Aquaponics Digest - Sun 04/22/01
Message 1: Re: Unlinking Systems
from "Adriana Gutierrez"
Message 2: Crystal Violet Lactone Thermochromic Paint- article in New Scientist
from "TGTX"
Message 3: preserving lettuce
from laberge 'at' cil.qc.ca (LABERGE MARC)
Message 4: Re: Unlinking Systems
from "TGTX"
Message 5: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
from "TGTX"
Message 6: The Dome Calculator
from "TGTX"
Message 7: RE: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
from "billevans"
Message 8: Resend - preserving lettuce
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 9: Re: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
from marc 'at' aculink.net
Message 10: Re: Resend - preserving lettuce
from "Adriana Gutierrez"
Message 11: Re: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
from "Inn 'at' Six"
Message 12: Re: A different aproach to aquaponics
from "STEVE SPRING"
Message 13: Re: preserving lettuce
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 14: Re: Unlinking Systems
from Raul Vergueiro Martins
Message 15: Re: Unlinking Systems
from Raul Vergueiro Martins
Message 16: Re[2]: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
from Lamar Zabielski
Message 17: Re: Unlinking Systems
from Raul Vergueiro Martins
Message 18: Re: Unlinking Systems
from Raul Vergueiro Martins
| Message 1
Subject: Re: Unlinking Systems
From: "Adriana Gutierrez"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 05:19:57 -0500
Hi Paula,
I'm hoping Raul will step in here and help us with his 20 years of
research on this. I see his name on my list of unopened e-mails.
> Are there citations for the superiority of pre-biodigested nutrients
over
> nutrients biogested in growbeds? We're aware of the EM Technologies
> process, but are there other studies?
Flavor is a very subjective thing. I suspect that the flavor
differences are more like what Jay Myers found when he compared some
of his products grown in his hydro systems to the same grown in his
aquaponics beds. I believe it was true for strawberries and tomatoes.
So my sense is that flavor probably would not be superior to aquaponic
produce. The only way I know to test flavor, and it is a crude
measure at that is with a Brix meter. I had an old guy visit me at my
greenhouse in Florida who ran some of my greens through his meter and
he said they compared favorably to organically grown produce. I think
he was quite surprised that it tested so high. Maybe Raul can share
his experience with this as well.
> Have there been studies to show flavor differences? Perhaps I'm not
staying
> in touch with the proper research. Do you have some resource to
share?
Paula, in your gravel beds you are essentially running a biodigester
so there probably is a 30-60 day lag time.
> As you know, the process in a gravel-based system is constantly
composting.
> The fish effluent pumped into the beds today is not what the plants
are
> uptaking, so even though the input side is "immediately affected",
the
> nutrient supply is not. Unless you have a long shut-down time of
fresh
> effluent being input, or if you completely stop watering the grow
beds, the
> one need not necessarily cause a system "crash".
Amen! You can't make up negative margins on volume.
> As for supplying any of the large discount
> chains, that's been the death knell for many traditional growers.
Besides
> the unreasonable demands, the price paid is very difficult to
survive on
> without extensive mechanization, at least as I've been told.
I like your approach "Sir, it's not a GREENHOUSE, it's a FILTER!" :>)
>Have you approached them for a permit for an aquaculture facility
(under
>roof), that uses plant filtration instead of mechanical?
The delicate sequence and balance are built into the design of the
biodigester itself. Like any other piece of equipment which involves
living systems, it needs to be managed properly. I think Melvin
Landers is close to getting one or two up and running somewhenre in
Missouri.
> >of activities involving natural bioorganisms" would indicate that
there's a
> learning curve for that portion of the technology as well.
All in all, I think unlinking is a refinement of your concept which
provides greater flexibility and may be more forgiving to the
inexperienced operator. One other benefit of unlinking the systems is
that I think you have more options in the type of nutrient delivery
system and media that you utilize. The S & S system works well
because the gravel flood and drain beds function as a built-in
biofilter and provide a substrate for the plants. If you wanted to
use NFT or other media or delivery systems like a drip system you
would need to have this biofiltration occur elsewhere in the process.
In conversations with Jim Rakocy about using aquaculture effluent with
perlite or NFT systems his concern has always been based on his
experience with filamentous bacteria (don't ou love these technical
terms) which plug emmitters and gum up the grow beds. Biodigestion
eliminates the filamentous bacteria and the nutrient can be used in a
drip, NFT, flood and drain or float system.
Adriana
| Message 2
Subject: Crystal Violet Lactone Thermochromic Paint- article in New Scientist
From: "TGTX"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:39:31 -0500
This was forwarded to me today.
I thought my aquaponic friends out there could envision an energy conserving
function using this paint on masonary (thermal mass) stem walls, back walls,
and even above grade concrete fish tank exteriors within the greenhouse
Thermochromic paints to heat and cool your house automatically.
http://www.newscientist.com/dailynews/news.jsp?id=ns9999638
Cool colours - A new paint can cool your home in summer and warm it up
in winter
Exclusive from New Scientist magazine
Paint that cools your home in the heat of the summer and warms it up in
winter has been developed by researchers in China. Not only will the
paint reduce your heating bills, it will also change the colour of your
home to match the season.
Developed by Yiping Ma and his colleagues at Tongji University in
Shanghai, the coating absorbs heat from the Sun when the temperature
drops below 20 0C, helping to warm the building.
But when the temperature rises above 20 0C the coating automatically
starts to reflect sunlight to keep the building cool.
The coating also changes colour with the seasons. "There are different
seasons in nature, so that cool tones are preferred in summer and warm
tones in winter," explains Ma. He thinks people will want blue colours
when the weather is hot and reds in the depths of winter.
To develop pigments with the right properties Ma looked at a number of
thermochromic substances. Most of them changed colour at too high a
temperature to be useful for domestic paint, but a substance called
crystal violet lactone produces a variety of hues, from red to green to
blue, at close to room temperature.
In order to prevent crystal violet lactone from reacting with chemicals
in the paint, Ma encapsulated the pigment in a transparent polymer and
then stirred it into a standard wall paint. The paint has a noticeable
effect on the internal temperature of a typical house, says Ma.
"The coating can increase the temperature by about 4 0C in winter, and
can decrease the temperature by about 8 0C in summer," explains Ma.
"I haven't come across anything that adapts in this way," says Mike
Wilson, director of the Low Energy Architecture Research Unit at the
University of North London.
"Ideally though, the colours of the coating would change from black to
white, as far as solar absorption is concerned." But, he adds, colour is
important in designing buildings and people might not like buildings
that turn from black to white.
"My final goal is to use this sort of coating in buildings to create a
thermally comfortable environment without consuming any fossil fuel,"
says Ma.
In the meantime he is working to improve the durability of the coating.
He currently estimates that buildings will have to be repainted every
four years for the coating to remain effective.
| Message 3
Subject: preserving lettuce
From: laberge 'at' cil.qc.ca (LABERGE MARC)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:27:23 -0400
Can anyone give me advice on how to preserve Boston lettuce once harvested.
Is hydroponic or aquaponic lettuce much more difficult to preserve than
earth grown lettuce ? The restaurant I give my lettuce to say that it does
not last more than a few days. At the moment, I remove the roots in order to
gather research data and can not change that for the time being.
Marc Laberge
Mont Tremblant
Quebec , Canada
| Message 4
Subject: Re: Unlinking Systems
From: "TGTX"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:06:43 -0500
> Paula, in your gravel beds you are essentially running a biodigester
> so there probably is a 30-60 day lag time.
> > As you know, the process in a gravel-based system is constantly
> composting.
Adrianna, I think we agree that the highly oxygenated pea gravel beds are
aerobically digesting the solids. My understanding... of my system at
least, is that 90 to99% of the gravel bed vertical depth is an oxidizing
environment, perhaps 100% if I don't slam it with feed to hard, but with
perhaps only a few microzones or a few millimeters or perhaps a centimeter
of low oxygen, or borderline anaerobic, reducing environment, perhaps at the
very bottom of the gravel bed.
