[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[APD] extra plants - ALGAE ALGAE ALGAE

Thanks for your input. I think it's helpful when people try to 
"scientifically" experiment and report findings, but sometimes (most often) 
we can't achieve the same results. All variables can't be controlled. We all 
have different water supply, different fish (the wisest of us will choose 
some algae-eating fish for a planted aquarium, with the focus on plants, not 
the fish) ... substrate ... I played a bit with different sizes, substrates, 
location (within my house giving different amounts of natural lighting) 
different aquarium lighting, different fish  ... and found grossly different 
results. Each tank required different levels of maintenance or gave 
different results. I learned which plants worked best within each tank. And 
some were unworkable (for example, 10 gal kitty litter substrate tank on a 
box window, packed with plants and few fish (fertilization was controlled 
externally) never worked as opposed to a 10 gal flourite substrate right 
next to it, which btw, was packed with masses of breeding fish). Made no 
sense to me. But it is helpful to hear about these. We can put together and 
estimate, perhaps not come to a die-hard conclusion. We can theorize and go 
from there. Maybe eventually find what works.

And then there's the intangible. I think Tom just has a green thumb, 
selectively, toward plants, though ... not algae ;-)

I think the fault lies with this hemichromis. I do.



> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 05:00:21 -0800 (PST)
> From: "S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>
> Subject: Re: [APD] extra plants - ALGAE ALGAE ALGAE
> To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
> These are hypotheses, not experimental results.  CO2 is a nutrient, why is 
> compeititoin an issue for that but ot other nutirients? What roles to do 
> all the various other chemicals play? What are the controls.
> I'm not criticizing what Tom is doing, but I don't want to see leaps to 
> cold fusion based on trial and error without controls. Lots of info is 
> gained this way in the hobby and lots of myths, which are slowly sorted 
> out over time.
> If you try something and it works, that's great, but the result, on it's 
> own, doesn't *prove* the hypothesis. In fact, the most common mistake we 
> all make when looking at the results of  something is to commit the 
> fallacy of assuming the consequent.
> sh

Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com