Aquaponics Digest - Tue 08/21/01
Message 1: Re: Tech help please
from "Marc Laberge"
Message 2: synthesis gas
from "Attie Esterhuyse"
Message 3: PVC - Toxic?
from "Brett"
Message 4: Iron Bacteria
from "TGTX"
Message 5: Yo, Brent
.Waste heat to cool, fueled by Biogas
from "TGTX"
Message 6: Re: PVC - Toxic?
from "gutierrez-lagatta"
Message 7: Re: intro setup
from "Robert Rogers"
Message 8: Re: PVC - Toxic?
from "Arlos"
Message 9: Re: Alternative Energy (was Re: Real military aid)
from "Arlos"
Message 10: Re: PVC - Toxic?
from Andrei Calciu
Message 11: Re: Tech help please
from Mick
Message 12: Re: Tech help please
from Mick
Message 13: Re: synthesis gas
from pantryman 'at' empireone.net
Message 14: Re: PVC - Toxic?
from "Arlos"
Message 15: PVC - Toxic?
from "Brett"
Message 16: Re: PVC - Toxic?
from "Arlos"
Message 17: Re: PVC - Toxic?
from "Brent Bingham"
Message 18: Re: Real military aid
from "Brent Bingham"
Message 19: Re: PVC - Toxic?
from "Arlos"
Message 20: Re: Real military aid
from Arlus Farnsworth
Message 21: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
from dreadlox
Message 22: RE: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
from "Chris Jeppesen"
Message 23: RE: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
from "Chris Jeppesen"
Message 24: Re: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
from "Brent Bingham"
Message 25: Re: Real military aid
from pantryman 'at' empireone.net
Message 26: Re: Real military aid
from "Brent Bingham"
Message 27: Re: Tech help please
from "STEVE SPRING"
. .
| Message 1
Subject: Re: Tech help please
From: "Marc Laberge"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:37:13 -0400
Steve, I agree with you 100% about the fish being the barometer, if they eat
then they are doing well. If you can dump that's great.
The commercial system I am working on , will be quite large and due to very
strict environmental laws up here in Québec, there is no way that I would be
able to just dump my water. Besides, achieving water chemistry equilibrium
is what I am working on to maintain a constant production of both healthy
fish and lettuce.
-----Original Message-----
From: STEVE SPRING
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Tech help please
>Hi Mick,
>
>No disrerspect to Marc in Canada intended
.but here is another example of
>how you can "test" yourself into insanity. If I had a million gallon system
>with hundreds of thousands of fish, I guess I would test all of these
>things. I think Marc has a very large system.
>
>I guess I still have to stick to what that old farmer said, "If you can SEE
>your fish and they are eating well, then you are o.k." I know that my
>personal farming etiquette is if the fish swarm to the food, then I know
>that all is o.k. If they are hesitant about eating, I do a major water
dump.
>Works for me.
>
>Now, I don't have the operation that Marc has, so you make your own
>decisions.
>
>Steve
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Marc Laberge"
>
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:48 PM
>Subject: Re: Tech help please
>
>
>Hi Mick,
>I don't know how big your system is but
.you should learn about pH, a
>sudden change in this can be the difference between healthy or dead fish,
>between healthy and unhealthy plants. Although in the short term , pH may
>remain stable ( depending on your system; with or without solid removal )
it
>will fluctuate to a certain degree. If you don't have any buffer material
in
>your system like limestone gravel or a sufficient alkalinity levels, you
may
>be in for a surprise in the future. Do you flush any water ? If you don't,
>think of your alkalinity as a buffer reserve which is being slowly eaten
>away by the carbon dioxide produced by the fish which turns the water
>acidic. The bacteria in your biofilter also are using the alkalinity
>reserve, which again , is slowly being eaten away. Eventually the reserve
>disappears and the water pH drops down causing your ammonia to become toxic
>and your nitrifying bacteria to be so stressed that they do not function
>properly causing your nitrite to peak and become toxic to your fish.
>
>best be prepared
>
>Marc Laberge
>Québec, Canada
>
>
. .
| Message 2
Subject: synthesis gas
From: "Attie Esterhuyse"
Date: 21 Aug 2001 09:22:45 +0200
Bob
It is an interesting system you are describing. Can you tell me how efficient the gasification
and micro
turbine cycle is.
Attie
> Synthesis fuel is derived from poplar trees or willow through a process called gasification.
> Both of these fuels can be used by burning them in a microturbine right in the greenhouse -
> the by-products of combustion are CO2, water and heat.
. .
| Message 3
Subject: PVC - Toxic?
From: "Brett"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:36:34 -0700
I've read a number of aquaponic systems are using PVC
as the pipe conduit.
I thought PVC was toxic material?
Is there a special PVC type certified as safe for fish and human use?
Thanks,
Brett
. .
| Message 4
Subject: Iron Bacteria
From: "TGTX"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 05:12:41 -0500
Microbial processes involving iron in soils, such as pyrite oxidation, were
reported in a Texas A&M dissertation by Doolittle:
Doolittle, J.J. (1984). The kinetics of iron sulfide oxidation in lignite
overburden as influenced by calcium carbonate. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
Dissertation Services can get you a photocopy, or perhaps an interlibrary
loan is available. Sorry, I don't have this one in the chaotic personal
library here on the prairie.
Also, y'all might want to check through issues of the journal "Soil Biology
& Biochemistry". Online articles are available to those libraries that
subscribe to the journal (try your local university)
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soilbio
>Interesting , I don't know but quite possible I would guess.
>Will have to do more tests.
>Thanks Bruce
>Marc could iron fixing bacteria be converting things in your system as a
>food source into iron like the bog iron used by the Vikings gotten in
>peat bogs to make tools.? Their iron was not mined mineral but was
>collected from under peat in the form of stones of bacterial origins and
>they then smelted metal from it.
>Bruce
. .
| Message 5
Subject: Yo, Brent
.Waste heat to cool, fueled by Biogas
From: "TGTX"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 05:18:10 -0500
>We use the waste heat to cool. 185 F and up will produce 46 F cool .The
heat
>from a generator fueled by Biogas will produce 14 tons of cooling per
>180,000 BTU's. In hot climates the cooling is the Key part. We cool our
>breeding fish under the greenhouse walkways and fool them into spawning
>more times per year. The cooling also allows us to process and ship at
lower
>costs.
>Brent
About a month ago, I wrote:
"Hi Brent. Where are you located and what do you ship? What breeding fish
species are you refering to? Tell me a little about your operation.
Ted"
But I don't know if it got to Mr. Brent, so here I go again.
Cheers.
. .
| Message 6
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
From: "gutierrez-lagatta"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 06:56:09 -0500
Brett,
This thread comes up about once a year. Check the archives and decide
for yourself. If it's toxic we're all toast. Just about every house
being built in the US is plumbed with PVC, look under your sinks. Do
not use PVC intended for waste lines, which I believe is a different
color and has recycled material.
> I thought PVC was toxic material?
>
> Is there a special PVC type certified as safe for fish and human
use?
. .
| Message 7
Subject: Re: intro setup
From: "Robert Rogers"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:14:35 -0400
Pete and Diana
You might look here for a cheap tank.
www.solar-components.com/AQUA.HTM
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete and Diana Scholtens"
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: intro setup
> Hi all,
>
> School starts soon - the day after Labour Day. I thought I'd start by
> looking at the local Polytank dealer for prices. When he came in at almost
> CAN$500 for a 180 gallon semisquare tank with stand, I started think I'm
> better off with using aquariums for starters. I've been thinking of an
> cheaper home made startup set for my biology classes. There have been
> different references on the list to maximum or minumum size, fish, plants,
> etc.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. I was thinking of one 50 - 75 gallon tank with cool water fish, so we
> don't need heaters. Should I go with one big tank or several smaller ones
> (30 gallon)? 20 - 30 gallon tanks are a dime a dozen on the used market.
>
> 2. Any suggestions on fish types and suppliers for western Canada?
>
> 3. Any thoughts on lighting?
> I'd be working indoors with minimal natural light. Home Depot has a 500
watt
> halogen work light. Two of them are cheaper than the local hydroponics
> store's 1000 watt lamp. What's up with that?
>
> 4. Why are there so many hydroponics stores in BC? (Don't answer; I know
;-)
>
> 5. What are the best plants to start up with? Do I start with plugs or
> seeds?
>
> 6. What are the best substrates to start up with?
>
> 7. Do I start up a typical aquarium with gravel, plants, etc. and use the
> plants outside as a filter?
