GaryD

iAVs.info - the Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture System

381 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Ravnis said:

1.  No I did not test for carbon levels, but was adding sugar to my mineralization tank as per information from Paul AKA EarthenGroup at the time and noticed a foam that indicated a major change in composition.

2.  This is confusing as one expert states it's needed and another not...

3.  Dr. Ingham's book/guide on compost tea brewing does specifically state to add carbon in the recipe for bacteria culture in a specific ratio.

Ravnis, Paul has never required carbon to be added. Paul has indicated it does help, but he never stated it was absolutely required. Please hyperlink the post that you say he has suggest such... If you can't, then lack of ability to reference a post of Paul's will be my answer.

Dr. Ingham encourages carbon specifically to culture particular microbrials. Period. Not to increase the mineralizaiton of waste. Her research indicates increased microbials (i.e., microbial fertilizer) aid horticulture plants.

Old Prospector likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GaryD said:

Hi Charles,

The growth of fish or vegetables at those extremes is going to require a controlled environment of some kind......either a greenhouse or a grow room.

My choice would be a sun-facing greenhouse (aka Chinese greenhouse).  The link provides some useful information about these structures.

A grow room enables complete control over the growing environment but you have to provide lights.

How do you get on currently with your koi?  Do you have to move them inside?

Gary

 

Gary, you have dodged my question. I will leave this dodge as a non-answer to my question.

Gary, I do not have any koi, although thanks for presuming I would. Koi actually are cold water fish that survive quite well in our winters, unlike warm water fish such as Tilapia. Believe it or not, there are Canadian's in the nishikigoi hobby whom do not take their koi indoors if their ponds are of appropriate depth.

 

Folks, if you choose to do iAVS and live in a harsh winter environment, without a greenhouse, then you will not be able to continue to produce food fish merely due to lack of appropriate filtration as well as other controls (which iAVS is proud to discourage due to its lower energy footprint). Period. This is a fact, not spin.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)
Old Prospector likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crsublette said:

Ravnis, Paul has never required carbon to be added. Paul has indicated it does help, but he never stated it was absolutely required. Please hyperlink the post that you say he has suggest such... If you can't, then lack of ability to reference a post of Paul's will be my answer.

Dr. Ingham encourages carbon specifically to culture particular microbrials. Period. Not to increase the mineralizaiton of waste. Her research indicates increased microbials (i.e., microbial fertilizer) aid horticulture plants.

17th post in this link.     mineralization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ravnis said:

17th post in this link.     mineralization

Ravnis... is that post indicating carbon is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to mineralize fish waste or is he simply expressing what he think is needed?

I can tell ya that Ryan Chatterson does not involve any carbon dosing whatsoever.... neither does iAVS...

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ravnis, that post of Paul's simply expressed what he think is needed.... not that he thinks it is required for mineralizaiton.

Yes, there is a difference between what one thinks is required and what one thinks is needed....

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some findings and highlight's of Dr. McMurtry’s research:

Benefits of integrating aquaculture and vegetable production are: 
- conservation of water resources and plant nutrients
- intensive production of fish protein
- reduced operating costs relative to either system in isolation. 

Water consumption in an integrated aqua-vegeculture system amounts to 1 percent of that required in pond culture to produce equivalent tilapia yields. 

Such low-water-use symbiotic systems are applicable to the needs of arid or semi-arid regions where fish and fresh vegetables are in high demand. 

Organic vine-ripened, pesticide-free produce and “fresh-daily” fish can bring premium prices, particularly during winter months in urban areas. 

Biofilters (sand beds with vegetables) that are alternately flooded and drained with nutrient-laden fish tank water are called reciprocating biofilters. 

Reciprocating biofilters provide uniform distribution of nutrient-laden water within the filtration medium during the flood cycle, and improved aeration from atmospheric exchange during each dewatering with benefits to both nitrifying bacteria and plant roots. 

Dissolved and suspended organic materials accumulate rapidly in aquaculture systems and must be removed for efficient fish production. 

Previous integrated fish-vegetable systems removed suspended solids from the water by sedimentation in clarifiers prior to plant application. Removal of the solid wastes resulted in insufficient residual nutrients for good plant growth; acceptable fruit yields had previously only been achieved with substantial supplementation of plant nutrients. 

Aqueous nitrate concentrations in recirculating aquaculture can be adequately regulated when fish and vegetable production are linked via reciprocating biofilters. 

