Re: [APD] So much anger, over so small a thing

[Thomas Barr <tcbiii at yahoo_com>]

> From: "Mike Smith" <chainsawmike at msn_com>
> Subject: [APD] So much anger, over so small a thing
> To: "aquatic-plants" <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
>                    Just wanted to get in on the fighting. Let
> someone attack me for this. I enjoy stuffing the tabs under
> the roots, the very act of it, that is why I do it. I also use
> various liquid ferts. I put them in a turkey baster and squirt
> them under the gravel.
> 
> Mike

Hi Mike,

One thing I do is go after the idea, not the person.
Some troll like folks keep begging for a beating with the
metaphorical mullet and I will oblige every so often.

Personal semantics are often used when they cannot argue on the
merits of the ideas and hypothesis.

The web also has a lack of inflection, laughter and humor that
is common in face to face interactions. Communication is more
than the written word alone. Some folks simply have a bad day.
We all do.

Although some might say I am all about the water column, this is
not true. There was a very heavy focus on substrates years ago
when I got into the hobby. Folks where having limited success. I
used them with similar results many years ago. I've used
virtually inert substrates for the next decade and 1/2, then I
have a base line for comparisons since I have non limiting
conditions in the water column. 

Then you can see if there is a significant difference with
substrate fertilization methods based solely on the effects of
having the nutrient source there, rather than a limited water
column that would force a plant to scavage for nutrients in the
root zone. This is a very important point.

If you have a tank limited by nutrients, then adding the root
tab will help, no surprise there. The same can be said for "Mud
Cubes" or adding ADA Powersand, soil base layer etc.

No surprise there either.
The water column is far easier to test with the hobby based
available methods. The substrate cannot teach you much there.
 
You also have less opportunity to tease apart various
relationships for a better understanding about aquatic plants.

Rather than suggesting that the water column is the only way,
something I do not espouse, a mix of both will give you the most
flexibility and the best results.

Let the plants chose.
Most don't care as long as they have enough(non limiting for
rooted plants) a few might, but it might be the form of N, it
might be location, that is not known.

I've also done a lot of purely substrate fert routines. The
research I do is very involved in this question as the there are
no nutrients to speak of in several of the sites where several
noxious weeds grow here in CA. Other sites are as juicy as you
can get in the water column. 

If a tank is limited by say NO3(water column or substrate), you
add a NO3 root tab to a sword plant root, then only that plant
has access, this means the other plants are still NO3
limited..............they might not express the deficiency as
fast, but they are still NO3 limited..........

If all you have is a 3 swords in a large tank, then this is a
good method. But if the tank have plants with the roots not in
the gravel or lacking roots, how is this a good method?

You still also have the remaining plants limit except for this
one monster sword plant..........which will only dominate the
tank even more so now you have given it an advantage over the
remaining plants.

The issue here is not anger, it is for some folks, the issue is
learning about ideas through debate/observations, test,
references, some weaker minded folks take it personally though,
that will happen, but don't let it bother you. Stick to the
topic and the rest will not matter much.

It does not matter if you add KNO3, Buffalo dung to mud and make
mud cubes, it does not matter if you turkey baster it in the
substrate, or use a binder/agar etc to add KNO3 down there or
add it to the water column or use a pre made root tab. Main
thing is to prevent limiting conditions for the plants so they
grow well.

I do tend to suggest to folks having issues with limitations to
add more nutrients to the water column for a few simple reasons:

1.I know the concentration
2.It'll target all the plants 
3. The nutrients will diffuse into the root zone 
4. I know what is in it and can tailor it easily
5. CO2 is a nutrient that is not added via the substrate in
significant amounts and accounts for 95% or more all every algae
related issue I have ever dealt with.

Adding a liquid fert to the substrate with a turkey baster is
not an issue but it'll make little difference vs the water
column. Whatever you enjoy.

The goal in such debates to see what the methods hold for us and
for the routines to make the horticulture easier and provide
more wiggle room and understanding about why a method works well
and what are it's advantages and disadvantages. This prevents
misakes and poor plant health, prevents algae and makes life
easier for folks.

EI + ADA aqua soil seems to work about the best I've seen in
terms of both plant growth and every species of picky plant out
there, CO2 mist blasted into the plant beds also will make
pearling than many aesthetically like.
Many do not want such growth rates, but less light is the
logical solution to that. But that is another thread.......
Still, a combo of both locations for nutrients provides a very
nice synergistic effect.

It's also not messy if you uproot and move things around and
looks good and provides nutrients to *all the plants in all
locations*.


Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants