Aquaponic Gardening

A Community and Forum For Aquaponic Gardeners

Is any product that is grown with fish effluent water qualified to be considered aquaponically grown?  For instance, a plant in a pot filled with peat and vermicompost or other media and placed in a shallow trough that is flooded with aquaponic water considered aquaponically grown?  One could argue that it is being fed with fish effluent water, however it is not necessarily part of the recirculating process.  The plant is benefiting from the nutrient rich water but is the plant in its container adding to the bacterial process and conversion that takes place in an aquaponic system?

 

If we examine what would be required to be certified as aquaponically grown, what criteria must be met? Can it be terrestrial crops being watered with aquaponic overflow or must they be cultivated in a recirculating system?  Opinions please!  

Views: 552

Replies to This Discussion

This is a good question Gina and I will have the first stab at giving my opinion.  When we consider aquaponics I think it is important to consider some of the general benefits of aquaponics over conventional agricultural methods... attributes such as water conservation and reuse, the lack of pesticides, herbicides and so on and so forth.  These, and other attributes are what makes aquaponics relatively unique.

 

If we ultimately want to attempt to set a standard, or at least put in place a framework of certification for aquaponics goods, then I think that it is important to look at these particular attributes so that consumers could eventually make an informed choice about what they purchase.

 

In this case, simply using the nutrient-rich water from an aquatic system, whilst being a more efficient use of this material than just simply dumping it, is not really conserving the water and so such a system is still likely to use significantly greater quantities of water than a regular, recirculating aquaponics system.

 

For me, an aquaponics system is one which mimics nature and is in itself a small ecosystem.  Water recirculation in particular is of significant value as we enter a period of time where water is increasingly a more precious, and seemingly diminishing commodity.

 

An interesting question would also be whether aquaponically grown, should also be a watch-word for organically grown?  Using fish pellets largely derived from oil-based chemicals, perhaps trucked in from a 1000 miles away does not strike me as necessarily very sustainable, and so should this also be a consideration?  How high do we want to set the bar?

Excellent Discussion Topic Gina.

 

I am of the opinion that provided the fish effluent water that is being fed to the "plant in a pot filled with peat and vermicompost or other media and placed in a shallow trough" is recirculating back to the fish tank, whether first passing through other filter beds, still classifies the resulting produce as being Aquaponically grown. Provided that no harmful chemicals / fertilizers are added to this process, the presence of peat and vermicompost (assuming that this has been made according to safe guidelines), should not harm or kill the fish. Surely when we use media beds, over a period of time not only do we see the presence of red worms but also the formation of soil. Peat is also in a large part, created in this way, by decomposing of vegetable matter. The key here to me is that the rich fish effluent water is "recirculated" and remains in the man-made Ecosystem.

 

As regards what fish are feed and where there food comes from, well that is another discussion in my opinion, one that may be more in line with obtaining Organic Certification. There is definately a need for that too but this is not something that the hungry millions in need of food will really going to place at the top of their concern just yet...so long as they can get food grown locally and grown naturally without any harmful pesticides or chemical fertilizers added.

 

Just my humble opinion,

 

God bless,

 

I too agree that this is a great topic.

I for one am not too worried about labeling things and especially setting it to stone for there is no right way. However there are a few things we should have guidelines for such as safety which has been mentioned before.

What I practice, I call hydro-organics. Strictly speaking, I believe AP stemmed itself from hydroponics, so any of those methods in combination with fish effluent should be considered true Aquaponics.

Does it need to be circulating? No. I grow potatoes above ground in geotextile bags using perlite as medium and fish water. Next year I hope to work with David Waite on an aeroponics AP system to grow potato and other plants. I also run my fish water through my soil based wicking, raised beds which is similar but much larger to what you mentioned.

