Strider

Dual loop system build.

299 posts in this topic

More important benefit of elevated pH levels within the range for optimal nitrification, with a properly built bio-filter, there is zero concerns of nitrite and ammonia spikes (especially when coupled with a trickle filter) accumulation due to the significantly increased ammonia to nitrate conversion rate efficiency of nitrification. In the koi hobby, I have seen incidents of significant fish food accidents occurring and still not impact ammonia/nitrite water quality whatsoever.

 

The biological make up of some fish species is probably more a consideration when it comes to elevated pH than nitrifying bacteria.  Nitrification happens fine at around 6.0.....and I've heard people state that they've had it well below that figure (which I previously believed would stall nitrification).  

 

I respectfully suggest that saying that there is no risk of ammonia toxicity if one's bio-filter is "properly built" is a blinding flash of the obvious.   

 

Further, the dual loop allows the operator to utilize manure from other warm blooded species in the grow system without concern of this allowing spiked urea contaminants entering the fish tank.

 

There are several benefits associated with what has become known as 'dual loop' systems.   They have been canvassed at length on this forum - over quite a few years.  

 

All thanks to Paul Van der Werf at Earthan Edge for being the only one actively encouraging this and actually educating folk on how to do this and actively showing how this is done in a large scale commercial and backyard hobby arena.

 

Yes, Paul has done a credible job of popularising dual loop systems.  To put things into perspective, however, he was not the first (as has been claimed) to discuss (nor implement) the practice.....even in a commercial context.  That doesn't negate the value of his work in this area - it's merely a statement of historical fact.

 

So far as "actively encouraging" is concerned......it's horses for courses. Dual loop is not necessary for every system......or even appropriate in some situations.  iAVs, for example, has absolutely no need of it.  

 

As far as education goes, it's adequate (in my view) to let people know that it's an option......and the benefits that it affords.   While I don't agree with the sentiment (and my system designs reflect that view), most people will see it as just too much trouble.

 

As I pointed out in another post, the decision to 'dual loop' or not - and the design of the dual loop system will be situation-dependent.  Some situations, for example, require denitrification where others do not.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your system designs Gary?

Which ones? I haven't seen any of your systems or IAVs yet. Please share some of your systems so we can learn from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SA

Your system designs Gary?

Which ones? I haven't seen any of your systems or IAVs yet. Please share some of your systems so we can learn from them.

If you wan't to see some of Garys designs you can just read back on this forum, they are all laid out with pictures succsses and failours. there is plenty of them

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mathias,

 

As Ande has pointed out my systems have been described in literally hundreds of posts on this forum.

 

You can also read more about my systems in my book......HERE.......and HERE.  No need to do anything except click on the links.

 

To see what I wrote about Open (Dual) Loop systems........see HERE.  And, in case you were wondering, I first discussed Open (Dual) Loop systems - and even denitrification filters -  in the 2nd Edition of the Manual - released in June 2008.

 

As to whether I have built an iAVs yet.......my answer remains unchanged since the last time you asked the same question - about a week ago.  Not yet!

 

 

Gary

Edited by Gary Donaldson (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi phri

A low energy mbbr can be considered co2 neutral (produces the same amouth of CO2 as it removes). Thus will result in CO2 problems in high stocked systems. You can increase the air input to increase CO2 stripping in the mbbr or have a dedicated degassing section in the filter. The last is typical a degassing tower or the like. The other thing is pH contfrol; mbbr typical need to run at a higher pH then trickling filters. Interestingly this makes the trickle filter fit better in an aquaponic system from the perspective of water quality management.

 

btw the above is only relevant in high density systems; currently in the system I have at home I keep 10 kg murray cod in a 2 m3 tank with a 5 m3 mbbr with little air at a pH of around 6. NO problems here, but if I up biomass to 500 kg I have to run this completly different including active CO2 control.

 That sure is a huge mbbr for a home system .