Therefore, the use of the term "biodigester", while accurate, perhaps in
this case should be clarified to mean an aerobic digestion process, as
opposed to an "anaerobic digester" step which we have been discussing. That
is more for me....to keep my head screwed on straight so I know what we are
talking about.
> > The fish effluent pumped into the beds today is not what the plants
> are
> > uptaking, so even though the input side is "immediately affected",
> the
> > nutrient supply is not.
Well, I disagree to a certain degree. Obviously the inorganic nitrogen
(ammonia) excreted by the fish is instantaneously generated and is input
directly into the water column. Fish urine certainly has Potassium,
Calcium, and Magnesium in it as simple ions, so that is immediately
available as well. Also, the feces begin decomposing, with bacterial
assistance, partially into ammonia, as an example, rather swiftly as anyone
who has confined fish into a stagnant tank and let the feed and feces and
waste accumulate for a day or so can attest
And so, some amount of ammonia etc., is always going directly to the grow
beds....every 30 minutes or so. The bacteria attack the 5 to 200 micron
suspended solids instantaneously, more or less, and so there is a process of
nutrient transformation that begins as soon as the pellet hits the water and
is ingested, and even inside the gut of the animal. This is not to say that
the 100% of the solids are instantly transformed into inorganic nutrients,
obviously, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Westerman, Hinshaw and Barker wrote a paper on trout characterization and
nitrogen mineralization rate. They found that a 21-week aerobic
"incubation" of a low nitrogen content manure (0.8% dry matter) with soil
indicated potentially available nitrogen for growing crops to be about 20%
of nitrogen in the manure. The 21-week aerobic incubation also showed a
relatively steady mineralization of nitrogen for about 16 weeks, indicating
the trout manure is a good "slow release" fertilizer. I am pretty sure that
Westerman et. al did not enjoy the benefits of using an ebb and flow
aquaponic bed as their incubation system. I suspect that it was an aqueous
or 100% water saturated soil-trout feces incubation, and that even if they
claim it was aerobic, it may not have seen a very high level of direct
oxygen-particulate contact that an ebb and flow gravel bed would have, which
subjects the captured solids to high levels of oxygen, which , as you know,
fires up the rate of aerobic decomposition. That is why the more frequently
we turn a compost bed, the quicker it will flash off as CO2 from rapid
decomposition rates
In recirculation aquaculture systems that use trickling towers, which I call
"bio-towers", or systems that use rotating biological contactors (RBCs), the
oxygen required by the filter to "digest" stuff and/or nitrifying
nitrogenous waste (from ammonia to nitrite to nitrate) is gained through
diffusion of gaseous oxygen from the atomosphere surrounding the filter.
With an ebb and flow pea gravel aquaponics bed, we are doing much the same
kind of thing such as we see happening in the biotowers and RBCs. I believe
these kinds of systems "burn" or aerobically digest solids faster than
totally submerged or 100% constant water saturated porus biofilter media
methods.
My opinion.
Craig Tucker at Mississipi State University Delta Branch Experiment Station
wrote a paper on the Quality of Potential Effluents from Channel Catfish
Culture Ponds.
He said "concentrations of wastes in catfish ponds are not as high" (as
would be calculated or expected) "based on simple material budgets because
nitrogen is continually lost as a gas through denitrification and ammonia
volitalization, phosphorus is adsorbed by bottom muds, and organic matter is
continuously oxidized during microbial decomposition processes"
G.L. Olson wrote a paper on the use of trout manure as a ferlizer for crops
in Idaho. He found that yields from spring wheat plots in a greenhouse
environment at a rate of 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre were not different
than yields from plots fertilized with a commercial (inorganic salt)
fertilizer at a rate of 100 pound of nitrogen per acre, and yields from
plots fertilized with fish manure at rates of 200 and 300 pounds per acre
were significantly higher than those in plots with comparable rates of
commercial fertilizer. In his study, he claimed that "fish manure must be
applied at higher rates in order to produce comparable results to commercial
fertilizer, since most (about 90%) of the nitrogen in fish manure(solids) is
in the organic form and is not available during the first year of
production."
Well, let's see how an aquaponic system might accelerate the processes
Tucker refers to, and how an aquaponic system might differ significantly
from Olson's work on soil plats within a greenhouse.
Approximately 300 grams of solid waste (dry weight basis) is generated per
1000 grams (1kilogram) of fish food added to a recirculation aquaculture
system. Let us say we have 100 kilograms (about 220.5 lbs) of standing crop
in fish biomass in a given culture tank which is linked to an aquaponic
gravel bed. Assume that we are feeding them only 1% of their body weight
per day, so, we are feeding the system 1 kilogram per day, and this
generates 300 grams of solid waste per day (this is about 3/4 of a pound for
us British and North American peoples).
Now, let us say we have a conical bottom fish tank, like Tom and Paula use,
so that all of the solid waste that can settle, which accounts for the
majority the solids which are generated, is pumped directly to a gravel bed
with the submersible pump sitting right at the bottom of the tank. So
every...oh...30 minutes or so, the pump kicks on for 5 minutes and sucks all
the settled solids out that have accumulated in the last 30 minutes since
the pump was last on, and also a considerable fraction of the tank volume
along with the suspended solids in that volume of water is pumped out. Now,
we are doing this at least 48 times a day (24 hours times twice an hour).
For the sake of discussion, let us say that this process is 100% efficient
at removing the solids and the soluble waste products, such as ammonia, from
the tank. From experience with water clarity in my system, which is not,
or was not, identical to Tom and Paulas, I can say that the particulate
removal process is very efficient at comparable feeding and pumping rates.
Now, let us say we have.....Hmmm....what size bed? Let me cut and snip from
an earlier post of mine to the list so that I can develop my discussion of
this a little better....
How about 2 beds 4 foot wide by 32 feet long by 6 inches deep, or some
variation of that? That's about 128 cubic feet of 1/4" pea gravel, giving
you a presumed
biofilter surface area of 25,600 sq.ft., which should be enough for 73 lbs
of fish at the 350 ft^2 surface area to 1 lb rule if it were a conventional
nitrifying biofilter. This is where I really question the 350 ft^2 rule of
thumb that I have heard about sometimes. Approx. 350 ft^2 surface area of
biofilter medium per 1 lb fish cultured has been used by some to design
conventional
biofilters....I believe you can get by with much less biofilter surface area
per pound of fish flesh represented by the gravel only within an aquaponic
system because the root surfaces are providing an unknown but presumably
very high surface area in the voids or pores of the pea gravel, and the
roots are actively assimilating nitrogenous wastes alongside of the
nitrifying bacteria present on the gravel and in the fish tank water.
Now, back to the solids.....assuming 100% solids removal efficiency.....we
have 300 grams of solid waste as a very fine slurry....the particles that
have settled out at the bottom of the fish tank might be oh....250 to 500
microns in size, some a little bigger, some a little smaller, but anyway
this fine suspension is forceably sucked up, blended, (mechanically shearing
the particles down even smaller) and then piped and trickled over, and
reasonably evenly distributed over a very large surface area. Imagine that
we unfold the surface area of the gravel (I remember those lessons in grade
school biology class where Mrs. Combest told us that the human lung has
acres and acres of surface area, and that we have miles and miles of
capillaries.....Thank you, Dear Mrs. Combest, I was listening, even if I was
gazing outside at the Mockingbirds fighting in the trees, or at Vickie's
beautiful red hair and ruby lips).
Now let's take our 300 grams of solid waste and imagine that we have
atomized it into a mist and 100% perfectly (HA!!) evenly, uniformly,
distributed it over our unfolded gravel surface area of a little over a half
acre. Given the specific gravity of fish feces reported by S. Chen, et.al,
of 1.19 grams/cubic centimeter, we have about...hummmmm...gotta go ask
Jethro Bodine to cypher this one out.....oh, he's useless....he's out back
by the cement aquaponics pond smokin' crawdads again with Ellie
May.....guess I'll have to do this one my own self....so that works out to
be.252.1 cubic centimeters...which would make a uniform film of.....
on a flat surface of 25,600 square feet (2379 square meters, or23,790,000
square centimeters....that's 24 million folks)....uh.....let's see....
divide 252.1 cubic centimeters by 23,790,000 square centimeters take the
square root of Pi and add a dozen eggs, saute and serveand you have A
FILM that would be 0.1 microns thick, or smaller than a decent, run of the
mill bacterium. Check my math, even if it's 1 micron or 10, it is still a
damn thin film of organic matter onto a huge surface!!!
