adler

Document Sample
adler Powered By Docstoc
					=========================================================================
Date:    Sat, 4 Mar 2000 21:45:27 +0100
Subject:  welcome and opening remarks
From: Kangmin Li [cosmos@public1.wx.js.cn]

On behalf of the organizers of the MFA Internet Conference, I like to
welcome Dr. Paul Adler and the audience to the discussion of Dr. Paul R.
Adler's paper entitled "Phytoremediation of aquaculture effluents". I am
your chairman and the co-chairman is Dr. Asifo O Ajuyah.

When I attended the 1996 Beijing International Ecological Engineering
Conference, I bought a book "Recycling the Resource Ecological Engineering
for Wastewater Treatment", Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Ecological Engineering for Wastewater Treatment, School of
Engineering Wadenswil-Zurich 18-22 September 1995. Dr. Paul Adler et al.'s
paper "Evaluation of the Effect of a Conveyor Production Strategy on
Lettuce and Basil Productivity and Phosphorus Removal from Aquaculture
Wastewater" attracted my notice. I also introduced this paper to my friends
in Zhejiang University and CNRRI. Aquaculture effluents are one of
components which cause cultural eutrophication of rivers and lakes.
Aquaculture effluents are diluted and purified by self-purification of
natural waters around fishponds. In general, the effluents should not
exceed one eighth of a receiving water body, or they will pollute it. If
the natural water around fishponds has already been eutrophicated, it is
impossible for rivers and lakes to purify the aquaculture effluents. Then,
eutrophication is getting worse. On the other side of a coin, aquaculture
effluents are resources. We should utilize the nutrients contained in them.
So we can learn something from this paper.

The author - Dr. Paul Adler - received his Ph.D. from Purdue University,
where he was trained in plant and soil biology. He is presently a scientist
with the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service where his research program focuses on aquaculture, sustainability,
and the environment. His research focus is on using ecological and resource
recovery approaches to enhance sustainability and reduce the environmental
impact of aquaculture production. His research interests include integrated
farming systems development, agroecosystems, effects of agricultural
practices on soil phosphorus and surface water quality, wetlands for water
quality improvement, use of ecosystems services for on-farm byproduct
recovery, and phytoremediation.

The co-chairperson of this paper discussion is Dr. Asifo O Ajuyah from the
University of the South Pacific in Western Samoa. He was graduated from the
University of Alberta Canada, where he obtained a PhD in Poultry Nutrition.
Currently he is a Senior Lecturer in Pig and Poultry Production. His
research is on local feed improvement and development for commercial pigs
and chicken in the island countries. Dr. Ajuyah is also interested in the
application of integrated bii-systems in islands and particularly in the
use of anaerobically digested effluents of animal wastes.

Allow me to declare the opening of the discussion session.

Li Kangmin
Chairman
Asian Pacific Regional Research and Training Center for Integrated Fish
Farming

=========================================================================
Date:    Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:28:20 +0100
Subject:  balancing fish and plant production
From: Jacky Foo [foo@swipnet.se]

Hello Paul

thank you for a very interesting and well written paper. I have some
comments and questions.

>In this fish production system, solids are removed with a triangle
>filter. The triangle filter is able to remove about 80% of the P excreted
>by the fish with the biosolids, leaving about 20% of the P in the effluent.

what do you do with the filtered material, is there any use for this material ?

>Production of 50,000 pounds of rainbow trout (will consume
>about 60,000 pounds feed at a feed conversion ratio of
>1.2 pounds feed/pound gain) generates 98.4 Kg P. Of that
>98.4 Kg P, 22.6 Kg P is in the effluent and the rest (77%) is
>in the biosolids (Heinen et al., 1996). It will take
>12,600-16,700 ft 2 greenhouse space to remove 22.6 kg of P
>from the effluent.

If we compare the above scenario operation to that of a conventional
hydroponic lettuce production of the same scale, what would the costs of
chemicals/plant nutrient input costs ?

Could it be that the use of effluent would be require less and low costs
for chemicals/plant nutrients ?

regards
jacky foo
Coordinator - IBSnet
http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet/directory.html
=========================================================================
Date:      Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:52:21 +0100
Subject:     peristaltic pumps - BOD
From: John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au]

Thanks for a very interesting & informative paper.
Could you please comment on the following

>Rainbow trout effluent was pumped with peristaltic pumps
>(model no. 7520-35 Cole Parmer Instrument Co., Chicago, IL)
>at a constant flow rate of 250 and 300 ml/min for basil and
>lettuce, respectively.

Is there any reason other than accurate flow rates for analysis that you
used peristaltic pumps ? It would appear to be excessively expensive for a
commercial system.

What were the reasons for selecting Lettuce & Basil for the project ?
With a 72 foot trough was there any effect from oxygen depletion in the
effluent ?
Was the BOD measured after microfiltering ? and could high BOD cause
problems considering the effluent is only in the system for around 150
minutes (assuming 2mm film)?

Regards
John Harris
Dalwallinu, Australia
=========================================================================
Date:       Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:02:54 +0100
Subject:     tolerance of Rainbow trout to P
From: FEPA/ZERI [fepazeri@cyberspace.net.ng]

The paper by Dr Paul R Adler is interesting, but I have the following questions.

