crsublette

What is the difference between iAVS vs. Organic Soil Agriculture?

60 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, GaryD said:

Outside of that there are other major considerations not the least of which is water use.  Water in an iAVs is used 140 - 300 times before it leaves the system by way of evapo-transpiration. 

Made possible due to recapture... This was already acknowledged...

 

18 minutes ago, GaryD said:

The preparation of soil to be used for organic food production can be a very comprehensive and expensive undertaking......requiring ammendment, supplementation and plenty of labour.

Purchasing virgin land, such as ranch land, automatically qualifies for organic food production. No special amendments, supplementations, nor extra labor involved.

 

20 minutes ago, GaryD said:

One of the reasons that organic produce costs more is because its production costs are higher than conventional agriculture.

Organic product costs more due to lower yields from their farms, high consumer demand, unable to utilize the cheaper solutions afforded to conventional agriculture, as well as significant market gouging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ande said:

As I 'w said before , the ridges or "furrows" in a intermidate recipriotating sandfilter (iAVs) are of a particulare importance in cold climates.

It will act as "ice sheet" brakers, if the surface water should freeze before it has drained in to the filter.

No ice bloks forms in North Europe/America (cold/subarctic climates) where these have been in use tested +/- a hundred years Why would it freeze in a iAVs aplication ?

The efluent water from the fish tank (salmonides), going in to the filter is 15-18 C, it will have drained in to the sand long before it freezes, and it helps maintaining a higher temp C/F in the rootzone of your plants (part of your pasive heating system if constructed right)

I guess you didn't look much in to this type of fitering technique , ;)

Wasabi could be a interesting candidate for winter growth in a cold climate salmonide operation if you wan't to grow plants all season.

cheers

Ande, are you suggesting ground does not freeze in North Europe/America (cold/subarctic climates)? 

The intermittent reciprocating filter is pulling freezing cold air into the media as the water drains. Super cooling the filter. Yet, ya also think this will have minimal impact on water temperature. How does water returning from the filter being 15~18*C maintain its heat when exposed to the atmospheric air is -12 ~ -4*C? That water will be super cooled rather quick. You will be needing a quite significant passive heating system to offset any of that... I would like to see or read about that passive heating system that can so easily offset atmospheric air that is -12 ~ -4*C.

I do not consider this subarctic temperatures. Be quite odd if I did. A few hundred miles up north from me, near the Canadian border and Great Lakes, they can experience -23*C and even lower temperatures... heh, and this is with the wind NOT blowing.

 

Moisture retained by the soil (or sand) is what freezes. The ice crystals will build upon each other per drainage event, the sand will be super cooled upon each drainage event. Thus, ice block. This is not theory. Seen it done in the soils here.

I have had my plow frozen in the soil here. Even the tractor hydraulics could not remove the plow out of the ground. Yet, you actually think intermittently, once a hour or so, with a passive heating system, flowing  water through the sand would prevent the sand from freezing. Ok.

 

 

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


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

VKN, I agree with much of what ya said, but appears you are attempting to suggest iAVS is unique...

Crop nutrient management is essential to iAVS as well, just as it is in soil agriculture. This is why you stick to a strict ratio of X plants to Y fish density. This is nutrient management. Fish manuring, through your irrigation, the sand soil profile is the foundation of iAVS. Whether the manure is in a liquid solution or dry chunks, it is still "manuring".

Crop rotations is not essential for soil agriculture as well, although is highly recommended since crop yields often are observed to increase after a rotation.

Biology is also added in any soil agriculture as well. Even farmers like me, are continually adding biology. This idea is not specific to any particular form agriculture. Microbiology is not a permanent feature of soil. In Nature, microbes are meant to come and go and adapt and return, except we want them to always stay. This is why soil microbiologists such as Elaine Ingham have a career to help people understand how to ensure their soil remain inoculated as well as reinoculating soils.

Also, crop rotations are applicable when growing particular crops. A major reason crops are rotated, or fields set fallowed, is so to allow the land to "rest" thus allowing the land to eliminate early markers of soil borne diseases as well as allelopathic chemical buildup. This is in a completely organic environment. If grow beds are disinfected, as done in hydroponics, then, obviously, crop rotations would never be done, but I figure iAVS folk are not going to pursue the expense to disinfect their grow beds.