And what awaits this very diffuse slurry of particles? A hungry film of
screaming, respiring bacteria and other microorganisms several dozen or
hundreds of microns thick, maybe more, and let's see, perhaps 100,000
voracious earthworms, and literally dozens , or perhaps a bazillion acres or
hectares or square feet of plant root surface area ready to absorb, adsorb,
trap, and squeeze the nutrients out of that material coming into the grow
bed.
And every time the grow bed drains out, BANG! you get a big honking
"lungful" of fresh air and oxygen. Next flooding, BANG! The excess CO2 from
decomposition is blown out of the pore spaces of the gravel to be absorbed
by the plants which form a thick tropical jungle canopy above the biofilter.
Next drain, BANG! the oxygen diffuses into the biofilm on the gravel and
fuels the respiratory fires of that biological jungle camped out on those
mineral pebbles. We have a living breathing biofilter with the plants
taking every opportunity they can to stockpile the nutrients into their
vascular system and start building vegetation, root mass, and even flowers
and fruits...and interesting secondary metabolites.
Sure, you can have solids accumulations if you dump too much into the system
too quickly, but it ain't rocket science. It is readily de-mystified if you
operate it for a while..kinda like Zen and the art of motorcycle
maintenacne It's actually about as easy as playing softball or taking
that switch back road on a Norton Blackshadow motorcycle just right...it is
hard to describe, but fairly easy to learn. Have I ever encountered sludge
or water quality problems? Sure. Did I always operate the system in a
patient and conscientious manner? Not always, and the consequences were that
I had some problems. But these systems can be designed and operated in a
manner that a few exuberant errors are "forgiven"...It is fairly resilient
and robust. It takes an average human brain to operate it, though.
I hope this provides at least anecdotal evidence that the system can work
without anaerobic digestion being an absolute necessity. I think an isotope
study would be fascinating so that we could model carbon, sulfur, potassium,
phosphorus, and nitrogen dynamics in these systems. Acridine dye
fluorescent studies of biofilms would be another fascinating visualization
and journey into that jungle that lives on the gravel.
I have always wanted to do that, haven't you?
I am very interested in the anaerobic digestion angle, and am not altogether
unfamiliar with its pros and cons. This is very interesting discussion
material.
Thank you, Raul and Adrianna for this stimulating opportunity to think about
such things.
Comparing and contrasting different ecosystems helps us to better appreciate
the structure and function of the elements as well as the aggregate and/or
synergetic performance of the systems as "ordered" by selected element
ratios and rates.
Have a grand weekend.
Ted
| Message 5
Subject: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
From: "TGTX"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:23:58 -0500
Could someone with a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering or Physics, if you are
out there, please interpret this for me? Is this snake oil? Bogus? or
promising?
http://www.linearinfo.com/update2.html
| Message 6
Subject: The Dome Calculator
From: "TGTX"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:58:42 -0500
I think Bill Patrick once asked me if I knew of fairly cheap way to build a
non-conventionally-shaped greenhouse for his backyard greenhouse. Well, I
suppose you could make a geodesic dome out of grey PVC electrical conduit,
with "hubs" made of sheet metal, aluminum or FRP (fiberglas reinforced
plastic) paneling material. Wrap someTuff Lite 6 mil polyethylene
greenhouse film over the top and there you are. Gotta figure out a way to
ventilate it, but that should be no hill for a stepper. Is this worth all
that effort, over that of a conventional quonset hoop structure? Well, I
guess that it depends on how much you value the non-conventionality factor.
Check this site out:
http://www.desertdomes.com/domecalc.html
| Message 7
Subject: RE: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
From: "billevans"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:40:45 -0700
looks like ya gotta go "don unda" to view "it" by special appointment.
looks like tesla snake oil
http://www.linearinfo.com/update2.html
| Message 8
Subject: Resend - preserving lettuce
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:54:56 -0500
I'm resending this message -- must have been a major hub down on the
internet -- at least 1/4 of the mail group had bounce messages!
Paula
--------------------------------
>From: laberge 'at' cil.qc.ca (LABERGE MARC)
>To: "aqua"
>Subject: preserving lettuce
>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:27:23 -0400
>
>Can anyone give me advice on how to preserve Boston lettuce once harvested.
>Is hydroponic or aquaponic lettuce much more difficult to preserve than
>earth grown lettuce ? The restaurant I give my lettuce to say that it does
>not last more than a few days. At the moment, I remove the roots in order to
>gather research data and can not change that for the time being.
>Marc Laberge
>Mont Tremblant
>Quebec , Canada
>
| Message 9
Subject: Re: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
From: marc 'at' aculink.net
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 14:12:07 -0600
I think high school choir and tone deaf would suffice.
Marc
TGTX wrote:
>
> Could someone with a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering or Physics, if you are
> out there, please interpret this for me? Is this snake oil? Bogus? or
> promising?
>
> http://www.linearinfo.com/update2.html
| Message 10
Subject: Re: Resend - preserving lettuce
From: "Adriana Gutierrez"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 15:42:30 -0500
Marc,
Are you chilling the lettuce down to 32-40 degrees F within 30 min. of
cutting? That made a huge difference in the shelf life of my baby
greens. Also don't leave any cut product in direct sun between
cutting and cooling. OIf you have to, cover the heads with a cloth.
Adriana
> >Can anyone give me advice on how to preserve Boston lettuce once
harvested.
> >Is hydroponic or aquaponic lettuce much more difficult to preserve
than
> >earth grown lettuce ? The restaurant I give my lettuce to say that
it does
> >not last more than a few days. At the moment, I remove the roots in
order to
> >gather research data and can not change that for the time being.
| Message 11
Subject: Re: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
From: "Inn 'at' Six"
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:25:15 +1000
I'm not in a position to know either --maybe only=20
fools
without the technical expertise to evaluate it will be the
first to condemn it -- but when not sure about the product
it's often a good idea to look at the people behind it. And
if that doesn't instill any confidence, move on ....
And if it's based in a Surfer's Paradise. QLD Post Office box
be extra careful since there and surrouds is the alleged home
of the infamous White Shoe Brigade who will fleece you blind
given half a chance! <g>
If your still interested in Aussie Alt. Energy, Nimbin -- capital of
the counter culture, pioneers in alt. living and energy systems --
might be a good place to look. There's a great photo about but not
seen on their web site of a/the founder operating his first
invention
based on a push-bike, hence his nickname: Peter the Peddler, and
the company is called, what else but, the Rainbow Power Company:
http://www.rpc.com.au/
Rob
<quote>
Rainbow Power Company Ltd is an unlisted public company,
incorporated
in 1987 to design, manufacture, sell and install renewable energy
equipment
based on solar, wind, hydro and biomass energy sources.
The company is one of the largest and most experienced Renewable
Energy
companies in Australia, with a workforce of experienced and dedicated
staff.
Based in Northern NSW on the East coast of Australia, the company's
headquarters are unique in the southern hemisphere. Designed as a
working
demonstration of the technology it sells, and as a complete centre for
its operations,
it houses not only Rainbow Power Company but also its subsidiary company
RESHAPE Pty Ltd, and associate company Energy From Nature Home Pty
Ltd.
<endquote>
At 02:23 AM 23/04/2001 , you wrote:
>Could someone with a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering or Physics, if
you are
>out there, please interpret this for me?=A0 Is this snake oil?=A0 Bogus?
or
>promising?
>
>
http://www.linearinfo.com/update2.html
| Message 12
Subject: Re: A different aproach to aquaponics
From: "STEVE SPRING"
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:18:40 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C0CB61.09DB3100
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Now that's a novel approach. "A kit you can buy." Wow, somebody else =
has something to sell.
