Aquaponics Digest - Mon 03/16/98
Message 1: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 2: Re: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
from PeterJTheisen@eaton.com
Message 3: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food is
under attack (fwd)
from Gordon Watkins
Message 4: Message size
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 5: Re: Intro
from Gordon Watkins
Message 6: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food
is under attack (fwd)
from crystal
Message 7: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
from Tigershado
Message 8: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food is
under attack (fwd)
from John Shannonhouse
Message 9: re: smell of an aquaponics system
from PeterJTheisen@eaton.com
Message 10: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food is
under attack (fwd)
from Gordon Watkins
Message 11: EVER SEEN THE FACTS CONCERNING IRRIDIATED FOODS????
from Dave Roberts
Message 12: Re: New Scientist article - SANET
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 13: Splitting Tomatoes
from Gordon Watkins
Message 14: Irradiation facts*
from ryarnell@orednet.org (Richard Yarnell)
Message 15: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food
is under attack (fwd)
from "H.Doelle"
Message 16: WELL SAID, GORDON!
from Dave Roberts
Message 17: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food
is under attack (fwd)
from GCR
Message 18: Re: Component Ratios
from Ian Beaver
Message 19: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
from Ian Beaver
Message 20: Fwd. - Re: New Scientist article - SANET
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 21: Gordon Watkins Fruit Splitting
from Peggy & Emmett Hoebel
Message 22: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food
from ryarnell@orednet.org (Richard Yarnell)
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:15:19 -0600
At 08:52 AM 3/14/98 +1300, Ian Beaver wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have had a number of replies to my post, regards the pentagonal
>polyhouse idea. Sorry, I dont have any plans, since I wiped them out to
>make more room on my hard drive, silly me.
>
>On the subject of size, these units can be made to any size one desires,
>though there are engineering limits to this. ...........\
Ian - thanks for the great post on your greenhouse design. We really
appreciate the time it took you to assemble this for us.
Paula
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
From: PeterJTheisen@eaton.com
Date: 16 Mar 98 08:17:54 EST
There was a building system about 15 years ago that I used called a 'Star
Plate Building' . It provided 11 plates to which 2 by 4's or the like
could be bolted. the result was a building much as described by Ian. I
believe that the company is now out of business, but if not it may be a
quick way of constructing a pentagonal building.
Pete T.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food is
under attack (fwd)
From: Gordon Watkins
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:39:15 -0600
Thanks for the update, Donald. I just this minute saw a CNN interview
with Dan Glickman who stated, "I clearly won't implement regulations
which the organic industry hates."
As noted, the proposed rule is still up for public comment. Check out
http://web.iquest.net/ofma/ for a good analysis of the proposed rule as
well as an easy-to-use form for sending comments to the USDA and your
congressmen.
Gordon
donald trotter wrote:
>
> Hi Aquapanickers:
>
> I got this information from Lawrence London off of the Sanet. I know that
> many of you run "organic" programs and thought that a brief update on the
> NOP might prove useful.
> Donald W. Trotter Ph.D.
> Organic Resources
>
> >
> >>New Scientist March 7, 1998
> >>Nature's bounty
> >> Kurt Kleiner (Washington DC)
> >> A controversial definition of organic food is under attack
> >>>> THE US government seems poised to abandon a plan to allow food treated
> >>with radiation, fertilised with sewage sludge or created by genetic
> >>engineering to carry an official "organic" label. After receiving a
> >>deluge
> >>of complaints from buyers and sellers of organic produce, the US
> >>Department
> >>of Agriculture
> >>>> (USDA) has told activists that it will think again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Members of a delegation
> >>>> that met a senior USDA official last week say they were promised
> >>>> that the rules would be changed. "The uproar is so loud, so
> >>>> dramatic, that they have literally hundreds of thousands of eyes
> >>>> on them in a rule-making process that usually only 20 or 30
> >>>> people are interested in," says Bob Scowcroft, executive
> >>>> director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa
> >>>> Cruz, California.
