{"paper_id":"277c32a0-3c42-4ebd-b9e1-da78debb61bb","body_text":"Cost‒Benefit Analysis of Aquaponic and Hydroponic Systems in Barley Production: A Sustainable Agriculture Approach | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Cost‒Benefit Analysis of Aquaponic and Hydroponic Systems in Barley Production: A Sustainable Agriculture Approach Angham Bani Owdeh, Muayad Salman, Mohamed Salah Romdhane This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6037890/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The primary objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive cost‒benefit analysis of barley production within both aquaponic and hydroponic systems. This research undertakes a detailed cost‒benefit evaluation comparing aquaponic and hydroponic methods for barley cultivation, with a focus on their economic viability and sustainability. A local variety of barley was selected to analyze the production outcomes and operational costs associated with each cultivation technique. The key metrics evaluated included tray net weight, dry matter percentage, and crude protein yield, which were measured on the 7th and 14th days posts eeding. The results indicated that by the 14th day of cultivation, the aquaponic system presented the highest net weight of the trays (11.80 kilograms), whereas the hydroponic system without nutritive solution yielded a net weight of 9.27 kilograms, and the nutrient solution resulted in a net weight of 9.58 kilograms. The dry matter percentage was 17% for the aquaponic system and 14% for both hydroponic treatments. The total crude protein output per tray was significantly greater in the aquaponic system, reaching 387.44 grams, whereas the barley hydroponic system with nutrient mixture produced 332.15 grams, and the hydroponic system without nutritive mixture yielded 227.18 grams at the 14-day mark. Notably, substantial profits were observed, with the aquaponic system generating the highest net revenue. These findings underscore the economic advantages of aquaponics by effectively integrating fish cultivation with plant production, establishing it as a viable method for enhancing food security and sustainability, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Agricultural Economics & Policy Hydroponic Aquaponic Crude protein Cost benefit analysis Introduction Livestock farmers face a multitude of obstacles in their efforts to produce green fodder, including limited land availability, inadequate access to quality seeds, water scarcity, and environmental challenges such as natural disasters [ 14 ]. Similarly, Ahamed et al. [ 1 ] emphasized that hydroponic fodder production within controlled environments can alleviate some of these difficulties, particularly in terms of land scarcity and water resource limitations, thereby providing a sustainable, year-round solution for livestock feeding. Aquaponics represents a synergistic agricultural method that combines fish farming with plant cultivation. Within this system, fish waste contributes essential nutrients for hydroponically grown plants, which concurrently filter and purify the water for the fish [ 7 ]. This method promotes sustainability by effectively recycling both water and nutrients, thereby significantly diminishing the environmental footprint associated with traditional food production practices. Investigations into soilless farming systems identify barley cultivation in aquaponic frameworks as a promising avenue for sustainable agricultural practices [ 12 ]. Aquaponic systems, which integrate aquaculture and hydroponics, create a closed-loop ecosystem designed to optimize resource efficiency while mitigating environmental impacts via nutrient and water recycling [ 7 ]. These systems exhibit substantial potential for sustainable crop production within controlled ecological life support systems, facilitating consistent cultivation with high yields and optimal resource utilization. The successful integration of aquaculture and hydroponics is marked by a symbiotic relationship; fish waste supplies vital nutrients for plant growth, while plants play a crucial role in filtering and purifying the aquatic environment for the fish. This reciprocal benefit not only enhances resource efficiency but also underscores the ability of aquaponics to maintain stable food production in the face of climate fluctuations [ 5 ]. Research conducted by Goddek et al. [ 6 ] explores aquaponics as a sustainable agricultural strategy that improves resource use and productivity, especially in urban and resource-constrained contexts. The authors highlight the advantages of nutrient recycling and water conservation, which are intrinsic to aquaponic systems and align with global sustainable development goals. However, they also pay attention to the higher initial setup costs associated with aquaponics in comparison with hydroponics, which lacks the complexities linked to fish farming. Aquaponic systems demand substantial capital investment due to the inclusion of integrated components, such as fish tanks, biofilters, and plumbing systems. This requirement sets them apart from hydroponic systems, which generally present lower startup costs, as they do not necessitate additional fish farming components. Nonetheless, both aquaponic and hydroponic systems require investments in infrastructure, including light and climate control systems, to achieve optimal operational efficiency [ 11 , 18 ]. Zappernick et al. [ 28 ] reported that the operational costs of recirculating aquaponic systems (RAS) are influenced by various factors, such as electricity, labor, and specific nutrient needs for both hydroponics and aquaculture. While aquaponics may incur additional expenses related to maintaining fish health and water quality, the concurrent production of fish and plants can yield financial advantages by increasing overall operational efficiency. Controlled environment agriculture allows both systems to achieve high outputs; hydroponics benefits from precise nutrient management to accelerate plant growth, whereas aquaponics leverages fish waste to recycle nutrients, promoting high-quality crop production with reduced dependence on chemical fertilizers [ 16 ]. Both aquaponics and hydroponics are viewed as sustainable alternatives to traditional farming practices through their efficient use of resources and reduction in environmental impacts. According to Goddek et al. [ 6 ], these systems diminish the demand for arable land and significantly reduce water consumption. Specifically, aquaponic systems reduce fertilizer runoff and lower levels of environmental contamination. These methodologies not only advocate for ecological conservation but also support sustainable agricultural goals by fostering efficient practices that lower the ecological footprint and promote healthy food production [ 8 ]. Economic analyses indicate that while both aquaponics and hydroponics require considerable initial investments, the long-term benefits of sustainable and efficient production could lead to profitability. The integrated nature of aquaponics permits dual income streams from both fish and plant sales, which can increase economic viability [ 4 , 15 ]. The principal goal of this study was to conduct a thorough cost‒benefit analysis of barley production within both aquaponic and hydroponic systems while evaluating the economic feasibility, resource efficiency, and productivity associated with each method. Materials and methods Experimental area and unit structure The study was conducted in the Nablus governorate, which is located in the West Bank region of Palestine, specifically at the geographical coordinates of 32.2211° N latitude and 35.2544° E longitude. Table 1 presents the specifications for the aquaponic unit structure. This unit comprises a 1000-liter polyethylene IBC tank, which is enclosed in a galvanized iron cage. It includes hydroponic trays that measure 2 m × 2 m × 0.25 m, which are made from galvanized metal with external dimensions of 30 mm × 30 mm and shelves with dimensions of 20 mm × 20 mm. The hydroponic trays are transparent, measuring 90 cm × 25 cm × 7 cm, and are divided into four sections, each containing five holes and stoppers. The system is equipped with water pumps running at 220 volts and consuming 20–25 watts, with a flow rate of 1500–2000 liters per hour. The total area occupied by the unit is 77 square meters, featuring a plastic roof, shaded sides, and structural supports made of 80 mm × 40 mm steel. The unit houses 490 trays, enabling a daily production capacity of 70 trays, thereby ensuring the efficient operation of the aquaponic system. Table 1 Specifications of the equipment used in the hydroponic and aquaponic unit structures: Item Specifications IBC Tank 1000 L, polyethylene, white/translucent plastic, housed in a galvanized iron cage Stand for Hydroponic Trays 2 m x 2 m x 0.25 m, galvanized metal (30 mm x 30 mm outside, 20 mm x 20 mm shelves) Hydroponic Tray Transparent plastic, 90 cm x 25 cm x 7 cm, 4 divisions, 5 holes, stopper Water Pump 220 volts, 20–25 watts, 1500–2000 meters per hour Unit Structure 77 sq.m, 7 m x 7 m, plastic roof, shaded sides, 80 mm x 40 mm steel Constriction Costs Table 2 outlines the costs associated with establishing a barley hydroponic unit. The initial investment amounts to $ 4812.5, which covers the costs of tanks, trays, pumps, meters, structures, pipes, and maintenance. Recurring expenses are also presented, with an annual cost of $ 481.25 and a semiannual cost of $ 240.625. These data highlight the financial planning required for setting up such an agricultural system. The table serves as a valuable budgeting tool, offering a clear breakdown of both the upfront investment and the ongoing maintenance costs involved in hydroponic farming. Table 2 Barley Hydroponic and Aquaponic Unit Constrictions Cost (USD) Unit No. of units Unit Price (USD) Total Price (USD) IBC Tank 2 70 140 Stand for hydroponic trays 27 25 675 Hydroponic Tray 500 2 1000 Water Pump 4 30 120 pH Meter 3 40 120 EC Meter 3 40 120 unit structure: 1 2000 2000 Plastic pipes and connections 1 200 200 Maintenance 1 437.5 Total 4812.5 Yearly cost 481.25 6 months cost 240.625 Operational Costs Table 3 presents a detailed cost analysis for a six-month operational period, comparing three distinct farming systems: Aquaponic, Hydroponic using nutritive solutions, and Hydroponic without nutritive solutions. The table lists essential inputs for these systems, including electricity, water, labor, seeds, fish fingerlings, fish feed, fertilizer, and miscellaneous expenses. Each input is specified with the required quantity, unit price in US dollars, and total cost for each farming system. For example, electricity costs are consistent across all systems at $ 150, whereas labor costs are uniformly $ 3,850. However, certain inputs, such as fish fingerlings and fish feed, are exclusive to the Aquaponic system. The total operational costs indicate that the Aquaponic system incurs the highest expense at $ 11,653.35, followed by the Hydroponic system, which uses nutritive solutions at $ 11,043.35, and the Hydroponic system without nutritive solutions, which has the lowest cost of $ 10,843.35. This analysis, which is based on the operation of 70 trays per day, serves as a crucial tool for stakeholders to assess the financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different farming strategies. Table 3 Cost Analysis of a Six-month Operational Period for an Aquaponic Farming System, Hydroponic Using Nutritive Solutions and Hydroponic with Tab Water. Unit No. of units Unit Price (USD) Total Price (USD) Aquaponic System Hydroponic Using Nutritive Solutions Hydroponic without nutritive solutions Electricity (kw) 750 0.2 150 150 150 Water (M3) 18 1.5 27 27 27 Worker (hour) 770 5 3850 3850 