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/

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


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

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

Just incredibly busy until the end of October.

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.

FD said Quote:



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.

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).

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:


But you do. Food scraps etc.

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


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:


Can you explain that statement further?


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


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:


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.