> >>>> The organic industry itself had asked for national standards
> >>>> on organic labelling. At present, different states in the US
> >>>> have different requirements for an organic label, and some have
> >>>> no rules at all.
> >>>> Most people who buy organic food do so in the expectation of
> >>>> obtaining entirely "natural" products. But the USDA rules,
> >>>> published last December, ignored the advice of an advisory board
> >>>> from the organic food business and focused more narrowly on the
> >>>> use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers. Provided none of
> >>>> these were used, the USDA wanted food to be labelled organic
> >>>> even if it contained genetically engineered material or had
> >>>> been irradiated to kill microorganisms. The proposed rules would
> >>>> also allow the use of fertiliser made from sewage sludge.
> >>>> Since then, the USDA has received about 10 000 comments, most of
> >>>> them negative. Last week, deputy agriculture secretary Richard
> >>>> Rominger met a delegation of critics. Margaret Mellon, who lobbies in
> >>>> Washington DC on agricultural issues for the Union of Concerned
> >>>> Scientists, says the group was promised that the rules would be
> >>>> changed to satisfy the organic food industry.
> >>>> Rominger would not comment on what he said, and a USDA
> >>>> spokesman stresses that no final decision has been made. But the
> >>>> period for public comment on the proposed rules, which was
> >>>> supposed to end in mid-March, has been extended until the end
> >>>> of April because of the massive response.
> >>>> While some activists are already claiming a victory, others
> >>>> remain cautious. Scowcroft, for one, is waiting until he sees
> >>>> the wording of the revised rules. It is still possible, he
> >>>> warns, that the rules could set off a new transatlantic trade
> >>>> war.
> >>>> The European Union has enforced a common standard for
> >>>> organic plant produce since 1991. It rules out irradiation and
> >>>> the use of sewage sludge. A ban on organic labelling for
> >>>> genetically modified crops, already applied voluntarily by
> >>>> member states, will be added this year, and rules for organic
> >>>> livestock are expected to be agreed soon.
> >>>> So if the USDA rules differ significantly from these
> >>>> standards, Scowcroft suggests that European countries might seek
> >>>> to exclude US "organic" exports.
> >
> >
> >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 4 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Message size
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:01:02 -0600
I realize that sometimes in the desire to post a quick reply/comment to a
post that it's easiest to just hit "reply" and add comments. However, if
you're replying to a long post this duplicates everything and causes
problems for some of our subscribers.
Please remember to cut the size of the original message to just it's
pertinent pieces before replying.
Thanks
Paula
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 5 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Intro
From: Gordon Watkins
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:13:00 -0600
Welcome to the list, Sandy.
I'm currently heating my small (300 sq ft) attached aquaponic
greenhouse with an LP gas fired hydronic system which works well
although it would be pretty expensive on a large scale. I have special
rubber tubes embedded in the concrete of my fish vats and in the gravel
of the grow beds. The tubes are connected to a 40 gallon LP water heater
and thermostats control 2 small circulating pumps, one for each zone. I
keep the fish vats set at around 75 and the beds at 65. The other
morning it was 5 degrees here and the lowest greenhouse temp was 55 at
bed height and 39 at the peak. The water remained constant. Even though
my tomatoes and cukes are growing up into the rafters, they didn't seem
to be fazed by the low temps. I'm currently paying $.99/gallon for gas
and my costs over this admittedly mild winter have run around $4/day. I
plan to connect a water jacket to my wood burning furnace and a solar
water panel for supplement before next season.
Gordon
Sandy S. Brown wrote:
>
We're
> toying with the idea of running a water coil through a propane demand water
> heater and blowing the heat into the air, heating the air directly in some
> manner, just heating the water in some way....What have other people found
> to be the most efficient method?
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 6 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food is
under attack (fwd)
From: crystal
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:47:46 -0800
> THE US government seems poised to abandon a plan to allow food treated
> with radiation, fertilised with sewage sludge or created by genetic
> engineering to carry an official "organic" label.