Tomatoes may have also assimilated nitrogen in organic amino acid forms. In 1950 Gosh and Burris (Utilization of Nitrogenous Compounds by Plants. Soil Science. Vol. 70: 187-203) found that tomatoes utilize alanine, glutamic acid, histidine, and leucine as effectively as inorganic nitrogen sources. 

Research to determine the optimum ratio of fish tank to biofilter volume on fish growth rate and water quality found that stocking density of fish and plants can vary depending on desired goal. The component ratios of the system may be manipulated to favor fish or vegetable production according to local market trends or dietary needs. Fish stocking density and feeding rates are adjusted to optimize water quality as influenced by plant growth rate.

Aqua-vegeculture research at NCSU has been discontinued because the technology had evolved to the point where it is ready for grower application. The Department of Horticulture and the Cooperative Extension Service at NCSU provide technical assistance to aquaponic greenhouse growers in North Carolina.

Copy/pasted from here https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/viewhtml.php?id=56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crsublette said:

VKN, that is a nice marketing blurb... but... Not an answer to my question...

Not yet read your question.  Let me see that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vkn said:

Not yet read your question.  Let me see that now.

Here it is... will repost it for ya...

 

VKN, what is the oxygen consumption of your tilapia density at 100kg/m^3? What is the Dissolve Oxygen concentration at the water inlet upon entering your fish culture tanks? What level of dissolve oxygen do you believe you are obtaining from the CFM from your air stones/diffusers?

This is not a trick question VKN. Please do not impune ulterior motives on this question due to my past. Please, just answer the questions. If curious, these are a common questions within high density aqauculture in calculating oxygen demands within a system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ravnis said:

Hi VKN,

I didn't perceive Gary's comments to be derogatory at you in any way.  He was actually acknowledging  and complimenting your successes with your early systems that had less than Ideal sand and pH, but performed well anyways.

All right, Ravnis!  I am tired of listening to the same old "ideal" sand versus "less than ideal", "prescriptions not followed", what I am doing is not iAVs, etc.  For record, the comparison trials I am doing with river sand, granite sand, quartz sand are amazing.  Granite sand shows much better results.. huge difference in yields, I shall share results later.  

On a different note and a matter of curiosity at the moment.  When composting or using mineralization tanks, the operator has to monitor and add carbon to reach the right carbon to nitrogen ratios.   Would there be any benefit when doing this with IAVS? 

I have no clue if one needs to monitor this or not.  Never worried about it.
Rotted manure has a C:N ratio of 20:1.   Left over plant roots when composted within the sand will have more carbon in them.

When I ran the sand bed as an add on to my existing system, I had a flood and drain media bed out of wood block charcoal I had been trialing and that may have supplied some carbon in the system other than just the fish food.   If we don't need to add carbon (this would seem the case from the other systems shown and Dr. McMurtry's work)  what is the difference?

There is an interesting study by soil scientist Sara F. Wright... Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stimulates some soil-dwelling fungi to produce more of a unique protein called glomalin that greatly amplifies soil's ability to store carbon.  A little of this glue goes a long way toward helping soils keep carbon out of the atmosphere and store it for long term use.  One of the reasons for better growth and yield in sand systems could be the creation of a conducive environment for higher glomalin production.

ande, Ravnis and crsublette like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks VKN for an interesting and enlightening answer.      At  least when you become a mega mogul in  farming, I'll be able to say I knew him when he was just getting started.  :D

vkn and ande like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, crsublette said:

VKN, what is the oxygen consumption of your tilapia density at 100kg/m^3?
What is the Dissolve Oxygen concentration at the water inlet upon entering your fish culture tanks? What level of dissolve oxygen do you believe you are obtaining from the CFM from your air stones/diffusers?

This is not a trick question VKN. Please do not impune ulterior motives on this question due to my past. Please, just answer the questions. If curious, these are a common questions within high density aqauculture in calculating oxygen demands within a system.

First, "Anyone else out there getting greater than than 100 kg m-3 yr-1 from 'sex-reversed' Tilapia - or even close?" This was a question asked by Dr. Mark somewhere; I don't recollect it where.  My present goal is 120 kg/m3/yr.. so far so good.

With an average temperature of 29 degree celcius, our DO is staying between 5 and 7 mg/L range.. tested at 5 am and 2 pm respectively.  DO has been stable and good for nile tilapia.  

We are slowly moving away from Tilapia and began to focus on Anabas cobojius.  They are air breathers and do not need any form of oxygen supplementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, vkn said:

My present goal is 120 kg/m3/yr.. so far so good.

