Aquaponics has numerous benefits compared to traditional gardening.
Plants have plenty of water being on the obvious ones.
Also, they tend to be fairly low maintenance once set up correctly. Just add food (most fish can go up to a week without feeding without any negative consequences if needs be).
Water usage is much lower (evaporation and what is absorbed into the plants is the only loss).
Plants grow better (they have easier access to nutrients and plenty of water).
The negatives are that the upfront costs are much more and you have to have some knowledge of the Nitrogen cycle and creating a comfortable environment for your fish.
None of those benefits are really accurate though. Automated irrigation is very simple and has been around for a long time. The difference in water usage is negligible, most people don't use a significant amount of water on their gardens to begin with, and using a cover crop or just leaving the weeds alone instead of pulling them out for no reason largely eliminates evaporation losses. I have seen no studies that support the idea that plants grow better. Only deliberately misleading claims from people selling aquaponics systems that compare to soil with no fertilizer or too little water. Hence claims like yours: "they have easier access to nutrients and plenty of water". Those things are both fine in traditional gardens unless you choose to make them not fine.
Sure, if you have well-aerated soil with an automated irrigation system, your plants will grow just as well. But, you won't get fish. Also, your irrigation system must be fine-tuned to deliver just enough water to the plants you are growing, so it doesn't drain to other plants that you did not have any intention of watering. This is where the aquaponics
advantage comes in: the water returns to the fish tank to be used again.
In any case, this is a moot point, because most gardeners do not have irrigation systems. And if you're just starting out, there is no guarantee you will have good soil. Our backyard has 1-2 inches of sod, then solid clay underneath. We had to do a lot of work (or pay a lot of money) to amend that soil to the point where it produced a good harvest.
Yes, of course fish is the actual difference. Although you can obviously just stock a pond with fish anyways.
>Also, your irrigation system must be fine-tuned to deliver just enough water to the plants you are growing, so it doesn't drain to other plants that you did not have any intention of watering.
No it doesn't. Even in drought areas the amount of water needed to water a garden is negligible as long as you don't make the mistake of leaving it bare earth.
>In any case, this is a moot point, because most gardeners do not have irrigation systems
Virtually all of them do, they are called sprinklers.
>And if you're just starting out, there is no guarantee you will have good soil
That's true, especially in modern subdivisions where they scrape off the top soil, sell it, and then back fill with clay excavated for the basement, leaving you with no soil and a thin layer of sod that needs constant watering to survive. But I think it is still cheaper to just do a normal garden. All you need is some organic waste to pile up in layers, no need to try to fix the clay below, just ignore it: http://organicgardening.about.com/od/startinganorganicgarden...
> Although you can obviously just stock a pond with fish anyways.
That is assuming you have a pond. And even in that case, you need to get rid of the nitrogen build up somehow: either frequent water changes, or bio-filtration (which is a form of aquaponics).
> No it doesn't. Even in drought areas the amount of water needed to water a garden is negligible as long as you don't make the mistake of leaving it bare earth.
You do realize that not all water goes to the plants you're targeting, right? Some of it will run off and/or water other plants that you're not harvesting. That was my point about the water.
> Virtually all of them do, they are called sprinklers.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that virtually all gardeners have sprinklers (the automated ones, anyway... we were discussing automated irrigation systems).
> But I think it is still cheaper to just do a normal garden. All you need is some organic waste to pile up in layers ...
Sure, it's cheaper when you have organic waste available for free in a convenient fashion (i.e. not something you have to haul from your city's waste center). Also cheaper when you just want the veggies, not the fish. A lot of people enjoy eating fish, however. If you want to grow fish and veggies in your backyard, aquaponics really is the best choice.
>You do realize that not all water goes to the plants you're targeting, right? Some of it will run off and/or water other plants that you're not harvesting. That was my point about the water.
Yes. And that does not matter at all, which is what I said.
>The burden of proof is on you to prove that virtually all gardeners have sprinklers (the automated ones, anyway... we were discussing automated irrigation systems).
You said they don't have irrigation systems, not that they aren't automatic.
>And even in that case, you need to get rid of the nitrogen build up somehow: either frequent water changes, or bio-filtration (which is a form of aquaponics).
Trying to pretend normal aquatic plants existing in a normal pond is the same as your aquaponics system, and thus your system "wins" is disingenuous in the extreme.
>Sure, it's cheaper when you have organic waste available for free in a convenient fashion (i.e. not something you have to haul from your city's waste center).
How is hauling it from your city's waste center more expensive than your $500 setup exactly? A truck rental is $20.
>If you want to grow fish and veggies in your backyard, aquaponics really is the best choice.
For some people it may be, but this insistence on making unsupported sweeping claims reeks of snakeoil salesmen. I grow fish and veggies. It costs me $0. How would your system be better?
