The iAVs website has moved to…HERE.

I’ve recently rebuilt the iAVs website…and moved it.
Just so we’re clear right at the outset…iAVs is – and, in my mind, will always remain – the property of Dr Mark R McMurtry.  He’s made it available – open source – to the world since its inception in the mid-1980’s…and nothing about the changes that I’ve described should be taken to suggest that there has been any change in ownership or open source availability.
The iAVs site is now part of this one.  I’d been trying to rationalise my various websites for some time…partly because of the work involved in maintaining the sites – but also because of the cost.  I’ve funded the iAVs website – and all of the work that was done on it – from the outset – and that has become increasingly unsustainable…particularly since I no longer receive a salary.
The other issue is one of focus.  Aside from the iAVs.info site, there is an iAVs Facebook page, an iAVs-sub-forum on my HMFL forum and a couple of other other fragments elsewhere.  None of them functions as a credible source of iAVs information, so it’s time to pull them together in the interests of greater efficiency. 
Anyway, while it’s a work-in-progress, the rebuilt site is already a big improvement over iAVs.info.  Finding information is easier – every published article on the site is linked for ease of access – there’s several articles that have not been published previously…and the FAQ has been expanded.
It’s taken me over a week of fairly steady effort to get it to this point.  The To Do list is still long…my next task is to build a page that will allow us to assist Mark following the fire that left him homeless and destitute.
Anyway, to find the new iAVs section, click on the big green iAVs button right on the front page of this site.
-o0o-

AP Survey vs Mora bar graphs

Need introduction to the survey – and link.   Gary may want to review article and note observations I’ve ‘missed’.

  • No claim in the AP survey has been vetted (likely inflated guesses).  Zero costs acknowledged. ‘Free’ labor (effort, time).
  • One massive outlier claim (outright liar) was removed prior to calculations summarized below.
  • Mora/USDA 1992-93 was at v:v  1:1.    Mora+ is adjusted to v:v 1:2.4  with same unit area, volume yields.
  •  Percentile values graphed below, approximated +/- 5% (N=187).   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile
  • –  I.e., Twenty percent of the values of an ordered set will lie at or below the twentieth percentile (P20), and eighty percent of values fall above it.
    • Retained in spreadsheet form … with enough numbers to make the average adult primate swoon &/or wretch.
  • Percentiles were calculated for (on) area, volume, fish mass and plant mass.   Yields and currency value then derived.
  • Constant unit values applied throughout, i.e fish $3.30/kg, plant $6.60/kg.
  • ‘apples to apples’, ‘claim to claim’, ‘ape to ape’ …

composite area bar

grow out volume bar

Fish yield bar

Plant area bar

plant yield bartotal revenue bar

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BONUS: Cost to grow tilapia in US (3 feed types, 3 harvest sizes)

What part of this makes ANY ‘cents’?  (AKA FKN Insanity)

Tilapia grow-out costs,jpg

click image to enlarge

^ Tilapia fillet from $34 to $73 /kg (w/ capex, heating. pumping, labor (time), misc. supplies ALL = $0.00)

actual UPS ground shipping cost from AlliedAqua applied  (average of Santa Cruz CA, Atlanta GA, Boston MA and Bozeman MT)

Compare with: today’s prices (July 30, 2016)

  • Yellowtail Tuna fillet $37.4/kg (California)
  • Albacore Tuna , sushi grade  $44/kg (California)
  • Maine lobster (1.25 to 1.5 lb size, live)  $18.80/kg (Boston)
  • Tilapia
    • Walmart frozen fillet $10.66/4.0 lb ($5.86/kg)
    • Fisherman’s Cove, fresh premium fillet $4.99/lb ($11/kg)
    • China, frozen $3 to $4.2/kg ,  $750/MT ($0.75/kg) +shipping
    • mytilapia,com : 10-year price range Fresh $3 to 3.5/lb ($6.60 to $7.70/kg)   ,  Frozen $2 to 2.75/lb
  • Hmmm IF retail prime is $11, then reg fillet @ $10/kg – 40% -> $6/kg wholesale
    • 1 kg fillet @ 35% yield = LW 2.86 kg equivalent
    • 1 kg LW = $2.1 /kg (not including processing/ice/delivery costs)
    • if process/delivery costs add 30%, then LW ‘value’ = $1.47/kg (used $3.30 in comparison)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Full Summary

