What is aquaponics?

    * Posted by Kobus Jooste on November 8, 2010 at 10:48pm in Aquaponic Discussions (the thread within the community site was deleted but thanks to Daniel Murphey we have this now for posterity!)
  
I asked this question in a discussion around a particular slightly hybrid method that is considered aquaponic.  Sylvia said that she would love to see it as a discussion, and when she did not post it herself immediately, I grabbed the opportunity :). Fun being on the other side of the world sometimes. Growing Power is seen by people the world over, but can create the impression that AP is a bit one dimentional in terms of crops and also that intensive stocking rates for fish are the norm.

 The question is:  What do YOU consider Aquaponics to be?  Is it simply fish and plants together, or do you have some extra pre-requisites.  Must there be media that is not soil or compost? Must the system be low maintenance, or is it OK to have a slightly unstable thingy that is high maintenance (isn't that why we shifted from hydroponics to begin with?).  May you add supplementary nutrients, or should the system be self-sustaining apart from fish food and pH buffering? Look beyond your personal preference for components and circulation method, and suggest a set of circumstances under which a system is to be considered aquaponic and when not.  I will start:

Aquaponics is the cultivation of fish and plants together  in the same water stream using organic food sources in a sustainable, resource efficient manner that does not require system flushing or periodic water changes to maintain system integrity.

There we go.  This implies that you cater for fish and plant nutrient needs and maintain system integrity, but that your system is in essence self-sustaining and do not become toxic over time.  This seperates it from aquaculture or hydroponics where even efficient systems have a 10 - 15% daily water exchange.  According to this def, Growing Power is marginal, because their beds need constant work or else all goes messy. Then again, how often do people clean their rafts.............................?


Replies to This Discussion

TCLynx Permalink Reply by TCLynx on November 9, 2010 at 7:14am
    I think I would have to drop the "using organic food sources" part since the whole discussion about organic and the fact that there currently is not an "organic" option for commercial fish feed. I wouldn't want to restrict the definition that far.

    And though I don't choose to practice Aquaponics using the UVI model or any other that requires removal of solids or regular mineralization tank cleaning. I'm not going to claim that their methods are not Aquaponics.

    I also don't really see harm in using a little compost or worm castings to grow some plants in the system. If such things were not allowed, would that mean that any raft or NFT system that used them in the net pots could not be Aquaponic? What about Peat or coir, they are not far from being compost once they spend a little time with Aquaponic water.

    To me Aquaponics is the combination of the filtration bacteria (bio and solids) with growing fish and plants in a recirculating system. The exact method of the system should suit the situation and goals of the operation. It should strive to be stable, efficient, and sustainable.

    I don't really think too much energy should be spent trying to define a narrower view of what should be called Aquaponics. That rubs too much of trademarking (like you can't call yourself a permaculturist if you haven't taken the master course offered by specific trained permaculturists) which can really turn people off.

    What Sylvia is doing here (and the other aquaponic web sites and forums), offering a place to share details and exchange ideas about Aquaponics is the best thing. Help people to understand the underlying principles in a free and open way so that they will hopefully do well with aquaponics rather than crash and rot (aquaponics is usually too wet to burn well.)

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste on November 9, 2010 at 7:46am
    Not wanting to shred your reply but opening up peoples minds is what this post is all about, not closing it up. I am not trying to exclude, I am trying to get everyone to state what they feel. It is called debate. No need to cower from it. Use it well and it gets all opinions out there. Nowhere in my definition did I go after work castings, Net cleaning or any of the other concerns you raised. As for organic food sources - this, in my mind, is EXACTLY what seperates aquaponics from hydroponics. Worm castings, worm tea, duckweed, Trelmix or other organically certified trace elements, Lime or coral sand for buffering, and fish food. What about fish food turns you off organic? An AP system remains stable - thus do not need water changes or flushing to get rid of inorganic stuff building up inside the system. That is where the difference lies. Reference can be made to the bacterial based nutrient recycling process, but I did not want to weigh try number one too much.

