The Symbioponics Aquaponics Method - Final Draft 211042021

The SymbioponicsTM Aquaponics Method
1
The SymbioponicsTM Aquaponics Method –

A Precision Nutrient Mass Balance Method for Sizing & Managing Aquaponic
Systems
Wilson Lennard
Design and Layout by Wilson Lennard

Cover Design by Ben Spiby & Wilson Lennard
Published in 2021 by Wilson Lennard

7/2-4 First Street
Blackrock 3193
Victoria, Australia
Email: willennard@gmail.com
Internet: www.aquaponic.com.au
© Wilson Lennard 2021

Printed in Australia
All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part of
this publication may be commercialised, reproduced, photocopied, scanned, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of Wilson Lennard.
2
Disclaimer:
This eBook does not have any technical DRM restrictions and may be read on a variety of reading devices (PC, Tablet, e-
reader, Smartphone, etc.) by the authorised licensee (Roger Loper, rbloper01@gmail.com, 329 VZ County Road 1323
CANTON, Texas, United States 75103). Re-selling, uploading to the internet, copying, sharing, printing or any form of digital or
other distribution is prohibited. This eBook contains visible and invisible marks, including name, address, email address, phone
number and transaction code, by which illegal distribution may be traced. Legal action will be applied for any form of
unauthorised distribution of this product.
3
Acknowledgements:
As I said in my first book, Commercial Aquaponic Systems, my journey through the field of
aquaponics has been a long and interesting one which has been influenced and assisted by many
people.
In my first book I also thanked all of the researchers and academics who came before me and
provided such a sound scientific base from which I could work to develop my understanding of
aquaponics. I would like to include several contemporary researchers and educators for their
assistance and ongoing inspiration. Charlie Shultz has become an important figure within aquaponics
and has a fantastic pedigree within the space; thanks Charlie for helping me to understand that there
is no greater legacy in life than sharing knowledge. Nick Savidov is an inspirational aquaponics
researcher who continues his journey; thanks Nick for your constant support over the many years we
have known each other. Huy Tran has worked in the aquaculture and aquaponics industry for many
years and possesses a fantastic amount of knowledge; thanks Huy for introducing me and my work to
America. Simon Goddek is a European aquaponics researcher who I have much admiration for;
thanks Simon, we do not always agree, but you challenge me and that helps me to improve and I do
not think there is a greater compliment.
I would like to especially reiterate my thanks to my professional aquaponics mentor and friend, Dr
James Rakocy, who has been open and always sharing with his knowledge of aquaponics. He has
become an even greater influence in my life as a friend and for that, I am eternally grateful.
4
Preface:
In my first book I wrote: “Aquaponics is becoming one the fastest growing areas in the agricultural
technology production space. Even though aquaponics is becoming very popular, little, if any,
scientific or engineering knowledge appears to be currently applied to it. Despite this anomaly, many
small and larger aquaponics enterprises are being constructed and applied in the urban, indoor and
vertical farming sectors and unfortunately, many are failing. Many of these failures are due more to
the exacting economic conditions required to make small, urban farming enterprises viable
businesses. However, system technical design and management issues also represent a good
proportion of the reasons behind failure.”
I went on to add: “Another important aspect of aquaponics is the development and evolution of the
varying methods used to integrate fish production with plant production. Classically, the term
aquaponics is applied to fully recirculating system designs where the water used is completely shared
between the two major components (fish culture and plant culture). However, in the last few years, the
sharing of the nutrient resources available in aquaponic systems between the fish and the plants has
undergone a development towards other technical integration approaches and now the definition of
what is “aquaponic” has broadened to also include designs which are either non-recirculating (e.g.
using the waste nutrient streams produced by standard RAS to feed a plant culturing unit with no
return of water to the fish component) or semi-recirculating (e.g. using the available nutrient-rich
waters on a side stream loop).”
I believe these were, and still are, important statements to make concerning aquaponic technologies.
My first book was essentially about designing, engineering, constructing and operating commercial
aquaponic systems based on the UVI design or my small variations to it. One of the most common
comments that came out of my release of the first book was that I did not supply any real details
associated with my own, unique method to design and manage aquaponic systems. Therefore, I have
decided it is time to share some of the information about my method and its development principles.
The major struggle for me has been the question of whether I share the actual mathematical models I
developed over 12 years ago? My approach has been that I have developed unique information
(Intellectual Property – IP) and that I should have the right to try to use that information to provide an
income for myself. The drive to make an income from the information makes more sense when it is
5
understood that yes, I have an academic position within a University in Australia, but it is what is
known as an “adjunct” position; meaning I do not get paid.
I will be honest and say that the reality of this approach to protect the information I have, has led me
nowhere even close to my original expectations in terms of income generation! I have made little
income from my unique methods and have traded them sparingly, at best, over the last 12 years.
There are various reasons for this, but the largest is that I simply do not provide design and
management consulting services to many people at all. This is because I simply will not associate
with potential clients that are not prepared to educate themselves about the economic and business
situation they are proposing to enter. Basically, if a potential client cannot demonstrate to me that they
have a sound understanding of the economics of their proposed venture (via spreadsheet models,
such as Profit and Loss statements, costs of production analyses, capital requirement analyses,
depreciation models, etc.) or the business situation they are proposing to enter (via market analyses,
sales analyses, pricing analyses, etc.), then I openly communicate I cannot assist them and that I am
not the correct technical consultant for them. Because of my insistence that clients understand the
business side of things, I believe I turn away or lose over 95% of the people who ask me for technical
design services.
To extend the honesty, I will also openly admit I have a reputation for being “difficult”. Like anyone
with this sort of reputation, what I notice is that those I do work with mostly find me fair and assistive.
However, those I reject or criticise seem to be the ones who spread the reputation. I am hard on the
aquaponic industry and the people who work within it, no doubts. I would say I am not hard on the
farmers; they take great risks and so if I can assist, I try to. The people I am hard on are the ones
who have positioned themselves as “experts”, those that sell services to the industry (e.g. consultants,
system designers, etc.) and those that sell equipment, hardware and, well to be fully open, anything,
to the aquaponics market.
Most of my perceived “difficultness” comes from the fact that I do ask the hard questions, especially
when it comes to the business and economic side of aquaponics. I think the general feeling is that it
is not within a technical consultant’s business interests to turn people away due to economic
concerns, but I do and believe many more should. Selling fish (especially fish!) and plants from an
aquaponic production system to make a profit is difficult. I argued for years, and still do, that we see
hardly any small-scale (less than 1,000 m2 of plant growing area) standard hydroponic businesses
making money, so why should aquaponics at a similar scale be any different?
6
In addition, I work now in what could be called the large-sale, commercial aquaponics space (only
above 2,000 m2 – 1/2 acre – of direct plant growing area). What has occurred to me is that many
small-scale people are prepared to pay fair prices for aquaponic expertise, but when you enter the
large-scale arena, the people become pretty mean with their money, often to the point where they
would rather fail with aquaponics than pay me what I believe is fair. As an example, I have had
several potential clients in the USA who have approached me for design and management consulting
services for their large-scale aquaponic enterprises. None have become my clients, mostly because
they rejected my pricing; yes, and sorry I guess, I place a premium on the knowledge I have
developed over more than 20 years studying and practicing aquaponics. One company argued they
could get the design and management input they were after for a quarter of the price I stated, so I
suggested they try the cheaper price. After several heated discussions and attempts on their behalf to
get me to accept their price, we parted ways and they adopted the cheaper consultant. Suffice to say
that they lasted less than 12 months as aquaponic farmers and are now standard hydroponic
operators; acceptance of aquaponic failure to save a few bucks!
Finally, I believe I may assist my reputation for difficulty because I was basically taught to stand up for
myself, take no crap from anyone and if I believed in something, then I should follow that through.
This attitude, I have learnt, does not work well with the people “with the money” or the people who
believe they have a righteous pathway to make money from others, and who seem to believe they
know everything and should not apologise for anything! I guess, those attitudes or beliefs are
constantly and sadly, reinforced by the profit-driven, capitalist societies we all mostly live within.
To me, the requirement from me as a potential consultant, that the potential client is cognitive of the
financial situation they are entering, seems a fair request and approach. However, I receive varying
responses to my insistence on business and economic understanding from potential clients. Some
people thank me for assisting them to not economically walk blindly into a situation that always has
some proportion of risk. Many others berate me and say they want me for technical input and the
business situation they are entering, and any associated risk, is their responsibility and I should simply
provide what they want! I understand these attitudes to an extent, but in the end, I must also be at
ease with the way I associate with clients.
The overall outcome for me, as I say, is that I do not get too many clients, simply because most who
come to me are completely ignorant of the economic situation they are proposing to enter and to be
honest again, sadly, they do not really seem to want to know about it.
7
All of this has made me think in terms of how I may provide access to the knowledge I have for the
broader aquaponic industry, while remaining protected to some extent. I will not provide the complete
model that allows me to specifically calculate ratios and buffer recipes for any fish or plant species
combination. However, I will list (the Index) in this book, specific fish to plant ratio numbers and the
associated buffer formulation required to properly support the fish to plant ratio for the specific fish
and plant combinations, in a context of providing an idealised nutrient strength and mixture for
optimised plant growth, for a few common fish and plant species. I will also, in a short time, provide a
system sizing and buffer formulation service based on the application of my model, customised to the
client’s particular situation or requirements
The final hope is that this book may become something that is regularly updated to include more and
more combinations within the Index as time goes on, so that, at some future stage, almost any
conceivable combination is provided.
8
Contents
Acknowledgements: ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Preface: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
What is an Aquaponic Methodology or Model? ......................................................................................................................................... 11
The Importance of Scientific Proofing ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
The Reason ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2: History ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
The Starting Point ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
A First Iteration........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
The Final Method ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 3: Nutrient Strength, Nutrient Proportions & pH................................................................................................................................. 24
Nutrient Dynamics ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Aquaponic pH and Nutrient Strength – Comparisons to Hydroponics ....................................................................................................... 27
Are Hydroponic Standards Applicable to Aquaponics........................................................................................................................... 28
1. Fish feeds do not contain the same nutrient strengths or proportions that are optimal for plants ............................................. 31
2. Fish and plants have different nutrient strength requirements ................................................................................................... 33
3. Fish and plants have different pH requirements ........................................................................................................................ 36
4. Nutrient proportion (mixtures) in aquaponics is important .......................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4: How the SymbioponicsTM Model Works ......................................................................................................................................... 42
The Basics of the SymbioponicsTM Method................................................................................................................................................ 43
Managing and Buffering the SymbioponicsTM Model .................................................................................................................................. 46
The SymbioponicsTM Mass Balance Aquaponic System Component Sizing Sub-model............................................................................ 48
The SymbioponicsTM Nutrient Proportioning Buffer Formulation Sub-model .............................................................................................. 56
Chapter 5: An Index of Output Scenarios from the SymbioponicsTM Model .................................................................................................... 64
Why Release an Index and Not the Entire Model? .................................................................................................................................... 65
An Index of SymbioponicsTm Outputs for Common Fish and Plant Combinations ..................................................................................... 67
Some Notes on the Index and future System Sizing & Buffer Formulation Service .................................................................................. 74
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 75
References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 76
9
Chapter 1: Introduction
10
What is an Aquaponic Methodology or Model?
An aquaponic methodology or model is a specific way to design and manage an aquaponic system
which you construct. The best way to explain this is with an example. Everyone who has even a small
association with aquaponics has heard of the UVI system. The UVI system is a small-scale (200 m2 of
plant area) aquaponic system that was designed and constructed by Dr James Rakocy and his
colleges at The University of the Virgin Islands, in St Croix, Virgin Islands. It is called (named) “The
UVI System”, which in essence, accounts for two contexts:
1. The hardware context – the actual “system”; the hardware, tanks, grow beds, filters, pumps,
blowers, etc. all the equipment and how it is put together, and which makes up what is called
the “system”.
2. The methodology (or model) context – the methods, designs, ratios, etc. applied to the
“systems” design – the number of fish tanks, the type of filtration applied, the use of bird
netting mineralisation tanks, the fact that the approach requires specific inputs (method), the
fish feeding rate, the feeding rate ratio, the buffering methodology, etc.
Therefore, the UVI Aquaponics System is an aquaponic method or model, as well as being an actual
physical system design. You use the system design (4 x 8,000 L fish tanks, 2 x conical clarifiers, 2 x
bird netting mineralisation tanks, 1 x sump, etc.) and you apply the management techniques that go
with the system design (the feeding rate ratio, the number of fish, the number of plants or the growing
area, the buffer methods, etc.) and collectively, this is the UVI Aquaponic system, method or model.
The most important factor that distinguishes the UVI method or model, is the UVI Feeding Rate Ratio
(FRR). This feeding rate ratio is used to size the major two components of the system; the fish
component and the plant component. The FRR is quoted as being 60 – 100 grams of fish feed, fed to
the fish in the fish tanks, for each square meter of plant growing area, every day (60 – 100 g/m2/day).
The plant component of the UVI system (the hardware) uses a deep-water culture (DWC) method;
meaning the plants grow in floating boards on ponds of water.
There are essential, minimal requirements so that what you have constructed can be called “The UVI
System/Model/Method”:
1. You must use the UVI Feeding Rate Ratio (60 – 100 g/m2/day).
11
2. You must use a DWC plant culture component.