The future I see is oh so complicated when it really is not. Fork the government and their meddling in our livelihood! We micro economics suppliers ~ custom growers, are local based which means all we have to do is educate our neighbors and build communities like we had, not fifty years ago. These will be independent neighborhoods, churches, urban renewal groups and other CSA affiliations sponsoring our endeavors. Most of us only care to feed ourselves with hopefully some surplus. Large operations that sustainably feed the masses are still far off, a decade or three at least to mature. So the question again is feed and how sustainable is the operation.

When these conglomerates decide to join us, they will crush, us that try for true sustainability, with adverts and propaganda of how their feed is really better and safer and unlike their fully automated systems, ours are small, unsophisticated, full of flaws and should be cautioned against...and the sheep will follow.

In hydro-organics, I try to feed the things that feed my harvest instead of feeding them directly as in modern monocrop, factory farming of any sort. Although I am known for my spectacular produce, eggs and fish, I tell people most of my job (the most important part) is growing grass, and raising bugs (microbes), insects and worms; the chickens, fish and produce pretty much take care of themselves.

Wherever we are, what comes out must first go in.

The key to be sustainable is to convert sunlight into usable energy: food. In nature we see intertwining spectrums of integration process. We should learn these functions to better separate and organize processes to compartmentalize them in controlled environments for maximum production and efficiency.

So to conclude I would say that

  1. Any method used including fish water as its main source of nutrient can be considered AP.
  2. No matter what labeling one uses, the proof is in the pudding. The more sustainable your operation, the more complicated and costly it is to set up and operate.

BTW: My eggs sell for $20 a pound or two Dollars each. Crazy right? Not after they see the difference.

 

Cheers

 

Namaste Carey,

 

I too use AP water on occasions to water my soil gardens. I believe that when you combine such to help establish a sustainable living food jungle, the terminology that is being refereed to describe this is "AGROECOLOGY".

 

This is what I am aiming to by combining such water use in my Hybrid Aquaponics system. In a recent artice Dr. Dave Love (Project Director, Public Health & Sustainable Aquaculture Project, Center for a Livable Future, John Hopkins University), states as Agroecology, a method for integrating biological systems into agriculture, is widely recognized as a potential solution for increasing farm productivity and environmental sustainability of agriculture. Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, is strongly in favor of the agroecology approach, in which farmers create “complex farming systems that replicate the complexities of nature.” ... full article which he recently posted along with a picture of my farm ( http://www.livablefutureblog.com/2011/10/recirculating-farms-coalition ).

 

Not that I am for "labeling" as a must, but if one has to then I am of the opinion that in order for produce to be "labeled" as Aquaponically Grown, fish effluent water should be recirculated, even it is done form huge in ground grow beds growing potatoes or other produce.

 

Just my humble opinion,

God bless,

 

Carey Ma said:

I too agree that this is a great topic.

I for one am not too worried about labeling things and especially setting it to stone for there is no right way. However there are a few things we should have guidelines for such as safety which has been mentioned before.

What I practice, I call hydro-organics. Strictly speaking, I believe AP stemmed itself from hydroponics, so any of those methods in combination with fish effluent should be considered true Aquaponics.

Does it need to be circulating? No. I grow potatoes above ground in geotextile bags using perlite as medium and fish water. Next year I hope to work with David Waite on an aeroponics AP system to grow potato and other plants. I also run my fish water through my soil based wicking, raised beds which is similar but much larger to what you mentioned.

The future I see is oh so complicated when it really is not. Fork the government and their meddling in our livelihood! We micro economics suppliers ~ custom growers, are local based which means all we have to do is educate our neighbors and build communities like we had, not fifty years ago. These will be independent neighborhoods, churches, urban renewal groups and other CSA affiliations sponsoring our endeavors. Most of us only care to feed ourselves with hopefully some surplus. Large operations that sustainably feed the masses are still far off, a decade or three at least to mature. So the question again is feed and how sustainable is the operation.