Are you familar with, or do you have any experience with the "new" Kaldnes biomedia ? (BiofilmChipM & K5)

And their impact on the mbbr performance, CO2 etc.

I was given a bucket full (10-15litre) of the BiofilmChipM but haven't got around to test/use it, as I have no systems runing now.

I was adviced to mix it in at a 30% ratio with K1/3 in the mbbr.

 

http://technomaps.veoliawatertechnologies.com/minizoom?media=videos&objectId=39260〈=en&src=kit_vwst

 

video from here : http://technomaps.veoliawatertechnologies.com/mbbr/en/

 

cheers

crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

 

One of the key benefits of dual loop systems is avoidance of compromises around things like pH and temperature.   You can run your fish side at around 7.5 - which is good for them and the nitrifying bacteria - but which sees several nutrients locked out - and your plant side at 6.0......which optimises nutrient availability.

 

If you are going to run elevated pH levels on your fish side, you'll need to watch ammonia levels pretty closely since ammonia becomes more toxic at higher pH.

 

Gary

Thanks Gary. Yes I have been running this particular setup for about 8 mo. now and was aware of the Ph vs. temperature issue. I try to kerp it at around 7.0. The plant side is a little harder to maintain at 6. My ammonia seems to be low at around 0 to .25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary,

 

The edible fish species that I have seen grown within this hobby actually have an ideal pH range, after a quick google all of them appear to be in the 7~8 range. Others able to "make it work" at a pH of 6 is quite irrelevant.

 

If the idea of a proper filtration system is a "blinding flash of the obvious", then there would not be so many hobbyists that appear to struggle with filtration by occasional ammonia and nitrite spike, increased fish mortality, or hobbyists thinking they can get-by without, or with minimal, filtration.

 

 

The urge you have to always want to put Paul "in his place" by stating your perspective on the historical facts does (has done) absolutely nothing to further the conservation.

 

Fact is Paul is the only one actively encouraging this dual loop idea with hobbyists and actually sharing his industrial technical acumen to actively show entrepreneurs (with both his words and actions) how to make this idea of integrated aquaculture possible (without making compromises), in both the backyard and commercial arena. Paul has gone far beyond what I have read anyone else, including you and Hallam, ever attempt to do.

 

Quite an asinine idea that you think you deserve some type of acknowledgement, every time this discussion starts, for this idea due to how "once upon a time" you wrote text talking about it and built a small, short lived, backyard system "once upon a time".

Paul was a lot of help......and I appreciate all he has contributed. I was sorry to see him go to the pay for help system as I miss his clarifications even if I did find them somewhat cryptic at times. But there are still a lot of hobbiests who contribute freely and a ton of info on the web.

ande and GaryD like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling with keeping ph down on my plant side (without resorting to HCl or phosphoric acid additions). My MT ph has stabilised at about 7.2, with fish water coming in about 7.3 though it does fluctuate a bit.

 

My question (and one I have asked Paul without receiving a clear answer as yet), is does the fish tank water need to go to the plant loop to achieve ph lowering - can't it go to the MT where nitrification will happen and produce the same ph lowering effect - which ultimately goes to the plant loop.  The only way I can see this wouldn't work is if the MT was denitrifying due to anerobic zones.

Edited by mattyoga (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling with keeping ph down on my plant side (without resorting to HCl or phosphoric acid additions). My MT ph has stabilised at about 7.2, with fish water coming in about 7.3 though it does fluctuate a bit.

 

My question (and one I have asked Paul without receiving a clear answer as yet), is does the fish tank water need to go to the plant loop to achieve ph lowering - can't it go to the MT where nitrification will happen and produce the same ph lowering effect - which ultimately goes to the plant loop.  The only way I can see this wouldn't work is if the MT was denitrifying due to anerobic zones.

Short answer, no. At least not in my system. The MT just does not have the Ph lowering effect as the MBBR does on the fish side. I have added K1 media into my fish side MT to see uf I can get some of that Ph lowering effect going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take a stab at explaining this.