When Paula and/or Adrianna says this is something to look at, I will. =
Until then, it is just somebody trying to sell something.
Steve
----- Original Message -----=20
From: REMARCINC 'at' aol.com=20
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com=20
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 8:02 AM
Subject: A different aproach to aquaponics
here is a link to the Living Technologies aquaponics project in =
Vermont. =20
They have a bit different idea about this- and also have a "kit" you =
can buy=20
for schools. Ocean Arks International : or http://www.oceanarks.org.=20
Kricket Smith-Gary=20
remarc inc.,Yankee Site Services=20
1692 Waddy Rd=20
Lawrenceburg, KY 40342=20
502-839-4425=20
502-839-9655 fax=20
remarcinc 'at' AOL.COM=20
http://www.remarcinc.com=20
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C0CB61.09DB3100
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Now that's a novel approach. "A kit you =
can buy."=20
Wow, somebody else has something to sell.
When Paula and/or Adrianna says this is =
something=20
to look at, I will. Until then, it is just somebody trying to sell=20
something.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From:=20
REMARCINC 'at' aol.com
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 =
8:02=20
AM
Subject: A different aproach to =
aquaponics
here is a link to the Living Technologies aquaponics =
project in=20
Vermont.
They have a bit different idea about this- and =
also have a=20
"kit" you can buy
for schools. Ocean =
Arks=20
International : or http://www.oceanarks.org. =
Kricket=20
Smith-Gary
remarc inc.,Yankee Site Services
1692 Waddy Rd=20
Lawrenceburg, KY 40342
502-839-4425
502-839-9655 fax=20
remarcinc 'at' AOL.COM
http://www.remarcinc.com=20
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C0CB61.09DB3100--
| Message 13
Subject: Re: preserving lettuce
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 19:19:54 -0500
At 11:27 AM 04/22/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Can anyone give me advice on how to preserve Boston lettuce once harvested.
>Is hydroponic or aquaponic lettuce much more difficult to preserve than
>earth grown lettuce ? The restaurant I give my lettuce to say that it does
>not last more than a few days. At the moment, I remove the roots in order to
>gather research data and can not change that for the time being.
>Marc Laberge
>Mont Tremblant
>Quebec , Canada
Marc - are you washing your lettuce? I don't believe the type of growing
(hydro, aqua or soil), but some times washing greens contributes to cell
structure degration, which would reduce your shelf life. If you are
washing, are you using a spin dryer? Is it set properly to function
without harsh treatment to the lettuces?
Adriana wrote:
>Are you chilling the lettuce down to 32-40 degrees F within 30 min. of
>cutting? That made a huge difference in the shelf life of my baby
>greens. Also don't leave any cut product in direct sun between
>cutting and cooling. OIf you have to, cover the heads with a cloth.
>
and I'll second that. I don't know what conditions you're harvesting in,
but heat and sunlight can cause damage as well. How long are you holding
the lettuce before chilling, and is there some way to adjust the process?
Removing the roots alone should not be cause for a short storage life. Even
our cut lettuce/greens mixes would last over a week for our retail customers
in home refrigerators. Have you been to the restaurant to check out their
storage/usage methods?
We had a lot of complaints about spoiled basil at one time, but found that
the broker was putting the product in the cooler with the other vegetables
(can we all say instant black mush?). I'd be interested in your process as
well as that of the restaurant. If they're using from a mixed box, but
leaving the product in the kitchen during the entire lunch/dinner rush, that
could also be causing some of the problem.
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: Unlinking Systems
From: Raul Vergueiro Martins
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:04:52 +0100
Hi Adriana:
Adriana Gutierrez wrote:
> Hi Paula,
> I'm hoping Raul will step in here and help us with his 20 years of
> research on this. I see his name on my list of unopened e-mails.
> > Are there citations for the superiority of pre-biodigested nutrients
> over
> > nutrients biogested in growbeds? We're aware of the EM Technologies
> > process, but are there other studies?
>
> Flavor is a very subjective thing. I suspect that the flavor
> differences are more like what Jay Myers found when he compared some
> of his products grown in his hydro systems to the same grown in his
> aquaponics beds. I believe it was true for strawberries and tomatoes.
> So my sense is that flavor probably would not be superior to aquaponic
> produce. The only way I know to test flavor, and it is a crude
> measure at that is with a Brix meter. I had an old guy visit me at my
> greenhouse in Florida who ran some of my greens through his meter and
> he said they compared favorably to organically grown produce. I think
> he was quite surprised that it tested so high. Maybe Raul can share
> his experience with this as well.
> > Have there been studies to show flavor differences? Perhaps I'm not
> staying
> > in touch with the proper research. Do you have some resource to
> share?
Yes, Adriana, flavour is a very subjective thing.
The Brix meter can tell you how much sugar you have in a product, but this doesn't mean
that that product tastes better than another one.
One thing we can say with no doubts. At least in what regards to our western habits,
vegetables and fruits produced, wich were partially or totally fed with organic originated
fertilizers, taste and smell much better than those fed with completely inorganic
fertilizers.
May be some of us don't remeber the taste and smell of those fruits and vegetables our
grandfathers produced with old traditional systems, and may be some of us have never eated
them, and so can not make the difference.
But there is a great difference in taste and smell. The old ones are much better.
> Paula, in your gravel beds you are essentially running a biodigester
> so there probably is a 30-60 day lag time.
> > As you know, the process in a gravel-based system is constantly
> composting.
> > The fish effluent pumped into the beds today is not what the plants
> are
> > uptaking, so even though the input side is "immediately affected",
> the
> > nutrient supply is not. Unless you have a long shut-down time of
> fresh
> > effluent being input, or if you completely stop watering the grow
> beds, the
> > one need not necessarily cause a system "crash".
>
> Amen! You can't make up negative margins on volume.
> > As for supplying any of the large discount
> > chains, that's been the death knell for many traditional growers.
> Besides
> > the unreasonable demands, the price paid is very difficult to
> survive on
> > without extensive mechanization, at least as I've been told.
>
> I like your approach "Sir, it's not a GREENHOUSE, it's a FILTER!" :>)
> >Have you approached them for a permit for an aquaculture facility
> (under
> >roof), that uses plant filtration instead of mechanical?
>
> The delicate sequence and balance are built into the design of the
> biodigester itself. Like any other piece of equipment which involves
> living systems, it needs to be managed properly. I think Melvin
> Landers is close to getting one or two up and running somewhenre in
> Missouri.
> > >of activities involving natural bioorganisms" would indicate that
> there's a
> > learning curve for that portion of the technology as well.
>
> All in all, I think unlinking is a refinement of your concept which
> provides greater flexibility and may be more forgiving to the
> inexperienced operator. One other benefit of unlinking the systems is
> that I think you have more options in the type of nutrient delivery
> system and media that you utilize. The S & S system works well
> because the gravel flood and drain beds function as a built-in
> biofilter and provide a substrate for the plants. If you wanted to
> use NFT or other media or delivery systems like a drip system you
> would need to have this biofiltration occur elsewhere in the process.
> In conversations with Jim Rakocy about using aquaculture effluent with
> perlite or NFT systems his concern has always been based on his
> experience with filamentous bacteria (don't ou love these technical
> terms) which plug emmitters and gum up the grow beds. Biodigestion
> eliminates the filamentous bacteria and the nutrient can be used in a
> drip, NFT, flood and drain or float system.
>
> Adriana
Raul Vergueiro Martins
rvm 'at' sti.com.br
| Message 15
Subject: Re: Unlinking Systems
From: Raul Vergueiro Martins
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:05:07 +0100
Hi Ted:
TGTX wrote:
> > Paula, in your gravel beds you are essentially running a biodigester
> > so there probably is a 30-60 day lag time.
> > > As you know, the process in a gravel-based system is constantly
> > composting.
>
> Adrianna, I think we agree that the highly oxygenated pea gravel beds are
> aerobically digesting the solids. My understanding... of my system at
> least, is that 90 to99% of the gravel bed vertical depth is an oxidizing
> environment, perhaps 100% if I don't slam it with feed to hard, but with
> perhaps only a few microzones or a few millimeters or perhaps a centimeter
> of low oxygen, or borderline anaerobic, reducing environment, perhaps at the
> very bottom of the gravel bed.