>
> 8. Do I need another filter (Aquaclear, etc.) for backup?
>
> 9. What is the best pump to use to get the water up to the plants? Brand
> name and size recommendations would be good.
>
> 10.Cycling; always on or flood? What are the cycling times?
>
> Any thoughts on how to start up a system cheap with salvaged items
> (bathtubs, you name it) would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
> Pete Scholtens
>
. .
| Message 8
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
From: "Arlos"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:14:47 -0700
In the US, PVC has a stamp "PW" for potable water including and ASME number
and a UPC "uniform plumbing code" stamp. this is printed along the entire 20
ft lenght of pipe. Not all states have approved PVC for potable water use in
the residence and its not the drinking water issue, . it's trade labor
council, legislative/ regulation driven. In some states CPVC is permitted.
PVC is chemically resistant to most chemicals and can accept waters with a
wide range of pH conditions. what may be of greater concern is the primers
and solvent cements used. Weld On makes a clear LO VOC (P-70) which doesn't
leave those hideous purple streaks that makes your green house piping looked
like BARNEY was at the crime scene. I would only recommend one type of glue
"Weld On -2711" Its a low VOC (note: 711 is the same glue just not a low
voc). runs of primer and solvent cement are going to continue to leech if
not proper applied. Bevel the male end of your pipe as a sharp cut end will
push the majority of your glue and primer into the ID of a fitting. There
is a new NON LEECHING PVC for RO/DI applications for industry only when the
extremely minute amounts (virtually non traceable to us) are of concern.OK,
does it leech. To a level far below safe levels. White waste piping has a
stamp DWV (drain waste and vent) and is generally a foam core construction
for non pressurized application.
Here in CA the primary water piping is type M, L and K for potable water
use with a no lead solder. though if the pH goes below 6.9 it begins to
leach copper ions and blue water streaking to fixtures takes place.
Manganese in solution eats right through it and its susceptible to
electrolysis. Galvanized steel pipe has been around forever but with
changing trends in treatment applications aggressive softened water has
played a role in a massive law suit in a suspect steel pipe in southern CA,
it has varying formation of iron choking off ID and costs to pump sky
rocket. there is a material out of MN. call PEX A(cross linked polyethylene)
by a company called WIRSBO. Its non leaching and has a track record of over
25 in the hydronic industry. No chemical or heat is used to install it. I
repiped my house in it.
PVC has proven itself safe if aquatics applications. As an engineer I
would recommend its use. Its relative low cost, light weight, availability,
ease of installation make in a perfect choice.
Of course if we get into sizing,support, expansion loops, water hammer,
freeze protection, UV exposure and thrust blocking, thats another
thread
.
-----Original Message-----
From: gutierrez-lagatta
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:02 AM
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
>Brett,
>This thread comes up about once a year. Check the archives and decide
>for yourself. If it's toxic we're all toast. Just about every house
>being built in the US is plumbed with PVC, look under your sinks. Do
>not use PVC intended for waste lines, which I believe is a different
>color and has recycled material.
>
>> I thought PVC was toxic material?
>>
>> Is there a special PVC type certified as safe for fish and human
>use?
>
>
>
. .
| Message 9
Subject: Re: Alternative Energy (was Re: Real military aid)
From: "Arlos"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:16:40 -0700
BOB,
All in all, it sounds like a very cool piece of equipment.
Arlos
-----Original Message-----
From: pantryman 'at' empireone.net
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Alternative Energy (was Re: Real military aid)
>
>Hi Arlos.>Actually, the cabinet is pretty well insulated to reduce noise
.and
remember this is a SMALL
>turbine
.the entire gizmo only weighs 350 pounds.>For my neck of the woods, when in the dead of winter its a -20 degrees F.
or lower, the heat from this
>unit is very welcome
.during the summer it can be easily placed outside
the greenhouse
>for power generation or to simply cook hotdogs
>A recouperator can be added to provide heat for domestic water or a hot tub
or a fish tank or
.since
>it gets nippy here in winter
.to prewarm fish effluent before running it
to your plant beds
this has a
>stimulating effect on plants.>Arlos, if you like the heat signature on this unit, consider the outdoor
furnace to heat our greenhouses
>which generates 1.5 million BTU's per hour at full bore
.it can accomodate
wood or specific MSW
>or even moldy baled hay
.its kinda big though
.it needs to be loaded with
a forklift.>Now THIS puppy would melt down a minivan
>Bob
>
>
>
>"Arlos" wrote:
>>
>> I'm affraid to ask, exactly how much noise this makes? I suppose the
waste
>> heat could find some useful purpose like melting down the family minivan.
>> Gads, thats one heat signature!
>>
>> >alternator 'at' 100,000+ RPM's
. (this puppy really honks)
.the entire
>unit
>> only weighs
>> >350 pounds and generates 45Kw
exhaust temp is around 1300 >degrees F.
>> >In your case, I could envision energy independence for your whole >farm
and
>> home from
>> >the generation of methane.>>
>> Arlos
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pantryman 'at' empireone.net
>> To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
>> Date: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: Alternative Energy (was Re: Real military aid)
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Hi Lynn
>> >Thank you for the kind words.>> >We are now in the funding stage for this project - the part I enjoy the
>> least.
>> >As to tours, you would most certainly be welcome to come take a look
when
>> completed
>> >however, if this is inconvenient for you, we plan on taping everything
from
>> the ground up
>> >and archiving the tapes
.we will also broadcast this virtually on the
web.
>> >I recall hearing of an off-the-shelf biodigester for the generation of
>> methane from manure.
>> >With animals on your farm, you can make it count twice
personally, it
>> kinda scares me
all you need
>> >is a little O2 mixed in and a spark, and your new location is on the
>> moon
.but this is my
>> >own personal fear
>> >I also recall an experiment some years ago by the Mother Earth News
whereby
>> they tried to
>> >generate domestic hot water using a large compost heap and fluid pumped
>> through it using black
>> >poly pipe
.this was done during the dead of winter
.not too sure it
was a
>> smashing success.>> >I will have to look up the manufacturer of the microturbines
.but I
>> believe they can be run on
>> >methane right now
.we are waiting for them to modify the burner to
>> accomodate alcohol fuel.
>> >The microturbine is essentially an aircraft engine which has been
>> miniaturized to turn an
>> >alternator 'at' 100,000+ RPM's
. (this puppy really honks)
.the entire
unit
>> only weighs
>> >350 pounds and generates 45Kw
exhaust temp is around 1300 degrees F.
>> >In your case, I could envision energy independence for your whole farm
and
>> home from
>> >the generation of methane.>> >Give me a few days to put some finishing touches on our web page and I
will
>> send you
>> >the URL
.you can see all of our agricultural projects there.>> >Bob
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Lynn Wigglesworth wrote:
>> >>
>> >> At 04:41 PM 8/20/2001 -0500, pantryman 'at' empireone.net wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Brent
.>> >> >I disagree with you
here is why.>> >> >Keeping the world going does not take oil
.it takes creativity and a
>> >> willingness to run a risk.>> >> >The world's supply of oil is finite
.it WILL run out some day. What
>> then???
>> >> >We are working with 2 alternatives to the use of oil
.alcohol fuel
and
>> >> synthesis gas.
>> >> >In upstate New York, growing anything in the winter requires
ancillary
>> >> light and heat. We will
>> >> >be demonstrating an aquaponics system which will accomodate both of
>> these
>> >> fuels to supply
>> >> >electricity and heat.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you Bob for bringing this back to aquaponics and for this info.
>> Where
>> >> are you located? Will you be giving tours? Where do you get the
>> >> microturbines? I've looked into producing biogas to burn as a heat
>> source,
>> >> but I've already bitten off a little more than I can manage for now,
so
>> >> that will have to wait.
>> >>
>> >> I plan to use radiant heat pipes (with a circulating pump and
themostat)
>> in
>> >> my greenhouse, with a heat exchanger run through a large
manure/compost
>> >> pile. The pile maintains an internal temperature of 120 degrees F for
at
>> >> least 2-3 months (I think someone
.Arlos?