 

The plant side ph will go up due to hydroxyl molecules being released by plants as they uptake nitrate and nutrients.     The fish side ph is constantly going down due to loss of buffer(carbonates) and as a result of nitrification.  I second Phri on his recommendation that we abandon the 2 types of bacteria and processes as nitrification( there is just more to it than that.)  Here is the question dual loop advocates have to answer.

 

What bad thing will happen if you simply circulate the systems once or twice a day to balance out over supply of buffer and ph, since solids should continue to be trapped and processed in the MT component.

 

Especially considering single loop systems do this day in and out.

 

I really have to question now other than more work what is really gained with this method that could not be gained by adding more surface area of biofilter/waste processing components.

 

If I was going full dual loop, I would circulate the loops after solids had been collected by there prospective components after feeding.  Maybe give a reasonable amount of time after feeding. I would guess 4 hours or so depending of flow design and turnover rate, but that is really a number pulled from thin air and based on calculating flow rates in swimming pool filtration and how many turnovers are required to achieve cleaning based on a turnover rate of total volume in two hours.  I think (I hate that word now) that time will work if using the "rule of thumb" of turning over total system volume once per hour.

 

A  link to a study on maize and alkalization due to nitrate absorption http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11368-013-0837-5

Edited by Ravnis (see edit history)
ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take a stab at explaining this.

 

The plant side ph will go up due to hydroxyl molecules being released by plants as they uptake nitrate and nutrients.     The fish side ph is constantly going down due to loss of buffer(carbonates) and as a result of nitrification.  I second Phri on his recommendation that we abandon the 2 types of bacteria and processes as nitrification( there is just more to it than that.)  Here is the question dual loop advocates have to answer.

 

What bad thing will happen if you simply circulate the systems once or twice a day to balance out over supply of buffer and ph, since solids should continue to be trapped and processed in the MT component.

 

Especially considering single loop systems do this day in and out.

 

I really have to question now other than more work what is really gained with this method that could not be gained by adding more surface area of biofilter/waste processing components.

 

If I was going full dual loop, I would circulate the loops after solids had been collected by there prospective components after feeding.  Maybe give a reasonable amount of time after feeding. I would guess 4 hours or so depending of flow design and turnover rate, but that is really a number pulled from thin air and based on calculating flow rates in swimming pool filtration and how many turnovers are required to achieve cleaning based on a turnover rate of total volume in two hours.  I think (I hate that word now) that time will work if using the "rule of thumb" of turning over total system volume once per hour.

 

A  link to a study on maize and alkalization due to nitrate absorption http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11368-013-0837-5

Didn't I just say the very same thing a few posts back?

crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take a stab at explaining this.

The plant side ph will go up due to hydroxyl molecules being released by plants as they uptake nitrate and nutrients. The fish side ph is constantly going down due to loss of buffer(carbonates) and as a result of nitrification. I second Phri on his recommendation that we abandon the 2 types of bacteria and processes as nitrification( there is just more to it than that.) Here is the question dual loop advocates have to answer.

What bad thing will happen if you simply circulate the systems once or twice a day to balance out over supply of buffer and ph, since solids should continue to be trapped and processed in the MT component.

Especially considering single loop systems do this day in and out.

I really have to question now other than more work what is really gained with this method that could not be gained by adding more surface area of biofilter/waste processing components.

If I was going full dual loop, I would circulate the loops after solids had been collected by there prospective components after feeding. Maybe give a reasonable amount of time after feeding. I would guess 4 hours or so depending of flow design and turnover rate, but that is really a number pulled from thin air and based on calculating flow rates in swimming pool filtration and how many turnovers are required to achieve cleaning based on a turnover rate of total volume in two hours. I think (I hate that word now) that time will work if using the "rule of thumb" of turning over total system volume once per hour.

