Aquaponics Digest - Tue 01/04/00
Message 1: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from "KevinLReed"
Message 2: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from Vik Olliver
Message 3: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from "KevinLReed"
Message 4: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from Vik Olliver
Message 5: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from wills/nachreiner
Message 6: GE eliminates pesticides??? No way
from William Evans
Message 7: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from Marc & Marcy
Message 8: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from steve spring
Message 9: Soil balancing/fertiliity( history): von Liebig, Howard,Albrecht
,Andersen,Callahan,Kinsey, ReaMS,Skow, Walters
from William Evans
Message10: soil balancing( interviews)-Andersen, Wheeler, Kinsey, Skow
from William Evans
Message11: System Thoughts, Bacteria?
from Bill
Message12: Re: army worms
from Adriana Gutierrez & Dennis LaGatta
Message13: Re: GE eliminates pesticides??? No way
from Marc & Marcy
Message14: Re: soil balancing( interviews)-Andersen, Wheeler, Kinsey, Skow
from "KevinLReed"
Message15: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from "KevinLReed"
Message16: Re: System Thoughts, Bacteria?
from "Barry Thomas"
Message17: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from "Barry Thomas"
Message18: Re: army worms
from "Minelle & Joe Paloff"
Message19: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
from "KevinLReed"
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:"KevinLReed"
Date:Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:03:47 +0200
Have you ever developed a fish trait from eating a fish? Organic does not
mean Holy.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "wills/nachreiner"
To: aquaponics
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue 12/21/99
> I have been behind in my reading and then was surprised how long it took
> the list to respond to what I considered the core of the Monsanto/Ge
> problem.Finally you got there.First, we don't know what the stuff will
> do.We don't know how pests will evolve.We don't know how genes will
> transfer across species.We don't know how human's will react.We don't
> know how butterfly's and other benign animals will be impacted.Its all
> too much too fast with no forethought or research.Second, Monsanto has
> been at the forefront of taking away our choice.They fought labeling,
> they lobbied for government approval.They fought to make crazy laws that
> prevent us from labeling our products as rBGH free in many states and in
> others require us to make a false disclaimer.That is, at Monsanto's
> urging we are forced to state that " There is no significant difference
> between milk from treated and untreated cows", when we know for a fact
that
> treating cows with synthetic growth hormones increases the level of the
> hormone and increases the level of insulin like growth factor and raises
> the likelihood that milk will contain antibiotics to offset the tendency
> for treated cows to have more disease, abortions and twinning.
>I confess that after the threats and political pressures that Monsanto
> put on us and other companies that wanted to put old fashioned products on
> the shelves, I take great delight in their struggles.Good riddance and
> may the same happen to their successors and any other companies that try
to
> thrust this stuff down the world's throats.
>
> O.K. so I'm a bit crazed about this.However, all our organic farmers are
> making a good living and we badly need more organic milk to meet the huge
> demand.
>
> Sorry for the deviation from the purpose of the list. If you make me
> justify it I can come up with a logical connection.A new day is dawning
> and we're still here.
>
> Bob
>
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:Vik Olliver
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:00:07 +1200
KevinLReed wrote:
>
> Have you ever developed a fish trait from eating a fish? Organic does not
> mean Holy.
Nope, it sure don't. But reducing the world's 3.5 million cases of
pesticide poisoning sure helps the karma :)
Vik :v)
--
A member of The Olliver Family http://olliver.penguinpowered.com
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:"KevinLReed"
Date:Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:23:37 +0200
GE presents the possibility of eliminating pesticides where "organic" ( as
the government defines it) does not. I can't call my lettuce organic because
it is a flotation system even though it is fertilized by fish effluent run
though an bacterial biofilter, while I can call the tomatoes organic because
the crushed coral in my growbed (biofilter) is a kind of soil.
Round and round she goes.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vik Olliver"
To: aquaponics
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue 12/21/99
> KevinLReed wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever developed a fish trait from eating a fish? Organic does
not
> > mean Holy.
