Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

The "weakness".. if any.. in Nichol's article... stems from his hydroponic bias... and interpretations through his hydroponic lenses...

The arguments are generally valid.. and the reasons for the comparative results highlighted...

He just hasn't grasped how the problem(s) can be redressed...

Yes he did and he also noted these trials were relatively short and not long enough to pick up any increase in production which has been repeatedly documented in AP systems both in the scientific literature and anecdotal.

This actually reinforces my point. Rather than calling for more side by side studies to investigate differences in production he seems to be already able to make a conclusion despite the fact that adequate side by side trials have not been conducted.

Hey? twisted logic there really, to say that a backyard system must be able to compete with what a commercial grower gets whole selling, is comparing two totally different things..

You don't need to be doing it in Australia Troutman....

Yes you are right.

I agree the arguments are valid its the conclusions that i have a problem with.

I've had a number of discussions with Nichols and was surprised by some of his views. For example that the Tailor Made and Priva systems were not "aquaponics". His research on the use of LEDs sounds really interesting. I've got some philosophical objections to it but if the science comes in I'll have to adjust my philosophy.

The NZ trial ran for a year Stuart... and the yield analysis results were pretty thorough...

And I wouldn't discount the research data.. or length of data collection by Savidov.. and/or Rakocy... (even though not stirctly "commercial" operations..)

The points made in the article...are generally valid... as are the reasons underpinning them....

And the "clues" as to how they can/should/must be addressed... are all contained therein as well...

It is not twisted at all.

Small scale farming is dyeing out around the world because it can not compete with the efficiencies and economies of scale of large scale operations.

A small scale AP system using an inefficient single phase pump has an environmental foot print that is larger in its embodied energy and its operational energy than a large scale system.

The amount of embodied energy in a 50mm pipe (DWV PVC) compared with a 100mm pipe (DWV PVC) per mm2 of cross section (and hence ability to transport water) is 50% greater. It gets worse if you use pressure fittings.

I've already mentioned the inefficient single phase pump but there are other operational savings as well, like FCR for example.

Again that is my point. Lots of anecdotal evidence that the second year sees a boost in productivity and scientifically documented by Savidov and others.

A lot of that "anecdotal" evidence.. including much of Savidov's work... is in relation to media bed methodologies... and/or "closed loop" methodologies

And as such... fails to address the fundamental constraints of the approach... and results as highlighted in the article...

Small scale farming is dying because of artificially cheap energy and a monopolised food industry. If your going to take this line then there's so much more that you have to consider.

There are aspects other than just environmental footprint, and there's a hell of a lot more to it than the embodied energy of the components going into a system and the energy to run it, being compared to a commercial version.

If someone grows it in their yard they aren't driving to the shops every few days bringing home goods in plastic bags, within plastic bags, or fish on a foam tray wrapped in plastic, in a plastic bag, that's been kept frozen for many weeks. All bought from shopping centres that have massive ongoing costs and an embodied energy not worth thinking about. And if people aren't going to the shops so much, then there's less wear and tear on their vehicles, they may not need those extra traffic lights because there's less traffic, etc..

Then there are other hidden benefits of food production in peoples backyards, health benefits, general health and well being, people being connected to where their food comes from etc.. We all know the AP benefits, but these could provide hidden energy saving benefits down the track including decreased medical needs, better mental well being, less stressed.

Surely you can't just look at things with a narrow short term focus if you're talking about embodied energy and footprint.

Actually embodied energy often requires a longer term view.

I'm not saying growing food at home is a bad idea, its not, its a great idea for many of the reasons you mentioned and more.

My point is that if you consider apples with apples industry can and does do things more efficiently.


By your rational people should grow their own food:

- hydroponically instead of buying hydroponically grown food from the supermarket.
-in dirt instead of buying dirt grown food form the supermarket.
- aquaponically instead of all other methods (I'm sure I'm exagerating your point of view with this last one)

My rational is that so many people are not going to grow their own food so I will commercially grow it for them with the most sustainable options available to me.

That means doing so on a grand scale so that all inputs (feed, seed, nutrients, capital, energy, etc.) can be used most efficiently and productively.