A link to a study on maize and alkalization due to nitrate absorption http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11368-013-0837-5

The water is a one way route from fish to plants. That is provided the plant side has had other chemcals added that may be bad for the fish. One of the good things about dual loop is the ability to add nutrients to the plant side as needed. Edited by Strider (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the bad thing in returning water from the plant loop to the fish loop is loss of temperature.  in winter fish water would be 25 degs C, plant water at 10 degs C - I would incur a significant heating cost if I circulated water back from the plant loop to the fish loop.  So it has to be one way.

 

I understand that going straight from fish to plants and bypassing the MT will achieve some ph reducing affect due to nitrification, though my question  expressed differently is : why won't that work if passed via the MT?  What does the MT do to that same ammonia that uses it up but does not create a ph lowering affect.?

 

Is it all just down to too much anaerobic activity in the MT?  If so it suggests the MT is too much to the anaerobic side of the scale.  If this is the case we should see a lowering in EC value of the MT water and ph rise.

Edited by mattyoga (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the bad thing in returning water from the plant loop to the fish loop is loss of temperature.  in winter fish water would be 25 degs C, plant water at 10 degs C - I would incur a significant heating cost if I circulated water back from the plant loop to the fish loop.  So it has to be one way.

 

I understand that going straight from fish to plants and bypassing the MT will achieve some ph reducing affect due to nitrification, though my question  expressed differently is : why won't that work if passed via the MT?  What does the MT do to that same ammonia that uses it up but does not create a ph lowering affect.?

 

Is it all just down to too much anaerobic activity in the MT?  If so it suggests the MT is too much to the anaerobic side of the scale.  If this is the case we should see a lowering in EC value of the MT water and ph rise.

  Is it not possible to use a solar water heater return pipe and transfer during the daylight hours.  I had luck trying this, but may not be an option for you .  My temp was 20C and 6C and a 20 ft loop of pex hose painted black with aluminium fins was enough to actually heat the greenhouse water 4 to 5 C. 

The mineral tank has lots of different  processes going on such as decompostion of solids, and hydrolysis to name a couple.  Oxygen levels will be in a state of flux ,  so not really the kind of effluent to be pumping a large volume to either side.  A side note, the vortex mineralization tank is much less effective at solids break down that originally hoped. After 4 months since stopping to enter new waste, the old waste is still a large part of the volume around 25%.   If you do have a lot of anaerobic process happening in your mineralization tank, you should see an increase in ammonia levels in the mineralizing tank. I found this out when a pipe became partially plugged and flow in the tank slowed to much to keep oxygen levels up.  Have you tested ammonia levels in your MT?

Edited by Ravnis (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When come to mineralization, I recommend doing what Dr. Elaine Ingham, a career microbiologist within horticulture (doing this much longer than the aquaponic hobby has existed), has indicated actually works in creating a microbrial fertilizer, and she is not fond of encouraging anaerobic processes one bit at all. There are too many risks involved in anaerobic process in creating microbes that harm a proper plant system, such as dimorphic predatory ciliates that (unlike beneficial nematodes) do not release nutrients upon consumption of beneficial bacteria.

 

I understand the attraction to anaerobic processing due to the increase of ammonia and phosphate release, but I think there is too much "rolling of the dice" involved here, which is likely why Dr. Elaine Ingham suggests to avoid this.

 

 

There is no indication to suggest a vortex mineralization will function properly if new waste introduction ceases. The new waste introduction adds necessary carbon to allow the mineralization process to continue. If new waste introduction ceases, then so does the mineralization unless you do, as Dr. Elaine Ingham suggest, supplement with proper balance of fungi and bacterial foods.

 

 

Just as Mathias has previously stated... dump the fish water into the plant loop after a feeding, except before this water hits the fish loop filters, when ammonia levels are at its highest.

 

However, if the plant water's pH is already too high, then this encourages nitrification and thus quickly converts that ammonia to nitrate. Then, the plants can consume the nitrates, the plants release hydroxyls thus raising pH. ... and you are back to the same old game...

