Do you do water changes in your planted tank?

[Plantbrain]

What you think I only do planted tanks?

I think there is a huge difference in dutch Vs what Diana does.
For one, the Dutch tanks look much better in terms of design and layout.
Much nicer.
Their tap water is loaded with nutrients, they do more water changes, and they have less fish etc. They do not use nor suggest natural sunlight, this is a very poor piece of advice if you consider folks living in the extreme northern and southern latitudes.
I'll let you all ponder why that might be.
Dutch tanks use about 1.5-2w/gal NO FL's and in the past some incad's as well if they did not have the FL's.

I've seen very nice looking wells caped tanks from the 1940's and many from the 1950's.
All at home in anyone's home today.
They took several years to grow in, but gardening was more a focus.

DW's algae notions are incorrect.
Something very simple can disprove such assetrtions quite easily:
Add high Fe, add KH2PO4, add KNO3, use a good test calibrated test kit.
See if the tank is truly limiting algae.

I did this, it seems she did not nor did most aquarist using CO2 as well.

I can tell right away that is not what is going on and anyone knowing a hill of beans about natural tropical and subtropical lake systems knows it as well.
Allelopathy was agressively argued against by both myself and with experiment designs and test as was it also refuted wholefully by Ole Pedersen from Tropica, both of us recently met at the AGA event but had only heard second hand about the other.

DW's arguements for the stability and ease of care are the most convincing, the non CO2/Excel tank is decpetively easy and simple.

With some skill and focus, a nice scape is also achieved, something she admits little interest in.

I went back and measured uptake rates for the same system but without soil and without fish. I came up with about, on average 1 slower growth rates w/o CO2.
I've found a few references in the research that suggested similar ranges(Barko and Smart etc) So I have support for this ratio.

This allows me to measure and the better understand the rate of growth and nutrient use without CO2.

That's better than adding soil and guessing.
I am now able to grow plants better and many more species with less deficencies than her method, but still maintain no water changes, easy dosing, with or without fish loads.

I've added PO4 to 2ppm, no algae response.
I've added K to 40ppm, no response
I've added NO3 to 30ppm, no issues
I've added 10mls TMG per 100 liters, no algae response.
We removed any allelopathic chemicals via Activated carbon, a standard method in allelopathic studies.

Not one of these notions are correct as they would violate such observations in the non planted CO2 tank.

For them to be correct, I should be able to induce Algae in some or all cases, but this has bene going on for a few years now, still no algae.

Where's my algae if there is causation here?
Water changes seem to induce algae, one reason she does not do them, but she misses why this is.

Water changes add CO2, lots of it.
Withiout water changes, the CO2 levels are 0-5ppm at most typically, this is a stable low CO2 environment. Plants adapt well to this and produce lots of Rubsico to fix any CO2 that might be around.The downregulate other pathways to compensate for low carbon supplies.

When you do a weekly 25-50% water changes, this fluffs up the NH4, it adds lots of CO2 rich water to the tank, algae like plants, prefers CO2 also.

The plants take much longer to response to such CO2 changes and gear up.
Algae respond rapidly on the other hand.

They like variations in CO2, it means some environment aquatic change is happening and they are ready to get ahead start.

DOC, allelopathy can be ruled out with using AC, adding that should induce an algae bllom if youy accept DOC/aallelopathy are inhibiting algae as the AC will remove these both.

But again, I do not see this.............

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Plantbrain]

What you think I only do planted tanks?

I think there is a huge difference in dutch Vs what Diana does.
For one, the Dutch tanks look much better in terms of design and layout.
Much nicer.

Their tap water is loaded with nutrients, they do more water changes, and they have less fish etc. They do not use nor suggest natural sunlight, this is a very poor piece of advice if you consider folks living in the extreme northern and southern latitudes.
I'll let you all ponder why that might be.
Dutch tanks use about 1.5-2w/gal NO FL's and in the past some incad's as well if they did not have the FL's.

I've seen very nice looking wells caped tanks from the 1940's and many from the 1950's.
All at home in anyone's home today.
They took several years to grow in, but gardening was more a focus.

DW's algae notions are incorrect.
Something very simple can disprove such assetrtions quite easily:
Add high Fe, add KH2PO4, add KNO3, use a good test calibrated test kit.
See if the tank is truly limiting algae.

I did this, it seems she did not nor did most aquarist using CO2 as well.

I can tell right away that is not what is going on and anyone knowing a hill of beans about natural tropical and subtropical lake systems knows it as well.
Allelopathy was agressively argued against by both myself and with experiment designs and test as was it also refuted wholefully by Ole Pedersen from Tropica, both of us recently met at the AGA event but had only heard second hand about the other.