>
> Nope, it sure don't. But reducing the world's 3.5 million cases of
> pesticide poisoning sure helps the karma :)
>
> Vik :v)
> --
> A member of The Olliver Family http://olliver.penguinpowered.com
>
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 4 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:Vik Olliver
Date:Wed, 05 Jan 2000 00:03:46 +1200
KevinLReed wrote:
>
> GE presents the possibility of eliminating pesticides where "organic" ( as
> the government defines it) does not. I can't call my lettuce organic because
> it is a flotation system even though it is fertilized by fish effluent run
> though an bacterial biofilter, while I can call the tomatoes organic because
> the crushed coral in my growbed (biofilter) is a kind of soil.
> Round and round she goes.
Er, not quite. GE presents the possibilty of making plants that generate
their own pesticides. However, this diverts parts of the plant's
resources into making toxins that could otherwise have gone to making
the plant outgrow weeds. So now we need to add more herbicides to get a
lower yeild of product.
As you say, "Round and round she goes."
Vik :v)
--
A member of The Olliver Family http://olliver.penguinpowered.com
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 5 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:wills/nachreiner
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 09:28:53 -0600
At 12:23 AM 1/4/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>GE presents the possibility of eliminating pesticides where "organic" ( as
>the government defines it) does not. I can't call my lettuce organic because
>it is a flotation system even though it is fertilized by fish effluent run
>though an bacterial biofilter, while I can call the tomatoes organic because
>the crushed coral in my growbed (biofilter) is a kind of soil.
>Round and round she goes.
>Kevin
My concern is with individual's choice.If we are kept from getting
information about the products we buy or are forced to provide
misinformation, then we have lost our right to choose.If my crops become
genetically altered because of drift from neighbor's farms, I have lost the
ability to choose and the right to provide my customers with what they
want.Again the customers have lost the option of avoiding genetic
engineering.And organic farmers fear that their most valuable natural
predators, insects, birds and bT, will become more scarce and/or less
effective as a result of their neighbor's using genetically altered
materials.In most parts of the US, rBGH-free milk is simply not available
except as relatively expensive organic milk.Introducing genetically
altered products has potentially large impacts on those who do not choose
to use or consume those products. Are the farmers using the products or
Monsanto ready to compensate others for the lost exports, the contamination
of other crops and the lost consumer choices?If not they should back off
until they can know how to control the technology.
NUF said.
With respect to the aquaponics and organics, ie back on task, do you know
what the logic for the soil requirement is?Can this group find productive
ways to address the issue in the American Organic Standards,the National
organic standards, IFOAM, the Organic trade association or the individual
certifying agencies?If there is no logical reason why crops need to be
raised in soil then it should be possible to get the rule changed to
include your lettuce and other hydroponic crops. Or is the concern about
the quality of the water?Do similar problems occur with the fish?"Wild
animals" are excluded from organics.There has been a great debate about
calling ocean fish organic.Does this also apply to farm raised fish?If
we solve these problems we may be able to add substantial value to our
products.
Box185 Plain,Wi 53577
(608) 546-2712
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 6 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: GE eliminates pesticides??? No way
From:William Evans
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 07:50:37 -0800
KevinLReed wrote:
>
> GE presents the possibility of eliminating pesticides where "organic" ( as
> the government defines it) does not.
Not true. There are organic folks( and evn conventional) that have no
need for pesticides as they have balanced their soil ( or got lucky w/
naturally fertile soil- this doesnt last if pulling off continuous
crops)
Strong healthy plants( for the most part) are not attractive to plant
pests...
DOnt ask me to define soil balancing, as this takes years of study.
Study Albrecht or Kinsey..... These folks were/are ahead of their
time... Plenty of accounts regarding pest pressure being much greater in
poor soils.
billevans
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 7 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:Marc & Marcy
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 10:07:43 -0700
..snip..
>
> GE presents the possibility of eliminating pesticides where "organic" ( as
> the government defines it) does not.
..snip..
Any societal cure has pro's and con's, pluses and minuses,
various factors that can be weighed as to benefit vs
drawbacks.
There are credible sources for actual problems with GE.
The GE debate is almost silly since the proponents of GE are
so extreme they will admit to ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with GE
in spite of these problems.
This is not debate, it is intellectual dishonesty.
ANY expert can give pro's and con's about a subject.
Try it. Ask a GE fanatic for pro's and con's. They can't do
it. They will accuse you of being antisocial and wanting to
hurt children. They will act hurt since you had the mean
spiritedness to challenge them. You can expect paranoia and
accusations of you attacking them personally. You still won
get pro's and con's.