.posted a website URL
about
>> >> this a couple of weeks ago). Being on a farm, I've got tons of manure,
so
>> >> why not put it to work? I plan to put a loop under the fishtank, one
>> >> through the bottom of the growbeds, and a coil of pipe (or some sort
of
>> >> heat exchanger) in the tank itself. My greenhouse is on it's way, and
I'm
>> >> really getting psyched about this! Off once again into the unknown :-)
>> >>
>> >> Your neighbor to the south.>> >>
>> >> Lynn Wigglesworth
>> >> Peasant Farmer
>> >> Tioga County, PA
>> >> lynnw 'at' ptd.net
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
. .
| Message 10
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
From: Andrei Calciu
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:22:40 -0400
Alos,
thanks for the detailed and informative post on PVC. There is only one
small item I would like to point out. Please do not use so many
abbreviations and acronyms. They may be run of the mill for you or another
engineer, but do not forget, most of us on the list are dumb yo-yos with no
engineering background and we get lost once you give us anything more
complicated than 1+2.
Otherwise, thanks for the wealth of information you (and others on the
list) so generously share.
-_______________
Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)
NEC America, Inc.
14040 Park Center Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171-3227
Voice: 703-834-4273
Fax: 703-787-6613
This message and any attachment are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete the
message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the
contents to any other person.
. .
| Message 11
Subject: Re: Tech help please
From: Mick
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:45:41 -0500
Marc Laberge wrote: Eventually the reserve
> disappears and the water pH drops down causing your ammonia to become toxic
> and your nitrifying bacteria to be so stressed that they do not function
> properly causing your nitrite to peak and become toxic to your fish.
> -----
Marc,
Thanks so much for taking the time to explain this to me. Now I know why I
occasionally have ammonia appear when the system has been working great
. I
thought it was overfeeding as cutting back on the feed fixes the problem within
a day or two. It might just be a PH shift.
I can't flush the system due to regulations. I think I know how I'll handle
it. I'm having to add water about once a week due to plant uptake and
evaporation. If I run the tank with less water, I'll have a buffer if I need to
increase alkalinity. Our well water is very hard and alkaline.
You're very kind to take the time to explain this to the technically impaired.
Mick
. .
| Message 12
Subject: Re: Tech help please
From: Mick
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:59:50 -0500
STEVE SPRING wrote:
> But, if your fish go off feed, make a major "dump" until they are happy
> again. The fish will be your barometer.
>
> Steve
> ________________________________________________
Steve,
I know what you mean about the fish letting me know when something is up. You
are so right. I also agree that with my small system I could easily overtest.
My tilapia are very readable. If things are right, they'll climb over one
another to get at the feed.
Amusing side note:
My fish know the difference between me and Corey. If I'm feeding them, they
are happy and jumping and racing each other to the food. If Corey is feeding
them, they'll eat but they come at it from under the surface of the water and
make a quick "grab and run" at the food.
Corey is the Bad Guy. He does all the net work and moves the fish from
nursery to grow-out tank. He catches and weighs them. I'm the one who likes
to give them treats like bloodworms and bits of boiled shrimp. I'm the Treat
Lady. These fish see very well and they recognize people!
Mean ole Corey
Mick
. .
| Message 13
Subject: Re: synthesis gas
From: pantryman 'at' empireone.net
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:37:05 -0500
Hi Attie.The efficiency of the gasifier depends upon what feedstock you are using (the small unit can
gasify about 1,000#/hr. The larger unit is 3 times this size). If you are using 2" wood chips
(at 7500 BTU's/pound average) then you will generate gas in the equivalent of 7,500,000 BTU's
per hour. If you are using chipped tires (at 15,000 BTU's per pound) your yield would be
15,000,000
BTU's per hour with the small unit. Remember, there is no 'exhaust' from this unit as such,
since it is
airtight and O2 is not allowed into the thermal degradation chamber. The 'exhaust' is the gas
you
are producing which is cooled, filtered and stored in tanks for later use. Ash and steel belts
from
tires are marketable items. Nothing goes to waste.
I am unsure of the fuel consumption rate for the turbine since the unit is now being reworked
to
accomodate alcohol fuel. As far as I know, the unit is designed to run on natural gas, jet
fuel,
kerosene or propane
.but these fuels are not carbon cycle neutral. I believe that the unit can
be run right now on synthesis gas, but I am unsure of this (synthesis gas has about 1/2 the
BTU's of natural gas - or about 500 BTU's per cubic foot)
My goal in this instance is total energy independence.
One thing I am sure of though, is that trying to run ANY commercial aquaponics system which is
tied into the power grid would be horribly expensive
.somewhere on the order of costing you
your first-born male child.
Bob
"Attie Esterhuyse" wrote:
>
> Bob
>
> It is an interesting system you are describing. Can you tell me how efficient the
gasification and micro
> turbine cycle is.
>
> Attie
>
> > Synthesis fuel is derived from poplar trees or willow through a process called
gasification.
> > Both of these fuels can be used by burning them in a microturbine right in the greenhouse -
> > the by-products of combustion are CO2, water and heat.
>
>
. .
| Message 14
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
From: "Arlos"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:09:05 -0700
Just making better consumers. If you were to walk into a plumbing supply
store and saw a dozen choices of solvent cements you could end up with one
that is incompatible with the base material. Or something that may be toxic
to the application. If you looked at two different pipes where one is half
the weight and price and couldn't read and understand the printed stripe you
could end up with plastic pieces laying around the green house and a flood.
I had a young green engineer order a solvent cement for an ABS compressed
air system but didn't make it clear enough for him and he ordered ABS
solvent cement for black waste piping. When anyone uses the term pH, its
fairly understood without going into a lengthily rant about hydrogen
potential. The original question about the toxicity of PVC has to be in
choosing material for the right application. Here next to the silicon
valley, language is all but becoming acrybonics.When someone asks about
reading plates on pumps and motors it will get a lot more complex. It's just
part of a learning curve. Everything we use is graded, rated, color coded
and barcoded to death. You have to read and understand acronyms these
days.
Arlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrei Calciu
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
>
>Alos,
>
>thanks for the detailed and informative post on PVC. There is only one
>small item I would like to point out. Please do not use so many
>abbreviations and acronyms. They may be run of the mill for you or another
>engineer, but do not forget, most of us on the list are dumb yo-yos with no
>engineering background and we get lost once you give us anything more
>complicated than 1+2.
>
>Otherwise, thanks for the wealth of information you (and others on the
>list) so generously share.
>
>-_______________
>Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)
>NEC America, Inc.
>14040 Park Center Dr.
>Herndon, VA 20171-3227
>
>Voice: 703-834-4273
>Fax: 703-787-6613
>
>This message and any attachment are confidential. If you are not the
>intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete the
>message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended
>recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the
>contents to any other person.
>
>
>
. .
| Message 15
Subject: PVC - Toxic?
From: "Brett"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:03:04 -0700
I've read a number of aquaponic systems are using PVC
as the pipe conduit.
I thought PVC was toxic material?
Is there a special PVC type certified as safe for fish and human use?
Thanks,
Brett
. .
| Message 16
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
From: "Arlos"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:50:31 -0700
Brett,
Another note on PVC if you didn't read my first post
. for all intent and
purpose, PVC is safe to transport potable water. Not all countries use the
same formulas for manufacturing PVC pipe. I had used pipe from Mexico city
and glue from the US in the southern Caribbean and they were incompatible.
There is concern in Europe over the use of PVC pipe for potable water. Using
a net search you can find any manner of argument for and against it's use.
No one edits info on the net so take what you find with a grain of salt.
Some are showing lead and cadmium which come from source waters not the pipe
itself
On PVC pipe threads use a Teflon tape not an oil base paste as it
can cause the PVC soften and dissolve or crack. PVC pipe from Europe is
green and blue, ours for potable water is white and gray. larger
distribution piping is sometimes light blue, storm and waste piping is white
or green. We now have a PVC pipe which is pressure rated and purple for non
potable use. (always label your pipe for use and flow direction and label
your valves). If you were to have great concern over leeching in a breeding
facility; buckets and tubs from mega stores are just fine or spend a lot of
money and have something fabricated. The greatest source for PVC pipe and
fittings is through Barnett out of Jacksonville, Florida. Great people and
great prices. They are about 1/4 the price of my best wholesale prices here
in CA.
The only problem using PVC comes from welding it as chlorine gas is
released and requires a fume hood or respirator. It can be cut, drilled,
milled and turned with no problem. You have to use an appropriate mask/
cartridge for dust is all. Getting smacked up side the head might be a
health risk though.
Arlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:06 AM
Subject: PVC - Toxic?
>
>I've read a number of aquaponic systems are using PVC
>as the pipe conduit.
>
>I thought PVC was toxic material?
>
>Is there a special PVC type certified as safe for fish and human use?
>
>Thanks,
>Brett
>
>
>
. .
| Message 17
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
From: "Brent Bingham"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:46:17 -0700
Most of the water mains 12" and under are PVC since asbestoses became a bad
guy.
