[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: not even in California
- To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: Re: not even in California
- From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 12:04:57 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <200108310748.f7V7m3I11459 at actwin_com>
- User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
Roger was correct about you earlier:-)
> First of all, how long had this tank been up and running?
1 Year. Substrate undisturbed for 3.
> While we know the
> elemental constituents of the mineral/clay Flourite is made of, we have
> absolutely no idea how bioavailable those constituents are. Over time, as
> organic acids accumulate within the substrate, certainly many might become
> available at some rate but what that rate might be remains a mystery.
Why not let the plants take what they need? The roots can produce the acids
needed to get at the iron from inorganic sources. A Healthy Plant is much
better at making the secondary chemicals such as these acids to get P and
Fe. Toss some ground peat in there if your worried.
What about Riccia and floaters?
> I agree that high light + injected CO2 presents a totally different set of
> circumstances to a low/moderate light tank with no CO2 injection. But from
> the information in one of the articles I listed earlier, it is quite
> possible that adequate CO2 is more important than high light levels.
I like non CO2 tanks personally. Less work:)
> "IMO adding what folks are adding(to 0.1ppm) and basing it off a residual
> test for iron is not telling you the whole story here about your plant's
> needs or uptakes."
> That's all well and good, and quite possible true. Iron is apparently only
> used as an indicator of overall trace element levels and availability. How
> much they (the plants) need depends on how much light and CO2 and the other
> essential elements are available to them.
So let's say a 20ppm-30ppm of CO2 and 2.5 watts of light. That's a decent
range. And a decent range of macro's.
light 10-12hrs a day
weekly water changes
Good kits to verify things.
If a tank has this long with some herbivores and decent maintenance you can
add a fair amount of traces easily. I don't think the above is out of line
from what is often recommended. If you can maintain these you will be quite
able to add more traces and have them be far less problematic.
Anyone with some chemicals and and some test kits can do this and verify it.
> Someone with a low light, non CO2
> injected tank who follows your recommendation for 1.0 mg/L of iron might be
> in for a very green Christmas.
Uh...not ******** MY ******** recommendation.
I never would tell or say that to someone with a non CO2 tank, which I do
have. I can do the non CO2 method quite well. I support folks that do this
method. For the most part most of the talk on all these list revolves around
CO2 enriched tanks. That's pretty well understood here. Very few do the non
CO2 tanks these days unfortunately.
a common question is if they have CO2 or not. I fail to see your point here.
You state the obvious.
> "You need more traces than what your kits are telling you. Plants are the
> best indicators for this, not the kits, at least from what I've seen. We can
> go back and figure out the "whys" and "what did we miss" later."
> Now, this I have a bit of a problem with.Upon what, other than personal
> observation in your own tanks, are you basing this recommendation?
My own tanks? Well I do look at *other* tanks besides my own:-) Folks only
let me take a quick peek but it's enough:) We even talk about how much of
what is added.
I've duplicated the same tanks many times. So have others. I set tanks up
for folks. I have no idea how many I have set up. But over the years it's
likely a far higher than most folks. I've talked to many folks and suggest
they try this or that and guessy what? A strange thing happens.
BUT it's just **personal** observations:) I don't ask folks to trust me
James, just to try it. Prove it to themselves. Test themselves and find what
I've found. Something is going on if it works for me and I keep finding more
and more folks it is working for. So you explain away the observations
please. Luck doesn't get it.
Doing some good testing with your own kits for verification does. Then
comparing the data notes with others. You seem to indicate I'm "arm
chairing" this whole thing and I am merely getting lucky. It's not an
I don't have precise answers and the first step is seeing the observation
then making sure it's not "luck". Then try to figure it out "why and how".
Some folks here don't care about "why and how". They just want a nice
healthy tank. Folks don't need to know why "the cure" or "method" works just
that it does. Some like myself need to know and stay up late thinking about
how and why. That's another issue ...........