1. The major objective of the paper was to reduce the level of P from an
effluent of Rainbow trout by growing plants such as lettuce in the effluent.
Then the water with low P level can be used again with a bonus of marketable
lettuce. If that was the case, what will be the effect of P to the Rainbow
trout when they are grown in water with high level of P? The introduction
did not give solid reasons as to why P has to be reduced to low level.

Knowing this, I might then understand the justification for this study. In
fact, under the heading, "Rainbow trout effluent characteristics," the
effluent had the lowest P value (0.7 mg/L) when compared with the content of
NO3-N, K, Ca, Mg and S. So, why was P targeted for reduction?

2.   In characterizing the effluent the following values were given:

        NO3-N = 25 mg/L
            P = 0.7 mg/L
            K = 5 mg/L
           Mg = 20 mg/L
            S = 9 mg/L

These values do not mean much without stating the number of samples taken
and the value of the standard error.

My regards.
Dr Zecarias Russom Tesfasion
ABUBAKAR TAFAWA BALEWA UNIVERSITY
P.M.B. 0248 BAUCHI, NIGERIA
=========================================================================
Date:      Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:26:42 +0100
Subject:    peristaltic pumps - BOD
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au] asked
> Is there any reason other than accurate flow rates for analysis that
> you used peristaltic pumps ? It would appear to be excessively
> expensive for a commercial system.

The only reason that we used peristalotic pumps was to have good control of
the flow rate, since this was a research project, just as you thought.
> What were the reasons for selecting Lettuce & Basil for the project ?

Lettuce and basil are 2 of the most common crops grown by commercial
hydroponic companies. Our goal for this study was to test the technology,
rather than experiment with other crops and see if there was a market for
them.

> With a 72 foot trough was there any effect from oxygen depletion in
> the effluent ?

We didn't do a side by side test with a conventional system, so I can't
tell you if these plants were growing at the maximum rate
possible. However, the product was very good, as I think you can see in the
pictures.

> Was the BOD measured after microfiltering ? and
> could high BOD cause problems considering the effluent is only
> in the system for around 150 minutes (assuming 2mm film)?

The BOD of the effluent was low, but solids do collect in the troughs,
since there are about 6mg solids/L.But the roots and plants
were very healthy looking and you can see the good growth rates we
observed. The question is good, but I didn't make any obsevations that
would lead me to think that the plants were stressed in any way.

Paul Adler
USDA-ARS, 45 Wiltshire Road,
Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA
=========================================================================
Date:      Wed, 8 Mar 2000 22:35:08 +0100
Subject:    tolerance of Rainbow trout to P
From: Adler, Paul [SMTP:PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Dr Zecarias Russom Tesfasion FEPA/ZERI [fepazeri@cyberspace.net.ng] wrote:
> 1. The major objective of the paper was to reduce the level of P
> from an effluent of Rainbow trout by growing plants such as
> lettuce in the effluent. Then the water with low P level can
> be used again with a bonus of marketable lettuce. If that was
> the case, what will be the effect of P to the Rainbow
> trout when they are grown in water with high level of P? The
> introduction did not give solid reasons as to why P has
> to be reduced to low level.
>
> Knowing this, I might then understand the justification for this
> study. In fact, under the heading, "Rainbow trout effluent
characteristics," the
> effluent had the lowest P value (0.7 mg/L) when compared with the
> content of
> NO3-N, K, Ca, Mg and S. So, why was P targeted for reduction?

Zecarias,

I tried to briefly state the problem in the first paragraph of the paper,
but I guess I didn't state the problem clear enough. So I will
try again and have included the excerpt from the paper below.
It is easier to treat effluents that have high nutrient concentrations and
lower volume, than low concentrations and high volume. P is the most
limiting nutrient in US freshwater so is the most critical to reduce to
minimize eutrophication. We know that in a stream, it is the total quantity
of P, that is important, not concentration alone (e.g. 100L of 10mg P/L
gives same amount of P as 10,000L of 0.1mg P/L). That was the rationale for
our work.

"Aquacultural effluents are difficult to treat because they contain
large volume flows carrying relatively dilute nutrients (< 1 mg/L P).
However, it may be important to treat the nutrients in aquaculture
effluents because, depending upon the receiving water, the total
nutrient mass loading can contribute significantly to environmental
degradation."


> 2. In characterizing the effluent the following values were given:
>        NO3-N = 25 mg/L
>             P = 0.7 mg/L
>             K = 5 mg/L
>             Mg = 20 mg/L
>             S = 9 mg/L
> These values do not mean much without stating the number of samples
> taken and the value of the standard error.

The values, as listed, serve our purpose in giving the readers an idea
regarding the concentration of nutrients in our water, which I believe is
valuable information. But, you are right, if one wants to know what kind of
variability we observed, you will not be able to determine that from these
data.

Paul
=========================================================================
Date:    Wed, 8 Mar 2000 23:23:50 +0100
Subject:  balancing fish and plant production
From: Adler, Paul [SMTP:PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Jacky Foo [foo@swipnet.se] asked
> If we compare the above scenario operation to that of a conventional
> hydroponic lettuce production of the same scale, what would the costs
> of chemicals/plant nutrient input costs ?
>
> Could it be that the use of effluent would be require less and low
> costs for chemicals/plant nutrients ?

