Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

You always link to the neatest articles...

what do "they" mean by soil?

I dont mean that in any bad way here, is there a definition of soil that they use? There are so many different soils in the world that it seems difficult to exclude something unless it says no water medium.

Our certifiers allow the use of composted bark, sand and perlite. Not what I would call soil, more like an artificial medium, lacks microbes as well.

and, what could be more natural and "organic" than water? (organics can use elemental sulfur which is not organic)

sorry, you seem to have a system that is more rigid than ours.

Personally, I think that the term organics is just another marketing tool to price gouge consumers. There are a lot of things allowed (at least in the U.S.) that nature would never use. The restrictions have recently been diluted even more, that even consumers are questioning the label.
I believe that aquaponics is probably more "organic" than traditional monoculture because of the natural diversity of life. Monoculture will dwindle down to those elements (bacteria, pests, etc.) that pertain to that particular crop.

I have questions on food miles though. Yes, there is too much growing in one state or country and shipping it elsewhere that is unnecessary but for a healthy, diversified diet, you have to have fruit and vegetables all year long and some vegetables are better for you than others. Our not to recent pioneer forefathers had to deal with meat and root vegetables during the cold winter months for obvious reasons- it was sustainable, but not always the best diet. Questions, comments?

Furthermore, I don't think we can do away with monoculture for the larger grain crops. Even AP will not be able to manage enough food on a large scale. We have to be realistic on the limitations of AP as well. This unfortunately is a huge downfall for agriculture as food staples do more for feeding the world than fruits and vegetables can.
As far as sulfur is concerned, it is a natural element on the periodic chart so I don't see a problem with that being called organic- nature made it.

BTW, Goola thanks for the compliment. My natural bent is life sciences and I am curious as a cat, I can't get enough of knowledge and my need to know- at seven, I was reading about the water cycle and how lightening was made. At ten, I was experimenting with a hole punch on a bush to see how much of the leaves died, depending where I cut it. I excelled in that subject, in high school and in college. I've done a lot of research on a multitude of subjects in this arena, hence the reason for some of the unusal posts. This may sound corney to some- but everyone has something that clicks- almost like it is a calling. About twelve years ago, I saw a quick 5 minute news show about a man who was raising fish in Montana and without any hesitation, I thought to myself that one day I would be doing that. Then, in 2006, we made a trip to Washington and I saw the largest river that I had seen in my life, the Columbia- and raising fish has become an obsession since then. As science is a natural for me, I feel that if anyone can do this on a commercial scale, I know I can.
Believe me, I get a lot of scoffing, especially from those closest to me but people have always told me that I can't do this or that- too bad I don't listen and do it anyway. The poor people at the little feed store don't know what to think of me- just 2 days ago, I was asking about anhydrous ammonia and last week, it was if they could get me trout and shrimp feed. I told them that they would get a lot of strange questions on requests for things.
Oh, and I am well aware that commercial aquaculture can go wrong very quickly. Yesterday, I spoke to a professional catfish raiser just outside of town- he use to raise them for the state to stock lakes. He showed me dozens of photos, from different time periods, of rotting fish on his pond banks. He left the business $100,000 in the hole and you can tell he is still a little bitter. Even so, he has agreed to lend me his $5000 siene net to catch fish this Sunday and he is giving me spawning barrels. I'm sure if I have any questions, he would be willing to help.
It does help to temper enthusiasum with caution- this will be a business for all of us who have commercial interests and that must never be forgotten- going slow, learning the curve of knowledge, learning from others and sharing information are the best things we can do. This forum allows for that.

Peter, below are the relevant bits of the Oz standard (Europe's is similar as we modelled ours on theirs), hydroponic reference in bold. As I said earlier, an argument could be made in Oz and Europe for media based systems to be certified organic - provided the fish food input was an allowed input and all the waste went into the beds. Chances of certification success would be pretty good I think, not so good if the fish waste was filtered out before the beds though.

That said DWC rafts are expressly excluded, and in a commercial situation this is where the financial returns will be. An argument could be made for the bacteria in the digester and on the lining of the DWC/raft surfaces being a complex ecology, but it ain't and never could be a "complex soil ecology".

7.2. Greenhouse Production, Floriculture and Nurseries and
Seed Production
SOILS AND MEDIUMS
7.2.1. All requirements set out by the basic production Standard in Section 4 shall be
adhered to for greenhouse and nursery production. This includes emphasis on normal
organic soil management as outlined in this Standard as part of an overall whole of
farm organic management plan. The farm unit shall be fully certified except in
instances outlined in Section 3.6. All design shall be oriented towards
environmentally positive outcomes and resource efficiency, including water re-use
where applicable.
7.2.2. Hydroponic systems whereby plants are fed principally through soluble fertilisers in
mediums that are devoid of a healthy and complex soil ecology are not certifiable
under this Standard. Plants shall be individually potted and pots shall be of sufficient
size to enable full expansion of natural root structure.