With an average temperature of 29 degree celcius, our DO is staying between 5 and 7 mg/L range.. tested at 5 am and 2 pm respectively.  DO has been stable and good for nile tilapia.  

VKN, are you maintaining this with only atmospheric air for oxygen replenishment?

I will view an avoidance to answer to suggest... Yes... Although, I would appreciate reading your answer to this.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, crsublette said:

VKN, are you maintaining this with only atmospheric air for oxygen replenishment?

I will view an avoidance to answer to suggest... Yes... Although, I would appreciate reading your answer to this.

I often tend to avoid nonproductive discussions but at this time just gone busy celebrating my birthday with kids and family.

Yes, for tilapia we use regenerative blowers.  They run 24 hours except feeding times.

For Anabas, it is 2-3 hours per day to agitate the water after feeding.

crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2016 at 9:03 AM, Ravnis said:

Thanks VKN for an interesting and enlightening answer.      At  least when you become a mega mogul in  farming, I'll be able to say I knew him when he was just getting started.  :D

:D Big words.. how kind you are, Ravnis!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, vkn said:

I often tend to avoid nonproductive discussions but at this time just gone busy celebrating my birthday with kids and family.

Happy birthday.  I wish you many happy returns.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23 October 2016 at 1:23 AM, vkn said:

From some of your continuing semantics above and serial bluffs elsewhere (at FB groups and all) I continue to feel your tones were at me Gary.  

Correct me please if I perceived you wrong.  Sorry, Mark once again.

Yes, you are wrong.  I have said on a number of occasions that I think that our principal communications issue is that, since English is not your native language, you misinterpret some of what I say.  

In any case, the fact that we disagree on some matters does not diminish my respect for your overall achievements....and I frequently acknowledge them on this and/or Facebook groups.

Where I take issue with you on technical matters, you should understand that I'm often communicating on behalf of Mark.  I have no personal stake in what you do but Mark is very clear about what is iAVs...and what is not.   Let me remind you that the basic flood and drain system came into being as a result of a deviation from the iAVs design....and because there was no one to assert the correct way to do it...it was popularised to the point where it became the dominant system type in the world.

On 23 October 2016 at 1:23 AM, vkn said:

First of all, Boone More's results were much better if you compare the research ratio studies of Mark's and results of Boone's commercial work 

Anyone else out there getting greater than than 100 kg m-3 yr-1 from 'sex-reversed' Tilapia - or even close?  That was a very good question I was trying to challenge (for now with a better fish than tilapia).

For now, please go and read... Sanders, Doug, and Mark McMurtry. 1988. fish increase greenhouse profits. American Vegetable Grower. February. p. 32.33, where the focus was on fish.  There are several such documents to bring your attention on.  

I do not understand why you continue to worry too much if someone's focus is on fish and plants, 50/50.  Why does it matter if fish/plants focus changes to 75/25 or 25/75?  Or, to divert 20% of fish waste to go and nourish organic soil plants such as bananas, onions, or yams?  Run-to-waste?  What is the issue if you have some water to spare and use for that? 

Both Mark and I acknowledge Boone Mora's results....but that doesn't alter the other facts that attend the discussion of fish production.  Mark has demonstrated that tilapia production in most markets is a money-losing proposition.  If you are engaging in fish production for the purposes of growing plants, it makes sense to limit how much you do of it to the absolute minimum necessary to produce the plants.

If your situation allows you to produce fish (in their own right) profitably, then all power to you....but that makes your situation unusual.  In the US, for expample, you cannot buy your tilapia fingerlings and (using commercial rations) grow them to fillet size and then sell them and still compete with tilapia imports.....particularly if you are a small-scale producer.

That's why we continue to say that the fish are a means to an end.  You grow the fish (acknowledging that you are probably losing money) to grow the plants which you hope to sell at prices that allow you to offset your loss on the fish and still make money.

On 23 October 2016 at 1:23 AM, vkn said:

I am yet to publish our trial results working with iAVs for over an year which I hope would change yours and others theoretical perceptions on fish, media, and other things once for all. Give us some more time please in finalizing things.  I am looking out for a decent research format as well to publish such things and to compare stuff.

Your trial data will be of considerable interest.  It will provide some evidence of the efficacy of iAVs and it will put the system into a modern context and help to overcome the nonsensical notion that the mere passage of 30 years somehow diminishes the concept.  In my view, however, the biggest impact of your work will be to demonstrate the resilience of iAVs.....its ability to still produce acceptable results in less than ideal circumstances.