APS vs Mora Table

 

BONUS BONUS

click image to enlarge

Put yet another way …

APS vs iAVs Table

 

Barely 6 out of 100 in the AP survey claim gross product of $35/m2/yr or more (at F$3.3 and P$6.6/kg).  Top range of $40 to $50 m2/yr.   What are the costs? AT what costs, risk, effort?    APS mean feed cost alone at FCR 1.5 is from 16 to 38% of gross, depending on vendor (5 to 7% at ton volume).

How much better does better need be?

 

Can we help you with any problems?


An Open Letter from Mark.

Hi,

It has sadly come to our recent attention that there are at least a few significant problems having occurred, accrued and continuing to remain unaddressed in India, centered around the impulsive actions and an absence of commitment/responsibility by a certain self-alleged ‘expert’ (actor) known to at least some of you.

We would like to see these admitted “failure stories” resolved to the operators satisfaction in a responsible and timely fashion.  We hereby offer – and remain hopeful – that we may provide effective resolutions satisfactory to each impacted party where and as soon as possible.

Therefore, if you (the reader) either are or know of someone who has been the victim of inaccurate, inappropriate and irresponsible ‘advice’ (alleged), then we urgently invite you to contact us directly via the iavs.info website. Please provide us with the full context and nature/extent of your problem(s), as you currently understand them to be and as specifically as you can, such that we may understand your difficulties and help you to correct them to the extent possible such that you may realize your goals.

We do not accept/assume direct responsibility for any errant advice and counsel you may have acted upon in good faith, However, we are sorely aggrieved and harmed in that such situations have admittedly and regrettably occurred – and are apparently continuing to accrue contrary to our specific counsel to desist from increasing problematic implementations and to immediately effect corrective remedies (unacknowledged to date) for the previous harm caused.

We cannot in good conscience allow this most regrettable situation to persist and/or escalate unaddressed. If you are such an aggrieved party, you have our sincere sympathies, and we offer our gratis support to the extent possible as you will allow.

Mark

PS… Our offer to assist is not limited to this situation in India.  We work toward sustainable food security for impoverished people everywhere!  If you are or represent such a person, then please talk to us about what we might do to help you feed people and save water.

===========

 A notice for our friends in India.  Please excuse this poor translation. It was best that I could manage [after many attempts]. –  I sincerely hope that this message reaches those it is directed at soon.   – The original English version has been blogged on iavs.info

भारत में हमारे दोस्तों के लिए एक नोटिस कृपया गरीब अनुवाद का बहाना करें यह सबसे अच्छा था कि मैं प्रबंधन कर सकता था / मूल अंग्रेजी संस्करण iavs.info पर ब्लॉग किया गया है  

_________

नमस्ते, यह दुख की बात है कि हमारे ध्यान में आ गया है कि भारत में कम से कम कुछ महत्वपूर्ण समस्याओं का विकास, वृद्धि और जारी रहना जारी है, आवेगी कार्रवाई के आसपास केंद्रित है और प्रतिबद्धता / जिम्मेदारी की अनुपस्थिति कम से कम आप में से कुछ के लिए जाना जाता है    

हम इन ‘कहानियों की विफलताओं’ को एक जिम्मेदार और समय पर फैशन में हल करना चाहते हैं। हम इसके द्वारा प्रस्ताव देते हैं – और उम्मीद करते हैं कि हम प्रत्येक प्रभावित पार्टी के लिए संतोषजनक समाधान प्रदान कर सकते हैं और जितनी जल्दी हो सके। 

