Re: Re: [APD] substrate fertility and growth rates

["Robert H" <robertph3 at comcast_net>]

>>I may have never come across a better example where bigger is *not*
better.
What are you supposed to do with a 28" C. blassii?  The same thing could be
said for various large Echinodorus and Aponogetons that get huge when grown
in a rich substrate.<<

Well, I agree. Having huge plants may not be desirable, but I do not see
this as any issue with any relation to deciding if you want to follow a
regime of mega dosing and mega water changes or a regime of heavier
substrate fertilization with moderate water column ferts and moderate water
changes.To suggest that one way is the only right way is ridiculous. I will
never do 50 to 60% weekly water changes. To me thats is absurd. I have found
Cryps, Crinums, Echinodorus, Aponogetons, and others to respond very well to
substrate fertilization without a goal of having gigantic plants. It is
possible to have robust growth, vibrant colors, and manageable algae control
without massive water changes or mega dosing the water column. I personaly
never followed PMDD either, but the whole idea behind it was to only give
the plants what they need without excess, and substrate fertilization is a
relatively safe way of helping to complete that need. Patience with
moderation.  The Dutch have been doing this for years.

I have read Tom's estimated index,
http://www.aquatic-plants.org/fert/est_index/est_index1.html and in it he
seems to talk about a lot of experimentation. When did these experiments
become absolute facts? When did it become the ONLY method instead of an
alternative?

Robert Paul Hudson
www.aquabotanic.com

_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants