[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: Re: Ref's
- From: Thomas Barr <tcbiii at earthlink_net>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:33:06 -0800
- In-Reply-To: <200202102048.g1AKm1w05571 at actwin_com>
- User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
>> I feel this way about it. Not everyone shares my
>> thoughts and sometimes you simply do not have any
>> work done on a certain question.
> Exactly! That's the interpolation and extrapolation that I mentioned. And I
> would think that these would be two of the more useful tools in the
> investigative method, particularly in a field so barren of _specific_ data
> due to basic lack of commercial appeal in the test subjects.
Well lab experiments are not bad. We have the natural data. Some field
treatments. But ***what is the question*** we are trying to answer? Do we
care about large lakes or ponds? I'd like one, don't get wrong, but not in
my house. I'd prefer a nice stream there:)
>> I reviewed Diana Walstad's book again....She
>> did a much better job presenting her case than
>> any other before her...
> Now _there's_ an understatement ;-)
Well folks have asked questions about it and I _always_ get asked these
questions that seem to conflict with it. I agree with much of it. I don't
get say what I feel about it overall.
>> I would say generalizations are there but, they do
>> have specific cases of application. Whether it can
>> generalized across the board? Some yes, some no most
> Some of the generalizations of which I'm thinking include things as baseline
> functions. Pick a _really_ "over the top" example in lighting - we try to
> pin down such minute details in Watts, PARs, Lumens, Lux or plain old
> candlepowers until we begin to sound like a klatch of audiophiles comparing
> specs that our *ears* can't even begin to appreciate as well as our
> sensibilities or tastes seem to.
Well I'll say I think I agree with that:) Nit picking on finer less
essential points that don't amount to a hill of beans?
> Strange thing is, as soon as we figure out just _precisely_ which lamp is
> the *perfect* one for a *particular set of circumstances or group of
> plants*, we actually "look" at them and declare them too "green" or too
> "stark" or too "whatever". And don't use them.
I've been down the light bulb road long enough. I'm quite content with what
I know there and plant growth. I am not wavering in my opinions in this
> And along the way, we seem to lose sight of light as an _art_ as well as a
> science. Ask Hollywood the value of mood lighting. Ask a hospital, for that
> matter. And where are the impressionists when you _really_ need them?
Well I liked my Quartz 3000K lights when I had them. I like a softer yellow
color. So do many plants.
> Sometimes I think our ever-more-precise-and-accurate electronic world drives
> this need for Spock-like precision -
Well, it's alright to go there, just _make sure_ you come back:) You make
everything as controlled as possible then you start removing things to see
how and what works when it's gone or adjusted.
Remove the RO water
Remove the pH controller, solenoid, bubble counter, check valve.
Remove the PO4 remover.
Remove digital temp controller
Remove the heating cables
Remove all the junk till you have the basic three(lights, CO2 and
>> Pretty much and the same can be said for algae
>> in most respects also...
> Which is why I believe we need to expand our horizons a little in exploring
> topics like nutritional manipulation. My experiences w/CO2 come from
> hydroponic greenhouses. That's just one example. I don't suppose Mike and
> Ken get their blood red plants _purely_ by finalizing a chance circumstance.
> If we "follow the money" to the types of plants that _have_ been extensively
> studied, we find that even their assumptions are initialized in conclusions
> drawn from the general, then merely fine-tuned to the specific.
Pretty close now from what I can tell.
A little here and there and to take into account for different plant types
and fish loads but from what I've seen a common point can be reached.
Diana's book also can be a commonly reached non CO2 method. I use that too.
I just found that deep flourite does a nice job at that exact same thing
instead of soil. The substrate only gets better as time progresses. Colors
are better too. I'd like to do some side by side runs with both types.
CO2 introduces another realm. But It doesn't have to be such high
maintenance as some may contend. Lower lighting, slower growing plants(at
least a good % of tank space) and covering the basics can make for a lower
maintenance tank. Some folks want a hand's off. Most don't mind a little