GaryD

iAVs.info - the Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture System

381 posts in this topic

Charles,

 

You've made much of the "projections" so, in the interests of greater understanding, let me address that matter so that you can put your mind to more productive matters.

 

"Projected" in the context used means the yield rates were annualised.....that is the recorded yield was divided by the interval in days and then multiplied by 365 to provide a yield rate per annum (annualised projection).  There's nothing sinister nor hypothetical about the yield or rate.....it's done all the time to place cropping intervals of differing durations on an equal footing (a common timeline) for direct comparison purposes.

 

Since it appears that you didn't read the accompanying text (or that you failed to understand what you did read) you didn't have any context for the projections.

 

Further to that, the point of the ratio experiments was to document and to compare the effects of ratios (fish to plant, feed to filter volume) - not to claim any particular yield for any given cultivar or duration or season......nor anything else.  As such, the outcomes of those studies was a report of what was done and what happened.....period!

 

The BS about a "guarantee" (sic) was a construction, hyperbole or a desperate lie.  Whatever it was, it didn't come from us.

 

Also, you seem to be confused about what a Dissertation is, and what it involves (and that includes the role of the Advisory Committee) nor do you appear to understand what is involved in being accepted for publication in a refereed journal.  They are not even close to being the same thing.

 

Anyone (relatively speaking) given sufficient ability and effort (and with the consent of the Committee) can generate a Dissertation.

 

Publication in a refereed journal, however, requires multiple rounds of content scrutiny (of every possible aspect) by multiple anonymous experts (as selected by the journal's editors) and then successfully addressing each and every possible issue/criticism/point (achieving 100% consensus of all reviewers and authors).....and is an entirely different challenge.

 

If you are coming up with this stuff by yourself, I hope we're helping you to better understanding iAVs - and the processes that were employed in its evolution.  If you're being primed by someone else, my advice would be to abandon them because they are playing with your credibility.

 

Gary

Edited by Gary Donaldson (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not... since the statistical survey of yield projecting trends within an agricultural system were not the subject matter of the iAVS that was judged.. The subject matter judged was agriculture correlation testing... If X was done, then Y occured during Z experiment under W environment for U amount of time....

 

Further to that, the point of the ratio experiments was to document and to compare the effects of ratios (fish to plant, feed to filter volume) - not to claim any particular yield for any given cultivar or duration or season......nor anything else.  As such, the outcomes of those studies was a report of what was done and what happened.....period!

 

The BS about a "guarantee" (sic) was a construction, hyperbole or a desperate lie.  Whatever it was, it didn't come from us.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification... That is exactly what I thought...

 

 

 

"Projected" in the context used means the yield rates were annualised.....that is the recorded yield was divided by the interval in days and then multiplied by 365 to provide a yield rate per annum (annualised projection).  There's nothing sinister nor hypothetical about the yield or rate.....it's done all the time to place cropping intervals of differing durations on an equal footing (a common timeline) for direct comparison purposes.

 

Thanks for the clarification. Follow up question...

 

I have read the Boone Mora Demo PDF article and the email info document... and, yes, as a layman, fail to understand how the yield could be derived from these two documents.. Since tomatos were one of Boone/Mora's primary crops...

 

Is the data available of the demonstrated tomato yield per m^2 of the Boone/Mora's two year demonstration trial along with the accompanying biofilter ratio? Does this data correlate with any of the projected tomato yields cited in the studies?

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I've made some changes to the home page of the iAVs site......in response to the suggestion that the site is difficult to navigate......or that information is hard to find.

 

Feel free to visit the site........and I'd appreciate any constructive feedback as to how you find the site now.....and what else we might do to improve things further.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the data available of the demonstrated tomato yield per m^2 of the Boone/Mora's two year demonstration trial along with the accompanying biofilter ratio? Does this data correlate with any of the projected tomato yields cited in the studies?

 

Updated my previous post... Also... much ado about not knowing anything about other operations and Mr. Van der Werf's UAE, except it is still operating.... the same standard about "wanting to know" does not seem to be held for the Boone/Mora demonstration trial.

 

Where is the data sheet from the Boone/Mora demonstration trial? since I imagine it was done to demonstrate something beyond a "thumbs up".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification... That is exactly what I thought...

 

Thanks for the clarification. Follow up question...

 

I have read the Boone Mora Demo PDF article and the email info document... and, yes, as a layman, fail to understand how the yield could be derived from these two documents.. Since tomatos were one of Boone/Mora's primary crops...

 

Is the data available of the demonstrated tomato yield per m^2 of the Boone/Mora's two year demonstration trial along with the accompanying biofilter ratio? Does this data correlate with any of the projected tomato yields cited in the studies?

 

Happy to kick the Boone Mora ball around Charles, but first….

 

In Post #116 in this document, it was suggested that:

 

The best hydro tomato growers right now are pushing somewhere between 50-60kg/m^2, which is very impressive.

 

 

As this document makes clear, greenhouse operators in Canada are doing better than that….and you'd hardly associate Canada as being the ideal environment to grow tomatoes.

 

In fact, this is what they had to say….

