Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Rupert,

If my countryman followed that prescription, half of the cable channels here would go black! Ahhh, long for the days of Victorian morality. Not necessarily 'better' but people at least had the taste to keep such things low key and off of page one.

There is no pure capitolism, communism or socialism in the world and thank goodness. All of the above fail without some moves to the center. There are only varying degrees of these but farsighted regulation that isn't politically motivated can be done. We don't need wait for the collapse of the world monitary system to do this.

The problem with capitalism is that in most cases its too successful. Classic case is the suit makers. The capitalist needed 3 tailors to make a suit in a week by hand and it cost X. Along comes someone to create the sewing machine and now 1 tailor can make that suit. So the shop fires 2 tailors or attempts to take over other markets. His competitors follow suit. Soon there are hundreds of tailors out of work and now competitive pressures have pushed the cost to X/2 for a suit. A nice vicious cycle.

That same cycle has happened in food production. The margins for growing food have become very thin. If one is not running a megafarm there is not sufficient gross income to maintain the infrastructure itself. Not a solution for the poor, but it does show how fragile the food supply chain is in much of the first world.

If one wishes to make AP and VP a useful tool for feeding the poor then it takes education.

* What local resources can be domesticated (can you do that to a fish or worm?).
* Can the resources be fed and bred easily.
* Designs developed that can use third world technology.
* Sufficient diversity in the first three to permit deployment to different local situations.

In some cases you may not be able to use pure AP for the solution. One may have to consider pond culture with run to waste into a dirt plot or wicking beds. At least you get a 2 pass use of the water.

This is a good read:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=6215&p=203917&hilit=food+as+a+right#p203917

Chappo, Chilli,

I'm a bit puzzled. This discussion of the needs of the poor started with Chelle stating that the poor could be better fed with an aquaponics utilizing fish to provide more protein. I countered sincerely with what I consider facts: that such protein is not necessary and not as economical as food from plant sources . . . not even environmentally friendly if we are talking the typical system (not her's).

These facts (or "numbers" as Chilli derides) are not arbitrary or meaningless, nor are they without consequence. But, instead of arguing your own facts or disputing mine, you attack me, ad hominem, impugning my motives or desires -- of which, of course, you know nothing.

I have little dealing with the poor but I certainly don't make policy for or against them. I do not have or desire any such power. In any event, none of that would negate the validity of my argument.

I admitted that the poor likely do want more meat or fish. But meeting these wants will not necessarily sustain them or the environment in which they live (or anyone else for that matter).

Furthermore, this is not an argument about politics, capitalistic or otherwise. It is simple nature, rules for which I nor you have any control. The human is an omnivore; however, even as such, needs little if any protein from flesh -- and, in terms of health, is better off without it. The economics of growing food clearly shows that food from plant sources costs much less for nutrient provided and is far easier on the environment.

Now, if you can dispute these "facts", then you should. If, after listening to your arguments -- if indeed you have any -- I find that I am wrong, I will gladly admit such. You should too.

Let's be gentlemen, not children, shall we?

m

[quote="mornings
Now, if you can dispute these "facts", then you should. If, after listening to your arguments -- if indeed you have any -- I find that I am wrong, I will gladly admit such. You should too.

Let's be gentlemen, not children, shall we?

m[/quote]

Ok you win Plants are cheaper than animals...plants are better for the environment than animals...That’s why dog food is made from grain and artificially flavored with meat! And they survive just fine. But dogs don't like it as much as meat... dogs suffer with dry flaky skin because of the lack of animal fats in their diets among other nutritional deficiencies that carnivores and omnivores do not have problems with when animal proteins are included in their diets. But let’s not consider this adversarial conversation. My opinion is not necessarily a conviction and is subject to change provided facts are presented in such a way to change my perceptions. Engineers and Machinist are probably the two most stubborn in their views/and opinions. (btw I’m a machinist) Facts and numbers are usually the only real truths we are willing to except. Things have to be quantified. But emotional things which are a lot harder to assign a value to do come into play. Quality of life matters as well as the culinary factors of the food we eat. You may have heard the recent polls on happiness in the US. Louisiana came out top. Not something we are used to. We are last or 2nd last in education, wealth per capita highest number of kids per capita in St Jude’s Cancer research hospital, etc. list goes on and on. But we have the best food in the country. This data can be thought of 2 ways, good food and pleasant company makes one happy… or Ignorance is Bliss… You choose.

Yep - I'm with Bill and have grown tired of it all. When you've saved the world, I'll pat you on the back and give you full credit. Till then, you're just arguing against reality and human nature using idealism.

Over and out on this thread.

