Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

More specifically some growers namely those that have a vested interest in the certifying organisations.



It wasn't so much a rebel attitude but an the awareness of my parents of what was going into comercial food and a desire to grow our own food that actually tasted good.



My point is not that we don't need laws but that we allready have them.

If we cosider a hypothetical or even a real situation as I understand it is in the EU two growers label their food as organic one is certified while the other isn't. The uncertified grower actually operates organically but gets fined for not being certified. The certified grower dosn't operate their farm 100% organically but manages to fool the inspectors for a while until acidently hiring a hippy in clean clothes who blows the whistle on the operation.

In the situation I'd rather I can produce food organically and label it as organic (but not certified). If anyone doubts the quality of what I produce thenI can give them a tour of the operation and if they are still not happy they can not buy my produce. If any grower labels their food organic (whether certified or not) but eventually it is found that they have not been growing food organically then they will have to face the ACCC.

WHat is needed rather than new laws is a couple of good court cases to clearly set a precendence. Much as we had in Australia a few years ago over the made in Australia label. People where prosecuted for consumer fraud and deception (not clear on the actual legal names of thecharges) for blatantly selling items labelled "made in australia" that weren't or in one case for selling clothes with labels that had "made in australia" on them (the labels were made in australia the clothes were not).

Stuart, somehow that rings very true with me. rules and regulations are GREAT in theory. practice is another thing.....i've seen my fair share of food safety regs being flaunted horrendously from being asked to doctor up weeks worth of non existant daily food test temps from a place that i had better not name lest have 25 QC's at my door, to seeing a freezer full of meat left in operation after being well out of temp for 24hrs being told "thats our concern" at a place that services one the most vulnerable of our society, to other specified HAACP procedures ignored and laughed at when you try to abide by them..................

I have already read forums where organically certed places boast that there are many ways to skirt the regs by knowing the exact half lives of synthetic products and when their inspections are due.

the only way to ensure compliance is to random test as sport and gov. institutions do with drugs.

It makes me SICK to see people certified in any respect when the certification process is open to such rorts. it serves only the certification agencies that charge a fortune, and the company being certified so tey can have a sexy little stamp. As always the end consumer is the one that cops it up the proverbial arse.

MY thoughts

Steve.

as long as you don't protect the names, these laws are in favor of those who want to abuse these names.

in these circumstances the precedent will be that the organic grower will lose the case.




are all examples, I think, in favor of a better regulation and more control

yet you are both pleading against it
I don't understand.

You are even pleading for the right to continue carrying the name organic while not agreeing to subject yourselves to control, meanwhile insinuating that all control organisms are corrupt and all certified growers are frauds.

Now isn't that a bit easy?

Frank

Frank, all three of your quotes of my comments related to organisations that ARE HACCP, Aged care accredited and local food regulation accredited.

The only way to stop this kind of behaviour is to have non advertised on the sport inspections. now considering the length of time that HACCP proceedures and all of the others including ISO standards (oh that was another one that i forgot) have been around i'd think that if on the spot (not we're coming out in 4 weeks) inspections haven't been brought in then i'd think its safe to say that its not going to happen.

The ACCC here has been investigating price fixing by the petrol companies for what 20 years? yet cant seen to find the correlation that every motorist can......price goes up thursday and comes down monday.........



This is with insinuations is that sensitive people tend to think that others are insinuating more than they really are.........................

What i am INSINUATING of ALL of the establihments that i have seen people do what they must to retain certification and all that they can to go against it when the certification body is not looking.

where exactly did i insinuate anything about certification bodies being corrupt? they are doing their mandated job within the confines of their charter, the fact that it stands for practically nothing in real terms when you add the deviousness of humanity is not THEIR fault, and does not make them corrupt.

I think we agree more than we disagree:

I didn't say they weren't, I said:


here you ask for more controlling and inspections, I repeat:


as for:

You didn't quite defend the organic certifiers, nor the certifiing process, nor the certified producers, how's this for insinuations:



you fulminate against trespassers, and ask for more inspections, but they have to stop right at the entry of your property. You ask, no you demand to be believed on your word.

You know I am something like a sideways specialist on HACCP.
For over 33 years I have first sold high pressure cleaners, then designed, manufactured installed and serviced central cleaning and disinfection systems for the food industry.
With my own eyes, I have seen the industry very grudgingly adapting to HACCP regulation.
Meanwhile, during this 8 year process, I have seen most chemicals claimed necessary and unmissable excluded from meat, but still noticed shelf life of fresh meat from the supermarkets into my fridge increase with, on average, a half day per year. Food is now far healthier than twenty years ago.

I have seen the companies that were favorable to the idea and chose to be the first to adapt, bloom to wealth and success. I have seen others cautiously following, most needed more coaxing. I have seen companies being closed temporarily and completely.
I have seen green-blue pig hams defrosting on floors while a team of deboners were cutting off the meat on dirty tables in dirty clothes with dirty hands, while SMOKING.
I am not predending that this totally doesn't happen anymore, but if you get caught, you're finished.
Announced inspections, indeed, but I can assure you that companies shudder from top to toe when these inspectors arrive, because they mean business!
Of all companies I know that adapted to HACCP, though almost all have resented it, only very few stubborn ones would go back to old times.
It is because I have witnessed the general fight of the industry against HACCP, and the final benefits of it's implication, that I know laws and rules are necessary. Sadly so.
Followed by tough inspections. First announced, for the stubborn unannounced.

