Aquaponics Digest - Mon 03/09/98
Message 1: Rainwater, water chemistry, etc.
from "Ted Ground"
Message 2: NFH:
from james.rakocy@uvi.edu (James Rakocy, Ph.D.)
Message 3: Intro
from Kevin Seeds
Message 4: re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
from jmsutton@atl.bna.boeing.com
Message 5: Linda Wymore introduction
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 6: Re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
from "Wendy Nagurny"
Message 7: Re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
from Rod Flaman
Message 8:
from "Devon Williams"
Message 9: Re: Intro
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 10: Aqua-L mail group
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 11: Partial Water Changes
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 12: Survey Answers
from donald trotter
Message 13: Re: Re fungus gnats discussion in January
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 14: Re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
from John Gingras
Message 15: re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
from "H.Doelle"
Message 16: Re: Fwd. Rainwater
from Ian Beaver
Message 17: Re: Rainwater, water chemistry, etc.
from Ian Beaver
Message 18: Re: Partial Water Changes
from "Wendy Nagurny"
Message 19:
from Nicholas JF Prentice
Message 20: (no subject)
from Kerry Lindsey
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Rainwater, water chemistry, etc.
From: "Ted Ground"
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 06:08:31 -0600
Howdy, y'all.
My rainwater collection system is designed to be multipurpose. That is, I
can use the rainwater as "make up" water in the greenhouse aquaponics
system, and I can use surplus rainwater to irrigate field crops outside the
greenhouse. In fact, I can use some of the fish tank culture water to
"fertigate" field crops at the point in time that it should become
necessary to do so. If I may speak for Dr. Rakocy, I believe he would
advocate performing some degree of water exchange in the fish culture
tanks when the conductivity increases to a certain point above which he
claims phytotoxicity may develop due to increasing salinity of the
aquaponic water. I think somewhere around 2500 ppm (mg/L) TDS (total
dissolved solids) is James' cutoff point. Correct me if I err in that
statement, James. I would like to see some information from the group
about ya'lls water loss, salinity trends, water exchanges, nitrate
accumulation (if any) and that kinda stuff.
That TDS level (2500 ppm) is probably a generic control limit- not a
grossly inaccurate or a bad suggestion, but in my opinion it simply doesnt
apply to all situations. There are certainly many plants that don't have a
problem being irrigated at salinities higher than that- much higher. It
really depends on the cultivar and species of plants being grown in the
system. And it also depends on what the dominant ions (cation-anion
balance) which make up the dissolved salts in the water are, such as
sodium, chloride, borate, sulfate, potassium, carbonate, magnesium, etc.
Tom and Paula's source water is very "hard", meaning it is alkaline and
high in calcium carbonate, and yet the plants obviously thrive in it. I
would be a little concerned about "trace nutrient sequestering" in very
hard water- for example iron and phosphorus can be "tied up" by
coprecipitation with calcium carbonate- depending on the operating pH of
the system. Some folks have claimed that iron, manganese, and boron
deficiencies may show up in aquaponics plants. That claim may be more
theoretical and anecdotal than empirical, and supported by plant tissue
chemistry analysis.
By "tied up", I mean not as readily available for plant assimilation
through the roots. The neat thing about aquaponics and agriculture,
however, is that the bacterial community in the gravel or sand or what have
you, acts to transport the nutrients to the plant roots, even against
chemical gradients. That is why I am a biologist first and foremost and
only a primitive analytical chemist as a sideline- "test tube" chemistry
and engineering is so much simpler, so primitive, so less interesting, and
less "lively" than what goes on in and around bugs, plants, and critters
and their biochemistry. Don't you agree?
Back to rainfall capture. We now have a 3000 gallon poly tank to collect
rainwater from our 1152 sq. ft. metal building roof. We also have an
approximately 8,000 gallon capacity underground cistern which is rock
lined- dug back in the 1800' s. We cleaned it out and inspected it before
we began to use it as an overflow storage tank. That was quite an
experience- lowering myself down in a dark hole with a hard hat and lamp- I
am not a spelunker by nature and was glad to come back to the surface where
there is plenty of air and light. The greenhouse will be equipped with 4
more 3000 gallon poly tanks in the near future, and we plan to have at
least 1 more big tank for the metal roof above our house, (the metal roof
on our house has yet to be installed) which sets next to the metal building
and greenhouse.
I suggest you people should not worry too much about what falls along with
your rainwater. Of course that depends on where you are located to some
degree, but nitrogen and sulfur should not concern you as much as, say,
Salmonella from bird poop on the roof, which might make you want to filter
the water if you plan to drink the water, so go ahead and install a
recirculating ozone/UV/charcoal system onto your tank. These are
commercially available. A friend of mine here in Texas is an expert on
such drinking water systems, sells and installs them for people all around
this area, and uses them himself for his family and household use. So if
you have any questions, gimme a buzz. We plan to get such a system in the
future for drinking water and household use. But seriously, folks, don't
worry too much about using rainwater for agricultural or aquacultural uses.
Dont worry- be happy.