GE proponents sound like marketing executives with only
positives and spin control from them. If you step back and
listen to a GE supporter they are doing control talk - not a
search for truth.
To me they are not to be trusted as a balanced and credible
source of GE information. They are out to sell GE and will
not examine it truthfully.
Marc S. Nameth
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 8 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:steve spring
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:26:12 -0800
Don't you love the government. And...we pay these people good money to come up
with stupid solutions.
SS
KevinLReed wrote:
> GE presents the possibility of eliminating pesticides where "organic" ( as
> the government defines it) does not. I can't call my lettuce organic because
> it is a flotation system even though it is fertilized by fish effluent run
> though an bacterial biofilter, while I can call the tomatoes organic because
> the crushed coral in my growbed (biofilter) is a kind of soil.
> Round and round she goes.
> Kevin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vik Olliver"
> To: aquaponics
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue 12/21/99
>
> > KevinLReed wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you ever developed a fish trait from eating a fish? Organic does
> not
> > > mean Holy.
> >
> > Nope, it sure don't. But reducing the world's 3.5 million cases of
> > pesticide poisoning sure helps the karma :)
> >
> > Vik :v)
> > --
> > A member of The Olliver Family http://olliver.penguinpowered.com
> >
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 9 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Soil balancing/fertiliity( history): von Liebig, Howard,Albrecht
,Andersen,Callahan,Kinsey, ReaMS,Skow, Walters
From:William Evans
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:23:34 -0800
courtesy of
http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/Articles/News3.htm#_TOC41-INFOOT
IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ALBRECHT
CHARTING THE NEW AGRICULTURE
A quiet revolution has begun in Australian agriculture.
Farmers and growers themselves have seized the initiativeand appear to
be laying the foundations for a sustainable, fertility-centred
alternative. The new mood was graphically illustrated in South Australia
in mid July, where the Central South East Soil Association (a private
farmers group) presented a four-day lecture course by visiting American
fertility expert, Neal Kinsey. NealKinsey, author of "Hands on
Agronomy", has over twenty years of field experience in 35 countries and
is perhapsthe world’s leading proponent of a soil balancing approach,
called the Albrecht system. The lecture seminar, attended by 250
farmers, consultants and agronomists, was Kinsey’s second sell-out
Australian seminar, with a third scheduled for NSW later this year. A
recent five-day course in WA by US eco-consultant, Arden Andersen, and
several other planned visits by globe-trotting consultants later this
year, are furher evidence of this trend.
Farmers attending the SA course accounted for over
100,000 hectares of varied crops, and the majority (over 80%) were
conventional growers seeking answers.There are several popular
approaches in the eco-farming arena, but all of them acknowledge a
considerable debt to "the father of contemporary soil science", Dr
William Albrecht. In a world where consumer spending onnatural
medicine, therapy and vitamins can account for more than that spent on
conventional medicine, and at atime where a market-driven economy
demands better quality produce and reduced toxic inputs, Albrecht’s
central contention that "soil nutrition is the key to human nutrition",
has become profoundly relevant.
As the century draws to a close, the awareness of a need
for change has snowballed to the extent thatsustainability is now an
issue beyond politically-correct environmental consciousness. It has now
become an economic imperative.
In the following article, Graeme Sait from Queensland
company, Nutri-Tech Solutions P/L, backgroundsAlbrecht’s pivotal role
in the new agriculture.
THE POWER OF ONE MISTAKE
In the mid 19th century, German chemist, Justus von
Liebig, later dubbed "the father of chemical agriculture",analysed the
ashes of a plant and deduced that, as the major elements present were
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (The N-P-K of modern agriculture),
then these must be the principle elements required for plantgrowth.
Before von Liebig’s discovery it was believed that humus was the major
source of nourishment for plantgrowth. Von Liebig attacked the humus
theory vehemently and was able to successfully convince European
academics that his simplistic three-element nutrition plan was the "one
true way" for any rational scientific community. Von Liebig’s "Chemistry
in its Application to Agriculture" was to have such an impact that it
stillstands as the turning point, where scientific agriculture
jettisoned the concept of working with natural processesand cycles, in
favour of planned intervention and man-made solutions. Big business, as
could be expected, wasnever far from the state-of-play.