Jacky,

We have completed an economic analysis of our system and nutrient costs are
about 0.5% of the combined operating costs. Labor,
energy, a manager, and packaging materials account for about 75% of the
combined operating costs and another 20+% in fish feed, seed costs,
overhead, and maintenance. I don't have the nutrient costs for a
conventional hydroponic operation, but although they are significantly more
than ours, since we get most nutrients from the fish, I'm sure that they
are still insignificant compared to the costs I have listed above. When you
compare our system with standard water treatment technology, the capital
costs are similar, our operating costs are significantly more, but you make
money while cleaning the water and growing plants. So you can actually make
a profit while treating the water, instead of just incurring costs.

> >In this fish production system, solids are removed with a triangle
> >filter. The triangle filter is able to remove about 80% of the P
> > excreted by the fish with the biosolids, leaving about 20%
> > of the P in the effluent.
>
> what do you do with the filtered material, is there any use for this
> material ?

Regarding the solid organic material, we are working on a type of
composting system.

    Paul
=========================================================================
Date:    Thu, 9 Mar 2000 06:53:51 +0100
Subject:  balancing fish and plant production
From: Jacky Foo [foo@SWIPNET.SE]

Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov] wrote:
>We have completed an economic analysis of our system and nutrient
>costs are about 0.5% of the combined operating costs. Labor,
>energy, a manager, and packaging materials account for about 75% of the
>combined operating costs and another 20+% in fish feed, seed costs,
>overhead, and maintenance.

thank you for sharing this information. Your low nutrient costs is highly
significant and strongly supports the IBS approach that a wastes which
otherwise would incur costs for treatment or disposal can become a resource
in savings for another sub-system.

>> what do you do with the filtered material, is there any use for this
>> material ?
>
>Regarding the solid organic material, we are working on a type of
>composting system.

rainbow trout can be fed with fresh earthworms or other types of worms. May
I suggest that you consider growing worms using the filtered solid organic
material from the fish tanks. Plant wastes can also be added to the
earthworm culture.

Q: how much of this organic waste matter can you get per day ?

regards
jacky
=========================================================================
Date:    Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:20:17 +0100
From:     Jacky Foo <foo@swipnet.se>
From: cosmos@public1.wx.js.cn

Is this combination of thin-film technology production and conveyor crop production viable?
Has this technology been demonstrated in other parts of the USA and in developing countries?
Li Kangmin
Asian Pac Regional R & T Center
For Integrated Fish Farming, Wuxi 214081 China
=========================================================================
Date:      Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:20:59 +0100
Subject:     removal of phosphorus
From: cosmos@public1.wx.js.cn

Hello Paul, I have some questions.

The objective of the research is to remove P from the effluent from
rainbow trout ponds. What is the treated water for?

I'm not familiar with cold water fish culture. In warm water fish
culture, there is no criterion of phosphorus for water quality for
aquaculture. I have consulted the National Water Quality Criteria for
Aquaculture, J. S. Alabaster 1982 Water Quality Criteria For Freshwater
Fish published by FAO, and also Auburn University's Water Quality book.
I understand that rainbow trout culture is somewhat important in the
U.S.A. The largest rainbow trout farm is in Idaho. There are many cold
water springs there and the flowing rate of current is about 13,000
L/minute and the water temperature 14 degree C with high DO.

Ambient phosphorus concentrations in pond water are usually quite
low. P is introduced into ponds in fertilizers to stimulate
phytoplankton blooms, enhance the abundance of natural food organisms,
and promote greater aquacultural production.

It seems that there is no need to do this for rainbow trout in U.S. Am I
right?

Heavy phytoplankton blooms can absorb large amounts of P. Much P
will, however, be absorbed by the pond soil. Even that P initially
absorbed by the phytoplankton will eventually be mineralized from
organic matter and enter the pond soil. Is the rainbow trout pond an
earthen pond or a cement pond?

>The triangle filter is able to remove about 80% of the P excreted
>by the fish with the biosolids, leaving about 20% of the P in
>the effluent.

I'm interested in this. Could you explain it in detail?

Li Kangmin
Asian Pac Regional R & T Center
For Integrated Fish Farming, Wuxi 214081 China
=========================================================================
Date:      Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:35:20 +0100
Subject:     balancing fish and plant production
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Jacky,

>....rainbow trout can be fed with fresh earthworms or other types
>of worms. May I suggest that you consider growing worms using
>the filtered solid organic material from the fish tanks.
>Plant wastes can also be added to the earthworm culture."

Actually, we have quite a bit of experience with vermiculture (cultivation
of worms) and the system we are working on focuses on the
full biodiversity of the soil ecosystem, rather than epigeic worms (surface
feeders) or microbes (composting). There are the nightcrawlers (anecic
earthworms) which play a big role in soil formation as well as micro and
mesofauna that are important in the decomposition process and nutrient
dynamics. In ecology, they use the term "ecosystem services" to describe
the role of nature, for example, to purify a stream that has been polluted.
So we are working on a system to employ that free labor a little better
than our current systems.

Q: how much of this organic waste matter can you get per day ?