> Most people who buy organic food do so in the expectation of obtaining
> entirely "natural" products.
What's wrong with irridated food or new genetic strains? Aren't they
equal to "clean" food although artifical? My opinion is that synthetic
processes (eg: green/vege noodles or fermented bacteria "meat" fibres)
or artificial strains are superior to the natural crops or meat. It's
like the debate between powdered milk and natural breast milk, no?
Best Regards,
Crystal
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 7 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
From: Tigershado
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:49:37 EST
In a message dated 98-03-16 08:28:52 EST, you write:
<< There was a building system about 15 years ago that I used called a 'Star
Plate Building' . It provided 11 plates to which 2 by 4's or the like could
be bolted. >>
I have a '96 Stromberg's catalog that lists this for sale, maybe they're still
available. If anyone's interested you might give them a call at (800)
720-1134. They also carry plans for a 10'x12' greehouse.
Barbara Corley
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 8 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food is
under attack (fwd)
From: John Shannonhouse
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:17:05 -0600
Hello,
If someone fertilizes a field with manure, it is still organic,
correct? If I am not mistaken about manures being acceptable, what is
wrong with using sewage sludge (provided it has no industrial waste with
heavy metals and such) in organic agriculture? If people are buying
organic foods so they can avoid chemical pesticides and hormones and don't
condone the use of synthetic fertilizers, I don't see the problem with
irradiation, either.
John Shannonhouse
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 9 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: re: smell of an aquaponics system
From: PeterJTheisen@eaton.com
Date: 16 Mar 98 11:58:51 EST
You wrote:
I have been reading all of the postings from the Aquaponics listserve, and
I came across one aspect of aquaponics that I had not heard of since I
began researching the subject (keep in mind that I have not begun my system
yet). One of the postings commented on the bad smell of the system. I
know that you work out of your basement, so I figured, if anyone knew about
a smell, you would. Any input?
Devon
My Response:
My quick answer to the question is that my aquaponics system does smell. I
have been to about a half dozen aquaculture facilities and my system has
the same smell. The smell can be best described as a combination of the
smell of fish food (stick your nose in a bag or container of fish food),
the smell of a compost heap and the smell of fresh caught fish. In
addition the humidity can add the smells of mold and mildew. Now don't get
to concerned, the smell is not extreme or overpowering (unless a fish jumps
out and you don't fine it for a couple of days), the smell is just there.
It is not objectionable to me, but my wife and kids don't care for it.
What I do to control it is to keep the humidity down. In a basement this
is more important than in a greenhouse. To control the humidify, I run a
dehumidifier in the summer and in the winter the natural air exchange that
occurs with the air my furnace uses for combustion is sufficient.
Hope this helps
Pete T.
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 10 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food is
under attack (fwd)
From: Gordon Watkins
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:56:50 -0600
Crystal and John,
The issue is not what's right or wrong, good or bad, superior or
inferior, but simply a matter of truth in advertising. The term
"organic" has a very specific meaning within the farming community and
among those people committed to purchasing and consuming organic foods.
That meaning, as generally accepted worldwide, does not include
genetically engineered organisms, irradiated foods, or sewage sludge,
for reasons more complex than is appropriate to discuss here. No one's
arguing that it's not ok to eat those things if you so choose, just know
what you're buying and don't call it organic. The USDA proposes to
dilute and bastardize the definition of organic, and that's the real
problem.
Paula, sanet is probably the best forum for discussing the politics of
organic agriculture. I'll try and limit my discussion on such off-topic
subjects in the future but I felt a need to respond to John and
Crystal's comments.
Gordon
crystal wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with irridated food or new genetic strains? Aren't they
> equal to "clean" food although artifical? My opinion is that synthetic
> processes (eg: green/vege noodles or fermented bacteria "meat" fibres)
> or artificial strains are superior to the natural crops or meat. It's
> like the debate between powdered milk and natural breast milk, no?
