Talk:Aquaponics

04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Wiki142B (talk)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hirochri.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgndiaye.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Aquaponics in Australia link

Some anon character keeps taking the link out because it is 'commercial in nature'. Given that nobody in their right mind would start an aquaponics business to make money and that all the other links seem to be selling something (or are trying to if the forms on the sites worked) deleting the link to aquaponics.com.au seems harsh. I would agree to the deletion if there was a proper aquaponics association site but there isn't and people using Wp should be able to get further info, Albatross2147 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is not a better site to link to - it does not justify the link. Links should be judged according to the external link guidelines. There are 3 links on this page that currently do not meet this standard. One is a forum (no links to forums) and the other two are links to quasi-commercial regional groups/corporations/organizations/however you want to characterize them. Wikipedia is not a link depository nor a directory WP:NOT. External links should be symmetrically related to the content of the article. This is not an article about aquaponic groups in Australia or elsewhere. If someone prefers to change these links to direct readers to actual content about the subject in the article, then the links might pass WP:EL. Information from the websites might also be used as references in the articles. As external links, however, they do not work. Nposs 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the links and explaining the process --Muzza 08:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Two links were recently added: 1) Aquaponics Knowledge Base: is apparently a more specific link to a page on website that was formerly linked. This is an improvement over the previous link, but the amount of content on the page is really quite small. Is there a better resource available? There are only a few questions and the answers are quite brief. 2) Aquaponics information for Australia: is just a relink to website that was formerly linked. I see no need to link this website. The "information" it provides is very limited - a short faq and "Why aquaponics" page with just a few paragraphs. The rest of the site i devoted to selling books, products, and ciriculum. I'm sure for people in Australia who want to buy aquaponics supplies it is a very useful website, and I have no doubts that the owners are reputable. The content, however, does not justify an external link. Please join in the discussion. Nposs 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All three links currently on the site do not appear to meeting the Wp standards for external links. Wp is not a search engine nor should it be used as a referral mechanism for commercial sites. I agree that, if there is a lack of non-commercial Aquaponics information websites then that does not, and should not, allow a circumvention of the rules. So, should the links be removed? (Aquaponics-martin 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Re links on Aquaponics Page:

I am new to this so I am not sure if I am posting in the right place, so excuse my ignorance if it is wrong. I feel that my link just removed is a valuable contribution to the overall store of knowledge on the subject. My website as a whole is very information rich but does contain a commercial element, however my link to my knowledge Base, is very “Hands on” information, and does not seek to sell anything. I feel is very valuable to those seeking further information re Aquaponics from a practical application approach.

This Knowledge Base is only two weeks old and will grow very rapidly in content. If the Wikipedia is designed to be a more academic type of information source then I agree that my suggested link would possibly not be appropriate. I know well by the traffic we have to our Knowledge Base that it is very much appreciated by those seeking information on the practical application of Aquaponics. I appreciate your work and leave the decision in your hands. The link is as follows http://www.aquaponics.net.au/absolutefm/afmmain.asp?topicid=&faqid= --124.148.91.170 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I neglected to log in before posting.--Muzza 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks of for posting (I just got your message on my talk page, which is a good place to leave such messages.) Placing the link back on the page is premature. It really needs to be discussed by other editors, which is why I moved it to this page (see above discussion.) Here are the issues with the link:

• 1) External links really need to be to fully developed, reliable sources of information. (Please read both WP:EL and WP:RS.) At some point in the future, this knowledge base may meet these guidelines, but in its current form, it does not. There are too few questions and too few answers. This is not a judgment on the quality of the website: there are lots of great websites that don't make good external links on articles.
• 2) "Conflict of interest" (please read WP:COI. Linking to your own website is strongly discouraged. I noticed that an anonymous IP has replaced the link without discussion (actually it appears to the IP address associated with your account). This type of linking, or linking by the site owner is inappropriate (even to good websites.) Its another reason for the link to be discussed here so that other editors can decide if it is a good external link or not.

