Showing posts with label Aquaculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aquaculture. Show all posts

Monday, September 4, 2017

Norway’s Big Fish Story

Submitted by Nick Kamran – Letters from Norway


Decision Season


With Parliamentary elections looming, more Norwegians than usual are asking themselves the tough questions. It is now apparent that the slump in oil is not a temporary one. What will the country do now? Time for the lottery winner, after receiving the last annuity, to get a job before burning out the savings. Many are looking towards the sea, fishing and exploiting underwater natural resources. Others are looking to blast open the mountains to do the same.



However, commodity based economies, third-world in nature, are subject to mother nature’s whims, innovation, and ruthless competition.  Moreover, it creates complacency, catching the nation off guard when there is a shift in the supply curve (instead of hitting peak oil, the opposite happened). Hence, the decisions or lack thereof, made during the next four years will impact future generations. Two generations of Norwegians grew up on the delusion that their society, built on pre-socialist values and high oil prices, can endure any challenge. 



The
Fund’s withdraws could accelerate amid a global financial crisis: politicians burning cash to shore up the economy and secure votes.


Burn Rate


Taking the sovereign wealth fund (The Fund) for granted, many fail to realize that the underlying investments are all pinned to the prevailing low-interest rate climate. If inflation gets out of control and rates must be pushed up to cut it off, the effect on stock and bond values could be substantial.



Norwegian GDP growth correlates to oil prices.


Currently, assuming constant tax revenues, budget and oil fund value, Norway is in great shape: able to fill the budget gap for the next 30 years. But then what? Also, one must ask, how often do assumptions, which depend on everything remaining constant, endure the test of time? Is it possible to dodge a decade’s worth of black swans, some of which haven’t even been born yet? Based on observation, most believe that a miracle will happen, like it did in the past (stumbling onto one of the largest oil reserves just offshore), or the situation will just work itself out.


The New Normal


Yesterday’s lows are today’s highs: far off the $70/barrel required to balance the budget.  Technology turned oil, a once scarce resource, into an abundant commodity.



Rising rig counts rose, in the latest months, despite flat to downward trending oil prices, indicate lower break-even prices.


The technology from the American Energy Renaissance, is going global, offering all nations additional options, regarding energy sources. In addition to continuously improving fracking technology, clean coal, natural gas, wind, and geo-thermal sources, further reducing the need for imported hydrocarbons.   


The Fish Story vs. Reality


Although many Norwegian leaders believe that the nation can switch from one commodity to another, fish cannot replace oil.  However, the Norwegian Salmon’s strong brand equity could be diminished by increased on production on the back of industrial techniques. Moreover, commodity production, especially this kind, can be replicated worldwide.


The coastlines of the UK, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Chile, Maine, Alaska, Japan, and Russia offer similar habitats, suitable for fish farming, like those of coastal Norway.  Moreover, fish farming is not rocket science. The required equipment is available on Alibaba.  Perhaps that’s where Salmar bought their latest system.



Sources: Statistics Norway: SSB.no and Fish Information and Services (FIS.com)


In addition to the law of supply and demand realities, new entrants joining the marketplace as long as profit opportunity exists, industrial fish farming offers a new set of problems:


  • Sea Lice poses one of the greatest challenges. Concentrated and congested in relatively small pens, the critters spread quickly, contaminating entire batches. Although the lice itself is not harmful to humans, it kills the fish. Currently, the Norwegian Ministry of Food and Industry states that there is a high risk of fish dying from lice between Karmøy and Sotra. Sometime soon, they will have a color code system (red, yellow, or green), overlaying a map of the nation’s coastlines, indicating risk levels.

  • Escapes post a major environmental hazard similar to that of Kudzu in the American South. When the genetically engineered (GMO) fish find their way into the open seas, they inevitably breed with the wild fish, weakening and mutating them. Based on a recent study, the problem is widespread.

Scientists tested half the rivers in Norway and found that every wild Atlantic Salmon population contains significant “Frankenstein” genes, introduced by the GMOs.  Escapes happen when storms tear open the containment nets, freeing hundreds of thousands of Salmon. Also, sloppy handlers and smolt (baby salmon) can slip out of containment system. The problem was so widespread in 2013 after a major “jailbreak”, which freed 127,000 fish, that a major fish producer offered a bounty: $90 per recaptured fish.



Nutritional differences exist between farm raised and natural salmon. Source:
Alexandra Morton – an activist in Canada. Norwegian salmon distinguishes and defines itself on quality. Mass production could diminish that advantage. 