You are right. Anaerobic digestion in a gravel bed system is very remote, and sometimes
quite impossible
> Therefore, the use of the term "biodigester", while accurate, perhaps in
> this case should be clarified to mean an aerobic digestion process, as
> opposed to an "anaerobic digester" step which we have been discussing. That
> is more for me....to keep my head screwed on straight so I know what we are
> talking about.
The gravel beds are biodigester. As they act as a biofilter where the nitrifying process
takes place, they are biodigesters. A biofilter is a biodigester. It is an aerobic
biodigester, but it is a biodigester.
You can say that your gravel bed is an aerobic biodigester where you put some plants to
help in clearing your water from nitrates formed.
The fact that you have some zones of this biodigester that during some momments act as an
anaerobic biodigester does not mean that it is not aa aerobic biodigester.
On the other hand, an anaerobic biodigester works essencially with anaerobic bacteria (
that can or not be methanogenic ones).
But during some periods this anaerobic biodigester works as an aerobic biodigester, even
the digestion chamber is completely closed.
In our multiphase or multi chamber biodigesters, we divide these phases.
We have closed chambers, that at the the first sight seem to be anaerobic, but inside them
the digestion is essentially aerobic. And we have closed chambers where the digestion is
essentially anaerobic.
> > > The fish effluent pumped into the beds today is not what the plants
> > are
> > > uptaking, so even though the input side is "immediately affected",
> > the
> > > nutrient supply is not.
>
> Well, I disagree to a certain degree. Obviously the inorganic nitrogen
> (ammonia) excreted by the fish is instantaneously generated and is input
> directly into the water column. Fish urine certainly has Potassium,
> Calcium, and Magnesium in it as simple ions, so that is immediately
> available as well. Also, the feces begin decomposing, with bacterial
> assistance, partially into ammonia, as an example, rather swiftly as anyone
> who has confined fish into a stagnant tank and let the feed and feces and
> waste accumulate for a day or so can attest
You are right till a certain point. Nitrogen can react very rapidly and can be
transformed in compounds that dissolve and ionize in water, so being immediatly used by
plants.
But the same doesn't happen with all the Calcium and with all the Magnesium.
It is a common problem the Magnesium and Calcium deficiencies in plants (specially with
fruit plants like tomatoes), when using fish efluents.
If you analyse the solution, these elements are there in good quantities, but in forms
that are not taken by plants.
If you make a good analisys, you will generally find these elements as organo-mineral
compounds, that are dissolved but not ionized. They are in large chain organic and
organo-mineral compounds, that plants can't absorb.
That is why in Aquaponic systems you produce very well the greens, but fruits become a
problem.
I don't mean that you can't produce tomatoes, peppers or similar ones. But for a large
commercial production that would be a problem.
Just for curiosity, Jim Rackocy in his system, corrects the pH of the water with Calcium
Hydroxide.
> And so, some amount of ammonia etc., is always going directly to the grow
> beds....every 30 minutes or so. The bacteria attack the 5 to 200 micron
> suspended solids instantaneously, more or less, and so there is a process of
> nutrient transformation that begins as soon as the pellet hits the water and
> is ingested, and even inside the gut of the animal. This is not to say that
> the 100% of the solids are instantly transformed into inorganic nutrients,
> obviously, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>
> Westerman, Hinshaw and Barker wrote a paper on trout characterization and
> nitrogen mineralization rate. They found that a 21-week aerobic
> "incubation" of a low nitrogen content manure (0.8% dry matter) with soil
> indicated potentially available nitrogen for growing crops to be about 20%
> of nitrogen in the manure. The 21-week aerobic incubation also showed a
> relatively steady mineralization of nitrogen for about 16 weeks, indicating
> the trout manure is a good "slow release" fertilizer. I am pretty sure that
> Westerman et. al did not enjoy the benefits of using an ebb and flow
> aquaponic bed as their incubation system. I suspect that it was an aqueous
> or 100% water saturated soil-trout feces incubation, and that even if they
> claim it was aerobic, it may not have seen a very high level of direct
> oxygen-particulate contact that an ebb and flow gravel bed would have, which
> subjects the captured solids to high levels of oxygen, which , as you know,
> fires up the rate of aerobic decomposition. That is why the more frequently
> we turn a compost bed, the quicker it will flash off as CO2 from rapid
> decomposition rates
>
> In recirculation aquaculture systems that use trickling towers, which I call
> "bio-towers", or systems that use rotating biological contactors (RBCs), the
> oxygen required by the filter to "digest" stuff and/or nitrifying
> nitrogenous waste (from ammonia to nitrite to nitrate) is gained through
> diffusion of gaseous oxygen from the atomosphere surrounding the filter.
> With an ebb and flow pea gravel aquaponics bed, we are doing much the same
> kind of thing such as we see happening in the biotowers and RBCs. I believe
> these kinds of systems "burn" or aerobically digest solids faster than
> totally submerged or 100% constant water saturated porus biofilter media
> methods.
> My opinion.
>
> Craig Tucker at Mississipi State University Delta Branch Experiment Station
> wrote a paper on the Quality of Potential Effluents from Channel Catfish
> Culture Ponds.
> He said "concentrations of wastes in catfish ponds are not as high" (as
> would be calculated or expected) "based on simple material budgets because
> nitrogen is continually lost as a gas through denitrification and ammonia
> volitalization, phosphorus is adsorbed by bottom muds, and organic matter is
> continuously oxidized during microbial decomposition processes"
>
> G.L. Olson wrote a paper on the use of trout manure as a ferlizer for crops
> in Idaho. He found that yields from spring wheat plots in a greenhouse
> environment at a rate of 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre were not different
> than yields from plots fertilized with a commercial (inorganic salt)
> fertilizer at a rate of 100 pound of nitrogen per acre, and yields from
> plots fertilized with fish manure at rates of 200 and 300 pounds per acre
> were significantly higher than those in plots with comparable rates of
> commercial fertilizer. In his study, he claimed that "fish manure must be
> applied at higher rates in order to produce comparable results to commercial
> fertilizer, since most (about 90%) of the nitrogen in fish manure(solids) is
> in the organic form and is not available during the first year of
> production."
>
> Well, let's see how an aquaponic system might accelerate the processes
> Tucker refers to, and how an aquaponic system might differ significantly
> from Olson's work on soil plats within a greenhouse.
>
> Approximately 300 grams of solid waste (dry weight basis) is generated per
> 1000 grams (1kilogram) of fish food added to a recirculation aquaculture
> system. Let us say we have 100 kilograms (about 220.5 lbs) of standing crop
> in fish biomass in a given culture tank which is linked to an aquaponic
> gravel bed. Assume that we are feeding them only 1% of their body weight
> per day, so, we are feeding the system 1 kilogram per day, and this
> generates 300 grams of solid waste per day (this is about 3/4 of a pound for
> us British and North American peoples).
>
> Now, let us say we have a conical bottom fish tank, like Tom and Paula use,
> so that all of the solid waste that can settle, which accounts for the
> majority the solids which are generated, is pumped directly to a gravel bed
> with the submersible pump sitting right at the bottom of the tank. So
> every...oh...30 minutes or so, the pump kicks on for 5 minutes and sucks all
> the settled solids out that have accumulated in the last 30 minutes since
> the pump was last on, and also a considerable fraction of the tank volume
> along with the suspended solids in that volume of water is pumped out. Now,
> we are doing this at least 48 times a day (24 hours times twice an hour).
> For the sake of discussion, let us say that this process is 100% efficient
> at removing the solids and the soluble waste products, such as ammonia, from
> the tank. From experience with water clarity in my system, which is not,
> or was not, identical to Tom and Paulas, I can say that the particulate
> removal process is very efficient at comparable feeding and pumping rates.
>
> Now, let us say we have.....Hmmm....what size bed? Let me cut and snip from
> an earlier post of mine to the list so that I can develop my discussion of
> this a little better....