I won't remove the link for the time being, but it should be discussed further. There is an ongoing project to improve the external links on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam. (Spam both in the sense of commercial promotion and spam in the sense of excess material.) As a I said above, the knowledge base link is better than the less specific link to the website that was there previously, but for me it doesn't pass WP:EL. Nposs 17:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Nposs: That link that has been placed in there is NOT my link but that of a person who systematically interferes with other links on this site. (look at the IP address history you will see the regularity of his habits) The link that is there now is www.aquaponics.COM.au - my site is www.aquaponics.NET.au - We are not associated in any way whatsoever. We are both in Australia, that is about the only connection we have. I note that this time he has used someone else with a different IP to insert the link for him, just a little unethical I would have thought. I would not be so bold as to go right on past the directions given in your posting above and post a link that has been deemed to be of little value to the Wikipedia.I would hope that you do something about that link that is there now as it would be unfortunate that those of little or no ethics can march right past your attempts to keep the standard of the Wikipedia at the highest level.--Muzza 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now. Sorry for the mistake. The .com.au editor is Special:Contributions/122.129.134.116. This type of disruptive editing could result in a block on that IP address. I'll leave a note on the IP's talk page. Like I said before, I think both sites are fine websites in their own right - the question is: do the they pass WP:EL? My answer is no, for the above reasons, but we need to have further discussion before anything is relinked. Nposs 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't having the links here on the Talk Page still give commercial in nature links a boost? I can still access the pages and they are still commercial in nature. Or am I missing the point? Azollafern 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been one of the editors and contributors to this page. I feel the ONLY allowable links at this point should be directed toward not-for-profit, educational institutions such as UVI, University of North Carolina, University of Arizona and others not yet known who are doing research in closed recirculating tank culture. Also auqaculture associations that disseminate academic research and publications in this subject area. Any "for profit" links should be eliminated. For the record, the New Alchemy Institute was a private school however has made its publications available for free online. This should be allowed.

The links were my only way of citing researched material and at one point an information forum (which is not allowed and I accept that). However, pictures from the editor's personal system should not be allowed. Pictures only from non-profit institutions and/or academia should be allowed. My two cents. Michael Ferrini

"Thanks to all of you for your inputs and opinions; I read them all thoroughly before offering this post and my opinion. I think deciding the issue of links hinges on whether or not the link placed advances Wikipedia user's knowledge of a subject, or serves simply to advance the commercial interests of the link placer. We all use valuable things in our lives that we've purchased, and recommend the good ones without hesitation to our friends. In this instance, the fact that an item came from a commercial source rather than a non-profit one has nothing to do with how valuable it may be to us.

I placed a link to my website, friendlyaquaponics.com, on WP because we too are offering comprehensive aquaponics courses that advance the knowledge of aquaponics in the world, just as University of the Virgin Island is (UVI incidentally, is NOT a non-profit organization; they are part of the United States University system and as such simply have their expenses covered by the taxpayer). As a result of a single course we gave in October 2008 that had 78 attendees, 15 people have built and are operating aquaponics systems; six of those are commercial-scale systems; and four of those six have already been organically certified. This is from a single training out of the three we have given since our inception.

In comparison, the UVI administrators themselves state (as of 2007, when I took the course), there had been 450 attendees over the years, and two of them had built a commercial aquaponics system (one was my wife Susanne and I). In addition, our company offers a $50 aquaponics system construction manual package which contains most of what we know about aquaponics. It cost me $4,400 to advance my aquaponics knowledge by taking the UVI course, including airfare, hotel, car, and food. Whenever we receive an appeal for our courses (which cost from $50 up to $2,500) from a poorly-funded non-profit such as a church or NGO, we give them a copy of the course for the cost of mailing, or if it's a live course, we allow them to attend for free and often put their participant up at our house for free also.Which one of these organizations would you say has benefited the advancement of knowledge of aquaponics more?

Before you decide whether or not this link might be beneficial to WP users, we understand, from a recent graduate of the UVI course who subsequently also took our course, that UVI is shutting down its aquaponic program and course after the last one to be given in June 2010. Friendly Aquaponics may be one of the only sources for such detailed and in-depth information if this occurs. If you want to check out the effect we've had on the world, please see our page http://www.friendlyaquaponics.com/printcommercialtraining.html for comments from our course participants. Thanks for your consideration, Tim Mann, Friendly Aquaponics, Inc, email:kaimana@hawaiiantel.net November 15th, 2009 KaimanaOMaunaKea (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

SciAm article

I don't have time to add the article, but Angling for a Better Way to Farm Fish--And Vegetables, Too appears to be a pretty good article. II | (t - c) 02:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC) cool ````sarah```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.113.118.24 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

I reverted this page to a previously durable version of the aquaponics article after someone named Lfstevens performed 14 separate edits on the page in a four-hour period December 1st, without posting anything regarding the edits in the discussion area for aquaponics. Lfstevens says on his page (and I quote):

"I'm going to edit 1 page each day for awhile. Although I have strong opinions on most subjects, most of my edits are copy edits. Occasionally I'll dig deeper on topics with which I feel comfortable. My sentences generally have fewer subclauses and big words than those they replace. I also leave pages with less minutiae and more focus on the page's main idea(s)" (end quote).

