Strider

Dual loop system build.

299 posts in this topic

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

 

I certainly don't understand what triggered this latest anxiety - but I do appreciate everything of a positive nature that you contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

 

Can you point to a source for this postulation Gary?

Edited by RupertofOZ (see edit history)
TheDictator likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question that I have is whether mineralising solid wastes can actually provide the full spectrum of plant-soluble metals from the solid wastes.

 

The UAE system in Dubai was initially run purely on a "brewed" nutrient input.. primarily based on fish feed...

 

Subsequently the plant production is based on the mineralisation of wastes from the fish (and plants).. with very minimal (if any) additional supplementation

 

The same applies to the Cobbity system in Sydney.. although they also utilise worms...

 

And I myself have run my systems on the same basis for many years.... without any deficiencies.. and seemingly good growth.. ;)

 

So my answer would be a resounding ... "Yes"

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UAE system in Dubai was initially run purely on a "brewed" nutrient input.. primarily based on fish feed...

 

Subsequently the plant production is based on the mineralisation of wastes from the fish (and plants).. with very minimal (if any) additional supplementation

 

The same applies to the Cobbity system in Sydney.. although they also utilise worms...

 

And I myself have run my systems on the same basis for many years.... without any deficiencies.. and seemingly good growth.. ;)

 

So my answer would be a resounding ... "Yes"

 

What does "run purely on a 'brewed' nutrient input...primarily based on fish feed" actually mean?  If the input was derived 'primarily' from fish feed, where did the rest of it come from?  Similarly, what does "very minimal (if any) additional supplementation" mean?  Is it minimal and, if so, what is it and how much?  Or is it none?

 

We don't know a great deal about the Cobbity system - outside of the hype - so I'd certainly appreciate knowing how it works.  If it has worms - and it's said to be organic - then it may be more about soil microbiology (like iAVs) than what we generally understand to be aquaponics.

 

When did you actually begin to run your systems on the same basis?   And when did you first draw attention to that mode of operation?

 

Gary

Edited by Gary Donaldson (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "run purely on a 'brewed' nutrient input...primarily based on fish feed" actually mean?  If the input was derived 'primarily' from fish feed, where did the rest of it come from?  Similarly, what does "very minimal (if any) additional supplementation" mean?  SIs it minimal and, if so, what is it and how much?  Or is it none?

 

Primarily based on fish feed, means exactly that... there were a few minor additives to assist in promotion of EM activity

 

Very minimal (if any)... means exactly that.... in the initial stages when various crops and strains of crops were being tested, some minimal additions were made to correct and confirm the basis for any deficiencies that were showing in a few particular crop strains.. primarily iron....

 

Those crops, or strains were discontinued rather than bearing the costs and/or operational factors required to grow them.. and/or the returns in doing so

 

Any additions were "minimal" in terms of the quantities added within a system volume of megalitres

 

 

We don't know a great deal about the Cobbity system - outside of the hype - so I'd certainly appreciate knowing how it works.  If it has worms - and it's said to be organic - then it may be more about soil microbiology (like iAVs) than what we generally understand to be aquaponics.

 

The Cobbity system is basically the same aerobic digestion process.. but with additional inputs from their plant waste decomposition with worms.. essentially "vermiponics"

 

The Cobbity operation has an Australian (iFOAM based) organic certification.. which is displayed on their website

 

The certification was granted on the basis that the plants are grown in a "soil" plug.. derived as part of their "vermiponics" methodology

 

I don't believe though that soil microbiology can be extrapolated to the use of the vermiponics brewing, or the use of "soil" plugs to any great extent

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cobbity system is basically the same aerobic digestion process.. but with additional inputs from their plant waste decomposition with worms.. essentially "vermiponics"

 

I don't believe though that soil microbiology can be extrapolated to the use of the vermiponics brewing, or the use of "soil" plugs to any great extent

 

Were the mentioned additional inputs derived water worms or soil worms involved in the plant waste decomposition?  ;)

 

I believe there is likely more transference of microbiology than what is given credit.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)
GaryD likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did you actually begin to run your systems on the same basis?   And when did you first draw attention to that mode of operation?

 

All my systems have been trials and experiments utilisiing NFT and my previous base knowledge of hydroponics... based on the literal definition of aquaponics = aquaculture + hydroponics...

 

And attempting to reconcile what was happening in aquaponic systems against that base knowledge in terms of EC, nutrient formulations... plant requirements, expected yields etc.. and against my then current ongoing aquaculture studies.. (and my limited at the time knowledge of mass balance equations.. (still somewhat limited.. :D)

 

And within the limited "science" available at the time regarding "aquaponics".... particularly reconciling the data published by UVI and my understanding of their methodologies...