 

 

As Dr. Elaine Ingham talks about, plant environment needs to be fit for its needs. Perennial/biennial plants have a dominant preference of a fungal, low pH, ammonia nitrogen environment. Annuals (and some biennials) plants have a dominant preference of a bacterial, high pH, nitrate nitrogen environment.

 

So determine what your plant loop will be dominant of if doing a single loop.... If doing a dual loop, tremendously easier to match the environment for the plants needs since annual, biennials, and perennials do not have the same environmental needs.

 

If you're doing a single loop and your perennial plants are the dominant species, then the water needs to be near 6 pH so to encourage a fungal, ammonia concentrated environment.

 

 

I would love for anyone hyperlink reference me any papers stating the performance, post egg/fingerling stage, of Trout, Bluegill, and Carp within a sustained water environment of 5~6 pH.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)
TheDictator and GaryD like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When come to mineralization, I recommend doing what Dr. Elaine Ingham, a career microbiologist within horticulture (doing this much longer than the aquaponic hobby has existed), has indicated actually works in creating a microbrial fertilizer, and she is not fond of encouraging anaerobic processes one bit at all. There are too many risks involved in anaerobic process in creating microbes that harm a proper plant system, such as dimorphic predatory ciliates that (unlike beneficial nematodes) do not release nutrients upon consumption of beneficial bacteria.

 

I understand the attraction to anaerobic processing due to the increase of ammonia and phosphate release, but I think there is too much "rolling of the dice" involved here, which is likely why Dr. Elaine Ingham suggests to avoid this.

 

 

There is no indication to suggest a vortex mineralization will function properly if new waste introduction ceases. The new waste introduction adds necessary carbon to allow the mineralization process to continue. If new waste introduction ceases, then so does the mineralization unless you do, as Dr. Elaine Ingham suggest, supplement with proper balance of fungi and bacterial foods.

 

 

Just as Mathias has previously stated... dump the fish water into the plant loop after a feeding, except before this water hits the fish loop filters, when ammonia levels are at its highest.

 

However, if the plant water's pH is already too high, then this encourages nitrification and thus quickly converts that ammonia to nitrate. Then, the plants can consume the nitrates, the plants release hydroxyls thus raising pH. ... and you are back to the same old game...

 

 

As Dr. Elaine Ingham talks about, plant environment needs to be fit for its needs. Perennial/biennial plants have a dominant preference of a fungal, low pH, ammonia nitrogen environment. Annuals (and some biennials) plants have a dominant preference of a bacterial, high pH, nitrate nitrogen environment.

 

So determine what your plant loop will be dominant of if doing a single loop.... If doing a dual loop, tremendously easier to match the environment for the plants needs since annual, biennials, and perennials do not have the same environmental needs.

 

If you're doing a single loop and your perennial plants are the dominant species, then the water needs to be near 6 pH so to encourage a fungal, ammonia concentrated environment.

 

 

I would love for anyone hyperlink reference me any papers stating the performance, post egg/fingerling stage, of Trout, Bluegill, and Carp within a sustained water environment of 5~6 pH.

Is not Dr Ingham talking about soil health and the role plants play in that symbiotic relationship? I do. Ot think her research can be applied to the artificial environment created in aquaponics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the bidirectional exchange of water in a dual loop system, imo that would be a single loop system and no longer capable of seperate manipulation.

Edited by Strider (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is not Dr Ingham talking about soil health and the role plants play in that symbiotic relationship? I do. Ot think her research can be applied to the artificial environment created in aquaponics.

 

 

Indeed, that is why Dr. Ingham also chose an aerobic water device to culture her microbrial fertilizers from manure and compost due to the speed of the process. She also briefly talks about how this is probably sustainable in a water growing environment due to water also having its own unique "food web" in conjunction with the plant's roots.