Fish, especially Salmon, are an important component to the Norwegian economy but considering the public expenditure, marketplace competition, and industry risks outlined above, it will not carry the country forward.


Debt Fueled Economy


Nevertheless, Norway continues to party on.  The nearly trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund can carry the nation forward until they find a strategic replacement to oil: but for how long?



Norwegian consumers are some of the most indebted in the world while the national government runs accelerating deficits in the face of a declining oil industry.  Source: SSB.no and the Norwegian Ministry of Finance


There are risks that could shorten that ability. Consumer debt, fueled by excessively low interest rates and rapidly growing money supply as well as a widening budget gap, could stoke a crisis. Such a crisis, generally international in nature, could also hit asset prices in a time of need, reducing the lead time from 30 years to perhaps 10. Imagine withdrawals accelerate while The Fund’s value takes a hit from a major stock market pullback and bursting of the bond bubble?



Source: SSB.no M1 ,M2 & M3 Money Supply Aggregates. It is quite apparent that once issued, currency is hard to take back. Norwegians are not supposed to discuss this but rather just trust in Norges Bank.


Sadly, very few Norwegians understand the underlying economics tied to their prosperity, blindly believing the headlines and Central Bank headline statements.  Who is richer, the guy with a new BMW bought on credit or the used Chevy bought with cash? Culturally, there is a lot of public trust in Norges Bank (The Norwegian Central Bank) and the mainstream media.  No one appears to question the consequences of simultaneously persistent negative real interest rates and rising in money supply (systematic currency destruction and standard of living degradation).


Based on street level observations and conversations with the politicians, campaigning for the September 11, 2017 general election, it appears that “kick the can down the road” is the way to go.  Politics is the art of delaying a decision until it is no longer relevant. Hence, they could burn this fund out, trying to buy votes for the next elections, taking place every two years (alternating national and local elections every two years).


The Critical Need for Leadership vs. Management


Generally, Norwegians are overly skeptical, unimaginative, and cautious, hindering their ability to innovate and invent on a grand scale.  Letting a generation slide by without thinking about the future affirms that. There is no industry stepping in to cover oil, revealed in the trade figures above.


Instead of investigating the facts about the Paris Agreement, Norwegian leaders jumped on the bandwagon, signing the speculative and flawed agreement because everyone else did.



Europeans love per-capita statistics. Very few nations can compete with Minnesota in innovation.


Instead, they should have used their influential position, regarding environmental issues, to question the underlying science.  The agreement is based on speculation and voluntary compliance by third-world nations, still struggling with human rights and corruption. If Trump had not withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, the world would have become complacent, believing the environmental crisis was solved.  Essentially, they would have falsely believed that India could enforce the rules.


On paper and at the UN, such nations can say anything. However, the reality on the ground is very different.  Considering India’s massive population and the public sector pay scale, individual factories will operate “business as usual,” paying bribes to the uninterested civil servants, getting them off their back. It is naïve to think otherwise. 


Living in Northern Brazil for a brief time, I personally witnessed farmers and ranchers blatantly cut down rain forest, despite the rules, to expand grazing land. Hence, Russia and China will outright lie.  Then, twenty years from now, we will be in the midst of an environmental disaster, caused by unaccounted third-world development.


Remember, that Hitler’s Germany, built up a military in secret, unleashing it on the world by surprise. The solution to climate change and environmental havoc requires much more than a piece of paper designed to crippled American development to the benefit of third world nations.


Therefore, the Paris Agreement would have doomed the planet, offering a delusion that problem had been “solved” after signing. Much needed attention to the environment would have been diverted to something trivial like removing offensive statues.  Environmental issues go far beyond emissions. It also includes plastic in the oceans, clean drinking water, and deforestation in India, Africa, and South America.  


The Paris Agreement forgot those issues. Our allies should have seen through this fallacy and expressed interest in real solutions, especially the Norwegians.


Thor’s Hammer


Hence, Norwegians need to elect a decisive “Viking like leader.” Someone with lofty ambitions and ideals who is daring, seizing the opportunity with Thorium. The land of fire and ice not only holds around 15% of the world’s thorium supply but also leads in reactor technology development. Thor Energy (Halden, Norway) is in the second phase of a five-year trial, validating the viability as a commercial energy source.