Tillage and Cultivation practices actually does not improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and erosion. These practices actually significantly harms soil profiles, microbiology, and increases erosion. You should google, "Dust Bowl". This was a natural event created due to  tillage and cultivation practices. Only fix came once people understood the importance of working with the contours of land and allowing land to fallow, thus preventing back-to-back crop production. Now, tillage and cultivation is primarily done as a function of operational size, sporadically doing it to control weeds from harming yields, and to reduce labor. Unfortunately, tillage and cultivation is a necessary evil that is used on occasion in soil agriculture.

Take iAVS to a very large scale outside of a greenhouse, then I guarantee you will find yourself using tillage and cultivation techniques not too different than what is found in industrial soil agriculture.

The "forming tool" used to create furrows in iAVS would be considered to be a type of tillage/cultivation in preparation of the next crop.

Cover crops, or mulching, might be the only element found moreso in soil agriculture rather than iAVS primarily due to iAVS's chosen methodology of "ferti-gation".

Yes, iAVs technique is unique in several ways.  What it will do for you?  Here is a quick glance of over a dozen reasons for you to consider.

1. You’ll be able to grow more food with much less water.  iAVs has been shown to produce 700 calories of food for each litre of water used.
2. You’ll be able to grow more food in a smaller space.  iAVs lends itself to controlled environment cropping methods.
3. You’ll be able to grow more food in less time.  Both fish and vegetables grow faster in iAVs than in other growing environments.
4. You’ll be able to produce food in places where it is otherwise not possible.  iAVs is suited rocky wastelands and/or unsuitable soils.
5. You’ll be able to produce food during seasons where it is otherwise not possible.  iAVS facilitates food production in the hottest and driest places on earth.
6. You’ll require less electrical energy.  iAVs’ irrigation regime only requires about 2 hours of pumping daily. In developing countries, iAVs can be operated manually – with no power required.
7. You’ll need less mechanical and technological equipment.  With iAVs, you can dispense with all of the expensive supplementary filtration (and the associated work) needed for aquaponics systems. In developing countries, you can operate iAVs manually – with no pumps, blowers, timers and controllers.
8. iAVS is scale-neutral in application.  Systems can range tiny desktop aquarium systems to backyard/village applications and right through to broad-acre commercial applications.
9. Your food will be fresher and cheaper – and its supply will be more secure.  iAVs’ ability to produce food where it otherwise cannot be grown means that you are not reliant on food from distant places.
10. You’ll be able to grow food that has no negative impact on the environment.  iAVs produces no wastes, no pollutants, no run-off, no leaching or soil degradation.
11. You’ll be able to grow food without chemical supplements.  The soil biology that is unique to iAVs means that no supplementation is required – with a balanced fish ration.
12. You’ll be able to grow food without herbicides or pesticides.  iAVs’ reliance on fish to produce plant nutrients means that there is no place for toxic substances.
13. iAVS may be adapted to meet the indigenous needs and conditions of virtually any region or culture.
14. You’ll be able to produce food more profitably.  iAVs will produce more food of better quality at a lower cost.

To summarise…iAVs is arguably among the most productive, resilient and sustainable food production systems ever devised.  More here

Edited by vkn (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again C

 

2 hours ago, crsublette said:

Ande, are you suggesting ground does not freeze in North Europe/America (cold/subarctic climates)? 

The intermittent reciprocating filter is pulling freezing cold air into the media as the water drains. Super cooling the filter. Yet, ya also think this will have minimal impact on water temperature. How does water returning from the filter being 15~18*C maintain its heat when exposed to the atmospheric air is -12 ~ -4*C? That water will be super cooled rather quick. You will be needing a quite significant passive heating system to offset any of that... I would like to see or read about that passive heating system that can so easily offset atmospheric air that is -12 ~ -4*C.

I do not consider this subarctic temperatures. Be quite odd if I did. A few hundred miles up north from me, near the Canadian border and Great Lakes, they can experience -23*C and even lower temperatures... heh, and this is with the wind NOT blowing.