Now I don't have a problem with someone who actually has in-depth personal knowledge of the subject they are editing making changes. We can all benefit from edits such as that. But in the absence of Lfstevens demonstrating a personal knowledge of aquaponics, and in the presence of some demonstrably wrong statements from him such as:

1. "Organic fish food" It doesn't exist yet, at least not in any commercial quantities; we've looked quite exhaustively.

2. "Duckweed" The weed from hell, we tried it. The tilapia DON'T eat it and it clogs the systems, using valuable nutrients that the plants could benefit from.

3. "Black soldier fly larvae" We tried that too, and tilapia, which are the primary fish used in most aquaponics systems in the US, do not eat them because they sink, and tilapia are hardwired to only eat floating food. The tilapia just watch the larvae drift on down past them when you throw them into the tank, without even touching them.

Hi Tim

I'll stick by my self-description. I didn't add material on any of those foods, and since you left it saying"

"There are now, however, organic fish feeds available which may prove to be a viable alternative and negate this concern. Other alternatives include growing duckweed with an Aquaponics system that feeds the same fish grown on the system [1], as well as growing Black Soldier Fly larva to feed to the fish using composting grub growers."

I'm not sure I get your point. All I did was shorten the sentence and get rid of non-specific qualifiers. Lfstevens (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

After finding these mistakes regarding aquaponics, it's difficult to understand why Lfstevens feels he (or she, don't want to discriminate here), is enough of an authority on aquaponics to edit this page so completely and change it so radically from what ALL the earlier editors thought was useful and accurate content.

I'm not sure what you mean by "change it so radically". How is the content different? I eliminated no references, no substantive points, etc. I believe I played by the "rules" I lay out on my user page, and that was certainly my intent. I have no problem with experts like yourself correcting my errors, but did you cite any? Lfstevens (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, my wife Susanne and I have only been doing commercial-scale aquaponics for two years, are the first aquaponics farm in the USA to get USDA organically certified and Food Safety Certified AND to get our produce into Costco, took the UVI Aquaponics Short Course in 2007, and are actually making money with our farm, something few aquaponics producers can claim. We got where we are on our own, without grants, free money, or investors; by working our butts off and living and breathing aquaponics for the last two years. So far, around twenty persons have built aquaponics systems after taking one of our classes, and five of them have gotten their systems certified organic using our guidance. Because of this, we feel we have a right to express an informed opinion about matters aquaponical. I also include my direct email address and real name so anyone who wishes to can contact me directly if they disagree with my editing or are curious as to where I obtained information, as we have a completely open source personal and business policy regarding aquaponic technology.

signed, Tim Mann, Friendly Aquaponics, Inc, email:kaimana@hawaiiantel.net November 15th, 2009 KaimanaOMaunaKea (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaimanaOMaunaKea (talk • contribs)

Reading about your fantastic success with aquaponics, I'm very interested to learn more. I expect to visit TBI fairly soon, and hope to visit your operation to learn more. Cheers. Please feel free to leave comments on my talk page. Lfstevens (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Higher standard: no commercial links, references mandatory

The article has now been made more concise, and is written more according to Wikipedia standards. As a result, I would like to propose a clear statement of the direction in which this article is headed, so that from here on it will remain free of commercial links with little value to the field of aquaponics as a whole, and duplicate information due to (unreferenced) redundant text copied from external sources. In other words, this article now has a higher submission standard. (If this makes you unsure about whether you can/may still contribute: I can help you, see the last paragraph.)

Motivation: It is in the best interest for anyone involved with aquaponics to be able to point people to a page that is easy to read and that clearly and explains the general principle and discusses the many forms in which it can be applied. It is acknowledged that existing commercial aquaponics systems are doing well, but Wikipedia is not the place to report individual successes, just as the article on agriculture does not discuss one single farm, but speaks of the total population.