I gotta go plumb a rainwater capture tank and think nice thoughts about
fish and plants and songbirds and springtime rains. Have a nice day,
ya'll.
Ted.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: NFH:
From: james.rakocy@uvi.edu (James Rakocy, Ph.D.)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:41:15 -0400 (AST)
I may be accused of "unaquaponic activities," but maybe in Secretary
Glickman's speech you can "read in" an argument for more aquaponic research
funding. Jim R.
>
>SECRETARY Of AGRICULTURE FEATURES AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
>
>Secretary Dan Glickman highlighted agricultural research recently during
>the Ag Outlook Forum. The following is a copy of his remarks.
>
> Remarks
>
> OF
> SECRETARY DAN GLICKMAN
> 1998 AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK
> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- FEBRUARY 23, 1998
>
>INTRODUCTION
> Last year was an agriculture secretary's dream -- record farm
>incomes, record exports, strong prices, generous farm payments. This year
>things are generally good, but there are a few bumps in the road. Mother
>Nature hit us below the belt with El Nino, and faltering Asian economies
>have tripped up racing U.S. farm exports a bit. But U.S. agriculture
>remains on top of the world.
>
> I know that it's traditional for me to stand here and rattle off a
>laundry list of priorities that together purportedly cause rainbows to
>vault from rural town to rural town. But that's not really government's
>role in the new American agriculture. Our farmers and ranchers are
>phenomenally competitive. Our job is to help keep them on a successful
>course.
>
> Clearly, national economic trends of the past five years are a great
>reason for agriculture's success -- the President's economic plan has
>given us a strong economy with low interest rates and high employment. All
>of this helps farmers.
>
> I'd like to talk briefly about just two issues today -- trade and
>research. My comments have little bearing on the price of corn tomorrow,
>or poultry next week, or milk next month. But they have everything to do
>with the future strength and competitiveness of American agriculture -
>small farmer, agribusiness executive, soybean grower, cattleman, and
>everybody else involved.
>
> Trade and research may seem quite different, but they are united in
>their importance to agriculture, and the degree of difficulty of conveying
>that importance to the general public.
>
>TRADE
> Most of us who are heavily involved with the economics of agriculture
>have a fairly easy time doing the math on trade: U.S. farmers and ranchers
>produce far more than our people could ever consume. Without world
>markets, the U.S. farm economy goes in the tank. And, as we phase down
>commodity payments, and they are no longer tied to the amount of
>production, we need to pick up the difference in foreign sales. The more
>aggressive we are in expanding our exports, the more we grow our farm
>economy here at home.
>
> That's the straightforward macroeconomic argument, and it's a grand
>success story. U.S. agriculture is one of the few sectors of our economy
>with a huge trade surplus. Yet, we tend to hear more from the minority who
>are pinched by trade, than the majority who benefit in less tangible ways
>--say stronger prices, when it's not so clear how much of that is due to
>exports.
>
> Now, we're getting a bit of a lesson in the link between exports and
>farm incomes. I have a revised export forecast: We now expect the United
>States to sell $56 billion in food and fiber this year -- 2% off our
>numbers for last year -- $2.5 billion off of our record high in 1996. The
>bulk of that dip, obviously, is due to the economic situation in Asia,
>with some impact from a strong corn and soybean crop in Argentina.
>
> There are lessons here: we shouldn't put all of our eggs in one
>basket. We need to compete in markets around the world. But more broadly
>than that: we cannot hide from the global economy. What happens halfway
>around the world has consequences here at home.
>
> We have a huge stake in global economic stability. That's why support
>for the International Monetary Fund is so important. Their job is to stamp
>out serious national and regional fiscal crises to prevent a global
>contagion. And, by and large, they do a good job.
>
> The main reason we haven't lost more exports to Asia is because USDA
>extended $2.1 billion in export credit guarantees. These guarantees, which
>depend on credit-worthiness, would not have been possible if the IMF had
>not stepped forward to help stabilize these economies and pushed countries
>toward serious financial reforms, greater market transparency, freer
>markets, and an end to cronyism. Without these IMF actions, another $2
>billion in agricultural exports would have been at great risk in the
>short-term and far larger amounts in the long-term. Our team, lead by Gus
>Schumacher and Lon Hatamiya has done an outstanding job aggressively using
>our authorities under GSM, and I want to make clear that we will continue
>to do so.
>
> I want to thank Senator Lugar for his leadership in Congress on this
>issue. And, I should add that supporting the IMF has no impact on
>President Clinton's balanced budget effort. These are loan guarantees,
>backed up by collateral, and U.S. taxpayers have never lost a dime we paid
>into the IMF in 40 years.
>
> In the bigger picture, the United States will soon be headed into
>another round of World Trade Organization talks. I know there's a lot of
>speculation as to how we're going to approach this next round. Let me
>assure you that this Administration has no intention of being a shrinking
>violet on trade. We have another year until countries sit down and lay out
>their objectives. But our position is clear: We will seek substantial
>improvements in the trading environment for U.S. farm products. We want
>major cuts if not the outright removal of all barriers to U.S. farm
>exports -- both obvious hurdles, like tariffs, tariff rate quotas and
>subsidies, and the more creative barriers, like bogus regulatory red tape
>and phony sanitary and phytosanitary measures. We will seek greater
>transparency and discipline over countries that hide protectionism behind
>science that is not as good as it should be. We will not let new barriers
>replace the old ones and impede genuine progress.
