G'day Sprintcyclist, noticed your comments about permaculture.

Mate permaculture is such a very, very cool thing, I am hoping to take the idea to another step in our backyard once we move into our place. I want to set up a Aquaponics system.

Based on hydroponics, it is extremely water efficient, using as little as 10-15% of the water of conventional garderns. As well as producing veggie and fruit, there is the added bonus of fish if you want to eat them, or use decorative fish,turtles habitat for pleasure.

The water from the pond is circulated through the growing beds, where it is cleaned and allowed to fall back into the pond. Natural fertilizer is supplied by the fish waste in the water. Various fish food products are used along with veggie and friut scraps. There is also some work being done to get the system to work with fresh water crayfish etc. It can work but needs fine tuning as very finicky apparently.

Like permaculture, it is a fantastic concept. I am hoping that is about 5 years time, my wife, son and I can have a small plot of land where we can have a combination of the two concepts, including some livestock, chickens, goats and pigs. Maybe a milk cow?? I would have to look into things like how vet cost average out, to see if a milk cow would be viable. Chickens for eggs and meat and helping out with the gardening, goats for meat and helping with the weeding etc. Seriously thinking Tasmania.

Good Aussie starting point http://www.aquaponics.com.au/

Would like to see photos of your efforts Sprint that don't compromise your privacy of course.

Maybe give a run down on the basics. I am hoping to post a build along when I begin my project.

locutius wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2008 at 2:09pm:

I am hoping that is about 5 years time, my wife, son and I can have a small plot of land where we can have a combination of the two concepts, including some livestock, chickens, goats and pigs. Maybe a milk cow?? I would have to look into things like how vet cost average out, to see if a milk cow would be viable. Chickens for eggs and meat and helping out with the gardening, goats for meat and helping with the weeding etc. Seriously thinking Tasmania. [/url]

Hi Locutius,

Excellent idea. I'd like to do the same some day maybe when I eventually retire. I'd like to try some small scale aquaculture before then though. I just never have the time at the moment.

I also liked your common sense comments in the population explosion thread. I think we were all taking turns to be outrageous, so read my posts there with a grain of salt.

Jim

;D Yes mate, I figured that this was tongue-in-cheek. You're just playing with the most expedicious way of solving the problem :o Alternatively, there is nothing to worry about as it means there will be an ample supply of Soylent Green.

Also saw this in another post of yours "Now if you're prepared to discuss climate change, I'm happy to oblige (at least for another week or so), but be prepared for some questions to test your knowledge." Going away?? Hope not, you've given some good info here.

As an aside, I always find it hilarious that all the bad guy aliens in movies and literature are behaving basically that same as the human race has done, but on a galactic rather than planetary scale.  

locutius wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 10:19am:

Going away?? Hope not, you've given some good info here.

Just incredibly busy until the end of October.

I must say that needing pools and pumps etc. seems a lot more complicated and less aesthetically pleasing than a nice traditional garden, which can integrate good practices, and achieve similiar results.

All this water conservation talk can be taken a little too far, we should of course strive to not waste water, but the amount needed to grow good food is really insignificant when compared to industrial and commercial agricultural use.
Placing all the onus on individual homeowners merely distracts us from addressing these real culprits of water wastage.

Hey Mozza,

The pumps aren't anything spectacular and you can get solar powered as well. I do agree about aesthetics, but the aquaponics gardens don't have to be ugly. The time not spent weeding, turning the soil, sowing could be spent on projects to make it all look good. The fish etc can be in a pond setting rather than a tank, and be decorative fish if not for eating. Though I would still prefer to use native fish in that situation.

I agree with what you say about water wasters. And while I supported the restrictions on decorative plant watering in backyards, it should never have been extended to include food gardens. That was a disgrace, especially when cotton growers used ridiculous amounts of water as do breweries. I love me beer but they need to be using best practices or find something else to do until the dams are full. Beer is a luxury :'(,, food is a necessity.

One other advantage, especially for the oldies is that the crops are usually raised and not backbreaking work. Easy to harvets from plants without taking the whole thing. Spectacular results from tomatoes, strawberries and lettece.  And of course the water efficency should be disregarded.