इसलिए, यदि आप (पाठक) या तो किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति के बारे में जानते हैं जो गलत, अनुचित और गैर जिम्मेदार वकील (कथित) का शिकार है, तो हम पूछते हैं कि आप सीधे iavs.info वेबसाइट के माध्यम से हमसे संपर्क करें।

कृपया हमें अपनी पूर्ण संदर्भ और प्रकृति / आपकी समस्याओं का विस्तार प्रदान करें, जैसा कि आप वर्तमान में उनको समझते हैं और विशेष रूप से आप जितना कर सकते हैं ।  

कि हम आपकी कठिनाइयों को समझ सकते हैं और उन्हें यथासंभव हद तक सही करने में आपकी सहायता कर सकते हैं ताकि आप अपने लक्ष्यों को महसूस कर सकें।  

हमारे पास ग़लत सलाह के लिए सीधी जिम्मेदारी नहीं है और सलाहकार ने सद्भावना पर काम किया है, हालांकि, हम गंभीर रूप से पीड़ित हैं और क्षतिग्रस्त हैं कि यह हुआ है और जाहिरा तौर पर समस्याग्रस्त वृद्धि से रोकने के लिए और पिछले नुकसान के लिए सुधारात्मक उपाय (अपरिवर्तित तिथि) को प्रभावित करने के लिए हमारे विशिष्ट विवाद के विपरीत प्रत्यक्ष रूप से जारी हो रहे हैं    

हम अच्छे विवेक में इस सबसे अफसोसजनक स्थिति को अस्तित्व या जारी रखने की अनुमति नहीं दे सकते। यदि आप एक घायल पार्टी हैं, तो आप पर हमारी सहानुभूति है, और हम जितनी संभव हो सके उतनी हद तक हमारी नि: शुल्क सहायता की पेशकश करेंगे।  

निशान 

पीएस … हमारी मदद करने की पेशकश भारत में इस स्थिति तक सीमित नहीं है हम हर जगह गरीब लोगों के लिए स्थायी खाद्य सुरक्षा की ओर काम करते हैं! यदि आप इस तरह के एक व्यक्ति हैं या प्रतिनिधित्व करते हैं, तो कृपया हमारे साथ बात करें कि हम लोगों को खाने और पानी बचाने में आपकी सहायता करने के लिए हम क्या कर सकते हैं।  

Example ‘system’ cost in Montana, winter of 2017

Here in Montana 2017, I could create the following iAVs ‘system’ for under US$7000 (excluding ‘greenhouse’, labor, misc. tools and related supplies):

24 m3 of circular conical-bottom fish tanks with top-quality stainless steel pumps, current state-of-art regenerative blowers (aeration) with top-grade ceramic diffusers, SS fittings etc., and coupled to from 150 to 200 square meters of sand beds.   45 mil EPDM fish/food safe liners throughout. (all equipment Made in US, btw).

                

0.5 HP, 11,500 litre/hour at 1.5 m head                                                  0.67 HP,  990 l/min @ 1 m depth

That’s between $28 and $35 per square meter (including a 50 m2 tank area) or $2.60 to $3.25 /ft2 with ‘top-shelf’ equipment and materials.   Okay, so, maybe add $500 to include some misc. items and delivery costs to my mountain.  Would be $1000 less if using in-ground (dug/lined) tanks.

At an average of under $3.00 a square foot, that’s considerably cheaper than any empty Rubbermaid (etc) bin/tub from China-mart. Seriously!    How productive could that be for you? What’s the cost:benefit ratio of a flimsy polyethylene bucket on steroids?  Where would you plug it in?  BTW, un-faced Styrofoam™ (polystyrene) is $1.56/ft2 (alone) at the local Lowe’s (building supply megastore).

