Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

I had an interesting chat to an "expert" in Organic farming about AP

he argued that organic farming has several pillars on which it is based .... no chemicals being one BUT one of the other cornerstones is that the soil must be imporved through the cultivation.... He said that as AP is in a "medium" be that aggregate etc etc and NOT soil, it does therefore not count as being an organic product

I would be interested on any opinions on this subject from the AP guru's

Neil H,
Sounds like a guy not very good at thinking outta the box! So then do the output of AP systems need their own label. How 'bout we start it and just make it a better label than "organic"! How about, "AG"- Aquaponically Grown? People who are looking for "fresh", "pure", no or low pesticides, etc will find that AG labled food certainly meet those requirements. OK, whos with me?!! Anyone? Hello?

I completely agree with you, i suppose my mate comes from a very passionate background in trying to get the organic label up and running in South Africa and this may be limiting his perception somewhat ! I think the label of AP would be a fantastic brand

If you count the growing media as a type of rocky soil then it is improved with good bacteria and worm casting, minerals etc. Mature systems have a lot more than just media in the grow beds.

I second Duff... I ask my debaters to define "soil" and check off the components I have... Minerals... Organic content... Worms... Moisture...

"It has to be cultivated to be Organic?" Um, never heard that. Worms improve my organic soil, AP or not. No-till can be organic or I am totally missing the point.

Rick

It's not generally organic, but who cares as it meets the requirements for what most people expect of organic food in that it is free from chemicals.

In Australia for food to be organic the soil it is grown in has to be free from chemical fertilzer for over 15 years (I thnik???) so they are pretty strict. Most AP systems use tanks, pumbing and pumps constructed using non organic chemicals and as the food product comes into contact with this it is never going to be truely organic. Plus most people do not feed the fish organic food and use artificial additives such as chelated iron, potassium, acids etc.

Ap is safe, fresh chemical free food and as it has been proven to be only possibly marginally viable as a commercial venture people are only growing food for them selves so the organic lable does not matter.

I have done a bit of reading on organics and EB is a full bottle, basically in the definition of organics AP would qualify except for the missing soil, but for commercial growers no way will AP grown veggies get an organic stamp
To qualify for organic one of the main criteria is they have to be grown in soil, not sure about the 15years simo, but soil is tested and once passed produce has to be grown organically for 3 years before certification is given, no doubt Joel will correct me if I'm wrong

True enough Nocky... but there's another impediment... the fish feed...

Some US certification bodies have allowed certification... as an allowable input... on the basis that "nothing else is available"... i.e the "friendlies"....

And given the plethora of "allowable inputs".... and allowable "treatments" for the purposes of transportation and handling.... including pesticides and preservatives...

The "organic" standard is now meaningless... and worthless

Last time I looked at the lables on my hydroton bags,
they said it was made from clay

If you want to get certified you can always go for the fish side of it "Organic Fish"
check it out at http://www.bfa.com.au/index.asp?Sec_ID=135
or here is the sniped part for aquaculture

7.7. Aquaculture
FISH, CRUSTACEA, MOLLUSCS AND RELATED AQUATIC LIFE-FORMS
7.7.1. Production requirements for fish, crustaceans and other marine life production for
on-farm, or controlled estuarine conditions shall ensure that the basic organic
principles of health management to prevent disease and pest incidence, animal
welfare, and good stewardship of the environment are cornerstones of the Organic
Management Plan and ongoing activities to maintain certification, in addition to the
following:
7.7.2. Water sources shall be verified to have minimal to no significant risk from
contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides, biocontaminants and hormone
disrupting chemicals. Risk is to be assessed on a case by case basis and established
scientific tests will be required to verify the contaminant status of the aquaculture
environment.
7.7.3. For open marine and freshwater environments the prevailing natural ecological
balance shall remain significantly undisturbed ensuring that natural populations are
not endangered.
7.7.4. Water leaving the operation shall be treated or managed in such a way as to prevent
excessive nutrient build up either on or off site.
7.7.5. Fish shall be raised under organic principles from fingerling stage, and shall be
traceable by batch at least from introduction to harvesting.
7.7.6. Certified fish shall not come in contact with uncertified stock during their life cycle.
Parallel production of organic and non-organic fish of the same species is not
permitted.
7.7.7. Construction material of tanks, dams or cages shall not pose contamination risks to
water or stock and shall enable the species in question to satisfy its natural
behavioural patterns in.
7.7.8. The specific needs and natural habits of the fish shall be taken into consideration –
this may include habitat composition and structure, stocking density, water quality
and physical characteristics along with fish feeding and shoaling factors.
7.7.9. Disease and pest control shall take the form of proactive management practices
rather than substance use. In the event of critical (non-routine) prohibited input use,
treated sections and stock shall be decertified. It is not possible to re-certify treated
sections and stock. Treatment with prohibited substances shall not affect certification
of entire operation only in instances where no transmission to other stock occurs.
7.7.10. The fish or other species to be certified shall not be exposed to undue levels of stress
during farming, harvesting, transport or slaughter.
7.7.11. Processing of stock shall take place through certified processors only.
DIET
7.7.12. Feed sources shall be based on the natural diet of the species to be certified and shall
enable browsing and variety to mimic as much as feasibly possible the natural diet of
the organisms being certified.
7.7.13. Feed of agricultural origin shall be from sources produced and certified in compliance
with this Standard.
7.7.14. The feed manufacturing premises and feed formulations shall be audited and
assessed to be in compliance with this Standard.
7.7.15. Where marine food sources are used, a minimum of 50% of the total diet shall be
comprised from by-products of wild fish or marine organisms caught for human
consumption. A by-product is understood to be a product derived from the target
species from processing practices (not harvesting). The balance not derived from
such sources shall be derived from wild marine sources independently certified as
capable of sustainable harvesting by either ACO or an approved international certifier
(eg through the Marine Stewardship Council).
7.7.16. There will be no acceptance of specifically harvested juvenile fish or 'trash fish ' for
aquaculture feeds as this can damage inshore environments and reduce the natural
breeding capacity of fish.

