Vertical farming

[Cannonball]

Hmmm, this sounds more and more like something out of the original "Startreck" series, or it should have been there.

Very good idea spadlet. Then New York would not be dumping so much into the Hudson River.

I am in contact with some NYC relatives and we agree, getting the Salmon run back in the Hudson River is as important as restoring the Salmon run to the Columbia River.

Any New Yorkers out there?

In colonial times, the Hudson River was ever chocked up with spawning salmon, I have read.

Any interest in a "salmon run" string, on this forum?

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Cannonball

Any interest in a "salmon run" string, on this forum?

The only thing I know (or think I know) about fish is that Coy Carp are genetic mutations that have require some complecated breeding program or something to ensure they 'look right'. Feel free to enlighten me on salmon (ooo I just remembered they swim upstream to get to their breeding grounds or something, don't they?)

[Cannonball]

I'm no expert, never took a class in marine biology, but here goes.

There are several kinds of Salmon. The west coat salmon spawn but once, then die in the fresh water. The east coast salmon can spawn many times. There are more than one specie though. To learn all that you might find a more complete run-down on the net.

Two major spawning runs occur. In the Columbia River in the west, and in the Hudson river in the east. Most other rivers had runs, at least at one time, but the Columbia and the Hudson are really big rivers, so they were once choked up with salmon, by the millions, at spawning time. Industrial waste and human waste and erosion has all but wiped out these big runs.

Fish ladders were built around the dams, but they hardly worked. They did get quite a few salmon up, but the problem came up when salmon fingerling were swimming downstream. When they hit the dam backwaters they thought they were in the ocean, so they rarely swim on down. Oddly, a few accidently make it though. Salmon runs have slowed to a very few thousand in the Columbia. Polution has competely stopped the Hudson run.

Now there's an environmental drive to take out the dams, and replace the electricity those dams produced with a few nuclear power plants, and Wyoming coal plants.

I don't know whats going on about the Hudson. New York City relatives inform me that there now is something of a beginning of a drive to bring the salmon back to the Hudson. I suspect stopping pollution so the river runs clean is easier than removing a number of rather large power dams but I have seen no study.

So bringing back the big salmon runs is a fast growing environmental issue. So where do you stand?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by spadlet

If the lower layers are used for people to live in or something, why dont they include a composting toilet system, then they could burn the gas from that rather than the compostable waste from the plant matter?

Using anaerobic digestion on the sludges from sewage is employed in some sewage works, but is generally employed on the bigger plants owing to the economics of it. Even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily mean you could then use the by-product on the crops, as it will likely still contain substances not appropriate for crop fertiliser.

If you've got skyscrapers full of people, it makes sense to have one large sewage works utilising all the waste in one place.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily mean you could then use the by-product on the crops, as it will likely still contain substances not appropriate for crop fertiliser.

I was thinking more of collecting methane from the decomposition that could be used as a fuel source and that the solid matter could be dried and used as solid fuel so no sewage by-products would be used on the crops, it would be the plant waste that the design said would be pelleted for fuel that would be composted for use on the crops. Would that be ok?

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Cannonball

So where do you stand?

Is there no way that they could open flood gates in the dams, or upper levels of the dams to allow the salmon through?

The only thing I've ever read on the subject of fish runs and dams was an envrionmental impact assesment of the idea to build a massive tidal power dam across the Severn Estuary. I'm pretty sure that the study said that tidal turbines were not expected to harm any fish swimming through them so fish runs might be uneccessary (I dont think there are any salmon in the Severn Estuary though). However the whole exercise was done about 20 years ago and was rather theoretical.

I haven't made my mind up about nuclear power yet so I'm not sure I'd favour Nuclear Power stations rather than hydro, however it doesn't seem right about the salmon. I think my favourite option would be to try to modify the dams further to overcome the salmon problems. Has anybody looked into this?

[Cannonball]

The best way to get salmon around the dams that I have heard of is to create a bypass creek, using tubes where required. Spawning salmon like to fight the current, and will head into the swiftest water, I understand.