3850 Dry Barley Seeds (kg) 12600 0.5 6300 6300 6300 Fish Fingerlings 600 0.3 180 Fish Feed (kg) 420 1.5 630 Fertilizer (Lump Sum) 1 200 200 Others (Lump Sum) 516.35 516.35 516.35 Total 11653.35 11043.35 10843.35 Total (USD) 11893.98 11283.975 11083.975 Based on 70 trays per day Hydroponic vs. Aquaponic Barley Growth Seed preparation involved careful washing, cleaning, and soaking the seeds for 24 hours. After this period, the seeds were transferred to a tray and kept moist for an additional 2 days before the hydroponic and aquaponic systems were initiated. The study utilized a local variety of barley as the experimental material, with each tray containing 1 kg of seeds soaked for 3 days to facilitate germination. The germinated seeds were then transferred to hydroponic and aquaponic systems, which included three distinct groups: T1 (Aquaponic), T2 (Hydroponic without nutritive solution), and T3 (Hydroponic with nutritive solution). Chemical analysis of barley sprouts Sprouts from each group were weighed on the 7th and 14th days of the experiment. The representative samples were oven dried at 60°C, ground through a 1 mm mesh screen sieve, and stored for chemical analysis. Chemical analysis was performed at the National Agricultural Research Center Laboratory. The moisture content (DM) was determined by drying the samples at 60°C in a forced-air oven for 48 hours. The nitrogen (N) content was assessed via the Kjeldahl method, as outlined by the AOAC [ 2 ]. The crude protein (CP) content was calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content by a factor of 6.25. The ash content was determined by igniting plant samples in a muffle furnace at 550°C for 4 hours via the Protherm PFL 110/10 model. Additionally, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were measured following the methods described by Van Soest et al. [ 24 ], utilizing sodium sulfide and the ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer [ 3 ]. Statistical analysis The statistical analysis of the data was conducted via the general linear model (GLM) procedure of SPSS 22. The analysis followed a completely randomized model with three treatments and three replications within both the 7-day and 14-day periods. The model can be represented by the following equation: Yij = µ + Ti + Dj + eij In this equation, Yij represents the observation, µ represents the overall mean, Ti represents the effect of treatment (T1, T2, T3), Dj represents the effect of days in planting (7 days, 14 days), and eij represents the residual error. To determine significance, a threshold of P < 0.05 was used, while a trend was considered for 0.05 < P < 0.10. Cost and yield calculations Cost calculations were performed on a per-kilogram basis for green fodder, dry matter, and protein via the following formula: $$\\:\\text{C}\\text{o}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\:\\text{p}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\:\\text{k}\\text{g}=\\text{T}\\text{o}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{l}\\:\\text{c}\\text{o}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{s}÷\\text{T}\\text{o}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{l}\\:\\text{P}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{d}\\text{u}\\text{c}\\text{t}\\text{i}\\text{o}\\text{n}$$ Nutritional yields were computed via the following equation: $$\\:\\text{Y}\\text{i}\\text{e}\\text{l}\\text{d}=\\text{N}\\text{e}\\text{t}\\text{w}\\text{e}\\text{i}\\text{g}\\text{h}\\text{t}\\times\\:\\text{d}\\text{r}\\text{y}\\:\\text{m}\\text{a}\\text{t}\\text{t}\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\text{%}\\times\\:\\text{c}\\text{r}\\text{u}\\text{d}\\:\\text{p}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{i}\\text{n}\\text{%}$$ The as-fed weight was equal to the tray net weight. Results Table 4 presents the mean values of various metrics associated with barley production across different treatment groups at two distinct time points: 7 days and 14 days. The metrics evaluated included tray net weight, moisture content, dry matter percentage, tray dry matter weight, ash content, crude fiber percentage, crude protein percentage, and total crude protein per tray. At the 7-day mark, three treatment groups were examined: barley cultivated in an aquaponic system (7-day treatment 1), a hydroponic system without nutritive solution supplementation (7-day treatment 2), and a hydroponic system supplemented with a nutritive solution (7-day treatment 3). The tray net weight recorded for the 7-Day Treatment 1 group was the highest at 7.94 kilograms, whereas the other two groups presented lower weights, with the 7-Day Treatment 2 group having a weight of 6.82 kilograms and the 7-Day Treatment 3 group having a weight of 6.63 kilograms. Notably, the moisture content was elevated by 88% in both the 7-Day Treatment 2 and the 7-Day Treatment 3 groups. The dry matter percentages and tray dry matter weights were relatively comparable across these groups. At 14 days, the treatment groups included barley grown in the same systems as previously mentioned, but the values significantly changed. The tray net weight reached a peak of 11.80 kilograms for the 14-day treatment 1 group, whereas the other two groups presented lower weights of 9.27 kilograms and 9.58 kilograms for the barley hydroponic without nutritive solution and the barley hydroponic with nutritive solution, respectively. Additionally, the moisture content decreased to 83% for the 14-day treatment 1 group but remained stable at approximately 86% for the other two groups. Conversely, the crude protein percentage is markedly greater for the 14-Day Treatment 1 group at 19%, in contrast with the remaining groups, which range from 13–17%. Table 4 Mean values of tray net weight, moisture content, dry matter, tray dry matter weight, ash content, crude fiber, crude protein, and total crude protein per tray at 7 and 14 days across different treatment groups GR TNW (kg) Moisture % DM% TDMW (kg) Ash % CF% CP% TCPT (g) 7-DT1 7.94 a 87 ab 0.13 ab 0.99 ab 9.1 a 17 a 16 b 163.31 ab 7-DT2 6.82 a 88 b 0.12 ab 0.773 a 9.3 a 17 a 17 bc 134.83 a 7-DT3 6.63 a 88 b 0.12 ab 0.756 a 9.3 a 18 a 13 a 101.65 a 14-DT1 11.80 b 83 a 0.17 b 1.963 c 9 a 22 a 19 c 387.44 c 14-DT2 9.27 c 86 ab 0.14 a 1.320 b 9.2 a 17 a 17 b 227.18 b 14-DT3 9.58 c 86 ab 0.14 a 1.263 b 8.9 a 21 a 18 bc 332.15 b 7-DT1: barley aquaponic system on day 7; 7-DT2: barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 7; 7-DT3: barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 7; 14-DT1: barley aquaponic system on day 14; 14-DT2: barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 14; 14-DT3: barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 14. GR: Group; TNW (kg): Tray net WT (kg); DM%; Dry matter %; TDMW (kg): Tray dry matter WT (kg); CF%: Crude fiber %; CP%: Crude protein %; TCPT (g): Total crude protein per tray (g). Mean values followed by different letter(s) are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 according to the least significant difference (LSD) test. Table 5 presents a comprehensive overview of production metrics for various hydroponic barley systems over a six-month period, categorizing the data into total production, production costs, sales, and net revenue. It incorporates production figures measured both \"As Fed\" and in \"Dry Matter,\" thereby highlighting performance differences among three methods: aquaponic and hydroponic systems, evaluated at both seven- and fourteen-days post planting. The highest total production, \"As Fed\", was recorded at 148,680 kg from the aquaponic system on day 14, whereas the lowest total production was 83,538 kg from the hydroponic system (7-DT3) on day 7. In terms of dry matter, each method results in a significant reduction in weight due to moisture removal, reflecting the efficiency of the respective production systems. Furthermore, the protein yield was documented, indicating the nutritional output of these systems. The production cost per kilogram for green fodder varies across the hydroponic barley methods, with the lowest cost recorded for the aquaponic system on day 14 at $ 0.079, whereas the costs for dry matter and protein also significantly vary across the methods. The table additionally outlines costs, total sales figures, and resulting net revenues, illustrating notable profits, with the aquaponic system on day 14 achieving the highest net revenue of $ 10,556. Table 5 Six Months of Total Production, Production cost and Costs, Sales, and Net Revenue Category Item Group 7-DT1 7-DT2 7-DT3 14-DT1 14-DT2 14-DT3 Dry seed Total Production (kg) As Fed 100044 85932 83538 148680 116802 120708 12600 Dry Matter 12474 9740 9526 24734 16632 15914 10962 Protein 2058 1699 1281 4882 2862 2925 1096 Production cost per kg ( $ ) Green fodder 0.119 0.129 0.135 0.079 0.094 0.093 0.500 Dry Matter 0.953 1.138 1.184 0.480 0.666 0.709 0.574 Protein 5.780 6.524 8.810 2.436 3.872 3.857 5.747 Costs, Sale, and Net Revenue ( $ ) Green fodder costs 11905 11085 11278 11746 10979 11226 6300 Green Fodder Total sales 15007 12890 12531 22302 17520 18106 6300 Net Revenue 3101 1805 1253 10556 6541 6880 0 DT1: barley aquaponic system on day 7; 7-DT2: cultivated barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 7; 7-DT3: cultivated barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 7; 14-DT1: cultivated barley aquaponic system on day 14; 14-DT2: cultivated barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 14; 14-DT3: cultivated barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 14. Sale cost per kg of green fodder: $ 0.15. Discussion The highest recorded total production of 148,680 kg \"As Fed\" from the aquaponic system on day 14 underscores the potential of integrated aquaponics in maximizing yield. This outcome aligns with research indicating that aquaponic systems can produce greater crop outputs than traditional farming methods because of the integrated use of fish waste as a natural fertilizer and enhanced water conservation [ 9 ]. Additionally, the significant reduction in weight for each method as a result of moisture removal illustrates how hydroponic practices can influence the physiological properties of crops [ 20 ]. Documenting protein yield is vital, given the nutritional requirements of end-users. In line with these findings, Petrea et al. [ 17 ] conducted a comprehensive cost‒benefit analysis within integrated aquaponic systems, illustrating the practical implications of these economic factors for the sustainability and profitability of aquaponics across various contexts [ 17 ]. With the lowest cost identified at $ 0.079 for aquaponics on day 14, this suggests improved cost efficiency in later growth stages. This observation corroborates previous studies emphasizing the economic advantages of aquaponics, which include reduced input costs and increased market potential for farmers [ 23 ]. Research has demonstrated that employing inexpensive, locally sourced materials for aquaponic construction, with an overall investment ranging from $ 15– $ 25, can yield substantial fish and vegetable production, thereby increasing food security and providing a sustainable income source for coastal households facing economic challenges [ 23 ]. The variability in costs across methods signifies the necessity for thorough financial analysis tailored to specific farming conditions. These findings are consistent with previous research regarding the economic and resource efficiency of aquaponic systems. Studies conducted by Love et al. [ 11 ] and Suhl and Dannehl [ 22 ] highlighted the profitability potential of aquaponic systems, noting that outcomes can vary on the basis of scale and market conditions. Rakocy et al. [ 19 ] further emphasized efficient nutrient cycling and water usage in