Angie, food miles, diets and human impact on the planet = my favourite topics. This months National Geographic has a really well researched special feature on the world food crisis and associated issues. Even has an advert by Monsanto suggesting that they will save the world

Anyway IMO the main problem is that we are trying to treat the symptoms and not deal with the cause. The symptom may be not enough food to feed the world (actually it is more a misallocation of food resources at this point in time), but the cause is very simple - we are trying to feed too many people. In any other closed or finite biological system there would be a population crash and the population of whatever species would stabilize with it's food supply and consumption ending up in balance. Somehow we humans have deluded ourselves to believe that the laws of nature don't apply to us, and that we live in an infinite world.

The political economic system that fuels the concept of infinite growth is similarly fundamentally flawed. Economics takes an artificial and essentially mathematical construct, where infinite growth is possible, and then applies this to a finite world of finite resources, particularly finite biological processes. The proof of this flawed continuous growth thinking is in any AP system, at some point you will reach the limits of the systems biological capacity, ie. fish stocking density, filtration etcetera. This is because it obvious that you can only expand the system so much and then you hit a physical limit of some sort, even if that limit is the farm boundary. Our planet also has a physical limit and all indications are that we have passed the carrying capacity of the planet.

What's this to do with food miles? Well we can only go on plugging the gaps in one regions ability to produce food for so long. Eventually we will be feeding those closest to home. Proof of this is in the $$. The price of rice has tripled in the last 5 years, as has soy and wheat, corn is not far behind. Has the bulk of the peoples wages/salaries even doubled in that time? Nope, a global average rise of 20%, hence food riots in 20 countries as the basic staples become too expensive to buy.

So the concept of a better diet subsidized by food miles has little meaning for hundreds of millions who will starve to death in the coming years. Fine if you can afford it, and you and I probably can, but the moral implications are somewhat disturbing. And what is it that you can't raise or farm in your locality, that would give you every chance of a long and healthy life? I'll bet there's a great substitute for it, whatever it is. There's probably nothing better we can do than eat much closer to home, and become evangelists for sustainable and efficient farming systems like AP. Mind you I'll miss some of those tropical fruits like banana's, not sure how they'll do in an AP green house..............

Yes, we do have too many people but short of eugenics or war- neither of which I advocate- then we are stuck with the current 6.5 billion people, which is still growing in number.
I disagree that we do not have enough food to feed the current population if AP is adopted as the world model of food production. Aquaponics is roughly 20 times more productive over the same sq. footage used for similar field grown crops.

By your own words, you said people are starving because they can't afford the food, not that it was not available to them. I see this as corporate greed at it's worst as they mostly control the food supply. This is what we have to change. When food is mass produced, it becomes cheaper- that is the model the U.S. took after the Great Depression so Americans would no longer suffer hunger. That has worked but with serious side effects. No where in the world can you buy a 2,000 calorie meal for $5. It is cheap for the calorie count but poor quality for our nutritional needs. We can create a better model as nutrition is hand-in-hand with AP.

You wrote...."And what is it that you can't raise or farm in your locality, that would give you every chance of a long and healthy life? I'll bet there's a great substitute for it, whatever it is. There's probably nothing better we can do than eat much closer to home, and become evangelists for sustainable and efficient farming systems like AP."
As far as myself growing anything, I'm almost in the perfect area for everything, as this is already the most productive area in the world for growing food. No, I am thinking of areas that have harsh winters that can't afford to grow year-round, even with greenhouses as the price is too expensive- their only option is food miles. It would be the lesser of two evils in their case. Also there are the weather changes that greatly impact agriculture, with reduced precipitation, which we are already experiencing here and the more volitile weather patterns in areas that have not experienced extreme weather before. Even AP cannot function with no water or if the plants are destroyed by hurricanes, high winds and tornados.

We are on the same wave length Angie. That said I saw an interesting program on the Inuit the other day, a people who had a diet very different to what it is today. They live in an extreme environment, snow bound for much of the year, and used to live off the land. Now they buy 'cheap food mile' burgers and fries instead. Net result is sky high diabetes and other obesity related issues, but of most interest is depression - most are miserable. The old timers talked of the hunt, self reliance and comparative material poverty with nostalgia and longing. The key point was that when they harvested their own food, they were much happier, with all the flow on effects happiness brings - social harmony etcetera.

The Inuit's traditional diet was not 'balanced' by our modern western temperate climate definition, but as a people they were better off on it. If we could couple the tradition and mainly local diet with modern science and public health knowledge, the Inuit would long, healthy and happier lives. I believe this would apply to most climatically challenged peoples and their diets.

But to the human carrying capacity of the planet. Just because we can feed 9 billion (by 2050) with more effective agriculture like AP, should we? Should we continue to rape and pillage the planet so that more humans may live? Even with the most effective and efficient food production systems (you mentioned a 20 fold increase in yield potential for AP) 9 billion people demand more than just food. There are all the other resources required for these extra peoples to; house, clothe, educate, medicate, move, administer them, and so on, . And I haven't even mentioned quality of life. What would the quality of life be for these extra people? Most will be third world peoples living on the margins.