What this article is not for: (see also: WP:NOT)

• Reporting commercial successes of individual locations using aquaponics.
• Mentioning different approaches (mainly by universities) without stating their findings.
• Sharing opinionated, idealistic uses for aquaponics without providing actual cases.

What this article is for:

• Providing an overview of aquaponics, backed by scientific and (statistical) market research.
• Reporting the gist of (recent) empirical findings on aquaponics, referenced with proper literature.
• Discussing initiatives and national/continental differences between the application of aquaponics.

For example, it is a good thing that the article discusses the "deep water aquaponics" (UVI) approach, which can be distinguished from the "reciprocating aquaponics" (NCSU). That particular section however lacks any kind of information in what way it is different and what the rationale is to use that system in stead. That way, the reader will understand that aquaponics can be performed in different ways. Such an explanation must always be supported by literature on the matter.

The above is a proposal and I would like to invite you to comment on it. Please do always keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is targeted at lay readers and as I said before, it is in all our best interest if we can point people to a sound article on Wikipedia on our subject matter. We can only build a comprehensive text if you add your knowledge too. If you need help with that (e.g. if you don't know how to incorporate your information into the text or add references), respond to this message below or write me via my talk page. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a great article, but it needs a little TLC… spelling, grammar, and composition mostly, but also some things that either need to be referenced with scientific backing, qualified as unsubstantiated, or eliminated altogether.

I’ll start with the first paragraph:

The last sentence about the portmanteau should be the first sentence. (Composition)

The last word of that sentence should be hydroponics… not hydroponic. (Spelling)

Let’s not use the word “sustainable”. Its been bastardized by folks that have absolutely no interest in what sustainable really means, but boldly lie when they use it so they can sell us something. Good science speaks for itself without self-promotion.

Now expand on the portmanteau. For example, the next sentences could read: “Aquaculture is the management of aquatic systems to produce food like fish and crustaceans. Hydroponics is the production of plants using only nutrient solutions (without soil).”

Now explain why aquaponics is superior to either of these separately… the secret ingredient. “Aquaponics has been shown to produce higher plant yields than conventional hydroponics (Savidov et al) by utilizing the natural nutrients within the effluent of recirculating aquaculture systems. These nutrients are made available through complex microbiological processes that mimic the ecology of natural aquatic systems.”

As far as the existing text goes:

You don’t say “in the aquaculture” in English, you say “in aquaculture”

Furthermore, in aquaculture, you don’t let “effluents accumulate in the water, increasing toxicity for the fish “. I know what the author is trying to say, but there are better ways to say this. Let's describe what we do in terms that mirror natural processes.

The nutrients are not “filtered out by the plants”, they are made available by autotrophic bacteria and a host of other periphyton. But this information belongs in further explanations of the process, not in the introductory paragraph.

If you put it all together, I think it reads better, sticks to the facts, and uses proper grammar and spelling.

Aquaponics (pronounced: /ˈækwəˈpɒnɨks/) is a portmanteau of the terms aquaculture and hydroponics. Aquaculture is the management of aquatic systems to produce food like fish and crustaceans. Hydroponics is the production of plants using nutrient solutions, not soil. Aquaponics has been shown to produce higher plant yields than conventional hydroponics by utilizing nutrients within the effluent of recirculating aquaculture systems. These nutrients are made available to the plants through complex microbiological processes that mimic the ecology of natural aquatic systems. Bryghtknyght (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Higher Standard Continued and Elaborated

I completely support the contention of Eddyspeeder in the previous editing discussion, as he states: What this article is NOT for: (see also: WP:NOT)

       * Reporting commercial successes of individual locations using aquaponics.
       * Mentioning different approaches (mainly by universities) without stating their findings.
       * Sharing opinionated, idealistic uses for aquaponics without providing actual cases.

What this article IS for:

       * Providing an overview of aquaponics, backed by scientific and (statistical) market research.
       * Reporting the gist of (recent) empirical findings on aquaponics, referenced with proper literature.
       * Discussing initiatives and national/continental differences between the application of aquaponics.