3. You must include the bird netting mineralisation tanks (or an acceptable analogue).
If you meet these three main criteria, you are essentially using the UVI Method/Model/System.
If you decide to change any of these major parameters or input requirements, you no longer have a
UVI system. For example, if you replace the bird netting mineralisation tanks with a drum screen filter,
it is no longer the UVI method! However, if you replace the bird netting mineralisation tanks with a
media up-flow filter that allows you to customise the cleaning frequency of the filter, it is essentially,
still UVI. If you change the FRR to anything outside of the 60 – 100 g/m2/day range, it is no longer
UVI; it is modified UVI. If you try to apply the UVI FRR to an NFT plant culture component context, it
is no longer UVI. I will stop there, but hopefully, you get the picture. The UVI system/method/model is
highly specific and if you change anything, it is no longer the UVI system/method/model.
I would even argue the UVI system is specific to:
1. Fish that consume 32% protein content feed at a similar feed conversion ratio (FCR) to the
Tilapia spp. applied in the UVI system.
2. A buffering regime based on the UVI system buffering method (equal parts K and Ca-based
buffers – and importantly, the actual buffer species UVI uses, and added chelated Fe).
This means that if you use Calcium carbonate instead of Calcium hydroxide, it is not UVI. This is
because Calcium carbonate has a different buffering capacity than Calcium hydroxide and therefore,
you require more Calcium carbonate to produce the same effect on the pH as you would if you used
Calcium hydroxide and therefore, with Calcium carbonate you also add more Calcium to the system. It
also means that if you use a fish that eats a feed with any other protein content, it is not UVI. This is
because the overall amount of nitrogen released as a waste by the fish is completely dependent upon
the protein content of the fish feed, so anything other than a 32% protein content will produce a
different nitrogen concentration in the system water.
Why am I so specific about the UVI model? Because it is a specific approach to integrating fish and
plant culture that, if done as it was designed, will provide specific and predictable fish and plant
production outcomes. However, if you move away from the standard UVI design and management
parameters (e.g. you use a media bed as a solids filter rather than a bird netting or similar
12
controllable solids filter and mineralisation device), you will not achieve the same outcomes and from
my experience, most of the time those outcomes are less efficient. The excellent thing about the UVI
method is that it also has an in-built system to account for different plant species. The FRR is set to
plant growing area. Plants grow at different densities; e.g. tomato may be 1-3 plants per square
meter, lettuce may be 30 plants per square meter, etc. The higher amount of nutrient a single larger
tomato plant uses, compared to a single lettuce plant, is roughly accounted for by the fact that you
can keep many more lettuce plants per square meter than you can tomato plants.
I am pretty tired of seeing people argue that they have “improved” the UVI system/model/method.
People replace filters, especially the bird netting filters, and argue they have produced a better result
than UVI. Or they lower the fish numbers held and therefore, also lower the daily fish feed input and
again, argue they have produced a better result. Of course, no one argues their case by actually
supplying any scientific or fish/plant production data? They just make statements like “I have removed
the bird netting tanks and added a drum screen filter, and now I have improved the UVI system”. Of
course, this sort of argument completely ignores the fact that the bird netting mineralisation tanks are
an important nutrient control device within the UVI system/design.
There are other aquaponic models or methods available. One that comes to mind that has been
broadly adopted within the small-scale, commercial aquaponics sector is what was labelled the “hybrid
approach/method/system/model”. Low-tech aquaponic systems that consist of media beds that filter
solids, supposedly mineralise those solids “in-system” and provide biofiltration surface area, and DWC
tanks to grow the bulk of the plants. This is a less-exacting model, but it still has approximate design
principles. And, I am sure there are other models/methods/principles/approaches around.
The Importance of Scientific Proofing
The UVI model has been very well studied and much of that study was to establish the biological and
chemical credentials of the method, but also, to establish the productive rate of the method. Scientific
analyses have allowed Dr Rakocy and his team to establish production rates for the fish in the system
(about 5 MT or 5,000 kg per year) and the specific plants chosen (the production, of course, varies
with plant species). And, many different plants have been cultured in the system. Therefore, you
13
simply go to the UVI literature and you can find the expected plant production outcome for a number
of different species.
For my own Symbiponics method, I have also done laboratory and field trials to establish fish and
plant production rates. Fish, because in Australia I cannot legally access Tilapia spp. and therefore,
must use local, native species (Barramundi, Murray Cod, Perch spp, etc.) and these fish eat feeds
with higher protein contents and require far more exacting water quality than Tilapia spp. do. Plants,
because I wanted to compare my specific aquaponic method to standard hydroponic plant culture and
have an understanding of the expected plant production rate of the method.
Therefore, these two methods (UVI and Symbioponics) have scientifically verified plant production
rates for a number of species of plants established for them.
Why is this important? Because, all technologies require a “standard” to be set. This is especially true
for agricultural technologies, because farmers (growers) need to be able to compare the plant
production outcomes of any new technology to existing technologies. For example, standard
hydroponic culture has become very popular with large-scale horticultural crop farmers, only because
scientists did experiments and trials that demonstrated and reported the growth rates of the plants
using the hydroponic method and also demonstrated these plant growth rates were far better than
those achievable in soil culture. Farmers are far from being stupid people; in fact, they are some of
the smartest people I have met. Established farmers are NEVER convinced by new technology sellers
(salespeople) unless they have access to plant production data that demonstrates the plant growth
rate of the technology.
If you are questioning the relevance of production trial results for mainstream farmers, ask yourself
why existing hydroponic farmers do not adopt aquaponics more broadly? There are several reasons
of course, some to do with plant farmers not wanting to grow fish. But, the number one reason I hear
from hydroponic farmers is that aquaponics is simply not proven in terms of plant production rates. It
may be possible to “sell the dream” of owning your own aquaponic farm to someone new to
agriculture with lots of pretty pictures on the internet and a well-rehearsed sales spiel, but you won’t
get away with that approach with a proper farmer! They want the data, and nothing changes for them
unless that data is forth-coming, representative and obtained over extended growing periods
(representing “real world” growing situations).
14
This is why proper scientific growth trials and “proofing” are so important to the broader aquaponics
industry. No one in mainstream agriculture will take aquaponics seriously unless you communicate
with them in the language they regularly use or expect; production data!
I believe it is broadly known that I am an opinionated person who is especially sceptical of the
broader aquaponics industry. Opinionated and somewhat, “out there and in your face” in terms of
expressing those opinions, because I do not see much by way of actual proof being provided by the
aquaponics industry. I mostly see inexperienced people entering the industry and either selling
systems or training packages of “their designs”, with zero scientific data back-up to prove that what
they are saying in their sales pitches is true! I definitely see zero plant growth or production rate data
coming from the vast majority of people selling “aquaponic dreams” to inexperienced people searching
for a lifestyle change via the adoption of building an aquaponics farm.
The outcome of this little rant (sorry – deep set psychological issues have developed after years of
banging my head against the “brick wall built by aquashysters”) is that scientific proofing is
paramount. If it is not available, then there is no other argument in an agriculture context that justifies
any alternate aquaponic method.
The Reason
The reason I have written this book about my own Symbioponics model, is because many people ask
me how they may access it? I developed my aquaponic method to try and have something available
to me which I could trade and attempt to make an income from. As I said above, things have not met
the original expectations. Probably more importantly, I have a deep passion for aquaponics, and I
want to share the knowledge I have in the space with anyone who believes it may be appropriate to
their own aquaponic farming situation. And, I want to share this knowledge because I want to see the
aquaponics industry grow and hopefully, flourish. I also think aquaponics is an important half-way
point to broader integrated, multi-trophic farming systems and will assist to inform the development of
more complex and integrated farming systems and methods.
For these reasons, I decided to try and find a way to share some of the knowledge I have acquired
via the development of my own aquaponic method; the SymbiopnicsTM method. Finally, I have always
15
freely admitted the name is rubbish, but I am a scientist, not a marketing expert (unlike our current
Australian Prime Minister, who “spins a good yarn” as we say, but rarely follows through!), so it will
stay this rubbish name.
16
Chapter 2: History
17
The Starting Point
My aquaponic journey began around 1996 when I saw a television story about aquaponics on an
Australian television science program. I cannot even remember who they spoke to, but I do know it
was a small, backyard style system using a fish tank and simple media (gravel) bed technology
located in the USA. At the time I was working as a freshwater ecologist, performing research into
freshwater aquatic ecosystems, especially the effects of pollutants on aquatic macroinvertebrates
(insect larvae), fish and macrophytes (aquatic plants). One of those pollutant classes was nutrients;
mostly nitrogen and phosphorous outflows into suburban wetlands in Melbourne, Australia (my place
of birth and The Most Liveable City in the World award winner for many years in a row!). I also had a
short research background in aquaculture prior to becoming a freshwater ecologist, where I studied
the reproduction of the Australian freshwater crayfish species, the Yabby (Cherax destructor), so the
seeds were sown, as they say.
I studied all I could about this technology and of course, quickly found my way to the work of Dr
Rakocy and his team at UVI. By the time we were all worrying about the Y2K bug destroying our
modern, technology dependent lives, I was writing a research proposal to study aquaponics
scientifically. I did not get the research grant, but the agency (Australia’s Rural Industry Research and
Development Organisation – RIRDC for short), offered me a PhD scholarship. I will be openly honest;
I had no real interest in doing a PhD. This PhD caper was the land of nerds and back then (unlike
now), nerds were, well…… nerds! However, the reality was that the scholarship was one of the better
paid ones in Australia, lasted at least 3 years and the stipend was income tax free. On doing the
comparison to my research assistants wage at the time (always do an economic analysis!), if I did the
PhD I would take home about $30 a week less than my wage at the time, so I thought what the heck,
and decided to do it.
I wanted to build a large UVI style/sized system at the University (RMIT University in Melbourne), but
while I had a pretty good student stipend to live off, I only had about $1,500/year for research
infrastructure and consumables. The university was supposed to assist me with additional funds, but
only ever contributed $1,500 across the entire 3.5 years I studied and that went towards lighting
infrastructure they thought could be used again in the future. In fact, I think my project was seen as
being “fringe” in terms of its importance and running endless molecular biology assays and PCR’s
was seen as money better spent by the Department! Due to the funding issue, I therefore decided to
design and construct a replicated system so I could perform a series of experiments to isolate specific
18
parameters and hopefully, optimise the fish and plant production outputs of the system. In hindsight,
this was the best decision I made because it allowed me to do replicated trials with statistical
analyses and led to the beginnings of the development of my method.
Figure 1: Images of the replicated aquaponics set up I constructed for my PhD work.
The individual aquaponic units I built were simple in design, but also flexible. They consisted of a
round fish tank (100 L) with an air-lift driven biofilter above it (12 L of media – polystyrene “bean bag”
balls; cheap!) that was covered, but contained a breather for gas exchange, a media grow bed (about
0.7 m2), a submersible 50 W water pump (to pump water to the grow bed) with a timer and a return
pipe (for water flow from the media bed back to the fish tank). There were 12, separate but identical,
aquaponic units and all were located inside the aquaculture laboratory that was a temperature-
controlled room. Above the grow beds I installed six 400 W metal halide lamps; one lamp at the
interface of two grow beds and approximately 750 mm above the grow bed surfaces. My own fan
19
from home was also used to provide ventilation for the plants and it was all held together with copious
amounts of gaffer tape and silicone sealant. That was it!
I used the same fish species (Murray Cod) and lettuce variety (Green Oak) in every experiment I ran,
of which there were about 12. In the end, only 8 of these experiments made it to the thesis I
produced and submitted.
The idea was to isolate individual parameters and test them to try and optimise them. I did an initial
experiment where I compared the basic aquaponic set-up to a hydroponic control (for plant growth
comparison) and to a fish control (for fish growth comparison). I then looked at things like the
hydroponic technology applied (media v DWC v NFT), flow rates through the media, flow rates
through the NFT, flow rates through the DWC, the pH level, the starting nutrient level when plants are
added, the buffering regimes (3 experiments in all) and several other key parameters. At the end, I
chose all of the best outcomes, combined them and compared this “optimised” aquaponic system to
the original system. The overall outcome was that I saw large improvements in plant performance
(growth) and nutrient removal rates.
I finally converted the 12 individual systems into one larger system and performed a 12-week trial of
the optimised methodology I had developed via the individual parameter experiments. I won’t go into
all the details, but the plants grew as fast as they did in the hydroponics and I optimised the
aquaponic system to the point where 97% of the nitrogen added via the fish waste was removed by
the plants. I also improved plant water use and lowered the transpirational rate substantially (a
measure of plant health and efficient nutrient uptake).
One of the interesting outcomes was that I demonstrated that with plants present, you could
potentially save up to 90% of the water used by a fish-only system (RAS analogy - no plants) when
compared with a modelled 10% RAS system water replacement rate (10% of the water is removed
and replaced daily, to control fish waste nutrient accumulation in standard RAS). This was interesting,
because it is my belief that it was someone’s misinterpretation of this result that led to the often
quoted “Aquaponics is up to 90% more water efficient than other production systems”. In fact, as I
say, this was a complete misinterpretation of the result. The outcome was that the water replacement
applied to fish-only (RAS) culture systems could be improved by up to 90%, because the plants will
remove the nutrients that demand that water exchange in a fish-only context. However, as I say, this
was taken by someone within the burgeoning retail aquaponic sector and misinterpreted to mean that
20
aquaponics was 90% more water efficient than other plant growing technologies (i.e. soil culture) and
was then universally applied as a major argument for the adoption of aquaponics. A good
demonstration that the aquaponics industry may easily adopt misinformation and propagate it to a
point where it becomes “accepted fact”, when in fact, it is nothing of the sort!
The important information from my PhD was that which was associated with the nutrient dynamics of
the system; basically, how can you balance fish waste outputs with plant nutrient uptake? I modelled
nutrient mass balancing in my experiments, but only for nitrogen. My various experiments allowed me
to model nitrogen removal rates by plants because I tracked nitrogen in all of my experiments and the
data from several allowed me to produce an association between fish feed input and nitrogen uptake
by the plants. This was then taken even further by modelling this association with the input of other
important fish feed parameters, such as several inputs based on the formulation of the fish feed,
certain fish metabolism parameters (e.g. FCR – a measure of feed use efficiency) and fish waste
production rates.
The research I did for my PhD was motivated by an important scientific argument, that was actually
informed by an economic reality. I had noted that a large proportion of the capital required to build a
UVI aquaponic system was spent on the fish component (greater than 50% in my economic
modelling), but less than 20% of the revenue was generated via fish sales. I found this a poor
economic prospect; why spend 50% or more of your money on fish growing infrastructure and
ongoing costs, when you realised less than 20% of your sales from that component? So, the actual
“hidden” agenda of my PhD was to optimise the aquaponic system so I could lower the number of fish
required (and the FRR) as much as was possible (in a nutrient balance context), so that I could lower
the capital outlay and ongoing costs of production spent on the fish component, to try and convert
things back towards a more acceptable economic balance between the cost of fish culture vs the
sales revenue generated by those fish. This was the entire point of my PhD; to develop a new sizing
model so that I could lower the fish component size so the cost of the whole aquaponic system
reflected more closely the revenues it produced.
In the end, the association was modelled mathematically with an r2 value of greater than 0.9; which is
pretty good in terms of the predictability of the mathematical equation. It was this nitrogen dynamics
association which was the starting point of my own aquaponic design and management method,
which I developed over the several years that followed my PhD.
21
Another interesting observation I made was that a couple of years later (2008), Jim Rakocy and Nick
Savidov visited Australia and we all went on a speaking tour of the country organised and financed by
Geoff Wilson from Queensland. At that time, I had constructed the first stage of my commercial
aquaponics farm about 50 km north of Melbourne, which Jim and Nick visited when I had an
aquaculture industry open day. A couple of interesting things happened on that open day, which
about 90 people attended. Firstly, I showed my aerobic mineralisation tank to Jim and Nick and my
memory was that Nick said he had been doing the same thing; looking at mineralising fish waste
solids to add them back into the system. The second interesting thing that happened was that my
business partner “discovered” someone inside our fish room, rifling through my desk and taking
pictures of my notes. Suffice to say, this was highly disappointing and went some of the way towards
my sceptical attitude towards anyone within the aquaponics industry. It did, however, show me I may
know something important in the aquaponic space!
A First Iteration
By the time I designed and built my commercial farm system (2007), I had developed the first iteration
of my method. I had my sizing mathematical model, which I had developed beyond just nitrogen and I
had the first stage of my management regime which complimented the sizing model in a way that
tried to ensure that as many of the nutrients required for the plants, came from the fish waste.
A key development to this method working was the adoption of the fish waste solids mineralisation
method I integrated into my farm. The first version of this mineralisation bioreactor was an old bathtub.
I collected all my solid fish wastes (from the swirl sedimentation filter and the screen filter) and added
them to the bathtub where I applied aeration for some weeks, then decanted off the supernatant once
the solids had settled (after the aeration was turned off) and returned the clarified liquid to the main
aquaponic system. The results were immediate, and the plant growth accelerated with no signs of
nutrient deficiency.
It was these nutrients, liberated from the solids and added back to the aquaponic system, that allowed
me to lower my fish requirement even more, compared to the UVI system. I also had fish that
required a high protein feed (43%), so that assisted me to lower the fish requirement too. I applied
this first model to the farm and had very good technical success. We won’t talk about the business
22
success (or lack thereof); suffice to say, it was an extremely steep learning curve in a business
context over those 3 years!
The Final Method
Over the years that I ran the farm and tried to understand business, I developed the final approach
which became my Symbioponics method. This took the nutrient dynamics modelling much further and
took the mathematical equation used to size the fish and plant components and integrated it into the
final management regime. It also integrated the aerobic solids mineralisation process to try and use
as many of the nutrients the fish released as possible. This was all done by 2009 and in early 2010, I
used the method to design a trial facility in New Zealand where I was able to compare my aquaponic
method to a standard hydroponic control in a real farm greenhouse situation; work which could never
have happened without the complete financial support and much respected friendship of Ashley
Berrysmith and his Berrysmith Foundation, and the commercial hydroponic herb farm where the trials
were located, Tasman Bay Herbs.
The outcomes of these trials have been published in several articles and a scientific paper. What they
show, in a nutshell, is that the method can grow several hydroponic lettuce varieties and several
different herb species at growth rates that equal, and often better, those of a comparable hydroponic
method. They also show that the quality of the aquaponic herbs produced, was equal to, and often
better than, the quality produced by the hydroponics. All of which was a pretty satisfying outcome.
After these confirmation trials, I finalised the method and packaged it as the mathematical model and
associated management regime and have used it since in only a few commercials situations. As I said
above, it is the reality that I possess terrible marketing and sales skills, to the point where I have had
little idea of how to use the knowledge I have to my own financial advantage, and the fact that I will
only work with people who demonstrate a sound understanding of the financial situation they are
entering, that has led to the point where I think it is time for me to provide at the least, some form of
pathway for people to use the outcomes of my method if they wish to do so.
23
Chapter 3: Nutrient Strength,