DW's arguements for the stability and ease of care are the most convincing, the non CO2/Excel tank is decpetively easy and simple.

With some skill and focus, a nice scape is also achieved, something she admits little interest in.

I went back and measured uptake rates for the same system but without soil and without fish. I came up with about, on average 1 slower growth rates w/o CO2.
I've found a few references in the research that suggested similar ranges(Barko and Smart etc) So I have support for this ratio.

This allows me to measure and the better understand the rate of growth and nutrient use without CO2.

That's better than adding soil and guessing.
I am now able to grow plants better and many more species with less deficencies than her method, but still maintain no water changes, easy dosing, with or without fish loads.

I've added PO4 to 2ppm, no algae response.
I've added K to 40ppm, no response
I've added NO3 to 30ppm, no issues
I've added 10mls TMG per 100 liters, no algae response.
We removed any allelopathic chemicals via Activated carbon, a standard method in allelopathic studies.

Not one of these notions are correct as they would violate such observations in the non planted CO2 tank.

For them to be correct, I should be able to induce Algae in some or all cases, but this has bene going on for a few years now, still no algae.

Where's my algae if there is causation here?
Water changes seem to induce algae, one reason she does not do them, but she misses why this is.

Water changes add CO2, lots of it.
Withiout water changes, the CO2 levels are 0-5ppm at most typically, this is a stable low CO2 environment. Plants adapt well to this and produce lots of Rubsico to fix any CO2 that might be around.The downregulate other pathways to compensate for low carbon supplies.

When you do a weekly 25-50% water changes, this fluffs up the NH4, it adds lots of CO2 rich water to the tank, algae like plants, prefers CO2 also.

The plants take much longer to response to such CO2 changes and gear up.
Algae respond rapidly on the other hand.

They like variations in CO2, it means some environment aquatic change is happening and they are ready to get ahead start.

DOCm, allelopathy can be ruled out with using AC, adding that shoyuld induce an algae bllom if youy accept DOC/aallelopathy are inhibiting algfae as the AC will remove these both.

But again, I do not see this.............

Regards,
Tom Barrl

 

[Plantbrain]

Walstad specifically generates conditions different from a "High Tech" aquarium. Artificial Fertilizer is bad. I've read it twice, and I'm still unsure if she attributes her lack of algae to an iron limited water column or alleopathy- It seems to depend on what chapter I read, so perhaps is a bit of both.

Well, I think I fairly proved these notions to be untrue very effectively.
I know algae well, did my MS on them in FL springs.
I do not think there are any folks with a fair amount of phycology in the hobby of planted tanks other than myself perhaps.
Never heard nor met any.
I do get around also so...........

Rather than making such seeming large vast differences, if we consider growth rate, the methods both make sense for the same reasons, but they are defined by the growth rates and both are define by their stability.
So they operate for the same reasons at different rates.

This was missed by everyone.
and many still doa nd keep missing it even after having it pointed out, but you'll get eventually even if you have test the whole shebang like I did.

In this style of aquariums, large, regular water changes are Bad- I've heard them referred to as "You touch it, you'll break it" styles. After setup, you do nothing but feed it fishfood, top off the water, and prune occasionally.

Herein lies a key part of the non CO2 method, but she fails to realize the significance of this and how water changes influence things.

It's a very different techique then a "Tom Barr" style or "High Tech" aquarium with Co2 injection and EI Ferts.

Not really, the dosing is easier because the rate of growth is so slow.
One is growing plants 1 faster, perhaps more.
Both provide CO2 stabilty, one at the low in, the other at the high end.
I also reduced the EI dosing to 1/10 or a tad less and did the approach with inorganic ferts with better success. You can see my site for more info on this method. The "how" is simple for both methods, the why is rather long and involved.

I beleive Tom Barr said the technique is sound, but his methods produce 5 to 10 times as much growth, under the same light. That's from memory, I may be misquoting him.

10x is about right for 2/w gal.
Research from other researchers also concur.

He seems to disagree with her about why some things work, but not that they work.

Thank you for saying it that way
It does work, but what she attributes and sees is different than what I see.

For example, I beleive he attributes the lack of algae takeover to an Ammonia limitated water column, instead of iron or alleopathy. Both Mr. Barr and Mrs. Walstad are way smarter then me, I may have mistated one or both position.

In her defense, she wrote the book 8 years ago and started it before that.
And it was a great book.

I have my criticisims, but it's still a good book and the methods do work.
The books raises questions many have not addressed and I gained a lot from the critical review ansd ideas I knew to not be true and tested them to see. So I have her to thank for some of these ideas others have merely piece mealed together.

