ACTA UNIVERSITATIS SAPIENTIAE

AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, 11 (2019) 5159

DOI: 10.2478/ausae-2019-0005

Lettuce production in aquaponic and hydroponic systems

Ágota KOVÁCSNÉ MADAR, Tímea RUBÓCZKI,
Mária TAKÁCSNÉ HÁJOS
University of Debrecen, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences
and Environmental Management, Institute of Horticultural Science,
138 Böszörményi St. H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary
e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Manuscript received April 29, 2019; revised May 30, 2019; Accepted June 15, 2019

Abstract. Besides soil cultivation, there are other alternative methods such as the
aquaponic and the hydroponic technology.
In our research, four lettuce varieties (‘Edina’, ‘Május királya’, ‘Lollo Rossa’, and
‘Lollo Bionda’) were compared by the use of different systems. In hydroponics, the direct
nutrient supply resulted higher leaf weight. In addition, multiple values of nitrate (269.50–
406.50 mg kg-1) were measured in this system compared to the aquaponic system (23.25–
170.00 mg kg-1). The ‘Lollo Rossa’ stood out with higher element content (Zn, B, and
Mg) in both cultivation methods.
In conclusion, it can be stated that higher nutrient content in hydroponics resulted
higher leaf weight, but nitrate values were also higher in this unit. Aquaponic technology
can be used to produce high-quality (low-nitrate) lettuce with the ‘Lollo Rossa’ and ‘Lollo
Bionda’ varieties.

Keywords: soilless cultivation method, variety, nitrite, nitrate

1. Introduction

Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) is a well-known plant among leaf vegetables.

It belongs to the family of Asteraceae. The lettuce is rich in nutrient elements for
it contains essential elements such as minerals and organic substances [3].
The leafy green vegetables also contain vitamin C, beta-carotene, fibre, folate,
and phytonutrients. It can be part of a well-balanced diet since it does not contain
cholesterol and is naturally low in calories [2].
Earliness in vegetable forcing has a great importance due to the advantages
of high sale prices in the early season. The length of the growing season is

51
52 Á. Kovácsné Madar et. al

determined primarily by the characteristics of the variety, the environmental

factors (light, temperature), and the cultivation technology [6].
Besides traditional soil cultivation, there are other alternative methods such
as aquaponics and hydroponic gardening (soilless cultivation). Aquaponics is a
closed recirculation ecosystem, which is a combination of aquaculture and
hydroponics [7]. It is an integrated bio-system where the plants and the fish live
in a symbiotic relationship. Wastewater from fish farming contains nitrogenous
compounds, especially ammonia, which could be hazardous for fish, even in
paucity. Additionally, toxicity depends on the temperature and pH of the water
[5]. Therefore, it is a sustainable vegetable farming technique which uses natural
biological cycles to supply nitrogen and minimizes the use of non-renewable
resources.
Several mediums exist for producing hydroponic crops, for instance:
floating raft, nutrient film technique (NFT), rockwool, perlite, or pine bark. On
the other hand, there are some critical management requirements to maintain the
water quality and the bio-filter nitrification [8]. In hydroponic systems, fertilizers
are used to provide nutrients for the vegetables. The root of the plant takes up
nutrients from the water in the tank [1].
This cultivation method is able to provide vegetable crops in good quality
throughout the year. Furthermore, using this method, the vegetation period can be
shortened to 30 days compared to conventional cultivation, which needs to match a
longer period (nearly 60 days) for production. These alternative methods are widely
used for growers who have limited growing field for vegetable production [4].

2. Materials and methods

The experiment was conducted at the University of Debrecen, Faculty

of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, Institute of
Horticultural Science. The aquaponic system belongs to the Department of
Animal Husbandry.
For the evaluation, two head-forming (‘Edina’ and ‘Május királya’) and two
leaf-forming (‘Lollo Rossa’ and ‘Lollo Bionda’) lettuce were examined in two
different soilless cultures (hydroponic and aquaponic).
Sowing into seed tray took place on 14 March 2017. Clay balls were used
to fix the root of the plants in both systems. Pétisol nitrogen plus fertilizer
(18:9:12 NPK + 0.1% microelement) was applied in 0.1% concentration into the
Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC) by hydroponic technology. At that time, the
pH of the water was 8.05, the temperature was 20.3 °C, and the EC value was
0.96 mS/cm.
 Lettuce production in aquaponic and hydroponic systems 53

In aquaponic production, catfish (Ameiurus nebulosus) were cultivated as

they adapt to harsh environmental conditions, and they have the ability to tolerate
the low oxygen concentration and the range of water salinity.
At the time of transplanting (20 April 2017), the water parameters were the
following in the aquaponic system: the temperature of the water was 20.5 °C, the
pH was 7.99, and the EC value was 1.01 mS/cm. The transplants were with
5–6 leaves, and the spacing was 25 × 25 cm in the growing area. For the
experiment, we used 25 plants/variety.