>
> How about 2 beds 4 foot wide by 32 feet long by 6 inches deep, or some
> variation of that? That's about 128 cubic feet of 1/4" pea gravel, giving
> you a presumed
> biofilter surface area of 25,600 sq.ft., which should be enough for 73 lbs
> of fish at the 350 ft^2 surface area to 1 lb rule if it were a conventional
> nitrifying biofilter. This is where I really question the 350 ft^2 rule of
> thumb that I have heard about sometimes. Approx. 350 ft^2 surface area of
> biofilter medium per 1 lb fish cultured has been used by some to design
> conventional
> biofilters....I believe you can get by with much less biofilter surface area
> per pound of fish flesh represented by the gravel only within an aquaponic
> system because the root surfaces are providing an unknown but presumably
> very high surface area in the voids or pores of the pea gravel, and the
> roots are actively assimilating nitrogenous wastes alongside of the
> nitrifying bacteria present on the gravel and in the fish tank water.
>
> Now, back to the solids.....assuming 100% solids removal efficiency.....we
> have 300 grams of solid waste as a very fine slurry....the particles that
> have settled out at the bottom of the fish tank might be oh....250 to 500
> microns in size, some a little bigger, some a little smaller, but anyway
> this fine suspension is forceably sucked up, blended, (mechanically shearing
> the particles down even smaller) and then piped and trickled over, and
> reasonably evenly distributed over a very large surface area. Imagine that
> we unfold the surface area of the gravel (I remember those lessons in grade
> school biology class where Mrs. Combest told us that the human lung has
> acres and acres of surface area, and that we have miles and miles of
> capillaries.....Thank you, Dear Mrs. Combest, I was listening, even if I was
> gazing outside at the Mockingbirds fighting in the trees, or at Vickie's
> beautiful red hair and ruby lips).
>
> Now let's take our 300 grams of solid waste and imagine that we have
> atomized it into a mist and 100% perfectly (HA!!) evenly, uniformly,
> distributed it over our unfolded gravel surface area of a little over a half
> acre. Given the specific gravity of fish feces reported by S. Chen, et.al,
> of 1.19 grams/cubic centimeter, we have about...hummmmm...gotta go ask
> Jethro Bodine to cypher this one out.....oh, he's useless....he's out back
> by the cement aquaponics pond smokin' crawdads again with Ellie
> May.....guess I'll have to do this one my own self....so that works out to
> be.252.1 cubic centimeters...which would make a uniform film of.....
> on a flat surface of 25,600 square feet (2379 square meters, or23,790,000
> square centimeters....that's 24 million folks)....uh.....let's see....
> divide 252.1 cubic centimeters by 23,790,000 square centimeters take the
> square root of Pi and add a dozen eggs, saute and serveand you have A
> FILM that would be 0.1 microns thick, or smaller than a decent, run of the
> mill bacterium. Check my math, even if it's 1 micron or 10, it is still a
> damn thin film of organic matter onto a huge surface!!!
>
> And what awaits this very diffuse slurry of particles? A hungry film of
> screaming, respiring bacteria and other microorganisms several dozen or
> hundreds of microns thick, maybe more, and let's see, perhaps 100,000
> voracious earthworms, and literally dozens , or perhaps a bazillion acres or
> hectares or square feet of plant root surface area ready to absorb, adsorb,
> trap, and squeeze the nutrients out of that material coming into the grow
> bed.
>
> And every time the grow bed drains out, BANG! you get a big honking
> "lungful" of fresh air and oxygen. Next flooding, BANG! The excess CO2 from
> decomposition is blown out of the pore spaces of the gravel to be absorbed
> by the plants which form a thick tropical jungle canopy above the biofilter.
> Next drain, BANG! the oxygen diffuses into the biofilm on the gravel and
> fuels the respiratory fires of that biological jungle camped out on those
> mineral pebbles. We have a living breathing biofilter with the plants
> taking every opportunity they can to stockpile the nutrients into their
> vascular system and start building vegetation, root mass, and even flowers
> and fruits...and interesting secondary metabolites.
>
> Sure, you can have solids accumulations if you dump too much into the system
> too quickly, but it ain't rocket science. It is readily de-mystified if you
> operate it for a while..kinda like Zen and the art of motorcycle
> maintenacne It's actually about as easy as playing softball or taking
> that switch back road on a Norton Blackshadow motorcycle just right...it is
> hard to describe, but fairly easy to learn. Have I ever encountered sludge
> or water quality problems? Sure. Did I always operate the system in a
> patient and conscientious manner? Not always, and the consequences were that
> I had some problems. But these systems can be designed and operated in a
> manner that a few exuberant errors are "forgiven"...It is fairly resilient
> and robust. It takes an average human brain to operate it, though.
>
> I hope this provides at least anecdotal evidence that the system can work
> without anaerobic digestion being an absolute necessity. I think an isotope
> study would be fascinating so that we could model carbon, sulfur, potassium,
> phosphorus, and nitrogen dynamics in these systems. Acridine dye
> fluorescent studies of biofilms would be another fascinating visualization
> and journey into that jungle that lives on the gravel.
> I have always wanted to do that, haven't you?
I agree with all you said here, but if you can avoid the discharge of the solid part of
the efluent into the gravel beds, it would provide you a cleaner bed. You can even avoid
the use of earthworms in the system to increase its efficiency.
You can concentrate the solids in a closed anaerobic biodigester, and then discharge the
biofertilizer in the system.
I am not saying that the aerobic biodigestion would not do the job, because it will do it.
But the anaerobic biodigestion can be carried in a more compact system, more rapidly, with
a larger efficiency, and wit les losses of nutrients, specially those capable of forming
volatile compounds like Nitrogen is.
And if you consider a large commercial system, you can take advantage of that small
byproduct called biogas.
Biogas means methane and CO2, and this means energy and carbonic fertilization.
> I am very interested in the anaerobic digestion angle, and am not altogether
> unfamiliar with its pros and cons. This is very interesting discussion
> material.
>
> Thank you, Raul and Adrianna for this stimulating opportunity to think about
> such things.
> Comparing and contrasting different ecosystems helps us to better appreciate
> the structure and function of the elements as well as the aggregate and/or
> synergetic performance of the systems as "ordered" by selected element
> ratios and rates.
>
> Have a grand weekend.
Have a great weekend too.
Raul Vergueiro Martins
rvm 'at' sti.com.br
| Message 16
Subject: Re[2]: Aussie Alternative Energy Device: Linear Energy Corp.
From: Lamar Zabielski
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:21:56 -0600
Hello Rob,
Is S&S snake oil? To find out, that's why I joined the
list.
Check out;
http://www.worldandi.com/public/2001/April/nuclear.html
Hey Folks; don't be Luddites.
We are in the first minute of the next hour!
Lamar
===================================================
I'm not in a position to know either --maybe only
fools
without the technical expertise to evaluate it will be the
first to condemn it -- but when not sure about the product
it's often a good idea to look at the people behind it. And
if that doesn't instill any confidence, move on ....
And if it's based in a Surfer's Paradise. QLD Post Office box
be extra careful since there and surrouds is the alleged home
of the infamous White Shoe Brigade who will fleece you blind
given half a chance!
If your still interested in Aussie Alt. Energy, Nimbin -- capital of
the counter culture, pioneers in alt. living and energy systems --
might be a good place to look. There's a great photo about but not
seen on their web site of a/the founder operating his first
invention
based on a push-bike, hence his nickname: Peter the Peddler, and
the company is called, what else but, the Rainbow Power Company:
http://www.rpc.com.au/
Rob
Rainbow Power Company Ltd is an unlisted public company,
incorporated
in 1987 to design, manufacture, sell and install renewable energy
equipment
based on solar, wind, hydro and biomass energy sources.
The company is one of the largest and most experienced Renewable
Energy
companies in Australia, with a workforce of experienced and dedicated
staff.
Based in Northern NSW on the East coast of Australia, the company's
headquarters are unique in the southern hemisphere. Designed as a
working
demonstration of the technology it sells, and as a complete centre for
its operations,
it houses not only Rainbow Power Company but also its subsidiary company
RESHAPE Pty Ltd, and associate company Energy From Nature Home Pty
Ltd.