>
> Many of you also probably know that we're looking at a situation
>where the last series of tariff and subsidy cuts under the Uruguay Round
>may finish well ahead of the next round of agreements. We need to find a
>way to bridge that time gap, and maintain the momentum of global trade
>liberalization. This Administration will be looking closely at our options
>and talking to folks in industry, and on the Hill, to find a way to ensure
>that there is no pause in our progress.
>
> This way, we can carry on general liberalization that has already
>been heavily negotiated, and has proven relatively painless for all
>countries, and focus our energies on new issues -- from State Trading
>Enterprises to phony science. This seems to me the way to go on this. We
>could move forward with what we're already doing, while we talk through
>new areas.
>
>RESEARCH
> Of course, trade wouldn't be nearly so critical an issue if it
>weren't for the phenomenal productivity of our farmers and ranchers.
>Throughout agriculture's history, the advances of science and technology
>have enabled us to stay well ahead of world food demand. With global
>incomes and populations growing fast, that's something it's imperative we
>continue.
>
> I have a report I'd like to share with all of you, U.S. Agricultural
>Growth and Productivity: An Economywide Perspective.' It's available at
>the back of the room. I hope one winds up on your nightstand soon. This is
>the first government report to quantify the contribution of publicly
>funded research to the brisk pace of growth in U.S. agricultural
>productivity. What our team found was -- from World War II on into the
>1990s -- public investment in agricultural research has been responsible
>for three quarters of all growth in U.S. agricultural productivity.
>
> In addition to the increases in profitability these investments have
>given farmers, the report also says that consumers get a big return on
>their investment in the form of lower food costs. As farmers produce more,
>often at less expense, prices come down, and consumers spend less of their
>dollar on food. Less, in fact, than any other country in the world.
>
> That's the good news. The not-so-good news is that funding for
>agricultural research has stagnated since the 1970s. My budget folks at
>USDA say that since 1985, research funding, in real terms, has declined by
>15%. The potential consequences of this slow leak extend far beyond
>economics.
>
> In his State of the Union, President Clinton called for the largest
>funding increases in history for the National Cancer Institute, the
>National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He made
>a powerful case by talking about the possibility of cures for cancer, for
>heart disease, for AIDS, and for other diseases. That was the biggest
>applause line he got -- for increased health research. Why? Because every
>Member of Congress understands and is aware of its benefit to the American
>people and the world. And, virtually every member of the American public
>understands it as well.
>
> What we do in our agricultural labs is equally capable of
>revolutionizing life. After all, we should not forget that the explosive
>debate over human cloning started with a single sheep. And yet, except for
>people in production agriculture or the agricultural research community,
>the message and the context of this research remains an abstract mystery
>to most Americans. That is a prescription for the downsizing of
>agricultural research and productivity. And, it doesn't have to be that
>way. U.S. agricultural research has some amazing stories to tell:
>
> In 1942, someone brought a rotten cantaloupe into a USDA researcher
>in Peoria, Illinois, who -- his title was -- an expert on the nutrition
>of molds.' Today, his portrait hangs alongside Thomas Edison's and the
>Wright Brothers' in the Inventors Hall of Fame. The name Dr. Edward Moyer
>may not be as familiar as Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin.
>But it was Moyer who unlocked the mystery of how to mass produce it --
>giving the world a miracle cure for common infections just in time to save
>many allied soldiers wounded on D-Day.
>
> In 1945, a USDA agronomist who was part of General MacArthur's
>occupation force in Japan spotted a hearty, short strain of wheat that he
>did not recognize. He brought some seeds home, took them to a USDA lab in
>Pullman, Washington. They did some more work, then sent their research and
>the seeds along to CIMMYT, the international wheat research center in
>Mexico. The eventual result? Norin 10, the gene that launched the green
>revolution, enabling countries like India and Pakistan to increase their
>wheat harvests by 60%. At CIMMYT today, there's a shrine to Norin 10 with
>this inscription on the wall: a single gene has saved 100 million lives.'
>
> No hospital in the world can make that same claim.
>
> Today, we are still racing for ways to feed more people without
>wrecking the environment; to produce safer and more nutritious food; to
>change and improve our world.
>
> -- We are building a catalog of every gene in our food, so we have a
>menu that let's us select disease- and pest-resisting qualities,
>nutrition,and other factors -- to create new varieties that allow us to
produce more
>food, in harsher climates, with less pesticides and more nutrition.
>
> -- Just last week, I announced a new variety of corn that, when fed
>to pigs and chickens -- well, plainly put means almost 50% less phosphorus
>comes out the other end. This is a huge, clean-water event ... one that's
>good for farmers, too, because they get to spend less on dietary
>supplements because the phosphorus in this corn is more readily absorbed
>by the animals.