    TCLynx said:

        I think I would have to drop the "using organic food sources" part since the whole discussion about organic and the fact that there currently is not an "organic" option for commercial fish feed. I wouldn't want to restrict the definition that far.

        And though I don't choose to practice Aquaponics using the UVI model or any other that requires removal of solids or regular mineralization tank cleaning. I'm not going to claim that their methods are not Aquaponics.

        I also don't really see harm in using a little compost or worm castings to grow some plants in the system. If such things were not allowed, would that mean that any raft or NFT system that used them in the net pots could not be Aquaponic? What about Peat or coir, they are not far from being compost once they spend a little time with Aquaponic water.

        To me Aquaponics is the combination of the filtration bacteria (bio and solids) with growing fish and plants in a recirculating system. The exact method of the system should suit the situation and goals of the operation. It should strive to be stable, efficient, and sustainable.

        I don't really think too much energy should be spent trying to define a narrower view of what should be called Aquaponics. That rubs too much of trademarking (like you can't call yourself a permaculturist if you haven't taken the master course offered by specific trained permaculturists) which can really turn people off.

        What Sylvia is doing here (and the other aquaponic web sites and forums), offering a place to share details and exchange ideas about Aquaponics is the best thing. Help people to understand the underlying principles in a free and open way so that they will hopefully do well with aquaponics rather than crash and rot (aquaponics is usually too wet to burn well.)

    ? Reply to This

RupertofOZ Permalink Reply by RupertofOZ on November 9, 2010 at 7:55am
    The trend to increasingly allowable organic "inputs" has now rendered the organic standards as meaningless IMO...

    And here in Australia and NZ... and soon in the US.... you can't and wont get organic certification... unless you produce in "soil"

    As to the fish feed... it contains fish meal, as by-catch and is not considered either organic or sustainable...

    Kobus Jooste said:

        Not wanting to shred your reply but opening up peoples minds is what this post is all about, not closing it up. I am not trying to exclude, I am trying to get everyone to state what they feel. It is called debate. No need to cower from it. Use it well and it gets all opinions out there. Nowhere in my definition did I go after work castings, Net cleaning or any of the other concerns you raised. As for organic food sources - this, in my mind, is EXACTLY what seperates aquaponics from hydroponics. Worm castings, worm tea, duckweed, Trelmix or other organically certified trace elements, Lime or coral sand for buffering, and fish food. What about fish food turns you off organic? An AP system remains stable - thus do not need water changes or flushing to get rid of inorganic stuff building up inside the system. That is where the difference lies. Reference can be made to the bacterial based nutrient recycling process, but I did not want to weigh try number one too much.

        TCLynx said:

            I think I would have to drop the "using organic food sources" part since the whole discussion about organic and the fact that there currently is not an "organic" option for commercial fish feed. I wouldn't want to restrict the definition that far.

            And though I don't choose to practice Aquaponics using the UVI model or any other that requires removal of solids or regular mineralization tank cleaning. I'm not going to claim that their methods are not Aquaponics.

            I also don't really see harm in using a little compost or worm castings to grow some plants in the system. If such things were not allowed, would that mean that any raft or NFT system that used them in the net pots could not be Aquaponic? What about Peat or coir, they are not far from being compost once they spend a little time with Aquaponic water.

            To me Aquaponics is the combination of the filtration bacteria (bio and solids) with growing fish and plants in a recirculating system. The exact method of the system should suit the situation and goals of the operation. It should strive to be stable, efficient, and sustainable.

            I don't really think too much energy should be spent trying to define a narrower view of what should be called Aquaponics. That rubs too much of trademarking (like you can't call yourself a permaculturist if you haven't taken the master course offered by specific trained permaculturists) which can really turn people off.