>
John Shannonhouse wrote:
>
> Hello,
> If someone fertilizes a field with manure, it is still organic,
> correct? If I am not mistaken about manures being acceptable, what is
> wrong with using sewage sludge (provided it has no industrial waste with
> heavy metals and such) in organic agriculture? If people are buying
> organic foods so they can avoid chemical pesticides and hormones and don't
> condone the use of synthetic fertilizers, I don't see the problem with
> irradiation, either.
> John Shannonhouse
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 11 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: EVER SEEN THE FACTS CONCERNING IRRIDIATED FOODS????
From: Dave Roberts
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:36:05 -0600
John Shannonhouse wrote:
>
> Hello,
> If someone fertilizes a field with manure, it is still organic,
> correct? If I am not mistaken about manures being acceptable, what is
> wrong with using sewage sludge (provided it has no industrial waste with
> heavy metals and such) in organic agriculture? If people are buying
> organic foods so they can avoid chemical pesticides and hormones and don't
> condone the use of synthetic fertilizers, I don't see the problem with
> irradiation, either.
> John Shannonhouse
John!
Where is your mind? Haven't you seen the REAL FACTS concerning the
mutation of cellular and enzymatic structures in food caused by
irridiation?? Do a little research and stop believing the BS the FDA
wants you to BELIEVE. This may take some effort...
Dave
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 12 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist article - SANET
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:36:05 -0600
At 12:56 PM 3/16/98 -0600, Gordon wrote:
>Crystal and John,
> The issue is not what's right or wrong, good or bad, superior or
>inferior, but simply a matter of truth in advertising. The term
>"organic" has a very specific meaning within the farming community and
>among those people committed to purchasing and consuming organic foods.
>That meaning, as generally accepted worldwide, does not include
>genetically engineered organisms, irradiated foods, or sewage sludge,
>for reasons more complex than is appropriate to discuss here. No one's
>arguing that it's not ok to eat those things if you so choose, just know
>what you're buying and don't call it organic. The USDA proposes to
>dilute and bastardize the definition of organic, and that's the real
>problem.
> Paula, sanet is probably the best forum for discussing the politics of
>organic agriculture. I'll try and limit my discussion on such off-topic
>subjects in the future
Gordon - I'm not trying to limit the discussion, and I agree that it's a
topic of concern. I appreciate your comments above, and knew that you could
make the statement more clear than I. I know that you have more than your
hands full with the work you're already doing.
For those interested, the subscription information for the sustainable
agriculture network mail group where this topic is discussed at length is:
To subscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "subscribe sanet-mg".
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".
They have an excellent archive, and many links to other related topics.
Paula
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 13 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Splitting Tomatoes
From: Gordon Watkins
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:31:06 -0600
I've recently begun harvesting a few cherry tomatoes and most of them
split just as they ripen. I know in the field this is usually caused by
too much water. Is this an inherent problem in an aquaponic system or
are there varieties less suceptible to splitting? I growing Sun Gold
from Johnny's. I've harvested a few Homestead slicers and haven't had
the problem on them, just the cherries. Any insight is appreciated.
Gordon
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 14 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Irradiation facts*
From: ryarnell@orednet.org (Richard Yarnell)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:51:49 -0800 (PST)
* I decline to shout.
Dave,
Since you imply that you've done research which contradicts the FDA
and several European health authorities, wouldn't it be more
constructive to provide a pointer to those sources rather than just
suggest that John get his head screwed on straight.
>John Shannonhouse wrote:
>>I don't see the problem with irradiation, either.
>John!
>
>Where is your mind? Haven't you seen the REAL FACTS concerning the
>mutation of cellular and enzymatic structures in food caused by
>irridiation?? Do a little research and stop believing the BS the FDA
>wants you to BELIEVE. This may take some effort...
>Dave
--
--MAA08070.890081175/ednet1.orednet.org--
--
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 15 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food
is under attack (fwd)
From: "H.Doelle"
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 06:55:34 +1000
Dear John,
>Hello,
> If someone fertilizes a field with manure, it is still organic,
>correct?