When these conglomerates decide to join us, they will crush, us that try for true sustainability, with adverts and propaganda of how their feed is really better and safer and unlike their fully automated systems, ours are small, unsophisticated, full of flaws and should be cautioned against...and the sheep will follow.

In hydro-organics, I try to feed the things that feed my harvest instead of feeding them directly as in modern monocrop, factory farming of any sort. Although I am known for my spectacular produce, eggs and fish, I tell people most of my job (the most important part) is growing grass, and raising bugs (microbes), insects and worms; the chickens, fish and produce pretty much take care of themselves.

Wherever we are, what comes out must first go in.

The key to be sustainable is to convert sunlight into usable energy: food. In nature we see intertwining spectrums of integration process. We should learn these functions to better separate and organize processes to compartmentalize them in controlled environments for maximum production and efficiency.

So to conclude I would say that

  1. Any method used including fish water as its main source of nutrient can be considered AP.
  2. No matter what labeling one uses, the proof is in the pudding. The more sustainable your operation, the more complicated and costly it is to set up and operate.

BTW: My eggs sell for $20 a pound or two Dollars each. Crazy right? Not after they see the difference.

 

Cheers

 

I think "Aquaponically Grown" should apply to recirculating systems since it is in recirculating systems that you get the benefit of saying "well we can't spray toxic chemicals since they would kill the fish and beneficial bacteria."  If you are doing run to waste you can't really claim that aspect.

 

Using the wicking properties for say pots set into beds using peat or coir or whatever as media might not provide much back to the AP system as filtration but if you are going to argue that using a container with peat negates the Aquaponically grown benefits then raft culture could be counted as suspect.

 

So I think the keys for Aquaponically Grown should be that the plants are grown in recirculating parts of the system and that the primary nutrient source is feeding some form of aquatic animals.  Run to waste parts of the system will have to come up with their own labels if they want them.  Vermiponics and other types of bio-ponics can come up with their own labels too.  Having worms in an aquaponics system doesn't make it not aquaponics though.  Not having fish or other aquatic animals and feeding worms instead is what makes vermiponics not aquaponics.



I certainly think labeling each technique as its own separate method is important. Although, I can see multiple
certifications for various methods of food growing using aquaponic water or other continuous developments from the same system becoming cumbersome, more expensive, and repetitive. If aquaponic water is being used to water soil
plants for example, this method should be covered under the same aquaponic certification. However, I feel labeling methods is important and standards for all aspects should be included in the aquaponic certification. When selling products fromthese systems, honest labeling about what methods are growing their food should be utilized.

Cheers!

-Nicole

Although this risks becoming entangled in semantics, if there are to be standards for safe, humane, and otherwise responsible aquaponic practices set at any point, then there will need to be definitions agreed upon and set first.

 

When I first got into hydroponics nearly 20 years ago, there were already debates on what that meant.  

Some said that there needed to be some sort of structure or system that supports the plants, especially the roots, where they are constantly or periodically provided with a calculated & monitored nutrient solution.  Others contend that any system involving an inert media other than soil is hydroponics, even if it's a hand watered, run to waste, bucket of ceramic aggregate. Of course this opens up the debate over what exactly "soil" is.  I can tell you that most of the "soil-less" mixes out there are not inert, with those labeled for organic hydroponics are far from it. 

I never felt good about putting hydroponic (organic or otherwise) fertilizer solutions down the drain, and commercial run to waste systems create one reason why hydroponics has a bad name.  I feel the same way about the nutrient solution derived from a fish tank, so I agree with and practice the superior benefits of recirculating aquaponics.  

So what would you call a recirculating system where a certain percentage is siphoned off and fed to container garden plants?

Would this ancillary growing environment then be bio-ponics or hydro-organics?

 

Note: although I have been involved with aquaponics for three years, I clearly label my past and current interim growing methods as hydro-organic.

 

Jesse

I'm rather fond of S&S Aqua Farm's term "bioponics" for describing the more "organic" side of non traditional recirculating growing.