Brent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett"
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: PVC - Toxic?
>
> I've read a number of aquaponic systems are using PVC
> as the pipe conduit.
>
> I thought PVC was toxic material?
>
> Is there a special PVC type certified as safe for fish and human use?
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
>
>
>
. .
| Message 18
Subject: Re: Real military aid
From: "Brent Bingham"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:56:24 -0700
In 1973 we purchased and installed 3 alcohol production units from World
Energy. They worked great! The units had a vacuum pump and needed no heat
source other than solar to get them to boil. We converted several farm
vehicles to run on the 170 proof fuel made from spoiled grain. By the time
we cooked the mash and paid for the enzymes to brake the starch down to
simple sugars our costs were 50% more the farm fuel. We had no use for the
waste heat from the cookers and the trucks could not go off the farm with
out pulling a fuel tank because there was no and steel are not enough places
to fuel up. Further, the cost to run a greenhouse and farm is so high now
how could you possibly pay 50 % more for energy and survive? If we all
lived in cold climates and could use the waste heat it would be interesting
to calculate the economics. We do need alternative fuels but what group can
afford the higher costs?
We have purchased units that can use the waste heat to cool by running the
heat into a chiller at 195 F as hot water. We would be glad to find a better
way to farm.
HOW SOON CAN WE STOP PURCHASING DIESEL FOR OUR TRACTORS AND TRUCKS.
We have neither been sitting by nor have we been weighting for the
government.
Figure it out, there is only enough "bakery waste" to provide less than 1 %
of the fuel you will need. We purchased bakery waste from California to feed
pigs for years but there was not enough to provide the hog operations in 3
counties. I do not wish to step on your toes BUT please provide the facts
that support your
theory that you can provide the worlds energy needs with out oil. We are
ready to jump on your band wagon if you can show on paper it is going any
where.
What will it cost to purchase? What will it cost to operate? How long will
it last? How much fuel will it use? Where will the fuel be available and
( at what cost) ?
Who will fix it if it brakes? How long will we be shut down if it brakes
down?
We are all for doing it without oil, when can we do it?
Brent
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Real military aid
>
> Brent
.> I disagree with you
here is why.> Keeping the world going does not take oil
.it takes creativity and a
willingness to run a risk.> The world's supply of oil is finite
.it WILL run out some day. What
then???
> We are working with 2 alternatives to the use of oil
.alcohol fuel and
synthesis gas.
> In upstate New York, growing anything in the winter requires ancillary
light and heat. We will
> be demonstrating an aquaponics system which will accomodate both of these
fuels to supply
> electricity and heat. Why would we do this?? Because using both of these
fuels does not
> contribute additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It only returns
carbon dioxide into
> the system which was sequestered there by plants
.as such they are carbon
cycle neutral.
> The alcohol fuel is derived from bakery waste (available by the TON here)
and the by-products
> from production (CO2 & DDGS) are used within the system - notably the DDGS
for fish feed.
> Synthesis fuel is derived from poplar trees or willow through a process
called gasification.
> Both of these fuels can be used by burning them in a microturbine right in
the greenhouse -
> the by-products of combustion are CO2, water and heat.
> There are many things that CAN be done
.but sitting by and waiting for
the government to do
> it, is not one of them.
> If we really want to deal with this problem, we can. Viable alternatives
DO exist
. for heaven's sake
> lets use them.
> Our help will only come from ourselves.> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
> "Brent Bingham" wrote:
> >
> > Jerry,
> > I must agree. We cannot fix the world! We can try to keep it going and
that
> > takes oil. With out oil there would be no food in the big cities in just
a
> > matter of days. With out oil most food production would stop in weeks.
With
> > out oil the stored frozen food would be gone in months or less after the
> > power is gone. We store a years worth of ; food , fuel, water, and
what
> > ever we can, just in case. If we were lucky we could feed relatives and
> > neighbors for a few months, if the oil was cut off. What would the
people
> > in towns do?
> > Brent
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "gerry magnuson"
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 4:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: Real military aid
> >
> >
> > > gee dave, join the dnc with their bs hype, are you a socialist, or
worse?
> > do
> > > you like big brother watching for your needs, common sense tells you
to
> > put
> > > a seat belt on, but there is a law, bye-bye another
freedom
.duh
.stick
> > to
> > > aquaponics, you will lose in any political debate
.without free
> > enterprise,
> > > socialism cannot exist
.try going and living in various countries,
then
> > get
> > > back to me
.impress me by providing for your own needs and others,
and
> > > showing a profit, and expanding to feed 100,000 people your way, then
you
> > > will prove yourself
.bet you think peace corps works, want to go to
> > fresno,
> > > ca and see the walking dead from peace corps? no cure
.oops, not
suppose
> > to
> > > tell
cowboy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: DAVEINBHAM 'at' aol.com
> > > >Reply-To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
> > > >To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
> > > >Subject: Real military aid
> > > >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:44:17 EDT
> > > >
> > > >In a message dated 8/19/01 12:09:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > > >aquaponics-digest-request 'at' townsqr.com writes:
> > > >
> > > ><< We cannot send an army with
> > > > guns to guard every nomadic group wandering looking for food can we
?
> > > > Brent >>
> > >
> >
>***************************************************************************
> > ***
> > > >
> > > >********
> > > >Brent,
> > > >Why cant we do that ? Because the president is more interested in a
tax
> > cut
> > > >for the wealthy and in building a " missile shield" ( which will
likely
> > not
> > > >work) because wealthy Republicans get wealthier on the defense
contracts.
> > > >We are already spending nearly half the money spent on military in
the
> > > >whole
> > > >damn world. Trouble is where we spend it. It will take a whole lot of
> > > >citizens telling government what we really want the military to do to
> > > >change
> > > >things.
> > > >Regards,
> > > >Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
. .
| Message 19
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
From: "Arlos"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:02:36 -0700
Brent,
Water mains are typically now HDPE or high density poly ethylene, AC or
asbestos cement (asbestos is an inhalation issue not ingestion) or ductile
iron. None has any health related risks unto themselves and are safe for
potable water. HDPE is used to line older systems or stand alone. I used to
weld 96" cement lined pipe and fusion weld up to 48" HDPE dual containment
and I have no idea of how many miles of PVC. All piping systems are
sanitized prior to use. Asbestos has gotten a bad rap has been perfectly
fine (in my opinion to use) Like any airborne particle it creates a problem.
Setting on the beach on a windy day can be just as much of a health hazard
by breathing in silicate particles found in all sand beaches. Lets face it,
driving down the road is more likely to bring harm than drinking from a
plastic pipe. I don't hear any national outcry over all the household
cleaning products we dump down the drain. All in all, If you don't want to
drink it, don't flush it. Pipe is just the messenger and you know what Bill
said about that one.
Arlos
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Bingham
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: PVC - Toxic?
>Most of the water mains 12" and under are PVC since asbestoses became a bad
>guy.
>Brent
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brett"
>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:03 AM
>Subject: PVC - Toxic?
>
>
>>
>> I've read a number of aquaponic systems are using PVC
>> as the pipe conduit.
>>
>> I thought PVC was toxic material?
>>
>> Is there a special PVC type certified as safe for fish and human use?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>
>
. .
| Message 20
Subject: Re: Real military aid
From: Arlus Farnsworth
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:17:48 -0700
Brent Bingham wrote:
>
> vehicles to run on the 170 proof fuel made from spoiled grain. By the time
> we cooked the mash and paid for the enzymes to brake the starch down to
> simple sugars our costs were 50% more the farm fuel.
What about the malting process of germination and sparging? You would have to
use viable grain of course, but the residue could be used for feed. Or you could
spread it on crackers. Not sure if yeast counts as a vegetable serving. It is
half fungus and half bacteria. Is there a limit to what is produced in aquaponic
systems categorically? I can imagine many spin off applications for
sub-components, not only for the purpose of food production.
I was curious to understand the logistics of oil producing seeds?
. .
| Message 21
Subject: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
From: dreadlox
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:54:13 -0700
Lynn said, thanks for coming back on topic.
Paula said, please show relevance to topic.
Brent said what he did below.
Paul Gehl posted a good article, posted below on another topic.
><{{{*> Mike Barnett <*}}}><
in JAMAICA, West Indies said :
I too am not a bible thumper, but I am a grateful individual who is glad
for life after being many times on a death bed. I know I am blessed, and
that I have a reason to live.
There are many on this list who think like you Brent. I believe the Good
Book. In fact, it is the only thing that helps keep me sane nowadays.