In chemical terms you are correct, but not in principles, as organic means
'nature"s biomass'.
Your gut is changing the biomass very different from nature"s composting.
< If I am not mistaken about manures being acceptable,
Comment: No, manure is NOT acceptable. That is the problem. I emphasize
again that organic fertilisation was created by recycling nature's biomass.
Nature composts in normal events and we have accelerated the process with
different systems and refinements.
In the age of antibiotic feeding of animals and antibiotic resistance of
microorganisms going through the guts, manure becomes as dangerous as
chemical fertilisers or pesticides. Both can kill the population either by
poisoning or through sickness, whichever way you prefer.
what is
>wrong with using sewage sludge (provided it has no industrial waste with
>heavy metals and such) in organic agriculture? If people are buying
>organic foods so they can avoid chemical pesticides and hormones and don't
>condone the use of synthetic fertilizers, I don't see the problem with
>irradiation, either.
I condone the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides also, but warn of
increasing the imbalance betyween pathogens who kill and beneficial
organisms. The use of manure is a relaxation of sanitation and we should be
warned against such relaxation. Just look at the WHO figures of increases
in infectious diseases and you may be convinced of my argument.
Horst Doelle
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 16 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: WELL SAID, GORDON!
From: Dave Roberts
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:07:06 -0600
Greetings!
I applaud your quick explanation to Crystal and John! There needs to be
more sane people out there like you.
BTW, how would I go about subscribing to Sanet?
Thanks!!
Dave Roberts
Gordon Watkins wrote:
>
> Crystal and John,
> The issue is not what's right or wrong, good or bad, superior or
> inferior, but simply a matter of truth in advertising. The term
> "organic" has a very specific meaning within the farming community and
> among those people committed to purchasing and consuming organic foods.
> That meaning, as generally accepted worldwide, does not include
> genetically engineered organisms, irradiated foods, or sewage sludge,
> for reasons more complex than is appropriate to discuss here. No one's
> arguing that it's not ok to eat those things if you so choose, just know
> what you're buying and don't call it organic. The USDA proposes to
> dilute and bastardize the definition of organic, and that's the real
> problem.
> Paula, sanet is probably the best forum for discussing the politics of
> organic agriculture. I'll try and limit my discussion on such off-topic
> subjects in the future but I felt a need to respond to John and
> Crystal's comments.
> Gordon
>
> crystal wrote:
> >
> >> What's wrong with irridated food or new genetic strains? Aren't they
> > equal to "clean" food although artifical? My opinion is that synthetic
> > processes (eg: green/vege noodles or fermented bacteria "meat" fibres)
> > or artificial strains are superior to the natural crops or meat. It's
> > like the debate between powdered milk and natural breast milk, no?
> >
> John Shannonhouse wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > If someone fertilizes a field with manure, it is still organic,
> > correct? If I am not mistaken about manures being acceptable, what is
> > wrong with using sewage sludge (provided it has no industrial waste with
> > heavy metals and such) in organic agriculture? If people are buying
> > organic foods so they can avoid chemical pesticides and hormones and don't
> > condone the use of synthetic fertilizers, I don't see the problem with
> > irradiation, either.
> > John Shannonhouse
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 17 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food
is under attack (fwd)
From: GCR
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:26:34 +0000
Dear John,
Let us remember that the inventor of DDT was awarded the Nobel prize for
his discovery that would change the world. Change the world it did, but
not in the way everyone thought.
Irradiation causes recognizable, physical changes in the meat. The level
of radiation necessary to kill bacteria has got to be altering the DNA and
probably other structures of the food. Parade magazine had an article
about it several weeks ago. At the end of the article a study was cited
showing reduced growth rates in rodents fed and irradiat4ed diet.
The changes may be subtle and even take a second generation to become
evident. One thing is certain, there are changes in the meat from its
original state. It is an altered food, if it is indeed a food.
I want to retain the right to have a choice.