 

Moisture retained by the soil (or sand) is what freezes. The ice crystals will build upon each other per drainage event, the sand will be super cooled upon each drainage event. Thus, ice block. This is not theory. Seen it done in the soils here.

I have had my plow frozen in the soil here. Even the tractor hydraulics could not remove the plow out of the ground. Yet, you actually think intermittently, once a hour or so, with a passive heating system, flowing  water through the sand would prevent the sand from freezing. Ok.

 

 

Standing water freezes including standing water in the ground/soil/etc, but you don't seem to understand that the water is drained away long before it freezes.

 If/when so hapens at times, that the surface water do freezes, it formes ice sheets that brakes up with the nexct water flush, given you have buildt with the propper ridges/furrows/ etc.

In a proper design ,the water will drain away under that thin ice sheet that forms on odd ocations depending on temp on the efluent water, in a septic systems, the water temp C/F going in to such filters is way below that of a fish tank, and they work at sub zero temps

Oviously you could build it (the filter) of the ground, suspended in the air, then maybe they would/could freeze to a block of ice before it drains? :wacko:

You realy don't understand this :huh: or maybe you just don't want to understand it ?

IMO you should try expand your horizon further than iAVs and get rid of your dogmas, recip filters have been around for more than a century and have proven them selfe long before the inventor of iAVs was born, or even before his grandfather was born :lolu:

 

 

cheers

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Standing water freezes including standing water in the ground/soil/etc, but you don't seem to understand that the water is drained away long before it freezes.

Ande, the water that adheres to the sand particulates are not "drained away". This adherence of moisture to particles is why soil is able to freeze. Standing water is not the only reason why soil freezes. Soil is also able to freeze due to the moisture that adheres to it.

Can you hyperlink reference me one of these salmonoid facilities or any facility or a septic system whom utilizes outdoor recipricating filters in -4*C or lower temperatures?

 

Old Prospector likes this

Share this post


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

Yes, iAVs technique is unique in several ways.  What it will do for you?  Here is a quick glance of over a dozen reasons for you to consider.

I suppose I did fall into that trap, with that "trigger" in my previous post... to give VKN a chance to submit a marketing blurb... Sigh... Good for you.. Well done...

Superior objectivity for iAVS portrayed is rather quite disconcerting.

Be best for me to avoid talking about iAVS on this forum... May there now be "cheers" that follow. :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

I suppose I did fall into that trap, with that "trigger" in my previous post... to give VKN a chance to submit a marketing blurb... Sigh... Good for you.. Well done...

Superior objectivity for iAVS portrayed is rather quite disconcerting.

Be best for me to avoid talking about iAVS on this forum... May there now be "cheers" that follow. :rolleyes:

Are you happy with your current growing circumstances? If so, enjoy!

If not, change something.  Consider iAVs in a small plot of yours and try/see it for yourself.  Make a thread for it here.  Because if you don’t, who will?

Edited by vkn (see edit history)
crsublette likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ande said:

 If/when so hapens at times, that the surface water do freezes, it formes ice sheets that brakes up with the nexct water flush, given you have buildt with the propper ridges/furrows/ etc.

In a proper design ,the water will drain away under that thin ice sheet that forms on odd ocations depending on temp on the efluent water, in a septic systems, the water temp

 

2 hours ago, crsublette said:

Ande, the water that adheres to the sand particulates are not "drained away". This adherence of moisture to particles is why soil is able to freeze. Standing water is not the only reason why soil freezes. Soil is also able to freeze due to the moisture that adheres to it.

Can you hyperlink reference me one of these salmonoid facilities or any facility or a septic system whom utilizes outdoor recipricating filters in -4*C or lower temperatures?

 

Ande, best info I could find on how intermittent reciprocating avoid freezing, in extreme cold, is with insulated covers, that have vent holes. I imagine if the walls are properly insulated as well, will help tremendously once the soil temperatures start reaching below freezing.

This makes sense to me because this is what is often done even for ponds to prevent them from freezing.

So, to be honest, I absolutely do think there is a way to prevent the sand beds from freezing with proper insulation and covers.

