For intensive production systems like the Blue Ridge Aquaculture (BRA), based in Martinsville, VA, there are significant economic incentives to reuse the waste by diverting it into a cropping system that would increase the total productivity and total resource-reuse efficiency, and decrease the environmental, ecological, and financial costs of aquacultural waste disposal. In order to facilitate the reuse of effluent from the tilapia production at the BRA, a green house was developed. On this site, sludge waste from recirculating aquaculture was separated and composted using a vermicomposting technique and the resulting compost was utilized as an amendment to conventional greenhouse potting mixes. These aquacultural waste products were compared to conventional greenhouse culture of a common ornamental annual plant. It was hypothesized that (1) vermicomposted aquaculture sludge would increase the growth of plants over conventional greenhouse potting mixes, and (2) recycled aquacultural wastewater can serve as a quality source of irrigation water, and plant response would differ with irrigation method. Plant growth and 11 out of 12 plant tissue nutrients were greater when compost was increased in the substrate. Plant root growth and 3 out of 12 tissue nutrients were increased when irrigated with wastewater. Plant shoot mass and total mass was greater when irrigated by ebb and flow irrigation compared to overhead mist irrigation, and 4 out of 12 tissue nutrients were greater when irrigated with mist irrigation. Overall plant performance was greatest with 15% vermicomposted sludge in the substrate and watered with wastewater by ebb and flow irrigation. / Master of Science

No description available.

Aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, les historiens des sciences associaient généralement Francis Bacon et Galilée pour leur rôle dans l’émergence de la science moderne, mais, à la fin du XIXe et au début du XXe siècle, la Révolution scientifique fut identifiée de manière stricte à la construction de la physique mathématique, ce qui eut souvent pour conséquence de rejeter Bacon hors de l’histoire des sciences. Nous reprenons l’étude conjointe de ces deux auteurs pour mesurer quelle est exactement la nature de leur divergence. Dans la première partie de notre travail, nous abordons les questions cosmologiques. Sur quels arguments Galilée fonde-t-il sa défense publique du copernicianisme entre 1610 et 1616, jusqu’à la première condamnation de l’opinion copernicienne par l’Eglise Catholique ? Pour quelles raisons Bacon, qui suit cette campagne copernicienne, rejette-t-il la plupart des découvertes astronomiques de Galilée ? Pourquoi Bacon, tout en réussissant à percevoir le caractère (trop peu) systématique du géocentrisme, refuse-t-il l’héliocentrisme ? Dans la deuxième partie de notre travail, nous abordons les questions relatives à la méthode, ainsi que les théories de la matière et du mouvement. Quel est le rôle de la perception sensible et la fonction des mathématiques dans les théories de Bacon ? Quelle est la signification de sa théorie du mouvement, qui multiplie les objets d’étude en proposant une typologie des différents mouvements concrets, alors que la physique mathématique tend à réduire tout déplacement au seul mouvement linéaire inertiel ? Quelle est la fonction de l’atomisme mathématique de Galilée ? Dans quelle mesure sa science du mouvement se distingue-t-elle de l’approche baconienne ? La différence fondamentale entre la science galiléenne et la démarche de Bacon consiste, selon nous, dans la nature des expériences et des observations qui sont convoquées, ainsi que dans le type d’abstraction que ces deux auteurs veulent conférer à la philosophie naturelle. / During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, historians of science usually considered that Francis Bacon and Galileo had respectively played their role in the merging of modern science, but, at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, Scientific Revolution has been strictly reduced to the elaboration of mathematical physics, which had for consequence to exclude Bacon from the history of science. Our aim is to underline the exact nature of the difference between those two authors. In the first part, we deal with the cosmological problems. What arguments did Galileo produce to sustain his public commitment for the Copernican system, from 1610 to 1616, until the first condemnation of copernicanism by the Roman Church ? For what reasons did Bacon reject most of Galileo’s astronomical discoveries ? Why Bacon, who clearly perceived the fact that the geocentric theory lacked systematic character, refused heliocentrism ? In the second part, we deal with the methodological questions, we analyse matter theories and the science of motion. What is the role of sense perception and what is the fonction of mathematics in Bacon’s theories ? What is the significance of his theory of motion, which multiplies the objects of study, proposing a typology of concrete movements, while mathematical physics aims at reducing any motion to the rectilinear inertial movement ? What is the fonction of the mathematical atomism proposed by Galileo ? In what measure does his science of motion distinguish from the baconian approach ? We think that the fondamental difference between the science of Galileo and the theories of Bacon consists in the nature of the experiments and observations used, and in the type of abstraction they are looking for in natural philosophy.