At 02:23 AM 23/04/2001 , you wrote:
>Could someone with a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering or Physics, if
you are
>out there, please interpret this for me? Is this snake oil? Bogus?
or
>promising?
>
>http://www.linearinfo.com/update2.html
Sunday, April 22, 2001, 5:25:15 PM, you wrote:
I'm not in a position to know either --maybe only
fools
without the technical expertise to evaluate it will be the
first to condemn it -- but when not sure about the product
it's often a good idea to look at the people behind it. And
if that doesn't instill any confidence, move on ....
And if it's based in a Surfer's Paradise. QLD Post Office box
be extra careful since there and surrouds is the alleged home
of the infamous White Shoe Brigade who will fleece you blind
given half a chance!
If your still interested in Aussie Alt. Energy, Nimbin -- capital of
the counter culture, pioneers in alt. living and energy systems --
might be a good place to look. There's a great photo about but not
seen on their web site of a/the founder operating his first
invention
based on a push-bike, hence his nickname: Peter the Peddler, and
the company is called, what else but, the Rainbow Power Company:
http://www.rpc.com.au/
Rob
Rainbow Power Company Ltd is an unlisted public company,
incorporated
in 1987 to design, manufacture, sell and install renewable energy
equipment
based on solar, wind, hydro and biomass energy sources.
The company is one of the largest and most experienced Renewable
Energy
companies in Australia, with a workforce of experienced and dedicated
staff.
Based in Northern NSW on the East coast of Australia, the company's
headquarters are unique in the southern hemisphere. Designed as a
working
demonstration of the technology it sells, and as a complete centre for
its operations,
it houses not only Rainbow Power Company but also its subsidiary company
RESHAPE Pty Ltd, and associate company Energy From Nature Home Pty
Ltd.
At 02:23 AM 23/04/2001 , you wrote:
>Could someone with a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering or Physics, if
you are
>out there, please interpret this for me? Is this snake oil? Bogus?
or
>promising?
>
>http://www.linearinfo.com/update2.html
--
Best regards,
Lamar
| Message 17
Subject: Re: Unlinking Systems
From: Raul Vergueiro Martins
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:42:24 +0100
Hello Paula and Adriana:
My mailer didn't send two of my last messages, as they were too long.
I gess one of them was this one, and so, I reduced it, and I'm sending it again.
Please do excuse me for that, and here is the message again:
Excuse me if this messege is somehow long, as I didn't erase a large part of it, for
subjects
to be well divided.
As a whole, I think that our task here is to improove a system, and not to develop a new
system or to destroy the existing systems.
S & S Aqua Farm wrote:
> Are there citations for the superiority of pre-biodigested nutrients over
> nutrients biogested in growbeds? We're aware of the EM Technologies
> process, but are there other studies?
I think that the point is not about the superiority of one biofertilizer ove others.
We can't talk too about pre-biodigested nutrients, but pre-biodigested organic matter.
The quality and composition of a biofertilizer depends on organic matter composition, and
when we consider that our organic matter is composed of animal wastes, this dependes too
of the animal considered, and how we feed said animal.
We can't expect a biofertilizer originated from fish wastes, to be equal or similar to the
one originated from terrestrial animals, and even with these ones, they are different from
one another.
In an Aquaponic system, we have a high charge of nitrogen processed in a biofilter,
resulting in a series of nitrates that once ionized in water, are readily available to
plants.
But there are other nutrients that are not processed in the biofilter, even they pass
trough it.
These other nutrients become available to plants, once the organic matter they are in, is
biodigested.
It doesn't matter if this digestion is aerobic or anaerobic. We need it for the other
nutrients to become available to plants, in the form of mineral inorganic compounds that
will dissolve and ionize in water.
And we need a good time for any of these digestions to take place.
In Paula's system, this happens in the gravel beds. I should analyse this process in
various phases, mainly in an aerobic ambient, with some possibilities of remote anaerobic
phases.
We have the nitrifiying phase, that is aerobic, and is directed to nitrogen excreted by
fish gills.
Than we have, at the same time, the digestion of the feces, that takes some time to occur,
because of its solid phase.
This is mainly processed aerobically, not only by oxigen present in the gravel
interstices, but due to small ammounts of it dissolved in water.
Due to the irrigation cicles, we can see, that we have not great intervals for an
anaerobic digestion to take place.
And there are many solids in the feces that take a long time to be aerobically
processed. They could be processed more rapidly, if we could have a long or medium time
processing with an anaerobic ambient.
Here, the earthworms Paula uses, play a great role in the process, as they can break many
solids in a more simple form of organic and organic-mineral compounds, that can be easier
to be decomposed in an aerobic ambient.
BUT, warm feces, even they have a neutral reaction, they must be biodecomposed too, for
their mineral content to be available to plants.
And so, with time, we have the build-up of slurries in the beds, said slurry very rich in
nutrients that are not available to plants.
So, to maintain the equilibrium in the whole system becomes very difficult. May be this
is easy for Paula, who has many years working with the system, but for a newbie, this will
be a hard task.
Jim Rackocy improoved the system, filtering the feces from the water. This filtering
operation drastically reduces feces present, and this reduction is limited by the
filtering screens size, and the efficiency of the water cyclone used.
But even so, he has minimum sized organic matter particles suspended in the system, wich
are aerobically decomposed in the water phase. This decomposition is mainly aerobic due
to the high oxigenation of the water, and in the lower part of the culture tanks, we can
believe that certainly we will have an anaerobic phase, sufficient to decompose the
minimum quantities of suspended solid organic matter.
This is a great improovement of the Aquaponic system, that permits us to use it with near
all the hydroponic systems.
What we pretend here, is to make another improovment, by separating the feces from the
water, processing them in a anaerobic biodigester, and returning the biofertilizer
obtained to the Aquaponic system, or to store it for it to be used in a parallel
hydroponic system.
In Paulas system, this would reduce or eliminate the formation of slurries, and would make
easier for us to maintain the equilibrium of the biomasses involved, as we would have a
stock of biofertilizer to be added to the water and to equilibrate the plant's system.
> >
> I can't say that we claim to "maintain an exquisite balance" in our system,
> but we've found that most problems can be attributed to oversupply or
> undersupply -- overfeeding at start-up, undersizing of the grow beds, or
> less plant growth than is necessary for the size of fish stocked. Most of
> these problems can be corrected by cycling the system with reduced input for
> a few days, allowing the system to balance itself. And actually I can't say
> that we can take credit for that -- allowing the natural systems time to
> recover is the most intervention that's usually necessary. It's when we
> overengineer (humans love to do this!) that we've seen problems.
I think that to accomplish this, we need a lot of skill from the system's operator.
For a high scale commercial unit, this would be a problem.
> Have there been studies to show flavor differences? Perhaps I'm not staying
> in touch with the proper research. Do you have some resource to share?
I think that studies about flavour differences would never bring us to a result, as this
depends of human taste.
Wat is good for someone, can't be to someone else.
> >Protection in case of a system crash
> As you know, the process in a gravel-based system is constantly composting.
> The fish effluent pumped into the beds today is not what the plants are
> uptaking, so even though the input side is "immediately affected", the
> nutrient supply is not. Unless you have a long shut-down time of fresh
> effluent being input, or if you completely stop watering the grow beds, the
> one need not necessarily cause a system "crash".
In the case of some fish diseases, for insurance, you must shut down the water flow to the
plants, as you are undesr the risk of contaminating plants with microbes that can be
harmfull to humans.
But, if you have an anaerobic biodigester, these microbes are destroyed during
biodigestion and in a final sanitizing of the biofertilizer ( a normal procedure), and you
can continue feeding your plants, with a paralell feeding system.
> It is also possible for the plant side of an operation to
> >crash - aphids or pest problems or a freeze or pump breakdown
> >sometimes require a premature clearing of growing beds to eliminate a
> >problem. An unscheduled reduction in plant volume will affect the
> >filtration of the fish effluent and could affect the water quality and
> >health of the fish.