Honestly, I am glad y'all gave me hell about this... :)

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


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

I suppose I did fall into that trap, with that "trigger" in my previous post... to give VKN a chance to submit a marketing blurb... Sigh... Good for you.. Well done...

Superior objectivity for iAVS portrayed is rather quite disconcerting.

Be best for me to avoid talking about iAVS on this forum... May there now be "cheers" that follow. :rolleyes:

Charles,

Which part of the "marketing blurb" is in dispute?  Which of the points that VKN listed (and I wrote) are untrue....and what evidence would you offer to support that contention?

I certainly don't require you to stop talking about iAVs.  It is the most productive, resilient and sustainable approach to integrated aquaculture.....anywhere!  It is unique in many ways....and it is on the rise.  By all means, talk about anything that you believes counters these claims.....but expect to be subjected to the same burden of proof that iAVs is/does/has.

Gary

Share this post


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

Made possible due to recapture... This was already acknowledged...

If you're looking to suggest that there is little to separate iAVs from organic agriculture, you've failed badly on this point alone.   Water for agriculture is emerging as one of the biggest issues in the world, so wouldn't you agree that being the world's most water- efficient food production system is a meaningful difference between it and organic agriculture.

13 hours ago, crsublette said:

Purchasing virgin land, such as ranch land, automatically qualifies for organic food production. No special amendments, supplementations, nor extra labor involved.

Having suitable land is just one part of organica agriculture.  It has to be improved....with a far more limited (and expensive) range of improvement options than conventional agriculture....before it can be expected yield effectively.  Many organic farms would have establishment/improvement costs well above the cost of "a few cubic metres of sand."

13 hours ago, crsublette said:

Organic product costs more due to lower yields from their farms, high consumer demand, unable to utilize the cheaper solutions afforded to conventional agriculture, as well as significant market gouging.

Cost of production is the only thing that the farmer has control over....and, as you've acknowledged, organic food is more expensive to produce....because the organic farmer is "unable to utilize the cheaper solutions afforded to conventional agriculture."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles,

Quote

Honestly, I am glad y'all gave me hell about this... :)

It's only by giving you hell that we manage to shift you off of your fundamentalist positions on things.  You keep coming back to us because we challenge your sometimes limited view of the world and you secretly like that because it's only when we are forced to examine our beliefs that we actually learn.  Blindly accepting what we are told by others, without challenge, is the stuff of religion.....and look where that's got the world. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Gary, I have actually shown to be open minded, which is why I enjoy being challenged and challenging rather than blindly accepting what others tell me, irrelevant of what title is behind their name. No doubt, I will not stop talking about nor referencing iAVS (as well as the website) since I do think it has a place.

Thanks Gary for chiming in with your superior objectivity, as the iAVS spokesman. ;)

Godspeed to practitioners of iAVS!! :)

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, back to topic..

 

1 hour ago, GaryD said:

If you're looking to suggest that there is little to separate iAVs from organic agriculture, you've failed badly on this point alone.   Water for agriculture is emerging as one of the biggest issues in the world, so wouldn't you agree that being the world's most water- efficient food production system is a meaningful difference between it and organic agriculture.

iAVS water savings is purely due to water recapture. Period. ...unless you believe sand has a unique ability to reduce evaporation, would be interesting to see that data (if ya have it)...

 

1 hour ago, GaryD said:

Many organic farms would have establishment/improvement costs well above the cost of "a few cubic metres of sand."

...and will take much more than just a "few cubic metres of sand", as well as other materials, to produce the same per acre...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks Gary for chiming in with your superior objectivity, as the iAVS spokesman. ;)

What exactly does this mean?

1 hour ago, crsublette said:

iAVS water savings is purely due to water recapture.

If it was that simple....every aquaponics variant would be doing the same.....and they're not.  That leads me to conclude that there are other aspects that contribute to iAVs' unequalled (and proven) water use efficiency.