For centuries farmers had controlled their own destiny,
nursing and nourishing their soils with techniques oftime-honoured
tradition. In what seemed a stroke of von Leibig’s pen, that situation
changed forever. The principle inputs for food production were now to be
purchased from outside the farm gate. Nitrate beds from Chile, potash
mines from Germany and American phosphate deposits were sources for the
initial N-P-K rush, but in a few shortyears chemical companies had
begun to process and synthesise "the big three". The profits in
providing these new "essential" commodities, on a world stage, were
stupendous. It was no surprise that, when a humbled von Leibig announced
ten years later that he had made a huge mistake, his confession was
completely ignored. Von Liebig had realised that a large part of the
initial response to N-P-K fertilising was actually derived from the
release of nutrients from the gradual breakdown of the humus component
of the soil. An oversupply of nitrogen was triggering a microbe feeding
frenzy, and the overstimulated organisms were devouring organic carbon.
The N-P-K approach was actually mining the humus from the soil. Von
Liebig had realised that the N-P-K goldrush was a fool’s paradise, which
could not be sustained. However, the wheels of big business were oiled
and rolling, and nothing was going to stop them. Von Liebig’s new
findings vanished without trace. For all intents and purposes, that
juggernaut has continued unabated for one and a half centuries since von
Liebig’s mistake.
POCKETS OF RESISTANCE
There have been some brief flourishes from resistance
movements during this century. In 1930, Englishman SirAlbert Howard
established a link between soil nutrition and plant, animal & human
disease. Sir Albert is generally regarded as the founder of the
organic movement, but his contention that humus fertilisation increased
pest and disease resistance, did not capture the imagination of his
peers. At the time, the new-generation, artificial nitrogen and chemical
pesticides, appeared to be problem-solvers beyond compare, promising
maximum results with minimum effort. The fast-food, "crop-in-a-bag"
mentality had arrived.
After the war dozens of ammonia factories, developed to
manufacture explosives, were motivated to find newmarkets for their
surpluses. Swiss chemist, Paul Muller, had donated his chemical
creation, DDT, to the Allies tohelp control fleas and lice on the
soldiers, and after the Allied victory in 1945, cheap nitrogen, DDT (and
a dozenlookalikes) became standard issue for the majority of Western
agriculture.
The other significant voice in the wilderness was from
brilliant American soil scientist Dr William Albrecht, chairman of the
Department of Soils at the University of Missouri. It is Albrecht’s
work, which, althoughsuccessfully stifled at the time, has, in the
last decade of this century, become a focal point for a sustainable
approach to agriculture, dubbed "eco-farming" by American publisher
Charles Walters (publisher of Acres USA).
THE ALBRECHT HERITAGE
Dr William Albrecht was above all a student of nature,
and perhaps his greatest credential related to the fact thathis system
worked successfully with, rather than against, nature. As a scientist,
writer and educator, Albrecht worked tirelessly to empower the farmer
with the knowledge required to increase "real" fertility via soil
balanceand appropriate nutrition. Unlike earlier resistance fighters
like Austrian Rudolf Steiner, Albrecht’s approachremained practical
and accessible. While Steiner philosophised about cosmic forces and
spiritual influences in agriculture (alienating more than he converted),
Albrecht set about delineating actual measurable parameters of
fertility. Through a comprehensive study of clay chemistry, he concluded
that the smallest particle of the soil -the clay colloid - stored
positively charged nutrients called cations, which attached to the
colloid magnetically. These cations were exchanged with hydrogen by
plants seeking nutrition. The relative cation storage capacity of a soil
varied depending upon the clay content of the soil - a light, sandy soil
storing less than a heavier clay soil. This relative storage capacity
was called cation exchange capacity (CEC). As is often the case, no
discovery occurs in a vacuum. Albrecht’s initial work was inspired by
earlier European research in clay chemistry. However, his great personal
breakthrough related to his identification of the exact ratios of each
cation required in any given soil to achieve maximum fertility and
associated plant health. The major cations include calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium and hydrogen.
Albrecht and his research team devised an experiment
where clay colloids were spun in a machine at a speedfast enough to
dislodge the attached cations. The research team collected hundreds of
kilos of naked claycolloids, located them in numerous research plots
and began the painstaking task of adding the cations in
different ratios and evaluating the related plant growth response. In
this manner, Albrecht was able to ascertain the exact ratios of calcium,
magnesium, potassium and sodium required for maximum plant growth and
vitality. The magnitude of his discovery did not escape him when he
commented that the Missouri University
research plots located at Sanborn fields represented "a few small acres
which have contributed more to the
understanding of plant growth than any area on the planet."