A general rule of thumb to predict the amount of solids that will be
generated from production of fish is 0.3 x kg feed fed (this will vary
with the type of feed). So for every 10 kg of feed fed, you will produce
3 kg of solids and at 5% N, would have 150g N. So in our system
described in the paper we have 27,240kg feed fed/y x 0.3 = 8,172 kg
solids/y or about 22kg/d.

Paul R. Adler, Ph.D.
USDA-ARS
45 Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA
Web site http://afrsweb.usda.gov
voice 304.725.3451 x352 fax 304.728.2340
=========================================================================
Date:       Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:37:34 +0100
Subject:     removal of phosphorus
From: Adler, Paul [SMTP:PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Li,

>Q: The objective of the research is to remove P from the
>effluent from rainbow trout ponds. What is the treated water for?

A: Coldwater fish production is quite different than warmwater fish
production in ponds. Trout are produced in cement raceways (like cement
streams) and the amount of P in the water does not affect the growth of
fish. The concern is after the water leaves the facility and enters the
streams. A little extra nutrients can enhance production in the natural
streams also, but too much degrades the water quality and that is what
we are trying to prevent.



>Q: Ambient phosphorus concentrations in pond water are usually
>quite low. P is introduced into ponds in fertilizers to stimulate
>phytoplankton blooms, enhance the abundance of natural food
>organisms, and promote greater aquacultural production.
>It seems that there is no need to do this for rainbow trout in U.S.
>Am I right?

A: You are right. The only feed they get is that which the
grower feeds them, they are "tigers", not vegetarians.
>Q: The triangle filter is able to remove about 80% of the P excreted
>by the fish with the biosolids, leaving about 20% of the P in
>the effluent. I'm interested in this. Could you explain it in detail?

A: Most of the P excreted by the fish (80%) is contained in the
solids and the solids are removed using various types of filters or
settling basins. The rest of the P is either soluble organic or
inorganic P or P in solids to fine to capture.


Paul
----
Paul R. Adler, Ph.D.
USDA-ARS
45 Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA
Web site http://afrsweb.usda.gov
=========================================================================
Date:       Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:39:04 +0100
Subject:     technology transfer
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Li,

>Q: Is this combination of thin-film technology production and
>conveyor crop production viable?

A: Yes the technology is economically viable.

>Q: Has this technology been demonstrated in other parts of
>the USA and in developing countries?

A: We have had considerable interest in the technology and the concepts
that it demonstrates. I don't believe anyone to date has replicated our
exact system, but have used the concepts to maximize their plant
production.

Paul
**
Paul R. Adler, Ph.D.
USDA-ARS
45 Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA
=========================================================================
Date:       Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:13:55 +0100
Subject:     removal of phosphorus
From: cosmos@public1.wx.js.cn

Dear Paul:

Q1: Is it mandatory to remove phosphorus in effluents from rainbow trout
farming in your country? If so, what is the criterion?

Q2: Who will pay for removing phosphorus?

Q3: Is your technology suitable for warm water fish farming?
Li Kangmin
=========================================================================
Date:     Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:49:14 +0100
Subject:   conveyor production strategy
From: Sam Levy (ardag-w11@ardag.ardom.co.il)

It seems to me that a similar nutrient stripping process occurs in the
floating raft configuration used by Dr Rakocy in the Virgin Islands. In
this configuration the plants are reared on polystyrene floats w/holes. The
roots sit in the water to be treated as it flows down a channel of 30 cm
water depth. Plants are harvested from one end of the channel and new
seedlings are placed in the opposite end.

I would like to ask you for a comparison of strengths and weaknesses between
your conveyor system and a float system--especially as related to nutrient
uptake, plant health, efficiency and/or speed of processing the effluent.

Also, were any studies conducted where the effluent from the conveyor system
was re-used in the trout culture system?

Thank you,
Regards,

Sam Levy
Eilat, Israel
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:22:58 +0100
Subject:       tolerance of Rainbow trout to P
From: Jacky Foo [foo@SWIPNET.SE]

Dear Paul

I wish to remark on Dr Zecarias Russom Tesfasion question to you which I
could interesting and that has not received a full answer to it.

Zecarias summarised:
>The major objective of the paper was to reduce the level of P from an
>effluent of Rainbow trout by growing plants such as lettuce in the
effluent.
>Then the water with low P level can be used again with a bonus of
marketable
>lettuce.

Zecarias asked:
>If that was the case, what will be the effect of P to the Rainbow
>trout when they are grown in water with high level of P? The introduction
>did not give solid reasons as to why P has to be reduced to low level.

this means that is if Rainbow trout can grow in higher P in its cultivation
tank and you are not releasing the treated water into a river, then the
recycled water that goes back to the fish tank need not have such a low
level of P. This means that higher P in the effluent will permit the use of
conventional hydroponic lettuce production methods.

Thus the question is:
why do you have to still try to achieve such a low P (if you are going to
recycle the water into the fish tank)

jacky foo
unesco microbial resources centre, stockholm
=========================================================================
Date:     Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:50:37 +0100
Subject:   INTRO: Eng-Leong "Jacky" Foo (MIRCEN-Stockholm)
From: Jacky Foo [foo@swipnet.se]

Hello Everyone
As a contribution to this open discussion, I like to share with you
information on my visits to greenhouses that do phytoremediation of
wastewaters. Note: unlike Paul Adler's set-up, these sites do not produce
any market products. They are basically wastewater treatment systems done
in greenhouses, with a phyto- sub-system and do not recycle water for total
re-use.