I edited this article to remove the links and references that were commercial in nature. I left those such as links to YouTube videos that do not link to commercial sites, and those such as Travis Hughey's BarrelPonics and Will Allens Growing Power that link to non-profit sites (Travis and Will, you're doing GREAT work, keep it up, friends!). I corrected several misconceptions about aquaponics that were obviously written in by persons with limited or little experience of aquaponics. I made an effort to explain aquaponic concepts and processes in language that would be as easy as possible for Wikipedia users to understand, because I know this is Wikipedia's main purpose: to make this knowledge accessible to as many minds as possible.

The quantitative information I provide about aquaponics, energy use, water use, vegetable density and growing efficiency, and the corrections I provided to certain misconceptions about how aquapoonics works, about nitrifiers, or what tanks are "necessary" in an aquaponics system, all comes from personal experience in operating a profitable commercial aquaponics farm (isn't that an oxymoron) with my wife Susanne (who has a degree in biology and did pre-med in college) for three years now. We've done it all personally: UVI-type systems, our cost-effective adaptations of their design, organic certification, energy efficiency, off-grid aquaponics systems, and so on. To the best of our knowledge, we currently have the largest commercial aquaponics farm in the world at 6,800 square feet of trough and sprouting table area.

And I am in a bind here: Even though I have records, videos, photos, and mounds of filled-out forms: water quality, production weights and growth times, consumables usage records, species identification, and so on from our ongoing research in aquaponics, I cannot reference it because it is all commercial in nature. I could reference several copyrighted works that support the information I gave, but we wrote those works, and they are all sold commercially. I am asking the editing community at Wikipedia to trust me on this one; the commercial world is the test: we know what we're doing, or else we would have been out of business long ago. We started with Dr. James Rakocy's excellent work at UVI, and have developed it further since then in directions no one else has ever taken it. We developed organic aquaponics where no one had ever gotten certified before, and not only are certified by TWO of the largest organic certifying agencies in the US, but seven of our students have gotten certified also.

We are actually making money with our farm, something few aquaponics producers can claim. We got where we are on our own, without grants, research budgets, inheritances, or investors; we did it by working our butts off and living and breathing aquaponics for the last three and a half years. In the last two and a half years, we've trained 238 people in our Commercial Aquaponics Trainings. For those of you who want to dismiss us as only interested in money, we've given almost 50% of our participants full scholarships. One hundred and fourteen persons have built aquaponics systems after taking one of our classes; and seven of them have gotten their commercial systems USDA certified organic using our guidance and courses. These people are making money because of the information we developed (painfully and expensively) and sold to them relatively cheaply or gave them for free. Because of this, we feel we have a right to express an informed opinion about matters aquaponical. I also include my direct email address and real name so anyone who wishes to can contact me directly if they disagree with my editing or are curious as to where I obtained information, as we have a completely open source personal and business policy regarding aquaponic technology. We want to see everyone feeding themselves, SOON. A better world for all.

signed, Tim Mann, Friendly Aquaponics, Inc, email:kaimana@hawaiiantel.net February 3, 2011, KaimanaOMaunaKea (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While all that you have stated is admirable, this article must ultimately remain factual and encyclopaedic. If what you are doing in the market is testing out and developing techniques, by all means submit these results to a referred journal. Once the results and the techniques are published, we will gladly put them here.Jeanpetr (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I feel the edit by Tim (KaimanaOMaunaKea) adds useful information (and pleasant phrasing), which unfortunately is mixed with non-encyclopedic elements such as a lack of references and strange section titles. My aim is to make a neutral assessment of the original text and each of the changes Tim made, and incorporate the useful bits in the article. Tim and I have been in touch and his aim on the long run already was to contribute to the article backed by scientific sources. I propose we stick to the rule (conform Wikipedia rules) that information that is unreferenced is immediately challenged, and may be removed if questionable. As a result, I do agree with Jeanpetr's decision to undo the changes, and I hope Tim will continue to contribute with referenced information. -- Eddyspeeder (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop editing this page unless you have personal experience operating decent-sized aquaponics systems; you're not helping anyone

Hi friends

I replaced my previous edit with my previous edit. I'm going to continue to do so until this article is obviously edited by someone with more practical experience of aquaponics than I have. I would recognize such a person and such an edit immediately, as I have lived and breathed aquaponics for the last three and a half years in a successful commercial aquaponics farm. If such a person edited the page, I would contact them immediately and, if they were offering a course; I would take it at the first opportunity.