The enormous significance of Albrecht’s breakthrough can
only be fully understood within the context of his complete approach.
Albrecht’s system centres around the primacy of calcium as the most
important nutrient forhealthy plant growth. Lime is viewed as a major
fertilliser contributing to both quantity and quality of produce. The
criteria for liming recommendations within conventional agriculture has
been soil pH levels (If pH is low, then limeis recommended),
but Albrecht insisted that, as magnesium, sodium and potassium can
actually have moreeffect on raising pH than calcium, then the
conventional pH approach could never accurately assess calcium
requirements for maximum fertility.
This misunderstanding has serious fertility consequences in modern N-P-K
agriculture, where the overuse of nitrogen destroys calcium and
contributes to an imbalanced calcium / magnesium ratio. Magnesium has
1.4 times more power to increase soil pH than calcium, so using the pH
criteria for liming requirements in high magnesium soils is doomed to
failure. The majority of Australian soillaboratories still use the
unreliable and inaccurate pH criteria to determine calcium requirements.
Albrecht established his own soil laboratory in the US, which measured
cation exchange capacity and specified basesaturation percentages (the
cation ratios he had discovered, which determine fertility). The
laboratory he established 40 years ago, Brookside Laboratories,
continues to flourish today, with consultants covering most of the
globe, including Australia.
MAJOR INFLUENCES IN THE "NEW
AGRICULTURE"
The most powerful modern influence in the development of
sustainable agriculture is indisputably Charles Walters Jnr. Walters,
editor and publisher of Acres USA, was responsible for the resurrection
and publication ofAlbrecht’s entire works in a three book series
called " The Albrecht Papers". Walters has fused thephilosophies of the
most productive and innovative in sustainable agriculture and
successfully promoted them
under one umbrella he called "Eco-Farming". He has published major
works by a variety of leading consultants
and practitioners and his annual three-day Acres Conference is a
pilgrimage for farmers and consultants
throughout the world.
There are three major directions or influences, which are
regarded as integral components of Eco-Farming:
The Reams Approach
Dr Carey Reams was a dynamic and unconventional theorist,
teacher and consultant who developed a unique approach to fertility and
plant growth. His legacy is continued by two of the finest living Eco
consultants, DrArden Andersen and Dr Dan Skow. The Reams approach
involves building plant-health and associated pestand disease
resistance by increasing plant sugar levels (brix). Like Albrecht, Reams
contended that calcium was the "king of nutrients", and the soil
balancing goals of these two approaches are essentially similar. The
main difference lies in the fertility monitoring technique developed by
Reams and his adherents. The Reams school uses refractometers,
conductivity meters and electronic scanners to formulate appropriate
programs. Refractometers measure the all-important brix levels.
Conductivity meters measure the availability of "growingenergy"
released by fertilisers, and scanners are used to monitor the energy and
compatibility of all inputs. TheReams system requires hands-on grower
involvement, and it has proven very effective in the field. The number
ofReams influenced consultants in Australia is growing by the month,
particularly since Dr Andersen’s inspirationalseminar in WA earlier
this year.
PHIL CALAHAN’S PARAMAGNETISM
Paramagnetism is a measurable, physical force - a
low-level energy found in good, fertile soils. This energy isderived
from the rocks of volcanic origin, which comprise the base material of
these soils. Rock mineral fertilsers are based upon volcanic rocks and
much of the growth response associated with these fertilisers is coming
from this paramagnetic quality. Dr Phil Calahan is the research
scientist who discovered the link between the infrared emissions of
unhealthy plants and the associated attack by marauding insects. Calahan
proved that such emissions exist and that the antennae of insects are
specifically designed to receive these emissions (or messages). This
technology was actually used to develop the heat-seeking missile
(probably not quite whatCalahan had in mind). Despite the far-reaching
consequences of this earlier discovery, Dr Calahan considers that his
new work on paramagnetism is his most important to date. His major
breakthrough in this area relates to a $895 meter, called a PCSM,
which accurately measures paramagnetism. The concept is so beautifully
simple: It was volcanic rocks that formed the very best of our
agricultural soils (many of which have now been decimated bymodern
farming practices), and it could be volcanic rocks that recover, repair
and revitalise those same, tiredsoils. With Calahan’s meter it is now
possible to measure the basalt-based crusher dust at your local council
quarry, and, if it measures up, you have an inexpensive but remarkable
soil conditioner. Unfortunately the opportunity to benefit from this
revelation may be limited, as the best of these resources will
eventually be tied upby business interests.