(1) Ecological Center at Stensund, Sweden. This site treats 5 m3 of raw
sewage per day in a greenhouse with the sub-systems for anaerobic
digestion, activated sludge aeration, aquatic plants, fish tank and
wetland. Detailed research data is available at
 http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/bjorn

(2) Bodyshop at Arundal, UK. This is uses the Living technologies system
with aeration and plants. My impression is that the use of plants in
nutrient absorption has not been fully realised at this site. Treated water
is sent to a municipal wastewater treatment plant for further treatment.
The Site however has land and ponds that can be used for further treatment
using wetlands.
http://www.livingmachines.com
http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/todd

(3) The Department of Biotechnology, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm is planning to use the Living Technologies approach in project
with a greenhouse corridor to a building. Ms. Karin Larsdotter who is a
member of this discussion can tell you more about the project.

regards
jacky foo
=========================================================================
Date:     Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:30:22 +0100
Subject:   removal of phosphorus
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Li asked
>Q1: Is it mandatory to remove phosphorus in effluents from rainbow trout
>farming in your country? If so, what is the criterion?

A: The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is currently gathering data
to develop general regulations for the aquaculture industry in the USA.
The trout industry in Idaho has to reduce the discharge of phosphorus by
40% over the next 5 years and I'm sure that they will choose the most
cost effective methods. The P in their water is typically less than 0.3
ppm, which I believe is too low to grow marketable crops using our
system of production while reducing it much further. I'm not sure you
can go much below 0.5 and still remove P to less than 0.01. Our trout
production system was a recycle system, so nutrient levels were higher
than in raceway systems.

>Q2: Who will pay for removing phosphorus?

A: First the farmers will pay and then they will raise their prices and
the consumers will pay.

>Q3: Is your technology suitable for warm water fish farming?

A: Our production system can be used to grow plants on any effluents. It
is a system to maximize removal of nutrients. In our specific situation,
we discharged the effluent, it did not return to the fish system. The
water was too warm to return to grow trout. The trout production system
recycle rate is determined by water temperature, i.e., they bring enough
water in to maintain the water temperature at the best level for trout
production. The CPS maintains a relatively contant biomass, so nutrient
removal remains relatively constant and luxury consumption allows
removal of nutrients to very low levels.

Paul
***
Paul R. Adler, Ph.D.
USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, USA
Web site http://afrsweb.usda.gov
=========================================================================
Date:      Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:35:28 +0100
Subject:     conveyor production strategy
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Sam Levy (ardag-w11@ardag.ardom.co.il) wrote:
>Q1: It seems to me that a similar nutrient stripping process
>occurs in the floating raft configuration used by Dr Rakocy
>in the Virgin Islands. In this configuration the plants are
>reared on polystyrene floats with holes. The roots sit in
>the water to be treated as it flows down a channel of 30 cm
>water depth. Plants are harvested from one end of the channel
>and new seedlings are placed in the opposite end.
>
>I would like to ask you for a comparison of strengths and
>weaknesses between your conveyor system and a float
>system--especially as related to nutrient uptake, plant health,
>efficiency and/or speed of processing the effluent.

A1: I have not grown plants in the raft system and I have not
seen Jim's system in particular, so I can't comment on comparing plant
health, etc. But I do know that nutrients are very high in his system
and the effluent from the plant system is recycled back to the fish
system, so removal of nutrients to very low levels is not necessary. We
are discharging our effluent, so nutreint removal to very low levels is
important. But managing the raft system like a conveyor does allow him
to have a stable plant biomass removing a relatively constant amount of
nutrients from the fish system.

>Q2: Also, were any studies conducted where the effluent from the
>conveyor system was re-used in the trout culture system?

A2: No, we did not reuse or recirculate the water from the plant
system back to the trout system.

Paul R. Adler, Ph.D.
USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA
=========================================================================
Date:      Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:40:46 +0100
Subject:    tolerance of Rainbow trout to P
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Jacky,
>Thus the question is:
>why do you have to still try to achieve such a low P (if you are
>going to recycle the water into the fish tank)

A: The key is that we are not recycling the water back to our fish, we
are discharging the water to the stream. Trout are cold water fish and
if you were to recycle it back to the trout, you would have to cool it.
The fish do not require such low P levels.

Paul R. Adler, Ph.D.
USDA-ARS
45 Wiltshire Road
Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA
=========================================================================
Date:       Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:20:39 +0100
Subject:     removal of phosphorus: using other types of plants
From: Jacky Foo [foo@SWIPNET.SE]

Dear Paul

I know you have used strawberries as well as basil for removal of P from
trout tank effluent.
Is there any significant difference in their efficiencies in P removal with
these plants?
Have you tried other plants, herbs, ?

I am interested in treating brewery waster water with plants and would like
your advice on this.