Nutrient Proportions & pH
24
Nutrient Dynamics
The absolute crux of how any aquaponic system works is associated with how the nutrients flow
around the system and are shared between the life forms present (nutrient users – fish, plants and
micro-organisms). Nutrient dynamics is one term that may be used to describe the sharing and cycling
of nutrient resources between different life forms and environments. In an aquaponics context, it refers
to the nutrient resource sharing and proportioning between all the life forms that inhabit an aquaponic
system and the associated environments; where those nutrients come from and where those nutrients
go (whether to life forms or environments).
It is an all too common misconception of many in the aquaponic industry that aquaponics is about the
equipment or hardware involved. You hear and read all sorts of comments about how this piece of
equipment or that sort of filter, etc. is essential to a proper aquaponic outcome. This is simply not
true! Yes, the filtration applied is very important to ensure the water is suitable for the fish to live
within. Yes, a correctly sized pump allows correct water flow rates to ensure proper water quality for
the fish and plants. But there are many choices in terms of equipment and while some basic
requirements need to be met, there is ample scope for choice in the equipment applied.
Figure 2. Graphical representation of the major nutrient flows in an aquaponic system (fully recirculating and de-coupled).
25
What aquaponics is really about is nutrient dynamics; how and what amounts of nutrients enter the
system, what organisms use those nutrients, what organisms release nutrients via waste products,
what organisms require in terms of nutrients, how some organisms convert nutrients and within what
organism or environment do those nutrients ultimately end up? Equipment assists to facilitate the
production of a suitable environment for the organisms an aquaponic system contains, but ultimately,
it is the dynamics of the nutrients that is what aquaponics is all about. More importantly, it is the
nutrients that allow us to determine the ultimate balance between the fish and plants within the
aquaponic system.
And here is probably the most important statement in this document:
With the above in mind, it should be pretty clear, that any aquaponic sizing method that does not
concentrate on nutrients, will never lead to a predictable, repeatable or efficient outcome.
What this means is that methods that use volume to volume (e.g. fish component volume to plant
component volume ratios), surface area to surface area (e.g. fish component surface area to plant
component surface areas ratios), volume to surface area ratios (or the opposite) (e.g. fish component
volume to plant component surface areas ratios, or the opposite), number to number (e.g. fish number
to plant number ratios), weight to weight (e.g. fish weight to plant weight ratios) or number to weight
(or the opposite) (e.g. fish number to plant weight ratios, or the opposite) or any similar, non-nutrient
based ratio, cannot truly provide a good sizing outcome for aquaponic systems. I know nutrient
dynamics is a complex subject, but these simple ratios that are not based on nutrients are not
sufficient for a good commercial aquaponic outcome.
The dynamics referred to hear are associated with where those nutrients initially arise from, how they
may be transformed, what may perform the transformations and what utilises the resultant nutrients.
This may be further broken down into the nutrient inputs we add to the system in the form of fish feed
and supplements, the nutrient inputs that arise from the surrounding, associated environments (e.g.
the air and sometimes the source water), the nutrient utilisation and releases (as wastes, or other) of
the fish, the nutrient utilisation and transformations associated with the resident micro-organisms and
the nutrient utilisations and releases of the plants.
It would be and most likely is, reasonable to assume that the nutrient webs associated with aquaponic
systems are highly complex. Aquaponic nutrient webs and dynamics could therefore be interpreted as
26
being something that would be too complex and difficult to tackle. However, in a commercial
aquaponic context, much of the complexity may be avoided when the ultimate goals are concentrated
on; the ultimate goal being to meet the nutrient requirements, in terms of strength and concentration,
of the plants, to enable the maximal productive rate achievable.
When concentrating on the adequate provision of nutrients for the plants (via fish feed input, fish
nutrient conversion, fish waste production and additional nutrient supplementation) in a commercial
aquaponic context, nutrient dynamics becomes the most valuable and arguably, essential tool to
enable optimised and efficient plant production, which may lead to financial viability and success. I
have spoken with a couple of the newer scientists in the field of aquaponics research lately and they
are starting to follow a similar research track associated with nutrient dynamics modelling in
aquaponics systems. However, I must say, it has been endlessly frustrating to me that many of the
people associated with the commercial aquaponic industry, especially those that design systems,
have not, and still mostly do not, concentrate on this reality.
Aquaponic pH and Nutrient Strength – Comparisons to Hydroponics
Aquaponics applies or utilises two distinct production components; a fish component and a plant
component. One of the most common arguments seen in a broad cross section of aquaponic thought
is that there is an inherent compromise within the aquaponic method because:
1. Fish feeds do not contain the same nutrient strengths or proportions that are optimal for
plants (i.e. the fish feed produces nutrient strengths and mixtures that are not ideal for the
plants).
2. Fish and plants have different nutrient strength and mixture requirements (i.e. fish prefer to
live in nutrient strengths well below those that plants prefer to have access to).
3. Fish and plants have different pH requirements (i.e. many of the freshwater fish cultured in
aquaponics like a pH of approximately pH 7.2 – 7.8, whereas hydroponically cultured plants
mostly prefer an acidic pH of about 4.5 – 6.0.
The first point is that all of these arguments are true, to a degree! However, the context within which
they are made is a different matter. Let me elaborate by concentrating on the overall premise that
27
hydroponic nutrient and water chemistry standards are applicable to aquaponics and on each outlined
point/argument above separately.
Are Hydroponic Standards Applicable to Aquaponics
Scientists like precedents and they like to be able to compare what they are doing to other, related
disciplines; this is good and healthy scientific practice. Most operators (system designers, system
owners, farmers, etc.) seem to like that scientists produce this sort of information too, as it is a sound
way to make decisions on whether a particular technology is worth further consideration or ultimate
adoption. In the field of aquaponics, the two major technologies of comparison are recirculating
aquaculture systems (RAS – the controlled culture of fish in tank systems with applied filtration and
water chemistry control) and hydroponics (the controlled culture of plants in an environment whereby
the nutrition supplied for plant growth is held within a water medium).
RAS science and industry, both of which are well-developed, with relatively long associated histories,
provide a large, well-defined set of standards to design and operate fish-only culture systems. These
standards are associated with how systems are designed (especially in a hydraulic engineering
context), how systems are managed (production cycles, feeding rates and cycles, water quality, water
chemistry, etc.) and what production outcomes may be expected (how many tonnes of fish you get
from a farm/system in a known time period). In terms of engineering (fish tank size and shape, fish
tank outlet structures, solids filtration devices, biological filtration devices, oxygen maintenance
systems, additional water treatments – e.g. UV sterilisation, etc., lighting requirements, pipe size
requirements, water chemistry/quality monitoring, etc.), good aquaponic designers and operators
follow these RAS standards. Well, some follow these standards! If I have to have another discussion
with anyone about the advantages of circular fish tanks in terms of water quality and solids removal
over square or rectangular tanks, I think I may go completely insane (or more insane than I already
am!). This means that aquaponic system designers have a suite of excellent information available to
them for the design of fish components for overall aquaponic systems.
Fish feeding and production cycling and planning is also provided to an excellent level of
understanding by the RAS industry. So again, aquaponic designers have a wealth of information
available to them to enable them to design systems with fish feeding and production outcomes in
mind.
28
Finally, RAS scientists and industry have developed a set of standards for the water quality
associated with fish-only, RAS style culture. For many freshwater fish, standards for dissolved oxygen
(D.O.), ammonia/ammonium sensitivity, nitrite sensitivity, nitrate sensitivity, pH requirement and
several more water quality parameters are fairly easy to find and therefore, apply in an aquaponic
context.
In general, most aquaponic proponents now accept these RAS standards and try to apply them to
their aquaponic design and management criteria.
Hydroponic science and industry, both of which are well-developed, with relatively long associated
histories, provide a large, well-defined set of standards to design and operate plant-only, hydroponic
culture systems. Like RAS, these standards are associated with how systems are designed
(especially in a hydraulic engineering context), how systems are managed (production cycles, water
quality, water chemistry, etc.) and what production outcomes may be expected (how many tonnes of
plants you get from a farm/system in a known time period). In terms of engineering (sump sizes and
locations, dosing pump and controller configurations, hydraulic/plumbing structures, solids filtration
devices, sterilisation devices, oxygen maintenance systems, lighting requirements, pipe size
requirements, water chemistry/quality monitoring, hydroponic structure size and shapes – NFT
channels, DWC beds, substrate culture gutter systems, etc.), good aquaponic designers and
operators follow these standards. Well, again, mostly follow these standards!
Hydroponic scientists and industry participants have developed a set of standards for water quality
associated with plant-only, aqueous inorganic nutrient supply culture. For many plant species and
varieties, standards of dissolved oxygen (D.O.), nutrient mixture and strength (EC), pH and several
more water quality parameters are fairly easy to find and therefore, apply in an aquaponic context.
Unlike RAS, where most of the standards appear to be applicable to aquaponics, the question,
however, for aquaponic proponents is, are these hydroponic standards associated with the water
quality requirements of plants, applicable in an aquaponic context? And, to be more exacting about
this point, the specific questions appear to be:
1. Is the pH standard associated with hydroponic plants applicable to an aquaponic context?

2. Is the nutrient mixture and strength standards associated with hydroponic plants applicable to
an aquaponic context?
29
These main questions will be answered more specifically below. However, I think it is important here
to point out the major differences between hydroponic plant culture as a system when compared to
aquaponics.
Hydroponics works by providing the plants nutrients in a form that is easy for the plants to directly
uptake; charged, ionic, aqueous, dissolvable nutrients. Small molecular structures (often single or
double atoms) that are charged (positive or negative) that plants have the ability to directly and easily
transport into themselves. These nutrients are provided by adding salts (a simple structure of a
positive ion attached to a negative ion in dry, solid, non-aqueous form that dissolves in water).
Essentially, the plants require nothing else to access these nutrients and use them to grow, so
hydroponic systems are designed and operated to discourage any other life form other than the
plant(s) being cultured and therefore, employ sterilisation techniques to stop any and all microbial
growth. It’s simple, you place the plants in the system, you provide the nutrients they require by
dissolving said nutrient salts into the water and you provide access to that water for the plants. The
plants uptake the nutrients and grow. There is no need for any microorganisms that normally
associate with the plants when they are being grown in a natural soil system, so they are excluded
via a form of water sterilisation.
The plants have specific requirements for mixtures and strengths of these nutrients and hydroponic
scientists and industry have done much work to determine the best nutrient mixes and strengths for
individual plant species. Recipes are developed and become industry standards that almost everyone
applies. For example, in reality, there is little difference between the nutrient mixtures and strengths
applied by almost all hydroponic tomato growers; they seem to follow a well-developed industry
standard in this respect.
Scientists and industry operators have also determined the most efficient pH for nutrient access for
the hydroponically grown plants. Again, this can differ between plant species and varieties, but often,
the pH required in hydroponics is more associated with the availability of the nutrient, in the water, to
the plant, rather than any specific plant preference for root zone pH. For much of hydroponic plant
culture, this pH lies within the acidic zone; below a pH of 7.0. To be more specific, a generalised
range that covers almost all hydroponically cultured plants is between a pH of 4.5 and 6.0.
The outcome is that hydroponics has developed industry standards for optimised and efficient plant
production outcomes in terms of nutrient mixture, nutrient strength and water medium pH.
30
The point of contention, especially for me, is when these hydroponic standards are automatically
assumed to be applicable to aquaponic culture systems.
Aquaponics is completely different to hydroponics in terms of plant culture. The approach of