 

Attainable target yields for new growers for beefsteak and cluster tomatoes are between 50 and 55 kg/m2 of production area. Top Alberta producers have attained over 60 kg/m2 and over 70 kg/m2 in the research production greenhouses at the Crop Diversification Centre South at Brooks. Increased yield comes with increased grower experience and expertise, but the largest incremental yield increases attained by experienced growers comes through the adoption and use of new technology. The skilled use of computerized environmental control systems, newer, taller greenhouses and efficient cooling systems all help to increase yield. The use of carbon dioxide (CO2) supplementation has the potential to increase the yields of a skilled grower who now attains between 55 to 60 kg/m2 , up to 70 kg/m2 .

 

What confuses me is the bar graphs on the "Dare to Compare" article, where yield/m^2 is shown on the iAVS as 85kg/m^2 and potentially over 100kg/m^2. What am I missing?

 

 

Australia's Blush Tomatoes have exceeded 65kg/m2.

 

So please enlighten us because the numbers on those bar graphs have never even been achieved by the most skilled greenhouses in the world with the highest level of technology.

 

 

This document - from the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center at Arizona University - makes it clear that production stands at "300 tons per acre or more for tomatoes grown using greenhouse hydroponics (equates to 75 kg/m2; recently, has gone as high as 90-104kg/m2)."

 

So, contrary to the information offered in Post #116, such yields as those we suggested are possible…..indeed increasingly commonplace.

 

With respect to Boone Mora's efforts, let's kick some numbers around…..

 

The fish tank to sand bio-filter volume was in the order of 1:1.   I think that the stocking density may have been as high as 100kg/m3.  If this seems too high, let me remind you that UVI have had upwards of 130kg/m3.

 

Boone Mora's fruit yield varied by species - but he reported (in a personal conversation with Dr Douglas Sanders) 6 - 8kg per plant in 4 months.  If we think in terms of 3 crops per year (at 6kg per plant) that amounts to 18kg per plant per year.  At the rate of 4 plants per square metre, that comes to 72kg/m2.  At 7kg per plant that equals 84kg/m2 - and at 8kg per plant the figure rises to 96kg/m2.

 

And.....this was from novice growers (Boone Mora, his wife Jean and Tim Garrett) with no CO2 supplementation, relatively minimal environmental regulation and with reported pest pressures (of unknown severity).

 

If we take the lowest figure (72kg/m2) and put it in the context of modern greenhouse technology and operations, that puts us within reach of the US$500 claim we staked in the "Dare to Compare?" article.  Let's remember, that claim was based on tomato production alone - no consideration of intercrops or fish.

 

As for any Mora/Garrett data sheet?  Can't help you…..don't know about any such sheet.  All we've got, is what you've got.

 

​…..and I'm too tired to continue…..good night!

Edited by Gary Donaldson (see edit history)
crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good. Thanks for the clarification. See... that's how you deal with hard ball questions rather than aggravating the questioner. Since easy enough, look forward to see what is replicated by your and other hobbyists yields involving tomatoes with the iAVS. And, sorry Gary, nobody is "priming" me on what to say nor are there any "windbags winding me up".Thanks again. :)

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The upside to defending my/our credibility/integrity are the things that I learn (and am able to share) about modern greenhouse production.

 

I'm obliged to Mark for contributing the following:

 

Back in 2003, when EuroFresh was 'only' 67 ha (30% of present area before being bought out) US greenhouse hydro tomato production (all varieties) = 159,664 MT on 330 ha of facilities (includes primary access corridors, crop in-row aisles, perimeter set backs, pre/post harvest staging, misc work areas).

 

Tomatoes are typically grown as an annual (or longer), single-stem indeterminate varieties, suspended vine technique(s), with CO2 supplementation, RH, thermal and insolation management (computer controlled environment).

 

Averaged over entire facility and ALL cultivars (varieties), the above stated production in 2003 equates to 48.5 kg/m2.  However, for Cherry, cocktail, grape, pear, plum, on-the-vine, et al. tomato varieties, the yields are much lower than from slicing varieties, which is precisely why these 'boutique' varieties are generally priced much higher.  Current cultivars of all varieties exhibit greater yields than just a decade ago.

 

However, inter-row aisles alone typically account for approx. 30 to 35% of the floor area, perimeter setbacks account for  another 5 to 10%, and working/access areas another 10 to 15% (EXcluding head house and all post harvest aspects).  Therefore, actual growing area is in the range of 40 to 55 % of the total GH area.

 

Assumptions (below); slicing types at 75% (or more) of total US production by weight and yield at 150% (or more) than 'boutique' types on per plant basis - from spreadsheet, not shown, above assumptions results in:

  • slicing toms @ 73 kg/m2/yr (over full facility)
  • slicing toms @ 91 kg/m2/yr(@ 'generous' 80% of facility, includes crop aisles
  • slicing toms @ 122 kg/m2/yr (@ 'generous' 60% of facility, not incl. crop aisles)

IN other words, how one 'treats', aka counts, the usage area(s) greatly effects the reported per area yield value.