It is obvious from reading the misleading, incorrect, and partially correct information on the page that was the result of edits over the last two years that the people editing AND featured on the page (except for Travis Hughey and Will Allen) have little practical experience with aquaponics. To wit, there are no edits from Dr. James Rakocy, Dr. Wilson Lennard, or Dr. Gideon Hulata, for instance, some of the most knowledgeable aquaponics experts in the world. Although I do not claim to be in the same class as these university experts are, working in the real-world arena of commercial aquaponics paying the bills as my wife Susanne and I have done for the last three and a half years gives one a certain veracity also.

Everything in the section of the article I edited above the section "Ancient History" is based on our personal objective measurements of energy usage, water usage, fish and vegetable production, feed usage, etc, on our commercial aquaponics farm. We know scientific procedure, and follow it carefully and routinely in our R&D. Many others have duplicated our results in their home and commercial aquaponics systems. This is the test of whether something is valid or not in the scientific community: it is duplicatable, every time, by others using the same techniques and methods.

It's not simple information, and so I can't just put a sentence or two in the article to explain why things "are the way they are". We offer this information in our courses (for which we charge); it comes in the form of a 144-page single-spaced aquaponics manual, a 47-page aquaponics system construction manual with plans for six different sizes of aquaponics systems, and five 36-inch by 24-inch printed pages of CAD drawings that took me about a month to draw (and I've been doing AutoCAD for 25 years!). The questions some editors requested answers to are answered by this material, but because it is voluminous in nature, it CAN'T simply be incorporated into a Wikipedia article. It's also COMMERCIAL, and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article because it would be a blatant advertisement of our company.

One Editor asked a question about "where the energy is saved...". To answer this would require about five single-spaced pages just to set the stage for understanding of the question (again, out of our COMMERCIAL materials). That won't fit in a Wikipedia article. And what the heck do I do when someone complains that there isn't enough information about organic certification in aquaponics systems? Put in another three pages on that, plus the sample application letter and forms (17 pages), that we include with our course?

I'm stuck; I CAN'T cite "references" without putting information on our commercial operation into the article, which I don't want to do! I don't want to toot our trumpet. I just want to give people good accurate information on aquaponics which simplifies their understanding of the subject rather than complicating it. I read the previous version, and even though I knew the subject those editors were referring to intimately, what they said didn't make any sense. I could tell by the way they were referring to it that they had no personal experience with it and little or no understanding of it as a result.

I'm sorry to seem as if I disrespect other editors by redoing this edit. Any edits on this article performed by Dr. James Rakocy, Dr. Wilson Lennard, or Dr. Gideon Hulata, because of their stature as ACTUAL aquaponics experts will be respected and kept. Out of respect for people trying to find accurate information on this subject, this article needs to be factual, from actual experience of the people editing it. If you contact me and tell me where you gained the personal experience with aquaponics your edits are coming from, then we have a basis for co-editing this article. I'm not editing anything else in Wikipedia; this is the one thing I really know well.

signed, Tim Mann, Friendly Aquaponics, Inc, email:kaimana@hawaiiantel.net February 6, 2011,KaimanaOMaunaKea (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim, the stance you are taking saddens me. In effect, you are threatening to start a so-called edit war, which simply is in no one's interest. Your expertise in this field is well-noted, but that alone does not justify making this a one-man action from which you can discard referenced material without discussion, add unreferenced material and original research, or deny others editing rights just because they are not as skilled and knowledgeable as you in the field of aquaponics. Wikipedia's approach is one of collaboration that is open to anyone. Wikipedia has clear guides and guidelines on how to play by the rules, and adherence to these rules when editing an article always has priority over the validity or correctness of its contents.

Our personal communication (the "one Editor" you refer to is me) should prove to you that I am very willing to work closely together with you to improve this article. I fully respect your seniority in experience with, and knowledge about aquaponics, but you should also respect others' seniority with encyclopedic and/or academic writing. Only by working together can we really make this article better for everyone in the way governed by Wikipedia. In this sense, "better" also means "more reliable", which can only truly be validated if the text provides sufficient references to back the claims in the article.

