[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Clarified muddy thoughts
>Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 03:49:25 -0700
>From: Steve Pushak who wrote:
>
>Look, if you're mixing laterite clay into your substrate you are
>creating mud. <snip>
>
>Olga said:
>> I did not ask "is it true plants grow better in mud"?. You should re-read
>> my post. My thoughts had to do with whether or not one should try to be so
>> "real" in an aquarium. I, personally feel that a small unnatural ecosystem
>> like an aquarium does not handle well a "natural" substrate...meaning mud.
>> And I asked for thoughts on that.
>
>I paraphrased what you said which was in essence "is it true?", the
>parts which you paraphrased of what I said is "plant grow better in
>mud". I was responding to the statement that it appears that you were
>challenging, that plants grow better in mud.
Holy Quicksand, Plantman....I stirred the mud with my stick and created a
maelstrom!
No, no, no....I was not "saying" or "asking" in essence, or any other way,
"is it true?. I'm not concerned with how well plants grow in mud or with
the definition of mud either.
<snip>They grow out there in the real world where
>there ARE differences in lighting, minerals, nutrients and soils. The
>variability of aquatic soils is not critical but the important common
>factor with almost all the aquatic plant biotopes is that there is mud
>and this is a valuable store house of nutrients for the plants during
>their growing season. This is the KEY point I was trying to make.
Yes, yes...and you make it very well, Steve. I'm absolutely convinced that
mud plants are growing in is jam-packed with nutrients. But it has nothing
to do with the little bit of philosophy I was musing about.
>BTW, I think your point was that aquarium conditions are so far
>different from natural conditions that we should not apply any lessons
>learned from nature to the aquarium. If one were to allude to muddy
>thought,.... no no no that would be too punny...
Got that wrong too...and I don't appreciate being called a "muddy" thinker.
<g> but I don't have my undies in a knot about it either. I definately
think we should apply all the lessons we learn from nature into our hobby.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
<snipped a very long posting on the values, definitions etc. etc. of mud.>
AND WE COME TO THE GUY WHO REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT I WAS PONDERING.
"Roger S. Miller" wrote:
>Subject: of Mud and Marsilea
>Olga Betts wrote:
>
>> I did not ask "is it true plants grow better in mud"?. You should re-read
>> my post. My thoughts had to do with whether or not one should try to be so
>> "real" in an aquarium. I, personally feel that a small unnatural ecosystem
>> like an aquarium does not handle well a "natural" substrate...meaning mud.
>> And I asked for thoughts on that.
>
>Thanks for the clarification, Olga.
Thank *you* Roger!
>Unless you count mason jars of stuff dipped out of ponds by a kid, then I
>don't have much experience with mud-bottomed tanks. But then, it looks to
>me like I have as much experience with mud-bottomed tanks as anyone else
>who has posted in the thread. I don't think that a mud-bottomed tank
>would be a beginner's undertaking. The aquarium wouldn't handle it
>"well", but with careful balancing, skill and experience I think it could
>be done.
Sounds exactly what common sense would tell a person.
>There's more than one kind of planted aquarium and if you want to build
>one that's a microcosm of a muddy-bottomed natural habitat, then you need
>to use a mud substrate. If you aren't doing that then a mud bottom is
>probably going to cause more grief than it's worth.
Holy revelation, Plantman...that makes so much sense.
<snip of more possible "natural" substrates.>
>"Soil" the way its usually used on this list doesn't refer to a natural
>aquatic plant substrate. Much of the argument on the thread so far seems
>to relate more to water-logged terrestrial soils and maybe potting soils,
>so it may not be relevant to experience with a natural muddy substrate.
>Terrestrial soils and potting soils just aren't much like natural aquatic
>substrates. If you want a natural aquatic substrate you have to go to the
>setting and get the real thing. Garden soil isn't the same.
Of course not. One can make mud but is it the *same* mud? This is more what
I had in mind. My obvious question was a philosophical one "Can we really
carry moonbeams home in a jar?" This was meant to translate: "Can we really
have a river/pond bottom in an aquarium?" An *implied* question could be:
"Is is likely enough to succeed to make it worthwhile trying?"
Roger I too have had experience with mud bottom tanks. As a kid (about 12)
I kept pollywogs in a small aquarium. I scooped mud (the real mccoy) out of
my uncle's very natural, large pond along with the pond water and
pollywogs. The water was always a nice brown; the pollywogs grew and loved
it. However, it started to smell after a week and mother wanted it out of
the house. I had obviously NOT recreated the pond because my uncle's pond
never smelled, was nice to swim in and supported speckled trout (which like
good water). Of course, now I am older and wiser maybe I could make it work
better. But this was the kind of thing I wanted to discuss...not whether
plants grow in it or mud's compostion or how to define it.
Thanks Roger. Anyone else have any thoughts like these? Has anyone tried an
aquarium with a water supply that runs *through* it, to simulate a river?
Olga
in Vancouver