The way we handle water has all the marks of communism. It's practically free ($1 per tonne), you can shower for over an hour, but if you want to grow some food in the backyard to have to lug the water round in buckets, less than half a cent worth at a time.

I think backyard aquaponics is going a bit too far. If you are growing in your backyard, keep it simple. Once you go high-tech, you will be putting in the same effort as someone with a commercial plant, but getting only a fraction of the results. You'd be better off putting that effort into finding plants that do well with minimal maintenance.

FD said
Quote:

I think backyard aquaponics is going a bit too far. If you are growing in your backyard, keep it simple. Once you go high-tech, you will be putting in the same effort as someone with a commercial plant, but getting only a fraction of the results. You'd be better off putting that effort into finding plants that do well with minimal maintenance.

I don't know that it is going to far. It is an extremely efficient system and simple really. Maybe not necessary in our current climate but that situation could change. There are many good benefits, some of which I have mentioned.

Many people garden not just for economy or for the benefits of fresh produce less the chemicals, they also do it for enjoyment and a hobby. In other words they are enthusiasts. This adds another dimension to self sufficiency. You can have fresh fruit and veg and fish, all from your back yard. I have heard figures of 200 fish a year being harvested from a 4 bed / 2 tank system. One tomato plant producing 34 kilos of fruit per year.

I really like the concept, in the same way I like hydroponics, permaculture and simple backyard gardens. They're all good. For me I see it as a best option and intriguing.

I agree with what you say about water usage, not so sure about the use of the word communist though. Stupid seems more appropriate.

How is it self sufficient when you need all that plastic, a pump, electricity, pipes, chemicals etc just to produce some food? That sounds like the opposite of self sufficient.

In what way is the system efficient?

Hmmm? You mean as opposed to a range of gardening tools and the labour involved in maintaining it, creating garden beds and sowing in fertilizer, requiring a larger area to produce the same amount of edible matter, far less backbreaking as suggested before. It uses less chemicals than the typical ground based garden. Electricity can be gained from simple solar or wind technology. Pumps again are simple technology.

As for it being the opposite of self-suffiency because of the use of certain technological equipment. Where is it you are drawing the line? I'm sure that most people out there doing gardening are not using stone tools that they have knapped themselves but I could be wrong. Probably using a hose attached to a plastic rainwater tank or mains, and probably use electricity occasionally as well. Other infrastructure that people use to increase efficency can be quite elaborate such as green houses, many beyond my skill level to make.


Efficiency can be partly explained below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics
Aquaponics (IPA: /ˈækwəˈpɒnɪks/) is the symbiotic cultivation of plants and aquatic animals in a recirculating environment. Alternate definition: An integrated hydroponics (growing plants in water) and aquaculture (growing fish) system.

Aquatic animal effluent (for example fish waste) accumulates in water as a by-product of keeping them in a closed system or tank (for example a recirculating aquaculture system). The effluent-rich water becomes high in plant nutrients but this is correspondingly toxic to the aquatic animal.

Plants are grown in a way (for example a hydroponic system) that enables them to utilize the nutrient-rich water. The plants uptake the nutrients, reducing or eliminating the water's toxicity for the aquatic animal.

The water, now clean, is returned to the aquatic animal environment and the cycle continues. Aquaponic systems do not discharge or exchange water. The systems rely on the natural relationship between the aquatic animals and the plants to maintain the environment. Water is only added to replace water loss from absorption by the plants or evaporation into the air.

Aquaponic systems vary in size from small indoor units to large commercial units. They can use fresh or salt water depending on the aquatic animal and vegetation (fresh or salt water).

That doesn't say anything about efficiency.

You don't need to add fertiliser to a garden to grow food. Most backyards produce more than enough organic matter (eg lawn clippings), plus you've got kitchen scraps etc. I've gotten huge qualtities of wood chips for free from neighbours that were getting trees trimmed.

Sorry, I'm confused. What I've said so far does say a lot about efficiency. You claim it doesn't say anything. What exactly is the criteria of efficiency you wish to apply.