 

Crop area planted at 4 plt/m2, plus 0.7 m aisles between row pairs - 'gives' 2.5 plt/m2 including in-row aisles only (w/o setbacks, work areas, etc). At 91 kg/m2/yr (slicing cv.) and 2.5 plt/m2 (aisles included) = 36.4 kg/plt/yr

 

iAVs 'projection' (per "Dare to Compare") assumes State-of-Art facility & competent growers producing at 80 kg/m2/yr (incl. aisle area) - or greater - based on 2.5 plt/m2 including the aisles and perimeter set-backs,  equates to 32 kg/plt/yr (aquaculture aspects not included).

 

Current GH tomato cultivars are said to yield even better than ever.  Most experienced/informed growers are starting to add/switch to high-aspect Hort-grade glass Venlo type (Dutch) ranges, with side wall heights of 8 to 10 meters or more (several reasons why increased height is better that I won't elaborate on here).

 

"I've seen reports in the past several of years of growers in ME, NY, PA and Ontario claiming as much as 120 kg/m2 for slicing varieties. EuroFresh, NatureSweet et al. claim/report in excess of 100 kg/m2 (as mixed varieties) - however I do not know which area/aspects they are factoring in as the divisor).  I've also seen reasonably credible claims of 40+ kg/plt/yr (slicing varieties)."

 

By the way, iAVs yields outperform 'standard' hydroponic (inorganic solute) by a significant margin - and is NOT factored into my 'projection'.   In the case of tomato - and all other tropical spp. - light (insolation) levels, photoperiod and diurnal variability all greatly influence growth rate, therefore yield - as too does the grower's experience level - among many other factors.

 

Year 2000 US hydro GH tomato @ <300 ha.  By 2003, this was 330 ha,  I personally know of at least 200 ha more tomato (alone) since then, not including almost 5,000 ha in Northern Mexico alone.  To this day, the vast majority of GH tomato are still being imported into the US.   Virtually none of US production is "Certified Organic" (don't know of single example at any significant 'commercial' scale ... yet). - would bet that the corral gate is open and the riders mounted up.

 

Virtually all  (allegedly) 'Organic' tomato sold in the US is imported from Ontario, BC, and (mainly) Mexico  (of highly dubious 'pedigree' IMO).  Collectively, 'organic' GH tomato production in all the America's is in the 1% range by mass - if that!   'Sounds like' a HUGE opportunity for US grown "Certified Organic' Tomato to me!    Not to mention, all the other potential species 'waiting' to be produced for the exploding 'Organic' market.

 

And, the bottomline - regardless how one goes about calculating unit area/time productivity, the fact remains that GH non-organic tomato is very profitable in and of itself  - at scale, WITH developed market channels -  albeit very risky for non-professionals.  

 

Since "Certified Organic' fruit realizes a 200 to 300% market price premium (varies by location and season), even without any fish or intercrops, (IMO) the profit potential (yet to be realized) from 'Certified' iAVs FAR exceeds that of even the most productive current hydro operations.

 

Also, 'below' Cert Organic status there exists an intermediate market channel variously referred to as "Pesticide Free" or 'IPM certified" which from minimal investigation is retailed at approx. ±150% of 'standard' produce prices in the US food Co-ops and 'whole foods'/'green grocer' channels.

 

Thanks Mark!......most illuminating.

 

Gary

crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good. Thanks for the clarification. See... that's how you deal with hard ball questions rather than aggravating the questioner. 

 

It's equally important to remember that answers are going to be more forthcoming when the questioner is actually asking questions rather than taking cheap shots - or running some half-hard agenda that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.  It's also difficult to deal with questions premised upon poorly researched information.....or suggestions that I/we are incompetent (at best) or just plain dishonest (at worst).

 

And all of that ignores the fact that I give freely of my time on APN - in an attempt to help others.  For reasons that I won't go into here, time has a special significance for me - and it irritates me when I sense that it's being wasted.

 

Since easy enough, look forward to see what is replicated by your and other hobbyists yields involving tomatoes with the iAVS.

 

 

That's a cheap shot......of the sort that is reminiscent of someone else I know.   People who take a swipe and then run off (burning their bridges as they go) lack credibility......and guts.

 

Why should iAVs be limited to me "and other hobbyists?"   I'm no less serious about what I do than any so-called "professional" - and so I reject the label "hobbyist" - and its implications.

 

We've just spent a heap of time demonstrating that iAVS is capable of commercial food production rates.....and we've seen no compelling evidence to the contrary. 

 

And, sorry Gary, nobody is "priming" me on what to say nor are there any "windbags winding me up".Thanks again.  :)

 

In light of your last slur, I struggle to believe that.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, you can believe whatever want... which you apparently have from my last post there...

If your first reaction is to be defensive rather than provide clarity... then you will always find tough to answer statements irrelevant of how they are presented...

The fact you give your time freely here is quite irrelevant since should be more about providing clarity to help folk... if you feel your time is not given proper recompense, then there is an easy fix to this as well.

And... yes... since we're unaware of any commercial applications STILL operating... This is a fact... give a yell if you know of any...as of this moment... the iAVS is a hobbyist system....