When I read it and compare the timeline shown, to the actual happenings
on a daily basis, especially what happens in the Middle East (Gods
timepiece) then I know the day will come when my aquaponic node may be
my only source of food. God help us!!
Anyone who has read books like the "New World Order" or The "New
millenium" by Pat Robertson, as "wide readers", will realize there are
New Agey puppets in the USA just waiting to come out from behind hidden
agendas. Is the story below such a case? The love of animals is now
more
.than the RIGHTS of humans to administrate the land? Or is it just
a puppets game to herd you guys into the city corrals for easy
"stamping" or is it called "branding"
.hmmm wonder if they do that in
your forehead or on your right hand???
I was calmed by reading the above books once. In them Robertson gave
some pointers about what he himself had done
. namely to invest in land
and start some sustainable farming
. NOT to panic.
Ever since, I became fascinated with sustainable farming, and soon found
aquaponics. It is both frightening and disgusting when someone starts to
think he/she has the right to even genetically program the plant that I
may sow in my node, to self destruct after a crop!
Luckily Brent, each time I want to get VERY angry, or scared or read
hype about oil running out or nuclear war etc
I am calmed by the
fact that those things will only be the REASON for certain world
behaviour, and NEVER the "end" of this world. The God I believe in
cannot lie. Thats a relief. So I dont have to worry
lotsa stuff is
just a smokescreen
The issue I wanted to raise here is that Brent you are not alone in your
thinking, and secondly, as long we can share without cooking blood of
our experiences with our larvae feeding fish poo feeding plants feeding
me feeding compost feeding vegetables feeding ruminants feeding worms
fedding beds, and ma biodigester
which btw fed ma genset
then the
world IS BEARABLE
All ma needs will be met
is that all ma wants and wishes or all ma
needs
. and WHAT DO I NEED to live
???
Read the article below, re the conservation group. For those who wish to
discuss further
I am interested in anyone has ever formed a
"communal" kibbutz like society. ( No Im not gonna become a hippie
.:>
) I would love to discuss this offlist in respecting the thin line Paula
described some of us walking on.
Since I am doing a balancing act telling a bit how I became involved in
Aquaponics
. but I realize the topic has the potential to
stray
please answer me offlist. I just wanted the coverage to the
group for the sake of knowing what others out there are doing in this
regard. Let us say it this way. Brent raised a SERIOUS issue. Some of
us on this list are into aquaponics because like me we realise from a
spiritual perspective we have really messed up, and aquaponics MAY offer
us at a later date our only hope of survival
. at least for a while.
Is this a point ?? (Or am I alone
?)
Think on these things
. everything is falling in place slowly
Mike in a muse
Brent Bingham wrote:
>
> IF, what you seem to believe were all true, do we DO nothing? Through the
> baby out with the bath water? IF anyone reads the GOOD BOOK, we know there
> are to be signs of the times. IF you do not, then you do not know who is to
> win between the Jews and the rest! IF you do believe then you know we must
> DO what we can but we will never change what is going to happen. WE can help
> ease the suffering and work with in the system we have. I am not a bible
> thumper but I read a LOT. I enjoy divergent views and I learn something
> everyday.
> Brent
Subject:
[tilapia] When will they come for you?
Date:
Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:23:27 -0000
From:
pgstocks 'at' telisphere.com
Reply-To:
tilapia 'at' yahoogroups.com
To:
tilapia 'at' yahoogroups.com
This should not be taken lightly. They will come for you at some
point. "Murky Waters" We are high on their list. Don't be afraid do
something about it, TODAY!
Hope you enjoy this.
Eric Hurlburt
Tel: 360-902-1933 Fax: 360-902-2089
Email: ehurlburt 'at' agr.wa.gov
Rural Cleansing
Environmentalists' goal: Depopulate the countryside.
BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
Federal authorities were forced to cut off water to 1,500 farms in
Oregon's and California's Klamath Basin in April because of
the "endangered" sucker fish. The environmental groups behind the
cutoff continue to declare that they are simply concerned for the
welfare of a bottom-feeder. But last month, those environmentalists
revealed another motive when they submitted a polished proposal for
the government to buy out the farmers and move them off their land.
This is what's really happening in Klamath--call it rural cleansing--
and it's repeating itself in environmental battles across the
country. Indeed, the goal of many environmental groups--from the
Sierra Club to the Oregon Natural Resources Council--is no longer to
protect nature. It's to expunge humans from the countryside.
The strategy of these environmental groups is nearly always the same:
to sue or lobby the government into declaring rural areas off-limits
to people who live and work there. The tools for doing this include
the Endangered Species Act and local preservation laws, most of which
are so loosely crafted as to allow a wide leeway in their
implementation.
In some cases owners lose their property outright. More often, the
environmentalists' goal is to have restrictions placed on the land
that either render it unusable or persuade owners to leave of their
own accord.
The Klamath Basin saga began back in 1988, when two species of
suckers from the area were listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Things worked reasonably well for the first few years after the
suckers were listed. The Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the
area's irrigation, took direction from the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and tried to balance the needs of both fish and farmers. This
included programs to promote water conservation and tight control
over water flows. The situation was tense, but workable.
But in 1991 the Klamath basin suffered a drought, and Fish and
Wildlife noted that the Bureau of Reclamation might need to do more
for the fish. That was the environmentalists' cue. Within two months,
the Oregon Natural Resources Council--the pit bull of Oregon's
environmental groups--was announcing intentions to sue the Bureau of
Reclamation for failure to protect the fish.
The group's lawsuits weren't immediately successful, in part because
Fish and Wildlife continued to revise its opinions as to what the
fish needed, and in part because of the farmers' undeniable water
rights, established in 1907. But the Oregon Natural Resources Council
kept at it and finally found a sympathetic ear. This spring, a
federal judge--in deciding yet another lawsuit brought by the
council, other environmental groups, fishermen and Indian tribes--
ordered an unwilling Interior Department to shut the water off. The
council had succeeded in denying farmers the ability to make a
living.
Since that decision, the average value of an acre of farm property in
Klamath has dropped from $2,500 to about $35. Most owners have no
other source of income. And so with the region suitably desperate,
the enviros dropped their bomb. Last month, they submitted a proposal
urging the government to buy the farmers off.
The council has suggested a price of $4,000 an acre, which makes it
more likely owners will sell only to the government. While the amount
is more than the property's original value, it's nowhere near enough
to compensate people for the loss of their livelihoods and their
children's futures.
The Oregon Natural Resources Council has picked its fight
specifically with the farmers, but its actions will likely mean the
death of an entire community. The farming industry will lose $250
million this year. But property-tax revenues will also decrease under
new property assessments. That will strangle road and municipal
projects. Local businesses are dependent on the farmers and are now
suffering financially. Should the farm acreage be cleared of people
entirely, meaning no taxes and no shoppers, the community is likely
to disappear.
Nor has the environment won, even at this enormous cost. The fish in
the lake may have water, but nothing else does. On the 200,000 acres
of parched farmland, animals belonging to dozens of species--rabbits,
deer, ducks, even bald eagles--are either dead or off searching for
water. And there's no evidence the suckers are improving. Indeed,
Fish and Wildlife's most recent biological opinions, which concluded
that the fish needed more water, have been vociferously questioned by
independent biologists. Federal officials are now releasing some
water (about 16% of the normal flow) into the irrigation canals, but
it doesn't help the farmers or wildlife much this year.
Environmentalists argue that farmers should never have been in
the "dry" Klamath valley in the first place and that they put undue
stress on the land. But the West is a primarily arid region; its
history is one of turning inhospitable areas into thriving
communities through prudent and thoughtful reallocation of water. If
the Klamath farmers should be moved, why not the residents of San
Diego and Los Angeles, not to mention the Southwest and parts of
Montana and Wyoming? All of these communities survive because of
irrigation--water that could conceivably go to some
other "environmental" use.
But, of course, this is the goal. Environmental groups have spoken
openly of their desire to concentrate people into cities, turning
everything outside city limits into a giant park. A journalist for
the Rocky Mountain News recently noted that in June the Sierra Club
posted on its Web site a claim that "efficient" urban density is
about 500 households an acre. This, in case you're wondering, is
about three times the density of Manhattan's most tightly packed
areas. And it's not as if there were any shortage of open space in
the West. The federal government already owns 58% of the western
U.S., with state and local government holdings bumping the public
percentage even higher.