            What Sylvia is doing here (and the other aquaponic web sites and forums), offering a place to share details and exchange ideas about Aquaponics is the best thing. Help people to understand the underlying principles in a free and open way so that they will hopefully do well with aquaponics rather than crash and rot (aquaponics is usually too wet to burn well.)

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste on November 9, 2010 at 8:04am
    Here is some more reseaning behind the question. You are at a fair or convention promoting aquaponics, and someone asks you what the difference is between that and hydroponics. What do you say? Why one and not the other. That is why I am asking for people to forget about systems and focus on what we need to highlight as aquaponic properties. I'm trying to find wording that differentiates nutrient sources in AP from hydroponics, thus the starting point of "organic" and "inorganic". Fish meal may not be sustainable, but how can you say it is not organic? It is sourced from a living organism. I'm not talking certification organic, Im talking from living organism or from mineral / chemical synthesis source.

    ? Reply to This

TCLynx Permalink Reply by TCLynx on November 9, 2010 at 8:18am
    Ah, well in that case. Aquaponics is an ecosystem that we promote while hydroponics is more like a laboratory.

    One must allow natural processes to happen in order to work while the other one is often sterilized to ensure that natural processes can't happen.

    Aquaponics uses the natural bacterial action to convert natural feed stuffs into plant usable form while also cleaning the water for the fish, there by hopefully eliminating all need to do water changes to keep the fish environment healthy.

    Hydroponics (that uses non-natural minerals salts) must change out spent nutrients and re-fresh them to avoid mineral imbalances.

    Aquaculture (recirculating without the plant component) must do water changes to avoid mineral build up.

    ? Reply to This

RupertofOZ Permalink Reply by RupertofOZ on November 9, 2010 at 8:35am
    Or as has been said in the past... and I use... aquaponics is...

    "organic by nature".... or ... "naturally organic"...

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste on November 9, 2010 at 8:39am
    First refinement of the definition then:

    Aquaponics is the cultivation of fish and plants together using naturally organic food sources in a recirculating system where ecosystem processes of nutrient recycling are used to transform fish wates into plant nutrients through the action of benificial micro-organisms. Harnessing this natural production method results in a balanced system with no need to flush out non-natural mineral salts or excess filtrate that would otherwise destabilize hydroponics or aquaculture.

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste on November 9, 2010 at 8:45am
    edited your "naturally organic" in there Rupert

    Kobus Jooste said:

        First refinement of the definition then:

        Aquaponics is the cultivation of fish and plants together using naturally organic food sources in a recirculating system where ecosystem processes of nutrient recycling are used to transform fish wates into plant nutrients through the action of benificial micro-organisms. Harnessing this natural production method results in a balanced system with no need to flush out non-natural mineral salts or excess filtrate that would otherwise destabilize hydroponics or aquaculture.

    ? Reply to This

Sylvia Bernstein Permalink Reply by Sylvia Bernstein on November 9, 2010 at 9:43am
    Thanks for starting this, Kobus (yes, I had gone to bed ). Nice introduction to the topic. I'm hoping I don't get blasted for this, but I'm not comfortable with using the organic nature of the fish feed as a criteria in the definition of aquaponics. Once this is throughly hashed out I'd like to add it to the What is Aquaponics page in the top left of our homepage here, and I'm hoping for something very broad and simple, but that doesn't require any sub-definitions. The problem with using 'organic' here is that the 4 of us currently debating this, and anyone else who wants to get into the fray, can all decide that fish meal is by it's nature "organic" - i.e. it is not "inorganic" - but to the rest of the world this has an Organic (i.e. USDA, certifying agency) feel to it... and I'm afraid it is a stretch for something like Purina AquaMax to be considered Organic...especially since it probably contains GM corn and soy products, as TC pointed out.

    So I ask you, is the type of fish feed really what defines "aquaponics", or is it simply the fact that the food for the plants comes from fish that clearly need to be fed something to live?