>
> -- We have space satellites tracking bugs in our fields, telling us
>just how much pesticides we need and where, doing right by the environment
>and by farmers' pocketbooks, saving millions of dollars in unnecessary
>chemical use.
>
> -- We're adapting Gulf War scanners that identify nerve gas in the
>air to help us quickly spot hidden pathogens in our food, like E. coli and
>salmonella.
>
> These are priorities the public passionately cares about. Yet most
>folks haven't the faintest clue that these efforts have anything to do
>with agricultural research.
>
> We have only ourselves to blame for that. We talk about plant stress,
>and people assume we're piping Muzak into greenhouses. We need to talk
>instead about new super-crops that can grow in arid places like subsaharan
>Africa, revolutionizing the world war on hunger.
>
> Instead, when we debate research, too often it devolves into
>intramural scuffles, such as which university gets how much money, from an
>increasingly more limited pot of money. I can say this because as a former
>Member of Congress from Kansas, I used to fight for money for my state
>schools, and I can't tell you whether every dime I fought for was critical
>to national agricultural priorities. Privately, many university leaders
>share this same concern with me. We need to ask: what are our priorities?
>How much should we invest in each area? How do we make these investments
>relevant and understandable to all Americans? How do we communicate the
>message of what we are doing so people understand why this is important to
>them?
>
> Unless we do this, the public will not understand the importance of
>agricultural research, and we will not get adequate funds to continue
>pushing the frontiers of our knowledge, keeping up the stunning, necessary
>pace of agriculture's growth. No one feels more strongly about this than
>Senator Lugar, who has made a career out of promoting agricultural
>research. We need to work closely with him on this issue, along with
>other leaders in government, at the universities, in production
>agriculture, in the anti-hunger, environmental and nutrition communities,
>as well. We must make agricultural research a top national priority. Quite
>frankly, we need to increase our investment in these areas. But we will
>only do so in the long-term if we can get that applause from the American
>people.
>
>CONCLUSION
> You will hear plenty of information about the challenges and
>opportunities we face in the year ahead. That's why I chose to take my
>time to give a longer perspective. We in agriculture are making critical
>decisions not just about the future of farming, but the future of our
>world. If we are smart about our choices, we can make a major contribution
>to a peaceful, stable, healthy and sustainable world, and by doing so,
>secure American agriculture's continuing success. I want to thank you for
>the contributions you make, and urge you to use this forum to share ideas
>on how we can work together to ensure the future progress and success of
>American agriculture and world food production.
>
>Thank you.
> #
>
>NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the
>Internet. Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at
>http://www.usda.gov
>
>*******************************************************
> <>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Intro
From: Kevin Seeds
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:01:35 -0500
Hi,
I'm one of those "lurkers" in the investigative stage. I'm new to the list
as of Friday, and generally lurk for a couple of weeks when joining a list.
(Saves me from eating shoe leather .)
I live in the suburbs of a southeastern city with my wife and four
children. We just finished digging our first garden (then the rains came
again). We are interested in ways to have fresh, home-grown vegetables
year-round. Also looking to grow these with as few chemicals as possible.
Aquaponics seems like it would accomplish both of these goals.
Kevin S.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 4 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
From: jmsutton@atl.bna.boeing.com
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 98 3:11:56 EST
> Paula S. said:
> If this reads as an encouragement to our "lurkers" to make themselves >
known
> - it is.
OK, I'll take the "bait." ;-)
I have a question that has been at least partially addressed by some
web sites this list has passed along. But, there is so much disagreement
by experts on the web, that I thought I'd make a very specific question
and see if there can be some agreement.
I'd like to raise fish, crayfish, rabbits, and vegetables. I want to
have as efficient a food cycle as possible, both in getting maximum
food value out of inputs to the system, and in my labor to run the
system.
It seems to me that the easiest way to put all these elements together
would be something like putting the rabbit cages over the fish tanks,
and letting the rabbit droppings just "drop"...i.e., into the water.
Now, I've seen some people foam at the mouth at the idea of using animal
manure as fish feed, and other people foam at the mouth at the idea of
denying this same practice. I have no idea who is right. Is there a way
to make this approach safe pretty much "as is" (e.g., through preventive
health practices that keep the rabbits healthy)? Or, if it cannot be made
safe, is there a way to modify this approach for safety (e.g.,
through some worm-processing of the rabbit manure, and some way to use
the resulting product)?
One of your many fascinated "lurkers"
Jim
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 5 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Linda Wymore introduction
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:33:00 -0600
>Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 07:10:08 -0800
>From: Linda Wymore
>Reply-To: lwmb@psln1.psln.com
>To: aquaponics@townsqr.com
>Subject: Re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
>
>S & S Aqua Farm wrote:
>>
>> If this reads as an encouragement to our "lurkers" to make themselves known
>> - it is. I won't detail the amount of expertise available to you; but I'm
>> certain if you have specific questions, you will find willing participants
>> in most any discussion regarding aquaponics practices.
>>
>> All introductions/questions welcomed! Hope to hear from many of you this
week.
>
>Oh, O.K. ... lurker coming out of the closet...
>
>I am Linda Wymore, living in northern Calif. and heard about
>aquaponics when some info about it (I think from the website)
>was posted to another list I am on. I am almost totally
>ignorant and inexperienced in growing anything.. only had
>a few tomato plants the last couple of years and that's it.
>But I hope to do more.. with or without soil. I am on the
>list to explore the idea of having a family-sized set up,
>but haven't made the leap yet to hunting up supplies. I
>don't have a greenhouse, so if that is necessary, that would
>be a first and major expense. I also like the idea of
>raising rabbits as a complement to gardening.. and the
>thought that you could combine rabbits and talapia and
>vegetables is very appealing. But I worry about the
>cold up here in the Sierras and the short growing season
>(unless its all done in a greenhouse). Well, that's about
>it. That's why you don't hear from me.. I have nothing
>to add. But I am really enjoying all the information
>the rest of you are posting. Thanks. Linda
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 6 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
From: "Wendy Nagurny"
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:43:25 -0500
I've got a question, Paula.
In your system, you add very little water -- only what is necessary from
evaporation. I have always found that in aquarium systems there is a
definite benefit in doing partial water changes (approx. 10%) either weekly
or every other week. I, of course, did not raise plants in my filter, but
I did raise aquatic plants in the tanks. I would think that in order to
keep the nitrates from building up, you would have to keep the system very
balanced. You do mention in your web article that you need to keep the
plants well stocked for this to work. I would think that even then, there
would be a benefit to doing partial water changes. How do you get around
the nitrate build-up especially in those nodes which do not have a full
compliment of plants?
Wendy
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 7 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
From: Rod Flaman
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 09:44:22 -0800
We have a grain farm on the Canadian Prairies. We have a couple of fish
ponds that have goldfish in them in the summer. I would like to
experiment with breeding tilapia.
Where can I get breeding stock of Oreochromis niloticus?
Rod Flaman
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 8 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
From: "Devon Williams"
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:34:16 -0500
>>We have a grain farm on the Canadian Prairies. We have a couple of
>>fish
>>ponds that have goldfish in them in the summer. I would like to
>>experiment with breeding tilapia.
>>Where can I get breeding stock of Oreochromis niloticus?
>>Rod Flaman
I am also very interested in this.
Devon Williams
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 9 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Intro
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 10:45:39 -0600
At 09:01 AM 3/9/98 -0500, Kevin Seeds wrote:
>I live in the suburbs of a southeastern city with my wife and four
>children. We just finished digging our first garden (then the rains came
>again). We are interested in ways to have fresh, home-grown vegetables
>year-round. Also looking to grow these with as few chemicals as possible.
>Aquaponics seems like it would accomplish both of these goals.
Welcome to the list, and we hope you'll find information here that will help
you in your goals.
Growing without chemicals is quite satisfying, as is being able to produce
your own food. Growing fish and plants together almost requires no addition
of chemicals in order to maintain the balance of the interdependent systems.
Hope the weather conditions everywhere settle down soon so that outside
planting activities can resume. Times like these I especially appreciate my
greenhouse (I really should get off the computer and get back to work!).
Thanks for sharing.
Paula Speraneo
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 10 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Aqua-L mail group
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 11:25:03 -0600
At 09:44 AM 3/9/98 -0800, Rod Flaman wrote:
>Where can I get breeding stock of Oreochromis niloticus?
and
Devon Williams echoed:
I am also very interested in this."
There are several resources on the internet for locating suppliers of
specific fishes. However, some of us are more comfortable using recommended
suppliers from another user.
If no answer is forthcoming from our group of subscribers, you may want to
consider posting to the Aqua-L list. Subscribe information follows from my
files. I believe it's current. Best of luck. Paula
------------------------------
Send a message to:
majordomo@listserv.ifmt.nf.ca
In the body type:
subscribe aqua-l
------------------
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 11 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Partial Water Changes
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 11:59:07 -0600
At 10:43 AM 3/9/98 -0500, Wendy wrote:
>I've got a question, Paula.
>In your system, you add very little water -- only what is necessary from
>evaporation. I have always found that in aquarium systems there is a
>definite benefit in doing partial water changes (approx. 10%) either weekly
>or every other week. I, of course, did not raise plants in my filter, but
>I did raise aquatic plants in the tanks.
Not having raised aquatic plants, we don't have the necessary experience to
compare their filtering capabilities with the crops we grow. I would be
interested if anyone else can explain the differences, though, as we've
often considered growing aquatic plants for the home aquarium industry.
I would think that in order to
>keep the nitrates from building up, you would have to keep the system very
>balanced. You do mention in your web article that you need to keep the
>plants well stocked for this to work. I would think that even then, there
>would be a benefit to doing partial water changes. How do you get around
>the nitrate build-up especially in those nodes which do not have a full
>compliment of plants?
Wendy - it's not been a long-term problem for us. Our ratio of grow space
to tank to fish density is such that normal crop changeovers and planned
replanting/regrowth stages are staggered. We have six grow beds for each of
our tanks, and do our best to cycle the plants so that there are always some
"adult" plants in each system, which require the most nutrients, thus do the
most work as a filter for the fish. When we have had crop problems, delays,
or abrupt changes in our plans for whatever reason that left the beds less
than efficient; we cut back on our feeding and allow the system to rebalance.
