Chris Kott wrote:Firstly, I believe you have defined aquaculture inaccurately. Aquaculture is an integrated system (one single, whole, all-encompassing water system) that mimics or uses natural life systems and species' relationships to achieve the desired effect.
By definition, aquaponics is the combination of aquaculture and hydroponics. It can be artificial or natural. These systems are made to use plant growing systems to filter the water, instead of the normal mechanical and/or biofilters used in aquaculture.
Chris Kott wrote:By definition, aquaponics is an artificially supported system.
Chris Kott wrote:Aquaponics is what you do in tanks with tubing and hoses, filters and pumps, doing everything but growing the algae mechanically; aquaculture is what you do when you design a pond system that works. With aquaponics, if the human running the system disappears for a while, the system stops and everything dies. With aquaculture, everything is designed to support everything else, so that when the human who set up the system is away doing other things, everything continues whatever the human does.
Chris Kott wrote:Aren't there inherently higher efficiencies when you get living organisms to do the work either you or some piece of power-gobbling machinery otherwise has to do?
it's easy to look up the definition and examples of both systems. I am very familiar with both systems, as I have been involved with this sort of stuff for over a decade. Again, aquaponics is aquaculture (the aqua part) and hydroponics (the ponics part) combined. Aquaponics is a form of aquaculture (farming in water). If you have a link to something that disputes that, please post it.
Chris Kott wrote:This discussion almost belongs in its own thread. If you don't believe what I'm saying, I can find links to reputable sources. Or PM Paul, and ask him to define the two terms.
Most aquaponics systems recirculate the water from the plants back to the fish (as part of the filtration system), so I don't understand how taking water out of a aquaculture system to a land based plant systems constitutes aquaponics. Taking water out to a wicking bed is significantly different than most aquaponics systems.
Chris Kott wrote:If you read my previous posts, you will notice that no where did I suggest that the water being wicked away into the garden was returning to the pond. I actually commented on the fact that because resources are leaving the system, apart from the harvested fish, it is aquaponics rather than aquaculture. I might be stretching the meaning of aquaponics, as there are no plants being raised in water for harvest, but the only difference in what you describe is the fact that the medium your plants are growing in is your garden soil.
the algae oxygenates the water, so we are including those species. But, very few species produce O2 at rates that can compete with mechanical aeration.
Chris Kott wrote:I will leave, for the moment, the idea that you might be leaving out of your system life forms that oxygenate the water.
Chris Kott wrote:My research in this specific area is incomplete. But let me ask you this: if your system is running on solar, or any other renewable, and you spend the money on infrastructure once, then what difference does it make how much energy you are taking out of the wind/sun? It makes a definite difference if your power is derived from non-renewables, or a feedstock that you need to manage, but until the sun goes out, there is no cost to you beyond the size of the initial investment.
Chris Kott wrote:I even concede that depending on the size of the system, it might be wise to have discrete areas within the pond, such that the waste sediment gathers in one area, where the bottom-feeders eat. Just to sum up my point, I think that the benefits to the integrity of the system warrant adding more oxygen to it, and if that means capturing more renewable energy, I would judge it worth the added initial cost. Is that not reasonable?
Chris Kott wrote:Abe, do you have any information available comparing the costs and efficiencies of different renewable energy sources? I was thinking specifically of the traditional wind-powered water pump. All I'm thinking is that if you had a water tower to act in the same way as a mill pond, when the wind was blowing, it would fill the tank, which would dump either at specific times or at regular intervals, and more regularly at night when O2 demands are highest (if I read what you posted right). The tower would have an overflow directed to pour into the tank, and if the solids were screened out before the water was lifted to the tower, it could be used as a tank for growing algae on its own before flowing into the fish tank.
I am missing some numbers that would tell me if this would work at all, let alone if it makes sense. But parts of this idea have been used separately to irrigate for over a century and to operate mills on-demand before electricity had even been thought of. I thought that if it were possible to move water without using electricity, and without the conversion losses inherent in generating electricity from wind, perhaps this would be an option for those with 1)varying elevations on a larger property 2)useable wind.
I am trying to find an old-style wind-powered water pump for purposes of pricing. Has anyone seen this done anywhere?
John Sizemore wrote:I had a 100 watt 3500 gal an hour fountain pump. Like I said I was playing with it. For my filter I have a 55 gallon plastic drum that I had the water flowing up from the bottom and out the top. I purged the filter from a bottom drain every day.
Mike Sipe put out a hatchery manual on the internet that told all about tilapia few years ago. It was free. Now he supplies it with purchases but you can still find websites that offer the old manual for free since it was a freebee in the past.
I was not really doing anything beyond playing as I was working as a contractor and could not baby sit the system. I just observed and found that the information I got from other sources all panned out.