 

And yes, once the bioponics gets going even initially sterile and inert media becomes anything but.  It becomes quite alive with bacteria and other small life living on/in it and supporting the plants and converting stuff from the fish for the plants so the water can go back to the fish.

 

I'm also not very personally attached to "organic" since it has been so hijacked to hardly mean what it should anymore.

 

Anyway, I think an Aquaponically Grown Label should probably start out mainly addressing that it's aquaponics (are we going with the definition of aquaponics that was hammered about on this site?) And it should have some basic reasonable guidelines about food safety.

 

Examples of food safety guidelines might include;

No fresh warm blooded animal manure used to feed the fish and anything that might have had contact with such warm blooded animal manure needs the proper cleaning/sterilization or with-holding time before contact with the system seeing as the water circulates you can't really use time to harvest as the withholding period since most systems are constantly producing so the with-holding period would have to happen prior to contact with the system.  What this would mean for worm castings from outside the system is the worm bin has to be allowed to age for 4 months with no new material added before you can use the castings in the system or to make sprays to spray on the veggies.  Or the castings would need to be sterilized in some other way (but since the main benefit of castings is the active beneficial bacteria, I don't see why anyone would want to do that.)

 

things like that?

 

Thanks for the opinions guys!  Let me give you some background as to where this discussion originated.  This week I have been traveling around visiting AP farms and systems and had the pleasure of spending the day with Myles Harston of AquaRanch.  Myles and I were exploring the benefits of a certification process for Aquaponically grown food that would serve aquaponic farmers independent of USDA organic certification.  We were theorizing about an affordable process, that was self regulating so as to minimize costs, but that would enable the farmer to utilize a label that automatically infers to the buyer that they are getting a product that is better than organic and meets safe criteria.  Of course in conjunction with this is the need for marketing aquaponically grown produce and aquaponics in general so that the consumer has a good understanding of what it is.  Ultimately what we would want is for the consumer to see the label "Aquaponically Grown"(for instance) and automatically know that they are getting something a product that is all natural and clean. 

Then, last night, as I was sitting in Sylvia's kitchen talking about this conversation I had just had with Myles, we were contemplating what would necessitate being considered aquaponically grown, in part due to some of the practices I had just seen at Growing Power two days earlier, essentially the pots wicking up the nutrient rich water.   This led us to question if the nutrient source, ie. fish effluent water need be the only criteria to be considered aquaponically grown or would the recirculation part of the system be necessary to identify something as aquaponic.  

It seems then for many of us that the integral component is the sustainability of this growing method in addition to what it is capable of producing.  Therefore, the consumer would know that they are not only getting a product that is better than organic, completely naturally grown but just as important, sustainably grown.   

In total agreement.

 

I believe this is what I wrote in early May this year on the discussion "Future of Food".

 

Namaste Dear Aquapons,

 

Visiting my parents in UK and managed to get some internet time while they rested (you know...time difference...jet lag). Naturally, on to one of favourite sites to see what's happening ...and Hey! lots of new discussions on one of the most important topics for small "commercial" farmers in my opinion. I am really enjoying reading replies to this discussion and learning of the common fears of "Big Brother...Government" and it's ill effects on one and all re "Certification". 

 

Gina, Thank you for reminding Aquapons that it is not the "Big Brother...Government" Certification or telling current and future Aquapons "How to" and "what hoops to jump to get Certification",   but rather a set of guidelines developed by Aquapons like you, me and everyone who shares this way of life and wishes to participate in the relevance to the drafting of a set of "Generally Accepted Aquaponic Standards". You certainly do  not have to follow such when growing your food...no one forces you. If all that you do is grow food for yourself and a few friends, you may have no desire to...although you would be missing out on a lot of valuable information of "how to" and member experiences to educate and enhance one's Aquapon knowledge. It will become more relevant should you decide to "sell" your produce. In such cases, without the need for expensive "O" certification, small commercial farmers, yes including the "Backyard" farmer that sells to the local farmers market or other such facilities, if you chose to follow such and share membership / fellowship with similar Aqaupons in such an Association, mentioning that your "farm" is a "Member" of such (in marketing - labeling...much like "Fresh from Florida" ), should assist the consumer to identify that the food they are purchasing has been grown by a farmer that has knowledge of and likely follows "Generally Accepted Aquaponic Standards". Naturally one of the main aims of this non-profit Association would be, with member help, to educate the consuming public / the end user about the benefits of purchasing and consuming food grown by Aquaponic means.

