Global Aquaponics Network for Research And Development

steve

C1 there are many publications that you have to pay for........research papers and the like.

but i'm sure copyright would also prohibit them from being part of an online library unless they couod only be viewed online and royalties payed

Murray

C1, the only reason GANRAD needs to charge a membership is to raise funds for it's various future activities. Perhaps there will arise other ways to raise funds as well as or instead of memberships for private individuals.
I think it only fair that companies or businesses and Gov etc should pay a fee.
Not all aquaponics knowledge has come from this forum, and gone to the other side (wherever that is)
I have met a guy from northern Sydney that has had a large domestic system for more than 12 years.
There is a "Fair Use" convention which allows the copying and reproducing of someone else's materials , but full disclosure and credit must be given as to it's source etc.
Yes Steve, there is a lot of work that has been done by various persons that could be included in such a library. We have identified a fair bit already. Various permissions are being sought. It will entail a lot of work to create such a quality library.

earthbound

It all sounds very idyllic to me, lobbying government on all levels, assisting with finance applications and grant applications, spreading information, saving the farmers etc..

But I'd like to hear some answers to the queries Rupert raised a few posts back, I think they are quite valid, and shouldn't be ignored..

Murray

As far as I can see they have all been answered. Which points in particular do you need clarified.

creative1

So who are the members again?
What real experiences have they had?
How many members have GANRAD got?
Are all the members fee paying?
Why should government bodies look to GANRAD above any other?

earthbound

Why didn't ganrad place it's support behind Geoff Wilsons ANA, which has similar goals, why do we have the need for multiple bodies?

My queries relate to the legitimacy and credibility of the organisation, not from the sense of it being a not for profit organisation, I'm sure every T is crossed and every I dotted. but for the betterment of aquaponics don't you need aquaponic experts to decide what ways to move forward, which areas to focus studies, who should be receiving funds, memberships etc ????

Politicians and business people do not make the best decisions for furthering aquaponics and deciding who might be allowed to become a member...

And how does all this work get done, the lobbying the government, saving the farmers, helping students, businesses and backyard members etc etc etc.... This requires an enormous amount of resources and an enormous amount of work, and as you point out you don;t have time to do anything..

You may think I'm skeptical, but its for good reason, I have seen similar things come and go in the past and they have never got off the ground and I've lost money and wasted my time...

RupertofOZ

If anyone's having trouble finding my post it's here....

http://backyardaquaponics.com/forum/vie ... 2678#92678

Tree Beard

Hi Murray and all

I think that you have hit on a good thread with your concept particularly as generally the Australian government is/has been actively pushing for industry self regulation with minimum intervention and I expect that this the ap gap you are intending to fill. Quite frankly as with the NRMA, Real Estate Institute, publishing and most industries to be successfull your member ship wil probably not lay just with us humble back yarders as we probably dont have the clout or funds to push your organisation into the lime light and you will need to get there and push all others aside if you want to self regulate the industry and up hold standards (but first in best dressed

).

By the way I think that is a good thing for all of us as you have stated.

You will be able to assist us all and hopefully down the track you may offer us less financial souls with (well almost with) systems a limited associate type of membership so we can lend our weight to the cause and recieve limited non commercial benifits.

And thank you for dignifying this forum with your replys

Aaron

himzol

Hi Murray,

It's nice to see some of the questions being answered, though I have to go with EB on why you skipped over the questions Rupert asked this morning.

My main concern is ( please don't take this as being offencive, it's just the best way I can put it), I and probably those that have come into aquaponics very recently don't know you and the other board members from a bar of soap... why should we trust you? As Rupert has indicated perhaps a section on the GANRAD site of "who we are" showing the profiles of the individual board members.

The other problem I have is that it took some pretty heavy discussion on this forum ( some of it probably uncalled for) for somebody from GANRAD to even bother to reply, yet they announced themselfs openly on another Forum.
Sorry but I'm a very susspicious person, If you truelly wish to represent all AP people then shouldn't the announcment of the existance of this organisation have been made on all Forums that are dedicated to AP in the appropriate section.