3. Results and discussions

In springtime cultivation, the head weight (g/plant) and the root weight
(g/plant) of the lettuce were measured 5 weeks after transplanting. The head
weight of the lettuce is an important factor from the aspect of profitability.
It can be clearly seen in Table 1 that in the hydroponic system the head
weights of varieties were higher than in the case of the aquaponic cultivation
method.

Table 1. The head weight (g/plant) and root weight (g/plant) of different varieties
Growing Head weight Root weight
Variety
method (g/plant) (g/plant)
‘Edina’ 109.04 ± 13.13 20.93 ± 0.81

‘Lollo Rossa’ 128.98 ± 15.23 44.13 ± 2.39

Aquaponic
system
‘Lollo Bionda’ 97.28 ± 13.59 50.27 ± 9.06

‘Május királya’ 131.32 ± 16.79 61.36 ± 6.75

‘Edina’ 190.13 ± 10.09 39.84 ± 4.93

‘Lollo Rossa’ 170.77 ± 10.22 54.32 ± 6.41

Hydroponic
system
‘Lollo Bionda’ 185.59 ± 19.36 70.31 ± 8.47

‘Május királya’ 152.99 ± 22.17 56.13 ± 5.55

In the hydroponic system, one of the head lettuce, ‘Edina’, showed the
highest value (190.13 ± 10.09 g), while the two leaf lettuce (‘Lollo Rossa’ and
‘Lollo Bionda’) showed nearly equal values (170.77 ± 10.22 g and 185.59 ± 19.36
54 Á. Kovácsné Madar et. al

g). In the aquaponic system, again one of the head lettuce (‘Május királya’)
showed the highest value (131.32 ± 16.79 g).
Evaluating the nitrate and mineral element content in water
(Table 2), we can state that there was a higher nitrate and nitrite content (31.20
and 1.43 mg l-1) in the hydroponic system. In both growing systems, high calcium
(191.00 and 231.00 mg l-1) content was measured. Potassium and sulphur content
were several times higher in the aquaponic than in the hydroponic system.

Table 2. Nitrate, nitrite, and mineral element content (mg l-1) in water samples

Parameter Hydroponic Aquaponic

mg l-1
Nitrate 31.20 0.14
Nitrite 1.43 0.06
B 0.26 0.10
Ca 191.00 231.00
Cu 0.80 0.08
Fe 0.32 0.19
K 95.10 195.00
Mg 53.50 49.40
Na 27.40 29.80
P 9.70 5.11
S 30.70 87.10
Zn 0.10 0.09

There was no significant difference between the technologies in the dry

matter content (Table 3). Regarding the varieties, we can state that the ‘Lollo
Rossa’ (leaf lettuce) showed the highest dry matter content (87.48 ± 0.08% and
8.51 ± 0.36%) in both systems. The variety and the cultivation method can
influence the dry matter content. The chemical composition of the plants
influences the quality of the products, and so the quality is determined by both
organic and mineral components.
The higher nitrate and nitrite content in leaf vegetables can result lower
quality. The nitrate content was several times higher in the hydroponic cultivation
method than in aquaponics, which difference was also measured by water
samples. For both gardening methods, the ‘Edina’ (head lettuce) showed the
highest value of nitrate (170 ± 48.08 mg kg-1 and 406.50 ± 4.95 mg kg-1).
 Lettuce production in aquaponic and hydroponic systems 55

Table 3. Nitrate and nitrite (mg kg-1) and dry matter content (%) in the raw material
Growing Dry matter Nitrate Nitrite
Variety
method content % mg kg-1 mg kg-1