>
> This can be the case, and would be most likely in a mono-crop situation. If
> you have mixed crops (which we usually encourage), most insect problems
> would not affect all of the multiple beds attached to one tank.
But if you have a fish disease in a tank, all the beds attached to that tank will be
affected
> Again, I'd like to suggest that the balance does not have to be as "fine" as
> you might think. We've found the systems to be very forgiving in many cases
> where our planning was not perfect.
I agree with you here, but is this possible in large commercial units?
> We encourage fish production, as you know, as a secondary product, with the
> primary being the plants/produce grown on the other side, and don't ever
> work to clear a system of fish at any time. If we do a mass harvest from a
> specific tank, we generally will have enough fish in another to split and
> still supply both systems.
Here is a point that many newbies don't understand.
We use fishes to produce our organic nutrient solution.
There are situations where we must be clear.
The first is the production of hydroponic "organic" plants, using fishes as the producers
of the "organic" nutrient solution. You sell plants, not fishes. Fishes are no more
than a byproduct.
The second, is the production of fishes, using plants to clean the water they live in.
You sell fishes, not plants.
And here, plants are no more than a byproduct.
One thing I have seen in all Aquaponic systems. Your profits with plants selling are
much larger than the profits with fish selling.
> >DISADVANTAGES
> >Equipment - The main disadvantage of unlinking systems is the need for
> >one additional piece of equipment - the biodigester. In a small
> >3,000-6,000 square foot greenhouse this would consist of a series of
> >drums sized, linked and managed in a very specific sequence to
> >optimize biofertilizer production. This requires some additional
> >capital expenditure and some space to house the equipment and stored
> >biofertilizers.
> >
> >Time - biodigestion takes time. Depending on the climate it can
> >require 30-60 days, possibly more in a very cool climate. So
> >biofertilizer needs have to be planned in advance or buffer stocks
> >need to be maintained.
The first charges of biofertilizer, really will take about 60 days to be gotten. But
this time is required only in the setup of the system. After 60 days, you will have a
daily production of biofertilizer all year round.
The quantity of biofertilizer, depends of the manure you have to use, and of the
biodigester capacity.
No, Paula. You don't need an experience in biodigesting systems.
Biodigestion really incorporates a delicate sequence of activities, but these activities
are those normally encoutered in nature. We only put some order in those activities, for
them to be under our control. And we make this by means of a biodigester.
Once you have a biodigester setted, your only work you will have is to feed it, and
operate it closing or shutting two or three valves. It takes no more than half an hour a
day to do this.
Raul Vergueiro Martins
rvm 'at' sti.com.br
| Message 18
Subject: Re: Unlinking Systems
From: Raul Vergueiro Martins
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:44:32 +0100
Hi Ted:
My mailer didn't send two of my last messages, as they were too long.
I gess one of them was this one, and so, I reduced it, and I'm sending it again.
Please do excuse me for that, and here is the message again:
TGTX wrote:
> > Paula, in your gravel beds you are essentially running a biodigester
> > so there probably is a 30-60 day lag time.
> > > As you know, the process in a gravel-based system is constantly
> > composting.
>
> Adrianna, I think we agree that the highly oxygenated pea gravel beds are
> aerobically digesting the solids. My understanding... of my system at
> least, is that 90 to99% of the gravel bed vertical depth is an oxidizing
> environment, perhaps 100% if I don't slam it with feed to hard, but with
> perhaps only a few microzones or a few millimeters or perhaps a centimeter
> of low oxygen, or borderline anaerobic, reducing environment, perhaps at the
> very bottom of the gravel bed.
You are right. Anaerobic digestion in a gravel bed system is very remote, and sometimes
quite impossible
> Therefore, the use of the term "biodigester", while accurate, perhaps in
> this case should be clarified to mean an aerobic digestion process, as
> opposed to an "anaerobic digester" step which we have been discussing. That
> is more for me....to keep my head screwed on straight so I know what we are
> talking about.
The gravel beds are biodigester. As they act as a biofilter where the nitrifying process
takes place, they are biodigesters. A biofilter is a biodigester. It is an aerobic
biodigester, but it is a biodigester.
You can say that your gravel bed is an aerobic biodigester where you put some plants to
help in clearing your water from nitrates formed.
The fact that you have some zones of this biodigester that during some momments act as an
anaerobic biodigester does not mean that it is not aa aerobic biodigester.
On the other hand, an anaerobic biodigester works essencially with anaerobic bacteria (
that can or not be methanogenic ones).
But during some periods this anaerobic biodigester works as an aerobic biodigester, even
the digestion chamber is completely closed.
In our multiphase or multi chamber biodigesters, we divide these phases.
We have closed chambers, that at the the first sight seem to be anaerobic, but inside them
the digestion is essentially aerobic. And we have closed chambers where the digestion is
essentially anaerobic.
> > > The fish effluent pumped into the beds today is not what the plants
> > are
> > > uptaking, so even though the input side is "immediately affected",
> > the
> > > nutrient supply is not.
>
> Well, I disagree to a certain degree. Obviously the inorganic nitrogen
> (ammonia) excreted by the fish is instantaneously generated and is input
> directly into the water column. Fish urine certainly has Potassium,
> Calcium, and Magnesium in it as simple ions, so that is immediately
> available as well. Also, the feces begin decomposing, with bacterial
> assistance, partially into ammonia, as an example, rather swiftly as anyone
> who has confined fish into a stagnant tank and let the feed and feces and
> waste accumulate for a day or so can attest
You are right till a certain point. Nitrogen can react very rapidly and can be
transformed in compounds that dissolve and ionize in water, so being immediatly used by
plants.
But the same doesn't happen with all the Calcium and with all the Magnesium.
It is a common problem the Magnesium and Calcium deficiencies in plants (specially with
fruit plants like tomatoes), when using fish efluents.
If you analyse the solution, these elements are there in good quantities, but in forms
that are not taken by plants.
If you make a good analisys, you will generally find these elements as organo-mineral
compounds, that are dissolved but not ionized. They are in large chain organic and
organo-mineral compounds, that plants can't absorb.
That is why in Aquaponic systems you produce very well the greens, but fruits become a
problem.
I don't mean that you can't produce tomatoes, peppers or similar ones. But for a large
commercial production that would be a problem.
Just for curiosity, Jim Rackocy in his system, corrects the pH of the water with Calcium
Hydroxide.
> And so, some amount of ammonia etc., is always going directly to the grow
> beds....every 30 minutes or so. The bacteria attack the 5 to 200 micron
> suspended solids instantaneously, more or less, and so there is a process of
> nutrient transformation that begins as soon as the pellet hits the water and
> is ingested, and even inside the gut of the animal. This is not to say that
> the 100% of the solids are instantly transformed into inorganic nutrients,
> obviously, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I agree with all you said here, but if you can avoid the discharge of the solid part of
the efluent into the gravel beds, it would provide you a cleaner bed. You can even avoid
the use of earthworms in the system to increase its efficiency.
You can concentrate the solids in a closed anaerobic biodigester, and then discharge the
biofertilizer in the system.
I am not saying that the aerobic biodigestion would not do the job, because it will do it.
But the anaerobic biodigestion can be carried in a more compact system, more rapidly, with
a larger efficiency, and wit les losses of nutrients, specially those capable of forming
volatile compounds like Nitrogen is.
And if you consider a large commercial system, you can take advantage of that small
byproduct called biogas.
Biogas means methane and CO2, and this means energy and carbonic fertilization.
> I am very interested in the anaerobic digestion angle, and am not altogether
> unfamiliar with its pros and cons. This is very interesting discussion
> material.
>
> Thank you, Raul and Adrianna for this stimulating opportunity to think about
> such things.
> Comparing and contrasting different ecosystems helps us to better appreciate
> the structure and function of the elements as well as the aggregate and/or
> synergetic performance of the systems as "ordered" by selected element
> ratios and rates.
>
> Have a grand weekend.
Have a great weekend too.
Raul Vergueiro Martins
rvm 'at' sti.com.br
|