At 11:17 AM 3/16/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Hello,
> If someone fertilizes a field with manure, it is still organic,
>correct? If I am not mistaken about manures being acceptable, what is
>wrong with using sewage sludge (provided it has no industrial waste with
>heavy metals and such) in organic agriculture? If people are buying
>organic foods so they can avoid chemical pesticides and hormones and don't
>condone the use of synthetic fertilizers, I don't see the problem with
>irradiation, either.
>John Shannonhouse
>
>
>
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 18 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Component Ratios
From: Ian Beaver
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:24:13 +1300
Gordon Watkins wrote:
>
> Ian,
> Your plan to add and remove bags seems more complicated than necessary
> to me. Remember that the growing medium is a living biofilter/bacterial
> bed which takes time to colonize and will die if allowed to dry out for
> very long. So, if you remove bags from one particular node, you will
> have to add it to another to keep the culture alive, or you will have to
> re-inoculate and allow time for the bacteria to repopulate the bag when
> you add it back to the system.
I had no intention of letting thm dry out, rather to transfer them to a
holding system of some kind, but I take your point in that its probably
a waste of time and effort and its better to just leave them in the
solution. All I was trying to acheive was some form of adjustabilty.
> I find that these systems are very resilient and forgiving and, unless
> you push the envelope of stocking densities, they do not require a high
> level of micromanagement as might be more necessary in a chemical based
> hydroponic system. Besides lettuce, tomatoes and cukes, I'm also growing
> a wide variety of other crops including beans and peas, melons,
> eggplant, peppers, and citrus in the same system and all are doing well.
Its interesting that you are able to grow a wide range of vegetable
types. Have you ever measured the ionic conductivity of your solution
Gordon.
> The only crop failure I've had was transplanted spinach which was
> probably due to soil temp. As my system has matured and the fish mass
> has increased, the plants have become more vigorous and vibrant but I've
> never seen any indications of nutrient deficiencies.
> I don't mean to bash hydroponics, but I have to admit that, as a
> die-hard organic farmer I've always felt that hydroponics was far to
> reductionistic.
I agree with you here, that chem based hydro is less than ideal and has
to be suspect, compared with bio systems. My original plan was to set up
an organic hydro system, but production of nutrients was the issue that
I didnt have control of. However I have since joined this list and see
that to integrate the hydro with the fish is one possible avenue.
However the original concept that I was, and still am, working on can
also be integrated into such a system.
My original approach was to use a mixture of spoilt hay, and chicken
manure, seaweed, fish waste and anything else that I can get my hands
on, to produce an active compost, from which the soluble nutrients can
be extracted. The output product of my composter, is a very nutritious,
from a plant point of veiw, mix of organic material, worm casting, worms
and of course, a enriched fluid that becomes the nutirent solution for
my hydro.
However I was faced with two seperate projects, one was to put together
the hydro system itself, and the other was produce the nutrients to run
it on. I saw that production of the nutrients was a longer term affair,
so I deliberately chose to concentrate on setting up the hydro and to
use chem based nutrient in the meantime, whilst I sorted out the
nutrient supply.
Currently I have a population of 15,000 bean plants, and to produce
enough organic nutrient to feed them is not a simple task. Hence the use
of purchasable chem nutrient. My hope is to be able to convert my
growing system to organics in the future, but probably on a gradual
basis, as I find ways to produce nutrient in a reliable and efficient
manner.
As an aside, I am currently using approx 10KG of chem based nutirent to
feed these hungry plants of mine, and just what this equates to in terms
of organic supplies is anyones guess. Or how many fish I woould need to
produce that amount of poop. As soon as one starts talking organics, the
facts and figures seem to disappear out of the back door. How does one
calculate the amount of hay and chicken poo that is equivalent to 10KG
of balanced chem nutrient. I have never met anyone yet that is able to
work, quantitatively, with these concepts, though I feel it must be
possible, even if it is only indicative.
My hydro is an NFT system, so has no media at all, except the plants
roots themselves, but I am considering chaning over to a bag based media
system in the future. I have an acquaintance who grow tomatoes in bags
of compost, which he feeds to waste with liquified fish offal, and this
idea is possible.