At 175 m2 of ‘grow-bed’, planted as single-stem tomato (or equivalent), that’s  700 plants/crop x 3 per year with a minimum of 6 kg/plt, for 12,600 kg/yr plus an expected 1500 to 2000 kg/yr of tilapia. [ 100-120 kg/m3/yr is possible (has been achieved) ]

Before anyone asks, “Why don’t you?” 1) I’m broke, 2) have no GH or growing season, 3) have food and, 4) I’m old, tired, used-up and spit-out.

  • Not available in stores.
  • Itemized plans sold separately.
  • Some assembly required.
  • Batteries not included.
  • Your smilage may vary.

PS:  Ballpark cost for off-grid photovoltaic system to power the above equipment is in the $600 to $1000 range (PV cells, wire/fuse, charge controller and inverter) and without batteries (w/o aeration at night), base supports or installation.   For 24-hour aeration (this example) add about $1000 to $1200  (for 500AH@24V for a 10-year +cycle/use life from lead-acid cells. Total overnight load in range of 35-45 AH draw (by latitude and season)… via the cheapest route … here … DIY)  

  • So,  if it cost $1000 for panels etc with 25-yr+ life ($40/yr) plus about $110/yr for batteries.  Effective annual cost $150.  
  • 24 hour load 13,5 kWh w/ 24/7 aeration.  13.5 x 365 ~ 5000 kWh/yr    $150 / 5,000 kWh = $0.03/kWh.  That’s about one-quarter of what grid electric rate is here.  PV really has come WAY down in price over the past few years.
  • Running cost (amortized PV) for 2 pumps (1hp @ 2hrs/day) is $0.045/day, $16.43/yr or $0.68 /m3/yr

-o0o-

On the Relative Efficacy of iAVs

iAVs banner 1280 x 184

Considering ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’ :

First, let’s dispense with ‘the Bad’  …  (the candid, ‘naughty‘ chunks).

The ONLY accessible/discernible so-called ‘data’ available from any “Aquaponics” technique , other than iAVs, is from the so-called “raft technique” as demonstrated at The University of the Virgin Islands (UVI) by Dr. James Rakocy et al.

The UVI project trials were never replicated (fact, despite protestations) but instead serially repeated (more-or-less, sort of) for approximately 25 years outdoors under annually and seasonally variable climatic conditions (i.e., precipitation volumes never acknowledged) and without any experimental control(s) whatsoever.  Zero experimental design, no contrast(s), factorials, falsifiability, merit, rigour, significance, variant(s), validity … with a cherry on top!

These facts ‘makes’ (establishes) the UVI program to have been a protracted (ntm Deified) “Demonstration of Concept” and NOT a scientifically conducted study, experimentation, research, nor a designed, elucidated, refined system.  This is not a matter of personal opinion, susceptible to conjecture, or a matter in dispute, but rather demonstrable fact.

To my/our knowledge and to date, no UVI/DWC ‘system’ (nor F&D either of that matter) has ever been subjected to (scrutinized, vetted, approved) or published in any peer-review, refereed scientific Journal of any field, with the sole exception of iAVs (here).   There are several valid reasons as to why not, being dominantly due to the meticulous, if not also calculated, total absence of acceptable (valid) scientific investigation methodology.

In the Sciences (including applied research, engineering, technology) self reporting (e.g., Press/media, Books (or chapter), Conference Proceedings, seminars, Symposia, websites/forums/youtube, Workshops, etc.) is not considered to be “Publication” in Science.  Self-reporting is instead principally viewed as self-promotion (biased, posturing, self-aggrandizement), notwithstanding the forthcoming inevitable wave of contrary argumentation.   Apparently, todaythe Internet’s vast reach, capricious integrity and hypervelocity is effectively consigning both convention and integrity in applied Science to oblivion … but I digress.

“There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance.”  ~ Hippocrates

High School level “Science Fair”, or “Show & Tell 2.0” pseudoscience and “Pop Science” are not deemed to be legitimate investigation, or applied research, development, explanatory, inquiry, validation, ‘proof’ of anything at all, or valid Science in any way, form or sense.