And I know that "organic" needs protection.
Because the whole industry will try to claim being organic if that word is not protected.

Frank

I too think that we agree on many things including that the word organic needs to be protected. Where we differ is in the implementation. The ACCC already has all the legal power it needs to prosecute individuals who erroneously (sp?) label their food organic. Making extra laws won't protect consumers to any greater degree nor will giving selected certifying bodies special status. The laws allready exist, if you lie about your product you can be prosecuted.

THe advantage of a certifying body is that producers can badge their products with it quickly and easily communicating to their customers that their produce is produced to a certain standard and within a set of guidelines. The consumer has the sense of security (which from Steve's comments may only be a preceived security) and should be able to trust that they are buying what they think they are buying.

Personally I may go down the track of getting certification but in the mean time I would rather develop a relationship with my customers, talk to them about my produce, show them how its grown and in particular not have certifying bodies claim that my AP grown vegies are not organic because they were not grown in soil.

Now that is another stubborn urban legend that keeps coming up:
who says that produce cannot be certified if not grown in soil?

have you even tried to check this?

http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/potmix.html

here you will find that soil is one of the ingredients you can and may use, not have to use.

so is sand, perlite, vermiculite, ... etc

best always to check before you state something that is probably based on fear or on misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

frank

sorry, "state something that is probably" should be read "spread something that might be".
Not always finding the right words the first time.

Frank

Been told on a number of occaisions and now here is this from the NASA Organic Standards

As for sand, pebbles, gravel:

From Wikipedia:
Soil is a naturally occurring, unconsolidated or loose material on the surface of the earth, capable of supporting life.[1] In simple terms, soil has three components: solid, liquid, and gas. The solid phase is a mixture of mineral and organic matter. Soil particles pack loosely, forming a soil structure filled with voids.[2] The solid phase occupies about half of the soil volume. The remaining void space contains water (liquid) and air (gas).[3]

Sand, pebbles and gravel are all .
What we do in aquaponics is to add liquid mineral and organic matter (fish effluent) and gas (oxygen and CO2). All natural.

None of those are forbidden in organic, quite the contrary.

Frank

Some hydroponics systems use synthetic growing media and synthetic fertilizers.
These are excluded.
This kind of discussion is exactly why an aquaponics association is needed.
It is up to us to prove and defend that we are at least, if not more as organic as all other produce.

I dare say that, because we, in the spirit of the "final recommendation" (have you read it yet?) recycle more than any other setup, and have no waste products.

CRAP (edit just read your posts H and the CRAP was for what I found on the AQIS site not what you wrote)



That is from the "NATIONAL STANDARD FOR ORGANIC AND BIO-DYNAMIC PRODUCE". This is the document produced by AQIS that all certifying bodies within Australia must meet as a minimum standard.

The document that I looked at on the AQIS website was a draft dated 2005 but if it has been passed or excepted as the standard which I believe it has then AP is excluded from organic certification since it is the combination of Aquaculture and Hydroponics (the bit that is specifically excluded)

So that means we need an AP certifying body that can distinquish between those AP growers that meet all the standards except 3.6.1 (must grow in soil) and those that don't (do use non organic fish foods).

PS Therefore wasabi, water cress and other water grown plants can not be grown organically in their traditional manner.

That was the link you posted a few posts ago?

If so yes I have but that dosn't get me around the AQIS standards which don't have that nice sensible loophole.

Your argument on soil may get us through with the gravel beds but the AQIS standards specifically state that hydroponic growing methods are excluded. So Gravel Bs may be argued through but NFT and floating raft definitely won't be.

I have I think, already shown that gravel, sand, pebbles, are "soil" and that perlite, vermiculite,... are accepted in Organic.

So, AP based on growbeds with these media must definitely be certifiable organic. If not, we should raise hell!

NFT and floating rafts seem to be excluded at this time.
Though, if they are in pots that contain "soil", that would be reason for discussion. Not a discussion aimed at debasing organic principles, but at proving that our methods do respect in every aspect the spirit of organic.

If we want to correct this, we need an association with LOTS of members to be heard.

Sitting back crying in a corner is not going to help. Let's act! Now is the time!

As you suggest, this association could start with the identifying of aquaponics in 3 levels: 1 certifiable organic, 2 certified aquaponics, 3 not certified, but still aquaponics

In order to be able to exclude chemical based hydroponics and other practices that might "soil" our reputation, we must start with a Charter, describing aquaponics.

One of the essential things in this charter should be that all effluent should be recirculated and that the plant surface must be adequate for doing so.
I propose open for discussion that the transformed nutrients must be used mainly (i.e. say > 60 %) for food and medicine production, whether for animals or for humans.
This is to avoid that flower or ornamental plant producers would just have a few fish to grab the label "aquaponics".
And still would not exclude the existence of AP flowers, AP goldfish. As by-products of AP food.

To my opinion, AP (or at least organic AP) should be described as "small scale".

Max. levels of nitrate concentrations. and so more.


Frank

I dont understand your statement concerning flower growers. Why greater then 60 percent for food?