aquaponics is to not sterilise everything so the only living thing in the system is the plant! The
approach is what I refer to as “the ecosystem approach”; a method to encourage and develop a
biologically diverse community (an ecosystem) that is made up of a good mixture and balance of the
organisms that would normally be found within a soil-based system and that have evolved to assist
the plant with nutrient access, uptake and utilisation.
The analogy is a modern soil farming system that uses a lot of herbicide and pesticide to kill off all
the “problem” plants and animals in the soil and adds copious amounts of fertilisers in almost basal
forms for the plants to feed on, as opposed to an organic or biodynamic soil farming system where
the approach is to develop soil biology and diversity and add more complex fertilisers (e.g. manures,
organic matter, etc.) that the biology assists the plant to access, uptake and utilise; sterilised
wasteland system vs biodiverse system.
So, the two systems (hydroponics and aquaponics) are very different and act very differently in a
biochemical and biological context and therefore, I believe it is completely appropriate to question
whether the application of hydroponic standards to aquaponics, specifically in terms of pH and nutrient
strength, is appropriate?
Let’s look at the specific points:
1. Fish feeds do not contain the same nutrient strengths or proportions that are optimal for plants
Fish feeds are formulated and produced for one important and specific outcome; to grow fish! The
nutrients included in the fish feed are put in there to meet the requirements of the fish. Therefore,
there should be no surprise that fish feeds do not necessarily produce fish waste nutrient profiles that
are well matched to the plants being cultured. The nutrient profiles produced in aquaponic system
water by the fish feed that is fed to the fish being cultured is a huge subject and requires a book in
itself! However, I think most people with some aquaponic knowledge know there are two major fish
waste streams that can provide nutrients to the aquaponic water; the dissolved fish wastes (those
31
wastes that cross the fishes gills and are directly dissolved into the water) and the solid fish wastes
(those wastes that are produced in solid form and are excreted via the fish intestine). In early
aquaponic systems and models (e.g. the UVI system), a good proportion of the nutrients within the
solid fraction were not utilised. In recent years, the mineralisation (or re-mineralisation) of the fish
waste solids to release the nutrients they contain has also become popular and is applied to provide a
broader mixture of nutrients for the plants. Even when nutrients are released from the fish waste
solids and used in the aquaponic system, in average terms, the mixture of nutrients that comes from
the fish feed is still not correct for most plants.
As Dr Rakocy and his team identified many years ago, the most important nutrients that plants require,
but are limited in fish feeds, are Calcium (Ca), Potassium (K) and Iron (Fe). Because many modern
authorities now place Phosphorous (P) limits on wastewater arising from fish farms, many modern fish
feeds also limit Phosphorous content and I would argue that Phosphorous has joined the original UVI
list. Dr Rakocy and his team found a solution to this nutrient limitation by using base species (buffers)
that raise the pH, while also transporting these limited nutrients into the system (e.g. KOH –
Potassium hydroxide and Ca(OH)2 – Calcium hydroxide). The limitation of fish feeds to provide
concentrations of Calcium, Potassium and Iron (and other nutrients) also occurs if fish waste solids
are mineralised and therefore, a requirement for a form of nutrient supplementation is still present.
The extent (i.e. the amount or proportion of nutrient supplementation) or type (i.e. what type, form or
species of supplemented nutrient) of nutrient supplementation is varied and like many things in the
aquaponic discipline, up for substantial debate.
The fact that fish feeds do not contain the correct nutrients for plants in an aquaponic context is an
argument used by some proponents of certain aquaponic system designs, one example being some
de-coupled designs. Please, do not get me wrong here, I have absolutely no issues with de-coupled
aquaponic designs; in some contexts, they make complete sense and I have always advocated for
their application when appropriate. However, I am also happy to make it clear that I do not agree with
the argument that de-coupled aquaponic system designs are inherently “better”, “more efficient” or
“more productive” than traditional coupled (fully recirculating) aquaponic system designs, simply
because they provide some sort of perceived pathway to account for the fact that fish feeds do not
contain the “ideal” nutrients for plants in a more exacting manner (i.e. that nutrients may be more
exactingly configured in the plant component of de-coupled designs because they allow more nutrient
manipulation).
32
As I have said above, the nutrients in fish feeds are not ideal for many plants, but this does not mean
that the aquaponics method cannot account for this to some extent (i.e. the assistance to plant
nutrient uptake and utilisation by the resident microbial flora in aquaponics appears to make the
nutrient deficiencies of fish feeds less of an issue in aquaponics) and it certainly does not mean that
one particular type of aquaponic design offers the only pathway to specifically adjusting or controlling
the available nutrients available to the plants in the aquaponic system.
For the record, I believe nutrient mix (proportions) is crucial to any aqueous nutrient delivery method
(hydroponic or aquaponics) and so while I believe hydroponic standards are not the “be all and end
all” of nutrient delivery to the plants in an aquaponic context, I still believe they have an important
place and that hydroponic nutrient mixture standards can be indicative and helpful in aquaponics.
However, I also believe that the standards of nutrient strength applied in hydroponics are not
applicable in an aquaponic context, as there appears to be evidence that aquaponics works as well
as hydroponics, at far lower nutrient strengths.
The hope I have is that it is understandable to you that my method allows, and compensates, for the
fact that the fish feeds do not inherently provide the idealised nutrient mixtures for the plants being
cultured as standardised by hydroponics and that we can all accept that aquaponics has the ability to
work as efficiently as hydroponics in terms of plant growth, at lower nutrient strengths than the
standards set by hydroponics.
2. Fish and plants have different nutrient strength requirements
What we have just discussed above is the fact that fish feeds do not contain the nutrients mixtures
that are ideal for plants, when you use hydroponics as the reference standard, but that I believe I
there are available methods where we can account for this. Therefore, we have created the context
whereby in this section we can concentrate on the point of “fish and plants have different nutrient
strength requirements”.
Nutrient strength is a measure of concentration (the weight of a nutrient in a known volume of water,
for example; a weight per volume relationship or concentration) and fish feeds mostly have a water
content that means they are easy to be made into pellets (meaning they can be effectively considered
dry, for the sake of the current argument). Therefore, in a dry pellet, the concentration is actually
33
weight per weight (i.e. the weight of a nutrient in a known weight of pellet). Therefore, this makes it
less than easy to compare fish feed concentrations to aqueous plant nutrient concentrations. However,
what is important here is the resultant nutrient strengths (concentrations) that are required for the
optimised culture of aquaponic plants and their comparison to an assumed hydroponic standard. So,
we may concentrate our discussion on the resultant concentrations of fish waste nutrients in the
aquaponic water (that arise from the fish feed fed to the system), their comparison to the standards of
nutrient concentrations developed by the hydroponics industry and whether that is an acceptable
comparison and ultimate standard for aquaponics.
As we have seen above, hydroponic scientists and operators have spent many years refining the
nutrient strengths they apply. The hydroponic concentrations used now are based on the experiments
and trials that have demonstrated the realisation of excellent plant production outcomes and it cannot
be denied that the hydroponics method produces excellent plant production outcomes.
The concentrations of specific hydroponic nutrients recommended, for the specific plant varieties
grown in hydroponics, are based on experiments and trials that have used ionised hydroponic
nutrients that are highly available to immediate uptake by the plants. However, aquaponics only
produces some nutrients in this immediately plant available form (e.g. nitrogen as nitrate - the fish
release ammonia across their gills which immediately dissolves into the water and is quickly converted
via the nitrification process to nitrate – a charged ion that is immediately plant available). The majority
of nutrient species are released from the fish in organic forms that are bound within the solid waste
fraction (Phosphorous, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulphur, as a few examples), although some
of these are also released, in lower proportions, in the dissolved fraction as well. These organic, solid-
bound nutrients require additional, often microbially-mediated, processes to transform them into plant-
available forms.
As I have argued above, the presence of a complex and diverse microbial community in an aquaponic
system appears to be the major difference present that allows plants to grow just as well as they do
in hydroponics, but at far lower nutrient strengths (or concentrations). Please note I have stated
“appears”. This is because this effect of microbial assistance to plant nutrient uptake in aquaponics is
still a hypothesis that has not been categorically proven or disproven scientifically to my knowledge.
What is known is that, with all things as equal as possible, aquaponic systems have the ability to
grow plants just as quickly and to a similar quality, as hydroponics can. So, there is equality of plant
34
production, but a distinct difference in the available, measurable nutrient concentrations in aquaponics
when compared to hydroponics.
The basic question is therefore, why should hydroponic nutrient concentration (strength) standards be
applied to aquaponics, when it is fairly clear that aquaponics can provide the same plant productive
outcome, at lower nutrient concentrations?
This idea that hydroponic concentration standards are applicable to aquaponics, and therefore, the
concentrations used in hydroponics should be copied in aquaponics and applied as the standard to
“strive” for, is an argument often cited. Some argue, for example, that a de-coupled method allows
greater plant nutrient manipulation, and this allows the system to develop hydroponic plant nutrient
concentrations close to, or even identical to, those applied in hydroponics. The argument then further
suggests that this ability to develop hydroponic nutrient concentrations means you get a better plant
growth outcome. However, and again, there is actually no scientific evidence to categorically prove
this hypothesis, yet it appears in the scientific literature very regularly and is used as an argument to
demonstrate that one method must be better than another aquaponic method.
Why is this argument for trying to copy hydroponic nutrient strength standards at all important when
there appears to be enough evidence available to demonstrate that aquaponics can work at nutrient
strengths lower than those applied in standard hydroponic culture? To me, this appears to be a “self-
fulfilling prophesy” style of argument; if we argue that hydroponic nutrient strength standards must be
applied in aquaponics to achieve the best plant production outcomes, this then supports the argument
that one aquaponic methodology is better than the other because one aquaponic methodology allows
a far greater ability to manipulate nutrient strengths (concentrations) for the plants to meet that
hydroponic standard. However, if you argue that hydroponic nutrient strength (concentration)
standards are not required in aquaponics, because sufficient evidence is available to demonstrate that
low concentration aquaponics still grows plants as well as high concentration hydroponics, then there
is no available argument to support that one particular aquaponic method is better than another.
So why are these hydroponic standards applied and used as a standard for plant production in
aquaponic systems?
35
3. Fish and plants have different pH requirements
Freshwater fish like a pH in the slightly basic range of around 7.2 – 7.8. Yes, there are some
freshwater fish that like a slightly higher pH and yes, there are some that like a slightly lower pH, but
this range of 7.2 – 7.8 meets the pH requirements of the vast majority of the fish grown in aquaponic
culture. If you apply hydroponic standards, as we have seen above, the plants like a slightly acidic pH
range of between about 4.5 – 6.0. Again, this does not represent all plants, but the vast majority
grown in hydroponic culture. However, as we have also seen above, this slightly acidic pH range
requirement for the plants is based on the hydroponic culture standard and is more associated with
the availability of the ionic nature of the nutrients present in hydroponics, rather than a specific root
zone pH requirement of the plant. Basically, hydroponics has established that when you feed plants
ionised nutrients, the most efficient pH for plant nutrient uptake is within the slightly acidic range of
4.5 – 6.0.
As we have also seen above however, aquaponics is a different method to hydroponics and appears
to rely on the presence of microbes to assist and facilitate plant nutrient uptake, rather than the direct
ionic nutrient uptake associated with hydroponics. As we have also seen above, aquaponics appears
to be able to match the plant growth rates of hydroponics, even though relatively higher pH’s are
employed (i.e. a pH that is based on the requirements of the fish; around 6.8 – 7.4).
Again, the basic question is therefore, why should hydroponic pH standards be applied to aquaponics,
when it is fairly clear that aquaponics can provide the same plant productive outcome, at higher (close
to neutral) pH levels?
Like the arguments put forward for nutrient strength, this idea that hydroponic pH standards are
applicable to aquaponics, and therefore, the pH ranges used in hydroponics should be copied in
aquaponics and applied as the standard to “strive” for, is another argument often cited. The basic
argument is that some aquaponic methods allow greater pH manipulation for the plant component (i.e.
to make the plant component pH lower than that of the fish component) and therefore, this allows the
system to develop plant component pH levels close to, or even identical to, those applied in
hydroponics. The argument then further suggests that this ability to set plant component pH levels
closer, or identical, to those applied in hydroponics, means you get a better plant growth outcome.
However, and again, there is actually no scientific evidence to categorically prove this hypothesis, yet
36
it appears in the scientific literature very regularly and is used as an argument to demonstrate that
one aquaponic method must be better than another aquaponic method(s).
A de-coupled design method will allow the pH of the water within the plant component to be lowered
to a slightly acidic level, similar to that used in hydroponics; no doubts. However, the question present
is: why is this at all important when there appears to be enough evidence available to demonstrate
that aquaponics can work, and the plants grow well, at pH levels higher (e.g. 6.8 – 7.2) than those
applied in hydroponics (e.g. 4.5 – 6.0)? To me, and again, this appears to be another “self-fulfilling
prophesy” style of argument; if the argument is that hydroponic pH standards must be applied in
aquaponics to achieve the best plant production outcomes, then this supports the argument that one
aquaponic methodology is better than the other because one aquaponic methodology allows a far
greater ability to manipulate pH within the plant component. However, if you argue that hydroponic pH
standards are not required in aquaponics, because sufficient evidence is available to demonstrate that
close to neutral pH levels still grow plants as well as low hydroponic pH levels, then there is no
available argument to support that one particular aquaponic method is better than another.
I am, of course, open to counter-arguments, as any scientist should be, but from what I am currently
seeing, the arguments for the application of hydroponic standards to aquaponics in terms of nutrient
strength and pH simply appear to be present because they support the adoption of a particular
aquaponic method, rather than any sound scientific evidence that demonstrates that these hydroponic
plant production standards actually produce better results within an aquaponic context.
Until scientists can scientifically demonstrate that the application of hydroponic standards for nutrient
strength (concentration) and pH to aquaponics produces better plant production results than the lower
strength (concentration) and higher pH environments mostly seen in aquaponics, then these are mute
arguments that mean little and simply confuse matters for everyone.
4. Nutrient proportion (mixtures) in aquaponics is important
I believe I have put a sound case forward above for why the standards of hydroponics associated with
nutrient strengths (concentrations) and pH levels are not entirely applicable in an aquaponic growing
system context. And, I have also explained that fish feeds are designed for the nutrient requirements
of fish and therefore, should not be expected to produce fish waste streams that will ideally meet the
37
nutrient requirements of the plants, which eventuates in some form of supplementation being required
within an aquaponic plant growing context.
The confusion (maybe shock to some!) may come when I say that the nutrient mixture standards of
hydroponics, when applied in an aquaponic plant growth context, do have a place. Why should that
be? Why should I argue against hydroponic standards for nutrient strength and pH in an aquaponic
context, but advocate for nutrient mixture alignment?
I have provided the argument that, when done correctly, there is evidence available that suggests that
the plant growth and quality standards achievable with the hydroponic method may also be achieved
with aquaponics. This I have then argued supports the claim that hydroponic standards for nutrient
strength (concentration) and pH are not applicable to aquaponics. However, I do believe that nutrient
mixture (and more specially, nutrient proportion) is important no matter what method you use;
hydroponic or aquaponic.
It is well known and accepted that plants require a suite of elements (nutrients) to meet their health,
growth and quality (in a farming context) requirements. There is no shying away from the fact that
plants require Calcium, for example, for important cellular and metabolic processes (e.g. to build cell
walls). I could outline all the other essential plant nutrient requirements and associated plant benefits,
but I believe all understand this. The important point is that minimal individual nutrient requirements
are present for plants and must be respected to achieve efficient plant production outcomes. Yes, the
argument is that, within an aquaponic context, with the assistance of a cornucopia of microbes, the
ability exists to grow the plants well at lower nutrient strengths and more neutral pH, but you cannot
ignore that if a particular nutrient is not present, the plant will suffer. This is why all aquaponic
systems apply some form of nutrient supplementation to some degree. For those “backyard” or “hobby”
aquaponics growers who argue the opposite, please remember that we are speaking in a commercial
context here and so the expectation is commercial production rates and plant quality.
The important questions for me at this point are:
1. How can I minimise the supplementation required (because the driving force behind what I do
is to try and achieve the required plant growth as much as possible from the nutrients present
in the fish wastes ONLY)?
38
2. How do I determine what supplementation is required (just as Dr Rakocy and the UVI team
did with Calcium, Potassium and Iron)?
3. How do I formulate my supplement (i.e. what is the “recipe” for my supplement)?
4. What is the addition pathway for my supplement (how do I add it)?
Minimisation of supplemented nutrients is the key factor for me as it is my driving philosophy that
aquaponics should strive to grow plants with as little external nutrition as possible. I know that the UVI
model supplements somewhere around 20% (by weight) of the nutrients required for plant growth, so I
always wanted to be more efficient and that is what has driven my exploration of new methods.
As an interesting side note: the most efficient European de-coupled designs still require 40 – 50%
external nutrient supplementation! For me, these designs are impressive in an applied technology
context, but they are still not as efficient at nutrient cycling as the UVI system. So, I guess, for me, my
response is “what is the point?”. I can accept that all of the wastes from the fish are utilised; this is of
course, a good thing. What I cannot understand is why 50% or even 40% external nutrient
requirement is acceptable? When one of the salient arguments for aquaponics and broader integrated
agriculture is that we need to stop using mined and manufactured nutrients, because they have an
environmental impact, why is lowering the requirement for them from 100% to 50% really that much of
a gain? They still need to be mined or manufactured and 50% is still a huge amount. Now, lower the
requirement for external nutrient supplementation to less than 10% and I believe you are on to
something important (e.g. Nick Savidov’s work)!
The pathway to addition is simple; the UVI team have already provided me with a method – simply
supply additional nutrients via a buffering (base addition) regime. Why try to reinvent something that I
truly believe is one of the most elegant technical solutions in an aquatic plant culturing context?
How do I determine what supplementation is required? Nutrient dynamics – which will become more-
clear below. And, how do I formulate my supplement? Again, we will see below.
However, on the final point of how I formulate my supplements, this where nutrient proportioning
(mixtures) comes into play. The strength (concentration) of a particular, single nutrient in aquaponics
may be lower than in hydroponics. However, the amount of that particular, single nutrient, when
compared to other particular, single nutrients is of more importance I believe. This is because plants
require and use less or more of a particular single nutrient because they have access to a certain
39
amount of another nutrient and evolved an association to these nutrient proportions. The presence (or
absence) of one nutrient, can affect the plants ability to uptake a nutrient. In addition, there are clear
precedents for some nutrients competing with other nutrients in terms of plant access (nutrient
antagonism). Therefore, nutrient proportioning is really important and so let’s look at an example to try
and illustrate what I am suggesting.
Two important plant nutrients are Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorous (P). If we look at a standard
hydroponic lettuce mixture (Resh, 2013) as an example, formulated by prominent hydroponics expert,
Dr Howard Resh, we see that the suggested concentrations of Nitrate (NO3-) and Phosphate (PO43-)
are 190 mg/L (ppm) and 50 mg/L (ppm). This means Dr Resh has determined that he needs about 4
times as much Nitrate as Phosphate in the mix. This proportion follows similar ones in the solution
mixes of many other lettuce nutrient solution formulators (see Table 3.6, pg. 52-53 of Resh, 2013).
The important point is not the actual strength (concentration) of each nutrient, it is the proportion of
each to the other. This is because, on average, lettuce likes to use about 4 times as much Nitrate as
Phosphate to grow; it simply requires a higher proportion of Nitrogen because it has cellular and
metabolic requirements that call for more Nitrogen. The lettuce plant has evolved to optimise growth
when there is 4 times as much Nitrate as Phosphate, so there is a relative expectation in the plant’s
metabolism for that N:P ratio to be present and available. If we look at Magnesium (Mg) in the same
mix, we see lettuce requires about the same proportion as P. If we look at Calcium (Ca) and
Potassium (K), we see it requires about 2 times that of N. And so on for all the other essential
nutrients required to grow lettuce.
The proportion of each nutrient to the others is not based on what concentration of each makes the
plant grow the most efficiently, it is based on the relative amounts of each nutrient to the other
nutrients the plant requires, and this is based on what proportion of each nutrient the plant eventually
stores in its own tissues, uses to make up (build or incorporate into) its own tissues or what
proportion of each nutrient it requires for its other metabolic processes.
The relative greater importance of nutrient proportioning as compared to nutrient strength