aquaponic systems, a phenomenon that is reflected in the lower production costs observed in this study. Similarly, Wasko et al. [ 25 ] discussed the economic feasibility of aquaponics, corroborating the cost-effectiveness indicated by the reduced production costs in aquaponic treatments, particularly with extended growth durations. Xu et al. [ 26 ] highlighted the resource efficiency and environmental benefits of aquaponics, which are correlated with the higher yields and lower resource inputs observed in this study. The highest net revenue recorded at $ 10,556 from the aquaponic system implies substantial economic returns. This finding aligns with broader trends in aquaponic and hydroponic practices, where the profitability of these systems is typically influenced by effective production methodologies and fluctuating market demand for the goods produced [ 10 ]. The financial insights derived from this study can inform future investments in hydroponic technologies. When the results from this investigation are compared with those of other studies, it becomes evident that hydroponic systems generally offer greater control over growth conditions, which leads to increased production efficiency and potentially enhanced financial outcomes. For example, a study conducted by Mishra, Rout, and Sahoo [ 13 ] indicated that hydroponic systems allow for superior control over growth conditions compared with traditional methods, resulting in improved production efficiency and potentially better financial returns. Moreover, the integration of fish farming with plant cultivation in aquaponic systems represents a sustainable model that maximizes food production outputs. Furthermore, the variations in net revenue and production costs reported here may reflect local market dynamics, crop management practices, and levels of technological adoption in hydroponic systems. Detailed analyses in the literature illustrate how these variables interact, influencing not only yield but also the overall sustainability of agricultural practices. For example, the review by Yuan et al. [ 27 ] underscores that variations in net revenue and production costs in urban agriculture can reflect local market conditions, crop management practices, and the degree of technology adoption in hydroponic systems. Previous studies have demonstrated how these factors interact to influence both crop yields and the overall sustainability of agricultural practices. The analysis of hydroponic barley production metrics indicates promising potential in terms of both high yield and economic viability. As the hydroponic and aquaponic sectors continue to evolve, ongoing research and development will be essential to optimize these systems for broader application. Future investigations should focus on long-term sustainability, crop diversity, and the impact of market variability on hydroponic systems. A study conducted by Ruploet et al. [ 21 ] emphasized the significant potential for high yields and economic viability in hydroponic vegetable production, which aligns with trends observed in hydroponic barley production metrics. As the hydroponic sector continues to develop, the research highlights the necessity for ongoing studies focused on implementation challenges, sustainability practices, and market dynamics, ensuring that farmers are equipped with essential knowledge for effective practices. Conclusions The study concluded that aquaponic systems significantly outperform hydroponic systems in terms of productivity and economic viability for barley production. Aquaponics yielded higher net tray weight and crude protein, coupled with lower costs per kilogram for green fodder and protein. Compared with hydroponic systems, aquaponics generated higher profits over a six-month period, highlighting its advantages in terms of resource efficiency and sustainability. Declarations Acknowledgment The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Miss Maysan Al-Jammal and Mr. Medhat Wild Ali from the National Agriculture Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Palestine, for their assistance in the chemical analysis of the samples used in this study. Their valuable support and expertise were instrumental in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the research findings. Author contributions ABO conceptualized the study, conducted the investigation, collaborated in writing the original draft and conducted the formal analysis MS contributed to the methodology, provided resources and curated the data. MSR supervised the paper writing and aided in data curation. All the authors have read and approved the manuscript. Funding No funding. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest Ethical Approval This study was conducted in a context where no institutions in Palestine issue ethics approval for research studies. As a result, formal ethical clearance and consent processes were not applicable. References Ahamed MS, Sultan M, Shamshiri RR, Rahman MM, Aleem M, Balasundram SK (2023) Present status and challenges of fodder production in controlled environments: A review. Smart Agric Technol 3:100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100080 AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA ANKOM Technology (2005) ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer Operator's Manual. ANKOM Technology Corporation, Fairport, NY, USA Bailey DS, Ferrarezi RS, Lieth JH (2016) Economic analysis of commercial hydroponic greenhouse lettuce production in the U.S. HortTechnology 26:858–865 Bambhaniya IJ, Bamaniya PK, Bajaniya VC (2023) Unlocking Sustainable Agriculture: Aquaponics System. In: Abishek R, Ilakiya T, Yazhini G (eds) Dimension in Agricultural Sciences: A Way Forward for Sustainability. JEC Publication, pp 45–56 Goddek S, Delaide B, Mankasingh U, Ragnarsdottir KV, Jijakli H, Thorarinsdottir RI (2015) Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability 7:4199–4224 Ibrahim LA, Shaghaleh H, El-Kassar GM, Abu-Hashim M, Elsadek EA, Alhaj Hamoud Y (2023) Aquaponics: A sustainable path to food sovereignty and enhanced water use efficiency. Water 15(4310). https://doi.org/10.3390/w15244310 König B, Junge R, Bittsánszky A, Villarroel M, Komives T (2016) On the sustainability of aquaponics. Ecocycles 2(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i1.50 Krastanova M, Sirakov I, Ivanova-Kirilova S, Yarkov D, Orozova P (2022) Aquaponic systems: Biological and technological parameters. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 36(01):305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2022.2074892 Lobillo-Eguíbar J, Fernández-Cabanás VM, Bermejo LA, Pérez-Urrestarazu L (2020) Economic sustainability of small-scale aquaponic systems for food self-production. Agronomy 10(10):1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101468 Love DC, Fry JP, Li X, Hill ES, Genello L, Semmens K, Thompson RE (2015) Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture 435:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023 Fussy A, Papenbrock J (2022) An overview of soil and soilless cultivation techniques: Chances, challenges, and the neglected question of sustainability. Plants 11:1153. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091153 Mishra SJ, Rout D, Sahoo D (2024) Analyzing the economic viability of hydroponic farming: A comparative cost–benefit analysis. Int J Progressive Res Eng Manag Sci 4(6):1806–1811. https://doi.org/10.58257/IJPREMS35128 Naik PK, Swain BK, Singh NP (2015) Production and utilization of hydroponics fodder. Indian J Anim Nutr 32:1–9 Nair CS, Manoharan R, Nishanth D, Subramanian R, Neumann E, Jaleel A (2025) Recent advancements in aquaponics with special emphasis on its sustainability. J World Aquac Soc 56(1):e13116. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.13116 Pantanella E, Cardarelli M, Colla G, Marcucci E (2012) Aquaponics vs. hydroponics: Production and quality of lettuce crop. Acta Hortic 927:887–894. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.109 Petrea SM, Bandi AC, Cristea D, Neculiță M (2019) Cost–benefit analysis into integrated aquaponics systems. Custos e Agronegócio 15(3):239–268 Puspa RC, Rawal JS (2024) Integrating aquaculture and hydroponics: A review of aquaponics systems and their sustainability. Eng Herit J 5(2):53–61. https://doi.org/10.26480/gwk.02.2024.53.61 Rakocy JE, Masser MP, Losordo TM (2006) Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: Aquaponics—Integrating fish and plant culture. SRAC Publ 454:1–16 Rajaseger G, Chan KL, Tan KY, Ramasamy S, Khin MC, Amaladoss A (2023) Hydroponics: Current trends in sustainable crop production. Bioinformation 19(9):925–938. https://doi.org/10.6026/97320630019925 Ruploet P, Kaewhanam K, Phansoomboon S, Piriyaphattarakit A (2024) A hydroponic vegetable business management approach in holistic good agricultural practices in Thailand. Front Sustain 5:1399528. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2024.1399528 Suhl J, Dannehl D (2010) Economic analysis of aquaponic systems: A review. Water Sci Technol 61:635–642. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.899 Sunny AR, Islam MM, Rahman M, Miah MY, Mostafiz M, Islam N, Hossain MZ, Chowdhury MA, Islam MA, Keus HJ (2019) Cost effective aquaponics for food security and income of farming households in coastal Bangladesh. Egypt J Aquat Res 45(1):89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2019.01.003 Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597 Wasko A, Wooten J, Summerfelt S, Waldrip H (2018) Economic feasibility of aquaponic systems: The case of Texas. J World Aquac Soc 49:450–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12494 Xu Y, Sandoval Solis S, Tang Y, Fitzsimmons K (2015) Quantifying water and nutrient budgets in aquaponic systems. Aquac Eng 66:35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.02.004 Yuan GN, Marquez GPB, Deng H, Iu A, Fabella MB, Salonga RB, Ashardiono F, Cartagena JA (2022) A review on urban agriculture: technology, socioeconomy, and policy. Heliyon 8(11):e11583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11583 Zappernick N, Nedunuri KV, Islam KR, Khanal S, Worley T, Laki SL, Shah A (2022) Techno-economic analysis of a recirculating tilapia-lettuce aquaponics system. J Clean Prod 365:132753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132753 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-6037890\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":416273474,\"identity\":\"5b29746d-0d23-4881-8f02-acac85fdec3f\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Angham Bani Owdeh\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Aquatic Ecosystems and Resources Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, University of Carthage, 1082 Tunis, Tunisia.\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Angham\",\"middleName\":\"Bani\",\"lastName\":\"Owdeh\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":416273611,\"identity\":\"f4a0f086-fefb-4d47-83bc-2401e346eeeb\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Muayad Salman\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Research Laboratory of Ecosystems and Aquatic Resources, UR03AGRO; National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia, University of Carthage, 43 Av. Charles Nicolle, Tunis, 1082 Tunisia.