THE ALBRECHT APPROACH
The soil test is the major weapon in this approach.
Albrecht’s own laboratory, Brookside, has developed an international
network of trained consultants. Neal Kinsey is a trained Brookside
consultant, who now uses PerryLaboratories (a Brookside off-shoot)
located in his native state. There are a number of Brookside consultants
working throughout the Eastern States of Australia, most of whom have
been trained by Tony De Vere fromQueensland. The Pro-Ag group, working
in South Australia and Victoria, is also using the Perry Soil Lab, as
areseveral private consultants. Queensland-based Nutri-Tech Solutions
P/L are working throughout Australia, using Brookside tests and
combining several other influences in an approach called Soil Therapy™.
Nutri-Tech Solutions also produce a range of eco-fertilisers and promote
a "best of both worlds" approach they term "FusionFarming™".
The Albrecht approach will remain a dominant force in the
new agriculture, simply because it works. The rules are clearly
prescribed, the principles easily understood, and, if the system is
correctly applied, it will alwaysperform. It is precisely this
reliability that has propelled the system to the crest of this new wave.
Albrecht proposed a single central maxim: "Feed the soil, and the soil
will feed the plant". It is of considerable importance, considering our
nutritionally deficient diets, that these "well-fed plants" will also
provide "real food" for mankind.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 10|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: soil balancing( interviews)-Andersen, Wheeler, Kinsey, Skow
From:William Evans
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:56:41 -0800
http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/Interviews/Interviews.htm
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 11|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: System Thoughts, Bacteria?
From:Bill
Date:4 Jan 00 13:09:21 PST
>I suggest you run the pump continuously. =
*Well, That's the other extreme, tho' is used sometimes.
A compromise?
>So you have vegetables in addition to the water hyacinth? I'm not
sure there's enough nutrient around for both (I believe the
hyacinth is a _very_ hungry plant).
*As I have read, unless going for waste remeadiation and
detoxicant with incineration of the hyacinth, it serves no
purpose, save perhaps cattle feed?.It's just hungry,
and cleans water.
>start slowly).
*I want this applied to pump rate changes too.
10% (of maximum possible) a week change.
Sounds like you're at 1/60th now, ~ 2%.
Try 10%, or 6 min?Say 6,1 minute periods per hour,
due to your non moisture retentive media... or some combo?
>One other thing that might be worth trying is to connect a couple of
your bottle stacks to a seperate pump and tank to make a small hydro
system.
*This does peform also as a backup pump... leave the
1 min/hr you have now on as is, as a failsafe.
>Remember, the idea is not to create something self-sustaining but that
generates an excess - your crop.Barry
*No inputs, entropy.
Bill
> an 8' x 8"diameter roll of hay, in mesh, sunk at the bottom on one side=
=2E
This> was Adriana's idea to keep the algae out, and it has worked well, =
*There's a guy who raises Tilapia on "green water."Limit is one thing. =
Why
keep it out?Or is it meant to 'trap' it, for easier feeding and remove =
it
from the plants containers?Also, you are at a max diameter probably, to=
avoid septic conditions within the bale, unless water flow is directed we=
ll
toward it, to replace O2.
>"long thin, unnatural" broccoli sprouts-- long, spindly seedlings or pla=
nts
can mean there's inadequate light, or a particular spectrum of the light =
it
needs is inadequate.
*Also lack of a breeze, but go for the light.The breeze will assist in
destratifying hot summer wether.the warm upper air may actually be an a=
ssist
now.Re-invent the earth, (minus the yellow snow.) :>)
---------------------
>>Does red on the edge of fin edges indicate a problem?My brood stock
have>this and I'm not sure what to do about it.Any advice ?
>>Jay Myers
>inflamed (red) fins and tails are indicative
of several possible problems.Have you contacted your supplier?
*If not natural to your breed, is likely 'bacterial' in nature,
from aquarium experience.Act soonest!Take fish and water
samples.MAYBE, separate a dozen, isolate, try antibiotics
for hemmoragic septicemia.Got a small sterile aquarium?