(concentration) is one of the things that allows the aquaponic method to grow plants just as quickly as
hydroponics, but at far lower nutrient concentrations. The hydroponic plants do not have any microbial
assistance, so they require higher concentrations of the nutrients than do aquaponic plants. However,
in the end, each plant, whether hydroponically grown or aquaponically grown, requires the same basic
proportion of each nutrient to all other nutrients so it can build its tissues, store nutrients and use
40
nutrients for metabolic processes as efficiently as possible. As an illustrative example, if the NO3:PO4
ratio is 6:1 instead of 4:1, and the plant runs out of Phosphate, it does not matter how much Nitrate is
present, it will no longer be used by the plant as efficiently, because it also needs the Phosphate to
be present to do so. Therefore, it is not the concentration of Nitrate that is important, but rather, it is
the proportion of that Nitrate to the available Phosphate that is important, as the optimal proportion
produces continued and efficient plant uptake of both.
So, with microbial assistance, the aquaponic plants grow well with lower water-based nutrient
concentrations because the microbes make the pathway to nutrient uptake more efficient. But, for
both methods (aquaponics and hydroponics), the plant still requires the same relative proportion of
each nutrient to all the other nutrients so it can meet its minimal nutrient requirements for tissue
construction, storage and metabolism. Therefore, it is the nutrient proportions (mixtures) that are
important in both hydroponic and aquaponic methods and this is why nutrient proportioning is critical
to aquaponics.
In the end, my Symbioponics method works by applying nutrient proportioning; ensuring that all
required plant nutrients are present in correct proportions to each other for the particular plant species
or variety being cultured. And, of course, it relies on the resident microbes to make plant nutrient
uptake as efficient as possible via the mechanisms and interactions that have evolved over millions of
years between the two groups of life (microbes and plants). It does not rely on meeting the standards
of nutrient strength (concentration) or pH as set by hydroponics, because I believe there is enough
precedent available to demonstrate that these parameters are simply not as important.
41
Chapter 4: How the

TM
Symbioponics Model Works
42
The Basics of the SymbioponicsTM Method
The Symbioponics method uses a total nitrogen balancing approach as a starting point. “Total
nitrogen balancing” and “starting point” are the operative terms, because unlike other nitrogen
balancing approaches that rely on active nitrate concentration determination only (i.e. direct testing of
system water nitrate concentrations - which never represents the total amount of nitrogen in the
system, but only that nitrogen represented as nitrate), my method balances total nitrogen that enters
the system (i.e. the totality of all of the nitrogen that enters the system via the fish feed added), tracks
that nitrogen to where it ends up (i.e. either in the fish, microflora, system water, plants or released to
the surrounding atmosphere) and maps that nitrogen that leaves the system (i.e. in the fish and plant
products, and to the atmosphere) via a mass balance calculation. In addition, nitrogen balancing is
simply a “starting point” and many other factors go towards achieving the final nutrient balancing
model. To achieve this I have developed a mathematical model that relies on several inputs based on
the formulation of the fish feed, certain fish metabolism parameters and fish waste production rates, to
allow one to balance the nutrient requirement of any particular species of plant with the nutrient
production rate of any particular species of fish (or more importantly, the particular fish feed eaten by
that particular fish). Nitrogen is used as the calibration nutrient, simply because it is the most common
and abundant nutrient that arises from the fish wastes. Therefore, the method may provide a design
sizing outcome for any plant species and any fish species and any combination of both; essentially,
system design sizing based on any fish and plant combination chosen.
This sizing calculation/model is only the first part of the approach because I then tailor the nutrient
solution formulation (in terms of nutrient mixture/proportions) to match the ideal nutrient formulation for
any plant species or any group of plants, chosen to be cultured. The important point here is that it is a
nutrient formulation (i.e. proportions of all nutrients relative to each other) that is being achieved and
that formulation is based on the idealised nutrient proportions found in standard hydroponic nutrient
formulations; strength (or concentration) of nutrient has far less to do with it! This makes sense when
you have experienced the fact that plants grow just as well within an aquaponic context as they do
within a hydroponic context, even though the aquaponic nutrient strength (concentration) is far lower
than that of the hydroponic nutrient solution.
There is now some scientific evidence to support the fact that plants will grow at the same rates in
aquaponics as they do in hydroponics, even when aquaponic nutrient strengths are far lower. I will
also say that not all aquaponic system designs are created equally and therefore, some aquaponic
43
designs can match hydroponic plant growth rates, and some cannot. Despite this variation however, it
is an established idea that aquaponics works at lower nutrient strengths than hydroponics to provide a
similar plant growth outcome.
All aquaponic systems seem to work at differing nutrient strengths; some work at nitrate
concentrations above 100 mg/L and others work at nitrate concentrations below 10 mg/L. There are
various reasons for this, the most important being that aquaponics encourages microbial presence
and activity which in-tern, assists the plant to access nutrients in plant-usable forms via various
mechanisms. Whatever the reasons, aquaponics works very well within a broad range of nutrient
strengths and therefore, nutrient strength does not appear to be anywhere near as important in
aquaponics as it is within hydroponics. The qualifier to all of this is that I have done experiments that
clearly demonstrate that some basal nutrient is required to optimise plant growth in aquaponic
systems (Lennard, 2005) and while there are many stories of aquaponic systems being run in
backyards where “…the plants are growing and healthy with zero nitrate being recorded in the
water…”, the reality is that for commercial situations, some basal nutrient concentrations will assist the
farmer to achieve optimal plant production rates.
Therefore, my method provides a specific, approximate outcome that is stated as the number of a
particular species of plant that can be supported by a particular daily fish feed input. This is different
to the UVI method, which states a FRR range (e.g. 60 – 100 g/m2/day) for any and all plants to be
cultured and therefore, is not at all specific. My method will also output a customised buffer (base)
formulation that ensures the correct nutrient balance for the particular plant species or varieties
chosen.
In practical terms this means:
1. The daily, total fish feed input weight is known – this then allows you to partition the daily
fish feed weight among all the different sizes of fish you must grow to achieve a true
rotational fish production outcome (i.e. fish may be harvested at regular intervals – daily,
weekly, monthly – whatever the market and business structure determines is ideal).
2. The total number of plants you can grow is known – this then, like the fish, allows you to
partition the total plant number among the different growth stages to achieve a true rotational
plant production outcome (i.e. plants may be harvested at regular intervals – daily, weekly,
monthly – whatever the market and business structure determines is ideal).
44
3. The daily water quality management (based on the use of a correctly engineered design)
system is as simple as adjusting the pH to maintain it at the desired level via the addition of
a suitable daily input weight of the customised buffer formulation (same as UVI).
Knowing all of the above three parameters then allows you to size and design the entire aquaponic
system so you may achieve optimised fish and plant production outcomes with minimal external
nutrition. Of course, you may start at either component. You may start by saying “I wish to grow X
amount of fish per year; what is the size of the plant component I require?”, or “I wish to grow Y
number of plants per year; what size fish component do I require?”.
This is a more exacting method than UVI and unlike other methods (like the alternate nitrogen
balancing method discussed above) that add substantial amounts of external nutrients to the
aquaponic system or separated plant component, it relies on keeping any supplementation to an
absolute minimum (with the nutrients arising from the fish waste often being greater than 90% of the
total nutrient supply to the plants). This is achieved via an associated management approach that
allows the control of the nutrient mixture and strength in the system water. In addition, the
management approach allows the nutrient formulation of the water to be changed, strengthened or
weakened, or the actual proportion of nutrients to be changed, at any time so that the nutrient
formulation of the water may be customised to any environmental condition or any seasonality that
may be experienced. For example, if the farmer decides they require higher nutrient concentrations in
winter to counteract the lower solar radiation levels, they may increase the overall nutrient
concentration in the system. Or, if the farmer decides to grow a different plant, they simply supply a
new, customised buffer formulation that matches the new plant nutrient proportion requirement.
The method has been laboratory tested in standard, regular conditions (20o C air temperature, 12:12
light full spectrum, required light strength and cycle, and 55% humidity). The method has been field
tested (i.e. applied to a real world, practical aquaponic situation at small commercial scales) for a
number of leafy green plant species and results in both situations (lab and field) have demonstrated
that the predictive model and associated management method provides real world outcomes that are
within plus or minus 10% of the outcomes predicted by the model. The method has also been
compared in a semi-commercial trial context against standard hydroponics for plant production rate
(growth rate) and plant quality, with outcomes that confirm that growth rates match, and sometimes
better, standard hydroponics and plant quality also matches, or betters, those produced by standard
hydroponics (Lennard & Ward, 2019).
45
The method also allows any fish species that is suitable for aquaponic, tank-based culture to be used,
no matter what the make-up or content of the feed it requires. This means high protein consuming or
low protein consuming fish species may be used and the customised nutrient formulation for the
plants is still able to be supplied. Scientific trials at both the laboratory scale and small commercial
scale have both confirmed that fish production rates equal those of standard RAS aquaculture.
All solid fish wastes are utilised via an external and controllable aerobic re-mineralisation process that
releases most of the nutrients held within the solid fish wastes and allows them to be added back to
the main aquaponic system for complete plant utilisation; an approach I have been applying since
2006. Water addition is only required to top-up that which is lost from the system via plant
transpiration and water use has been demonstrated to be as low as 0.5% of the system water volume
on a daily basis in certain environmental situations. For example, the method was applied to a
commercial aquaponic system in Melbourne, Australia (one of Australia’s first commercial aquaponic
systems, commissioned in 2006) and that system ran continuously for over 3 years without any active
water removal required. Therefore, with full solids utilisation and zero system water release, the
approach realises almost zero nutrient-related environmental impact.
Managing and Buffering the SymbioponicsTM Model
Because the Symbioponics model is more exacting than other aquaponic models and allows for the
establishment of specific nutrient formulations that may be matched to the plant species grown, the
approach requires slightly more involved management. Like the UVI model, the daily requirements
have been limited to allow ease of management and use by the adopter and this has been achieved
by producing an approach with all the requirements built into it that establish and maintain the nutrient
levels and mixtures. Daily water tests, for example, amount to the same pH determination that the UVI
model relies on. The system, of course, requires daily fish feed addition, regular fish addition and
harvesting and regular plant addition and harvesting, also just as the UVI model does. In addition, like
the UVI model, when the system is being established and commissioned, it requires regular ammonia
(NH3/NH4+), nitrite (NO2-) and nitrate (NO3-) determination for the first few weeks to track nitrification
establishment.
46
The major difference to the UVI model (and other aquaponic models) is that a regular full system
nutrient analyses is used to determine the nutrient mix and strengths present so that the nutrient
solution may be adapted and made more efficient over time. You will notice here that I do say
“strength”. Even though I have previously argued that nutrient strengths (or concentrations) associated
with hydroponic standards are not necessarily applicable in aquaponics, there is still a requirement in
commercial culture for the presence of nutrients to a minimum strength. Research I have conducted
soundly demonstrates that a difference in plant growth is seen when minimum Nitrate concentrations
fall below 25 mg/L (Lennard, 2005). So, while the standards of nutrient strength in hydroponics may
not be applicable in aquaponics, this does not mean a minimum nutrient strength is not applicable to
achieve the best plant production outcomes. By regular analysis, I mean every 2 - 3 months, which
whilst regular, is not often and only adds a couple of hundred dollars per year to the operational cost
of the system. This full system nutrient analysis allows the tracking of nutrient proportions within the
system and assists to identify any individual nutrient that may be used by the plants at uptake rates
lower or higher than the model predicts and thus, the regular analysis assists to apply an ongoing and
“live” calibration of the systems nutrient mixtures so optimal plant performance may be achieved.
Apart from these regular full nutrient analyses (which I would recommend for any aquaponic system
anyway, even a UVI system), the only other tests performed are daily pH (for buffer addition
determination), daily dissolved oxygen (D.O.), daily water temperature (and air temperature in any
system without full environmental control) and weekly electrical conductivity (EC) tests. Temperatures,
DO and pH are standard applied monitoring in an aquaculture context and should always be a
minimum for any RAS style system.
There is an amount of debate associated with the use of EC as an active test in an aquaponics
context, related to the argument that aquaponic nutrients are “organic and not charged”, so EC does
not read the total nutrient load in the system (EC only reads charged ion presence). This is true to an
extent. However, established and stable aquaponic systems generally present a consistent ratio of
charged to non-charged nutrients and therefore, once this ratio is established and predictable, EC can
be used as a measure of total plant available nutrient and can be a valuable management tool.
The difference of my model is that more exacting scrutiny is placed on, and applied to, the upfront
sizing of the main system components (i.e. the fish and plant components) and the designing of a
specific management approach for each different plant species. The sizing model itself allows the
customising of several different and important input parameters to provide a specific and customised
47
output in terms of component (fish and plant) sizes. This component sizing is integrated with proper
rotational production cycles for both the fish and plants. The model does not lend itself to batch
culture techniques, in either the fish or plant components. The entire idea is to design a production
system that regularly produces fish and plant crops; an approach which generally matches market
requirements. The sizing model is integrated with a fish production plan model that outlines the
production planning based on a chosen harvest frequency for the fish; daily, weekly or monthly. The
plant production plan is similar and allows for the planning of daily, weekly or monthly plant production
outputs. Most importantly, these fish and plant production plans are linked to a fish feeding plan that
spreads the total daily fish feed requirement of the system (based on the daily fish waste production
required for the plants) across all the fish tanks and different cohorts of fish. The ultimate purpose of
this fish feeding plan is to ensure that the resident nutrient strengths and mixtures are maintained in
as even a manner as possible, so that plant production is as even as possible and therefore, more
predictable. This leads to a more exacting and predictable outcome in terms of water nutrient
strengths and mixtures, fish production and plant production.
The SymbioponicsTM Mass Balance Aquaponic System Component Sizing Sub-model
The overall model consists of several sub-models that apply a set of calculations that lead to
providing the final outcomes. These sub-models and calculations provide an array of information that
may contribute to the overall design and management of the system. The model was written to match
my particular system design approach and therefore, many of the additional outputs may not be
required by other designers (but I would argue should be!). The screen shots I have included here
(below) do not show all the available outputs; just the important ones.
The first main outcome that is provided for the sizing design of the two main components of the
aquaponic system is the relationship (ratio) of the number of plants that may be supported by the
average amount of fish feed added to the system each day. It does not matter which is the initial,
major control parameter (i.e. the amount of daily fish feed or the desired number of plants) as the
model may be used “either way”, so to speak. For example, a client may tell me they wish to produce
a known number or weight of fish each time period (day, week, month or year) and the model will
then provide the plant number that may be supported. Or, the client may say they want to produce a
48
known number of plants per time period (i.e. day, week, month or year) and the model will then
provide the average daily fish feed input required.
Of course, being provided with a basic parameter outcome such as the daily fish feed input or the
plant number supported is simply a starting point for the rest of the system design and a lot more
work is required from this point onwards. Output information associated with the daily fish feed input
vs the number of plants supported is the most important of all, because this basically provides the
data required to design the size of the two main components of the aquaponic system (i.e. the fish
and plant components). This is analogous to the UVI feeding rate ratio, which again, if you possess,
can be used to design an entire aquaponic system. Any good aquaponic designer worth her/his salt
should be able to easily design a full system from these two basic pieces of information.
A quick outline at this point may assist to understand this fact that two pieces of key information allow
complete system design and engineering. If additional information or understanding is required, then I
would recommend you read my other book, Commercial Aquaponic Systems, which outlines the full
design process in more detail.
Let us say, by way of a hypothetical example, a client approaches me and has decided that they want
to produce 1,000 lettuce heads per week to meet their market demand. You will notice that I have
started with the plants as the key determinant. This is not a random decision. From an economic point
of view, most people understand that the majority (usually the vast majority) of the profits generated in
an aquaponic system come from plant sales, so it makes sense that the required plant production rate
would be the most important driver for the design of the system. I am not trying to be rude here (and
apologise if you feel I am being rude), but if this previous sentence does not make sense to you, then
I would recommend you have a long way to go before even considering aquaponics! An additional
point I wish to make here is that it should be a sound business plan, economic analysis, marketing
and sales analysis that informs this initial decision when sizing any aquaponic system.
So, we have a plant production requirement of 1,000 lettuce heads per week. We still require much
further information to enable even an initial sizing of the system components. This required additional
information consists of (and again, should be known, as it is provided by the business plan, economic
model, etc…):
49
1. Which lettuce variety? (different plant varieties use different nutrient mixtures and grow at
different rates). For this example, I am assuming a Cos (Romaine) style lettuce.
2. Plant harvest size? (it takes more time to grow a particular lettuce variety to a larger size).
For this example, I am assuming a harvest weight per head of about 300g. Importantly, the
harvest size (along with the level of environmental control) dictates the plant growing period
(number of weeks from system addition to harvest) and this allows the model to proportion
the fish wastes produced across a number of cohorts of different sized (different growth
stages) plants. Basically, the model only works for rotational plant harvest situations where
the fish waste loads are spread across all the different growth stages of the plant. For
example, if it takes the plant 5 weeks to grow, and you harvest once per week, then your
system will possess 5 separate growth stages of the plants. I will assume an average 5 week
growing period in this example, which across the entire year would produce what is called 10
crop cycles (52 weeks in a year divided by a 5 week growing period; 52/5 = 10); pretty fast,
and would require a relatively high level of climate control, or a nice even annual climate!
3. What fish species? (you need to know the fish species so you may then select a suitable fish
feed to grow it. This fish feed is the major nutrient input source, so you need to know a lot
about the fish feed as it is a major determinant in a model based on nutrient dynamics). For
this example, I will assume the most cultured fish species in aquaponics – Tilapia – which
makes no economic sense at all, but hey, everyone seems to grow it.
4. Fish harvest size? (this is required so you can do a full fish growth/production plan and fish
feeding plan based on a rotational – constant - harvesting regime. This fish feeding plan
directly links to the average daily fish feed input to the system, which ultimately, directs how
many plants you can grow). For this example, I will assume 500g (about 1 lb). In reality, this
information on fish harvest size is actually associated with the final fish production and
feeding plans and is not directly required by the aquaponic component sizing model, but it all
integrates together anyway and a good consultant should be providing a fish production and
fish feeding plan within the service they offer!
5. Fish feed protein content (%)? (protein content sets available nitrogen levels and therefore, is
crucial in determining the amount of nitrogen that will ultimately become available to your
plants and thus, effect the number of plants you may grow from a known weight of that fish
feed). For this example, I will assume standard style Tilapia feed at about 32% protein
content.
6. Fish feed phosphorous level (required to be able to determine if the chosen fish feed will
produce a positive, negative or neutral phosphorous accumulation in the system water, which
50
directly effects plant growth). This varies widely across the world, but for this example, I will
assume a P level of about 1%. This parameter feeds directly into the associated Nutrient
Proportioning Buffer Formulation Sub-model.
7. Expected fish feed conversion ratio (FCR) (all cultured fish have a known range of FCR in
RAS culture conditions – tanks). The FCR of the fish directly dictates how much waste the
fish can/will produce. A fish that converts feed more efficiently provides a different waste
nutrient outcome than one that converts feed less efficiently. Basically, a fish that converts
feed more efficiently produces less available waste for the plants than one that converts feed
less efficiently. For this example, I will assume a tank based FCR for Tilapia of 1.3.
Figure 3. Sheet (page) 1 of the Aquaponic System Component Sizing Model – Basic User Input sub-model.
Figure 3. (above) is a screen shot of the first sheet/page of the Symbioponics model (the Basic User
Input sub-model). This shows all of the parameters that are required to be entered in the first step of
applying the model by the user (me!).
Inputs include:
1. Plant species or Variety for culture.
51
2. Fish Feed Brand (as a reference for future understanding or comparisons).

