Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

I will give you that one, Chappo, but I think that human groups, who depended on each of their members being fit- whether hunters, gatherers, breeders or warriors- had little tolerance for the infirm or metally deminished capacity. The Spartans come to mind. Each child born was judged and if found less than perfect was dashed to the rocks. Their children were never coddled- at age 6, they were set into the wilderness to survive as best they could and at age 12, they were indocturated into a military lifestyle for the rest of their lives. Sex was for procreation only and ultimately their downfall as the population dwindled. The Spartan warriors were considered the most fierce warriors in history but due to their lifestyle, most Spartans were homosexual. Eventually as a race of people they were destroyed.

As with most things, a balance must be reached. Relying on peoples common sense is definately not the answer.
But is a government dictated solution the answer? I doubt it.
I have always thought that nature in the end will take care of things ..... insect plagues eventually end ,, food for them runs out.
In the same context i guess the human population may well self cull.

OK back on subject for a bit.

What I am trying to stay is that there must be a better way than the prescriptive model for acceptable methods of AP production. In other words rather than describing what AP is or isn't - the 'thou shalt or shalt not' school of thought, what if the AP 'standard' were outcome driven?

With outcomes we don't have to fuss over which methods are best and get tied up in tautological knots and semantics. All we need do is describe desirable outcomes, or 'the what we want' of AP. The 'how' we get there will then fall into place.

The slow food movement has done this quite well with their slogan that food should be "good, clean and fair". No mention of the who, what, when, where, and how. The SF movt. only answering the why food should be good clean and fair, as the who, what where when and how will be vastly different from location to location.

Not sure how this would be implemented for AP, any thoughts?

Chappo, humans are running out of food and, like insects, will die in vast numbers if something is not done to prevent it. The question is, can we do better than the status quo which will allow this to happen? If the answer is yes, and I believe it is, then what follows is how do we do it? How do we reduce the human population to a point where our environmental footprint is naturally balanced with all other species and the biosphere? And how do we do this and minimize the human suffering that will result?

As for the government, good or evil question. Nation states make people do things for their own good and the good of all, all the time - try running a red light at a busy intersection or driving on the wrong side of the road in the city of your choice if you don't think so. The point is we are governed by rules, to which most of us voluntarily submit, because we know it's for our own good and for the good of others too. Our freedoms are limited to those which do not limit the freedoms of others. So we have rules that limit our freedoms for the common good. Those who don't obey the rules, codified into law, pay a price. So why can't a nation state or a planetary directive make us have less children, assuming we decide to breed at all?

AP growing more food, even if faster and cheaper, will not solve the cause of the problem and will only stall the 'cull'. In fact to attempt to produce more food is a repetition of history, and one clinical definition of insanity - "to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result". A bit like taking more aspirin for a head ache which is increasing in severity, when what is really needed is to stop banging one's head against the wall.

I think people will choose different food production systems for different reasons,

some will choose "organic" regardless of the fact that it traveled 5000 miles

some will choose "local organic " regardless of the fact that it was sprayed with "acceptable" pesticides

Some will choose "no spray" regardless of the fact that it was produced in a greenhouse using synthetic fertilizers

Some will choose "hydroponics" regardless of the fact that inorganic or organics were used because they could be local and year round, use less water

just like there are 20 or more car manufacturers there is a jack for every jill and no one system is going to please everyone.

so, sell your product as local, no pesticides, no synthetic fertilizers and what ever else.

does it have to have "label"?

people buy my hydroponics because it is clean (no dirt), still has roots, and is produced locally and year round and tastes great. I sell my produce locally, on campus and to one store with in 1/2 mile of the greenhouses.

sustainable? nothing is.

cheers

peter

There has been a lot of research done on this over tsome time, and more recently with the GM and not to GM arguments, and most studies point to the fact that there is actually more than enough food to supply the world, it's more of a matter of distribution and profit sharing.

Where there is a top, there is always a bottom...

But I don't want to get much more involved than that, plenty of info out there for those interested.

Most people I know get into AP as they just want to know where their food comes from, and what went into it, as currently this is not clear, and is difficult to be sure of, no matter if it comes in a packet with a specific label or "fresh" produce on the shelf. Not to mention the taste

Ok back on topic...

I think just have a label of Aquaponic Grown, and that will prompt the question, once there is enough of it out there, people will recognise that (and then of course others will exploit).

I would be surprised if there was a regulation for it, as it would be extremely hard to keep tabs on and regulate.

At the end of the day, a label is just a label, and as we all know, they are difficult to rely on, and why many of my friends have moved back to growing their own...

Totally correct NewFarmer... in fact I read somewhere figures suggesting an oversupply of around 20%....

A classic example are situations where countries actually pay farmers to bury grain and other products... rather than selling them to the desperatly needy countries at a reduced price...

By burying the stuff... you maintain a level of pricing based on demand/availability... whereas a surplus would bring the price down...

Total bullshit... but such is the nature of business...

Agree and disagree Newfarmer and not totally correct RupertofOz.
Whether there is enough food in the world for human consumption is debatable (not to mention at what price socially, environmentally and financially), but here are the options regardless:
a) ship food to the starving for what they can afford to pay. This assumes that the "20% oversupply" could be diverted from the CAFO/feedlot operations of the first world to those in need. Animal feed is where this 20% figure comes from.
b) permit and actually assist the starving to move/migrate. Why is it that every nation state has armed borders - including the Vatican?
c) let them starve
Which do you believe is most likely to happen based on past experiences?

Such is life, both in the human world and the animal kingdom...

Of course you must all also realise that 50% of the world's population is below average!!

Cheers IanK

And that 63.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Indeed McFarm... those figures I quoted may no longer be true ... especially given the incredible reduction of land once used for food production... but now turned over to the production of bio-fuels...

And . . .50% of the population is above average!

But you repeat yourself...............

Looking at your profile photo Ian... I'm not sure which half you belong to... or whether you're just having a 50/50 bet each way...