I'm not sure how much benefit would be realised by running fish water to the plants once.
Adding hydro chemicals to the fishtank or sump would quickly result in dead fish. Was only a facetious comment from me
| Backyard Aquaponics http://byap.backyardmagazines.com/forum/ |
|
| Run to waste systems http://byap.backyardmagazines.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9688 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Stuart Chignell [ May 18th, '11, 06:13 ] |
| Post subject: | Run to waste systems |
Personaly I dont think they are a good idea because in my mind one of the biggest benefits possible with ap are the water savings which are only partially realised with a run to waste system. However, I thought that the definition of AP was the integration of aquaculture and hydroponics. If I'm right in that definition then even if we don't like run to waste systems then we would still have to call them ap systems by that definition. |
|
| Author: | vlt [ May 18th, '11, 06:24 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
But the benefits of AP are realised when the water nutrients are cycled from plant to fish to plant etc etc. If you run to waste, this defeats the purpose of AP. Wouldnt that be likened to a push bike rider taking the train and lamenting how his health only improved as much as lift the bike on and off a train affords? AP is a the marriage of aquaculture and hydroponics. But it is also a symbiotic (right word?) relationship being created between fish and plants. EDIT...what if I added Hydro chemicals to the fishtank...would that be AP? |
|
| Author: | Stuart Chignell [ May 18th, '11, 06:38 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
I don't think there is a benefit to cycling the nutrients back to the fishtank. A run to waste system doesn't defeat the purpose but does fail to realise the full benefits of integration. Having said that it does realise some benefits and is an integration of ap and hydro and I would say by definition is ap. Narrowing the definition to inlude touchy feelie tree hugging hippy crap, as much as I like it and practice it in my own systems, isnt warranted. As to adding hydro chemicals to fish tanks I dont think it would break the definition even if it was done. However what about to the sump. Many of us do that already. |
|
| Author: | vlt [ May 18th, '11, 06:44 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
I'm not sure how much benefit would be realised by running fish water to the plants once. Adding hydro chemicals to the fishtank or sump would quickly result in dead fish. Was only a facetious comment from me
|
|
| Author: | Stuart Chignell [ May 18th, '11, 07:16 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
vlt wrote: I'm not sure how much benefit would be realised by running fish water to the plants once. Adding hydro chemicals to the fishtank or sump would quickly result in dead fish. Was only a facetious comment from me Yeah but we are already doing it, Chelated iron would be the most common. The UVI system noted that when their system was fully stocked with plants they noted that plants towards the end of the runs had stunted growth and they concluded that it was because the nutrients were depleted. Anything before the depletion point would be getting the full benefit of the nutrients in a commercial run to waste system you wouldn't bother growung anything past that point because labour and seedlings are expensive. In a recirculation system the remaining nutrients would be recycled. Just because the system may be run to waste doesn't mean that the remaining nutrients would be wasted just that they would be lost to the system. Irrigating some other dirt grown crop for instance. |
|
| Author: | scotty435 [ May 18th, '11, 07:32 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
Stuart Chignell wrote: Just because the system may be run to waste doesn't mean that the remaining nutrients would be wasted just that they would be lost to the system. Irrigating some other dirt grown crop for instance. Yes, A key point I think. I can see where some element, compound or contaminant might build up in a system over time. If a small quantity is periodically drained to whatever other use and replaced by fresh water this might be prevented. Full utilization of nutrients in a commercial system would probably make drain to waste unecessary but if a water change is required because of ammonia or nitrite buildup it could still be useful. Fluctuations because of weather, food consumption and available sunlight probably mean that it's almost impossible to have a perfectly balanced system. |
|
| Author: | chillidude [ May 18th, '11, 08:11 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
Stuart Chignell wrote: However, I thought that the definition of AP was the integration of aquaculture and hydroponics. If I'm right in that definition then even if we don't like run to waste systems then we would still have to call them ap systems by that definition. It's going to come down to the definition you choose. To me, AP is a closed system. Even more so than RAS. If you open end it, it's something else. In a run to waste system, I'd say that what you have then is hydroponics and what you've done is introduced a novel nutrient source. |
|
| Author: | Stuart Chignell [ May 18th, '11, 08:18 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
Especially if your trying to produce for a particular market. One of the things that UVI found was that while they could grow more plants the growth per plant decreased. The Suadi mob that duplicated the UVI system found that their lettuce went from about 250g to around 100g. If they were selling per head then they would have more than doubled their revenue but if by weight it was only about 20 something %. Not a good deal considering the extra expense of producing them. |
|
| Author: | earthbound [ May 18th, '11, 09:47 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. In other words, there are nice roses and there are really crap roses but they are all roses of a sort... There are AP systems, and then there are AP systems, some are brilliant really efficient recirc systems, others are pretty crap and inefficient. If it's hydro and Aq mixed in any form I guess its AP..  Just like a vehicle with 2 wheels is a bicycle, they come in all shapes and sizes but they are a bike.. If it has a motor and 2 wheels its a motorbike, whether you are into high performance drag bikes, or superbikes, or you have a postie bike, or a bicycle with a motor strapped to it, they are all motorbikes. |
|
| Author: | Stuart Chignell [ May 18th, '11, 10:13 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
Thinking about this some more under certain circumstances a run to waste system maybe more sustainable than a recirc system. For example in an area where water is abundant then spending the electricity to recirculate water could be a waste and not very sustainable. Espeacillay if most/all of the nutrients could be still utilised. |
|
| Author: | chillidude [ May 18th, '11, 10:48 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
earthbound wrote: Just like a vehicle with 2 wheels is a bicycle, they come in all shapes and sizes but they are a bike.. If it has a motor and 2 wheels its a motorbike, whether you are into high performance drag bikes, or superbikes, or you have a postie bike, or a bicycle with a motor strapped to it, they are all motorbikes. Just don't mention scooters ..... |
|
| Author: | scotty435 [ May 18th, '11, 14:56 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Run to waste systems |
Moped = sc..... = motorbike I like to think of this as recirculating aquaponics vs drain to waste aquaponics. Not hydroponics at all because of the fish. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|