This technology offers the basis to a comprehensive environmental solution that would not only cover emissions but also take care of ocean plastic, deforestation, and chronic poverty. Integrating it with other existing Norwegian technologies: shipbuilding (Aker), automated garbage sorting (Tomra Systems), autonomous systems (Kongsberg Defense) and heavy engineering (Kongsberg Maritime) and working with North African leaders, Norwegian industry could fill the massive Sahara Desert with water, terraforming it into a lush rain forest and vast fields.


The Genesis of New Greenland


Running massive Thorium powered desalinization plants, pumping water into the dessert underground over the next 100+ years, vegetation and eventually forests could take root. A new society would emerge, built on green values and sustainable technologies. That concept would do more to ensure our planets survival than a piece of paper, written by professional politicians intended to upend America. 


But how could we make this happen? It would require the massive integration of existing technologies and proven concepts:



The massive dessert, larger than the United States, was once a rain forest, recycling massive amount of CO2. Thorium technologies could restore that quicker than the Paris Agreement could lower temperatures by .5 degrees over the same time period.


  • Ship Building: Norway is already a leader in specialty ships and the floating nuclear reactor concept has been around for over 50 years. Once the people in Halden industrialize the Thorium concept, they can mount the reactors onto highly automated ships, ensuring safety, security, efficiency. 

Two types of ships are needed. The first would be one that generates electricity and desalinizes seawater. The second type would collect ocean plastic, turning into drip irrigation equipment.  


  • Electricity created by the onboard powerplant could be delivered from ship to shore by undersea cable, directly into a modern grid.

  • Desalinization technology, using excess heat generated by nuclear powerplants, already exists. For the past 20+ years, India, Japan, and Kazakhstan have been doing this on an industrial scale. 

  • Drip Irrigation tubing, pipes, and other fixtures can be made from recycled ocean plastic onboard a thorium powered ship as it collects plastic from the massive Pacific Ocean plastic patch (it is the size of Mexico). Water would be delivered by pipeline from the shipboard plant to shore, distributed underground and directly to the plant root systems.

Israel has already proven that drip irrigation works: growing crops in the dessert with almost 90% less water than by open air.



Drip Irrigation in Libya, sourcing water from an underground aquifer. It would be better to use purified seawater, preserving the underground systems. Therefore, It is already possible to
grow forests in the desert with this technology.


  • Modular Housing Components, also made from ocean plastic onboard the Thorium powered collections ships, could provide a place to live for many of the worlds displaced people and SJW’s. The houses could be covered in Earth and vegetation protecting residents from the elements in a cost-efficient manner.  Those same people could also work in the field cultivating various crops for export and consumption, making this model sustainable.



Dirt prefabricated homes – Green Magic Homes Over time, the dessert above in Libya could look like this. Eventually a rainforest canopy could take root, furthering the reduction of carbon-dioxide.


The rainforests throughout the world act as our planet’s lungs, cycling carbon dioxide into oxygen.  Hence, this concept would not only clean up the ocean but also turn the dessert into a rain forest over the next few hundred years, permanently and naturally balancing carbon dioxide instead of depending on human compliance.


The question is who would pay for it and what would be the return?


  • National government funds in Europe set aside for refugees could be spent on making them a new nation, which they will have a part in building and take pride in.

  • Bored billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and George Soros who supposedly want to do some good in the world.

  • Multi-National Corporations that supported the Paris Agreement and oppose President Trump.

  • The return would be from crop and electricity exports as well as tourism.  In addition, this new nation would be leaders in ocean plastic recycling innovation, selling housing solutions throughout the world. Norway could be at the forefront as an investor and benefactor.  

Conclusion


The greatest consequences of Nordic socialism are how it instills a lack of courage and imagination when facing global problems. For such a system to work, people must be mostly compliant and amicable. Currently, Norway can manage the economic shift by drawing from The Fund but I would hope that they want to do more than just get by. It is obvious that betting on fish is a bad idea.


However, culture of modesty and skepticism holds them back. Norway needs to think big if it wants to maintain the standard of living for future generations. They need to move beyond apps and electronic gadgets to true innovation: the kind that changes the world.  


Think about that when voting on September 11, 2017!

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Disintermediation yields a 2822% return on investment

Instead of spending his last year in high school, Tim graduated early and spent that year building a 37’ wooden trimaran, and sailed all throughout the Pacific on it, eventually landing on the Big Island.  That’s the traditional way of arriving here. One had to envision this place, and then plan for it, and then strive for it, without any degree of certainty of success. 