\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Muayad\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Salman\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":416273612,\"identity\":\"3c073ca6-104d-4ffa-b71c-d48a8d521f2a\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Mohamed Salah Romdhane\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Aquatic Ecosystems and Resources Laboratory, National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, University of Carthage, 1082 Tunis, Tunisia\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Mohamed\",\"middleName\":\"Salah\",\"lastName\":\"Romdhane\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-02-15 17:50:39\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":{\"humanSubjects\":false,\"vertebrateSubjects\":true,\"conflictsOfInterestStatement\":false,\"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines\":false,\"humanSubjectConsent\":false,\"humanSubjectClinicalTrial\":false,\"humanSubjectCaseReport\":false,\"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines\":true},\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6037890/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6037890/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":76659423,\"identity\":\"f5e7d7a6-1fdd-42f8-9a6d-8e2ea586ffcb\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-02-19 11:47:32\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":766417,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6037890/v1/1cf9b5ec-05e7-4774-b2b1-cfa8cd79caed.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"The authors declare no competing interests.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCost‒Benefit Analysis of Aquaponic and Hydroponic Systems in Barley Production: A Sustainable Agriculture Approach\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eLivestock farmers face a multitude of obstacles in their efforts to produce green fodder, including limited land availability, inadequate access to quality seeds, water scarcity, and environmental challenges such as natural disasters [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Similarly, Ahamed et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e] emphasized that hydroponic fodder production within controlled environments can alleviate some of these difficulties, particularly in terms of land scarcity and water resource limitations, thereby providing a sustainable, year-round solution for livestock feeding. Aquaponics represents a synergistic agricultural method that combines fish farming with plant cultivation. Within this system, fish waste contributes essential nutrients for hydroponically grown plants, which concurrently filter and purify the water for the fish [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e]. This method promotes sustainability by effectively recycling both water and nutrients, thereby significantly diminishing the environmental footprint associated with traditional food production practices. Investigations into soilless farming systems identify barley cultivation in aquaponic frameworks as a promising avenue for sustainable agricultural practices [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e12\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAquaponic systems, which integrate aquaculture and hydroponics, create a closed-loop ecosystem designed to optimize resource efficiency while mitigating environmental impacts via nutrient and water recycling [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e]. These systems exhibit substantial potential for sustainable crop production within controlled ecological life support systems, facilitating consistent cultivation with high yields and optimal resource utilization. The successful integration of aquaculture and hydroponics is marked by a symbiotic relationship; fish waste supplies vital nutrients for plant growth, while plants play a crucial role in filtering and purifying the aquatic environment for the fish. This reciprocal benefit not only enhances resource efficiency but also underscores the ability of aquaponics to maintain stable food production in the face of climate fluctuations [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Research conducted by Goddek et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e] explores aquaponics as a sustainable agricultural strategy that improves resource use and productivity, especially in urban and resource-constrained contexts. The authors highlight the advantages of nutrient recycling and water conservation, which are intrinsic to aquaponic systems and align with global sustainable development goals. However, they also pay attention to the higher initial setup costs associated with aquaponics in comparison with hydroponics, which lacks the complexities linked to fish farming.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAquaponic systems demand substantial capital investment due to the inclusion of integrated components, such as fish tanks, biofilters, and plumbing systems. This requirement sets them apart from hydroponic systems, which generally present lower startup costs, as they do not necessitate additional fish farming components. Nonetheless, both aquaponic and hydroponic systems require investments in infrastructure, including light and climate control systems, to achieve optimal operational efficiency [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e18\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Zappernick et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e28\\u003c/span\\u003e] reported that the operational costs of recirculating aquaponic systems (RAS) are influenced by various factors, such as electricity, labor, and specific nutrient needs for both hydroponics and aquaculture. While aquaponics may incur additional expenses related to maintaining fish health and water quality, the concurrent production of fish and plants can yield financial advantages by increasing overall operational efficiency. Controlled environment agriculture allows both systems to achieve high outputs; hydroponics benefits from precise nutrient management to accelerate plant growth, whereas aquaponics leverages fish waste to recycle nutrients, promoting high-quality crop production with reduced dependence on chemical fertilizers [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e16\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBoth aquaponics and hydroponics are viewed as sustainable alternatives to traditional farming practices through their efficient use of resources and reduction in environmental impacts. According to Goddek et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e], these systems diminish the demand for arable land and significantly reduce water consumption. Specifically, aquaponic systems reduce fertilizer runoff and lower levels of environmental contamination. These methodologies not only advocate for ecological conservation but also support sustainable agricultural goals by fostering efficient practices that lower the ecological footprint and promote healthy food production [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Economic analyses indicate that while both aquaponics and hydroponics require considerable initial investments, the long-term benefits of sustainable and efficient production could lead to profitability. The integrated nature of aquaponics permits dual income streams from both fish and plant sales, which can increase economic viability [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e15\\u003c/span\\u003e]. The principal goal of this study was to conduct a thorough cost‒benefit analysis of barley production within both aquaponic and hydroponic systems while evaluating the economic feasibility, resource efficiency, and productivity associated with each method.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Materials and methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eExperimental area and unit structure\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe study was conducted in the Nablus governorate, which is located in the West Bank region of Palestine, specifically at the geographical coordinates of 32.2211\\u0026deg; N latitude and 35.2544\\u0026deg; E longitude. Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e presents the specifications for the aquaponic unit structure. This unit comprises a 1000-liter polyethylene IBC tank, which is enclosed in a galvanized iron cage. It includes hydroponic trays that measure 2 m \\u0026times; 2 m \\u0026times; 0.25 m, which are made from galvanized metal with external dimensions of 30 mm \\u0026times; 30 mm and shelves with dimensions of 20 mm \\u0026times; 20 mm. The hydroponic trays are transparent, measuring 90 cm \\u0026times; 25 cm \\u0026times; 7 cm, and are divided into four sections, each containing five holes and stoppers. The system is equipped with water pumps running at 220 volts and consuming 20\\u0026ndash;25 watts, with a flow rate of 1500\\u0026ndash;2000 liters per hour. The total area occupied by the unit is 77 square meters, featuring a plastic roof, shaded sides, and structural supports made of 80 mm \\u0026times; 40 mm steel. The unit houses 490 trays, enabling a daily production capacity of 70 trays, thereby ensuring the efficient operation of the aquaponic system.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSpecifications of the equipment used in the hydroponic and aquaponic unit structures:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eItem\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSpecifications\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIBC Tank\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1000 L, polyethylene, white/translucent plastic, housed in a galvanized iron cage\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStand for Hydroponic Trays\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2 m x 2 m x 0.25 m, galvanized metal (30 mm x 30 mm outside, 20 mm x 20 mm shelves)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHydroponic Tray\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTransparent plastic, 90 cm x 25 cm x 7 cm, 4 divisions, 5 holes, stopper\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWater Pump\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e220 volts, 20\\u0026ndash;25 watts, 1500\\u0026ndash;2000 meters per hour\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnit Structure\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e77 sq.m, 7 m x 7 m, plastic roof, shaded sides, 80 mm x 40 mm steel\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eConstriction Costs\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e outlines the costs associated with establishing a barley hydroponic unit. The initial investment amounts to \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e4812.5, which covers the costs of tanks, trays, pumps, meters, structures, pipes, and maintenance. Recurring expenses are also presented, with an annual cost of \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e481.25 and a semiannual cost of \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e240.625. These data highlight the financial planning required for setting up such an agricultural system. The table serves as a valuable budgeting tool, offering a clear breakdown of both the upfront investment and the ongoing maintenance costs involved in hydroponic farming.