Bill
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 12|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: army worms
From:Adriana Gutierrez & Dennis LaGatta
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 18:28:05 -0500
Alon,
I was able to get armyworms under control with Naturalis-O, various
strains of BT didn't do a thing to them.
Adriana
"M. Brody" wrote:
>
> Aqua-friends:
> Does anyone know how to control army worms in organic strawberries?
> [natural predators, or which BT is most effective?]
> Which sprays could be used to kill them without harming other natural
> predators like spider mites?
> Thanks for your help,
> Alon Zimmerman
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 13|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: GE eliminates pesticides??? No way
From:Marc & Marcy
Date:Tue, 04 Jan 2000 18:05:10 -0700
Thanks for your input and the great links in your other two
posts Bill!It is so refreshing and encouraging to hear
from people who are looking at the whole picture.I'm
anxious to learn more about soil balancing.We had a guy
visit a few weeks ago who's looking for property in our area
and was talking to us about our pastured poultry and he also
mentioned the soil balancing.Sometimes we get to thinking
we're the only one who's not following the conventional
route of the big chemical companies without question, so
it's like a breath of fresh air and gives us a boost of
energy when we talk to others who are looking at more than
just today's yields and profits (or lack thereof).
M&M
William Evans wrote:
>Strong healthy plants( for the most part) are not attractive to plant
> pests...
> DOnt ask me to define soil balancing, as this takes years of study.
> Study Albrecht or Kinsey..... These folks were/are ahead of their
> time... Plenty of accounts regarding pest pressure being much greater in
> poor soils.
> billevans
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 14|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: soil balancing( interviews)-Andersen, Wheeler, Kinsey, Skow
From:"KevinLReed"
Date:Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:17:18 +0200
Aloha William,
These are all very good. I will send you an out line of our system so you
can make any specific reality based suggestions, reality being what I can do
today... I want to use bioponic grow houses as an Agricultural Risk
Management tool to control land for something along the lines of near
permaculture forestry, an alley crop set up for tropical hardwoods. The grow
house provides 98% risk free crop growth and income to decrease the risk of
long term hardwood crops that have no crop insurance or other device to
insure investors of a promised return. The " bread and butter" income from
the grow house provides food and income with zero pesticide except natural
predators. In the open field I still can't take the losses nature provides
and make money. My thought are to use ideas like you have sent me to reduce
the cost versus loss to fiscally acceptable levels by providing the best
soil content of nutrient and microbial content. Most of what I do is based
on animals providing low or no cost fertilizers and composts. I am beginning
dialogs about collaboration with a Rural Farming group abroad who use plants
to provide low or no cost animal feeds. Much of the work they do is also
using the manure to provide power from biodigestors. Our oil is so cheap
that biodigestor material is not of any use to us unless combined with
hydrogen fuel cell and hydrocarbon cracking technologies. The biodigestor
effluent does provide us an excellent low or no cost fertilizer. Loss to
pests is still unacceptable in open field farming. Permaculture improves
result but decreases marketability of products, that is products are limited
to those that fit the particular permaculture scheme. If it is cost
effective I see GE as a tool to help in pest control. On small scale
operations GE is also not very cost effective. That's how the cow eats
cabbage here ... and we are always willing to learn.
Kevin L. Reed
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Evans"
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:56 PM
Subject: soil balancing( interviews)-Andersen, Wheeler, Kinsey, Skow
> http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/Interviews/Interviews.htm
>
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 15|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:"KevinLReed"
Date:Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:26:21 +0200
Aloha Vic,
To nit pic you are incorrect. GE can be used to alter plants in ways that
they make no pesticides and yet are resistant to pests. An example might be
thicker leaf coating that doesn't allow borers to gain entrance to plant
tissue. Acacia Koa transforms itself after a few years of growth from true
leaves to a kind of modified petal structure to perform photosynthesis.
After this transformation the tree becomes much less susceptible to insects
where it is very susceptible before the change occurs...Speaking of
which ... does anyone know where I can get a good price on Bradyrizobium
inoculant? Koa is a legume.