-Susanne Friend, speaking of her husband and business partner, Tim Mann



We are just a few weeks away from the First ZeroHedge Symposium and Live Fight Club in Marfa, Texas, June 16-18.   The theme is disintermediation.  Below is an article written by Susanne Friend.  Her husband, Tim Mann, is traveling from Hawaii to attend and participate as one of the many excellent speakers we have scheduled at the symposium.  If you are thinking of coming, there may still be a couple of rooms left at the St George Hotel and some rentals on AirBnB.  We filled up all three other hotels in town and El Cosmico!  We hope to see you in Marfa!  





Agriculture: Tim Mann, Make backyard and commercial aquaponics easy and inexpensive



What Is The True Value Of A Backyard Aquaponics Garden? 


Aquaponics is an integrated food production system that combines raising fish in man-made containers (aquaculture) and growing plants without any soil or soil-like media (hydroponics).


What if there was a method to grow food that in your backyard that was stunningly more productive than growing in the ground? And at the same, what if this same food production system involved considerably less work from a human standpoint?  Sounds too good to be true, right? 



Tim Mann wearing the hat.


That"s what I thought when my husband, with great enthusiasm, told me about aquaponics in 2007.  Although initially extremely skeptical, I could certainly see the value of becoming a farmer, as the Global Financial Meltdown had already begun to devastate our 20-year-old Hawaiian architectural design firm. We plunged in headlong, desperately seeking new financial start, and it turned out to be the best move we"ve ever made. As it turns out, not everyone needs a vacation home in Hawaii, but everyone needs to eat, so we felt confident moving into this relatively unknown field as new farmers, although neither of us had even managed to keep a houseplant alive!


2017 marks our tenth anniversary as primary food producers and teachers of aquaponics. In that decade, we achieved some notable success, simply by being unwilling to take "No" for an answer, especially from the government. We were the first aquaponics farm ever to be USDA Certified Organic in 2008 as well as the first to obtain USDA Food Safety Certification for Good Agricultural Practices in 2009. Our farm remains the only aquaponics farm to deliver to a "Big Box" store, from 2009-2011. 


Out of sheer necessity, since we have been entirely self-funded, we"ve worked very hard to minimize both the cost of initial construction as well as the costs of ongoing operations. As such, the technological adaptations we"ve made have attracted a quite a bit of interest from others interested in the field, and we"ve developed a number comprehensive DIY manuals and AutoCAD plans (a skillset happily leftover from our defunct architectural design business). Our philosophy is simple. We believe in the transfer of information rather than the selling (and shipping!) of "stuff," so we"ve never sold kits. We also don"t want anyone else to make the same mistakes we have made, because some of those mistakes have come close to bankrupting us, one of which ended us up in Federal prison for a short, three-month stay!


Our experience over the past decade, combined with that of thousands of students all over the world, means I am no longer skeptical in the least. However, with my background in hard science, while I have personally experienced the real difference that an aquaponics system can make in the economy of a family, I was interested quantifying as much as possible how much more productive an aquaponics system is over that of a backyard dirt garden.


Of course, aquaponics shares many of the benefits of dirt gardening, which are well-researched and equally well understood:


• Stress relief


• More creativity


• Better mental health


• Increased vegetable consumption


• Sense of satisfaction and accomplishment


• More joy


• Increased sense of connection with nature


• Relationship building


• Greater sense of belonging


• Increased economic independence


• Greater feeling of ownership


• Better physical health: lower blood pressure, lowered need for pain relief, shorter healing time


• Greater opportunity for the elderly and people with physical limitations for involvement in something that matters.


• Increased skill sets that build confidence and brain power!


• And of course, growing even a small portion of your own food will save you money


Of course, how productive any food production method you use ultimately depends entirely upon you - how hard you work, how much time and attention you pay to your food production method, the quality of the seeds you use, how much sun or artificial lighting your garden gets, what kind of vegetables you plant, and so on. There’s quite a large range involved in answering this question, because there are so many variables.


But how is aquaponics different? Is it more productive? If so, by how much? And how much does it cost to get started, compared to a dirt garden?


To help answer this question, we need more than just our experience - we needed detailed information for what a dirt garden costs and what it produces.