Quote

...and will take much more than just a "few cubic metres of sand", as well as other materials, to produce the same per acre...

iAVs will outproduce any organic gardening method of a given size.....and it will use a tiny fraction of the water while doing it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GaryD said:

If it was that simple....every aquaponics variant would be doing the same.....and they're not.  That leads me to conclude that there are other aspects that contribute to iAVs' unequalled (and proven) water use efficiency.

Gary... How many times does the water cycle in DWC or Dutch Buckets or NFT before the water leaves the system by way of evapo-transpiration?

 

Gary, this thread is not about defending iAVS's honor... This is not a "pee-ing contest", as Aufin best described.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2016 at 3:50 AM, crsublette said:

Purchasing virgin land, such as ranch land, automatically qualifies for organic food production. No special amendments, supplementations, nor extra labor involved.

 

21 hours ago, GaryD said:

Having suitable land is just one part of organica agriculture.  It has to be improved....with a far more limited (and expensive) range of improvement options than conventional agriculture....before it can be expected yield effectively.  Many organic farms would have establishment/improvement costs well above the cost of "a few cubic metres of sand."

 

To clarify: Yes, there is far more to successful organic agriculture over time than planting seeds in virgin soil.  However, in the USA, an operation can be certified "Organic" if the land purchased has been fallow, or provably managed within the requirements for certification, for the preceding 3 years. This effectively negates the usual waiting period before produce can be labeled "USDA Certified Organic."

Share this post


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

Gary... How many times does the water cycle in DWC or Dutch Buckets or NFT before the water leaves the system by way of evapo-transpiration?

I've never seen any credible numbers for either method.  iAVs has been measured and it has been determined that the water has been used 140 - 300 times before exiting the system.  That's the benchmark until someone credibly demonstrates otherwise.

20 hours ago, crsublette said:

Gary, this thread is not about defending iAVS's honor... This is not a "pee-ing contest", as Aufin best described.

iAVs' honour needs no defending.  It has science....and verifiable data.....on its side.  I am not defending iAVs honour....but rather resisting suggestions that...like your contention that there is no distinguishable difference between iAVs and organic agriculture...are demonstrably false.

1 hour ago, MT Mind said:

To clarify: Yes, there is far more to successful organic agriculture over time than planting seeds in virgin soil.  However, in the USA, an operation can be certified "Organic" if the land purchased has been fallow, or provably managed within the requirements for certification, for the preceding 3 years. This effectively negates the usual waiting period before produce can be labeled "USDA Certified Organic."

I guess I was talking more about the cost of bringing suitable land into organic production rather than the compliance/certification aspects.  This was in reaction to Charles' reference to "a few cubic metres of sand" as being the principal distinction between iAVs and organic agriculture.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original question: I think the biggest difference is control. There's a significant difference between the level of control offered by iAVs and that provided by organic soil gardening. There is also a significant difference in the level of control required to successfully operate iAVs operation and what's required by soil gardening.

Soils are infinitely variable in composition, but with the most basic principles or organic gardening, any soil can be improved to good soil, sometimes even great soil. Compost and biochar, crop rotation and cover crops, inoculate for soils lacking the fungi or bacteria required and you're on your way to sustainable production. Clay soils are broken up for drainage, sandy soils retain more water, the nutrient reserves in the root zone are built up, but you still have a soil that's unique to that location. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but compared to iAVs there's a significant lack of control.  In iAVs, you're engineering the soil from scratch; you control the sand composition that goes in, and you control the organic matter applied by managing the fish. It's almost like the difference between fixing up an old house and building a new one; either way, you end up with a warm dry place to sleep, but one is going to need more upkeep for the next twenty years while the other will have a mortgage payment for that long.

Water use in organic gardening also offers far less control, with irrigation being used to supplement/replace the rain that may or may not arrive when needed. Excess rain causes runoff, leaching, and potential water-logging of the soil, and once it passes through the root zone, it's basically gone until it gets pumped up to the surface from the aquifer. Water levels in the soil are generally much less consistent than in iAVs, even with ample organic matter and biochar to moderate water movement.  Who hasn't seen a healthy crop of tomatoes split their sides after a heavy rain?  With iAVs, you fill it and keep it topped up; water levels in the sand are consistent from day to day, with little risk of drying out or water logging.