3. Feed Protein Content (%).
4. Feed Phosphorous Level (%).
5. Expected FCR of the chosen fish eating the chosen feed.
At this stage, the model is using the inputs and associated calculations to simply provide the basic
parameters required to perform the associated mass balance calculations in the later sub-models. The
model then uses the information from the Basic User Input sub-model and the associated calculations
to provide input data so a ratio of the plant number supported by a known daily weight of fish feed
may be calculated in the second page (sheet) of the model; named the Fish: Plant Ratio sub-model.
Figure 4. Sheet (page) 2 of the Aquaponic System Component Sizing Model – Fish: Plant Ratio sub-model.
52
Figure 4. (above) is a screen shot of the second sheet/page of the Symbioponics model (the Fish:
Plant Ratio sub-model).
This shows a list (green cells) of outcomes in terms of the numbers of a particular plant species or
variety, that may be grown based on the sole input for this page:
1. The proposed aquaponic system daily fish feed rate (kg/day) (the Yellow cell).
In the example illustrated (Figure 4.), the daily fish feed input has been set to 2.6 kg/day (based on
our working example of wanting to grow 5,000 lettuce heads in the system, as outlined earlier). This
is the figure I enter into the yellow cell, so I can determine the number of plants that may be
supported, by the particular fish feed being added and converted by the particular fish species I grow.
You cannot see it, but there are numerous calculations done to come to these final figures, all based
on the mass balance flow of the important nutrients through the system.
The calculations are initially based on the average nutrient usage rates of the plants that may be
cultured in an aquatic system (where water is the nutrient containing medium). These usage rate
figures have been determined by going to the scientific literature. Of course, these usage rates highly
depend on the available environment and climate the plants are cultured within (e.g. a plant in full
environmental control will exhibit different daily nutrient uptake rates than a plant grown outside).
Again, this method and model was developed for the commercial production industry and assumes
good quality environmental control (e.g. glasshouse) for the plants.
However, it is important to also understand that the model allows these usage rate figures to be
changed based on perceived variations in uptake rates. For example, a lettuce plant may utilise an
average 26 mg (an example, invented figure for the sake of the argument) of a particular nutrient per
day when grown inside a greenhouse with full environmental control. But if it is grown in a simple
plastic film covered, hoop style greenhouse, with no effective environmental control, then it may only
use an average 15 mg (another, example invented figure) of a particular nutrient per day. Or, other
growers, far better than me, may realise higher daily nutrient uptake rates. Therefore, the daily usage
rate may be customised for the envisaged growing conditions. Additionally, if another plant species or
variety is desired to be grown (e.g. Beans, Peas, Broccoli, etc. or even a cut flower variety – anything
other than the plants listed in the Plant Type column in Figure 4. above), then this is easily
customised and a specific output is calculated. This means that potentially, thousands of different
53
plants and varieties may be added to the model so the specific ratio may be calculated for the specific
fish species and fish feed used.
In terms of our example, when all of this information is placed into the model, the outcome is:
To grow 5 separate cohorts of lettuce to an average harvest size of 300 g/head, at a weekly harvest
rate of 1,000 heads, (= 5,000 total lettuce heads) using Tilapia fish being fed 32% protein feed and
converting that feed at an average FCR of 1.3, the daily fish feed input required is 2,600 g/day (2.6
kg/day).
Let’s look at this relative to the UVI system settings:
I have 5,000 lettuce heads in my main aquaponic system (1,000 lettuce/week x 5-week growing
period). If I grow them at an acceptable density for Cos style (Romaine) lettuce of 30 plants/m2, then I
require 5,000 ÷ 30 = 170 m2 of direct plant growing area. This means I add 2,600 g (2.6 kg/day) of
fish feed for about 170 m2 of plant growing area, which equals about 15 g/m2/day.
If I applied the lower end of the UVI feeding rate ratio of 60 g/m2/day, then I would need to add 170
m2 x 60 g = 10,200 g/day (10.2 kg/day) of fish feed. This basically means that the Symbioponics
method requires 10.2/2.6 kg = 3.9 (effectively, 4) times less fish feed than the UVI method for the
same plant production output. The main reason for this difference is that my method re-mineralises all
the solid fish wastes (aerobically – a VERY important factor; if you use anaerobic re-mineralisation to
any degree, then the potential available nutrient output is less than a fully aerobic method!), while the
UVI method disposes of most of them. And, the UVI method over-supplies fish feed so it guarantees
the full suite of nutrients exist for the plants with minimal external supplementation.
I released a short Fact Sheet some years ago that explains all of this in more detail and is available
for free on my website (www.aquaponic.com.au), if you are interested. The important point is that I
know many other designers of aquaponic systems use a FRR of about 20 – 25 g/m2/day for Tilapia
and lettuce aquaponic production systems, and the equivalent output of my Symbioponics model is 15
g/m2/day, or less. If I change the plant to Tomato, again, my model provides an output directly related
to the nutrient dynamics of the system. My model says that for the same fish parameters, I can
support about 540 tomato plants. At a standard 3 tomato plants per square meter of direct plant
growing area planting density, that amounts to about 180 m2 of direct plant growing area!
54
The only real difference between UVI method and my nutrient dynamics method, is that my method
uses far less fish feed, which means far less fish production. If your business plan suggests that plant
production is where you will make your money, then Symbioponics provides a good outcome,
because it enables you to lower capital outlays and ongoing costs of production for the fish
component. If, however, you decide to be an intelligent aquaponic farmer, and choose a fish other
than Tilapia (e.g. you choose a fish that sells for a price that can actually make some profit!), then
maybe the UVI method is a better choice, because it produces more fish and will increase profitability.
I guess what I am saying is that there are choices for everything and no one thing is better than any
other in ALL contexts. This is why attempting to design an aquaponic system based on anything other
than the economics and business plan drivers is not a sound methodology! You must know all of
these things then choose the best technical approach; do NOT choose the technical approach and
then try and fit the economics to it, this rarely works successfully.
Getting back to the component sizing sub-model, I hope you can see that the modelled inputs and
outputs are specific. This is because this is a method designed for, and to hopefully compete with, the
two mainstream technologies of RAS and hydroponics, at large commercial scales. By large I mean 1
acre (4,000 m2 or about 40,000 sqft) of plant growing area and above! The model can be applied to
small-scale, commercial systems that grow various varieties and species of plants at the same time,
but in reality, this pushes the outcomes more towards a higher equivalent FRR.
What happens if we change the fish to Rainbow Trout? Firstly, if you change the fish to Trout, what
happens with other designs? Not much in my experience. Systems appear to come out at about the
same sizing ratios no matter what fish or plant you wish to grow (low specificity). However, if I change
the fish to Rainbow Trout in my above example (with growing the lettuce), the daily fish feeding rate
falls to 2.2 kg of fish feed per day. So, you lower the fish requirement even further and the FRR
equivalent falls to 13 g/m2/day. Why? Well, and it makes complete sense, Trout eat 45% protein
content feed (which produces more waste) but convert it at an FCR of about 1.0 (which produces less
waste). The effect of the protein content change (more waste) is more powerful than the effect of the
lower FCR (less waste) and therefore, overall, produces more waste per kg of feed and therefore,
less feed input is required to support the same number of plants. You simply cannot know this depth
of detail if you do not apply nutrient dynamic mass balance to your method; everything else is simply
guessing!
55
This is the real advantage of my sizing sub-model; exacting sizing outcomes based on the things that
are the real drivers of the association between fish number or weight and plant number or growing
area; nutrients!
The SymbioponicsTM Nutrient Proportioning Buffer Formulation Sub-model
The key to the management approach is the adoption of a process (or method) that allows, via mass
balance analysis and determination again, the development of highly specific nutrient mixtures within
the aquaponic system water (the nutrient proportioning model). The water nutrient proportions (directly
and specifically matched to the plant requirements) are established and maintained via the use of
customisable and specific buffering formulations based on the nutrient dynamics of the specific plant
species and varieties being cultured. This means the nutrients available in, and contributed by, the
fish wastes are added to with specific but small amounts of the missing or deficient nutrients (and
only the missing or deficient nutrients) the plants require, via the daily buffering regime. Unlike other
aquaponic models that advocate the supplementation of nutrients via the addition of highly non-
specific, soil-based plant fertilisers (e.g. Seasol), which also add in a lot of other nutrients that are not
required in increased quantities (thus adding to nutrient imbalances and the over-supply of some
nutrients, such as nitrogen and unwanted sodium), the Symbioponics approach supplements only
those nutrients that are deficient or missing, in the exact proportions required. And, unlike all those
methods that use hydroponic nutrient strength and pH levels as standards and therefore, must add
substantial external supplemented nutrients to meet those standards (40 – 50% or more!), my method
supplements only those nutrients that are deficient or missing, in the exact proportions required and
thus, keeps supplementation rates very low (often less than 10%). This also means the specific
nutrient requirements of the plants are met with my method and thus, this leads to optimised plant
production rates. In addition, applying a regular total nutrient analysis test also allows the nutrient
solution mixture to be adjusted by easily changing the buffering recipe to fit the exact plant nutrient
requirements based on the real time nutrient uptake of the specific plants being cultured in that
specific location, climate or environmental condition. It is via the use of these specific and
customisable buffer recipes that any plant specific nutrient requirement may be met.
The overall method application also allows the nutrient strength of the system water to be changed so
that the local environment and climatic conditions may be taken into consideration. For example, just
56
as is done in standard hydroponics, when winter arrives with its shorter day lengths and lowered
available solar radiation, the nutrient solution (system water) strength may be increased to assist
increased plant nutrient uptake, if applicable. Or, if different growing stages for the plants are required
(as for example with tomato’s, where initial vine growth requires nutrient solutions that initiate
vegetative growth and then flowering and fruit set require another, different nutrient solution), specific
nutrient solutions to meet these requirements may also be configured and supplied. Changes in
overall nutrient strength and mixture may be instigated at any time, however, it does take time
(sometimes weeks) for the full change to be complete. The time it takes is mostly related to the type
or style of hydroponic technology employed to culture the plants; deep flow raft culture systems take
longer than NFT or substrate culture systems, simply due to the volumetric differences.
The above points in terms of the Symbioponics method allowing ongoing adjustments and
management changes are important to note. It is very important to understand that the component
sizing sub-model and the nutrient proportion, buffer formulation sub-model are designed to be starting
points. Their purpose is to provide a point of reference for the system component (fish and plant)
sizes and the nutrient balance or proportions required. Once the system is constructed, commissioned
and producing, it should then be regularly reviewed to re-calibrate the nutrient dynamics so true
exacting nutrient proportioning and balances may be realised. Performing regular full system nutrient
analyses allows the operator to track specific and individual nutrient accumulation trends (i.e.
determination of positive, negative or zero specific nutrient accumulation in the system over time).
Ultimately, if each and every nutrient can be balanced for overall zero net nutrient accumulation within
the system water, then you know you have achieved a true overall nutrient balance between the
nutrients that enter the system from the fish wastes and the nutrients that leave the system via the
plant growth. This overall net zero net nutrient accumulation leads to true optimised fish and plant
production, the lowest water replacement rates and the highest potential for zero environmental
impact from waste nutrient disposal.
Symbioponics is an approach or method that is analogous to modern, standard hydroponic industry