Please don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a lobby group to represent AP at government level, however you if you wish people to join then you (GANRAD) have to be lot more open, again I point to some or the coments RupertofOZ made this morning.

As for me I will wait and see where GANRAD go from here, before I consider joining/not joining. The way I see it is, there is no point in joining a yaught club if I've only got a small tinny.

Himzo.

Murray

Joel, Perhaps you should suggest who you feel should be involved. I am sure there is room for anyone who is capable and is willing to contribute. Why don't you put yourself forward, you would be most welcome as far as I am concerned.
As to Geoff Wilsons ANA, you would have to ask him about that.
In an earlier post I advised that Geoff Wilson and Wilson Lennard were both asked to be on the board. GW was initially keen but after some time declined. WL did actually become a founding board member but later resigned for personal reasons. He is still a member.

Tree Beard, Yes It will be difficult to get it up and running. It will require a lot of effort and good will to be successful. Thanks for your words of encouragement.
JannetPellier suggested earlier that there should be some sort of very low cost membership for individuals. Perhaps that needs to be further explored.
Yes, as to funding, that will always be an area of difficulty I feel. Frankly not much in the way of big dollars can ever come from ordinary folk. GANRAD will need to look to business sponsors to be successful in that area. The important thing is to make a start.

We never thought it would be easy, but I personally thank you all for your input and look forward to any further input any of you may have.
Muzza

steve

G'day Muzz, good to see ya answering the members question, i'm sure you're going some way to quell their fears of the unknown.

just on this one though, i don't think you actually addressed the question. I too was keeping an eye on ANA and noticed it wasn't really going anywhere.

I believe the question was

Quote:

Why didn't ganrad place it's support behind Geoff Wilsons ANA, which has similar goals, why do we have the need for multiple bodies

i didn't really get much from

Quote:

As to Geoff Wilsons ANA, you would have to ask him about that.

good discussion going one here

Cheers

Steve

RupertofOZ

And the accompanying questions were ....

Quote:

What shortcomings did GANRAD percieve with the ANA concept that lead to the formation of GANRAD.

I suppose I'm asking, what does GANRAD offer over and above what was "modelled" as the aims of ANA?

Be interested in your response Murray.

Rupert

Murray

Steve, I really am not at liberty to answer for Geoff Wilson. I do know what happened, but all I can say is that eventually he declined to be part of GANRAD or for GANRAD to be part of ANA.
As I understand it, ANA is only a registered name. It is not actually a incorporated body or association, and therefor not able to be carried forward in it's present form. But I stress again, it is not my place to discus Geoff Wilsons business personal or otherwise.
I am sure you will understand and respect that.

Geoff Wilson deserves much credit for attempting to form such a body as ANA for the benefit of the industry. Perhaps he was just a bit ahead of his time. Let's face it, the whole Aquaponics thing is still a baby, it is very early days for this industry.

What was or is modeled by ANA is very good. It just needed to be carried forward and for whatever reason has not. I would be very surprised if there was any movement in ANA now or into the future. If that were to change then things would have to be re thought, but once again, I would be very surprised to see any movement there.

Someone earlier asked about the experience or qualifications of those on the board. I ask, in light of the infant state of this industry who is qualified and what constitutes a qualification. It is another worthwhile discussion in its own right. Perhaps that could be a very good thing for GANRAD and the collective industry to define different types of recognizable qualifications, broken into groups and sub groups, perhaps starting under the headings of Academic and or Practical and so forth.

There is lots of good stuff that can be achieved with collective effort.

I hope this helps
Muzza.

steve

Thanks murray,

i understand that you can not speak for Geoff. Respectfully you're missing the point of the question again. namely "Why didn't ganrad place it's support behind Geoff Wilsons ANA, which has similar goals, why do we have the need for multiple bodies"

it is a question directed TO GANRAD about GANRAD.

Thanks

Steve

veggie boy

Sounds like from what Murray has said that ANA has not been constituted in a way that facilitates forward movement.

Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics