RE: [APD] Re: dirt, moderate CO2, and moderate light

["Geoffrey Newman" <newmang at hotmail_com>]

> 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.


Hydroponics is a good analogy. How many people do you know doing hydroponics 
for the fun of it??

You can go on fiddling with your test kits and vials of chemicals if that's 
what works for you. Dirt tanks
_work_  too and I can tell you there are many old hands lurking on this list 
who will tell you the same thing.

Personally I have nothing against Mr Barr, but the high-tech method just 
takes all the enjoyment out of the hobby if you ask me.

I'd also refute the claim that people report problems with dirt tanks long 
term. If anything they appear more stable.


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