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBarley Hydroponic and Aquaponic Unit Constrictions Cost (USD)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnit\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNo. of units\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnit Price (USD)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal Price (USD)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIBC Tank\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e70\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e140\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStand for hydroponic trays\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e27\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e25\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e675\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHydroponic Tray\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e500\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1000\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWater Pump\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e120\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003epH Meter\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e40\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e120\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEC Meter\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e40\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e120\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eunit structure:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2000\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2000\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePlastic pipes and connections\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e200\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e200\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMaintenance\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e437.5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4812.5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eYearly cost\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e481.25\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6 months cost\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e240.625\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eOperational Costs\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e presents a detailed cost analysis for a six-month operational period, comparing three distinct farming systems: Aquaponic, Hydroponic using nutritive solutions, and Hydroponic without nutritive solutions. The table lists essential inputs for these systems, including electricity, water, labor, seeds, fish fingerlings, fish feed, fertilizer, and miscellaneous expenses. Each input is specified with the required quantity, unit price in US dollars, and total cost for each farming system. For example, electricity costs are consistent across all systems at \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e150, whereas labor costs are uniformly \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e3,850. However, certain inputs, such as fish fingerlings and fish feed, are exclusive to the Aquaponic system. The total operational costs indicate that the Aquaponic system incurs the highest expense at \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e11,653.35, followed by the Hydroponic system, which uses nutritive solutions at \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e11,043.35, and the Hydroponic system without nutritive solutions, which has the lowest cost of \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e10,843.35. This analysis, which is based on the operation of 70 trays per day, serves as a crucial tool for stakeholders to assess the financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different farming strategies.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab3\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 3\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCost Analysis of a Six-month Operational Period for an Aquaponic Farming System, Hydroponic Using Nutritive Solutions and Hydroponic with Tab Water.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnit\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNo. of units\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnit Price (USD)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal Price (USD)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAquaponic System\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHydroponic Using Nutritive Solutions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHydroponic without nutritive solutions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eElectricity (kw)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e750\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e150\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e150\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e150\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWater (M3)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e18\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e27\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e27\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e27\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWorker (hour)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e770\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3850\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3850\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3850\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDry Barley Seeds (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12600\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6300\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6300\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6300\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFish Fingerlings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e600\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e180\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFish Feed (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e420\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e630\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFertilizer (Lump Sum)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e200\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e200\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOthers (Lump Sum)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e516.35\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e516.35\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e516.35\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11653.35\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11043.35\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10843.35\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal (USD)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11893.98\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11283.975\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11083.975\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eBased on 70 trays per day\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eHydroponic vs. Aquaponic Barley Growth\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeed preparation involved careful washing, cleaning, and soaking the seeds for 24 hours. After this period, the seeds were transferred to a tray and kept moist for an additional 2 days before the hydroponic and aquaponic systems were initiated. The study utilized a local variety of barley as the experimental material, with each tray containing 1 kg of seeds soaked for 3 days to facilitate germination. The germinated seeds were then transferred to hydroponic and aquaponic systems, which included three distinct groups: T1 (Aquaponic), T2 (Hydroponic without nutritive solution), and T3 (Hydroponic with nutritive solution).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eChemical analysis of barley sprouts\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSprouts from each group were weighed on the 7th and 14th days of the experiment. The representative samples were oven dried at 60\\u0026deg;C, ground through a 1 mm mesh screen sieve, and stored for chemical analysis. Chemical analysis was performed at the National Agricultural Research Center Laboratory. The moisture content (DM) was determined by drying the samples at 60\\u0026deg;C in a forced-air oven for 48 hours. The nitrogen (N) content was assessed via the Kjeldahl method, as outlined by the AOAC [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e]. The crude protein (CP) content was calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content by a factor of 6.25. The ash content was determined by igniting plant samples in a muffle furnace at 550\\u0026deg;C for 4 hours via the Protherm PFL 110/10 model. Additionally, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were measured following the methods described by Van Soest et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e24\\u003c/span\\u003e], utilizing sodium sulfide and the ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec9\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eStatistical analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe statistical analysis of the data was conducted via the general linear model (GLM) procedure of SPSS 22. The analysis followed a completely randomized model with three treatments and three replications within both the 7-day and 14-day periods.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe model can be represented by the following equation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eYij\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026micro;\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;Ti\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;Dj\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;eij\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this equation, Yij represents the observation, \\u0026micro; represents the overall mean, Ti represents the effect of treatment (T1, T2, T3), Dj represents the effect of days in planting (7 days, 14 days), and eij represents the residual error. To determine significance, a threshold of P\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.05 was used, while a trend was considered for 0.05\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;P\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.10.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eCost and yield calculations\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eCost calculations were performed on a per-kilogram basis for green fodder, dry matter, and protein via the following formula:\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Equa\\\" class=\\\"Equation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv format=\\\"TEX\\\" class=\\\"mathdisplay\\\" id=\\\"FileID_Equa\\\" name=\\\"EquationSource\\\"\\u003e\\n$$\\\\:\\\\text{C}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{s}\\\\text{t}\\\\:\\\\text{p}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{r}\\\\:\\\\text{k}\\\\text{g}=\\\\text{T}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{a}\\\\text{l}\\\\:\\\\text{c}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{s}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{s}\\u0026divide;\\\\text{T}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{a}\\\\text{l}\\\\:\\\\text{P}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{d}\\\\text{u}\\\\text{c}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{i}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{n}$$\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNutritional yields were computed via the following equation:\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Equb\\\" class=\\\"Equation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv format=\\\"TEX\\\" class=\\\"mathdisplay\\\" id=\\\"FileID_Equb\\\" name=\\\"EquationSource\\\"\\u003e\\n$$\\\\:\\\\text{Y}\\\\text{i}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{l}\\\\text{d}=\\\\text{N}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{w}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{i}\\\\text{g}\\\\text{h}\\\\text{t}\\\\times\\\\:\\\\text{d}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{y}\\\\:\\\\text{m}\\\\text{a}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{%}\\\\times\\\\:\\\\text{c}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{u}\\\\text{d}\\\\:\\\\text{p}\\\\text{r}\\\\text{o}\\\\text{t}\\\\text{e}\\\\text{i}\\\\text{n}\\\\text{%}$$\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe as-fed weight was equal to the tray net weight.