Do the people who give money to environmental groups realize the
endgame is to evict people from their land? I doubt it. The American
dream has always been to own a bit of property on which to pursue
happiness. This dream involves some compromises, including a good,
balanced stewardship of nature--much like what was happening in
Klamath before the Oregon Natural Resources Council arrived. But this
dream will disappear--as it already is in Oregon and California--if
environmental groups and complicit government agencies are allowed to
continue their rural cleansing.
Ms. Strassel is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street
Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.
Illustration by M.E. Cohen.
--
><{{{*> Mike Barnett <*}}}><
JAMAICA, West Indies
. .
| Message 22
Subject: RE: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
From: "Chris Jeppesen"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:18:45 -0700
Mike
I started (or more appropriately restarted)my aquaponics interest and green house because of
the shortage of resources. (water and Land) I all so deeply believe in a second comeing of
Christ and keep wondering how will we all be employed at that time. Will thows enslaved in
factories be freed and by whom. I want to be free of control. free from three piece suites in
new jersy and polititians up the hill so to speak. The thing I'm not free of is energy. Hmm m
I don't have answers only questions.
Chris Jeppesen
. .
| Message 23
Subject: RE: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
From: "Chris Jeppesen"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:24:35 -0700
opps I ment to send this private as requested. I only have 4 working brain cells total. 2 on
each side.
Chris
>Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:18:45 -0700
> "Chris Jeppesen" aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com RE: Aquaponics for beliefs
sake??Reply-To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
>
>Mike
>I started (or more appropriately restarted)my aquaponics interest and green house because of
the shortage of resources. (water and Land) I all so deeply believe in a second comeing of
Christ and keep wondering how will we all be employed at that time. Will thows enslaved in
factories be freed and by whom. I want to be free of control. free from three piece suites in
new jersy and polititians up the hill so to speak. The thing I'm not free of is energy. Hmm m
>I don't have answers only questions.
>Chris Jeppesen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
. .
| Message 24
Subject: Re: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
From: "Brent Bingham"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:44:14 -0700
In school I belonged to the Future Farmers of America.
We started our meetings " we believe in the future of farming with a faith
born not of words but of deeds ".
Low water use farming methods like integrated hydroponics has become a major
part of the future of farming in arid regions of the world. We on the list
are in the forefront, the cutting edge, of what is the future arid
regions of the world.
Brent
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:54 PM
Subject: Aquaponics for beliefs sake??
> Lynn said, thanks for coming back on topic.
> Paula said, please show relevance to topic.
> Brent said what he did below.
> Paul Gehl posted a good article, posted below on another topic.
>
>
> ><{{{*> Mike Barnett <*}}}><
> in JAMAICA, West Indies said :
>
> I too am not a bible thumper, but I am a grateful individual who is glad
> for life after being many times on a death bed. I know I am blessed, and
> that I have a reason to live.
> There are many on this list who think like you Brent. I believe the Good
> Book. In fact, it is the only thing that helps keep me sane nowadays.
> When I read it and compare the timeline shown, to the actual happenings
> on a daily basis, especially what happens in the Middle East (Gods
> timepiece) then I know the day will come when my aquaponic node may be
> my only source of food. God help us!!
> Anyone who has read books like the "New World Order" or The "New
> millenium" by Pat Robertson, as "wide readers", will realize there are
> New Agey puppets in the USA just waiting to come out from behind hidden
> agendas. Is the story below such a case? The love of animals is now
> more
.than the RIGHTS of humans to administrate the land? Or is it just
> a puppets game to herd you guys into the city corrals for easy
> "stamping" or is it called "branding"
.hmmm wonder if they do that in
> your forehead or on your right hand???
>
> I was calmed by reading the above books once. In them Robertson gave
> some pointers about what he himself had done
. namely to invest in land
> and start some sustainable farming
. NOT to panic.
>
> Ever since, I became fascinated with sustainable farming, and soon found
> aquaponics. It is both frightening and disgusting when someone starts to
> think he/she has the right to even genetically program the plant that I
> may sow in my node, to self destruct after a crop!
>
> Luckily Brent, each time I want to get VERY angry, or scared or read
> hype about oil running out or nuclear war etc
I am calmed by the
> fact that those things will only be the REASON for certain world
> behaviour, and NEVER the "end" of this world. The God I believe in
> cannot lie. Thats a relief. So I dont have to worry
lotsa stuff is
> just a smokescreen
>
> The issue I wanted to raise here is that Brent you are not alone in your
> thinking, and secondly, as long we can share without cooking blood of
> our experiences with our larvae feeding fish poo feeding plants feeding
> me feeding compost feeding vegetables feeding ruminants feeding worms
> fedding beds, and ma biodigester
which btw fed ma genset
then the
> world IS BEARABLE
>
> All ma needs will be met
is that all ma wants and wishes or all ma
> needs
. and WHAT DO I NEED to live
???
>
> Read the article below, re the conservation group. For those who wish to
> discuss further
I am interested in anyone has ever formed a
> "communal" kibbutz like society. ( No Im not gonna become a hippie
.:>
> ) I would love to discuss this offlist in respecting the thin line Paula
> described some of us walking on.
> Since I am doing a balancing act telling a bit how I became involved in
> Aquaponics
. but I realize the topic has the potential to
> stray
please answer me offlist. I just wanted the coverage to the
> group for the sake of knowing what others out there are doing in this
> regard. Let us say it this way. Brent raised a SERIOUS issue. Some of
> us on this list are into aquaponics because like me we realise from a
> spiritual perspective we have really messed up, and aquaponics MAY offer
> us at a later date our only hope of survival
. at least for a while.>
> Is this a point ?? (Or am I alone
?)
>
> Think on these things
. everything is falling in place slowly
>
> Mike in a muse
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brent Bingham wrote:
> >
> > IF, what you seem to believe were all true, do we DO nothing? Through
the
> > baby out with the bath water? IF anyone reads the GOOD BOOK, we know
there
> > are to be signs of the times. IF you do not, then you do not know who is
to
> > win between the Jews and the rest! IF you do believe then you know we
must
> > DO what we can but we will never change what is going to happen. WE can
help
> > ease the suffering and work with in the system we have. I am not a bible
> > thumper but I read a LOT. I enjoy divergent views and I learn something
> > everyday.
> > Brent
>
>
>
> Subject:
> [tilapia] When will they come for you?
> Date:
> Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:23:27 -0000
> From:
> pgstocks 'at' telisphere.com
> Reply-To:
> tilapia 'at' yahoogroups.com
> To:
> tilapia 'at' yahoogroups.com
>
>
> This should not be taken lightly. They will come for you at some
> point. "Murky Waters" We are high on their list. Don't be afraid do
> something about it, TODAY!
>
> Hope you enjoy this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Hurlburt
>
> Tel: 360-902-1933 Fax: 360-902-2089
>
> Email: ehurlburt 'at' agr.wa.gov
>
>
>
> Rural Cleansing
> Environmentalists' goal: Depopulate the countryside.
>
> BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
> Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
>
> Federal authorities were forced to cut off water to 1,500 farms in
> Oregon's and California's Klamath Basin in April because of
> the "endangered" sucker fish. The environmental groups behind the
> cutoff continue to declare that they are simply concerned for the
> welfare of a bottom-feeder. But last month, those environmentalists
> revealed another motive when they submitted a polished proposal for
> the government to buy out the farmers and move them off their land.
>
> This is what's really happening in Klamath--call it rural cleansing--
> and it's repeating itself in environmental battles across the
> country. Indeed, the goal of many environmental groups--from the
> Sierra Club to the Oregon Natural Resources Council--is no longer to
> protect nature. It's to expunge humans from the countryside.
>
>
>
> The strategy of these environmental groups is nearly always the same:
> to sue or lobby the government into declaring rural areas off-limits
> to people who live and work there. The tools for doing this include
> the Endangered Species Act and local preservation laws, most of which
> are so loosely crafted as to allow a wide leeway in their
> implementation.
>
> In some cases owners lose their property outright. More often, the
> environmentalists' goal is to have restrictions placed on the land
> that either render it unusable or persuade owners to leave of their
> own accord.
>
> The Klamath Basin saga began back in 1988, when two species of
> suckers from the area were listed under the Endangered Species Act.
> Things worked reasonably well for the first few years after the
> suckers were listed. The Bureau of Reclamation, which controls the
> area's irrigation, took direction from the Fish and Wildlife Service,
> and tried to balance the needs of both fish and farmers. This
> included programs to promote water conservation and tight control
> over water flows. The situation was tense, but workable.
>
> But in 1991 the Klamath basin suffered a drought, and Fish and
> Wildlife noted that the Bureau of Reclamation might need to do more
> for the fish. That was the environmentalists' cue. Within two months,
> the Oregon Natural Resources Council--the pit bull of Oregon's
> environmental groups--was announcing intentions to sue the Bureau of
> Reclamation for failure to protect the fish.