Since easy enough, I look forward to see what is replicated by you and other hobbyist systems yields involving tomatoes in the iAVS. I actually sincerely meant this... (( unfortunate that you wanted to be so defensive so to interpret this statement as a "slur" ))

RupertofOZ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

For those who might be interested……see the latest article on  iAVs Layout Options…..which, among other things, addresses strategies for using above-ground tanks.

 

Gary

ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary,

I am looking forward to trying out the iAVS in my greenhouse, any chance you will have a few of the "above grade fish tank" drawings posted soon? I have a crew ready to help me shovel and grade deconstructed granite with my new http://www.grainger.com/product/GRAINGER-APPROVED-Screen-3AJL3?s_pp=false&picUrl=//static.grainger.com/rp/s/is/image/Grainger/3AJG3_AS01?smthumb$

26 mesh SS Screen, but I don't want to build my system until I see how you and Dr Mark recommend the plumbing be laid out!

Thanks.......mh

 

Mike……it's good to hear that you were able to take advantage of the sale price for that sieve.  Mark just stumbled across that when he was looking for the means to grade sand.  He's asked me to communicate his congratulations on your efforts to get an iAVs system up and going.  Ravnis, Jeremiah and yourself are the only ones who've made any effort to experiment with this system….and you are to be commended for your willingness to try something different.

 

I've posted an article on the layout options on the iAVs site.  Let me know if there's anything else we can do to help get your project going.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

For those who might be interested……see the latest article on  iAVs Layout Options…..which, among other things, addresses strategies for using above-ground tanks.

 

Gary

 

Gary,

That post was just what I needed to give me a comfort level with my above ground fish tank plan.   I'm sure I'll have a few more clarification questions before I completely dive in.....something about moving 5 tons of sand leads me to "measure twice and cut once" if you know what I mean!

 

Thanks for passing on the info.........mh

Edited by mhaigh (see edit history)
crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Charles,

 

Whilst I acknowledge that the premise of many of your questions and comments may be honorable and reasonable, the manner of your comments in which you repeatedly multi quote Gary and Mark, raise questions and concerns of your intent.

 

Do you not think it would be reasonable for the scientist behind the data, Dr. Mark R McMurty, to be the first person to pounce upon false claims or interpretations of his data. Marks data simply, is what it is.

Much of his 30 year old data reflects achievements that by modern standards and methods, many would be very pleased to achieve or replicate on a regular cycle.

 

Neither the time line nor scale of data collection, negate the data itself.

Only secondary scientific data that shows deficiency or reflects difference of record to the original data table has merit of questioning that original data table. Anything less is simply opinion and conjecture at best.

As conceded by all involved, much of Marks impressive data also showed that more extensive trials ought be conducted to further explore and expand upon the results of his data.

 

In many cases you appear to be questioning the very documents you quote.

As such, my reply would be for you to read them again... and if you then do not comprehend some / much of the scientific information provided, well Bingo ! ... that would explain why neither you or I are the scientists that are exploring this 30 year old data more comprehensively.

 

In just as many instances of your multi quote replies, you cross into the uncomfortable land of being seen as arguing for argument sake.

 

In several of your replies you cross the line of appropriateness by way of innuendo, and also do so by way of personal attacks. This behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated from any APN Forum Member.

 

I will not multi quote them all, but will suffice to say that this quote is a case of the pot & black kettle...

Both on the one stove !

(( unfortunate that you wanted to be so defensive so to interpret this statement as a "slur" ))

 

This is not the first time that the APN Moderator & Admin Team have needed to have private communications between ourselves about your behavior and comments. Nor is it the first occasion we have needed to remind you personally of acceptable and appropriate behavior within this public community.

Your input @ APN could be so much more positively focused and worded.

Consider yourself publicly warned that; Continued inappropriate comments and behavior is unacceptable and may led to further APN Admin intervention.

 

The Admin and Moderator Team at Aquaponics Nation value the input of each and every one of our members equally.

But in doing so, we also have the unpleasant duty of peace keeping and boundary enforcement.

 

We are proud to continue the history of being the only truly independent aquaponics, aquaculture and sustainable food production forum in the world.

It is all FREE. No joining fee. No monthly or yearly fees. No monthly news letters selling yet another expensive course to riches.

.... and all of this information is made available by each of our contributing members ... FREE !

 

I personally would like to thank Gary for the work he has done to further bring the information and record of iAVs to the open sight of the general public.
It obviously goes without saying, but does sustain the equal public notice of thanks to Dr Mark McMurty for his ongoing efforts of collaboration with Gary, to continue to publicize his data and further expose the general population to his work and the potential that it shows.

Well done gentlemen. Thank you for sharing.

 

 

Cheers

Toga (Joe)

APN Moderator

Edited by Toga (see edit history)
MarkEinOz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. And, in fear of this wanting to be interpreted as a "slur" resulting of me being banned, your response here raises questions and concerns of your intent as well...

Toga, I will leave interpretation of my previous posts in context of iAVS to be determined by the reader rather than to be inintimidated by the powers that be.... Thanks for your "concern" !!!