I was lucky to find some exceptionally detailed and specific results from an experienced backyard dirt gardener who kept meticulous records over a single growing season in Maine, Zone 5b/6, with only a five-month growing season.  Roger Doiron is the power and passion behind Kitchen Gardeners International, a global nonprofit of 35,000 gardeners helping others to grow their own good food. Roger describes himself as a "Father, husband, son, brother and uncle. Garden activist, advocate, writer, speaker and photographer. Founder of KGI and certified garden geek. Growing lots of good stuff on the coast of Maine." 


Roger"s March, 2009 blog post allowed us a very nearly perfect comparison between what a dirt garden and a backyard aquaponics garden can produce. It was this blog post that prompted Tim to write a spreadsheet based on our averages of ten different aquaponic-grown crops. This allows us an almost “apples-to-apples” comparison of what you can do with a Backyard Aquaponics Garden, in one-tenth the space of a dirt garden.


From Mr. Doiron"s blog post, on the results he and his wife produced in the ground, in a 1600 sq. ft. backyard garden: 





By the time we had finished weighing it all, we had grown 834 pounds and over six months worth of organic food (we’re still eating our own winter squash, onions, garlic, and frozen items like strawberries, green beans, and pesto cubes). Once we had the weights of the 35 main crops we grew, we then calculated what it would have cost us to buy the same items using three different sets of prices: conventional grocery store, farmers’ market and organic grocery Store (Whole Foods, in our case).  The total value came to $2196.50, $2431.15, and $2548.93, respectively. 



After adjusting everything in the spreadsheet to reflect Mr. Dioron"s results as closely as possible (a 21.5-22 week growing season, and using the prices he used for what he would have had to pay at a Farmer"s Market, below is what the spreadsheet showed the results would be for a 128 sq. ft. backyard aquaponics system. I used our results in Hawaii to estimate average plant weight, average cycle time,  and average wastage (because not all of what you grow is edible). The reality is, because of increased day-length in the summer in Maine  (14-15.5 hours), the first two of these numbers are quite conservative, since Hawaii"s day-length is only 12 hours in the summer. Here is the entire spreadsheet, click to enlarge.


Below is the first part of the comparison spreadsheet, showing cultivars I selected that grow well in aquaponics, and with which I have a lot of experience. Of course, you"d  have more variety for a home garden, as did Mr. Doiron, but this is just  for the sake of comparison - and a spreadsheet with 35 cultivars would  be tremendously cumbersome, and some of the things he grew (peaches,  carrots, garlic, potatoes, artichokes, asparagus) could not be grown in an aquaponics system (but could be grown in the ground and watered with aquaponics water). Other than those six items, I have grown everything on his list in our raft systems, including root vegetables like onions, shallots, and rutabaga (turnip), all of which grew on top of the rafts, completely clean!


Following the spreadsheet over to the right, you will see a column that shows the plants per square foot. This seems to be an astonishing number that will seem completely impossible at first glance, but with the planting techniques we"ve developed, it"s very easy to achieve this planting density. This works by crowding the seedlings when they are very small in sprouting tables as well as in rafts with very close hole-spacings, then moving the plants to rafts with larger hole-spacings as they grow  - all with no transplant shock whatsoever. Other columns to note are the cycle time (time in the main system, NOT in the sprouting table), and the estimated percentage of the plant is edible, which is based upon my direct experience here in Hawaii, where we have a mind-bending number of hungry insects, given we have no hard winter to kill them off.


Over to the far right, the last few cells show total pounds produced, and the price per pound that Mr. Doiron used in the middle column of his pricing list (the Farmer"s Market prices). This column, along with matching his growing season in weeks, is what allowed me this almost "apples-to-apples" comparison.


And from the top of the spreadsheet, the results:





So, Mr. Doiron and his wife harvested 834 pounds, for Farmer"s Market value of $2431.15. Our projections show a slightly lower poundage harvested (772), but for a much higher value ($4381.78) largely due to planting density, rapid cycle time, and selecting the most valuable  vegetable varieties to grow instead of all of the ones Mr. Doiron used.



But what about expenses? From Mr. Doiron"s blog:





On  the cost side, we had $130 for seeds and supplies, $12 for a soil test,  and exceptional costs of $100 for some locally-made organic compost we  bought for our “This Lawn is Your Lawn”  front yard garden (normally, we meet most of our soil fertility needs  through our own composting). I don"t have a scientific calculation for water costs, but we don"t need to water much and, when we do, water is  relatively cheap in Maine. Also, I mulch my beds pretty heavily to keep  moisture in and weeds down. Let"s say $40 in water. So, if we consider that our out-of-pocket costs were $282 and the total value generated was  $2431, that means we had a return on investment of 862%. The cost of our labor is not included because we enjoy gardening and the physical work involved. If I am to include my labor costs, I feel I should also include the gym membership fees, country club dues, or doctors’ bills I didn’t have.