Just what my system evolves into is anyones guess at this stage.
I think the dynamics of nutrient flow, storage and
> uptake in biologically active aquaponic beds is much more complex than
> that of comparatively sterile hydroponic media. Much occurs in organic
> systems which cannot be reduced to a short list of elements that can be
> supplied in a hydroponic solution.
I agree.
Your comments about carbon are
> interesting and I think approach the heart of the matter. Humates and
> organic matter, which are carbon based, increase the cation exchange
> capacity, nutrient storage, and buffering capacity of the soil and help
> maintain a stable system. While I've not tested my beds yet, I assume
> that the fish manure creates humus in the beds, adding to stability of
> the system.
I think that one could garuantee this, since it is the natural result of
the cycle, but this has to be a benefit in the long term. Carbon based
humates seem to the central connective molecular bizzo's at the basis of
topsoil and composting and so at the base of all biosystems. I see them
as rechargeable, battery like structures, that are able to attach to
water and other ionic elements, that are then available to the plants.
The more of them we have, then the greater buffering capability there
is.
(James Rackocy has suggested that this may eventually lead
> to clogging of the beds, although I've not seen or heard of this being
> the case with coarser media.)
I have a reservation about course, gravel based beds, and would prefer
to use a compost based media if possible, though I realise that the
problem is one of aeration and drainage. My growing area covers 1500
square metres, and consitsts of 35 channels of lengths of average 50
metres each, which total about 1750 metres of row. and I need to figure
out a way to accomplish this organically. Im leaning at the moment to
using compost as my growing media and to water my fish effluent into
these bags, but have each bag on plastic sheet that would return the
filtered water to a reservoir and so back to the fish tank. I already
have this infrastructure in place, along with the pumps etc, so it would
not be impossible to covert.
The bags could be flood fed several times a day, then drained, back into
my reservoir. I can see that I would need to add some form of solid
media to my compost, in order to improve the aeration and drainage,
since pure compost tends to waterlog.
I currently use around 5000 litres of water daily, so this fresh water
would be fed straight into the fish tanks, which equates to about 0.5
lires of water per plant per day. As to what volume of fish tanks, and
weight of fish, would be required to service this system is too awesome
to contemplate. Any ideas.
In the mean time I am setting up a small system as a pilot project, but
that will take some time to get up and running.
Thanks for the feedback.
Regards
Ian Beaver
> I would really like to hear more discussion on this topic,
> particularly nutrient dynamics in aquaponic systems, if anyone has more
> to share.
> Gordon
>
> Ian Beaver wrote:
> > > > My approach is have a system of plants that is adjustable, perhaps in
> > grow bags, so that I can take away or add as required. I would need
> > another system to store the unwanted bags. whilst not in use as filters.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gordon - you are obviously growing tomatoes and cucumbers together in
> > the same nutrient, and I am growing beans and cucumber in the same
> > nutrient, tho I have also some tomatoes that are not doing well in this
> > same environment. I suspect that the organic/bio nature of your system
> > promotes a wider range of tolerance.
> >
> > In considering my chem based hydro system, I notice that the scenario
> > that it is based on, ie soluble salts, is totally deviod of carbon, and
> > it is my belief, that carbon has a great regulating capability. After
> > all, all life is carbon based, or at least as far as I know. In a chem
> > based hydro system, the carbon is introduced by the plants breathing
> > carbon dioxide, but what I am more interested in is the stabilising
> > effect of carbon within an ecosystem such as an aquaponics system. In
> > fact chem base Hydroponics suggest that we go out of our way to keep
> > carbon out of the root zone.
> >
> >
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 19 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Pentagonal polyhouse
From: Ian Beaver
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:30:31 +1300
Tigershado wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-03-16 08:28:52 EST, you write:
>
> << There was a building system about 15 years ago that I used called a 'Star
> Plate Building' . It provided 11 plates to which 2 by 4's or the like could
> be bolted. >>
>
> I have a '96 Stromberg's catalog that lists this for sale, maybe they're still
> available. If anyone's interested you might give them a call at (800)
> 720-1134. They also carry plans for a 10'x12' greehouse.