 

If you look at my hydroponic NFT components of my systems.. you can clearly see that they have been standalone recirculating systems... (other then the system in my second location)

 

All however were supplied by inputs of solids mineralisation... with or without additives... as the NFT required the removal of solids as a pre-requisite...

 

I also ran several separate standard closed loop media bed systems initially... (the "blue barrel" system and the "mega hybrid" system)...which I documented fully

 

What was not perhaps apparent, and indeed not fully documented, was the operation of the NFT component of the "mega" system which was  a trout based RAS with mineralisation supplying the NFT...

 

If you look closely at the pictures of the trout RAS you will see two banks of black drums... the upper three were filtration returning to the RAS... the other three, which took solids input from the filtration bank, formed the mineralisation aspect... aerobic and anaerobic, and sump to supply the NFT..

 

(Subsequently I ran a trial of a constant flood trial of a hybrid media bed & NFT system.... in my second location, and most recently trials of constant flood media beds, with and without solids removal... and the NFT component with, and without mineralisation in the third location)

 

The latter two were only documented pictorally on FB.. as I was no longer a "member" of the previous forums for one reason or another.. ;)

 

My documentation of my systems on the forums was essentially based only on my closed loop media bed implementations and basic "safe"  principles that could be extended to the average backyard systems

 

As you no doubt recall at the time, and subsequently, much ado occurred around matters of stocking density, solids removal, commercialisation, design etc... and many unsubstantiated claims were made without any scientific basis, and/or data provided to back them...

 

I always believed, and still do, that any commercialisation of "aquaponics" would involve an integration of standard aquaculture and hydroponic methodologies, particularly those most commonly employed within the hydroponcis industry... NFT based methodologies.... (as is increasingly becoming implemented)

 

And that also meant running the aquaculture component at RAS densities, with appropriate methodologies.... something beyond the (then) general knowledge and capabilities of the average backyarder to do so safely

 

I was pushing my experiments in those directions, as my knowledge expanded, with as much scientific basis as I incorporated over time...

 

But I wasn't prepared to make public claims I myself couldn't back without the "science", and/ or without "data" to support such claims.... nor did I see any sense in doing so for the average backyarder... and particularly having argued for a base level of sanity and basic principles over time...

 

With the incorporation of solids removal over time, with increasing stocking densities.. i began, as did you and others, posting accordingly.... and the same has applied to aspects of "mineralisation" and/or "separate loop" methodologies...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

crsublette, bigdaddy, GaryD and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my systems have been trials and experiments utilisiing NFT and my previous base knowledge of hydroponics... based on the literal definition of aquaponics = aquaculture + hydroponics...

And attempting to reconcile what was happening in aquaponic systems against that base knowledge in terms of EC, nutrient formulations... plant requirements, expected yields etc.. and against my then current ongoing aquaculture studies.. (and my limited at the time knowledge of mass balance equations.. (still somewhat limited.. :D)

And within the limited "science" available at the time regarding "aquaponics".... particularly reconciling the data published by UVI and my understanding of their methodologies...

If you look at my hydroponic NFT components of my systems.. you can clearly see that they have been standalone recirculating systems... (other then the system in my second location)

All however were supplied by inputs of solids mineralisation... with or without additives... as the NFT required the removal of solids as a pre-requisite...

I also ran several separate standard closed loop media bed systems initially... (the "blue barrel" system and the "mega hybrid" system)...which I documented fully

What was not perhaps apparent, and indeed not fully documented, was the operation of the NFT component of the "mega" system which was a trout based RAS with mineralisation supplying the NFT...

If you look closely at the pictures of the trout RAS you will see two banks of black drums... the upper three were filtration returning to the RAS... the other three, which took solids input from the filtration bank, formed the mineralisation aspect... aerobic and anaerobic, and sump to supply the NFT..

(Subsequently I ran a trial of a constant flood trial of a hybrid media bed & NFT system.... in my second location, and most recently trials of constant flood media beds, with and without solids removal... and the NFT component with, and without mineralisation in the third location)

The latter two were only documented pictorally on FB.. as I was no longer a "member" of the previous forums for one reason or another.. ;)

My documentation of my systems on the forums was essentially based only on my closed loop media bed implementations and basic "safe" principles that could be extended to the average backyard systems

As you no doubt recall at the time, and subsequently, much ado occurred around matters of stocking density, solids removal, commercialisation, design etc... and many unsubstantiated claims were made without any scientific basis, and/or data provided to back them...

I always believed, and still do, that any commercialisation of "aquaponics" would involve an integration of standard aquaculture and hydroponic methodologies, particularly those most commonly employed within the hydroponcis industry... NFT based methodologies.... (as is increasingly becoming implemented)

And that also meant running the aquaculture component at RAS densities, with appropriate methodologies.... something beyond the (then) general knowledge and capabilities of the average backyarder to do so safely

I was pushing my experiments in those directions, as my knowledge expanded, with as much scientific basis as I incorporated over time...