Can we move on now to remain talking about the iAVS? Thanks!!

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Charles,

 

If you feel my post raise questions or concern of intent and is intimidating, then by all means use the "Report" feature, it is on the bottom of every post. I am not above the same standards of acceptability and accountability than any other member here... in fact, as an APN Moderator I expect to be held accountable to a higher level of conduct.

 

You have clearly been shown and have exampled the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior within this public forum.

It is your choice as to whether you remain within these boundaries.

 

There is only one interpretation of my post;

You have been warned repeatedly to clean up your act.

 

Challenging that warning does you no favors and reduces the options of your invited input here.

 

 

Good night.

Cheers

Toga (Joe)

APN Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good. Thanks for the clarification. See... that's how you deal with hard ball questions rather than aggravating the questioner. Since easy enough, look forward to see what is replicated by your and other hobbyists yields involving tomatoes with the iAVS. And, sorry Gary, nobody is "priming" me on what to say nor are there any "windbags winding me up".Thanks again. :)

While I for one do not think you have made this a personal assault your certainly combative concerning this topic. My question is why couldn't you look up this data as Gary did?

You seem to make these claims or cast doubt on other claims and then when you are given supporting data you act as if it was the fault of the provider who went out of his way to teach you.

I do not find the iAVs yeild claim in doubt one iota. In fact others have done similar systems with dirt bed media (wicking beds) and are showing very impressive results. They also use aquaponic water as the main nutrient source. So why would sand not perform as well?

I just took one of the largest zucchinis I ever saw out of my hydroton media bed in a dual loop system experiment and I can only imagine how much bigger it may have gotten had I used sand with its larger surface area.

IOWs, sand would improve my results because it is simply a better media in terms of SA, filtration capability, and water retention/conservation ability.

Where do you see the downside to using sand?

Edited by Strider (see edit history)
ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I for one do not think you have made this a personal assault your certainly combative concerning this topic.

 

I suppose this depends on which side you're on... ;)

 

 

My question is why couldn't you look up this data as Gary did?

 

Actually... I did... that was the ONE single paragraph talking about Table 7 within the "94 HortTech Text v.2.3.pdf" document... There was no explanation on how the projection was derived, which I did not expect there would be since the document is not written to speak to a layman as I am...

 

Gary did well enough, which I expressed my appreciation on the clarification.... in the following explanation about how the yield rates were annualised, which I look forward to applying the same standard to when I start growing tomatoes to see what my "projected" tomatoe yield would be...

 

No reason to make this out into something that it is not, which seems to be the tendency when there is aggressive talk written opposing the iAVS... except not the tendency when there is aggressive talk supporting the iAVS...

 

 

You seem to make these claims or cast doubt on other claims and then when you are given supporting data you act as if it was the fault of the provider who went out of his way to teach you.

 

I'd be curious if you could explain, from citing my statements, in supporting this... but lets make this about the iAVS rather than me... if that's possible...

 

 

I do not find the iAVs yeild claim in doubt one iota.

 

Don't know why... a "healthy skepticism" (as you mentioned in post#98) should entail some doubt... I never heard of "healthy skepticism" not involving "doubt one iota"...

 

I don't understand this notion of "healthy skepticism"... I think folk are saying they have "healthy skepticism" so to portray them self as trying to be objective... when they really are not...

 

 

In fact others have done similar systems with dirt bed media (wicking beds) and are showing very impressive results. They also use aquaponic water as the main nutrient source.

 

Indeed... other systems are showing impressive results... such as Mr. Chatterson's tomato yields using DWC (also a student, that worked alongside with Dr. Rakocy at Pentair AES), which last I heard on one of his postings in BYAP forum was approaching 100kg/m^2 (without fancy CO2 injection, etc etc)... except this is not talked about... I wonder why... I guess such information is deemed as "hear say" and thus not relavent...

 

 

So why would sand not perform as well?

 

I never suggested sand would not perform as well... However, if you read the experimental trials, they are not done to test the yielding capabilities of the system... which Gary points out as explained in my post#127... the trials were a type of correlation test... If X was done, then Y happened.... that is it... yet, this is deemed quite fine to determine the projected yields thus my skepticism...

 

On my farm (involving livestock feed crops), every single experimental trial involved a full crop length duration before coming to any conclusions... and still... once applied in the real world, these trials had a yield variance of 30~50% (sometimes overestimating and sometimes underestimating) the yields of the experimental trial plots.... There are a select few farmers whom look at these type of experimental trials for yield data to make a decision, but most use these field trials to determine the performance of plant characteristics within that variety... Main folk who focused on yields within the experimental trials were the seed product salesman... other experienced farmers knew better... Experimental yield trials are no where near equavilent as actual longterm yields within the field.

 

I find the yield data produced by the Boone/Mora demonstration pilot far more valuable than any of the experimental trials described within the peer-reviewed articles... I hope there will be more replication of the iAVS so we can get some actually demonstrated, practical numbers...