‘Edina’ 5.76 ± 0.74 170 ± 48.08 1.39 ± 0.04

‘Lollo Rossa’ 7.48 ± 0.08 23.25 ± 4.31 0.53 ± 0.02

Aquaponic
system
‘Lollo Bionda’ 6.52 ± 0.06 73.40 ± 5.52 0.81 ± 0.01

‘Május királya’ 6.99 ± 1.49 53.55 ± 0.49 0.68 ± 0.03

‘Edina’ 5.62 ± 0.11 406.50 ± 4.95 4.91 ± 0.11

‘Lollo Rossa’ 8.51 ± 0.36 325.50 ± 16.26 2.95 ± 0.28

Hydroponic
system ‘Lollo Bionda’ 6.55 ± 0.66 299.00 ± 16.97 3.10 ± 0.08

‘Május királya’ 5.42 ± 0.39 269.50 ± 28.99 2.43 ± 0.03

A similar tendency was also measured among the genotypes and the systems
by nitrite. The ‘Edina’ variety produced the highest value in the aquaponic (1.39
± 0.04 mg kg-1) and in the hydroponic system (4.91 ± 0.11 mg kg-1) as well.
Boron can help the nutrition uptake of plants. There was no significant
difference between the various technologies for this microelement supply.
However, differences were found in the boron content between the varieties
(Table 4), considering that the highest boron content was detected in leaf-forming
varieties (‘Lollo Rossa’ and ‘Lollo Bionda’) in both systems.
Magnesium is one of the most important mineral elements as it is necessary
for many biochemical processes. It also has to be mentioned that the magnesium
is the central atom of the chlorophyll, which plays a key role in photosynthesis.
Concerning the magnesium content, we measured higher values in the
hydroponic system – with the exception of ‘Május királya’, where this value was
lower. The varieties with an open head (‘Lollo Rossa’ and ‘Lollo Bionda’) have
higher magnesium content (293.50 ± 10.61 mg kg-1 and 264.00 ± 28.28 mg kg-1)
than head-forming varieties (‘Edina’ and ‘Május királya’) in the hydroponic
system (215.00 ± 1.41 and 178.50 ± 13.44 mg kg-1).
56 Á. Kovácsné Madar et. al

Table 4. Boron and magnesium (mg kg-1) content in the raw material

Growing B Mg
Variety
method mg kg-1 mg kg-1

‘Edina’ 1.63 ± 0.11 200.00 ± 32.53

‘Lollo Rossa’ 2.25 ± 0.05 231.50 ± 0.71

Aquaponic
system
‘Lollo Bionda’ 2.17 ± 0.21 204.00 ± 4.24

‘Május királya’ 1.65 ± 0.44 203.00 ± 38.18

‘Edina’ 1.67 ± 0.01 215.00 ± 1.41

‘Lollo Rossa’ 2.97 ± 0.09 293.50 ± 10.61

Hydroponic
system ‘Lollo Bionda’ 2.28 ± 0.25 264.00 ± 28.28

‘Május királya’ 1.51 ± 0.08 178.50 ± 13.44

Copper as a constituent of enzymes participates in the respiratory

metabolism and electron transport. It is also involved in photosynthesis and
carbohydrate as well as protein synthesis. The copper content of the water in the
hydroponic system was ten times higher than in aquaponics, which clearly
appeared in the copper supply of plant samples. It can be stated that leaf lettuce
varieties have a higher mineral content (Table 5).
In addition, the iron content also confirms this as the genotypes showed
higher value in the hydroponic system, which partly appeared in the iron content
of the hydroponic water. Moreover, the iron is essential for the processes of
assimilation, photosynthesis, and protein synthesis.
Regarding the zinc supply, the ‘Lollo Rossa’ (1.63 ± 0.09 and 1.68 ± 0.01
mg kg-1) had the highest zinc content among the varieties by the growing
methods.
 Lettuce production in aquaponic and hydroponic systems 57

Table 5. Copper, iron, and zinc element content (mg kg-1)

Growing Cu Fe Zn
Variety
method mg kg-1 mg kg-1 mg kg-1
A 0.73 ± 0.05 47.95 ± 5.15 1.43 ± 0.17
‘Edina’
H 7.34 ± 0.17 51.20 ± 1.00 1.02 ± 0.05
A 0.62 ± 0.02 64.00 ± 0.90 1.63 ± 0.09
‘Lollo Rossa’
H 10.80 ± 0.30 77.70 ± 1.40 1.68 ± 0.01
A 0.43 ± 0.01 59.20 ± 0.90 1.18 ± 0.04
‘Lollo Bionda’
H 12.50 ± 1.00 78.90 ± 4.50 1.03 ± 0.05
A 0.46 ± 0.03 61.30 ± 8.80 1.10 ± 0.16
‘Május királya’
H 9.99 ± 0.21 52.30 ± 1.70 0.80 ± 0.04

A – Aquaponic system
H – Hydroponic system

Sulphur and phosphorus are important components of organic compounds.