methods to provide nutrient strengths and mixtures that specifically meet the plants requirements at
specific plant growth stages and phases using the aquaponic method. The analogy to hydroponics is
purely associated with the application of nutrient dynamics to try and meet the plant needs in an
exacting manner; it does NOT mean hydroponic standards are used for an aquaponic outcome! I
developed the method in this way, with this high amount of specificity, because it is my belief that if
aquaponics is going to become an established, commercial fish and plant production industry in itself,
57
it must be able to economically compete with existing industries (e.g. RAS in terms of fish production
and hydroponics in terms of plant production). To economically compete with standard hydroponics,
aquaponics must be able to produce plants at the same, or better production rates and at the same,
or better-quality standards, than hydroponics with analogous costs of production. Therefore, it makes
sense to develop more exacting methods, based on the key driver of plant production (nutrients), to
achieve outcomes that can compete on the open market, from an aquaponic production context.
Similarly, to compete with standard RAS-based fish culture, a suite of methods must also be adopted
and adapted to an aquaponic context. This is what the method attempts to do.
It is also very important to note that the Symbioponics method may be applied to fully recirculating
and de-coupled design approaches. The differences between applying the method to fully recirculating
and de-coupled system designs are subtle. As we have seen, for fully recirculating designs, where the
water is constantly shared between the fish and plant components, the method develops water
nutrient proportions (mixtures) based on plant culture requirements, that both the plants and fish are
constantly exposed to. When using the method for de-coupled designs, a choice becomes present,
whereby the fish may be exposed to the full plant nutrient mixture (i.e. the complete buffer recipe is
applied within the fish component) or the fish component pH may be maintained with part of the buffer
recipe and the remaining plant-required nutrient mixture may be applied within the plant component
alone (i.e. the remaining parts of the buffer recipe are applied only within the plant component). The
sizing of both components (application of the Aquaponic System Component Sizing sub-model) is the
same for both fully recirculating and de-coupled designs.
This leads to the inevitable question of: If it works for both approaches (fully recirculating and de-
coupled) and Wilson argues that a fully recirculating approach is as easy to manage (often easier!)
and provides the same fish and plant production outcomes as a de-coupled approach, then why
choose a de-coupled approach?
You will hopefully remember my previous statement: “I have absolutely no issues with de-coupled
aquaponic designs; in some contexts, they make sense and I have always advocated for their
application when appropriate.” Well, this is when the “appropriate” enters the situation.
What approach do you apply if you culture Rainbow Trout (and other Salmonid species) with a plant
like Tomato? I think we all know that Tomato plants require relatively high N and low K during initial
vegetative growth stages, but when flowering is required, this switches to relatively high K and low N.
58
The Symbioponics method allows this switch to be available within its management techniques, so
either fully recirculating or de-coupled designs should still be applicable. Now, Rainbow Trout cannot
handle elevated K concentrations (in my experience, K must be kept below 75 mg/L, and below 50
mg/L is better), suffer from high K exposure and eventually, can die (this is due to their euryhaline
nature; their ability to live in fresh and salt waters). If the Tomato requires even 100 mg/L of K
(remember, aquaponics works as well as hydroponics at far lower nutrient concentrations!), then the
Rainbow Trout will be exposed to concentrations of K that kill them. However, my method can be
used for de-coupled designs as well and so, this is where a de-coupled Symbioponics design makes
complete sense. The fish component (containing the Rainbow Trout) can be buffered for pH
maintenance with a buffer that does not use too much K (e.g. Calcium hydroxide, or what I like to use
with Trout, Calcium bicarbonate, plus the other desired buffers as recommended by the outputs of the
model). When the water leaves the fish component and enters the plant component, it may be further
supplemented with the required K, so the Tomato’s get what they require. In addition, this K may be
added to the mineralisation device in an organic form, so the K eventually enters the plant component
via an organic input source.
The Nutrient Proportioning Buffer Formulation sub-model is directly linked to the mass balance
aquaponic system component sizing sub-model. It requires several “carry-over” inputs from the
original Basic User Input page and the associated calculations, and the Aquaponic System
Component Sizing sub-model (and associated calculations).
The calculations that occur in the Nutrient Proportioning Buffer Formulation sub-model are not
complex but are based on the nutrient dynamics of the system and the ultimate establishment of the
correct, overall nutrient proportions in the aquaponic system. These calculations are not limited to
Nitrogen but involve all of the macro-nutrients required for optimised and healthy plant growth (N, P,
Ca, K, Mg & S).
The Nutrient Proportioning Buffer Formulation sub-model works by designing a buffer formulation that
makes up all the nutrients the specific plant species or variety requires for optimised growth. As I
have stated before, I believe the most important factor nutrient-wise in aquaponics is not the strength
(although, as also stated, minimums are required), but the mixture or the proportion of each nutrient to
all others. The model actually applies Nitrate (NO3) and Phosphate (PO4) concentration equivalents,
because these are the most common forms of N and P present in aquaponic systems that the plants
utilise. A base ratio is calculated between N and P (or NO3 and PO4) because this ratio is used as a
59
calibration point for the other nutrient ratios (proportions) the model ultimately develops. The single
most important calculated parameter of the model at this point is this Nitrate to Phosphate ratio.
The next piece in the calculation puzzle is: if nutrient proportions (or ratios) are so important to the
plants, what do we use as a standard or calibration point, so the model knows what ratios or
proportions to develop? This is where I go to the information already available from the hydroponic
industry; standard hydroponic nutrient mixtures. These are available for a myriad number of plant
species and varieties cultured in hydroponics. They are generally available as nutrient formulations
(recipes) made up of different salts. However, what is also broadly available, are the final nutrient
concentrations these formulations or recipes produce in the system water. The model simply goes
directly to the hydroponic industry to establish the most appropriate nutrient proportions for the
particular plant being cultured. Please remember, I have stated clearly that nutrient strengths from
hydroponics are not important in aquaponics, but nutrient proportions are and it is therefore,
completely appropriate to rely on the knowledge of the hydroponic industry to calibrate nutrient
proportions (or ratios) in an aquaponic context.
A Plant Nutrient Proportions reference/calibration is built into the model from a known and established
hydroponic reference (in the example provided here, it is Resh {2013} – a known expert in hydroponic
plant culture). There are many references available across academia and industry. I choose
references that have a known hydroponic industry optimised plant production outcome (e.g. scientific
or trial production data is available) and that matches, to some degree, the environmental control
environment I will achieve in the eventual aquaponic facility design (e.g. full or partial environmental
control, etc.). The important nutrients are the macro-nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, S and Mg), so the model
builds an idealised list of the proportions of these nutrients to each other. This reference (calibration)
list of idealised nutrient proportions is then used to develop an aquaponic system, total required
nutrient ratio list. This list outputs the ratio of each of the 6 important macro-nutrients to each other
and it is these individual ratios that are used to design the final customised buffer formulation (recipe).
Therefore, this list of individual aquaponic nutrient ratios is the representation of the overall total
system nutrient proportioning required to meet the optimised plant requirement.
The model then compares the nutrient proportions already available in the fish wastes (both dissolved
and mineralised solid fractions) to the nutrient proportions the reference (calibration) standard states
are required to optimise plant production, then finally applies some mathematics to proportion the
additional nutrients needed, within a buffer formulation or recipe, which it then outputs in a table.
60
Figure 5. The final Buffer Formulation or Recipe from the Nutrient Proportioning Buffer Formulation Sub-model.
Figure 5. represents the final buffer recipe that is customised to the fish and plants chosen to be
grown. You make up this recipe with the weights of the salts suggested and then use it at the
appropriate amount added to the system to maintain the pH where you want it to be (just like you do
with the UVI method). In reality this means the daily system management is limited to a pH reading
and buffer addition (all of which may be easily automated, if required). The weights shown in this
table are simply present so you may know the exact proportion of each salt you use to make the
buffer; they are not indicative of the total weights of the individual nutrients added to the aquaponic
system from the individual salts or final aquaponic system nutrient concentrations.
From a mathematical point of view, the model also applies a “Self-check” or “Nutrient Proportion
Confirmation” calculation. This basically tells me that the correct proportions of nutrients will be
achieved within the buffer formulation (recipe) when it is used in the aquaponic system.
The reason this “self-check” calculation is added, is because different individual salts may be chosen
to configure the designed buffer formulation. As can be seen in Figure 5. above, for this particular
61
example, Calcium (Ca) has been added as Calcium Hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), Potassium has been added
as Potassium Carbonate (K2CO3), Magnesium has actually been added in two forms (Magnesium
Sulphate and Magnesium Chloride) and so on. Different salts may be chosen based on what is
available, what is more affordable or what is acceptable to the operator. In addition, the species of
salts (some buffers) may be customised so that if higher proportions of one nutrient is required, a
buffer salt that provides less buffering potential may be chosen and thus, allows more of the carrier
nutrient to be added to the system by proportion. For example, say we want to grow Tomato and
therefore, we require a lot of K to be added to the system when compared to all other nutrients. We
may choose Potassium Carbonate as the buffer salt in the overall buffer formulation (recipe), because
it has a lower basic buffering effect (when compared to Potassium hydroxide – KOH) and therefore,
more of it can be added for the same buffering result, while at the same time, this allows a higher
proportion of K to be added to the system to meet the Tomato nutrient proportioning requirements.
Due to this, the model also has the ability to be modified, so different salts may be chosen.
Sometimes a plant species may be chosen that has a requirement for a further macronutrient that is
often considered a micronutrient (e.g. Manganese is sometimes required by certain plants at levels
that approach those associated with macronutrient, even though it is often considered to be a
micronutrient), so the model allows for this additional macronutrient to be added and the nutrient
formulation can account for this within the salts used to make up the buffer recipe (formulation). This
alters the mathematics involved and therefore, adding a “self-check” calculation also assists me to
know that the changes I have made do actually provide the correct outcome; it basically checks my
maths and decision making!
So, it is the combination of the Aquaponic System Component Sizing sub-model (provides the gross
sizes of the two main aquaponic components – the fish and plant components) and the Nutrient
Proportioning Buffer Formulation sub-model (provides the customised and specific buffer formulation),
based on the initial inputs associated with the Basic User Input sheet, and ultimately managed using
the applied management approach, that makes up the entire Symbioponics method.
Proponents of de-coupled designs may very well argue that my Symbioponics model is doing the
same thing they do (supplementing missing nutrients). And while this may be a valid question to ask,
it is not a valid statement or comparison to make. This is because I supplement far less, simply
because I do not use hydroponic nutrient strength and pH standards as my calibration point. The
difference in nutrient strengths between the fish component and the plant component of a de-coupled
62
design, that uses hydroponics as its management standard, is quite large and therefore, requires
substantial (e.g. 40 – 50%) external nutrient and acid supplementation to meet those hydroponic
standards. My system requires far less (often less than 10% external supplementation), because while
I recognise that hydroponic nutrient proportions are important to optimised plant growth, I do not apply
hydroponic standards and I recognise the increase in nutrient access supplied by the microbes in an
aquaponic system.
Therefore, what I am ultimately saying here is that it is highly possible for modern de-coupled
aquaponic designs to substantially lower the associated supplementation rates, but only if it is
accepted that hydroponic strength and pH standards are not required for optimised aquaponic fish
and plant production. Not sure if that is going to happen, but I think this is the most interesting area of
research currently available within aquaponic science.
63
Chapter 5: An Index of Output

Scenarios from the
TM
Symbioponics Model
64
Why Release an Index and Not the Entire Model?
This section of the book is associated with providing a short list of scenarios for fish and plant
numbers that are outputs from the model. Basically, if you wish to grow X fish species, with Y fish
feed, you need Z plants of a particular species to create zero net nutrient accumulation, and then
provision of the associated buffer formulation.
Understandably, the question arises: why not simply release the entire model?
The reasons for not releasing the entire model are:
1. I have put considerable effort, time and money into the development of this model; my own
time and money, not that of a research institution, supportive business or Government. While
I want to release the information so people in the aquaponics industry may access it and use
it, I do not wish to release the mathematics and workings of the model to the general
industry. There are reasons for that, but I will keep them to myself for the time being,
although I am sure many will understand my wary nature in this regard. Basically, I have
seen, and experienced, way too many examples of appropriation of knowledge by people who
then market and make profits from these appropriation practices.
2. In the past I released a simple model/calculator for designing backyard style (small-scale,
simple technology) aquaponic systems for free so anyone could use it. I also released an
extensive “How to use.” document that went with this model/calculator. From the inordinate
number of emails I received asking me to explain the model, I understood that only a small
proportion of people who downloaded the model actually also downloaded and read the “How
to use.” document. I found it highly frustrating that people could not take the time to read the
14 pages of information I provided and found it easier to write an email asking me to explain
it all!
3. When I released the free backyard model/calculator, there was (and still is!) a substantial
cohort of people who write to me, trying to find ways to open the protection on the model so
they may access the “workings” – the calculations. Outside of academic interest, my
interpretation of this is that these people simply wish to access (copy!) the calculations so
they may convert them into their own calculator, so they may then use this in some profitable
sense, either directly, or indirectly.
65
Am I an untrusting and suspicious person? Unfortunately, yes. My goal is to try and assist people who
genuinely wish to determine a design for their own aquaponic system; not to assist others who wish
to make money. So, unfortunately, I will not be immediately releasing the full model.
The way I can protect the knowledge and intellectual property I have developed, is to release the
outputs of many modelling events (an Index) and a planned Aquaponic System Sizing and Buffer
Formulation Service, rather than the model itself.
In time, I will share the workings of the model with the academic community via the writing of an
academic paper, as it is also important that the model becomes part of the academic knowledge base
so others may take it and improve upon it via application of proper scientific methods.
For now, the Index and system sizing and management service will have to suffice. In this initial
version, I will try and add the common fish and plant variations applied currently in commercial
aquaponics, but I know this will not meet everyone’s wishes as there will always be inventive people
who will wish to try different combinations of fish and plants. In addition, across the world, many
different fish feeds are manufactured, all with different ingredient lists, and that variety is difficult to
completely account for in the following short index. Therefore, if you have read this far through the
book, I will be instigating an Aquaponic System Sizing and Buffer Formulation Service that people
may access if they wish, in the near future.
66
An Index of SymbioponicsTm Outputs for Common Fish and Plant Combinations