 

Further, as Wayne reminds us in his reply, 

"Regulations are not needed to grow (or teach to grow) healthy sustainable food, but having a "marketable product" that consumers can have confidence in buying is very much needed for the commercial growers to compete with the better known methods. Unfortunately money is a big motivator and will be a deciding factor as how many commercial operations get started. With larger profit margins and consumer demand, Banks will be more willing to finance new aqua farms.

 

Maybe a bill of rights of sorts could be developed to protect against some future abuse.

I see it as a necessary evil  that should be addressed by good uncorrupted people before the greedy parasites get a chance too! "

 

I honestly do not like "Big Brother...Government" regulations et all. We Aquapons, existing as well as future, those farming in USA or around the World, need to come to a common understanding of the importance and relevance to the drafting of any"Generally Accepted Aquaponic Standards". We need to self govern ourself as we grow and share this wonderful way of life. Yes there are many other factors that one can discuss as to the future of food and what it take to grow such for example, our dependence on Oil, on Water, on Weather etc...we are not looking or discussing those topics in this discussion. That will be a totally different subject...here the object would be to determine "What is considered to be Aquaponically grown food and what are the best known practices in growing such"...hence the drafting of what we can loosely call "Generally Accepted Aquaponic Standards".

 

God bless,

 

Gina Cavaliero said:

Thanks for the opinions guys!  Let me give you some background as to where this discussion originated.  This week I have been traveling around visiting AP farms and systems and had the pleasure of spending the day with Myles Harston of AquaRanch.  Myles and I were exploring the benefits of a certification process for Aquaponically grown food that would serve aquaponic farmers independent of USDA organic certification.  We were theorizing about an affordable process, that was self regulating so as to minimize costs, but that would enable the farmer to utilize a label that automatically infers to the buyer that they are getting a product that is better than organic and meets safe criteria.  Of course in conjunction with this is the need for marketing aquaponically grown produce and aquaponics in general so that the consumer has a good understanding of what it is.  Ultimately what we would want is for the consumer to see the label "Aquaponically Grown"(for instance) and automatically know that they are getting something a product that is all natural and clean. 

Then, last night, as I was sitting in Sylvia's kitchen talking about this conversation I had just had with Myles, we were contemplating what would necessitate being considered aquaponically grown, in part due to some of the practices I had just seen at Growing Power two days earlier, essentially the pots wicking up the nutrient rich water.   This led us to question if the nutrient source, ie. fish effluent water need be the only criteria to be considered aquaponically grown or would the recirculation part of the system be necessary to identify something as aquaponic.  

It seems then for many of us that the integral component is the sustainability of this growing method in addition to what it is capable of producing.  Therefore, the consumer would know that they are not only getting a product that is better than organic, completely naturally grown but just as important, sustainably grown.   

Hi TLC and the rest of my AP friends,

As I read this line, I see that the consensus is leaning heavily to recirculating systems. If that were the case, then your only nutrient input would be from feed. I understand the necessity of mono cropping for the sake of production, since it is the means of livelihood. However, I must again say that there are too many variables to be stamped and labeled in a one size fits all. What works and can be standards for your area may not apply to others.