According to the data, it can be concluded that the sulphur content of leaves was
almost two times higher in the aquaponic than in the hydroponic system (Table 6).
There was no noticeable tendency for the phosphorus content.

Table 6. Sulphur and phosphorus (mg kg-1) content in the raw material
Growing S P
Variety
method mg kg-1 mg kg-1
A 106.75 ± 10.25 317.50 ± 33.50
‘Edina’
H 58.60 ± 2.70 278.00 ± 2.00
A 18.30 ± 1.60 330.00 ± 1.10
‘Lollo Rossa’
H 8.69 ± 0.19 388.50 ± 11.50
A 55.50 ± 2.80 289.50 ± 10.50
‘Lollo Bionda’
H 27,15 ± 1,25 233.50 ± 20.50
A 77.80 ± 11.30 289.50 ± 35.50
‘Május királya’
H 43.25 ± 1.15 329.50 ± 16.50

A – Aquaponic system
H – Hydroponic system
58 Á. Kovácsné Madar et. al

4. Conclusions

In the experiment, two head-forming (‘Edina’ and ‘Május királya’) and two
leaf-forming (‘Lollo Rossa’ and ‘Lollo Bionda’) lettuce were examined in two
different soilless cultures (hydroponic and aquaponic).
It can be stated that the head weights of the varieties were higher in the case
of the hydroponic growing method than in the aquaponic system. The ‘Edina’
(head lettuce) showed the highest value (190.13 ± 10.09 g), while the two leaf
lettuce (‘Lollo Rossa’ and ‘Lollo Bionda’) showed nearly equal values (170.77 ±
10.22 g and 185.59 ± 19.36 g) in the hydroponic system.
Furthermore, in this system (hydroponic), a higher nitrate content (31.20 mg
l-1) was measured compared to the aquaponic one. The nitrate content was several
times higher in the plants in the hydroponic system, which difference was also
measured in water samples. Regarding dry matter content, the ‘Lollo Rossa’ (leaf
lettuce) produced the highest content in both aquaponic and hydroponic systems
(7.48 ± 0.08% and 8.51 ± 0.36%). Moreover, varieties with an open head (‘Lollo
Rossa’ and ‘Lollo Bionda’) contain higher amounts of iron compared to those
head-forming (‘Edina’ and ‘Május királya’) by hydroponic cultivation.
Regarding the other mineral elements (Zn, B, Mg), the ‘Lollo Rossa’ stood out
with higher element content in both cultivation methods.
Finally, we can conclude that the production in the hydroponic system is
more profitable (higher head weight) than the aquaponic system. The use of
wastewater with the aquaponic system is more favourable for lettuce growing due
to the non-chemical production. The productivity can be a bit lower, but the raw
material is healthier and without any harmful compound.

Acknowledgements

Supported by the ÚNKP-17-2-I-DE-412 new national excellence

programme of the Ministry of Human Capacities.
 Lettuce production in aquaponic and hydroponic systems 59

References
[1] Ako, H., Baker A. (2009), Small-scale lettuce production with hydroponics or aquaponics.
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR). University of Hawaii at
Manoa. SA-2. pp. 1–7.
[2] Bunning, M., Kendall, P. (2012), Salad greens: Health benefits and safe handling. Food and
Nutrition Series, Health. Fact Sheet No. 9.373. Colorado State University Extension. 5/07.
Revised 06/12.
[3] Noumedem, J. A. K., Djeussi, D. E., Hritcu, L., Mihasan, M., Kuete, V. (2017), Lactuca
sativa. In: Medicinal spices and vegetables from Africa. Therapeutic Potential Against
Metabolic, Inflammatory, Infectious and Systemic Diseases. 437–449.
[4] Pattillo, A. D. (2017), An overview of aquaponic systems: Hydroponic components. NCRAC
Technical Bulletin Series. USDA. 123/10 p.
[5] Salam, M. A., Asadujjaman M., Rahman, M. S. (2013), Aquaponics for improving high- density
fish pond water quality through raft and rack vegetable production. World Journal of Fish and
Marine Sciences 5(3), 251–256.
[6] Slezák, K., Jezdinsky, A. (2013), A zöldséghajtató berendezések hasznosítása. Agrofórum
24(2), 22–24.
[7] Turkmen, G., Guner, Y. (2010), Aquaponic (integrating fish and plant culture) systems. In:
International Symposium on Sustainable Development, Science Book. 657–666.
[8] Tyson, R. V., Treadwell D. D., Simonne, E. H. (2011), Opportunities and challenges to
sustainability in aquaponic systems. Reviews. Hort. Technology 21(1), 6–13.