Tom's input here - In our system we have about 4.4 sq. ft. of growing
bed/biofilter surface area for every square foot of tank surface area. (In
cubic feet, our ratio is approximately 2 cu. ft. of grow space for each 1
cu. ft. of water.) Our beds are 4'x8'x1', and the tanks are 7-1/2' diameter
with approximately 3 to 3-1/2' of water. Other systems, like Dr. Rakocy's
raft system, have an even higher ratio of surface area grow space to tanks.
In either system, this is a much higher ratio of continuous filtration than
aquarium filters can provide, thus the improved water quality overall
without the need for water changes.
As for our water usage, we estimate 7.5 to 10% per month. A large part of
this is plant usage for production/transpiration. The remainder is
evaporation from the system - helpful in the summer, as the beds themselves
become the "evaporative coolers" employed in some greenhouse operations.
Hope this helps.
Tom and Paula Speraneo
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 12 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Survey Answers
From: donald trotter
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:00:40 -0800
Hi all!
If you have and interest in this survey, please fill it out and check out
the website. Lots of good alternative information is available.
Organically your,
Don Trotter Ph.D.
Organic Resources, Inc.
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:03:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Conference: panna.panups
X-Conference: panna.panups
From: panupdates@igc.apc.org
Subject: PANUPS: 1998 PANUPS Survey
To: Recipients of conference
X-Gateway: conf2mail@igc.apc.org
Lines: 96
Sender: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Precedence: bulk
=====================================
P A N U P S
***
Pesticide Action Network
North America
Updates Service
http://www.panna.org/panna/
email panna@panna.org
=====================================
March 6, 1998
1998 PANUPS Survey
Please take a few minutes to answer the following brief
questions regarding PANUPS and send the form back to PANNA
. Your responses will help us continue to
develop PANUPS as a premier service for pesticide and
sustainable agriculture news worldwide.
1. How did you learn about PANUPS?
2. How do you receive PANUPS?
(x ) PANUPS listserve (you receive email from panupdates@panna.org)
( ) PANNA web site: www.panna.org/panna/
( ) Other source (please explain)
3. Do you share PANUPS with other people? Approximately how
many and how often?
Every month some portion of the informatio is forwarded or used by others
in my circle.
4. Which PANUPS topics do you find most interesting? (You may
select more than one).
(x ) Action alerts
(x ) Agrochemical industry
(x ) Agricultural biotechnology
(x ) Ecology/environment/wildlife
( ) Health
(x ) International pesticide use/trade
( ) Resource Pointers
(x ) Sustainable agriculture (organic, IPM, etc.)
(x ) U.S. regulatory news
( ) Other_______
5. Which of the following categories, if any, best
characterizes your role as it relates to pesticides and
agriculture? (You may select more than one).
( ) Academic
( ) Activist
( ) Agricultural Extension
( ) Agrochemical Industry
( ) Chemically injured
(x ) Concerned citizen
(x ) Farmer
( ) Funder
( ) Government
(x ) Producer/Marketer of organic or "green" goods/services
(x ) Scientist/Researcher
(x ) Student
( ) Other______
6. In what country to you reside?
The USA
7. Comments, suggestions or questions?
Keep up the good work, and some of us would like to see more data regarding
inert ingredients in phenoxy type herbicides and systemics in general.
*If you are interested in receiving information about PAN's work on
reducing pesticide use worldwide plus a free issue of our periodical, please
include your full name and mailing address below.
8. Donald W. Trotter Ph.D.
9. 295 Neptune Avenue
10. Encinitas, CA. 92024
11. USA
12.760.753.1508 phone/760.632.8175
Thank you very much for completing this form and returning it
to PANNA!
===========================================================
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
116 New Montgomery, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone:(415) 541-9140
Fax:(415) 541-9253
Email: panna@panna.org
mailto:panna@panna.org
(only some emailers use above command)
http://www.panna.org/panna/
To subscribe to PANUPS, email to MAJORDOMO@igc.apc.org with the
following text on one line: subscribe panups
To unsubscribe send the following: unsubscribe panups
===========================================================
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
Donald Trotter
The Organic Resource Centre
293 Neptune Ave.
Encinitas, CA. 92024
curly@mill.net
1.888.514.4004
fax- 760.632.8175
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 13 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Re fungus gnats discussion in January
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 12:48:48 -0600
At 10:49 AM 3/8/98 -0700, Gail Hall wrote:
>Subject: Re: fungus gnats@aquaponics.com>
>>For control (of fungus gnats) in our greenhouse, we used predator nematodes.
>They look like microscopic "worms" and attack many types of problem
>insects (fleas, thrips, fungus
>gnats, etc.). They are unrelated to pest nematodes and do not attack
>plants.
>
>I would think they can be used in an aquaponic system without harm to
>the fish, but my experience was in hydroponics. Has anyone out there
>tried this in aquaponics?