> I'm not
> necessarily saying that its not true, I just prefer to put my trust in
> sources which base at least some of their recommendations upon objective
> experimentation and observation.
Why if they are wrong?
PO4 and a number other so called correct notions are incorrect in many ways
applied to our tanks. Where they objective in their assessments? If so how
can I have a 1.0ppm of PO4 or 1.5ppm and no algae? Did they did not consider
something(CO2, high lighting, something else)? How can Cyano's produce NH4
from N2 gas without heterocyst? Did these folks saying this even bother to
look under a scope to check or find out? Did they ask a phycologist? Or did
they just look at some reference that did not accurately apply but assumed
it did to back up their idea?
Perhaps they are right and need some modification for assumptions. Heck
there's a bunch of things that could be wrong. Comparing nature to our tanks
is one big issue. Are such references truly relevant? What good is a
reference that is not relevant? References are seldom dead on. Some are way
off. I can add ton of them and make it "appear" to look good and well backed
up even through they may not be. A good scientist in the field can spot
"Oh wow, he/she has references! Must be right! Good science...". But how
applicable are the references to the material? I try hard in academic areas
to find references that are very close to dead on to support my ideas. This
is reflected in my papers, research and my grades.
A few good ones are better than a bunch of bad ones. Some prof's at UC care
about this issue dearly. Good thing too.
I've duplicated it many many times. It's no abberation. I don't have some
magic touch or magic water. There are definite mechanisms and reasons for
> That is why I and so many others admire the
> work of people like Diana Walstad. We may not maintain our tanks in a
> similar manner, but her use of quoted reference material and objective
> experimentation with reported results give us sufficient information to
> reach our own conclustions.
So now I have to write a book? I don't care about admiration. It has nothing
to do with. The book has lots of references(and other books). Does that make
it right? I can write a scientific research paper and make lots of of ref's
have them not really support the conclusions that much. Do these ref's apply
here? Let us look them up. Oh well it seems that iron ref's are about
saltwater systems in nature. Can we apply these ref's to freshwater CO2
enriched tanks? Sure why not, lots of ref's:-)
I know it works even though the ref's don't match well
I like her book and it's a good book on a non CO2 tank method which I love.
But usage of references is a big issue for me. They have to hit the nail on
the head. Applying this to CO2 enriched tanks is a good idea? CO2 is a huge
factor in submersed plant growth/algae growth. Adding/deleting it has
profound effects across the board.
Much works needs to be done on CO2 enriched tanks with good supplies of
macro's and traces etc to in order isolate things.
> You seem to expect us to just take your word for
Nope, I would hope folks would try it themselves. Test themselves and see
for themselves what happens. Then they can judge for themselves.
I've tried PO4 methods, iron methods and NO3 methods. I can assess these
methods and understand them better actually having done them to a high
level. I have not met too many that have done this so far. Most stick with
one thing/method that works for them to their satisfaction level. Much of my
interest lay in how far each of these systems can be pushed and where to
still give decent results in plant growth. Each method has it's +'s and -'s.
> Worry about the why's and how's later.
THAT is the statement that set you off.
Try it yourself. Try doing the macro's,CO2 and regular water changes and
**then** add more traces. Don't whine without trying it out.
I simply state that since I don't know why/how fully but know it happens
(observations-> these lead to explanations/theories/laws-> these lead to
test to prove/disprove etc). The observations will not go away no matter
what you say. Why/how they exist is another issue. I simply acknowledged
this. I know it works. I know others do it and it's duplication is possible
with a relative ease. The results are great. That part is not in question.
Many don't care about why/how. Acknowledging those who don't care is not a
bad idea either.
I don't know even how to test iron usage well yet with the kits we have in
the hobby, do you?
Should I worry about why and how if it works and gives me good results?? For
most folks I've talked to the answer is no. I'm after that question though.
> Sorry, neither science nor nature works that way
Uh, thanks for the tip:-) You've saved my aquatic biology career:-)
...... not even in
Perhaps CA water *IS* different?
> James Purchase