 

 

I just took one of the largest zucchinis I ever saw out of my hydroton media bed in a dual loop system experiment and I can only imagine how much bigger it may have gotten had I used sand with its larger surface area.

IOWs, sand would improve my results because it is simply a better media in terms of SA, filtration capability, and water retention/conservation ability.

 

Properly formulated wicking beds require to be composed of mostly sand... Sure, "wicking" occurs to an extent in any media, but sand's field capacity to retain just enough water while ability to shed water goes unopposed by most other mediums...thus, the reason why wicking beds should require a significant amount of properly typed sand.

 

How large do you think your zucchinis would grow in a properly built wicking bed? ... that was occasionally fertigated with liquified, composted fish solids at the surface where the plant's feeder roots reside...

 

 

Where do you see the downside to using sand?

 

For me, I never suggested there is a downside to using sand...  My problem is the "all in one" filtration wonder and, to me, this indicates a lack of control... which I do not find to be a positive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this depends on which side you're on... ;)

 

Why does there have to be a "side?"

 

The discussion around iAVs got off the rails when Paul Van Der Werf announced that sand wouldn't cut it…..and that this was supported by several studies.   On several occasions, I sought further information but none was forthcoming.  

 

No reason to make this out into something that it is not, which seems to be the tendency when there is aggressive talk written opposing the iAVS... except not the tendency when there is aggressive talk supporting the iAVS...

 

I'm all for that.  It's time for everyone to take a deep breath and get things back on track.

 

Indeed... other systems are showing impressive results... such as Mr. Chatterson's tomato yields using DWC (also a student, that worked alongside with Dr. Rakocy at Pentair AES), which last I heard on one of his postings in BYAP forum was approaching 100kg/m^2 (without fancy CO2 injection, etc etc)... except this is not talked about... I wonder why... I guess such information is deemed as "hear say" and thus not relavent...

 

On the contrary, I'm encouraged by Ryan's efforts.  They just bear out what I was saying about yields.   If I can remind you that the discussion of yields came about when Fecundo Cabral said that such yields were not possible.

 

I never suggested sand would not perform as well... However, if you read the experimental trials, they are not done to test the yielding capabilities of the system... which Gary points out as explained in my post#127... the trials were a type of correlation test... If X was done, then Y happened.... that is it... yet, this is deemed quite fine to determine the projected yields thus my skepticism...

 

And we've acknowledged, on many occasions, that the yield results that were obtained from iAVs were what they were.  There was never any attempts to optimise yields but rather to provide data around other aspects of the system.  The discussion around the projections was simply to establish a prospective production benchmark……expressed in $ per m2.

 

I find the yield data produced by the Boone/Mora demonstration pilot far more valuable than any of the experimental trials described within the peer-reviewed articles... I hope there will be more replication of the iAVS so we can get some actually demonstrated, practical numbers...

 

Mark was very encouraged by the Mora/Garrett trial, too.   He was happy that people who had virtually no practical experience in food production were able to take his system and, with very little instruction, were able to exceed his outcomes.

 

For me, I never suggested there is a downside to using sand...  My problem is the "all in one" filtration wonder and, to me, this indicates a lack of control... which I do not find to be a positive...

 

Feel free to state your concerns around the "all in one" filtration.

 

Look, I think we can all agree that iAVs needs more investigation…..and I think I've conceded that several times.    The efforts of Mark and myself are geared to that end.  

 

Until now, those efforts have been directed toward getting the basic information around the method onto a portal where people can learn more about it.  We believe that we've almost reached the point that we can start to target people who may be persuaded to undertake trials.

 

My own short-term ambition is to develop the "carpark" iteration of iAVs.

 

In the meantime, we'll continue to add more content…..and discuss/debate the merits of iAVs - the system that started it all.

Edited by Gary Donaldson (see edit history)
ande likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply agree to disagree with the iAVS. I have definitely recommended it to others, but, personally, just not for me... Apparently I have tested folk's nerves on this subject... so this will be my last post on the iAVS subject matter...

 

Now... you can either attack me for my positioning by stating how it is "all unwarranted and only 'perceived' thus should not be considered"... or... You could say.... "Thank you for your thoughts."...

 

I look forward to read what you believe requires further investigation of the iAVS.

 

 

Why does there have to be a "side?"

 

Your entire comparitive marketing technique of the iAVS is clearly drawing lines to indicate sides are drawn.... There are folks whom believe in the iAVS academic data "whole hog" that only needs minor improvements... then there are folk whom are more skeptical due to what you claim as "perceived" disagreements thus is deemed the argument is of no concern...

 

You clearly draw the line by throwing out strong arm statements such as posing the question stating... "Prove you can do better?!" ... Would love for Mr. Chatterson to chime in on this part, especially in context of tomatos.... but then there will be the obvious rebuttals of saying Mr. Chatterson is producing the yields at much higher input costs... yadda yadda yadda... so I doubt he nor anyone else truly ever will take your bait...  due to the adversarial nature of the question...

 

As far as the yield concerns... think this has been resolved quite well for me... I look forward to more replication of the iAVS.