While this controlled system offers a significant increase in productivity, it comes with a price.  As you mentioned, not all climates are naturally conducive to open air iAVs, nor would it be advisable to not protect against direct rainfall in the sand beds, as this adds an uncontrolled amount of new water to the system and could destroy the shape of the furrows. The closed system also requires more stringent control of inputs over time; all fish food entering the system will either become fish body mass, plant material, bacterial biomass, or remain suspended or dissolved in the water. Mixing crops and adjusting feed rates in order to strike a balance means monitoring water quality and adjusting as needed to keep the fish healthy.  With organic gardening, we expect all the nutrition to be available because it was all in the organic matter we added - and continue to add - to the soil, and the soil can hold a lot more nutrition because we're not worried about excess nitrates killing the fish.

This post is already getting long, so I'll cut it short.

Organic soil agriculture is more forgiving than iAVs in many ways, but the output quantity for most crops will be far less - at least per land area - than would be possible in iAVs.

GaryD and crsublette like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, GaryD said:

I've never seen any credible numbers for either method.

Yet, ya feel confident you can make the claims you have, with system comparisons from with those "ya never seen any credible numbers for either method", so to shine the light on iAVS. This is called SPIN!!! 

Thank you for your superior objectivity Gary!

Back to topic please!

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


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

To the original question: I think the biggest difference is control. There's a significant difference between the level of control offered by iAVs and that provided by organic soil gardening. There is also a significant difference in the level of control required to successfully operate iAVs operation and what's required by soil gardening.

Soils are infinitely variable in composition, but with the most basic principles or organic gardening, any soil can be improved to good soil, sometimes even great soil. Compost and biochar, crop rotation and cover crops, inoculate for soils lacking the fungi or bacteria required and you're on your way to sustainable production. Clay soils are broken up for drainage, sandy soils retain more water, the nutrient reserves in the root zone are built up, but you still have a soil that's unique to that location. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but compared to iAVs there's a significant lack of control.  In iAVs, you're engineering the soil from scratch; you control the sand composition that goes in, and you control the organic matter applied by managing the fish. It's almost like the difference between fixing up an old house and building a new one; either way, you end up with a warm dry place to sleep, but one is going to need more upkeep for the next twenty years while the other will have a mortgage payment for that long.

Water use in organic gardening also offers far less control, with irrigation being used to supplement/replace the rain that may or may not arrive when needed. Excess rain causes runoff, leaching, and potential water-logging of the soil, and once it passes through the root zone, it's basically gone until it gets pumped up to the surface from the aquifer. Water levels in the soil are generally much less consistent than in iAVs, even with ample organic matter and biochar to moderate water movement.  Who hasn't seen a healthy crop of tomatoes split their sides after a heavy rain?  With iAVs, you fill it and keep it topped up; water levels in the sand are consistent from day to day, with little risk of drying out or water logging.

While this controlled system offers a significant increase in productivity, it comes with a price.  As you mentioned, not all climates are naturally conducive to open air iAVs, nor would it be advisable to not protect against direct rainfall in the sand beds, as this adds an uncontrolled amount of new water to the system and could destroy the shape of the furrows. The closed system also requires more stringent control of inputs over time; all fish food entering the system will either become fish body mass, plant material, bacterial biomass, or remain suspended or dissolved in the water. Mixing crops and adjusting feed rates in order to strike a balance means monitoring water quality and adjusting as needed to keep the fish healthy.  With organic gardening, we expect all the nutrition to be available because it was all in the organic matter we added - and continue to add - to the soil, and the soil can hold a lot more nutrition because we're not worried about excess nitrates killing the fish.

This post is already getting long, so I'll cut it short.

Organic soil agriculture is more forgiving than iAVs in many ways, but the output quantity for most crops will be far less - at least per land area - than would be possible in iAVs.

 

MT Mind, I agree with much of what ya said... Other points you made involving open field soil agriculture are quite odd since it conflicts with my agronomist's and my farming experience in soil agriculture, but, I don't want to turn this into an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks... I am specifically, talking about the similarities and differences of the horiticulture end (not aquaculture) of its applicability to the horticulture end of aquaponics  Keep in mind context is aquaponics... Talking about aquaponics folks... Yes, can talk about soil agriculture in lieu with aquaponics without talking strict open field, organic soil gardening/agriculture.