 

Where does this attitude of drawing lines come from? Why is one system superior and the others not worth mentioning/ using? Doesn’t drawing lines make it easier for them to squash us, one by one? They’ve practically already killed small farms around the world. Now, even producing your own food is illegal in some parts of our beloved country. I think we as independent food producers should wipe the lines and join forces to protect our god given rights.

 

I don’t farm for the masses. They can continue eating that poopoo, facsimile they call food. I farm real food for individuals. I support a community of friends. I believe our responsibility is to use recirculating AP to help enable anyone, anywhere, to be more food independent. When we cross this line of being a grassroots movement, we become part of the machine. I revolt at the idea that AP would turn commercial. This is the only remaining way, we the people have left to control their own destiny as bleak as it may already be.

 

I think it is important for us as leaders to show that there is a better way to live, eat and farm; to build our local communities rather than fracture into us and them. As for run to waste; That in my book is simply sacrilege. Our goal should be to evolve out of simple AP, into an ecologically more sustainable model.

 

@ Nicole

Certification? Why fall for the ploy of the controllers? We don’t need no stinkin certification if we grow for friends.

 

@ Jesse

Thank you for your support. It seems we have similar backgrounds and working in pretty much the same direction. Glad to know you here. I hope we get to swap some info and stories soon.

 

@ TLC

I apologize if I seemed harsh earlier. I certainly agree with what you say about setting standards and I guess I should hold my tongue, for I do not actually practice AP as defined here. In my mind the term AP applies to smaller systems that recirculate nutrient rich water from fish waste. HO (hydro organics) uses any and all organic methods based on recirculating AP to achieve greater bio diversity and ecological sustainability to give us better financial sustainability. The larger and complex the systems, the less likelihood of a system crash.

 

On second thought. I do see the need to define AP and set parameters without the complications of being sustainable or not. The simple practice of growing produce with fish waste (which is in of itself complicated enough). Beyond that, I think it a matter of local experimentation until we collaborate and unify under the institute of Hydro-organics or similar non profit organization devoted to transforming the art of growing food into the science of integrated bio systems in controlled environments.

 

@Gina

Now that I understand where this line of thought originated, I feel like a complete ass. However, it still makes me feel icky that we would someday be in supermarkets, running in conjunction with the machine.

Again, my definition of AP is any hydroponics method that replaces synthetic chemicals with fish waste with the majority of nutrient circulating, is AP.

 

@ Sahib

Namaste my friend. I suppose I am a hypocrite but in my heart I do believe AP would be more beneficial to the world if it is not commercialized though I know it impossible. I even have a design for an automated dispenser to be put in commercial surroundings but it is my name and reputation I place on my stickers, not the method used. My friends, tough they have visited and heard the story, don’t really know why or how mine is better, they simply believe that I am willing to go extra steps beyond what anyone else would do to produce unadulterated food. No two operations are alike or equal though they may prescribe to the same methods and standards.

 

What are your thoughts?

Namaste Carey my friend,

 

To me "Small is Beautiful" has been and always will be my mantra. I too have never advocated large scale commercial AP farming. My whole focus has been "Grown Locally, Grown Naturally", and yes you are totally correct that AP systems will differ depending upon each unique circumstance, resources available and food requirements. As I stated in my previous reply "small commercial farmers, yes including the "Backyard" farmer that sells to the local farmers market or other such facilities".

 

Recirculation of water, even if minimal to me is crucial as we are facing a serious shortage of drinkable water worldwide, so I cannot see how not to preserve this precious resource. I am looking at some projects in rural India and this is a major challenge. The recent weather change pattern we are experiencing (for example the severe drought in Texas this past summer and millions of pounds of lost crop and dead animals), has further convinced me that we have to do all we can to preserve this precious life source.