 

 

Dr. Ingham's classes are definitely worth attending. I have been saving money to attend one since the classes are College Course priced from her Soil Institute. From my email exchanges of other students, they definitely highly recommend the classes. http://www.lifeinthesoilclasses.com/

 

Dr. Timmons and Ebeling, in conjunction with Cornell university, also do an online class that is very well worth the price. This course also grants you direct communication with Timmons and Ebeling for any questions you may have about the material. http://fish.bee.cornell.edu/distance-course/

 

Much like Mr. Van der Werf's online premium forum for hobbyists, which is insanely cheap, and definitely well worth it.  http://www.articles.earthanedge.com

 

 

Honestly, you will find none of their information for free on any forum or, if you do, then it will most likely be skewed or quite lacking in detail, accuracy, and explanation. Forums have its relevance in other arenas, which is quite helpful as well.

 

 

Strider, you should think about investing in this continuing education material.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)
TheDictator likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When come to mineralization, I recommend doing what Dr. Elaine Ingham, a career microbiologist within horticulture (doing this much longer than the aquaponic hobby has existed), has indicated actually works in creating a microbrial fertilizer, and she is not fond of encouraging anaerobic processes one bit at all. There are too many risks involved in anaerobic process in creating microbes that harm a proper plant system, such as dimorphic predatory ciliates that (unlike beneficial nematodes) do not release nutrients upon consumption of beneficial bacteria.

 

I understand the attraction to anaerobic processing due to the increase of ammonia and phosphate release, but I think there is too much "rolling of the dice" involved here, which is likely why Dr. Elaine Ingham suggests to avoid this.

 

While I'm a fan of her work, I'm not sure how readily we can assimilate all that Dr Ingham says about soil microbiology into aquaponics.  When I hear her speak about the relationship betwen plants and microbes, I get the impression that it's a far more complex (and quite different) thing than the nitrification that we normally associate with aquaponics.

 

I share your concern about conducting mineralisation anaerobic (or more probably anoxic) conditions for the reason you've stated - you can't guarantee that the microbes that proliferate will necessarily all be beneficial.  

 

Mineralisation in anoxic conditions may be necessary to extract some elements/compounds that are not produced in aerobic conditions.  I'm not a chemist so I can't say with certainty if this is the way it works.  In any case, I think that mineralisation should occur independently of both fish and plant production.  Where anoxic methods are employed (for whatever reason), the liquor should, in my view, be aerated prior to putting it back into the plant system - to offset the risk of harmful microbes.

 

The question that I have is whether mineralising solid wastes can actually provide the full spectrum of plant-soluble metals from the solid wastes.

 

For example, any Boron contained in fish food (even when extracted through mineralisation - is not in a form that is available to plants.  Similarly, any iron that is extracted from fish food is in the form of ferric oxide - rust!  Rust is not plant-soluble.  Othe metals (sulfur for example) are in plant-soluble form.

 

One of the reasons that this is not readily apparent is that most plants grown in aquaponics (particularly commercial aquaponics) are leafy plants - which require relatively little in the way of metals.  Backyarders frequently blur the situation by adding things like Seasol or Maxicrop.

 

By contrast, and this is speculation on my part, something happens in iAVs - in the soil microbiology that Elaine Ingham talks about - that does make these metals available.   The fact that it does not happen in other aquapoics variants I take to be evidence that the microbiology that happens in soil (and iAVs) is different is the fact that one requires supplementation while the other does not.

 

 

There is no indication to suggest a vortex mineralization will function properly if new waste introduction ceases. The new waste introduction adds necessary carbon to allow the mineralization process to continue. If new waste introduction ceases, then so does the mineralization unless you do, as Dr. Elaine Ingham suggest, supplement with proper balance of fungi and bacterial foods.

 

 

Isn't that why compost teas and the like are brewed with kelp or molasses.....to extend the proliferation of beneficial microbes in a batch situation?

 

Gary

RupertofOZ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, that is why Dr. Ingham also chose an aerobic water device to culture her microbrial fertilizers from manure and compost due to the speed of the process. She also briefly talks about how this is probably sustainable in a water growing environment due to water also having its own unique "food web" in conjunction with the plant's roots.