We have used predatory nematodes for insect control in our growing system
and have had good results. We feel using specific controls such as this is
much wiser (both for the system and the wallet) than any broadcast methods
which generally create more problems than they solve.
>I have successfully used a product called Gnatrol (Bt israelensis) a
>liquid formulation of Bt from Abbott Labs similar to VectorBac that is
>also highly selective against the larvae of greenhouse fungus gnats. The
>liquid is diluted with water and sprayed onto breeding areas where it is
>fed upon by the larvae, causing death within 24 hours.
Gail - do you have a list of ingredients for this product that you could
post? I'm hoping someone will have an opinion based on that for it's
acceptability for use in systems involving fish specifically.
This is a
>larvacide only and will not kill adults, so timing is important. Gnatrol
>can be injected in greenhouse watering systems, but should not be mixed
>with fertilizers or fungicides containg copper or chlorine as this may
>neutralize the active ingredients.
Thanks for your help.
Paula
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 14 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
From: John Gingras
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:45:36 -0500
>
>
> What is amazing to me is that in addition to those who are using
> aquaponics
> for their various operations; those who have products, services or
> information available; and those just starting in their systems; there
> are
> many members of this mail group who are only in the "investigating"
> stage.
> And we have not had the questions/input from them that I had
> anticipated.
>
> When we started, had we had this type of
> information/experience/knowledge
> available through the internet, how much simpler our search would have
> been!
>
>
As a lurker and investigator, let me say that I, and perhaps others, are
prone to being intimidated, rightly or wrongly, by those such as
yourself and other more experienced practitioners. The very term
"newbie" I consider incredibly patronizing. (That is a general comment
addressed to mailing lists in general, but speaks to a general attitude,
I think, that has grown up with this new communication process.) I
think there might be a certain segment who are hoping to not sound
simplistic and obvious and wait to see if their questions might be
answered over time.
Intellectualizing over, I have my question to pose. I would like hear
from those whose existing systems are housed in attached or
free-standing greenhouses or solar structures: pros, cons, problems,
advantages, materials, structure, construction, heating, insulation,
etc., etc., etc.
Thanks
Maggie Gingras
Compass Mountain Farm
Suttons Bay, MI
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 15 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: re: Aquaponics questions/subjects
From: "H.Doelle"
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:20:55 +1000
Dear Jim,
In my opinion there are nor rights or wrong, you just have to look to nature.
Animal as well as human excreta contain pathogens, which are facts. I am
amazed to see those who want to use animal excreta shudder at using your
own excreta. There is no differnece in regard to pathogens, antibiotics, ect.
Now, if you want to take the risk, you are welcome, but do not blame
anybody else than yourself IF you get sick.
If, however, the fish will be fed to other people apart from you, than you
have to take the responsibility.
We are talking about opportunistic diseases. You just have to ask yourself
the question, why is the children death rate so high in slums and many
parts of the developing countries ? Because kids play in rubbish, which is
normally infested with animal excerta and often with human as well.
I have the slogan, one can not be careful enough, if life is involved.
If you first compost your rabbit dropping properly, the heat of the compost
should significantly reduce the risk.
It is up to you
best wishes
Horst Doelle
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 16 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Fwd. Rainwater
From: Ian Beaver
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:02:02 +1300
S & S Aqua Farm wrote:
>
> Friends - saw this post on the biodynamics mail group. I know several of
> our members are working toward self-sufficiency and water conservation, and
> perhaps considering captured rainwater as their water source for aquaponics.
> Any comments? Paula
>
> >Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:29:32 -0500
> >To: bd-l@biodynamics.com
> >From: Ferdinand Vondruska (by way of BIODYNAMIC MAIL
> > LIST)
> >Subject: Rainwater
> >
>Please, please filter this
> >water. It is relatively easy. Catch your water but, before you use it,
> >pour it through a sand/limestone/charcoal filter. Sand will take out a
> >lot of physical impurities. Lime has the ability to bind some chemicals
> >and neutralize acid(s) and charcoal will remove a lot of undue elements.
Hi.
Can anyone fill in more details on how to make one of these filters,
specifically the volumes of sand, limestone and charcoal, I presume you
put them in layers, or do you mix them all together. Also, what granular
size of limestone, and charcoal work best. I need to filter about 200
gallons per hour, and about 1200 gals per day.
Any help, references, etc would be appreciated.
Regards
Ian Beaver
Northland New Zealand
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 17 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Rainwater, water chemistry, etc.
From: Ian Beaver
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 11:01:55 +1300
Ted Ground wrote:
>
>
> I suggest you people should not worry too much about what falls along with
> your rainwater. Of course that depends on where you are located to some
> degree, but nitrogen and sulfur should not concern you as much as, say,
> Salmonella from bird poop on the roof, which might make you want to filter
> the water if you plan to drink the water, so go ahead and install a
> recirculating ozone/UV/charcoal system onto your tank. These are
> commercially available.
Here in New Zealand, we have a product on the market which fits between
your roof guttering and your tank that collects the first 50 litre of
rainwater and dumps it, so that the first flush of water after a dry
period does not end up in your tank. A good idea I think. not sure what
its worth tho.