These are the requirements of each system (both iAVS and Soil Agriculture) for any meaningful comparison to be talked about...

1) Water recapture employed in each system.

2) Organic manures primary fertilizer employed in each system.

3) Either both are in a greenhouse or both are NOT in a greenhouse.

4) Crop production techniques (such as IPM, plant spacing, etc) are employed the same in each system.

 

If these primary factors are not equal... then the comparisons means nothing.

 

I was hoping for more "out of the box" thinking of how the similarities and differences.

Rather than this thread becoming a defense of nor support for one system or the other....

 

My apologies for not making this more clear...

Edited by crsublette (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure this topic is just too nuanced for folk to discuss cause people would rather retain their rather quite myopic support for one system or the other.

 

Jeez, this is going no where... which I'm not surprised.... I will let y'all have the final word.... unless there is actually something that is posted relevant to this topic.

Share this post


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

 

MT Mind, I agree with much of what ya said... Other points you made involving open field soil agriculture are quite odd since it conflicts with my agronomist's and my farming experience in soil agriculture, but, I don't want to turn this into an argument.

I'm not looking for an argument either, but I am honestly interested in your input. The bulk of my personal experience has been with small plots of an acre or less. While I grew up on a large farm as a kid, We moved out of the business just as I would have started running machinery in the field.  I am legitimately interested in your insights as a large scale operator, and if you would prefer to PM me, that would be fine.

6 hours ago, crsublette said:

Folks... I am specifically, talking about the similarities and differences of the horiticulture end (not aquaculture) of its applicability to the horticulture end of aquaponics  Keep in mind context is aquaponics... Talking about aquaponics folks... Yes, can talk about soil agriculture in lieu with aquaponics without talking strict open field, organic soil gardening/agriculture.

These are the requirements of each system (both iAVS and Soil Agriculture) for any meaningful comparison to be talked about...

1) Water recapture employed in each system.

2) Organic manures primary fertilizer employed in each system.

3) Either both are in a greenhouse or both are NOT in a greenhouse.

4) Crop production techniques (such as IPM, plant spacing, etc) are employed the same in each system.

 

If these primary factors are not equal... then the comparisons means nothing.

 

I was hoping for more "out of the box" thinking of how the similarities and differences.

Rather than this thread becoming a defense of nor support for one system or the other....

 

My apologies for not making this more clear...

I apologize for being off topic; I apparently missed the point. I'm having a lot of difficulty interpreting your sentence structure, and I'm not sure what "in lieu with" actually means.  Also, I'm not sure what water recapture technology is being used in any type of soil ag, unless we're talking container growing, which is usually done in a soil-less medium. I don't favor one system over another, but I think the merits of different systems have to be addressed in the context of how they are to be used.  If you want to grow rutabagas over the winter, outdoor soil is probably going to be a better place for them than an iAVs greenhouse.

I guess I'm really just thinking out loud here, instead of being helpful, but I'm still trying to figure out what box we're not thinking outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 5:49 PM, crsublette said:

I was hoping for more "out of the box" thinking of how the similarities and differences.

The students I, coach have been "thinking outside the box". They see the fish tank as the same as a cattle feedlot. But they are not concentrated on the fish, they want the fish waste for Organic farming.

People, who dump their fish waste on top of the sand are throwing money down the drain. It's more valuable than the produce they are selling.

But at the same time they are experimenting with the IAVS system of growing, Bato buckets, Grodan, NFT, etc.

NO, their is no scientific studies going on, there isn't even anyone involved who has a PHD. Their ideas are found thru sitting, observing, reading, and watching some U tube video's.

Simple drawings, NTS and hashing it out with each other.

WKN, the students say Hello to you. But they also think that you are the least likely to succeed with IAVS.

Here is one reason why. Your Raska or whatever you call it tomato. That tomato designed as a field crop, not for Shade or GH growing. Find a GH variety and go with it. What they have seen of Project D so far you are never going to get to your predicted yearly production.

 

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