All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 15:36 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
As you have been told a digestor can be as simple as a tank holding the solids with lots of aeration. This style of waste treatment processing is what sewerage farms use and there is excellent information out there on how to design them.

One of the reasons I don't favour them though is that they are relatively energy intensive. All that areation that is required to deliever the oxygen to the tank to meet the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) takes power and that power has to be paid for in terms of its environmental foot print and $.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
    Advertisement
 
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 15:38 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
But they do work and work well. If they didn't they wouldn't be so widely used commercially.

There are other options though that were previously discarded as uneconomical when electricity prices were low. Now that they are high these options are being reconsidered for a range of applications.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 15:52 
In need of a life
In need of a life

Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 23:10
Posts: 1856
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Gender: Male
Are you human?: it is probable
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Thanks Stu.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 15:56 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Nov 19th, '12, 18:36
Posts: 770
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: AUSTRALIA, QLD, BRISBANE
Stuart Chignell wrote:
But they do work and work well. If they didn't they wouldn't be so widely used commercially.

There are other options though that were previously discarded as uneconomical when electricity prices were low. Now that they are high these options are being reconsidered for a range of applications.


Although for a backyard digester if I had a 70L barrel with one of my 6 air stones (40LPM pump) redirected to it from the FT wouldn't that be enough aeration and that wouldnt be much energy usage? would it.. or is that not enough air for say a 1000L FT with 50 jades in it?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 17:36 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
I don't know. Once I understood the limits/disadvantages of the technology I stopped investigating.

Having said that this needs to be said again and again and again. These components (filtration components) need to be sized NOT based on FT size or the number of fish. They need to be sized on the amount of fish food you will feed your fish and the protein content of the fish food.

The hilarious thing is since ive been going off about how much i don't like them over the last few weeks with the renewed debate of to remove or not remove solids I may have a job where they will be needed despite their disadvantages coming up. Kind of ironic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 17:52 
In need of a life
In need of a life

Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 23:10
Posts: 1856
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Gender: Male
Are you human?: it is probable
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
I hope it hurts (just a little) Stu. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 18:10 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
Not if they pay me. :thumbleft:

Any way my strong views are based on the objective facts (at lease I hope so). For example even in a system where solids are retained in the growout facility the quaruntine system to hold the fingerlings is pure RAS.

If a technology is the most appropriate choice then it is the most appropriate choice. Ideology is for politicians.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 18:24 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Jun 22nd, '11, 17:01
Posts: 527
Gender: Male
Location: Central West NSW
Stuart Chignell wrote:
One of the reasons I don't favour them though is that they are relatively energy intensive. All that areation that is required to deliever the oxygen to the tank to meet the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)


Hey Stuart, do you know a good general rule of thumb for how many litres of air are required? Or any relevant links?

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 18:44 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
For backyard systems I wouldn't recommend them.

For commercial you need to get serious:

http://www.amazon.com/Water-Wastewater- ... +treatment


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 18:51 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: May 6th, '11, 12:06
Posts: 12206
Gender: Male
Location: Northern NSW
Stuart Chignell wrote:
For backyard systems I wouldn't recommend them.

A digester? If so Id like to hear why Stu.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 19:29 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: May 6th, '11, 12:06
Posts: 12206
Gender: Male
Location: Northern NSW
Sorry, Ill re-phrase/re-direct my conversation on that one..

My opinion lately has been that the re-intoduction of digested solids is required before a raft, this is based on personal experience with my own. Id like to hear all experiences on this topic, I watched my DWC suffer compared to my media beds this past year and I believe it was because I was removing too much and not re-introducing anything. From a nutrient defficiency point of view I cannot comment on what exactly it was but heavier bearing plants and also herbs suffered.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 19:35 
Didn't you bank any nutrients... into your "nutrient bank" Charlie.... :D


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 19:45 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:40
Posts: 973
Location: Florida, US
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Florida, US
They really don't take much power Stuart... I run 12,000L of mineralization tanks for $3 a month in electricity... It's actually extremely energy efficient IMO. Just don't make them 20' deep.

Also, it's definately not needed in all DWC Charlie as I ran that outdoor demo system for years with no offline mineralization tank. Mineralizing nutrients and adding them back to the main system water requires a different approach from the nutrient management side. It sounds like the easy thing to do to get everything out of the food but becomes MUCH more difficult to keep the nutrient profile I am striving to achieve.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 19:46 
Ryan wrote:
Mineralizing nutrients and adding them back to the main system water requires a different approach from the nutrient management side. It sounds like the easy thing to do to get everything out of the food but becomes MUCH more difficult to keep the nutrient profile I am striving to achieve.

:headbang:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Oct 23rd, '13, 19:50 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:40
Posts: 973
Location: Florida, US
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Florida, US
Stuart Chignell wrote:
I don't know. Once I understood the limits/disadvantages of the technology I stopped investigating.

Having said that this needs to be said again and again and again. These components (filtration components) need to be sized NOT based on FT size or the number of fish. They need to be sized on the amount of fish food you will feed your fish and the protein content of the fish food.

The hilarious thing is since ive been going off about how much i don't like them over the last few weeks with the renewed debate of to remove or not remove solids I may have a job where they will be needed despite their disadvantages coming up. Kind of ironic.


Actually when specifically sizing mineralization tanks, you should size the equipment based on total volume of waste removed daily and multiply that volume by the expected rate of breakdown in the tank (temperature, O2 and design specific). Feed type and volume does matter but more so the volume removed via the specific mechanical filtration devices being used.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye
[ Time : 0.039s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]