(a) The total P in brewery wastewater is 7-14 mg/litre for breweries that
use about 3-5 m3 of water per m3 beer produced (Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, 1991). The total N in brewery WW is 45-65 mg/litre.
(your trout effluent has 0.7 mg/l P and 25 mg NO3-N/litre). Temp. is 22-28
C.
With this limited information, what would your immediate concerns be if you
are going to use brewery waste water for e.g. lettuce ?

regards
jacky

Note: http://www.livingmachines.com/projects/specific/sonoma.html describes
the site at Sonoma Mountain Brewery, California that treats and recycle
wastewater for irrigation. Though this is an outdoor system, Living
machines have been built in greenhouses. The system uses primarily aeration
and have floating racks with plants on them to absorb nutrients and to
provide a better attachment matrix for microbes on their roots to further
break down organic wastes. In the Sonoma site, BOD of 1500 mg/l was reduced
to <10 mg/l and COD of 2500 mg/l to <50 mg/l. No information is provided
in this webpage on N or P.
=========================================================================
Date:       Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:22:22 +0100
Subject:     floating raft configuration and use of aquactic plants
From: Jacky Foo [foo@SWIPNET.SE]

Sam Levy (ardag-w11@ardag.ardom.co.il) wrote:
>Q1: It seems to me that a similar nutrient stripping process
>occurs in the floating raft configuration used by Dr Rakocy
>in the Virgin Islands. In this configuration the plants are
>reared on polystyrene floats with holes. The roots sit in
>the water to be treated as it flows down a channel of 30 cm
>water depth. Plants are harvested from one end of the channel
>and new seedlings are placed in the opposite end.

Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov] responded
>A1: I have not grown plants in the raft system and I have not
>seen Jim's system in particular, so I can't comment on comparing plant
>health, etc. But I do know that nutrients are very high in his system
>and the effluent from the plant system is recycled back to the fish
>system, so removal of nutrients to very low levels is not necessary. We
>are discharging our effluent, so nutreint removal to very low levels is
>important. But managing the raft system like a conveyor does allow him
>to have a stable plant biomass removing a relatively constant amount of
>nutrients from the fish system.

Sam:
is the system in Virgin Islands in a greenhouse ?
I have not seen Dr Rakocy's paper and I am very interested to have a copy
by airmail or email, I also wish to contact her/him if email is available.

Sam and Paul, and others:
In an earlier message, I wrote:
>I am interested in treating brewery waster water with plants and would
like
>your advice on this.
>
>(a) The total P in brewery wastewater is 7-14 mg/litre for breweries that
>use about 3-5 m3 of water per m3 beer produced (Swedish Environmental
>Protection Agency, 1991). The total N in brewery WW is 45-65 mg/litre.
>(your trout effluent has 0.7 mg/l P and 25 mg NO3-N/litre). Temp. is 22-28
>C.

I will be in Western Samoa in June and July to start a project where there
is a component on phyto-remediation of brewery wastewater. At the moment,
all wastewater is discharged directly into the ocean. A sedimentation tank
permits solid separation before the water goes into the ocean.

I have designed an IBS to use the solid and liquid wastes at this site. The
project will however only look at some components of the designed system
due to limited budget. These components include sub-systems for mushrooms,
poultry, earthworms and housefly maggots. The water component is to recycle
high pH water for use in the other sub-systems. While pH can be adjusted
using acidic wash water coming from the cleaning of fermentation tanks of
the brewery, at some stage, I felt that a phyto-remediation would be
needed. Though the wastewater may be used directly, passing it via an
aquatic system sounds sensible as a pre-treatment because we are dealing
with biological systems. If plants dont grow well in the water, it will
probably have some effect if used directly on the other bio-systems.

Thus I am attracted to Rakocy's shallow channel system.

Paul comment on Rakocy's system is:
>.....managing the raft system like a conveyor does allow him
>to have a stable plant biomass removing a relatively constant amount of
>nutrients

raft system is also used in living machines in greenhouse. I have seen
indoor channel systems in Osaka and Ostersund (Sweden), these have rooted
plants on a material and the water flows through it.

here is a question for Sam, Paul, Li, Julian and others:
with temperatures between 24-39 C in Samoa, could you recommend a few
aquatic plants that I should consider using ?
My list so far include: water hyacinth, duckweed (which are know are
available in Samoa), Salvinia, Pistia and Azolla.

I also welcome any other suggestions ....e.g. bamboo, (but in these plant
systems, water cannot be recycled).

regards
jacky
=========================================================================
Date:    Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:07:35 +0100
Subject:  removal of phosphorus: using other types of plants
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Jacky,

you asked:
>Q1: I know you have used strawberries as well as basil for
>removal of P from trout tank effluent.
>Is there any significant difference in their efficiencies in P
>removal with these plants?
>Have you tried other plants, herbs, ?

A1: Using the CPS, we have only tried lettuce and basil. Plants
vary in their P requirements and removal kinetics, based on literature.
So my best recommendation to get a comparison for the nutrient
removal capacity of different plants is to compare their fertility
recommendations for production in the field.