But I wasn't prepared to make public claims I myself couldn't back without the "science", and/ or without "data" to support such claims.... nor did I see any sense in doing so for the average backyarder... and particularly having argued for a base level of sanity and basic principles over time...

With the incorporation of solids removal over time, with increasing stocking densities.. i began, as did you and others, posting accordingly.... and the same has applied to aspects of "mineralisation" and/or "separate loop" methodologies...

...

I like pictures.. Where are they? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the mentioned additional inputs derived water worms or soil worms involved in the plant waste decomposition?  ;)

 

I believe there is likely more transference of microbiology than what is given credit.

 

There is most certainly microbial processes involved within the "soil worms" vermiponic component Crusublette.. and I didn't mean to imply otherwise....

 

And likewise there is a definite microbial basis in the overall "digestion" component....

 

I was more referring to the extrapolation of "soil microbiology".. ala the discussions of Dr Elaines "soil web" publications.. which I think are overstated in relation to most AP systems and methodologies employed....

 

Sure there is no doubt some transference of the principles, and partial microbiologies... but I think that many aren't necessarily transferrable in most instances.. unless you go down the entire aerobic and anaerobic/anoxic decomposition road.. which while many are now increasingly doing...  is still not common practice... either in the backyard or commercially.. ;)

Edited by RupertofOZ (see edit history)
crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like pictures.. Where are they? :D

 

On the BYAP forum mostly.... search for RupertofOZ's "mega hybrid system"... (and the "blue barrel" system)

 

The later systems you can find in my FB albums... "John Burgess"

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more referring to the extrapolation of "soil microbiology".. ala the discussions of Dr Elaines "soil web" publications.. which I think are overstated in relation to most AP systems and methodologies employed....

 

Due to the mechanisms Dr. Ingham employs to create her microbrial fertilizers and the mechanisms talked about used for AP systems to mineralize their waste... and then no doubt most likely a transference of microbes from these devices to colonize on the plants roots when MT liquid is dispersed...

 

...I would think the much higher root density of plants created in a liquid environment would serve as an excellent foundation for microbrial colonization like not much different than soil.... there also is most like likely a water "food web" as well...

 

I have not read any persuasion as to why there would not be extrapolation of Dr. Ingham's work to an aquaponic context.

 

 

John, I figure you and I will have to agree to disagree until I read something more persuasive...

 

...the persuasions I found quite noticeable are the similarities involved between what Dr. Ingham talks about and what AP systems do and lack of explanation as to why they would not have transference into a AP system.
GaryD likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the BYAP forum mostly.... search for RupertofOZ's "mega hybrid system"... (and the "blue barrel" system)

 

will have to use Google... search terms...    RupertofOZ site:www.backyardaquaponics.com   ... and then add "mega hybrid system" or "blue barrel system" to those terms...

 

http://www.backyardaquaponics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1311

 

http://www.backyardaquaponics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3142

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
Due to the mechanisms Dr. Ingham employs to create her microbrial fertilizers and the mechanisms talked about used for AP systems to mineralize their waste... and then no doubt most likely a transference of microbes from these devices to colonize on the plants roots when MT liquid is dispersed...
 
...I would think the much higher root density of plants created in a liquid environment would serve as an excellent foundation for microbrial colonization like not much different than soil.... there also is most like likely a water "food web" as well...
 
I have not read any persuasion as to why there would not be extrapolation of Dr. Ingham's work to an aquaponic context.
 
 
John, I figure you and I will have to agree to disagree until I read something more persuasive...
 
...the persuasions I found quite noticeable are the similarities involved between what Dr. Ingham talks about and what AP systems do and lack of explanation as to why they would not have transference into a AP system.

 

 

It may well be the case.. most certainly in relation to "mineralisation" aspects...

 

And it may be the case that "higher root density of plants created in a liquid environment would serve as an excellent foundation for microbrial colonization"...

 

And, much more likely in IAVS....but it is still somewhat "unproven"

 

More particularly I see it referenced within closed loop media bed, or "dual root zone" pot implementations... (perhaps not here, but elsewhere)... which I don't believe to be as valid

crsublette and GaryD like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my systems have been trials and experiments utilisiing NFT and my previous base knowledge of hydroponics... based on the literal definition of aquaponics = aquaculture + hydroponics...

 

And attempting to reconcile what was happening in aquaponic systems against that base knowledge in terms of EC, nutrient formulations... plant requirements, expected yields etc.. and against my then current ongoing aquaculture studies.. (and my limited at the time knowledge of mass balance equations.. (still somewhat limited.. :D)

 

And within the limited "science" available at the time regarding "aquaponics".... particularly reconciling the data published by UVI and my understanding of their methodologies...

