent with the same judgment call made for pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012. | Tags judgment call: Tagged Meta/Fish/Tilapia (Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, the sole aquaculture species, reusing the existing tag) and Meta/Plant/Mustard-Green (reusing the tag introduced by endutaNutrientRemovalAquaculture2011 rather than creating a new leaf). Meta/Region/Southeast-Asia reused from the same paper (Indonesia falls under this existing leaf; no new region tag needed). | New wikilink targets introduced: Prayogo, Agustono, B.S. Rahardja, M. Amin (no existing notes for these authors found in the vault; Prayogo and Agustono appear to be single/mononymous Indonesian author names — Crossref repeats the same string in both the given-name and family-name fields for each). Reused existing canonical form Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) (matches pantanellaAquaponicsHydroponicsProduction2012’s usage). | PDF quality: Clean, fully extractable text layer throughout (7 pages, JAFH layout), no OCR issues. Minor source typos transcribed as printed: ‘socket’ for ‘Soxhlet’ (fat extraction method, p.376) and the Indonesian row label ‘Antioksidan’ in Table 2 (English ‘antioxidant content’ used in prose).

Plant Measurements

TrialSystemCategoryAnalyteValueUnitSig.Location
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1APproximateWater content97.70 ± 0.91%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1HYDproximateWater content91.68 ± 0.16%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1APproximateCrude protein30.22 ± 3.22%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1HYDproximateCrude protein26.15 ± 2.85%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1APproximateCrude fat0.40 ± 0.13%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1HYDproximateCrude fat0.37 ± 0.18%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1APproximateEnergy content3227.00 ± 409.26Joule/gnsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1HYDproximateEnergy content2952.00 ± 208.60Joule/gnsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1APproximateAsh1.40 ± 0.19%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1HYDproximateAsh1.56 ± 0.32%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1APbiochemistryAntioxidant content70.78 ± 4.36%nsTable 2
prayogoGrowthPerformanceNutrient2021-T1HYDbiochemistryAntioxidant content79.81 ± 8.41%nsTable 2

Graph View

Backlinks