>Q2: (a) The total P in brewery wastewater is 7-14 mg/litre for
>breweries that use about 3-5 m3 of water per m3 beer produced
>(Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). The total N
>in brewery WW is 45-65 mg/litre.
>(your trout effluent has 0.7 mg/l P and 25 mg NO3-N/litre).
>Temp. is 22-28 C.
>In the Sonoma site, BOD of 1500 mg/l was reduced
>to <10 mg/l and COD of 2500 mg/l to <50 mg/l.
>
>With this limited information, what would your immediate
>concerns be if you are going to use brewery waste water
>for e.g. lettuce ?

A1:You have plenty of N and P to grow the plants, but based on the BOD
of brewery waste at the Sonoma facility, if your brewery waste has a
similar BOD, that would probably be too high. Our BOD is around 20 and
we get a significant accumulation of solids by the time the plants are
harvested after 24 days in the system. Longer term crops would
accumulate more solids in the root zone. As I stated earlier, we did not
observe any negative effects of solids accumulation, but at some point
one would expect to. You probably have enough N; you would want a N:P
ratio of around 7 for lettuce. We had excess N in our effluent relative
to P. We removed about 150-200kg P/ha. I think that the system is
ideally suited for dilute effluents. It can take quite a bit of
greenhouse space to remove nutrients from more concentrated effluents.

Paul
=========================================================================
Date:    Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:20:59 +0100
Subject:  floating raft configuration and use of aquactic plants
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Jacky asked
>Q1: is the system in Virgin Islands in a greenhouse ?
>I have not seen Dr Rakocy's paper and I am very interested to
>have a copy by airmail or email, I also wish to contact her/him
>if email is available.

A1: Here's Jim Rakocy's Web site

http://rps.uvi.edu/AES/Aquaculture/UVIShortCourse.html

>Q2: I will be in Western Samoa in June and July to start a
>project where there is a component on phyto-remediation of
>brewery wastewater. At the moment, all wastewater is
>discharged directly into the ocean. A sedimentation tank
>permits solid separation before the water goes into the ocean.

A2: We are currently working on a carbon biofilter for cleaning up
overflow water from settling basins. I would recommend putting this type
of system between your phytoremediation system and primary settling tank
to remove TSS and BOD. I can provide you with more details prior to your
trip to Western Samoa if you are interested.

Paul
USDA-ARS
Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA
Web site http://afrsweb.usda.gov
=========================================================================
Date:      Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:48:19 +0100
Subject:     floating raft configuration and use of aquatic plants
From: Jacky Foo [foo@SWIPNET.SE]

Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov] wrote:
>A1: Here's Jim Rakocy's Web site
>http://rps.uvi.edu/AES/Aquaculture/UVIShortCourse.html

thanks very much for this site which I found very useful....much
appreciated.

>A2: We are currently working on a carbon biofilter for cleaning up
>overflow water from settling basins. I would recommend putting this type
>of system between your phytoremediation system and primary settling
>tank to remove TSS and BOD. I can provide you with more details prior
>to your trip to Western Samoa if you are interested.

Thanks for the suggestion and I certainly would like more details.

In Japan activated carbon (from oil palm nut shell, rice, wood chips,
coconut) is often used in water treatment too for horizontal systems with
plants. The pores in the oil palm nut shells are especially good as they
provide the space for attachment of the microflora as well as for the
absorption and concentration of nutrients.

regards
jacky foo
arvikagatan 26, 12343 farsta, sweden
+++
Forum on IBS - a general discussion mailing list
http://segate.sunet.se/archives/et-w1.html
=========================================================================
Date:       Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:40:34 +0100
Subject:     activated carbon in waste water treatment
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

Jacky wrote:
>In Japan activated carbon (from oil palm nut shell, rice, wood
>chips, coconut) is often used in water treatment too for horizontal
>systems with plants. The pores in the oil palm nut shells are
>especially good as they provide the space for attachment of
>the microflora as well as for the absorption and concentration
>of nutrients.

Q1: What do you mean by "activated carbon" and do you have any
publications describing this work?

Thanks,
Paul
=========================================================================
Date:    Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:54:45 +0100
Subject:  luxury consumption
From: John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au]

Dear Paul

In your work on luxury consumption have you found that this only applies to
the more mobile elements or have you redefined this. Most of the works I
have on the subject suggest that calcium, iron, sulfur, boron, copper &
manganese (amongst others) cannot be re-translocated. Have you found this
to be the case

Regards,
John Harris
Dalwallinu, Australia
=========================================================================
Date:       Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:56:40 +0100
Subject:     activated carbon
From: John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au]

Jacky wrote:
>In Japan activated carbon (from oil palm nut shell, rice, wood
>chips, coconut) is often used in water treatment too for horizontal
>systems with plants. ........

One source of this filter material is softdrink factories worldwide. They
usually have to pay for the disposal of their carbon and they change it
regularly at about 30% capacity. Worth a try in consumer societies anyway,
and you may get paid to cart it away.

Regards
John Harris
Dalwallinu, Australia
=========================================================================
Date:       Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:24:26 +0100
Subject:     luxury consumption
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au] asked
>Q: In your work on luxury consumption have you found that this
>only applies to the more mobile elements or have you redefined
>this. Most of the works I have on the subject suggest that
>calcium, iron, sulfur, boron, copper & manganese (amongst others)
>cannot be re-translocated. Have you found this to be the case?