Currently, the biggest concerns are that it is too hard to find the correct sand....and that, even when you do, it will clog in short order.  

As Remout demonstrated, if you have a standard (like the ASTM C33), finding the correct sand is actually very easy.  We hadn't clarified that at the time that you were trying to source sand for the Nanniode project so you used sand which we deemed to be less than ideal.  That's not a criticism of you....but rather a technical fact.  If the Nanniode project delivers acceptable results, in the face of "less than ideal" sand, that speaks to the resilience of iAVs....and that's something to celebrate.

The second concern, that of clogging, has been tested to the extent the fish production and the timeframe of Boone Mora's trial.  That leads us to conclude that, even if you run the higher numbers that Boone did, your beds will have a clog-free lifespan of at least three years.  This is based on the fact that his beds were still functioning well at the conclusion of his two-year trial. 

If you load up your systems with more fish than we say are necessary (because they can be sold profitably)....and your beds don't clog up....that further demonstrates the resilience of iAVs.   And that's also good news.

Think of the basic iAVs design as a standard (like the ASTM C33 sand specificiation).  That's the ideal.  That doesn't mean that you can't grow fish or plants outside of that ideal.  The question then becomes, "How does your situation compare with the iAVs standard?"   The only way that you'll be able to answer that question is to compare the two things.....alongside of each other.  Only then will you know exactly how much worse (or better) one is against the other.

We believe (overwhelmingly) that what you are doing is a good thing.  While we take technical issue with some of what you have done, we believe that there is a positive side to it....in that it will evidence the resilience of iAVs.  We want to see you succeed and we admire your tenacity.

I hope this helps to put our perceived criticism of your efforts into an appropriate context.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, vkn said:

I often tend to avoid nonproductive discussions but at this time just gone busy celebrating my birthday with kids and family.

Yes, for tilapia we use regenerative blowers.  They run 24 hours except feeding times.

For Anabas, it is 2-3 hours per day to agitate the water after feeding.

I appreciate the response. Not looking to have a discussion. Just looking to have simple questions answered so everyone is informed about the details of your system so we all can learn something from it...

 

What is the turn over rate in your culture tanks?  (example: 1 time per hour, 2.5 times per hour, 0.5 times per hour, etc)

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crsublette said:

I appreciate the response. Not looking to have a discussion. Just looking to have simple questions answered so everyone is informed about the details of your system so we all can learn something from it...

 

What is the turn over rate in your culture tanks?  (example: 1 time per hour, 2.5 times per hour, 0.5 times per hour, etc)

Be more concerned about educating others, rather than being concerned about people's motives. Education is what is more important, and education is how you will make a difference rather than defensively reacting to people.  Those are your words and I agree.

What is the turn over rate in your culture tanks?  It is a most generic question so I shall post Mark's own words here.  You'll want to move/filter 1/4 of the fish culture tank volume in 15 or minutes.. making the rate moved on a per hour basis approximately the same as the tank capacity (at effective head).

For any questions related to the details of my system/s, I request to move/ask them in my thread.  This is to avoid repetition. Thank you.

ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GaryD said:

Think of the basic iAVs design as a standard (like the ASTM C33 sand specificiation).  That's the ideal.  That doesn't mean that you can't grow fish or plants outside of that ideal.  The question then becomes, "How does your situation compare with the iAVs standard?"   The only way that you'll be able to answer that question is to compare the two things.....alongside of each other.  Only then will you know exactly how much worse (or better) one is against the other.

Thank you for understanding.

I think (almost surely) based on the given participle size distribution of ASTM C33 sand specification, it does not fit for iAVs use and hence not an ideal one.  Perhaps that is only me thinking that way.  I hope someone please prove my this statement wrong or right by using it at their end.  Now, who would bell the cat?

Gary, I have been doing these comparison trials with 3 distinct sand types available to us for some time now.  You would be once again astonished if I say I am getting much better results using granite sand than quartz silica grits.  Some thing is there in granite sand that triggers more growth and yield in comparison.. I have no clue about those details yet. Rock phosphates?  

Yes, I did experience clogging in one of my systems while using river sand for over an year.  I got this sand almost free, please check my initial posts on this for its details.  Two of the trial beds had a heavy load of earthworms (Eisenia fetida) in them.  They made this sand bed almost like a fertile compost bed.  One partially clogged and a 15-minute clean up of the drains resolved that clogging issue and it still works.  We have cow pea, strawberry, some amaranthus and chllies in them.  I will wait for some more time before publishing any of those trial findings or talk things with more conviction.