>
> The group's lawsuits weren't immediately successful, in part because
> Fish and Wildlife continued to revise its opinions as to what the
> fish needed, and in part because of the farmers' undeniable water
> rights, established in 1907. But the Oregon Natural Resources Council
> kept at it and finally found a sympathetic ear. This spring, a
> federal judge--in deciding yet another lawsuit brought by the
> council, other environmental groups, fishermen and Indian tribes--
> ordered an unwilling Interior Department to shut the water off. The
> council had succeeded in denying farmers the ability to make a
> living.
>
> Since that decision, the average value of an acre of farm property in
> Klamath has dropped from $2,500 to about $35. Most owners have no
> other source of income. And so with the region suitably desperate,
> the enviros dropped their bomb. Last month, they submitted a proposal
> urging the government to buy the farmers off.
>
> The council has suggested a price of $4,000 an acre, which makes it
> more likely owners will sell only to the government. While the amount
> is more than the property's original value, it's nowhere near enough
> to compensate people for the loss of their livelihoods and their
> children's futures.
>
> The Oregon Natural Resources Council has picked its fight
> specifically with the farmers, but its actions will likely mean the
> death of an entire community. The farming industry will lose $250
> million this year. But property-tax revenues will also decrease under
> new property assessments. That will strangle road and municipal
> projects. Local businesses are dependent on the farmers and are now
> suffering financially. Should the farm acreage be cleared of people
> entirely, meaning no taxes and no shoppers, the community is likely
> to disappear.
>
> Nor has the environment won, even at this enormous cost. The fish in
> the lake may have water, but nothing else does. On the 200,000 acres
> of parched farmland, animals belonging to dozens of species--rabbits,
> deer, ducks, even bald eagles--are either dead or off searching for
> water. And there's no evidence the suckers are improving. Indeed,
> Fish and Wildlife's most recent biological opinions, which concluded
> that the fish needed more water, have been vociferously questioned by
> independent biologists. Federal officials are now releasing some
> water (about 16% of the normal flow) into the irrigation canals, but
> it doesn't help the farmers or wildlife much this year.
>
>
>
> Environmentalists argue that farmers should never have been in
> the "dry" Klamath valley in the first place and that they put undue
> stress on the land. But the West is a primarily arid region; its
> history is one of turning inhospitable areas into thriving
> communities through prudent and thoughtful reallocation of water. If
> the Klamath farmers should be moved, why not the residents of San
> Diego and Los Angeles, not to mention the Southwest and parts of
> Montana and Wyoming? All of these communities survive because of
> irrigation--water that could conceivably go to some
> other "environmental" use.
>
> But, of course, this is the goal. Environmental groups have spoken
> openly of their desire to concentrate people into cities, turning
> everything outside city limits into a giant park. A journalist for
> the Rocky Mountain News recently noted that in June the Sierra Club
> posted on its Web site a claim that "efficient" urban density is
> about 500 households an acre. This, in case you're wondering, is
> about three times the density of Manhattan's most tightly packed
> areas. And it's not as if there were any shortage of open space in
> the West. The federal government already owns 58% of the western
> U.S., with state and local government holdings bumping the public
> percentage even higher.
>
> Do the people who give money to environmental groups realize the
> endgame is to evict people from their land? I doubt it. The American
> dream has always been to own a bit of property on which to pursue
> happiness. This dream involves some compromises, including a good,
> balanced stewardship of nature--much like what was happening in
> Klamath before the Oregon Natural Resources Council arrived. But this
> dream will disappear--as it already is in Oregon and California--if
> environmental groups and complicit government agencies are allowed to
> continue their rural cleansing.
>
> Ms. Strassel is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street
> Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.
> Illustration by M.E. Cohen.
> --
> ><{{{*> Mike Barnett <*}}}><
> JAMAICA, West Indies
>
. .
| Message 25
Subject: Re: Real military aid
From: pantryman 'at' empireone.net
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 20:30:35 -0500
Brent
First, let me say that from the sound of your post, I have offended you. This was not my
intent,
and please accept my apology for anything I may have said or in any way may have presented
that offended you.
To answer your questions:
In regards to your alcohol project from the ‘70’s let me comment:
1) What did you do with the spent mash? Am I correct in assuming you fed it to your hogs?
2) In your calculations, the value of the DDGS would be greater as fish feed as opposed to hog
feed
due to the higher feed conversion ratio in fish. This then would offset the costs for enzymes
and yeast.
3) Waste heat from the cookers could be captured and used to partially dry the spent mash,
it can then be pelletized, formulated and used as fish feed
.consider the possibility of
extracting the energy content from bakery waste in the creation of a high protein content fish
feed.
4) I too had an alcohol fuel project during the ‘70’s
.we used a Fresnel concentrater to
provide
live steam for distillation. This is still a viable alternative today. You may recall that as
soon as
Reagan came in to office, he killed all federal funding for alternative fuels, the lines at the
gas pumps
ceased to be, and everyone was happy once more.
You asked how soon you can stop purchasing diesel for your tractors and trucks. Here is a URL
that
may help you in that: http://www.veggievan.org
In your second paragraph, you stated that you purchased bakery waste from California.
In this part of the northeast due to the highly concentrated human population, bakery waste is
a problem
.ranking right up there with tires, cardboard and wood as major components of MSW
(tires excluded from landfills). As such, bakeries are begging folks to take it away due to
tip-up
fees at landfills. Except no one wants it. Thanks to NAFTA there are very few hog farmers
remaining here. On any one day there are 1,000,000 head of fat hogs waiting at the border
to enter the USA.
You are not stepping on my toes in asking me to prove a theory which I have not presented.
I have presented no theory about the finite nature of petroleum - the government has. My
project
is in response to that.
My question to you is why did you ever get involved with alcohol fuel during the 70’s in the
first
place? To me, you sound like an innovator and a leader and rather than have you jump on my
bandwagon, I would prefer to see you make your own bandwagon.
If you follow me Brent, I will only disappoint you.
Bob
"Brent Bingham" wrote:
>
> In 1973 we purchased and installed 3 alcohol production units from World
> Energy. They worked great! The units had a vacuum pump and needed no heat
> source other than solar to get them to boil. We converted several farm
> vehicles to run on the 170 proof fuel made from spoiled grain. By the time
> we cooked the mash and paid for the enzymes to brake the starch down to
> simple sugars our costs were 50% more the farm fuel. We had no use for the
> waste heat from the cookers and the trucks could not go off the farm with
> out pulling a fuel tank because there was no and steel are not enough places
> to fuel up. Further, the cost to run a greenhouse and farm is so high now
> how could you possibly pay 50 % more for energy and survive? If we all
> lived in cold climates and could use the waste heat it would be interesting
> to calculate the economics. We do need alternative fuels but what group can
> afford the higher costs?
>
> We have purchased units that can use the waste heat to cool by running the
> heat into a chiller at 195 F as hot water. We would be glad to find a better
> way to farm.
> HOW SOON CAN WE STOP PURCHASING DIESEL FOR OUR TRACTORS AND TRUCKS.
> We have neither been sitting by nor have we been weighting for the
> government.
> Figure it out, there is only enough "bakery waste" to provide less than 1 %
> of the fuel you will need. We purchased bakery waste from California to feed
> pigs for years but there was not enough to provide the hog operations in 3
> counties. I do not wish to step on your toes BUT please provide the facts
> that support your
> theory that you can provide the worlds energy needs with out oil. We are
> ready to jump on your band wagon if you can show on paper it is going any
> where.
> What will it cost to purchase? What will it cost to operate? How long will
> it last? How much fuel will it use? Where will the fuel be available and
> ( at what cost) ?
> Who will fix it if it brakes? How long will we be shut down if it brakes
> down?
>
> We are all for doing it without oil, when can we do it?
> Brent
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Real military aid
>
>
> >
> > Brent
.> > I disagree with you
here is why.> > Keeping the world going does not take oil
.it takes creativity and a
> willingness to run a risk.> > The world's supply of oil is finite
.it WILL run out some day. What
> then???
> > We are working with 2 alternatives to the use of oil
.alcohol fuel and
> synthesis gas.
> > In upstate New York, growing anything in the winter requires ancillary
> light and heat. We will
> > be demonstrating an aquaponics system which will accomodate both of these
> fuels to supply
> > electricity and heat. Why would we do this?? Because using both of these
> fuels does not
> > contribute additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It only returns
> carbon dioxide into
> > the system which was sequestered there by plants
.as such they are carbon
> cycle neutral.