A: I have not worked with other nutrients in this area, but that is what
I have also observed in the literature. If a nutrient deficiency symptom
shows up in the tip or growing point of a plant, the nutrient is not
mobile.

Paul
=========================================================================
Date:    Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:11:43 +0100
Subject:  activated carbon in waste water treatment
From: Jacky Foo [foo@SWIPNET.SE]

Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov] wrote

>Jacky wrote:
>>In Japan activated carbon (from oil palm nut shell, rice, wood
>>chips, coconut) is often used in water treatment too for horizontal
>>systems with plants. The pores in the oil palm nut shells are
>>especially good as they provide the space for attachment of
>>the microflora as well as for the absorption and concentration
>>of nutrients.
>
>Q1: What do you mean by "activated carbon" and do you have any
>publications describing this work?

I collected a lot of literature and samples of materials when I was in
Japan for the UNU/IAS IBS demo project in Fiji (Montfort Boys Twon), met 2
companies that make this materials, but left all the materials there when I
returned to Sweden. So I am sorry I cannot quote references for you and
give you contact names in Japan.

I believe the process in making these carbon is similar to charcoal making
- in oxygen-limited kilns.

I investigated on the use of activated carbon for the UNU/IBS demo project
in Fiji. The project's first and original workplan (April 1995) was
designed to use brewery solid wastes and waste water. This was never
executed unfortunately as the site that Gunter Pauli (ZERI project leader)
chose was too far from the brewery and then George Chan (site manager)
could not get his pigs to eat brewery spent grains. So the project became
an integrated farming system (pig-algae-fish-vegetables) using commercial
feed and kitchen leftovers which is replicated from those used elsewhere as
in Vietnam, or China. For research, I later was interested in the use of
activated carbon in a "reactor" before the slurry goes to the algal basins.
The idea is to absorb whatever (?) that it can and then I wanted to use
this material to grow high-priced vegetables in hydroponic plant cultures.
The hypothesis is that nutrients and growth-promotors that are
absorb/concentrated in the carbon and making it possible to support better
plant growth without the use of commercial fertilisers or nutrients. That's
why your paper discussion and Rakocy's work are of special interests to me.

I now found out that the dried material from the bulbs of water hyacinths
have a very high water holding capacity. I should be able to concentrate
nutrients digested liquid portion in this material (NH3 will be lost
unfortunately). This material can then be used in many ways - plant
substrate, mushroom cultivation, etc. I wish to develop a project proposal
together and to interest a research group or a participant from this
audience to test this idea. This idea is also deeply rooted in efforts to
make water hyacinths a resouce. It is a water weed in many countries as you
know. The Samoa project (2000-2002) that I will start in May will use water
hyacinths which is also a by-product of the IBS.

"Activated carbon" is extensively used in e.g. golf courses. Here they want
green grass on dry land. What they do is to layer sand for easily drainage
of rainwater and then put a layer of "activated carbon" and then some soil.
The carbon absorb water and fertiliser and keep grass healthy and green.
Activated carbon is also used in Japanese traditional homes which are made
of wood. In the space between the ground (cemented), and the ground floor,
they put this carbon to absorb "toxic gases" as well as to maintain
moisture level.

regards
jacky
http://segate.sunet.se/archives/et-w1.html
discussion list for IBS Forum
=========================================================================
Date:    Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:19:50 +0100
Subject:  activated carbon
From: Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]

John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au] wrote:
> One source of this filter material is softdrink factories worldwide.
> They usually have to pay for the disposal of their carbon and
> they change it regularly at about 30% capacity. Worth a try
> in consumer societies anyway, and you may get paid to cart
> it away.

Q: What is the source of the carbon material byproduct that softdrink
factories generate? And what do they use it for?

Paul
=========================================================================
Date:    Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:50:56 +0100
Subject:  activated carbon
From: John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au]

John Harris [jfhdally@agn.net.au] wrote:
> One source of this filter material is softdrink factories worldwide.
> They usually have to pay for the disposal of their carbon and
> they change it regularly at about 30% capacity. Worth a try
> in consumer societies anyway, and you may get paid to cart
> it away.

Adler, Paul [PAdler@afrs.ars.usda.gov]
>Q: What is the source of the carbon material byproduct that softdrink
>factories generate? And what do they use it for?

Dear Paul

I believe the source of the carbon material in Western Australia is local
hardwood timber.

This is not so much a byproduct of softdrink manufacture, but a waste
material from the processing of the incoming water stream. Activated carbon
is used in the water filters because of it's ability to absorb dissolved
gases from water, particularly hydrogen sulfide and petroleum gases that
can be present in underground water supplies. Because of the high quality
needed for the water the filter material is discarded regularly.

In answer to a previous query (and in laymans terms) I believe the
manufacturing process involves subjecting high temperature charcoal from
low oxygen kilns to a high pressure steam bath at 800 to 1000 degrees C.
this causes a rapid expansion in the carbon structure and provides a large
surface area for attachment of gas molecules etc.

Here in the wheatbelt of WA the product is widely used in cabin air filters
for chemical spray vehicles because of its ability to hold the (mostly
petroleum) solvents present in many ag chemicals.

Regards
John Harris
=========================================================================

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:19
posted:10/15/2011
language:English
pages:20