3 ms·

And if you really want to optimize your system and reduce suffering, eliminate the fish. Spend a fraction of your fish food money on fertilizer instead.

• ph0rque 10y ago
  Hmm, I don't think the fish food is that much more expensive than fertilizer. Also, by eliminating the fish, you... eliminate the fish harvest, which many people would find desirable.
  • asciimo 10y ago
    Efficiency is the goal with these small systems. If you desire fish, steak, or hot fudge sundaes, you can go to a restaurant. If you want a sustainable system that provides the greatest amount of nutrition for the lowest resource expense, you want a system like this without animals. Any time you introduce animals into a food system you're adding at least one trophic level, dropping your output by at least 90%. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScizkxMlEOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScizkxMlEOM
    • ph0rque 10y ago
      > Efficiency is the goal with these small systems. Thanks for that thought-provoking line. My vision is for the average quarter-acre lot to produce a variety of food for the family living in that house, including veggies, fruit, nuts, beans, fish, eggs and optionally chicken (or other small fowl), honey, mushrooms, and more. If efficiency were the goal, you would need some kind of algal bioreactor that could grow the genetically-modified algae that would provide for all your dietary needs, as envisioned by Soylent: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/soylents-real-plan-is-to-replace-food-with-algae http://motherboard.vice.com/read/soylents-real-plan-is-to-re...