Depending upon where you in the world, a 128 sq. ft. DIY aquaponics system of our design (what we call a "MicroSystem 128") costs around $1,400 to build, or $1.70 per plant space, including the cost for the plans - ($99), with you sourcing most items locally from a building supply store. The time it takes to build is between 16-32 hours; total space required is 12 feet by 20 feet, or 240 sq. ft., and if it"s well-built and well-maintained, it will last for many years. (And in addition, it’s movable!)



The MicroSystem 128 uses 48 watts of electricity per month, which costs $3-4 in most places on the continental United States, but is between $12-15 in Hawaii; $2-4 of fish food per month ($4-6 in Hawaii); and $8-10 of seeds  and potting media per month ($12-14 in Hawaii) for a monthly cost to operate of $13-18 ($28-35 in Hawaii - the price of living in paradise!).


Aquaponics uses only about 2% of the water that growing in the ground uses, and no water at all if you get 20-25" of rain with appropriate catchment. However, to keep things simple, let"s just say that our 128 uses half the water that Mr. Doiron did, or $20 for the entire growing season.


In addition, for an aquaponics system in a temperate environment will have to purchase fish at the start of the growing season, for a cost of around $50.


So, for the purposes of comparison, that gives us total costs  for the entire 22 week growing season of $141.50-169.00 (mainland  prices). Averaging these numbers gives us $155.25. Using the total value if we"d purchased all this produce from a Farmer"s Market, at the prices Mr. Doiron posted, $4381.78, we get an astonishing return on investment of 2822%, or about three times more value than gardening in the ground!


Things get even more interesting when we read a bit more of Mr. Doiron"s blog, where he says (emphasis mine):





If you really want to play around with the data, you can calculate  how much a home garden like ours produces on a per acre basis. If you use the $2400 figure and consider that our garden is roughly 1/25th of an acre, it means that home gardens like ours can gross $60,000/acre. You can also calculate it on a square foot basis, which in our case works out to be roughly $1.50/sq.ft.



Keep in mind that these are averages and that certain crops are more profitable and space efficient than others. A small garden planted primarily with salad greens and trellised tomatoes, for example, is going to produce more economic value per square foot more than one planted with potatoes and squash.


So, we see that the value per square foot of a backyard aquaponics system is $34.23 per square foot! WOW!


In addition, in an aquaponics system, there is no fertilizing, no mulching, no weeding, no soil pathogens, no watering, no transplant shock when you move a plant to another location, and best of all, there"s no bending over, or kneeling, and you can even sit in the shade while you do your seeding, transplanting, and harvesting!


So, for about half the ongoing operational costs of Mr. Doiron"s 1600 sq.ft. dirt garden, in 240 sq. ft, or about 15% of the space, you can grow almost as much produce, but with a much higher value (~$2000 more), all for far less work. And it"s guaranteed organic!


In addition, Mr. Doiron did not have fish to harvest along the way from his in-ground garden! He could have had a big fish fry in the fall, and invited his friends! Or, he could have decided to move his aquaponics system indoors for the winter, into a warm garage or basement, or even build a MicroSystem Aquaponics Solar Greenhouse, and keep gardening all winter!


Here"s a link to the comparison spreadsheet, from which the above screenshots are taken. It"s an Excel file, so you must have MicroSoft Excel installed on your computer to open it.


Here is the link to a General Spreadsheet, which is also an Excel file. It will allow you to determine the viability of an aquaponics system in your location. It"s filled with numbers which are average for our location, but which are essentially meaningless for yours: to get honest results for your location, you"re meant to input real numbers based upon your experience, your growing season, and prices in your area. You add the length of your growing season, your cycling time, your favorite aquaponics crops, the weights of plants you"ve grown, and the prices at your local grocery store, Farmer"s Market, or Whole Foods. The only numbers you might want to keep are the plants per square foot, but only if you"re using our High Density Planting Techniques!


Important: If you’re not familiar with spreadsheets, they can seem a little intimidating, but they are such a powerful tool that we urge you to climb the learning curve – it’s totally worth it! Here is a Word doc that will assist you in understanding how to use the Comparison Spreadsheet.