 

 

Dr. Ingham's classes are definitely worth attending. I have been saving money to attend one since the classes are College Course priced from her Soil Institute. From my email exchanges of other students, they definitely highly recommend the classes. http://www.lifeinthesoilclasses.com/

 

Dr. Timmons and Ebeling, in conjunction with Cornell university, also do an online class that is very well worth the price. This course also grants you direct communication with Timmons and Ebeling for any questions you may have about the material. http://fish.bee.cornell.edu/distance-course/

 

Much like Mr. Van der Werf's online premium forum for hobbyists, which is insanely cheap, and definitely well worth it.  articles.earthanedge.com

 

 

Honestly, you will find none of their information for free on any forum or, if you do, then it will most likely be skewed or quite lacking in detail, accuracy, and explanation. Forums have its relevance in other arenas, which is quite helpful as well.

 

 

Strider, you should think about investing in this continuing education material.

 

Hi,

 

I agree that all of these resources are useful......but none of them are necessary if all you want to do is grow clean fresh food for your family and yourself.

 

Indeed, everything you need to achieve that goal is available right here.......at no cost!

 

While I enjoy the in-depth discussions on various aspects of aquaponics, I think that, for many people, the information is way above their comprehension - or need.

 

Gary

Edited by Gary Donaldson (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelp or molasses is not a requirement. Also, Dr. Ingham's on the usage of molasses for this purpose is not the same as it was it in the past due to the concern of purity in molasses and other concerns created by molasses.

 

Particular supplements are talked about mainly to encourage either fungi or bacterial beneficial microbes, dependent on the plant being grown.

 

I am a soil guy myself for the more complex perennial plants. I am also not convinced that aquaponic enthusiasts have shown the ability to build the proper environment for their microbes in a NFT nor DWC for these perrenial plants, but this is not to say it is not possible since I am not prevy to the information that folk such as Ryan Chatterson have learned.

 

 

Microbes are the mineralizers. These same microbes are what creates the chelation compounds to make precipitated nutrients such iron, etc etc, available to plants.

 

However, from what I understand by Dr. Ingham, the microbes can be easily screwed up the same in a soil environment as it can be in a water environment dependent on which is being fed and over indulged.

 

 

This is what I have come to understand purely thanks to the expert individuals involved that I have referenced in my previous post.

 

I am not convinced that the general majority of aquaponic hobbyists actually know what they are doing rather than just guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as Dr. Ingham talks about, the only way you know you have a good culture of microbes to help your plants is if you can see them in a microscope. One of these days, when money is accrued, I will take the dive for the classes, but, until then, just going to pretty much guess what I am doing is correct, according to what the aforementioned names I have shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have mentioned in my previous posts.... Folk are wanting to extrapolate far more than what is actually written and trialed by iAVS... Not going to get into it...

 

I recommend iAVS to folk and I have learned from it as well, but I am not surprised when folk do not accept the product whole hog.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be aware that dimorphic harmful microbes are not killed by aeration since by definition, of them being dimorphic, they are able to survive in an oxygenated environment. If this were not true, then I would think Dr. Ingham would fully endorse oxygen reduced/deprived mineralization processes.

 

I think there is good reasons why Phri mentioned in one of his posts about monitoring bacteria populations to secure the health of his fish livestock.

 

For hobbyists, most likely not a big deal, but I think this does not mean we should be relaxed to think that "not a big deal" means "it is ok to do".

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read to look for persuasions and I contribute to provide persuasions for folk to consider. Accept it or don't accept; no hair off my back...

 

I am at peace with the understanding I have obtained and fully appreciative and thankful to others more knowledgeable than I. As in life, there is a hierarchy and so is the weight of advice given as well and, often times, the heaviest advice comes with a price and rarely does it come for free. So, I am sincerely grateful when industrial, career professionals become involved.

 

I am not here to get into an argument, but, unfortunately, too often seems to turn that way. C'est la vie.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)
TheDictator and Old Prospector like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now