But idealism has its place guys... both in life and here on the forum...

If it didn't... we wouldn't be trying to grow trout at Xmas... Barra at easter... or even fish in the backyard.... at all...

That's hope Rupe.

Nah.. idealism gives us hope... otherwise we just wouldn't try at all...

Oh dear were to begin ?? I know I'll quote some Latin , that will make people think I'm smart and therefore I must be correct "Ab initio"
Mornings ,, "at the beggining" which you deemed to be Tue Dec 08 2009 2:06am
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4175&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

mornings very next post included "On the poor . . . I'm not in a position to argue".
But even with a whole new thread your argument continues.

The VERY NEXT addition to that thread was this from mornings "I think you missed my point. I was talking about the poor, the resources of the poor and what the poor can achieve on balance"
So , between 08 december 2009 9:36 am and 08 december 2009 10:27 am mornings has grown from " not being in a position to argue .....,,,to an having full knowledge of the resources of the poor and what the poor can achieve on balance". A truly "magic" advertisement for the Tennesse educational system ..... or is it not quite realistic???
Such an achievement seems almost impossible ,, I know of people who have worked with "the poor" for decades to just to scratch the surface of knowledge into these things.

BUT ,, just two days later mornings seems to have lost his qualifications about the poor ,, what hapened? did he lose his doctorate?. Quote from mornings on 10 december "I don't want to belabor this thing on the poor -- it's a bit out of my bailiwick"

At this point mornings , you cannot blame some of us for being confused about what you actually know verses what you think you know.

Mornings , I see no personal attack , but I do see argument against your unsubstantiated claims.
You seem increasingly desperate to force people to agree with your thinking , may i ask why you feel that you need to do that?
Is it the same reason that you want to force the poor to only eat vegetables?

Ah guys, it's a Forum, we all spout off. It's ok.

Chappo,That is truly amazing and a bit baffling! Your whole previous post is about me and my credibility (or lack of it), not any argument I have advanced. That is an ad hominem attack. And you seem not to see it.
Again, you are making this about me, about my motives, not what I have said. Your whole line of reasoning is to discredit me without a single word about the judgments I have made . . . well, except maybe, to simply dismiss them and tell me that I don't belong here.

What if I were to answer your question by telling you I have some maniacal interest in controlling the world's poor through the eating of only vegetables. Pretty radical, right? Would you be satisfied? Would anyone care? Could it possibly have any effect on the validity on the ideas I have advanced? Would you even believe me?

I advanced a friendly disagreement with a statement on the relative advisability of encouraging the poor to use traditional aquaponics based on the actual need for flesh protein and its relative cost to the poor and the environment (this latter was an expansion of the original comment). Will you never address the issues of the economics of different types of protein as they pertain to the poor?

Dialogue is what I seek -- about aquaponics and related subjects. I assume everyone else here who wants to learn does the same. That is indeed what a forum is for. We advance judgments and we receive comments on those judgments. The fact is, I've received a number of very thoughtful and helpful comments, both agreeable and disagreeable. I welcome both -- when they focus on the judgments I state.

If you wish to continue to talk about me and my motives, well then, do so. It is a bit annoying, but I'll not respond anymore. And I doubt anyone else here will be interested.

m

Good morning “Mornings”,
Just what questions need to be answered to properly make a quantified comparison?
Values would have to be assigned to the produce then broken down to the human digestible nutrient levels and these can be in weights and measures.

We need to answer these and possibly a few more basic questions to get down to numbers and facts needed to make a quantified comparison. None of which are answered here.
1. What is the difference in crude proteins and animal proteins and how the human body processes these?
2. What is the equivalent digested value of the crude protein verses animal protein?
3. How much dry vegetable matter has to be fed to fish to produce a lb of meat?
4. How much dry vegetable matter has to be fed to worms to produce the crude protein equivalent to a lb of meat?
I know tilapia and your worms were fed rabbit pellets so that can be a baseline.
5. What types and how many plants would have to be grown to cover the nutritional needs of humans as outlined in the USDA new food pyramid?
6. What values can be assigned to any nutritional needs not covered be either or both systems?
This may not be all the questions needed to be answered on the nutritional side but there is also a list of questions and values to be assigned for comparisons to system design, system cost of construction, and ease of operation/system stability.

But I don’t have time right now fixing to head to the deer camp until Christmas.
PS, I really like your worm system and really feel I could Add a large worm bed to the system and control plant nutrient loads to where when fish are small worms could be fed more and less to possibly only feed them fish tank solids when fish are large. The data from the AP vs VP can only be beneficial but data is needed to be brought to the table.

Happy Holidays Everyone!