^ And the modern world resembles medieval China . . . how, exactly?
I think I’d stick to lobbying if I was you. 
^ And the modern world resembles medieval China . . . how, exactly?
I think I’d stick to lobbying if I was you.
Well this thread has certainly jumped off the rails from the OP…
Yup. Time to die, thread.
Taste on hydroponic vegetables is a known problem.
And back to the fish example, science will conclude how many fish to stock and how waste products will utilized. Exactly what is happening in modern other meat production.
And can be abused with toxicity more so than cattle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/world/asia/15fish.html?hp);&_r=0
Not medieval China.
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667891]
All that’s quite interesting, but also entirely irrelevant to the topic.
The point here is that new and forward-looking technologies can be made sustainable and environmentally sound just as easily as they can be made environmentally catastrophic and economically perverse.[/QUOTE]
They can literally be built wherever needed. That’s the genius of them. Transporting food thousands of miles would become irrelevant overnight. You don’t need to use woodland either, so it savers land resources. Unless someone doesn’t like eating fish, there is no downside.
[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667884]
Literally nothing you just posted had anything to do with what I was talking about.
Geography has nada to do with aquaponics, which can be built anywhere, regardless of terrain.[/QUOTE]
Not really. But I’ve got mowing to do so a discussion of building sites will have to await another time.
G.
[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667689]
There isn’t. That’s what makes it self-sustaining.[/QUOTE]
Like perpetual motion?
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8668162]
Like perpetual motion?
G.[/QUOTE]
:lol:
My question is the use of water for so many fish farms. I think it is a tremendous technology and will have use but that water will no longer be recycling as it is in other agriculture with the exception of the amount in the fish flesh and evaporation.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8668200]
My question is the use of water for so many fish farms. I think it is a tremendous technology and will have use but that water will no longer be recycling as it is in other agriculture with the exception of the amount in the fish flesh and evaporation.[/QUOTE]
well, considering that fish farming in the open coastal waters are considered challenging, I don’t believe inland farms, especially when they come with an enormous overhead like warehouses and energy bills can be much better.
not to mention, when you have no water, you can’t raise fish.
when you have no water, you can’t raise vegetables.
(I do believe aquifers take a LONG time to replenish - if they are not destroyed by fracking, I guess)
BTW, medieval monks had a system of farming fish (mostly carp) along with cattle…but that works best with lots of free labor and lots of free land…
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667137]
So the words “organic” and “sustainable” in that sentence are . . . what? Invisible?
I honestly can’t figure out if you people really are as sheltered and obtuse as you make out, or if pretending you can’t read English is some kind of weird ruse. Seriously. I really have no idea.[/QUOTE]
I honestly can’t figure out if I’ve ever encountered anyone ruder and more aggressive than you, and I’m counting LadyEboshi.
^ SEVEN likes for Mosey! That’s awesome, but I bet you all can do even better . . . eight? Nine? Dare I hope for . . . TEN?
Excellent.
:yes:
13!
:lol:
You’re making me blush.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8668200]
My question is the use of water for so many fish farms. I think it is a tremendous technology and will have use but that water will no longer be recycling as it is in other agriculture with the exception of the amount in the fish flesh and evaporation.[/QUOTE]
You say this like wasting water on growing corn, soy, and hay and watering beef cattle is such a better, more sustainable alternative when it isnt.
You wanted the intensive farming alternative and here it is. You don’t have to like it, but science has already shown that this new system is more sustainable and can be used anywhere to feed large populations. No one is going to starve and you can built them within cities to cut fossil fuels from transportation.
There is no downside to it that isn’t radically worse in the CAFO system you said was ‘necessary’ to feed people… one that has been proven to not ensure long term food security.
I have eaten aqua-grown vegetables and there is no funny taste to them. You’re just being contrary at this point.
^ Oh, they’re just mad because the usual bullying tactics don’t seem to be working out this time. (16!)
Have you ever read Vandana Shiva’s work, or heard her speak? She’s absolutely brilliant on the subject of preserving biodiversity by integrating plant and animal systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYwOTLopWIw
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8668597]
^ Oh, they’re just mad because the usual bullying tactics don’t seem to be working out this time. (16!)
Have you ever read Vandana Shiva’s work, or heard her speak? She’s absolutely brilliant on the subject of preserving biodiversity by integrating plant and animal systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYwOTLopWIw
:)[/QUOTE]
I’ll check it out.
They do not have a funny taste they have NO taste.
And you still don’t understand what I am saying. The water used in other agriculture production is somewhat recycled in that some of it continues into the ground and then to rivers, streams and aquafers. In aquafarming you only have evaporation.
Fish produce a great deal of waste as well
How can you say agriculture hasn’t researched diversity? What is methane digesters? Genetics? Nutrition. ? Feeding cattle with waste products of the brewing industry?