Fry, coming down the stream would have to be diverted out of the main river into the bypass stream, before they reached the backwater pond, where they will stay if not diverted.

We once just had "Red fish" (bright red land locked salmon) in Red Fish Lake, but 50 years of the Hells Canyon Dams has left a great many Red Fish in a lot of streams.

For some reason, the damned dam builders stich to the scientifically accepted fish ladders, invented 50 years ago, but which have never really worked. I don't know why they won't cosider what looks like a good idea. Perhaps, like "The Admiral of the Queens Navy", "they never think for themselves at all".

Another problem is the noble Steelhead. Steelhead are ocean run trout, one cubit long and up, way up, that follow the salmon upstream to eat their eggs. Steelhead are most loved by fishermen, on account they put up outstanding battles when hooked, and taste good. 100 years ago, there were 10 times more salmon than Steelhead. Now there are 10 times more steelhead than salmon. My cousins husband, an American Indian very active in fish resoration, says that problem will block efforts to expand the salmon run, at least with the plans now pursued.

He drives a truck with a big water bed and bubbler, into which he carfully loads live salmon and hauls them around the backwater. He says no one will believe him, but each time he comes to load the salmon, there are a good many waiting patiently for him. They are easy to load, don't fight or struggle. Is the word out? Do Salmon comunicate? Strange happening indeed.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Cannonball

He says no one will believe him, but each time he comes to load the salmon, there are a good many waiting patiently for him. They are easy to load, don't fight or struggle. Is the word out? Do Salmon comunicate? Strange happening indeed.

Any pictures? Then people would have to believe him, or he could charge for a guided tour.

So do you think those bypass creek things would work? Do you think it would be possible to campaign to get one put in as a trial, maybe if some universities were involved or some organisation that could make it a propper scientific study? Or maybe some direct digging action....

[Cannonball]

Hi...

As far as the "backwater bypass" creek, this idea was tossed aroung at a meeting some years ago, and it has come up time to time. I think those in charge are very reluctant to do anything, for fear of another idea didn't work. Fish ladders were supposed to solve the problem years ago. At that time reputable marine biologists said it would work, and the fish ladders were very expensive to install. Well, they did not work, and now no one wants to stick their neck out (my guess).

There are some politically influential groups becoming very interested in this situation. Before the three Hell's Canyon dams, there were a great number of salmon going up the Columbia River, Snake River, Salmon River, and other tributaries on the Snake. Not many are going up now.

Endangered specie legislation requires something be done. Construction companies and nuclear power plant builders and Wyoming coal companies are all eager to get into the act.

So many are expecting a big solution, one that puts a lot of people to work and one that gives limping Wall Street a boust, I don't think a simple solution would be accepted, at this point.

I have my doubts that the major change solutions will resolve salmon problems, I suspect major change will make things a lot worse. The big problems in my mind. include some considerations for the many rivers and creeks that were straightened via subsidies, to insure enough water to keep the Hell's Canyon Dams filled. Another problem has to be the tons and tons of silt that now rests behind those dams. Salmon like clean water, and don't do well in muddy water. To add to problems electronics industries around Boise, are adding lead to the water, and the much loved electricity, currently made by the dams, might be replaced by a nuclear power plant around the upper Snake. Lastly, all major suggested solutions would increase air polution.

If the salmon do not make a comeback, I fear the originally planned high dam that would produce three times more electricity that the three small dams that were built, will be built.

Hells Canyon is twice as deep as Grand Canyon, the high dam would be big indeed. The high prairies and higher mountains both sides of Hells Canyon have very cold winters with deep snows. Very few wildlife critters can survive that. All local wildlife knows that the floor of Hells Canyon has a mild winter, though summer high temperatures are very high.

A high dam would really flood the winter range of a whole lot of local wildlife. Mod politically correct thought is not to feed wildlife in the winter.

As for my Indian cousin, perhaps he is a "fish whisperer". I'll ask him for pictures next time we talk.

[sparky]

Looks like they have a dedicated site now.

http://www.verticalfarm.com/