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab4\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e presents the mean values of various metrics associated with barley production across different treatment groups at two distinct time points: 7 days and 14 days. The metrics evaluated included tray net weight, moisture content, dry matter percentage, tray dry matter weight, ash content, crude fiber percentage, crude protein percentage, and total crude protein per tray.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the 7-day mark, three treatment groups were examined: barley cultivated in an aquaponic system (7-day treatment 1), a hydroponic system without nutritive solution supplementation (7-day treatment 2), and a hydroponic system supplemented with a nutritive solution (7-day treatment 3). The tray net weight recorded for the 7-Day Treatment 1 group was the highest at 7.94 kilograms, whereas the other two groups presented lower weights, with the 7-Day Treatment 2 group having a weight of 6.82 kilograms and the 7-Day Treatment 3 group having a weight of 6.63 kilograms. Notably, the moisture content was elevated by 88% in both the 7-Day Treatment 2 and the 7-Day Treatment 3 groups. The dry matter percentages and tray dry matter weights were relatively comparable across these groups.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt 14 days, the treatment groups included barley grown in the same systems as previously mentioned, but the values significantly changed. The tray net weight reached a peak of 11.80 kilograms for the 14-day treatment 1 group, whereas the other two groups presented lower weights of 9.27 kilograms and 9.58 kilograms for the barley hydroponic without nutritive solution and the barley hydroponic with nutritive solution, respectively. Additionally, the moisture content decreased to 83% for the 14-day treatment 1 group but remained stable at approximately 86% for the other two groups. Conversely, the crude protein percentage is markedly greater for the 14-Day Treatment 1 group at 19%, in contrast with the remaining groups, which range from 13\\u0026ndash;17%.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab4\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 4\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMean values of tray net weight, moisture content, dry matter, tray dry matter weight, ash content, crude fiber, crude protein, and total crude protein per tray at 7 and 14 days across different treatment groups\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\" colnum=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\" colnum=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGR\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTNW (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMoisture %\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDM%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTDMW (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAsh %\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCF%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCP%\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTCPT (g)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7-DT1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7.94\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e87\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.13\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.99\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9.1\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e17\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e16\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e163.31\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7-DT2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6.82\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e88\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.12\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.773\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9.3\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e17\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e17\\u003csup\\u003ebc\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e134.83\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7-DT3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6.63\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e88\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.12\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.756\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9.3\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e18\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e13\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e101.65\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14-DT1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11.80\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e83\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.17\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.963\\u003csup\\u003ec\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e22\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e19\\u003csup\\u003ec\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e387.44\\u003csup\\u003ec\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14-DT2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9.27\\u003csup\\u003ec\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e86\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.14\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.320\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9.2\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e17\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e17\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e227.18\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14-DT3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9.58\\u003csup\\u003ec\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e86\\u003csup\\u003eab\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.14\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.263\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e8.9\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e21\\u003csup\\u003ea\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e18\\u003csup\\u003ebc\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e332.15\\u003csup\\u003eb\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7-DT1: barley aquaponic system on day 7; 7-DT2: barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 7; 7-DT3: barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 7; 14-DT1: barley aquaponic system on day 14; 14-DT2: barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 14; 14-DT3: barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 14. GR: Group; TNW (kg): Tray net WT (kg); DM%; Dry matter %; TDMW (kg): Tray dry matter WT (kg); CF%: Crude fiber %; CP%: Crude protein %; TCPT (g): Total crude protein per tray (g). Mean values followed by different letter(s) are significantly different at p\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026le;\\u0026thinsp;0.05 according to the least significant difference (LSD) test.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e presents a comprehensive overview of production metrics for various hydroponic barley systems over a six-month period, categorizing the data into total production, production costs, sales, and net revenue. It incorporates production figures measured both \\\"As Fed\\\" and in \\\"Dry Matter,\\\" thereby highlighting performance differences among three methods: aquaponic and hydroponic systems, evaluated at both seven- and fourteen-days post planting. The highest total production, \\\"As Fed\\\", was recorded at 148,680 kg from the aquaponic system on day 14, whereas the lowest total production was 83,538 kg from the hydroponic system (7-DT3) on day 7. In terms of dry matter, each method results in a significant reduction in weight due to moisture removal, reflecting the efficiency of the respective production systems. Furthermore, the protein yield was documented, indicating the nutritional output of these systems. The production cost per kilogram for green fodder varies across the hydroponic barley methods, with the lowest cost recorded for the aquaponic system on day 14 at \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e0.079, whereas the costs for dry matter and protein also significantly vary across the methods. The table additionally outlines costs, total sales figures, and resulting net revenues, illustrating notable profits, with the aquaponic system on day 14 achieving the highest net revenue of \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e10,556.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab5\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 5\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSix Months of Total Production, Production cost and Costs, Sales, and Net Revenue\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\" colnum=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\" colnum=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCategory\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" morerows=\\\"1\\\" rowspan=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eItem\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"7\\\" nameend=\\\"c9\\\" namest=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGroup\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7-DT1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7-DT2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e7-DT3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14-DT1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14-DT2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e14-DT3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDry seed\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal Production (kg)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs Fed\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e100044\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e85932\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e83538\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e148680\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e116802\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e120708\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12600\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDry Matter\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12474\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9740\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e9526\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e24734\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e16632\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e15914\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10962\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProtein\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2058\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1699\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1281\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4882\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2862\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2925\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1096\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProduction cost per kg (\\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGreen fodder\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.119\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.129\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.135\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.079\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.094\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.093\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.500\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDry Matter\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.953\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.138\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.184\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.480\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.666\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.709\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.574\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eProtein\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5.780\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6.524\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e8.810\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.436\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.872\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.857\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5.747\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCosts, Sale, and Net Revenue (\\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGreen fodder costs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11905\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11085\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11278\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11746\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10979\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e11226\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6300\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGreen Fodder Total sales\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e15007\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12890\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12531\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e22302\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e17520\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e18106\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6300\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNet Revenue\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3101\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1805\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1253\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10556\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6541\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e6880\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDT1: barley aquaponic system on day 7; 7-DT2: cultivated barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 7; 7-DT3: cultivated barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 7; 14-DT1: cultivated barley aquaponic system on day 14; 14-DT2: cultivated barley hydroponic system without nutritive solution on day 14; 14-DT3: cultivated barley hydroponic system with nutritive solution on day 14. Sale cost per kg of green fodder: \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e 0.15.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe highest recorded total production of 148,680 kg \\\"As Fed\\\" from the aquaponic system on day 14 underscores the potential of integrated aquaponics in maximizing yield. This outcome aligns with research indicating that aquaponic systems can produce greater crop outputs than traditional farming methods because of the integrated use of fish waste as a natural fertilizer and enhanced water conservation [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e9\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Additionally, the significant reduction in weight for each method as a result of moisture removal illustrates how hydroponic practices can influence the physiological properties of crops [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDocumenting protein yield is vital, given the nutritional requirements of end-users. In line with these findings, Petrea et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e] conducted a comprehensive cost‒benefit analysis within integrated aquaponic systems, illustrating the practical implications of these economic factors for the sustainability and profitability of aquaponics across various contexts [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e]. With the lowest cost identified at \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e0.079 for aquaponics on day 14, this suggests improved cost efficiency in later growth stages. This observation corroborates previous studies emphasizing the economic advantages of aquaponics, which include reduced input costs and increased market potential for farmers [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e23\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Research has demonstrated that employing inexpensive, locally sourced materials for aquaponic construction, with an overall investment ranging from \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e15\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e25, can yield substantial fish and vegetable production, thereby increasing food security and providing a sustainable income source for coastal households facing economic challenges [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e23\\u003c/span\\u003e]. The variability in costs across methods signifies the necessity for thorough financial analysis tailored to specific farming conditions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese findings are consistent with previous research regarding the economic and resource efficiency of aquaponic systems. Studies conducted by Love et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e] and Suhl and Dannehl [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e] highlighted the profitability potential of aquaponic systems, noting that outcomes can vary on the basis of scale and market conditions. Rakocy et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e19\\u003c/span\\u003e] further emphasized efficient nutrient cycling and water usage in aquaponic systems, a phenomenon that is reflected in the lower production costs observed in this study. Similarly, Wasko et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e] discussed the economic feasibility of aquaponics, corroborating the cost-effectiveness indicated by the reduced production costs in aquaponic treatments, particularly with extended growth durations. Xu et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e] highlighted the resource efficiency and environmental benefits of aquaponics, which are correlated with the higher yields and lower resource inputs observed in this study.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe highest net revenue recorded at \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e10,556 from the aquaponic system implies substantial economic returns. This finding aligns with broader trends in aquaponic and hydroponic practices, where the profitability of these systems is typically influenced by effective production methodologies and fluctuating market demand for the goods produced [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e10\\u003c/span\\u003e]. The financial insights derived from this study can inform future investments in hydroponic technologies. When the results from this investigation are compared with those of other studies, it becomes evident that hydroponic systems generally offer greater control over growth conditions, which leads to increased production efficiency and potentially enhanced financial outcomes. For example, a study conducted by Mishra, Rout, and Sahoo [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e13\\u003c/span\\u003e] indicated that hydroponic systems allow for superior control over growth conditions compared with traditional methods, resulting in improved production efficiency and potentially better financial returns. Moreover, the integration of fish farming with plant cultivation in aquaponic systems represents a sustainable model that maximizes food production outputs.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFurthermore, the variations in net revenue and production costs reported here may reflect local market dynamics, crop management practices, and levels of technological adoption in hydroponic systems. Detailed analyses in the literature illustrate how these variables interact, influencing not only yield but also the overall sustainability of agricultural practices. For example, the review by Yuan et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e27\\u003c/span\\u003e] underscores that variations in net revenue and production costs in urban agriculture can reflect local market conditions, crop management practices, and the degree of technology adoption in hydroponic systems. Previous studies have demonstrated how these factors interact to influence both crop yields and the overall sustainability of agricultural practices. The analysis of hydroponic barley production metrics indicates promising potential in terms of both high yield and economic viability. As the hydroponic and aquaponic sectors continue to evolve, ongoing research and development will be essential to optimize these systems for broader application. Future investigations should focus on long-term sustainability, crop diversity, and the impact of market variability on hydroponic systems. A study conducted by Ruploet et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e21\\u003c/span\\u003e] emphasized the significant potential for high yields and economic viability in hydroponic vegetable production, which aligns with trends observed in hydroponic barley production metrics. As the hydroponic sector continues to develop, the research highlights the necessity for ongoing studies focused on implementation challenges, sustainability practices, and market dynamics, ensuring that farmers are equipped with essential knowledge for effective practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusions\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe study concluded that aquaponic systems significantly outperform hydroponic systems in terms of productivity and economic viability for barley production. Aquaponics yielded higher net tray weight and crude protein, coupled with lower costs per kilogram for green fodder and protein. Compared with hydroponic systems, aquaponics generated higher profits over a six-month period, highlighting its advantages in terms of resource efficiency and sustainability.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgment\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Miss Maysan Al-Jammal and Mr. \\u0026nbsp;Medhat Wild Ali from the National Agriculture Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Palestine, for their assistance in the chemical analysis of the samples used in this study. Their valuable support and expertise were instrumental in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the research findings.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor contributions\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eABO conceptualized the study, conducted the investigation, collaborated in writing the original draft and conducted the formal analysis MS contributed to the methodology, provided resources and curated the data. MSR supervised the paper writing and aided in data curation. All the authors have read and approved the manuscript.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFunding\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eNo funding.