Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Faecal Friendly Food?

And here I was trying to be serious

Eco Friendly Food and Fish

(F&F's pretty eco friendly)

Is peeing in the system eco friendly

Is peeing in the system eco friendly

Considering where else its likely to go, yes

What you're describing is an AP trade association of some kind. A voluntary one that requires its members to adhere to accepted principles. Personally, I'm all for it even though my commercial aspirations are still a ways off.

Then it's just a matter of figuring out what principles to agree on. Sustainable feeds, local food/locavore practices, min or max stocking densities, etc.

Problem is... being voluntary... or even if a co-operative... the self same people/groups... with the self same greed/entrepenurual motivations...

Will merely opt out.... and do exactly as you've outlined....

Well, I definitely like forever over sustainable. Sustainable sounds so much like minimum maintenance. A person can live on a piece of bread a day for a long time but there would be no pleasure in it- that is the image I get with sustainable- just able to survive. I know it has a different meaning but that comes to the forefront.

I like small phrases instead of just one or two words. When I had my lawn and tree service, I came up with "Professional Results with a Personal Touch". It gives the impression that you get quality work but with a human face. When I closed down my business and my fiance opened his, he used that as part of his logo and it has worked very well for him. Our advertising consists of the logo on business cards, two new trucks, a horse trailer and on his work tank tops and that's it.

These are just a few ideas I've been toying with.
“Good for You, Good for the Environment”
“How Green is your Food?”
“Grown a Better Way”

Oh, and Mcfarm- be careful what you ask for. When you make a big splash in a small pond, you will get noticed and corporate agri-business will not take it lightly. Our saving graces are, with the right set up, that we can produce year round and we have a lot of environmental friendly growing practices, mainly because we have no choice, while they can't but if they feel threatened by small commercial AP, they'll either try to drive us out with legislation (lobbists), hit us through the wholesalers and retailers so they won't buy from us or adopt our technology and beat us at our own game. They have a lot of power behind them and not just money.
Right now, for the most part, commercial AP is under the radar- that is why financing a commercial enterprise is so difficult and it is management intensive- a lot can go wrong very quickly- so you need someone who is very savy on the ins and outs of this.

Yes they will and they will get away with for a while, but the world is changing. To wit, the discussion we are having right now, in public, international, transparent, on-line and so on. 20 years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion about the commercial possibilities for AP - AP barely existed and the internet was a pipe dream.

What I'm finding is the people who think about such things research first, then buy from the best local source they can find. Let's be real here, we are not chasing the fast food hamburger consumers of the world. Fools and their money will always be parted - c'est la vie. As much as the title may be distasteful, we are after the educated elite of food buyers. They are opinion/trend leaders who will 'keep the bastards honest' via word of mouth campaigns, on-line forums, etcetera.

Angie, AP can only fly under the radar for so long before it comes to the attention of powers that be. As soon as AP product hits the shelves questions will be asked by anally retentive individuals who will see it as too good to be true, and therefore suspect so must be inspected, regulated, certified and controlled - all for the public good of course All I am suggesting is we formulate a response in advance that slows this reaction and, if we get it right, kills it altogether. If we co-ordinate our pre-emptive response, many minds making light work, we will have the upper hand when it comes to arguing our case.

Ah, AP has hit the shelves but no one knows it as such- it's labeled as hydroponic, which technically is not incorrect.

mcfarm , writing the rules will prove more than a small challenge ,, getting people to agree to the rules will be near impossible.
But good luck with that.
For example ,, our technicians wanted "the rules" for over-time selection to be writen up.
Myself and two other managers began ,, we released draft 1 ,, had 42 complaints and another 32 suggestions of sneaky ways around the rules. Draft 2 saw complaints that we changed things from draft one and another 25 ways around the rules.
Draft three , well i stood up looked at the other two managers and said , I don't have time for this crap , how about we ask the Technicians to write up the rules ready for OUR approval. The rules NEVER did get written:)

I have just completed the certification process on a small farm for our horticulture department, with CCOF (Cal certified organic farmers) so I know what you can and cant do, well, for the most part anyway. (There are lots of certifiers and they all have different rules, one may approve one compost and another may not)

for the most part it is with good intentions, you may have heard of the organic fertilizers certified by OMRI and WSDA (washington state dept of ag) that were being amended with NH4SO4,, tisk tisk tisk.

The organization is trying to keep it real, protect the industry and the population, just way to much oversight IMHO.

Anyway, I have talked to them about certifying an aquaponics system and hydroponics, they seem open to discussion and might be interested in helping out. Now, they are worried about what we do with the waste water... What waste I ask them,..... i dont dump my tanks often and when I do I can pump it to a non organic area and they will be happy..