Oh and the more expensive energy gets the bigger the advantage that large scale farming will have over small scale.

But thats exactly my point, if you look at only the growing of that product, then yes, in monetary terms and energy terms, the larger the scale the more efficient it will be. But it's wrong if your going to look at it from a "which is best for the planet " type view, to leave out everything else associated with that food product getting onto the end consumers plate, and all the indirect costs which can be attributed to one or the other.



I'm not sure that I get you...



I agree with your rational there, and think it's a good idea to make things as efficient as possible on all scales. And yes, unfortunately there will always be a percentage of the populaiton happy to buy their fruit and veg from supermarkets, they will never grow it.
But I disagree with you on energy.. But then I'm talking about energy in it's many forms, oil, gas, etc. It will lead to more decentralized smaller scale food production.

You listed a whole stack of good reasons to grow food at home. Those reasons should be applied to HP and dirt grown produce as well as AP. If growing food at home is inefficient (it is) but the savings from eliminating packaging, transport, carbon footprint of distribution warehouses and points of sale out weigh the inefficiencies then growing food at home is good from just a carbon point of view. Added to this are all the other benefits as well.

Therefore our first job is to get people to grow more food at home. The method HP, dirt or AP is secondary. Once we have convinced people to grow food at home we then demonstrate the most sustainable method which is different for different crops but for many is arguably AP.



So am I. Your argument is based on the premise that transport costs are a major part of food production. Now while they significant they are not major. The concept of food miles has received a lot of popular support but is not well based on science or good accounting principles.

This study: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct= ... 3336,d.aGc concludes that UK consumers would shrink their environmental footprint by buying food from NZ rather than locally in the UK.

Studies done in the US have concluded that it would be more "sustainable" to grow greenhouse crops in the south and ship them north rather than grow them locally all year round due to the transport costs being tiny compared to the operational costs of growing many of these crops in the north.

The effects of this only get larger the more expensive energy gets. Now at some point a tipping point is reached and people will no longer be able to afford fresh FnV all year round in the north but at no point does the increasing energy cost wipe out large distance food transportation. What is does encourage is large scale food preserving factories because the energy efficiency of for example a cannery is much greater than can be matched at home.

I'm no expert but did I miss something, there were no figures in this article? where are the numbers?

Plant yield is compared but what about chemical costs in HP and fish yield in AP? Also he is very quick to point out that increased plant growth from mature AP systems is to be dismissed, so hydro systems are only made to run for one year?

One of the points he makes.. is that many "commercial" systems are either stocked at low density, or with low value fish... with a very low profit potential... as merely a means of "manure" replacement for hydroponic nutrients... (often unsuccessfully from a nutrient profile viewpoint)

And in that regard, as a straight comparison to cost of hydroponic nutrients vs cost of fish production.. I also, as would others, like Nate Storey... would maintain that there is probably not a case to be made for aquaponics vs hydroponics.. as currently normally implemented.. with little or no return on the fish production...

In the words of Nate Storey through many discussions over time... regarding the current aquaponics methodologies employed in most "commercial" (hobby farm) systems...

"The numbers don't add up.. there's no compelling case to suggest that aquaponics has any significant cost benefit over and above hydroponics"

Now.. to be clear.. neither or, nor I suspect Nate... or Ryan.. or others... would suggest that commercial aquaponics can't be profitable and viable...

But to do so requires a degree of scale... and that the fish component must be profitable within it's own right...

Most of us would also argue that current "designs" do not allow for the optimisation of the fish component in that regard... or even ultimately for the optimisation of the plant production.. other than perhaps leafy greens... and a degree of luck..

There are alternate designs and methodolopgy approaches applicable to the successful production and profitability of both the fish and plant components.. that exist and/or... are being adopted...

But they do not include a single closed loop.. and/or incorporation of uncontrollable media grow beds.. or poorly implemented filtration techniques.. or low density fish stocking...

They require a proper implementation of aquaculture principles of design and methodology... and a proper implementation of hydroponic principles of design and methodology... and that includes nutrient profile manipulation... just ask Ryan...

Aquaponics = Aquaculture + Hydroponics ...

Where's all the mystery in the equation...