 

As far as system concerns... There are reasons why biologically secured and controlled environments within the food agriculture industry do not utilize "all in one" systems that involve livestock (whether it is fish or whatever)... and I share those same concerns... also, I like flexibility and the iAVS system is lacking operational flexibility.... iAVS is just not for me....

 

 

The discussion around iAVs got off the rails when Paul Van Der Werf announced that sand wouldn't cut it…..and that this was supported by several studies.   On several occasions, I sought further information but none was forthcoming. 

 

I don't understand the continuing attempt to want to derail Mr. Van der Werf's name by evoking his name whenever it is entirely unnecessary.... This is what Mr. Van der Werf actually said (post#176).  ... Will leave it to readers to determine for them self.

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi c

You seem to have a selective memory

 Paul first questioned the FCR Kellen parked that discussion by breaking down the numbers

next he claimed this here in this post

http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/9039-integrated-aquavegeculture-system-iavs/?p=69228

quote :

His work has not been discounted and it has been tested a multitude of times.  I have seen it even in universities here in Australia and the results were less than impressive for systems that were older than 4 years.

quote end

 

I don't understand the continuing attempt to want to derail Mr. Van der Werf's name by evoking his name whenever it is entirely unnecessary.... This is what Mr. Van der Werf actually said (post#176).  ... Will leave it to readers to determine for them self.

 

He was asked politely a number of times to back up this claim or at least provide a pointer for us to look it up, when he finaly answers he posts Marks own studies and nothing else

 

 

cheers

GaryD likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi c

You seem to have a selective memory

 Paul first questioned the FCR Kellen parked that discussion by breaking down the numbers

next he claimed this here in this post

http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/9039-integrated-aquavegeculture-system-iavs/?p=69228

quote :

His work has not been discounted and it has been tested a multitude of times.  I have seen it even in universities here in Australia and the results were less than impressive for systems that were older than 4 years.

quote end

 

 

He was asked politely a number of times to back up this claim or at least provide a pointer for us to look it up, when he finaly answers he posts Marks own studies and nothing else

 

 

cheers

 

 

I'd suggest you provide the hyperlink of Kellen's "parking of that discussion" and a hyperlink of the exact quote of what Mr. Van der Werf stated about the FCRs.... They are not in opposition as you want to portray... Also, Mr. Weissenbach would likely not appreciate how you are pitting him against Mr. Van der Werf.

 

Quite irrelevant that Mr. Van der Werf would not reference the studies... What gain would he have in being deceptive in this way? A fella does not get a multi-million aquaponic project in the UAE alongside with other projects within aquaculture and aquaponics by saying what he does not know...

 

Come on.... What is this really about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again c

 

I'd suggest you provide the hyperlink of Kellen's "parking of that discussion" and a hyperlink of the exact quote of what Mr. Van der Werf stated about the FCRs....

 

You could scroll up to post 3 in the link I provided, there you have posted hyperlink to the exact quote from paul on the mater here;

http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/9039-integrated-aquavegeculture-system-iavs/?p=69156

If you try to click on that link/quote you made, on/from Paul's post http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/8906-sand-bed-details/?p=63979 you will find Kellens parking of that discussion, if you read thru all the iavs threads but here is the answer or direct link

http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/9039-integrated-aquavegeculture-system-iavs/?p=69621

 

 

 

 

Come on.... What is this really about?

 

Maybe you can tell me/us ?

All the iAVs threads have been closed, derailed, split, and split again, do to agrevated discussions, that you have participated in, so no one can figure it out unless following/reading it, as it unfolded

 

 

cheers

Edited by ande (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply agree to disagree with the iAVS. I have definitely recommended it to others, but, personally, just not for me... Apparently I have tested folk's nerves on this subject... so this will be my last post on the iAVS subject matter...

 

And no-one has any problem with that.  What has been an issue is the ongoing implication that someone is hiding something or that Mark or I are somehow being dishonest in the information that we provide.

 

Now... you can either attack me for my positioning by stating how it is "all unwarranted and only 'perceived' thus should not be considered"... or... You could say.... "Thank you for your thoughts."...

 

Since I don't wish to encourage you in your straw man construction,  I'll just say….."Thank you for your thoughts."

 

I look forward to read what you believe requires further investigation of the iAVS.

 

Our first efforts will be directed toward confirming the baseline attached to Mark's work.  While there's nothing about the passage of time that diminishes the numbers, it seems that people are concerned that all of this happened some decades ago……so we'll see what happens when you take a 30-year old idea and apply it…..today!   I don't expect to see much from that except confirmation of existing data but it will provide us with some contemporary images and a baseline from which to explore other opportunities.

 

At the same time, we'll be encouraging people to consider using iAVs in a commercial context…..through the establishment of appropriate trials in a contemporary controlled environment agricultural context.

 

While that's happening, we'll dangle what we're doing under the noses of the people who work with the disenfranchised and the poor to bring aabout a better quality of life for them.  This is where iAVs roots lie…..and it's still the best option (that I can see) for feeding people in a sustainable way.