This comes up reasonably often, and it's more about owning the rights to a particular word.

For something to be classified as "organic" it needs to be approved by a organic certification authority. This means that the growing/processing/packaging of the "organic" items happens under the procedures and guidelines set out by the certifying organization.

Just because something hasn't been certified by a certifying organization ( a lengthy and costy process ) doesn't mean it isn't just as "organic" as say someones home grown vegetables.

A little like certification by a "Quality Assurance" organization. It allows you to show their QA logos, and claim your company to be Quality Assured company. But, in reality, it's doesn't mean that you have a higher quality product or service than anyone else. Just that you pay an organization to use their logos and words..

Another classic example is "the national heart tick" on foods. Companies pay big bucks to have the heart tick on their products and it doesn;t mean that the food is good for you or better than other foods without the heart tick, it just means that you have paid to use the logo.. There are some foods that most would consider to be bad for you, with very high levels of sugar and poor nutritional content, but they still have the heart tick, because they pay....

McDonalds are reportedly paying $330,000 a year to have the heart tick logo on a chicken burger meal, and their chicken nuggets?

So back to, is it 100% organic? Depends... I think that if you can make your inputs into the system organic, there's no reason why you can't claim to friends and family that it is 100% organic. You can't sell it as an organic product, but it's probably more organic than many organically labeled products out there...

Fantastic discussion guys thank you for all your input.

any opinions as to why there are not many larger commercial type systems in operation?

Anything new has an added risk. And you have to be able to control the growing times better. Hydro is planned down to the day. But with AP it has other factors that are harder to control. Like what fish you have and what part of there life cycle they are in. How much waste are they producing etc

In addition to the timing and inputs mentioned above, the massive cost that would be involved in going large scale might be beyond the reach of most. Also, the larger you go, the larger the risk you have if something goes wrong. You could do a bunch of little systems, but cost is probably beyond a reasonable payout. With a single large system, a crash could see many dollars down the drain...finding a balance might be possible, but why try when dirt is free (almost) and you cannot sell veggies or fish as AP certified for a premium. Actually - the stigma around farmed fish might actually hurt.

Neil there is a couple of trial commercial systems on the forum here, Joels has gone into hibernation, Outback Ozzie has one going in Kalgoorlie, but really no one has succeeded to my knowledge yet, this is succeeded to the point that produce has been sold and the system has made a profit, Not sure if Rupert is making a profit out of his setup either.
I think that you need too many fish, pumping, water storage etc to make a commercial system viable, I also think it needs to be staffed almost 24/7, one little *frack* up in a bigger system seems to escalate quickly into a bigger *frack* up, from what I have seen it is far easier to have a big Aquaculture system than it is a big AP system, AC the crap is filtered out and AP the crap is converted into other nutrients, more crap then more grow area, more grow area then more water needed, more water then more pumping and air. Another system here is trialed (but no updates) by filtering the crap out, still pumping water through GB's and spraying heaps of thrive on the plants, this to me isn't AP, the 2 Commercial systems I have seen have only grown Lettuce, which is fine if you have a huge market for lettuce, but not enough $$$'s in lettuce to cover overheads, this is my opinion anyhow