Aloha,
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vik Olliver"
To: aquaponics
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue 12/21/99
> KevinLReed wrote:
> >
> > GE presents the possibility of eliminating pesticides where "organic"
as
> > the government defines it) does not. I can't call my lettuce organic
because
> > it is a flotation system even though it is fertilized by fish effluent
run
> > though an bacterial biofilter, while I can call the tomatoes organic
because
> > the crushed coral in my growbed (biofilter) is a kind of soil.
> > Round and round she goes.
>
> Er, not quite. GE presents the possibilty of making plants that generate
> their own pesticides. However, this diverts parts of the plant's
> resources into making toxins that could otherwise have gone to making
> the plant outgrow weeds. So now we need to add more herbicides to get a
> lower yeild of product.
>
> As you say, "Round and round she goes."
>
> Vik :v)
> --
> A member of The Olliver Family http://olliver.penguinpowered.com
>
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 16|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: System Thoughts, Bacteria?
From:"Barry Thomas"
Date:Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:57:11 -0000
> > I suggest you run the pump continuously.
> *Well, That's the other extreme, tho' is used sometimes.
> A compromise?
Probably right but rather depends on flow-rate into each stack of
containers.
> > start slowly).
> *I want this applied to pump rate changes too.
> 10% (of maximum possible) a week change.
> Sounds like you're at 1/60th now, ~ 2%.
> Try 10%, or 6 min?Say 6,1 minute periods per hour,
> due to your non moisture retentive media... or some combo?
Yes. 1 minute in 10 should be a good starting point. Certainly need a
fairly large immediate increase - fiddle about from there.
> > One other thing that might be worth trying is to
> > connect a couple of your bottle stacks to a
> > seperate pump and tank to make a small hydro
> > system.
> *This does peform also as a backup pump... leave the
> 1 min/hr you have now on as is, as a failsafe.
No. I meant that a couple of the stacks might be fed from (and returned
to) a seperate tank containing proper hydroponic nutrient. The idea is
to keep everything the same except for nutrient quality/quantity in an
attempt to determine whether this is in fact the main cause of the
problem and to help highlight any contributing factors. So the pump
timing should be matched as closely as possible - use the same timer is
easiest. Flow-rate needs to be close too. Just an idea that might be
cheaper/easier than sending samples off to labs on a regular basis.
Barry
barrythomas@btinternet.com
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 17|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:"Barry Thomas"
Date:Wed, 5 Jan 2000 04:10:34 -0000
> The GE debate is almost silly since the proponents of GE are
> so extreme they will admit to ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with GE
> in spite of these problems.
What is the debate exactly? It seems to have turned into a "organic" vs
"GM food" debate. This is certainly rather silly as they're two
completely different things.
GM foods can be compared to non-GM (to an extent).
"Organic" can be compared to more conventional farming.
Attempting to compare the two seems somewhat pointless - unless aim is
to promote one industry on difficulties of another.
> This is not debate, it is intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, there's a lot of it about.
> ANY expert can give pro's and con's about a subject.
Indeed.
> Try it. Ask a GE fanatic for pro's and con's.
Fanatics of any kind are generally difficult to reason with.
Barry
barrythomas@btinternet.com
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 18|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: army worms
From:"Minelle & Joe Paloff"
Date:Tue, 4 Jan 2000 22:38:47 -0600
Please tell me where I can purchase the Naturalis-O.I have never heard of
it.
Minelle Paloff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adriana Gutierrez & Dennis LaGatta"
To: aquaponics
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: army worms
> Alon,
>
> I was able to get armyworms under control with Naturalis-O, various
> strains of BT didn't do a thing to them.
>
> Adriana
>
> "M. Brody" wrote:
> >
> > Aqua-friends:
> > Does anyone know how to control army worms in organic strawberries?
> > [natural predators, or which BT is most effective?]
> > Which sprays could be used to kill them without harming other natural
> > predators like spider mites?
> > Thanks for your help,
> > Alon Zimmerman
>
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 19|
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue12/21/99
From:"KevinLReed"
Date:Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:52:43 +0200
It seems to me to make the best use of ALL available methods makes the most
sense. I get the most good sense from the people here with experience and a
willingness to exploit new ideas. If I can support family, a community and
industry then my karma ran over your dogma.
Aloha,
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Thomas"
To: aquaponics
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: Aquaponics Digest - Tue 12/21/99
(below is out of context)
>
> Fanatics of any kind are generally difficult to reason with.
>
> Barry
> barrythomas@btinternet.com
>
>
|
