crsublette

That is exactly how I view it... Utilizing a schedules high pressure sprayer (driven by a very cheap sprinker irrigation controller and residential water pressure) that occasionally sprays down the sieve screen... Steep fall in the solid collection to allow the extra water from the occasional "spray downs" to push the solids to its final destination. Belt filter... Belt filter is what made me think of this...

Phri, I very much appreciate your insight. I always liked the dual drain concept due to the reason of minimizing solid filtration costs, but this appears to come at a sacrifice of no "sick/dead fish collection". I think the "sick/dead fish collection" would be the linchpin to possibly avoid utilizing dual drains. I will have to put the numbers in place when I am have the free time, but I think you are ultimately correct. I sincerely wish there were more people of your caliber available to public forums, although I think I understand why there is not. Nevertheless, Thank you Phri for your patience!

Thanks Phri!!

Thank you... I didn't think what I wrote was so confusing... Although, I bet a fella could just insulate the system incredibly well (with passive systems as well), with lids and all, occasionally shoveling aside snow (even during heavy blizzards), and I suppose it would still work... while not sacrificing fish growth...

Ebeling is talking about ANY system that cultures fish.... Yes, iAVS is still a system that cultures fish... Wikipedia gives correct definition for HRT. Ebeling places the definition into context as to why it is important for culturing fish... Hydraulic conductivity relates to iAVS filtration's management of waste production... Take note, "waste production", was part of that statement by Ebeling. Yes, VKN, I am quite aware that iAVS is so easy that even somebody who knows very little about culturing fish, can still culture fish, and yet think they are a professional at culturing fish. I thought you didn't want unproductive discussions... This is my last post to this subject of discussion.... Thanks for your answer.

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.

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)

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.

VKN's first post was the only one that appears to understand the type of discussion I was hoping to have in this topic...

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...

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.

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!

Phri, really quick question... What do you think the optimal water velocity (fps) should be at the bottom drain and/or dead fish inlet to effectively capture the sick/dead fish?

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.

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