Based on recent harvest/selling experiences, we do not have any challenges in production both fish or vegetables.  It is in the selling part of it.  1 kg fish or 15 kg veggies fetch the same price in the open market where the middlemen makes the most money.  Unless we (our farmers) learn to sell their vegetables produce at their own niche markets involving communities, local sales, cooperatives etc.. we would continue to (need to) look at fish and vegetables to be of equal economical importance as produce from our systems.  

I hope my above Englsh is clear enough for you to understand the ground realities.

Edited by vkn (see edit history)
GaryD likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 10:07 PM, vkn said:

One of the reasons for better growth and yield in sand systems could be the creation of a conducive environment for higher glomalin production.

Can you point to where that "higher glomalin in sand systems" has been researched on what your talking about. Should be a interesting read??

crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vkn said:

Be more concerned about educating others, rather than being concerned about people's motives. Education is what is more important, and education is how you will make a difference rather than defensively reacting to people.  Those are your words and I agree.

What is the turn over rate in your culture tanks?  It is a most generic question so I shall post Mark's own words here.  You'll want to move/filter 1/4 of the fish culture tank volume in 15 or minutes.. making the rate moved on a per hour basis approximately the same as the tank capacity (at effective head).

For any questions related to the details of my system/s, I request to move/ask them in my thread.  This is to avoid repetition. Thank you.

Thanks VKN !

Actually, it is not a generic question. It's a culture tank hydraulic retention time question. As Ebeling states, carrying capacity of a tank is influenced by water exchange (i.e., tank HRT), feeding rate, oxygen consumption, and waste production.  Not everyone's culture tank HRT is exactly the same, nor should it be.

Just getting an idea of the puzzle pieces. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, crsublette said:

Thanks VKN !

Actually, it is not a generic question. It's a culture tank hydraulic retention time question. As Ebeling states, carrying capacity of a tank is influenced by water exchange (i.e., tank HRT), feeding rate, oxygen consumption, and waste production.  Not everyone's culture tank HRT is exactly the same, nor should it be.

Just getting an idea of the puzzle pieces. Thanks again.

Ebeling talking about iAVs?  Oh dear, I don't think so.  "The hydraulic retention time (HRT), also known as hydraulic residence time or t (tau), is a measure of the average length of time that a compound (ex. water) remains in a storage unit (ex. lake, pond, ocean)." all copy pasted from wikipedia, not Ebeling's.  I am not interested in these terminologies  If you can, please look out for hydraulic conductivity.. that is more important in iAVs.

Oh yes, even I had thought just like you that iAVs is a jigsaw puzzle but later realized it is so damn easy.  Having faith in any one religion or a science is important though.  I hope you would do it with courage one day soon.  Cheers!

Edited by vkn (see edit history)
ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2016 at 11:21 AM, crsublette said:

"Folks, if you choose to do iAVS and live in a harsh winter environment, without a greenhouse, then you will not be able to continue to produce food fish merely due to lack of appropriate filtration as well as other controls (which iAVS is proud to discourage due to its lower energy footprint). Period. This is a fact, not spin."

Hi crublette,

I find this statement perplexing,

I have highlighted the part I'm confussed about in bold. 

My understanding of filtration is very basic, and please correct me if you think I'm wrong.  Filtration is the filtering of fish wastes and other contaminants from the fish tank. Would you say that is basically correct?

The closer to the "ideal" temperature, the better the metobolic rate for your chosen fish.

The better metobolic rate the more fish waste is produced.

The more fish waste, the better filtration is required.

So, if the temperature is cold to the extreme, then that would be away from the ideal temperature for your fish, and it's metobolic rate would be slower, as your fish would be eating less, consequently producing less waste, therefore less filtration is required, right?

I could easily be missing something as I'm only a basic and logical person, thus my question. If all I outlined is correct then what have I missed to explain that more filtration is required in colder to the extreme climates?

Please understand I'm not looking for a fight nor an argument, I just need to know why.

Cheers.

Edited by bigdaddy
Corrected a small i to a large I (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you document this as well..  "Corrected a small i to a large I"

I often try to edit some of my posts for juxtapositions or grammar or semantics over 10 times or so and never said this.  Feel guilty now!

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