 

If you look at my hydroponic NFT components of my systems.. you can clearly see that they have been standalone recirculating systems... (other then the system in my second location)

 

All however were supplied by inputs of solids mineralisation... with or without additives... as the NFT required the removal of solids as a pre-requisite...

 

I also ran several separate standard closed loop media bed systems initially... (the "blue barrel" system and the "mega hybrid" system)...which I documented fully

 

What was not perhaps apparent, and indeed not fully documented, was the operation of the NFT component of the "mega" system which was  a trout based RAS with mineralisation supplying the NFT...

 

If you look closely at the pictures of the trout RAS you will see two banks of black drums... the upper three were filtration returning to the RAS... the other three, which took solids input from the filtration bank, formed the mineralisation aspect... aerobic and anaerobic, and sump to supply the NFT..

 

(Subsequently I ran a trial of a constant flood trial of a hybrid media bed & NFT system.... in my second location, and most recently trials of constant flood media beds, with and without solids removal... and the NFT component with, and without mineralisation in the third location)

 

The latter two were only documented pictorally on FB.. as I was no longer a "member" of the previous forums for one reason or another.. ;)

 

My documentation of my systems on the forums was essentially based only on my closed loop media bed implementations and basic "safe"  principles that could be extended to the average backyard systems

 

As you no doubt recall at the time, and subsequently, much ado occurred around matters of stocking density, solids removal, commercialisation, design etc... and many unsubstantiated claims were made without any scientific basis, and/or data provided to back them...

 

I always believed, and still do, that any commercialisation of "aquaponics" would involve an integration of standard aquaculture and hydroponic methodologies, particularly those most commonly employed within the hydroponcis industry... NFT based methodologies.... (as is increasingly becoming implemented)

 

And that also meant running the aquaculture component at RAS densities, with appropriate methodologies.... something beyond the (then) general knowledge and capabilities of the average backyarder to do so safely

 

I was pushing my experiments in those directions, as my knowledge expanded, with as much scientific basis as I incorporated over time...

 

But I wasn't prepared to make public claims I myself couldn't back without the "science", and/ or without "data" to support such claims.... nor did I see any sense in doing so for the average backyarder... and particularly having argued for a base level of sanity and basic principles over time...

 

With the incorporation of solids removal over time, with increasing stocking densities.. i began, as did you and others, posting accordingly.... and the same has applied to aspects of "mineralisation" and/or "separate loop" methodologies...

 

I have no reason to doubt your claims as to either the experiments in which you engaged - or their timing.   I knew that people were doing the dual loop thing long before recent claims suggested.....but I just didn't realise that you were among them.

 

Did your experiments include anoxic or anaerobic mineralisation......and, if so, were you able to draw any conclusions as to the production of plant-soluble nutrients?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you look closely at the pictures of the trout RAS you will see two banks of black drums... the upper three were filtration returning to the RAS... the other three, which took solids input from the filtration bank, formed the mineralisation aspect... aerobic and anaerobic, and sump to supply the NFT..

 

 

That part there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may well be the case.. most certainly in relation to "mineralisation" aspects...

 

And it may be the case that "higher root density of plants created in a liquid environment would serve as an excellent foundation for microbrial colonization"...

 

And, much more likely in IAVS....but it is still somewhat "unproven"

 

More particularly I see it referenced within closed loop media bed, or "dual root zone" pot implementations... (perhaps not here, but elsewhere)... which I don't believe to be as valid

 

 

Quick question...

 

 

What fuels your disbelief?  ....especially after considering Dr. Ingham and AP both use the same mechanisms to culture mineralization...

 

I am also quite curious if you have identified the microbial life involved in the mineralization tank effluent to see if it is much different than what Dr. Ingham teaches...

 

I imagine the concentrations might be different, but I would be quite curious if the actual classification of microbes involved were entirely different.

 

 

I am simply looking for a persuasion for me to hold your same disbelief away from Ingham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point to a source for this postulation Gary?

 

Not offhand.....but it seems logical to me.  Just because you oxidise a metal that doesn’t make it plant-soluble.  Iron is the case that most readily comes to mind.  If you oxidise iron, you end up with ferric oxide - and that’s rust - and it’s not plant-soluble.  I suggest that there are probably other metals that are the same.

 

Think of the sand bed as a compost heap if you like.  You can take almost anything that was once living and compost it and, if you apply that compost to plants, they can derive their nutrition.  There's something biological that happens in the compost heap that doesn't happen to the same extent in an aerobic digester.  If we take it one step further, (and this is where I think Dr Ingham's work enters the picture) the plant roots (and the exudates) and the soil microbes do their little to and fro and so you have it.

 

The key difference between iAVs - and every other aquaponic variant - is that, what iAVs does naturally, the other variants require a technical solution....or several of them.  iAVs is biology – all you do is allow the water to gravitate through the sand and biology does the rest.

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