 

My main focus that I have tried to highlight and seek discussion (back in May this year), was what should/could be considered and identified / labeled if necessary (like "Fresh from Florida"), as "Aquaponically Grown" .."What is considered to be Aquaponically grown food and what are the best known practices in growing such"...hence the drafting of what we can loosely call "Generally Accepted Aquaponic Standards".  Hence my call then to fellow Aquapons to discuss , identify and state what could be considered as Aquaponically Grown "..if you chose to follow such and share membership / fellowship with similar Aqaupons in such an Association,..". 

 

So yes, this is a very important and significant discussion and one that merits the discussion and some consensuses by all those using AP as well as some standards and definitions by the newly formed Aquaponics Association.

 

God bless,

 

  



Carey Ma said:

Hi TLC and the rest of my AP friends,

As I read this line, I see that the consensus is leaning heavily to recirculating systems. If that were the case, then your only nutrient input would be from feed. I understand the necessity of mono cropping for the sake of production, since it is the means of livelihood. However, I must again say that there are too many variables to be stamped and labeled in a one size fits all. What works and can be standards for your area may not apply to others.

 

Where does this attitude of drawing lines come from? Why is one system superior and the others not worth mentioning/ using? Doesn’t drawing lines make it easier for them to squash us, one by one? They’ve practically already killed small farms around the world. Now, even producing your own food is illegal in some parts of our beloved country. I think we as independent food producers should wipe the lines and join forces to protect our god given rights.

 

I don’t farm for the masses. They can continue eating that poopoo, facsimile they call food. I farm real food for individuals. I support a community of friends. I believe our responsibility is to use recirculating AP to help enable anyone, anywhere, to be more food independent. When we cross this line of being a grassroots movement, we become part of the machine. I revolt at the idea that AP would turn commercial. This is the only remaining way, we the people have left to control their own destiny as bleak as it may already be.

 

I think it is important for us as leaders to show that there is a better way to live, eat and farm; to build our local communities rather than fracture into us and them. As for run to waste; That in my book is simply sacrilege. Our goal should be to evolve out of simple AP, into an ecologically more sustainable model.

 

@ Nicole

Certification? Why fall for the ploy of the controllers? We don’t need no stinkin certification if we grow for friends.

 

@ Jesse

Thank you for your support. It seems we have similar backgrounds and working in pretty much the same direction. Glad to know you here. I hope we get to swap some info and stories soon.

 

@ TLC

I apologize if I seemed harsh earlier. I certainly agree with what you say about setting standards and I guess I should hold my tongue, for I do not actually practice AP as defined here. In my mind the term AP applies to smaller systems that recirculate nutrient rich water from fish waste. HO (hydro organics) uses any and all organic methods based on recirculating AP to achieve greater bio diversity and ecological sustainability to give us better financial sustainability. The larger and complex the systems, the less likelihood of a system crash.

 

On second thought. I do see the need to define AP and set parameters without the complications of being sustainable or not. The simple practice of growing produce with fish waste (which is in of itself complicated enough). Beyond that, I think it a matter of local experimentation until we collaborate and unify under the institute of Hydro-organics or similar non profit organization devoted to transforming the art of growing food into the science of integrated bio systems in controlled environments.

 

@Gina

Now that I understand where this line of thought originated, I feel like a complete ass. However, it still makes me feel icky that we would someday be in supermarkets, running in conjunction with the machine.

Again, my definition of AP is any hydroponics method that replaces synthetic chemicals with fish waste with the majority of nutrient circulating, is AP.

 

@ Sahib

Namaste my friend. I suppose I am a hypocrite but in my heart I do believe AP would be more beneficial to the world if it is not commercialized though I know it impossible. I even have a design for an automated dispenser to be put in commercial surroundings but it is my name and reputation I place on my stickers, not the method used. My friends, tough they have visited and heard the story, don’t really know why or how mine is better, they simply believe that I am willing to go extra steps beyond what anyone else would do to produce unadulterated food. No two operations are alike or equal though they may prescribe to the same methods and standards.

 

What are your thoughts?

RSS

© 2020   Created by Sylvia Bernstein.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service