Neither is thaumaturgy or theurgy, AKA hocus-pocus mumbo jumbo gobbly gook gee wowamazingquantum awesomeness joo-joo. {BTW, I inherited Carl Sagan’s Invisible Dragon.  It now lives in my dungeon.  Private viewing can be arranged.  Tickets are limited.  Advance purchase required.  Gratuities welcome.}

The above holds as true of every UVI disciple, mimic, pretender, shill, supplicant and sycophant du jour to dateª , as it does across the entire spectrum of “Aquastrology© , without exception, and wholly regardless of the extent of expenditures in funds, time and ‘fluff‘ (evangelism, publicity, conjecture, fallacy, hype, spin, woo, … ) applied by the manifold purveyors of fantasy, predators on gullibility, sordid ‘seminarians’, and related merchandizing bandits.

The gross conceit as exhibited by hundreds of overt charlatans claiming certain knowledge related to so-called ‘Aquaponics’ is the very antithesis of Science, ntm of ethics, integrity, morality, and rationality.  This burgeoning manifest pretense of knowledge will never result/coalesce in viability of commercial/meaningful application.

happy bomb smileyQueue agitated screeching ape soundtrack!howling-monkey_1639768i

< MUTE >

“One can ignore reality, but one cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”  ~Ayn Rand

 

The ‘holy’ Styrofoam raft floated in a tepid bubbly bathtub ‘method’ of so-called ‘aquaponics’, as ‘commercially‘ propagated, promulgated and proliferating from UVI (and subsequently emergent variants hyped by aspiring profiteers, globally), is also referred to as Deep Water Culture (DWC).

There are MANY significant differences in method, biology and result between UVI/DWC and iAVs ; far too many, in fact, to attempt an elucidation here.

Basically, the UVI/DWC ‘technique’, when contrasted with iAVs :

  • costs more to implement (facility/area, materials, equipment, technology)
  • costs more to operate (energy use, labor and material inputs),
  • requires multiple externally sourced inputs other than fish feed and seed stocks,
  • requires continuous grid-electrical connection and supply chain access,
  • mandates the use of diversely-skilled staff/technicians,
  • is not nearly as efficient in resource utilization (wrt water, area, nutrient and in time),
  • is not nearly as productive – in terms of both nutritional and economic value produced,
  • the ‘vegetable’ crop species options are limited (constrained) to caloric-negative ‘leaf’ (herbaceous) species such as basil, kale and lettuce, all with very low nutrient requirements, minimal or negative food value and a high tolerance for root submergence (aka drowning).  The word “vegetable” is a culinary term, not botanical/scientific.
  • pollutes the environment through significant manufacturing, transport and disposal ‘costs’ (carcinogens) of polystyrene foam (etc.).

Any role for soil microorganism communities in nutrient conversions/element cycling is non-existent in the UVI/DWC approach. Terrestrial ecology is deliberately discounted and ignored; instead allegedly ‘met’ through various attempts at compensation/adjustment by investing in strings of specialty tanks and mechanical equipment coupled to automated electronic monitoring technologies, that in combined effect literally ‘feed’ (fill) sludge lagoons.  This is NOT ‘exactly’ edible, marketable, nutritious, pleasant, tasty, … nor remotely rational, IMO.   It’s not too difficult (for rational primates) to appreciate that “DWC” could coequally ‘stand for’ (describe) “Deliberate Waste of Crap”.

The net result is that UVI/DWC is nowhere nearly as efficient as iAVs is in either resource utilization or in food value produced per unit area, volumes, and (or) time.  Which is to say nothing of any alleged profitability in a commercial context or viability in a third-world village.

 [ ª Sure, I could easily be far more specific, i.e. cite individuals.  But willfully ignorant pretentious charlatans and sanctimonious addle pates with access to million dollar budgets can probably afford lawyers – and I can not!  Do note, “Turds float & stench rises.” If you’ve previously noticed this phenomenon, then you’re probably one in a million. ]

will starve 4 food                                              AnnCoulter_WillHateForFood

Where do you ‘fall’ along the continuum?