Tim, I strongly urge you to refrain from starting an edit war, as that would seriously compromise any ground to collaborate. That would be unfortunate, because I believe you have much good to add to the article, and we share the common goal of improving the Wikipedia article on aquaponics.

As I and others have pointed out before, your edit is seriously flawed in multiple respects, which makes your edit unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. Therefore, continuing to repost this edit sadly forces me to continue undoing it until a Wikipedia moderator acknowledges that an edit war is taking place and intervenes. Wikipedia requests that users try to settle the dispute before it gets out of hand, so in this post I am trying to reach out to find a solution acceptable to both of us. Wikipedia furthermore forbids edit wars, even if you think you are absolutely right. Please don't let it come to a confrontation, because that would not be in anyone's interest and I personally would not like it either because of our constructive personal communications.

The main shortcomings in your edit that must be resolved in order to be accepted on Wikipedia are:

- It is unreferenced. New information must provide references.

- It contains original research (unpublished personal findings), which is not allowed according to Wikipedia rules.

- It throws away referenced material from the article without properly countering or challenging it with research stating otherwise.

- It is not written in an encyclopedic or scientific way, but uses popular language (e.g., "friendly buddies") that is not suitable for use on Wikipedia.

- It does not follow the Wikipedia Style Guide's way of constructing an article by the way you title your chapters/paragraphs and hardly provide links to other Wikipedia pages.

- It does not improve the article information-wise. Yesterday I have carefully incorporated any relevant new information from your edit into the text, and I have not seen any conflicting information between your edit and the current version.

So please reconsider what you plan to do in order to avoid damage to be done. -- Eddyspeeder (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

KaimanaOMaunaKea, you're absolutely right that I or likely Eddyseeder do not have the same extensive experience of aquaponics as you do, nor have James Rakocy, Wilson Lennard, or Gideon Hulata contributed directly as editors to this article. This is why we as editors cite the works of these individuals and list their results and conclusions from their work to create this article and do not simply slather on whatever we believe. I suggested in my previous reply to your previous postings in that if you have created techniques and methods that you believe to important that you actually publish it in some professional form (magazine article, book) and preferably as an article in a referred journal.

The reason I state this is that the internet is vast and any editor in wikipedia cannot be necessarily be trusted to add the right information, this is why citations of reviewed work should accompany any addition to a wiki article. It's for the same reasons that original research (WP:OR) is not allowed in wikipedia and self-published blog entries (WP:BLOGS) are not generally accepted as sources. I can state as an author and researcher myself that publishing is mentally exhausting if not frustrating but also a highly rewarding experience. If you truly believe you have something to offer in knowledge and experience to aquaponics (or anything else), do publish something and if anything we will gladly cite your work here. The world would be richer as a result. Jeanpetr (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys I give up; I've got a farm to run and courses to give. You can continue with the wrong and misleading information. You're fifteen years behind the cutting edge of commercial aquaponics as it is, because of your insistence on referencing everything to professional journals. The most recent reference you have by someone who has really done something with aquaponics is Rakocy's article "Aquaponic production of tilapia and basil: Comparing a batch and staggered cropping system", which was published in 1997 or 98. And I'm not going to get anything into a journal or publication because I don't have a PhD behind my name, so it's a moot point. You can discuss aquaponics among yourselves all you want and insist that the information in this article is correct, my wife and I are going to do it. KaimanaOMaunaKea (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a PhD behind your name to publish, heck you don't even need a university degree to do so. If you are already giving courses, I strongly recommend you to perhaps gather your course material and publish it in book form. The information here may not be up to date, but if this is what's available in termes of reliable sources then that's all we have to go on. A book from you could be what you need to update us on the current state of the art in aquaponics. Should you need any help just ask. --Jeanpetr (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Aquaponics in Maui

Hi,

I've just found this Video about aquaponics in Maui: vimeo.com/18196440 I don't know if this can be used in the article. --MartinThoma (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Fingerlings.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fingerlings.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Fingerlings.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive walkthrough

Wouldn't it be a good idea to also include a walkthrough on how to start up an aquaponic system? ThomasMP (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, thanks for the comment. Technically Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so explicit instructions would be a bad idea. However, you definitely should add descriptions of the items necessary to build an aquaponics system. Steven Walling • talk 23:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a how to guide; no, but when information is offered in the most useful ways, it tends to explain itself in how-to ways. Once the article is populated I'm sure it will appear as a how-to. Referencing methods and things of the sorts. ThomasMP (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMP (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Old, hard dying, missconseption

This is completely inaccurate "Nitrobacter: bacteria that convert nitrites into nitrates."