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCompliance with Ethical Standards\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConflict of interest\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthical Approval\\u003c/strong\\u003e This study was conducted in a context where no institutions in Palestine issue ethics approval for research studies. As a result, formal ethical clearance and consent processes were not applicable.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAhamed MS, Sultan M, Shamshiri RR, Rahman MM, Aleem M, Balasundram SK (2023) Present status and challenges of fodder production in controlled environments: A review. Smart Agric Technol 3:100080. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100080\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.atech.2022.100080\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eANKOM Technology (2005) ANKOM 200 Fiber Analyzer Operator's Manual. ANKOM Technology Corporation, Fairport, NY, USA\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBailey DS, Ferrarezi RS, Lieth JH (2016) Economic analysis of commercial hydroponic greenhouse lettuce production in the U.S. HortTechnology 26:858\\u0026ndash;865\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBambhaniya IJ, Bamaniya PK, Bajaniya VC (2023) Unlocking Sustainable Agriculture: Aquaponics System. In: Abishek R, Ilakiya T, Yazhini G (eds) Dimension in Agricultural Sciences: A Way Forward for Sustainability. JEC Publication, pp 45\\u0026ndash;56\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGoddek S, Delaide B, Mankasingh U, Ragnarsdottir KV, Jijakli H, Thorarinsdottir RI (2015) Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability 7:4199\\u0026ndash;4224\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eIbrahim LA, Shaghaleh H, El-Kassar GM, Abu-Hashim M, Elsadek EA, Alhaj Hamoud Y (2023) Aquaponics: A sustainable path to food sovereignty and enhanced water use efficiency. Water 15(4310). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/w15244310\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/w15244310\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eK\\u0026ouml;nig B, Junge R, Bitts\\u0026aacute;nszky A, Villarroel M, Komives T (2016) On the sustainability of aquaponics. Ecocycles 2(1):26\\u0026ndash;32. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i1.50\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.19040/ecocycles.v2i1.50\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKrastanova M, Sirakov I, Ivanova-Kirilova S, Yarkov D, Orozova P (2022) Aquaponic systems: Biological and technological parameters. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 36(01):305\\u0026ndash;316. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2022.2074892\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/13102818.2022.2074892\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLobillo-Egu\\u0026iacute;bar J, Fern\\u0026aacute;ndez-Caban\\u0026aacute;s VM, Bermejo LA, P\\u0026eacute;rez-Urrestarazu L (2020) Economic sustainability of small-scale aquaponic systems for food self-production. Agronomy 10(10):1468. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101468\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/agronomy10101468\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLove DC, Fry JP, Li X, Hill ES, Genello L, Semmens K, Thompson RE (2015) Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture 435:67\\u0026ndash;74. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFussy A, Papenbrock J (2022) An overview of soil and soilless cultivation techniques: Chances, challenges, and the neglected question of sustainability. Plants 11:1153. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091153\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/plants11091153\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMishra SJ, Rout D, Sahoo D (2024) Analyzing the economic viability of hydroponic farming: A comparative cost\\u0026ndash;benefit analysis. Int J Progressive Res Eng Manag Sci 4(6):1806\\u0026ndash;1811. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.58257/IJPREMS35128\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.58257/IJPREMS35128\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNaik PK, Swain BK, Singh NP (2015) Production and utilization of hydroponics fodder. Indian J Anim Nutr 32:1\\u0026ndash;9\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNair CS, Manoharan R, Nishanth D, Subramanian R, Neumann E, Jaleel A (2025) Recent advancements in aquaponics with special emphasis on its sustainability. J World Aquac Soc 56(1):e13116. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.13116\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/jwas.13116\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePantanella E, Cardarelli M, Colla G, Marcucci E (2012) Aquaponics vs. hydroponics: Production and quality of lettuce crop. Acta Hortic 927:887\\u0026ndash;894. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.109\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.109\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePetrea SM, Bandi AC, Cristea D, Neculiță M (2019) Cost\\u0026ndash;benefit analysis into integrated aquaponics systems. Custos e Agroneg\\u0026oacute;cio 15(3):239\\u0026ndash;268\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePuspa RC, Rawal JS (2024) Integrating aquaculture and hydroponics: A review of aquaponics systems and their sustainability. Eng Herit J 5(2):53\\u0026ndash;61. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.26480/gwk.02.2024.53.61\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.26480/gwk.02.2024.53.61\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRakocy JE, Masser MP, Losordo TM (2006) Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: Aquaponics\\u0026mdash;Integrating fish and plant culture. SRAC Publ 454:1\\u0026ndash;16\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRajaseger G, Chan KL, Tan KY, Ramasamy S, Khin MC, Amaladoss A (2023) Hydroponics: Current trends in sustainable crop production. Bioinformation 19(9):925\\u0026ndash;938. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.6026/97320630019925\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.6026/97320630019925\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRuploet P, Kaewhanam K, Phansoomboon S, Piriyaphattarakit A (2024) A hydroponic vegetable business management approach in holistic good agricultural practices in Thailand. Front Sustain 5:1399528. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2024.1399528\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3389/frsus.2024.1399528\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSuhl J, Dannehl D (2010) Economic analysis of aquaponic systems: A review. Water Sci Technol 61:635\\u0026ndash;642. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.899\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.2166/wst.2010.899\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSunny AR, Islam MM, Rahman M, Miah MY, Mostafiz M, Islam N, Hossain MZ, Chowdhury MA, Islam MA, Keus HJ (2019) Cost effective aquaponics for food security and income of farming households in coastal Bangladesh. Egypt J Aquat Res 45(1):89\\u0026ndash;97. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2019.01.003\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.ejar.2019.01.003\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eVan Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583\\u0026ndash;3597\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWasko A, Wooten J, Summerfelt S, Waldrip H (2018) Economic feasibility of aquaponic systems: The case of Texas. J World Aquac Soc 49:450\\u0026ndash;461. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12494\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/jwas.12494\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eXu Y, Sandoval Solis S, Tang Y, Fitzsimmons K (2015) Quantifying water and nutrient budgets in aquaponic systems. Aquac Eng 66:35\\u0026ndash;42. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.02.004\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.02.004\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYuan GN, Marquez GPB, Deng H, Iu A, Fabella MB, Salonga RB, Ashardiono F, Cartagena JA (2022) A review on urban agriculture: technology, socioeconomy, and policy. Heliyon 8(11):e11583. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11583\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11583\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZappernick N, Nedunuri KV, Islam KR, Khanal S, Worley T, Laki SL, Shah A (2022) Techno-economic analysis of a recirculating tilapia-lettuce aquaponics system. J Clean Prod 365:132753. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132753\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132753\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":true,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of Carthage\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Hydroponic Aquaponic, Crude protein, Cost benefit analysis\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6037890/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6037890/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe primary objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive cost‒benefit analysis of barley production within both aquaponic and hydroponic systems. This research undertakes a detailed cost‒benefit evaluation comparing aquaponic and hydroponic methods for barley cultivation, with a focus on their economic viability and sustainability. A local variety of barley was selected to analyze the production outcomes and operational costs associated with each cultivation technique. The key metrics evaluated included tray net weight, dry matter percentage, and crude protein yield, which were measured on the 7th and 14th days posts eeding. The results indicated that by the 14th day of cultivation, the aquaponic system presented the highest net weight of the trays (11.80 kilograms), whereas the hydroponic system without nutritive solution yielded a net weight of 9.27 kilograms, and the nutrient solution resulted in a net weight of 9.58 kilograms. The dry matter percentage was 17% for the aquaponic system and 14% for both hydroponic treatments. The total crude protein output per tray was significantly greater in the aquaponic system, reaching 387.44 grams, whereas the barley hydroponic system with nutrient mixture produced 332.15 grams, and the hydroponic system without nutritive mixture yielded 227.18 grams at the 14-day mark. Notably, substantial profits were observed, with the aquaponic system generating the highest net revenue. These findings underscore the economic advantages of aquaponics by effectively integrating fish cultivation with plant production, establishing it as a viable method for enhancing food security and sustainability, particularly in resource-constrained settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Cost‒Benefit Analysis of Aquaponic and Hydroponic Systems in Barley Production: A Sustainable Agriculture Approach\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-02-19 11:31:27\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6037890/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"f89a1fcb-9461-4f25-941e-d3fff8efa447\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"February 19th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":44388776,\"name\":\"Agricultural Economics \\u0026 Policy\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-02-19T11:31:27+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-02-19 11:31:27\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-6037890\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-6037890\",\"identity\":\"rs-6037890\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}