    Kobus, I've taken another stab at your definition with an eye towards reducing it to what I think are the most critical definitional elements...

    "Aquaponics is the cultivation of fish and plants together in a recirculating soil-less system where naturally occurring bacteria transforms fish waste into plant nutrients. The plants, in turn, filter the water that returns to the fish."

    At the most basic definition, I don't think there is a need to define how it differs from hydroponics and aquaculture - that is great in a larger definition, but implied in a high-level definition like this one. Can you buy that?

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste on November 9, 2010 at 10:32am
    I can buy that. I understood from the start that the fish feed matter is going to be difficult, but at the heart of aquaponics in my view are two important matters:
    1) Hydroponic solution is nothing like we use, and people need to grasp that. That is where the natural and naturally organic words start spinning around. It is the very nature of the hydroponic methodology that they create a waste stream and we do not.
    2) Re-circulating aquaculture requires system flushing, filter cleaning etc that creates a waste water stream. Re-circulation in aquaculture is nothing like re-circulation in aquaponics.

    I know that this makes it too long for a punchy definition, but it is at those points that I believe some grey areas exist where people get confused either by processes that seem the same or terminology that is almost identical.

    So in short, I can buy your definition, but may still want to mess with it. I want to have some reference to the ecological mimicry going on in the system retained. Call me a picky ecologist

    Sylvia Bernstein said:

        Thanks for starting this, Kobus (yes, I had gone to bed ). Nice introduction to the topic. I'm hoping I don't get blasted for this, but I'm not comfortable with using the organic nature of the fish feed as a criteria in the definition of aquaponics. Once this is throughly hashed out I'd like to add it to the What is Aquaponics page in the top left of our homepage here, and I'm hoping for something very broad and simple, but that doesn't require any sub-definitions. The problem with using 'organic' here is that the 4 of us currently debating this, and anyone else who wants to get into the fray, can all decide that fish meal is by it's nature "organic" - i.e. it is not "inorganic" - but to the rest of the world this has an Organic (i.e. USDA, certifying agency) feel to it... and I'm afraid it is a stretch for something like Purina AquaMax to be considered Organic...especially since it probably contains GM corn and soy products, as TC pointed out.

        So I ask you, is the type of fish feed really what defines "aquaponics", or is it simply the fact that the food for the plants comes from fish that clearly need to be fed something to live?

        Kobus, I've taken another stab at your definition with an eye towards reducing it to what I think are the most critical definitional elements...

        "Aquaponics is the cultivation of fish and plants together in a recirculating soil-less system where naturally occurring bacteria transforms fish waste into plant nutrients. The plants, in turn, filter the water that returns to the fish."

        At the most basic definition, I don't think there is a need to define how it differs from hydroponics and aquaculture - that is great in a larger definition, but implied in a high-level definition like this one. Can you buy that?

    ? Reply to This

TCLynx Permalink Reply by TCLynx on November 9, 2010 at 12:20pm
    I like the efforts to shorten the definition as much as possible. It needs to be a sentence that some one can remember.

    I also agree about leaving out the term "organic" just call it natural, that avoids the whole certification and labeling issue and lets face it, when you start talking to chemists, Organic as in organic chemicals often mean exactly the ones we want to keep out of our systems anyway. So I'll vote for the term natural.

    I do think the point about Aquaponics being able to balance without the need for changing out water is an important one. It is what sets aquaponics above either hydroponics or aquaculture, by combining the two using natural biological processes, one can have a more productive system with less wastes. The synergy of it all is what I think most important.

    I would also skip the term soil-less. I'm not convinced that aquaponics "has" to be soil-less. Lets face it, in a mature gravel bed system where there are worms, fish wastes, old plant roots and other plant debris, who is really to say that isn't like soil? I mean I know places where the local soil is pretty much gravel with living creatures and plants and decaying matter mixed in, so why can't my gravel be soil? Soil really is just the mix of the ground down rocks (sand, silt, clay, gravel, etc) and the organic matter (decaying plants and animals) and all the micro and macro fauna that work on decaying those materials and the humus and chemicals that come from those processes. I personally think the mature gravel bed (provided the solids don't get washed out of it every few months) fit that description of soil.

