[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Re: dirt, moderate CO2, and moderate light
I totally agree. I was just trying to clarify what I understood Mrs.
Walstad's intentions and methods to be.
And food for thought: In light of our recent discussion on well water
having high co2 and probably other good levels of nutrients and minerals
etc etc... (She stated that she has and uses well water at her home)
this may be another reason for her success when others have failed. Or
not, there are many variables. I live in the same town, but close
enough to get city water. You don't have to go too far south to start
needing well water here. My parents live about 30 minutes away and
probably get similar well water to her's. I can't attest to how well it
grows aquatic plants, but it tastes good going down ;]
One of these days I'd like to experiment with my parent's well water in
a small tank, but then I'd have to visit more often. ;/
Tom Wood wrote:
DP: "So, to summarize: from what I understood, Diana is more interested
in simplicity and minimal work after the setup, and a little science to
see if some of her theories make sense. In contrast, I'd say that Tom
Barr is ALOT more interested in the science and the proving of theories
aspect of the hobby."
Looking at the posts in Walstad's section over at the AB forums, I see a
lot of people there having long term problems with her method. It
appears to me that those problems stem from the definition of 'dirt' and
all the results from variations of its composition. I see Tom Barr's
approach as being more reliable and simple because the variables can be
identified, quantified and controlled. To me, growing plants underwater
seems to be more closely related to hydroponics than houseplants. The
professional hydroponics folks remove the 'dirt' variable as well.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com