> > The alcohol fuel is derived from bakery waste (available by the TON here)
> and the by-products
> > from production (CO2 & DDGS) are used within the system - notably the DDGS
> for fish feed.
> > Synthesis fuel is derived from poplar trees or willow through a process
> called gasification.
> > Both of these fuels can be used by burning them in a microturbine right in
> the greenhouse -
> > the by-products of combustion are CO2, water and heat.
> > There are many things that CAN be done
.but sitting by and waiting for
> the government to do
> > it, is not one of them.
> > If we really want to deal with this problem, we can. Viable alternatives
> DO exist
. for heaven's sake
> > lets use them.
> > Our help will only come from ourselves.> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Brent Bingham" wrote:
> > >
> > > Jerry,
> > > I must agree. We cannot fix the world! We can try to keep it going and
> that
> > > takes oil. With out oil there would be no food in the big cities in just
> a
> > > matter of days. With out oil most food production would stop in weeks.
> With
> > > out oil the stored frozen food would be gone in months or less after the
> > > power is gone. We store a years worth of ; food , fuel, water, and
> what
> > > ever we can, just in case. If we were lucky we could feed relatives and
> > > neighbors for a few months, if the oil was cut off. What would the
> people
> > > in towns do?
> > > Brent
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "gerry magnuson"
> > >
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 4:52 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Real military aid
> > >
> > >
> > > > gee dave, join the dnc with their bs hype, are you a socialist, or
> worse?
> > > do
> > > > you like big brother watching for your needs, common sense tells you
> to
> > > put
> > > > a seat belt on, but there is a law, bye-bye another
> freedom
.duh
.stick
> > > to
> > > > aquaponics, you will lose in any political debate
.without free
> > > enterprise,
> > > > socialism cannot exist
.try going and living in various countries,
> then
> > > get
> > > > back to me
.impress me by providing for your own needs and others,
> and
> > > > showing a profit, and expanding to feed 100,000 people your way, then
> you
> > > > will prove yourself
.bet you think peace corps works, want to go to
> > > fresno,
> > > > ca and see the walking dead from peace corps? no cure
.oops, not
> suppose
> > > to
> > > > tell
cowboy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: DAVEINBHAM 'at' aol.com
> > > > >Reply-To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
> > > > >To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
> > > > >Subject: Real military aid
> > > > >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:44:17 EDT
> > > > >
> > > > >In a message dated 8/19/01 12:09:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > > > >aquaponics-digest-request 'at' townsqr.com writes:
> > > > >
> > > > ><< We cannot send an army with
> > > > > guns to guard every nomadic group wandering looking for food can we
> ?
> > > > > Brent >>
> > > >
> > >
> >***************************************************************************
> > > ***
> > > > >
> > > > >********
> > > > >Brent,
> > > > >Why cant we do that ? Because the president is more interested in a
> tax
> > > cut
> > > > >for the wealthy and in building a " missile shield" ( which will
> likely
> > > not
> > > > >work) because wealthy Republicans get wealthier on the defense
> contracts.
> > > > >We are already spending nearly half the money spent on military in
> the
> > > > >whole
> > > > >damn world. Trouble is where we spend it. It will take a whole lot of
> > > > >citizens telling government what we really want the military to do to
> > > > >change
> > > > >things.
> > > > >Regards,
> > > > >Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
. .
| Message 26
Subject: Re: Real military aid
From: "Brent Bingham"
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:25:55 -0700
Our push was to find a economical use for the grain on the bottom of our
grain storage. The seed germ was dead in most of what we tested but the corn
oil and solids steel had food value. We went to a German company and
purchased a double screw pellet mill to make fish and livestock feed. We
paid for a very expensive lesson.
for what it is worth " there is economy of scale " that a farm size
operation cannot reach. A family farm can get free slave labor to play with
cutting edge technology. Making "home brew" fuel is not that hard. Making is
economical is near imposable. The answer may lie in integration. Archer
Daniels Midland uses every possible ounce of byproduct. A home based system
has a poor chance at best with $ 10.00 per hour labor and current fuel
costs. To make alcohol takes some skill ,some art and some luck. Just a few
bacteria in the brew and you get vinegar, very expensive vinegar.
It seems there is enough expertise on the list to get some
very interesting projects going. We will share what we have done and it
seems others will as well.
It is ok to have ones head in the clouds as long as you keep at least on
foot on the ground. Turbines are great
BUT they also need oil, very special oil! I try not to have the attitude of
"been there done that" BUT if you look very close at the total cycle of a
turbine you see much of its energy is used to compress its fuel and air
supply. Next you must use the heat. All the units we tested do not pencil
out if you do not recapture the heat for cogeneration and domestic heating
of some sort.
We need to partner with a power plant to be next to there waste unless this
new unit has broke new ground.
Lets get going!.
Brent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arlus Farnsworth"
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Real military aid
>
>
> Brent Bingham wrote:
>
> >
> > vehicles to run on the 170 proof fuel made from spoiled grain. By the
time
> > we cooked the mash and paid for the enzymes to brake the starch down to
> > simple sugars our costs were 50% more the farm fuel.
>
> What about the malting process of germination and sparging? You would have
to
> use viable grain of course, but the residue could be used for feed. Or you
could
> spread it on crackers. Not sure if yeast counts as a vegetable serving. It
is
> half fungus and half bacteria. Is there a limit to what is produced in
aquaponic
> systems categorically? I can imagine many spin off applications for
> sub-components, not only for the purpose of food production.
>
> I was curious to understand the logistics of oil producing seeds?
>
>
>
. .
| Message 27
Subject: Re: Tech help please
From: "STEVE SPRING"
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:05:01 -0500
Hi Marc,
Very, very glad for your response. I was very afraid that you would be
offended and I certainly did not want that.
I wish I could achieve some sort of equilibrium and not have to dump. This
is a major, and very "chilling" problem in Feb. in Wisconsin. (I guess the
same as in Canada.) Now, even with only 100 or so Tilapia in my system
(apprx. 1500 gal), every 3rd or 4th day, I have to make a major dump
.just
too much fish poop. I don't have a large growbed area
.probably only about
+/- 60ft2. And, I only feed the fish what they will eat in 15 or 20 min.
Don't know.
Thanks again
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Laberge"
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: Tech help please
Steve, I agree with you 100% about the fish being the barometer, if they eat
then they are doing well. If you can dump that's great.
The commercial system I am working on , will be quite large and due to very
strict environmental laws up here in Québec, there is no way that I would be
able to just dump my water. Besides, achieving water chemistry equilibrium
is what I am working on to maintain a constant production of both healthy
fish and lettuce.
-----Original Message-----
From: STEVE SPRING
To: aquaponics 'at' townsqr.com
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: Tech help please
>Hi Mick,
>
>No disrerspect to Marc in Canada intended
.but here is another example of
>how you can "test" yourself into insanity. If I had a million gallon system
>with hundreds of thousands of fish, I guess I would test all of these
>things. I think Marc has a very large system.
>
>I guess I still have to stick to what that old farmer said, "If you can SEE
>your fish and they are eating well, then you are o.k." I know that my
>personal farming etiquette is if the fish swarm to the food, then I know
>that all is o.k. If they are hesitant about eating, I do a major water
dump.
>Works for me.
>
>Now, I don't have the operation that Marc has, so you make your own
>decisions.
>
>Steve
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Marc Laberge"
>
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:48 PM
>Subject: Re: Tech help please
>
>
>Hi Mick,
>I don't know how big your system is but
.you should learn about pH, a
>sudden change in this can be the difference between healthy or dead fish,
>between healthy and unhealthy plants. Although in the short term , pH may
>remain stable ( depending on your system; with or without solid removal )
it
>will fluctuate to a certain degree. If you don't have any buffer material
in
>your system like limestone gravel or a sufficient alkalinity levels, you
may
>be in for a surprise in the future. Do you flush any water ? If you don't,
>think of your alkalinity as a buffer reserve which is being slowly eaten
>away by the carbon dioxide produced by the fish which turns the water
>acidic. The bacteria in your biofilter also are using the alkalinity
>reserve, which again , is slowly being eaten away. Eventually the reserve
>disappears and the water pH drops down causing your ammonia to become toxic
>and your nitrifying bacteria to be so stressed that they do not function
>properly causing your nitrite to peak and become toxic to your fish.
>
>best be prepared
>
>Marc Laberge
>Québec, Canada
>
>
|