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste on November 9, 2010 at 12:26pm
    TC: Can we send you to the organics certifiers to take on the issue of the soil / gravel analogy?

    TCLynx said:

        I like the efforts to shorten the definition as much as possible. It needs to be a sentence that some one can remember.

        I also agree about leaving out the term "organic" just call it natural, that avoids the whole certification and labeling issue and lets face it, when you start talking to chemists, Organic as in organic chemicals often mean exactly the ones we want to keep out of our systems anyway. So I'll vote for the term natural.

        I do think the point about Aquaponics being able to balance without the need for changing out water is an important one. It is what sets aquaponics above either hydroponics or aquaculture, by combining the two using natural biological processes, one can have a more productive system with less wastes. The synergy of it all is what I think most important.

        I would also skip the term soil-less. I'm not convinced that aquaponics "has" to be soil-less. Lets face it, in a mature gravel bed system where there are worms, fish wastes, old plant roots and other plant debris, who is really to say that isn't like soil? I mean I know places where the local soil is pretty much gravel with living creatures and plants and decaying matter mixed in, so why can't my gravel be soil? Soil really is just the mix of the ground down rocks (sand, silt, clay, gravel, etc) and the organic matter (decaying plants and animals) and all the micro and macro fauna that work on decaying those materials and the humus and chemicals that come from those processes. I personally think the mature gravel bed (provided the solids don't get washed out of it every few months) fit that description of soil.

Reply by Christian James 8 hours ago
    Thanks for the info, I've never done aquaculture or hydroponics - just regular dirt farming - and had no idea the water discharge was that much. I was just trying to keep it to a more elevator pitch type of definition.

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste 8 hours ago
    Your input is appreciated, especially the "environmentally friendly" bit that you added. It may still be worth revisiting this definition for a long time to come. I will see what Sylvia thinks about messing with it any more.

    ? Reply to This

Sahib Punjabi Permalink Reply by Sahib Punjabi 1 hour ago
    :-)


    Kobus Jooste said:

        Thanks for the input Christian, but may I please disagree with your last statement? AP is the only intensive / tunnel based fish and plant culture method where there is no need to discard some or all of the water that the fish or plantss are cultured in, and that is a big deal. In re-circulating aquaculture you would be discarding 10 -1 5% of water daily, and that water would not meet most national discharge laws. In hydroponics your entire culture water supply may need to be refreshed periodically. People with experience of these methods, or even just some basic knowledge, were always surprised when I told them that you just cater for evaporation water loss in AP. It also goes a long way towards making it the environmentally friendly method you suggested earlier - efficient water and power use.

        TCLynx said:

            I don't know, some people find the point about not discarding the filtrate or doing water changes a really big point about aquaponics since if you are going to change water and discard the filtrate, you might as well be doing recirculating aquaculture.


            Christian James said:

                Oops, on second thought I'd just remove "filtrate, or discarding any water." Not the most important thing about aquaponics. I would also add "efficient" into the definition, which is one of the strongest points for aquaponics.

    ? Reply to This

Kobus Jooste Permalink Reply by Kobus Jooste 49 minutes ago
    There may be an impression by people that look at this definition, that we are leaving it too open, leaving out things such as "soil-less" (Sorry Sylvia) or being vague about the process. I think there is an important reason for this. It may be dangerous to try to define an industry that is really in its infancy with too rigid a statement right now. Methods, sub-methods, design variations and operator innovations are bound to change even a wide open definition a few years from now. Please keep this in mind when you read the definition. In a way we want to define a model T Ford in such a way that the definition will still apply to a new electric vehicle. Would it not be great to have a defining statement that stays relevant that long?