>
> Barbara Corley
Yes, the first pentagonal house that I built used these 'star plates',
but they where manufactured in Christchurch, New Zealand, but the
company went out of business. Then I had to figure out how to make them
without. I would be interested to know how much a set of plates costs in
the states, if anyone can help. They work well, but are quite expensive
to build with since you need loads of bolts to put them together, as
well as the plates.
Ian
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 20 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Fwd. - Re: New Scientist article - SANET
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 19:20:09 -0600
> ----------------------------
>Subject: Re: New Scientist article - SANET
>Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:49:03 -0800
>From: Linda Wymore
>To: aquaponics@townsqr.com
>References:
> 1
>
>S & S Aqua Farm wrote:
>>
>> At 12:56 PM 3/16/98 -0600, Gordon wrote:
>> > Paula, sanet is probably the best forum for discussing the
politics of
>> >organic agriculture. I'll try and limit my discussion on such off-topic
>> >subjects in the future
>
>Paula wrote:
>> For those interested, the subscription information for the sustainable
>> agriculture network mail group where this topic is discussed at length is:
>>
>> To subscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "subscribe sanet-mg".
>> 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".
>
>Thanks for the tips. I didn't know about sanet, so went hunting.
>In case anyone else would like the links, here they are:
>Linda Wymore
>
>http://www.sare.org/san/
>The SAN homepage (Sustainable Agriculture Network)
>
>http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail/
>A link to the mailinglist archives. The archives are sectioned
>off by date, and you can futher sort by subject. There is quite
>a bit of recent discussion on the topics of irradiation and labeling
>guidelines for "organic" in the recent posts.
>
>http://ekolserv.vo.slu.se/(en)/Docs/www/Subject/Internet_Resources/800-849/
821_Information_about_sanet
>A description of the sanet mailinglist.
>
>And here's a letter explaining more about the controversy about the
>guidelines:
>http://www.wshu.org/duesing/1998/bd980123.htm
>
>Another article about the proposed guidelines which contains links
>to more info on genetically engineered food, sludge, and irradiation:
>http://environment.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa012598.htm
>
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 21 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Gordon Watkins Fruit Splitting
From: Peggy & Emmett Hoebel
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:07:30 -0500
For geographies' sake, let's say I live in Tampa,Florida
Last year I grew heirloom tomatoes in my garden thru August(most people
can't get their tomatoes to grow to mid June), and Sweet 100's in my
aquaponic system. I sprayed my garden tomatoes with kelp spray and
introduced kelp into my aquaponics system. Apparently the minor elements
contained in kelp help the plants thru "water uptake stress".
Tomatoe splitting is a problem where I live because the extreme summer heat
causes rapid drying of the soil followed by as much as 5 inches of rainfall
in an hour. Fruit splitting in citrus is also a problem. Rapid uptake of
water causes the fruit to split. Yet, if the citrus tree is sprayed several
times a year with a minor element spray the fruit doesn't split. It seems
that while rapid water uptake is the instigating factor in fruit splitting
the causitive factor is the lack of minor elements.
Applying this logic to my splitting tomatoes, and trying to stay organic, I
tried seaweed spray and it worked. As I poured the liquid into my fish
tank I wondered what would happen. Nothing happened. Fish don't care.
Hope this helps............Emmett
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 22 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New Scientist: A controversial definition of organic food
From: ryarnell@orednet.org (Richard Yarnell)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:17:06 -0800 (PST)
GCR (that's what it says) wrote:
>Irradiation causes recognizable, physical changes in the meat. The level
>of radiation necessary to kill bacteria has got to be altering the DNA...
Which is important when that meet reproduces
>and probably other structures of the food. Parade magazine had an article
>about it several weeks ago....
A well known repository for responsible scientific analysis!
--
|