General notes:
1. The Index provides outputs based on a total aquaponic system fish component, fish feeding rate of 1 kg/day.
2. The Index assumes an aquaponic system design that incorporates full aerobic solid fish waste mineralisation and return of the resultant supernatant
to the main aquaponic system.
3. The Index provides outputs for the plant species/vars. mostly grown in aquaponics/hydroponics currently.
Fish Feed Expected Plant spp./var Nutrient Ratio No. Plants Buffer Formula Notes
Protein (%) FCR Ref. Supported
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Lettuce (Large) Resh (2013) 2,200 Ca(OH)2 245.7 g
K2CO3 244.6 g The same buffer formulation is used for all lettuce species/varieties.
MgSO4.7H2 112.3 g
Mg(Cl)2 87.1 g
KH2PO4 4.1 g
Tilapia spp. 32 14 Lettuce (fancy) Resh (2013) 2,550 Ca(OH)2 245.7 g
K2CO3 244.6 g The same buffer formulation is used for all lettuce species/varieties.
MgSO4.7H2 112.3 g
Mg(Cl)2 87.1 g
KH2PO4 4.1 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Tomato (all Vars.) Resh (2013) – 240 Ca(OH)2 320.9 g The Resh (2013) nutrient ratio has been modified to raise the K
modified WL K2CO3 315.4 g content to supply a single growing method for both vegetative and
MgSO4.7H2 222.2 g flowering/fruiting stages.
Mg(Cl)2 56.6 g A generalised output for all Tomato varieties.
KH2PO4 8.3 g
67
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Cucumber Sonneveld & 225 Ca(OH)2 194.8 g No KH2PO4 applied to buffer formulation because PO4 requirement
Straver (1992) K2CO3 313.5 g met by fish feed. Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative
MgSO4.7H2 83.5 g & fruiting.
Mg(Cl)2 36.8 g A generalised output for all varieties.
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Bell Pepper Resh 255 Ca(OH)2 324.7 g http://howardresh.com/dr-howard-resh-hydroponic-
(Capsicum) K2CO3 533.5 g services/hydroponic-cucumbers/
MgSO4.7H2 449.7 g Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative & fruiting.
KH2PO4 19.4 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Egg Plant Furlani (1999) 238 Ca(OH)2 157.8 g https://www.intechopen.com/books/potassium-improvement-of-quality-
(Aubergine) K2CO3 362.0 g in-fruits-and-vegetables-through-hydroponic-nutrient-
MgSO4.7H2 96.2 g management/software-for-calculation-of-nutrient-solution-for-fruits-
Mg(Cl)2 70.2 g and-leafy-vegetables-in-nft-hydroponic-syst
KH2PO4 0.5 g Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative & fruiting.
A generalised output for all varieties.
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Strawberry Uni. Of Arizona 1,190 Ca(OH)2 119.3 g https://www.haifa-group.com/fertilization-recommendation-
– College of Ag. K2CO3 166.6 g strawberries-various-parts-world-0
& Life Sciences MgSO4.7H2O 125.9 g Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative & fruiting.
KH2PO4 35.7 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Sweet Basil Lennard 3,500 Ca(OH)2 189.4 g
(bunches) K2CO3 173.4 g My own Basil formulation
MgSO4.7H2O 104.9 g A generalised output for all varieties.
Mg(Cl)2 200.5 g
KH2PO4 15.2 g
68
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Cilantro Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 297.8 g

(Coriander) K2CO3 110.8 g
Mg(Cl)2 107.8 g
KH2PO4 47.5 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Chives Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 238.3 g
(bunches) K2CO3 197.9 g A generalised output for all varieties.
MgSO4.7H2O 82.5 g
Mg(Cl)2 64.2 g
KH2PO4 11.2 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Mint, Dill, Fennel Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 189.4 g
(bunches) K2CO3 173.4 g The same reference formula as Sweet Basil.
Mg(Cl)2 200.5 g
KH2PO4 15.2 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Oregano, Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 177.6 g
Marjoram (bunches) K2CO3 209.1 g A generalised output for all varieties.
MgSO4.7H2O 78.7 g
Mg(Cl)2 108.3 g
KH2PO4 0.0 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Parsley, Chervil Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 181.8 g
MgSO4.7H2O 83.9 g
Mg(Cl)2 64.2 g
KH2PO4 44.5 g
69
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Rosemary Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 227.3 g

MgSO4.7H2O 147.8 g
Mg(Cl)2 110.5 g
KH2PO4 48.5 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Sage Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 247.0 g
MgSO4.7H2O 150.6 g
Mg(Cl)2 109.8 g
KH2PO4 48.3 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Thyme Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 82.6 g
MgSO4.7H2O 186.0 g
Mg(Cl)2 103.9 g
KH2PO4 44.5 g
Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Arugula (Rocket) Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 189.4 g
(bunches) K2CO3 173.4 g The same reference formula as Sweet Basil.
Mg(Cl)2 200.5 g
KH2PO4 15.2 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Lettuce (Large) Resh (2013) 2,650 Ca(OH)2 292.3 g
Salmon spp. K2CO3 282.6 g The same buffer formulation is used for all lettuce species/varieties.
MgSO4.7H2 133.6 g
Mg(Cl)2 103.6 g
KH2PO4 21.4 g
70
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Lettuce (fancy) Resh (2013) 3,000 Ca(OH)2 292.3 g
Salmon spp. K2CO3 282.6 g The same buffer formulation is used for all lettuce species/varieties.
MgSO4.7H2 133.6 g
Mg(Cl)2 103.6 g
KH2PO4 21.4 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Tomato (all Vars.) Resh (2013) – 280 Ca(OH)2 381.7 g The Resh (2013) nutrient ratio has been modified to raise the K
Salmon spp. modified WL K2CO3 366.8 g content to supply a single growing method for both vegetative and
MgSO4.7H2 264.3 g flowering/fruiting stages.
Mg(Cl)2 67.3 g A generalised output for all Tomato varieties.
KH2PO4 26.4 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Cucumber Sonneveld & 265 Ca(OH)2 231.7 g No KH2PO4 applied to buffer formulation because PO4 requirement
Salmon spp. Straver (1992) K2CO3 364.5 g met by fish feed. Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative
MgSO4.7H2 99.3 g & fruiting.
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Bell Pepper Resh 300 Ca(OH)2 386.2 g http://howardresh.com/dr-howard-resh-hydroponic-
Salmon spp. (Capsicum) K2CO3 626.2 g services/hydroponic-cucumbers/
MgSO4.7H2 534.9 g Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative & fruiting.
KH2PO4 39.6 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Egg Plant Furlani (1999) 280 Ca(OH)2 187.7 g https://www.intechopen.com/books/potassium-improvement-of-quality-
Salmon spp. (Aubergine) K2CO3 422.2 g in-fruits-and-vegetables-through-hydroponic-nutrient-
MgSO4.7H2 104.0 g management/software-for-calculation-of-nutrient-solution-for-fruits-
Mg(Cl)2 87.4 g and-leafy-vegetables-in-nft-hydroponic-syst
KH2PO4 17.2 g Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative & fruiting.
A generalised output for all varieties.
71
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Strawberry Uni. Of Arizona 1,400 Ca(OH)2 141.9 g https://www.haifa-group.com/fertilization-recommendation-
Salmon spp. – College of Ag. K2CO3 189.8 g strawberries-various-parts-world-0
& Life Sciences MgSO4.7H2O 149.8 g Suitable as a single growing solution for vegetative & fruiting.
KH2PO4 59.0 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Sweet Basil Lennard 4,200 Ca(OH)2 225.3 g
Salmon spp. (bunches) K2CO3 197.9 g My own Basil formulation
Mg(Cl)2 321.9 g
KH2PO4 34.6 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Cilantro Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 354.2 g
Salmon spp. (Coriander) (bunches) K2CO3 123.4 g
Mg(Cl)2 128.3 g
KH2PO4 73.1 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Chives Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 283.5 g
Salmon spp. (bunches) K2CO3 230.1 g A generalised output for all varieties.
MgSO4.7H2O 100.5 g
Mg(Cl)2 73.3 g
KH2PO4 31.2 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Mint, Dill, Fennel Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 225.3 g
Salmon spp. (bunches) K2CO3 197.9 g The same reference formula as Sweet Basil.
Mg(Cl)2 321.9 g
KH2PO4 34.6 g
72
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Oregano, Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 211.2 g

Salmon spp. Marjoram (bunches) K2CO3 240.3 g A generalised output for all varieties.
MgSO4.7H2O 117.0 g
Mg(Cl)2 116.3 g
KH2PO4 4.1 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Parsley, Chervil Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 216.3 g
MgSO4.7H2O 99.9 g
Mg(Cl)2 76.3 g
KH2PO4 69.5 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Rosemary Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 270.3 g
MgSO4.7H2O 172.3 g
Mg(Cl)2 140.2 g
KH2PO4 73.7 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Sage Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 293.9 g
MgSO4.7H2O 179.1 g
Mg(Cl)2 130.6 g
KH2PO4 74.1 g
Trout spp., 45 1.1 Thyme Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 344.1 g
MgSO4.7H2O 221.3 g
Mg(Cl)2 123.6 g
KH2PO4 79.0 g
73
Some Notes on the Index and future System Sizing & Buffer Formulation Service
I think it is evident from the short Index Table above that the outputs provided by the model are
relatively detailed. It should also be evident that it is impossible to Index each and every possible fish
and plant combination. Trying to populate an Index is a time-consuming process! Therefore, if the
combination you are interested in is present within the Index, then that is good. If it is not, then I will
be providing an Aquaponic System Sizing and Buffer Formulation Service to put your particular
requirements through the model and provide you with the particular outcomes you are seeking; from
simple fish feed to chosen plant species number outputs, through to full fish production and feeding
plans, fish tank number and sizes, solids filtration component types and sizes, biofilter component
types and sizes, aeration sizing and ultimately, a full design service with associated report.
As I have explained in the preceding chapters, the numbers output by the model as listed in the Index
are only the beginning of the design process and an appreciable amount of other information and
application is required, not least of which is the business and economic data that should drive the
initial choices made.
The model assumes a determined FCR for the fish you will be growing. It should be accepted that
some genetic variations of a particular fish species (e.g. Tilapia spp.) may produce a different FCR
than what I have listed in the Index, therefore, I recommend you go to the supplier of your fish and
ask what the expected FCR is for the fish you are purchasing in a RAS context. Importantly, the
appropriate FCR is for fish when they grow between the sizes of about 30 g to harvest size; smaller
fish (e.g. 0.5 g – 25 g) may possess a different FCR and should not be grown in an aquaponic
context.
The Index, as presented, provides the numbers associated with adding 1 kg of fish feed to the
aquaculture component of the entire aquaponic system daily. You simply multiply the plant number
outcome by the daily fish feed added (in kg) so you can determine the total number of plants you may
support.
The final buffer formulation output is not changed by the size of the aquaponic system you decide
upon. Therefore, it does not matter if you feed 1 kg of feed per day or 100 kg of feed per day; the
buffer formula stays the same. In addition, the buffer formula, again, is often a starting point and
74
requires “tweaking”, which may be achieved by getting the system to a steady state of operation (i.e.
full fish compliment and feed regime and full planting schedule in place), applying a full nutrient
analysis and then adjusting the buffer formula to meet the specific plant requirements as determined
via that full nutrient analysis.
In the end, you cannot better a proper, full design application. The service I am considering to offer
will contain several parts, so you can get a full design application documented (report – e.g. plant
number per kg of fish feed, specific buffer formulation, fish tank number and sizes, fish growth and
feeding model, filtration – solids filter, biofilter - sizes, other component sizes, etc.) outcome, or you
can simply get the basics (e.g. plant number per kg of fish feed and buffer formulation). You are
welcome to contact me at willennard@gmail.com if you are interested in this service.
Conclusion
In the end, any model is only as good as the relative quality of its inputs. The Symbioponics model
has been built using my accumulated knowledge of aquaponic nutrient dynamics, plus the application
of that knowledge in real world aquaponic systems. The model has also been tested scientifically in a
laboratory context and trialled in a semi-commercial field situation. This is far more than other “design
methods” that are currently out there in the aquaponics industry.
It is up to you, the reader, aquaponic system designer or aquaponic system operator to decide what
you wish to do. However, what I would like you to remember is that my design approach, via applying
the model I have developed, while being purely technical in nature and provided outcomes, has been
developed by using the economics of aquaponics as the principle driver. The entire idea was to
develop a model for technical sizing that gave the best chance of economic success. Of course, there
is a myriad of other factors that effect economic success, but I hope that this model I have developed
is at the least, a good starting point for striving for eventual economic success with the aquaponic
production method.
As always, happy aquaponicing.
75
References
Lennard (2005). Aquaponic integration of Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) aquaculture and
lettuce (Lactuca sativa) hydroponics. Thesis (Ph.D.). RMIT University, 2005.
Lennard & Ward (2019). A comparison of plant growth rates between an NFT hydroponic system and
an NFT aquaponic system. Horticulturae, 5,27 (doi:10.3390/horticulturae5020027).
Morgan (2005). Fresh Culinary Herb Production. Suntec NZ Ltd, Tokomaru, New Zealand.
Resh (2013). Resh, H.M. (2013). Hydroponic Food Production, Edition 7. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA.
76

The Symbioponics Aquaponics Method - Final Draft 211042021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Symbioponics Aquaponics Method - Final Draft 211042021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The SymbioponicsTM Aquaponics Method

The SymbioponicsTM Aquaponics Method –

Design and Layout by Wilson Lennard

Published in 2021 by Wilson Lennard

© Wilson Lennard 2021

What is an Aquaponic Methodology or Model?

2. You must use a DWC plant culture component.

I would even argue the UVI system is specific to:

The Importance of Scientific Proofing

The Starting Point

The Final Method

Chapter 3: Nutrient Strength,

And here is probably the most important statement in this document:

Aquaponic pH and Nutrient Strength – Comparisons to Hydroponics

Are Hydroponic Standards Applicable to Aquaponics

1. Is the pH standard associated with hydroponic plants applicable to an aquaponic context?

Aquaponics is completely different to hydroponics in terms of plant culture. The approach of

Let’s look at the specific points:

2. Fish and plants have different nutrient strength requirements

3. Fish and plants have different pH requirements

4. Nutrient proportion (mixtures) in aquaponics is important

The important questions for me at this point are:

The relative greater importance of nutrient proportioning as compared to nutrient strength

Chapter 4: How the

The Basics of the SymbioponicsTM Method

In practical terms this means:

Managing and Buffering the SymbioponicsTM Model

The SymbioponicsTM Mass Balance Aquaponic System Component Sizing Sub-model

1. Plant species or Variety for culture.

2. Fish Feed Brand (as a reference for future understanding or comparisons).

Let’s look at this relative to the UVI system settings:

The SymbioponicsTM Nutrient Proportioning Buffer Formulation Sub-model

Symbioponics is an approach or method that is analogous to modern, standard hydroponic industry

Chapter 5: An Index of Output

Why Release an Index and Not the Entire Model?

The reasons for not releasing the entire model are:

An Index of SymbioponicsTm Outputs for Common Fish and Plant Combinations

Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Cilantro Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 297.8 g

Tilapia spp. 32 1.4 Rosemary Morgan (2005) 3,500 Ca(OH)2 227.3 g

Trout spp., 45 1.1 Oregano, Morgan (2005) 4,200 Ca(OH)2 211.2 g

As always, happy aquaponicing.

You might also like