> Although you can obviously just stock a pond with fish anyways.
That is assuming you have a pond. And even in that case, you need to get rid of the nitrogen build up somehow: either frequent water changes, or bio-filtration (which is a form of aquaponics).
> No it doesn't. Even in drought areas the amount of water needed to water a garden is negligible as long as you don't make the mistake of leaving it bare earth.
You do realize that not all water goes to the plants you're targeting, right? Some of it will run off and/or water other plants that you're not harvesting. That was my point about the water.
> Virtually all of them do, they are called sprinklers.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that virtually all gardeners have sprinklers (the automated ones, anyway... we were discussing automated irrigation systems).
> But I think it is still cheaper to just do a normal garden. All you need is some organic waste to pile up in layers ...
Sure, it's cheaper when you have organic waste available for free in a convenient fashion (i.e. not something you have to haul from your city's waste center). Also cheaper when you just want the veggies, not the fish. A lot of people enjoy eating fish, however. If you want to grow fish and veggies in your backyard, aquaponics really is the best choice.
>You do realize that not all water goes to the plants you're targeting, right? Some of it will run off and/or water other plants that you're not harvesting. That was my point about the water.
Yes. And that does not matter at all, which is what I said.
>The burden of proof is on you to prove that virtually all gardeners have sprinklers (the automated ones, anyway... we were discussing automated irrigation systems).
You said they don't have irrigation systems, not that they aren't automatic.
>And even in that case, you need to get rid of the nitrogen build up somehow: either frequent water changes, or bio-filtration (which is a form of aquaponics).
Trying to pretend normal aquatic plants existing in a normal pond is the same as your aquaponics system, and thus your system "wins" is disingenuous in the extreme.
>Sure, it's cheaper when you have organic waste available for free in a convenient fashion (i.e. not something you have to haul from your city's waste center).
How is hauling it from your city's waste center more expensive than your $500 setup exactly? A truck rental is $20.
>If you want to grow fish and veggies in your backyard, aquaponics really is the best choice.
For some people it may be, but this insistence on making unsupported sweeping claims reeks of snakeoil salesmen. I grow fish and veggies. It costs me $0. How would your system be better?
That is assuming you have a pond. And even in that case, you need to get rid of the nitrogen build up somehow: either frequent water changes, or bio-filtration (which is a form of aquaponics).
> No it doesn't. Even in drought areas the amount of water needed to water a garden is negligible as long as you don't make the mistake of leaving it bare earth.
You do realize that not all water goes to the plants you're targeting, right? Some of it will run off and/or water other plants that you're not harvesting. That was my point about the water.
> Virtually all of them do, they are called sprinklers.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that virtually all gardeners have sprinklers (the automated ones, anyway... we were discussing automated irrigation systems).
> But I think it is still cheaper to just do a normal garden. All you need is some organic waste to pile up in layers ...
Sure, it's cheaper when you have organic waste available for free in a convenient fashion (i.e. not something you have to haul from your city's waste center). Also cheaper when you just want the veggies, not the fish. A lot of people enjoy eating fish, however. If you want to grow fish and veggies in your backyard, aquaponics really is the best choice.