Ian
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 18 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Partial Water Changes
From: "Wendy Nagurny"
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:01:46 -0500
Thanks for answering my questions. I have more.
I wrote:
> >In your system, you add very little water -- only what is necessary from
> >evaporation. I have always found that in aquarium systems there is a
> >definite benefit in doing partial water changes (approx. 10%) either
weekly
> >or every other week. I, of course, did not raise plants in my filter,
but
> >I did raise aquatic plants in the tanks.
>
Paula wrote:
> Not having raised aquatic plants, we don't have the necessary experience
to
> compare their filtering capabilities with the crops we grow. I would be
> interested if anyone else can explain the differences, though, as we've
> often considered growing aquatic plants for the home aquarium industry.
>
I'm not sure about the nutritional differences, but I certainly recommend
raising aquatic plants for the home aquarium trade. I raised water sprite
and several species of Hygrophila, and a friend raised Java fern. Nether
of us ever had any problem selling our plants. Water sprite requires a
high level of nutrients in the water or it just languishes. It a real good
seller because it doesn't ship well so most petshops and distributors
cannot get nice plants. It disintegrates very fast if kept out of light
for long. Many pet shops usually don't carry it because of the condition
it usually arrives in. So if you have a distributor near by, that you can
deliver small quantities often you will have a good customer. Hygrophila,
I have noticed, is a good indicator of water quality. If the ammonia or
nitrite levels start to creep up, it begins to look sickly and put out
small leaves, even before my fish would act bothered. Java fern is a hardy
slow grower that is not bothered by most plant-nibbler fish. The wholesale
prices it gets reflects its slow growth nature.
Most plants in the hobby trade are actually bog plants and require a period
of emersion in order to bloom and set seed.
> I would think that in order to
> >keep the nitrates from building up, you would have to keep the system
very
> >balanced. You do mention in your web article that you need to keep the
> >plants well stocked for this to work. I would think that even then,
there
> >would be a benefit to doing partial water changes. How do you get
around
> >the nitrate build-up especially in those nodes which do not have a full
> >compliment of plants?
>
> Wendy - it's not been a long-term problem for us. Our ratio of grow
space
> to tank to fish density is such that normal crop changeovers and planned
> replanting/regrowth stages are staggered. We have six grow beds for each
of
> our tanks, and do our best to cycle the plants so that there are always
some
> "adult" plants in each system, which require the most nutrients, thus do
the
> most work as a filter for the fish. When we have had crop problems,
delays,
> or abrupt changes in our plans for whatever reason that left the beds
less
> than efficient; we cut back on our feeding and allow the system to
rebalance.
>
> Tom's input here - In our system we have about 4.4 sq. ft. of growing
> bed/biofilter surface area for every square foot of tank surface area.
(In
> cubic feet, our ratio is approximately 2 cu. ft. of grow space for each 1
> cu. ft. of water.) Our beds are 4'x8'x1', and the tanks are 7-1/2'
diameter
> with approximately 3 to 3-1/2' of water. Other systems, like Dr.
Rakocy's
> raft system, have an even higher ratio of surface area grow space to
tanks.
>
> In either system, this is a much higher ratio of continuous filtration
than
> aquarium filters can provide, thus the improved water quality overall
> without the need for water changes.
Your huge filter area will improve the ammonia and nitrite levels, but
since there is very little anaerobic activity in wet/dry systems, the
nitrates still must be removed by other means. In your case, your plants.
I think that where you have a great advantage over my aquariums is in the
vast water quantity. It will take a much longer time for you to notice
nitrate build up, if it is going to happen, than I would have in my 29g
tanks.
>
> As for our water usage, we estimate 7.5 to 10% per month. A large part
of
> this is plant usage for production/transpiration. The remainder is
> evaporation from the system - helpful in the summer, as the beds
themselves
> become the "evaporative coolers" employed in some greenhouse operations.
>
Do the plants also absorb the calcium etc. in the water too? In areas
which have hard water, just adding to replace what is naturally lost
through evaporation/respiration would result in the hardness gradually
creeping up -- sometimes to incredibly high levels. This usually wouldn't
be noticed in existing fish, as they will become accustomed to it (until it
got VERY hard), but it would shock any new fish that are added.
With aquatic plants, I found that if I increased the plant/fish ratio to
the point that I was maintaining good nitrate levels, my water would become
too oxygenated for my fish. The fish did fine in there, but if they were
moved to a more "normal" environment, they developed "gas bubble" disease
from the sudden drop in oxygen (the pet shops didn't like that at all
(oops)). Of course this wouldn't be a problem with terrestrial plants
because they are releasing oxygen into the air instead of into the water.
But the point is that I had to keep an incredibly high ratio of plants to
fish for the nitrate levels to stabilize, so I just went back to partial
water changes.
I hope you don't think that I'm being "picky". But these are some of the
things I had to address when I raised fish and aquatic plants together. I
would really like to try an aquaponic setup someday .....just biding my
time until I can close on my land.
Wendy
|