DNA testing has show that it is in fact Nitrospira, not Nitrobacter, that convert nitrites into nitrates.

Ref: http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Nitrospira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.58.248 (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Safety

It would be interesting to have a section on safety risks, or general requirements to avoid contamination of food with zoonotic pathogens. In non-aquaponics contexts, fish-derived fertilizers usually require a few months of composting to be safe. A simple search for "Aquaponics risks and pathogens" comes up with interesting results, but having no experience in the field I'd have to swift through reliable sources and read some of the material myself. But perhaps that some editors do have knowledge about this already. As in any food production field, these risks must be managed. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Live components

I think it would be interesting to include algae into the bacteria sections, and explain how it can be beneficial for the environment and the live component, which is fish in this case. Also it would be interesting to have a section on aquaponics and the effects it can have on the community. The article's diversity gives a good introduction to aquaponics and aquaculture, but does not state how much aquaponics techniques have evolved and its commercialization. Also the fast growth of aquaculture practice around the world,and that it is not always occuring with aquaponics, could have its place in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgndiaye (talk • contribs) 14:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aquaponics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uvi.edu/sites/uvi/Pages/AES-Aquaculture-Aquaponic_Systems.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612182055/http://biology.westfield.ma.edu/Biol300/sites/default/files/Aquaponic-Production-of-Tilapia-and-Basil.pdf to http://biology.westfield.ma.edu/Biol300/sites/default/files/Aquaponic-Production-of-Tilapia-and-Basil.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714132500/http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g1474/build/g1474.pdf to http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g1474/build/g1474.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed references placement and added new reference in History section

In the History section, there was a reference right at the end of a sentence regarding research done at North Carolina University, but that reference was not related to that research (it was pointing to a research paper about bell siphons, which are not present in sand grow beds like those used at NC Uni.). So, I placed a reference to the NC Uni. paper at the end of that sentence (this is not a new link, it was already present among the references in this Wikipedia article), then I added a sentence in the Wikipedia article, mentioning systems based on bell siphons, and I put the link to the bell siphon paper in a reference at the end of this new sentence. Additionally I made a reference to "Speraneo system" since this is how those systems are sometimes referred to, and added a reference to an ATTRA publication that talks about the origin of so-called Speraneo systems, I believe that ATTRA is not a commercial enterprise (see here) so I thought this would be acceptable. Thank you for reading this.

Mastazi 05:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: General Biology I Honors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JR524 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jand1990 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

History Section

The history section was edited on 01:43, 15 April 2024‎ by Fishmastablasta with the reason listed as "Incomplete sentence; more concise language" but upon inspection, the incomplete sentence was not completed, and there was no concise language added, instead, the user deleted this entire sentence;

"Shortly after, the various works of the New Alchemy Institute and the works of Dr. Mark McMurtry et al. at the North Carolina State University, who devised an "Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture System" (iAVs) based on the combination of aquaculture and sand-based grow beds."

The original references were not deleted and still remained in the 'references' section so i did not add a new reference, I edited the sentence that was deleted and added this version:

"Soon after, the numerous undertakings of the New Alchemy Institute and the endeavors of Dr. Mark McMurtry and others at North Carolina State University, who conceptualized an "Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture System" (iAVs) built on the integration of aquaculture and sand-based grow beds were established."

At 00:48, 16 April 2024‎ the user 2601:6c1:481:3f00:4d1b:4bf9:1654:1943 edited the history section and the reason that was listed for the edit was to "remove advertisement" but upon inspection, there was no advertisement and the user actually deleted the entire sentence.

I can see no reason why this sentence was removed on 2 different ocassions nor can I see why the deleted sentence was not mentioned in the edit.

I will find more references for clarity. Wiki142B (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The wikipedia help article for content removal states:

"Removing a section of an article needs to be at least explained and in some cases discussed. Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted. Changes which remove one or more words without affecting the content need not be explained, though for all but the most minor ones it is a good idea to at least describe them in the edit summary."

If anything is deleted, othat than minor edits, please clearly state that you have removed content and mention why it has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki142B (talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)