 

Your entire comparitive marketing technique of the iAVS is clearly drawing lines to indicate sides are drawn.... There are folks whom believe in the iAVS academic data "whole hog" that only needs minor improvements... then there are folk whom are more skeptical due to what you claim as "perceived" disagreements thus is deemed the argument is of no concern...

 

We have no time to waste.  We are challenging people to come up with examples of food production systems that exceed the capabilities of iAVs….with a goal to getting someone (anyone) to get off their arse to do something.  The clock is ticking…..for Mark and I and the planet.  What we (the human race) have been doing isn't working and it's time to try new ways of doing things.  If throwing down the gauntlet is irritating some people……that's fine!  The only way to shut us up is to come up with something that's better……and, if not, at least acknowledge that iAVs could be worth a go.

 

You clearly draw the line by throwing out strong arm statements such as posing the question stating... "Prove you can do better?!" ... Would love for Mr. Chatterson to chime in on this part, especially in context of tomatos.... but then there will be the obvious rebuttals of saying Mr. Chatterson is producing the yields at much higher input costs... yadda yadda yadda... so I doubt he nor anyone else truly ever will take your bait...  due to the adversarial nature of the question...

 

I have nothing but admiration for Ryan and his efforts.    Not only has he had the courage to try commercial aquaponics….but he does it in Thailand where food is in abundance.  We have nothing to fear from Ryan.  He's like us…..he's got of his arse and doing something.

 

As far as the yield concerns... think this has been resolved quite well for me... I look forward to more replication of the iAVS.

 

And thank you for that acknowledgment.  

 

As far as system concerns... There are reasons why biologically secured and controlled environments within the food agriculture industry do not utilize "all in one" systems that involve livestock (whether it is fish or whatever)... and I share those same concerns... also, I like flexibility and the iAVS system is lacking operational flexibility.... iAVS is just not for me....

 

In normal (whatever that means) circumstances,  I might agree with you.   Most of the aquaponics systems that I built in the past were able to be decoupled as/if the need arose…..and mixing things up (in an industrial farming context) is definitely problematic.

 

What I've realised, however, is that it's not the mixing up that the issue……it's the industrial farming that's on the nose (literally and metaphorically).

 

I've been aware, for a long time, that the integration of fish, plants and micro-livestock (Microponics) is not only possible but desirable.   My collaboration with Mark McMurtry…..and my study of Paul Olivier's work….has satisfied me that Microponics can be scaled up successfully to include pigs and cattle.  It's confirmed for me that it's not the integration of organisms that's an issue; it's how we do it that determines whether it will be successful or not.

 

We've consistently said that iAVs is different to other approaches.  With iAVs, the fish are means to an end and many of the reasons for "decoupling" simply do not have the same relevance in iAVs.

 

I don't understand the continuing attempt to want to derail Mr. Van der Werf's name by evoking his name whenever it is entirely unnecessary.... This is what Mr. Van der Werf actually said (post#176).  ... Will leave it to readers to determine for them self.

 

I mentioned Paul simply in the context of the circumstances that applied to iAVs…..and that included the circumstances of his departure (around which you like to periodically engage in innuendo) from the Forum.

 

Make your mind up, Charles.  Either we're going to talk about Paul or we're not.  I'm quite happy to engage you in a discussion about Paul and his personality but I seriously doubt you (or Paul) want me to go there.  

 

Personally, I'd prefer that you don't use him as a distraction.

Edited by Gary Donaldson (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could scroll up to post 3 in the link I provided, there you have posted hyperlink to the exact quote from paul on the mater here;

http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/9039-integrated-aquavegeculture-system-iavs/?p=69156

If you try to click on that link/quote you made, on/from Paul's post http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/8906-sand-bed-details/?p=63979 you will find Kellens parking of that discussion, if you read thru all the iavs threads but here is the answer or direct link

http://aquaponicsnation.com/forums/topic/9039-integrated-aquavegeculture-system-iavs/?p=69621

 

Indeed... and.... Mr. Weissenbach was simply clarifying the information to be put into perspective from his point of view and Mr. Van der Werf gave his point of view... I don't see where Mr. Weissenbach "parking of that discussion" occurs.  Are you suggesting an aquaculture professional, such as Mr. Van der Werf, does not understand how to properly intrepret FCRs?

 

 

I mentioned Paul simply in the context of the circumstances that applied to iAVs…..and that included the circumstances of his departure (around which you like to periodically engage in innuendo) from the Forum.

 

Make your mind up, Charles.  Either we're going to talk about Paul or we're not.  I'm quite happy to engage you in a discussion about Paul and his personality but I seriously doubt you (or Paul) want me to go there.  

 

Personally, I'd prefer that you don't use him as a distraction.

 

Ok... Now you are suggesting you are happy to engage in a discussion about Mr. Van der Werf's "personality".... This condescending tone describes quite perfect the circumstances of Mr. Van der Werf's departure.

 

 

Maybe you can tell me/us ?

All the iAVs threads have been closed, derailed, split, and split again, do to agrevated discussions, that you have participated in, so no one can figure it out unless following/reading it, as it unfolded

 

I wonder why... just look at how the conversation is devolving...

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