Nope, to simply increasing food production before addressing the population question, is putting the cart before the horse IMO. Something we have always done too - time for a change and some strategic thinking I would suggest. But given the seemingly unalienable and global (god given, if you are that way inclined) right of humans to breed without restriction, the planet is probably stuffed. The evidence is all around us; mass extinctions the like not seen since the dinosaurs departed, global warming, deforestation, the list is endless.

On that cheery note, I'll go off and build my ark.

Breeding should definately be restricted to the genetically superior ..... OOPS Hitler tried that one. ( He may not have been wrong)
Ok , one child per couple ,,OOPS China tried that one and it caused a huge sex ratio imbalance.

I guess by society accepting "gay couples" ,we are in fact working toward a partial solution to the problem.

I am indeed a part of the problem you see , I have had 5 children ( 4 of which are alive) , but I assure you they have well above average genetic inputs and are in fact proving to be superior to their parents. Quality not quantity is the issue. But going down that line is very very dangerous.

Dangerous it may be Chappo, but that doesn't mean population control shouldn't be addressed and enforced. It is probably more dangerous to allow our population to go unchecked, so consider it the lesser of two evils if you will. And always assuming we have learnt a bit from history and that any policy is well reasoned, fair and for the common good, etcetera.

Mcfarm , ROFLMAO ..... I can see it now ..... blue eyed men ,not be obese , IQ above 140, line up to imregnate selected brood females,,,
The vast majority of fat ,short stupid brown eyed men are going to have MAJOR issues with that.
Personaly it suits me GREAT

Actually no. Given your answer you and your progeny will be the first to go

You'd have trouble doing that ,, first wife was selected purely on body/looks ,, my 21 year old son is 180 and 82 kilo of pure muscle ,,,SHIT it's hard for me to tell him what to do:)

Interestingly we've wandered off topic. However my 80 year old grandad has very similar sentiments to mcfarm:
http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/2008/ ... pollution/

And from this blog post:
http://athoughtadrift.com/grandad/2008/ ... ationship/
"I would also think that we would have to get over this mad drive to have growth. No one seems to know why we need the growth other than to make profits for some few so called entrepreneurs, as a consequence we keep on populating and needing more energy etc but for no purpose. As a result of this feverish population expansion, we like any other animal species will eventually reach pest proportions and, like for the other animals, we will die out."

The Inuit as you so proudly place as a model for mankind were very heavy into infanticide, even of heathy babies. The middle-aged were usually toothless or close to and the younger generations literally chewed their food to a pump to give to them. Most food was also eaten raw. Almost no one grew to an old age because of the harsh conditions and sporadic quanities of food that was dependent on migratory animals. Not the kind of lifestyle I would choose for myself, my family, even my enemies. The American Indians probably had the most sustainable lifestyle but the different tribes preyed upon each other and again a harsh nomadic lifestyle, based on weather patterns and animal populations kept their numbers low.
What makes humans so populous is our ability to adapt and to ability to manipulate our environment. At least in the U.S., our family numbers have dwindled from 7-15 children per family to an average of 2-3. Even with that number, our population will continue to expand as multiple generations live at the same time.
As far as depression, drug use and abuse, narcisium, obesity and a lot of our other modern ills are because we have removed most of the obstacles that wouldn't have allowed such self-indulgence- namely the day-to-day struggle to survive. In a survival situation, the depressed die, plain and simple. Even in our modern times, if someone who has not experienced survival techniques, gets lost in the wilderness, they have a slim chance of being found alive if they are not found very quickly.

And I hate to bust your bubble, but the third world has come to the U.S. Our homeless population has expanded to a point you wouldn't believe, although it is not making the news anymore- it doesn't fit the neat little picture that things are getting better so go out and spend your money scenario that is being pushed by the government, for the benefit of corporate America. That is why I keep saying that the other shoe hasn't dropped yet and the stock market will again plunge.

For the long term of human existance, yes, population control must be addressed but I have very mixed feelings on how to go about that. Enforcement is a very scary word for me- I have studied enough of history to see that no government is fair and that is too much control for them to decide who can reproduce. I also see a point in time where assisted suicide for the eldery and the ill will be legal and common place world wide. The first stage of "Solent Green" for population control.

And sorry, Chappo, I hate to tell you this- but Hilter did not orginally come up with the idea of creating a genetically superior race- California, as well as several other states, had eugenics laws on the books that mandated that inferior people be sterilized- the indigent, the criminal, and the permiscious. Hitler just took that idea to the next level. It is a part of history that is conviently forgotton. Same as the fact that IBM's pre-cursor to the computer was used by Nazis in locating the Jews, and even in efficiently dispaching them and IBM worked hand in hand in maintaining their equipment and anticipating the Nazi's future needs.

I think Motrher nature was indeed THE firts. The weak where inherently culled from the group.

Notice my excellent spelling s LOL