 

Now, for your dining delight, on to the GOOD ‘news’  …

In stark contrast, the iAVs is FAR simpler to create (establish), to operate (manage), with MUCH higher resource use efficiency and FAR greater productivity and thereby representing a highly significant potential for exceptional profitability.  Additionally, the iAVs excels in the production of high-value (in both nutritional and economic terms) fruit-bearing crops, such as Achenes, Brassica (cole spp.), Capsicums (peppers), Cucurbits (cucumber, melons, squashes), Legumes (beans, peas), Solanum (eggplant, tomatoes), and some root crops – in addition to all ‘greens’, culinary and medicinal herbs.

The graphic below compares UVI with the iAVs in several key productivity metrics, each of which clearly differentiates (distinguishes) the efficacy of the iAVs from the UVI/DWC method.  The UVI ‘data’ (reported result of a trial) applied in this comparison is, to our knowledge, the ‘best’ production result obtained at UVI in 25 years of repeated one-off trials.

The iAVs Lo-tech data (values below) were derived (reduced by 40%) from the productivity means (of 16 ‘systems’; 4 ea. at 4 v:v ratios) in repeated, replicated clinical trials (scientifically designed experiment).  The iAVs Hi-tech yields (below) reflect a 10% reduction of yields resulting from the USDA-sponsored iAVs Commercial-scale Demonstration Project conducted in 1992-93 by Dr. Boone Mora and Tim Garrett (both novice growers/managers).  All calculations (from an Excel spreadsheet, not shown) were premised on (derived with) the fish grow-out tank(s) set at identical volume.  Lighter color bar extensions to indicate the potential for further yield increases.   (source citation below graphic).

 

Relative Efficcy of iAVs

iAVs v. UVI Summary B

“With Lo-tech iAVs, each liter of water employed [‘system’ capacity plus (a high of) 2.5%/day ‘loss’ rate x 365] can produce, in fish and fruit, at least 0.7 g DW protein [6 g LW Tilapia, 2.8 g FW flesh], 7+ kilo-calories of food-energy, and most essential minerals and vitamins. This level of productivity is two to three orders of magnitude [100 to 1000+ times] more efficient in the use of water than open-field production in the U.S. (i.e., corn, soy, … and catfish, poultry, …).” ~ H.D. Gross, 1988.   Hi-tech iAVs (actually, moderate-tech) has already virtually doubled yields, with several ‘avenues’ available by which to provide further improvements.

With ‘wastes’ from low-density tilapia culture fertilizing Kewalo™ tomato, the 1989 iAVs crop at NCSU produced USDA Grade No 1 fruit at 61 kg/ m2/yr. (at 3 crops/year).  Summer 2012 Atlanta-area mean “Certified Organic” No. 1 vine-ripe 6×6 (large) tomato producer price (‘farm gate’) was US$6.26/kg (US$2.84/lb). This equates to US$380  m2/yr. at the iAV’89 yield.  April 10,2015 Atlanta-area wholesale terminal price for ‘Organic’ vine-ripe light-red-red medium, Florida” tomato was $5.85/kg (for US$357  m2/yr.).  May 1, 2015 Philadelphia terminal price for ‘Organic’ Vine-ripes 6×7 light-red, Ontario” tomato was $6.90/kg (in 5 kg flats) which translates to $421 m2/yr.

Unique local production factors and prevailing/seasonal market unit prices should be factored in at/for each location.  In general, all food groups globally are and will continue to increase in value, especially as water availability for agriculture is impacted by persistent drought in primary production regions.