I do think the plant part would be a breeze to certify. We are adding only organic fish waste (I still need to solve the Ca, K and Fe issue, see other thread) so what is the problem?

When you get certified compost it does not need to come from certified cows eating only certified organic feed. http://www.ccof.org/faq_detail.php?id=44
You have to treat the compost properly.

So, why not fish waste that has not been altered or fortified like many fish fertilizers?

Doing certified fish will be the biggest hurdle. I will not be asking to certify the fish part. (though offering certified trout would be way cool)

On to perceptions and beyond organics.....

had a discussion with my class the other night, and had students telling me that they object to industrial organic supplied by Wal Mart and that in essence poor people should not really be entitled to buy healthy food because wal mart has diluted the organic standards.

Is that really what we want from organic? For it to be a marketing advantage for small farmers or do we really want everyone to have healthier food? Is it corporate greed we are against or trying to keep a "way of life"? Have the regulations been diluted, sure but they are way better than before and way healthier for everyone and the soil.

In reality people are way more interested in pesticides than organics. No spray is better, but can guarantee that something not certified organic has not been sprayed with something that is not good for you, even on aquaponics... a quick spray to kill off a major infestation of white fly will not likely kill your fish.

just food for thought. just my observations.

peter

Peter if I read your observations correctly, diluting a standard is acceptable if it brings better food to the masses. So lowering the bar for those that are unwilling to jump high enough for economic reasons (Walmart) is OK. To my mind that is a rationalized slippery slope which can come right down to the lowest common denominator. At some point you have to take a stand and say this is the line that can't be crossed. Where that line is or should be is open to debate, but I would have thought aiming high was in the public interest rather than lowering the bar?

Another issue you raise is interesting. You have just committed your institution to a certification process that you state is easily cheated. I agree the certification process is easy to cheat, so why support a scheme you know is fundamentally flawed?

Actually I have very high expectations and choose my certifier very carefully. There are lots of them you know. As I mentioned some use higher standards than others.

Should I as an educator ignore the certification process or should I teach students about the system while looking at the weaknesses as well? Many of my students will go to work for companies that are certified and it would be an injustice to my students to not have trained them properly for careers.

I am looking to present the whole picture, not one draw a line in the sand approach, besides that's what gets people so mad about educators, trying to brainwash the students.

Ahh the slippery slope, You could look at it that way or you could look at it compared to 10 years ago when there were no standards at all, no half way healthy food or any protection of the soil what so ever. So maybe the slippery slope is going slowly towards better systems and not away. I honestly think the only way to make it healthier is to also make it profitable.

One could compare this to environmental regulations, they often have to start out weaker, gaining strength with time, look at the US EPA and auto emissions, now with a change in government we have them looking at following CA. Is the CA system the best it could ever be? No but it is sure better than it was 1 year ago.



It is the standard. Is it perfect? no. Just like a master plan, it is subject to change and improvement.

even you agree that its an evolutionary process.. from your opening comments...
quote]My suggestion is that we formulate what would be an appropriate standard, right here on line with input from all, and then once fine tuned, enshrine it in cyberspace. Annual reviews of the 'standard' would allow for any future developments in AP to be incorporated after suitable online debate/scrutiny.[/quote]

Easily cheated? Show me a society where no one cheats. Someone always cheats. Someone always does what they should not, that is why we as a species and society have rules, and why we seem to need more and more laws all the time, because someone is always trying to get around them. The cheating in this case was one company that tricked all the inspectors, not just the certifiers. I do not hold them accountable for the company doing to cheating.

I was going to mention Joel Salatin. Joel is a great example of why there are regulations. He is perhaps the most honest and genuine guy in farming, but his philosophy is get the hell out of my business and I will do the right thing. Again, nowhere are you ever going to see people doing the right thing 100% of the time. All it takes is one guy to try to cut corners and you lose all the good will your group could have earned over years of hard work.

Voluntary compliance? Seriously ...

cheers

peter

Let's clear a couple of things up...



Well yes and no.... their vegetable production is certified organic... their fish production is not... they may lose their certification unless they can find an "organic" fish feed... and/or they then use that organic feed when it is available...



Given that... most certifying bodies rely on a standard that restricts certification to produce grown in soil... this represents a major departure by at least this body...

The concept (as also pointed out by Peter)... that certification can occur... if an "organic" input is not available.... is bizzare...

And IMO... the beginning of the end fo any credibility for the term "organic"... as it stands...

The plethora of certifying bodies... with the ability to "interpret" standards is another bullet in the corpse IMO...

What is needed is a complete review of the fundamental definitions and intent... to include all food production methods and media used... without either... "organics" is doomed...