This system works where there is no soil as well, so offers this activity to those with limited space for instance unit or townhouse dwellers. Also how many fish or meat products are coming out of the suburbian or inner city garden.

In ways it works after a fashion like a perpetual motion engine or like nature does. Are these not efficient. They are cyclical. Of course PM Engines do not exist, but the comparision is worthwhile. And of course you do need to feed the fish.


Quote:

You don't need to add fertiliser to a garden to grow food.

But you do. Food scraps etc.

What exactly is the criteria of efficiency you wish to apply.

That's what I was asking you.

This system works where there is no soil as well, so offers this activity to those with limited space for instance unit or townhouse dwellers.

In that case the land would be so valuable as to make this a silly option.

Also, what would you do with all the toddlers that drown in your fish tank?

But you do. Food scraps etc.

You don't buy the food for the scraps. The scraps are a waste product, as are the newspapers, woodchips, grass clippings and other garden trimmings that I use. Contrast this with spending a fortune on plastic and electrical equipment for a system that is likely to become a white elephant, and you will understand why I think your claims of effiency are meaningless.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 1:26pm:

What exactly is the criteria of efficiency you wish to apply. That's what I was asking you.

I have provided quite a few examples of where I feel this system gives very good efficiency, so obviously I am applying a standard that keeps failing your standard. Hence my confusion as you claim I " haven't said anything about efficiency"

Considering what I have offered, (flawed according to you) your reapplying the question rather than offering a clarification of your definition suggests to me that you are playing the devil's advocate or Socratic games. Which while admittedly fun sometimes, isn't part of my purpose in a conversation of discovery. You may convince me that it is a useless system. Fair enough. I'm not emotionally or financially tied to this concept of farming. This technique is an extension to an interest in home gardening.



freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 1:26pm:

This system works where there is no soil as well, so offers this activity to those with limited space for instance unit or townhouse dwellers. In that case the land would be so valuable as to make this a silly option.

Can you explain that statement further?



freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 1:26pm:

Also, what would you do with all the toddlers that drown in your fish tank?

Clutching at straws FD. A question based on an assumption about my personal committment to recognise danger and to provide adequate checks to avoid a tragedy. Or is this what you would call a strawman.



freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 1:26pm:

But you do. Food scraps etc. You don't buy the food for the scraps. The scraps are a waste product, as are the newspapers, woodchips, grass clippings and other garden trimmings that I use. Contrast this with spending a fortune on plastic and electrical equipment for a system that is likely to become a white elephant, and you will understand why I think your claims of effiency are meaningless.

No you don't buy the food for the scraps. But you don't eat the scraps, you eat the fish. AND make use of fish waste. I have addressed the equipment issues in a previous post, why refer back to them. Please be specific if you have an issue. No I don't understand why you think what I have said is meaningless. I have been far more illuminating than talking about white elephants and drowned toddlers.

I have provided quite a few examples of where I feel this system gives very good efficiency, so obviously I am applying a standard that keeps failing your standard.

No, you are not providing a standard at all. Efficiency is a measure of something. What is it you are measuring?

Cluthing at straws FD. A question based on an assumption about my personal committment to recognise danger and to provide adequate checks to avoid a tragedy. Or is this what you would call a strawman.

No, I am just pointing out extra costs that you have not considered. Are you now going to need a large quantity of steel on this white elephant?

There's a guy here in Canberra that is trying to get aquaponics up and running.  He's got a small-scale trial happening already apparently.

Yes Rec, there appears to be a growing band of hobbyists in Australia as well as the rest of the world. Also some serious test to get these systems running commercially are happening as well. Some already are running commercially but not on a massive scale. I believe these smaller enterprises are supplying boutique businesses such as small restuarants etc.

There is plenty of info on the net. I have read where these techniquies are being used successfully in countries with greater water problems than Australia.

I am very keen on the concept, in the same way I am keen on permaculture. I still intend to do a little build along when I start in about 6 months. i would love to see what sprint has as a set up.