In a modern commercial greenhouse facility, tomato grown as an annual crop and with CO2 supplementation, iAVfruit yield is projected at 80 kg/ m2/yr. or greater, equating to US$552+ m2/yr at May 1 US East Coast price. sold into the wholesale market (US$2.23 M/ac/yr, US$5.52 M/ha/yr, AU$7.18 M/ha/yr).

The above valuations are excluding the revenue from sale of fresh fish (and meal), any intercrops (numerous options), value-added processing or products, potential ‘branding’ premium, and direct marketing.  Other plant species can be equally productive in terms of market value achieved per unit area/time, as can specific cropping combinations and/or scheduling to exploit seasonal markets and/or niches (e.g., restaurant chefs, commercial vendors, hospitals, shop online, ‘Organic’ dip, salsa, sauce, … processors, etc.).

Two principle applications of the iAVs technology are readily apparent. One is as a small-holder activity using local inputs, providing food self-sufficiency plus a surplus for the cash market. A second application is as large-scale, commercial enterprise(s) sited near population centers. Either approach could be combined with ongoing water harvesting, gardening, or greenhouse projects, planned or already in place. This technology was expressly developed for and is eminently applicable to the requirements of regions where water and/or land resource availability are dominantly limiting to food production.

“Of all man’s miseries the bitterest is this, to know much and to have control over nothing.” ~ Herodotus

bubble foam smiley

 

Finally, a dishonorable mention for ‘the UGLY’  …

A comparison of iAVs’ proven productivity with ANY (all) other so-called ‘Flood & Drain’ -ponics is NOT even minimally possible.

This is due to:

1) a categorical absence of any reported metrics; methods, parameters, yields, et al. – anything by/from anyone, anywhere, whatsoever (TMK) – which presumes that any supportable claims could in fact be developed – and,

2) the prevailing, ubiquitous, abject, calloused, apparent, odious, and willful ignorance of the scientific method generally, and in regard to (for) biological and ecological systems research/clinical studies* specifically.  Empirically, this explicitly includes ALL of the ‘High Priests of Ponics’ and Cyber-Sect ‘leaders’ of “Aquastrology” lore and voodoo woo.

They know who they are.   You should too.

—————–

[* e.g.,  selection of dependent-/ controls on independent variables, proper (ntm an) experimental design, documentation, quantification of parameters, statistical analysis (assessing variance, confidence intervals, significance, etc.) ‘to say nothing of ‘ candidly reporting and publishing methodology and complete results accurately].

 

~ Mark R. McMurtry

tilapia school R411 Tom3 tilapia & vegies

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer         [ Fourth, it is corrupted, debased, perverted to impotent irrelevancy.]

you're welcome in sign language

 

 

Website Changes

The process of overhauling this site to provide a structured way to learn about (and to apply) iAVs is well underway.

Previously, iAVs.info was a pretty conventional blog site – comprising a collection of articles arranged by category and date of publication.  While it served as a repository of useful information, you had to know what you were looking for to be able to make the best use of the information – and some of you told us that you struggled with that.

The blog is no longer the point of entry to the site.  We’ve created a static home page which introduces visitors to iAVs in a structured way – starting with what it is, how it works and what it can do for those who use it.

Visitors are then encouraged to stream themselves – be they small-scale food producers, commercial operators or NGO/PVO/government agencies – according to their area of interest – so that we can best meet their specific information needs in the most timely manner.

We then set about organising the dozens of blog articles  that have been written over the past couple of years so that they became accessible to those who most needed them – without having to engage in lengthy searches.

Our goal is to expand the numbers of people who are using iAVs to grow food and, to that end, we’re now aligning the site content with its new structure.

It’s taken us 18 months to work out how to best assist people to grasp the ‘what, how and why’ of iAVs.  The current changes are about readying ourselves to roll it out to a much larger audience.

It goes without saying that you’re welcome to accompany us on that journey.

You can also stay up to date with iAVs by visiting our new Facebook Page – or ask questions and take part in discussions by joining the iAVs Facebook Group.  We’ll update the page – and the group – as we make further changes.

-o0o-