The book is a very good, if somewhat dry, read. I might try and setup a tank by her guidelines in the future, but if I had only one tank, I wouldn't. Not because I beleive her theories are flawed, but because tinkering with the tank is part of what I enjoy about the hobby. However, if your goal is a very low maintance, pretty, planted tank for a lot less money, you might consider Walstad's approach. Again, you'll be more limited in what plants you grow, and they will grow very slowly.

Well, most any method slowly evolves and gets better and further tweaked, this one was no different, it left many things speculated and unanswered, I had a few burning ones and resolved them.

Heck, no one else is going to for me are they? :x

I would suggest you try the method personally.
Patience is rewarded and it's so easy to care for. Nano tanks are ideal also, they need trimmed often if you add CO2 etc, not if you go non CO2!!

See the little tank above I did.
No soil but soil works well and is cheap.

Soak it for 2-3 weeks prior to use to remove the NH4 and start the bacteria. Pack the tank from day one and go from there.
The tanks are easy to do and so easy to maintain.
Then have the CO2 tank also.

Try both methods is the goal here, then you'll see the differences first hand and learn more.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[MarkP]

Wow, this is a post I never thought I'd make as a reply to you. I do not disagree with you- You've done the experiments, I've only read about them. It would be foolish of me to argue with you until and unless I'd done my own experiments. However, I do feel that Mrs. Walstad attempted to address some of these points. I'm pulling from "The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, Second Edition"

Well, I think I fairly proved these notions to be untrue very effectively.
I know algae well, did my MS on them in FL springs.
I do not think there are any folks with a fair amount of phycology in the hobby of planted tanks other than myself perhaps.
Never heard nor met any.
I do get around also so...........

Mrs. Walstad references an experiment in which a very small amount of iron was added to a low Fe ecosystem, which resulted in an algae bloom. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy of her book with me at the moment, but can provide this study. Fe levels were raised by an insanely small amount- Again, I'm not providing the exact figure because I'm not 100% sure I remember it.

However, I MUST beleive that this was an atypical ecosystem- In this particular case, Fe may have been a major limiting factor. That would rarely, if ever, be the case in an aquarium- Fish Food and Trace mixes provide far more Iron they they added.

This is a bad example, because I as a hobbyist can compare the two ideas, and see that your theory makes a heck of a lot more sense. But it does serve to illustrate a point- Both you and Walstad have studies which back up your ideas. As a hobbyist who lacks the ability to recreate these experiments, it sometimes becomes difficult. (My own solution to this problem, by the way, is to evolve into a hobbyist who has the ability to recreate these experiments. Don't tell my wife how much money this involves, or that she is going to lose half the basement to it!)

In this style of aquariums, large, regular water changes are Bad- I've heard them referred to as "You touch it, you'll break it" styles. After setup, you do nothing but feed it fishfood, top off the water, and prune occasionally.

Herein lies a key part of the non CO2 method, but she fails to realize the significance of this and how water changes influence things.

I don't follow this. Her book certainly gave me the impression that she realized a hands off attitude was significant- She talked of DOC's needing to build so they could act as chelating agents, the importance of fish food being allowed to decay to recharge the substrate and eventually release Co2, and other reasons.

Is this another one of those things were she has the "What to do" right but the "reasons it works" wrong? I do not recall her mentioning that water changes can cause temporary elevated Co2 levels, which may trigger algae growth.

It's a very different techique then a "Tom Barr" style or "High Tech" aquarium with Co2 injection and EI Ferts.

Not really, the dosing is easier because the rate of growth is so slow.
One is growing plants 1 faster, perhaps more.
Both provide CO2 stabilty, one at the low in, the other at the high end.
I also reduced the EI dosing to 1/10 or a tad less and did the approach with inorganic ferts with better success. You can see my site for more info on this method. The "how" is simple for both methods, the why is rather long and involved.

I've read that thread- I read everything on your site except the Lifetime Members forum, but especially the threads that involve Carbon Limited tanks. (I currently keep 3 carbon limited tanks)

I think I made a mistake when I referred to the "Tom Barr" style. While you have the reputation of being the Guru of High-Tech Planted Aquariums, you also have published guidelines for the low tech aquarium, as well as Excel dosed and Marine.

Allow me to rephrase- Walstad's approach is very different from a High Tech, Co2 injected, EI dosed tank both in amount of work required and amount of plant growth seen.

He seems to disagree with her about why some things work, but not that they work.

Thank you for saying it that way
It does work, but what she attributes and sees is different than what I see.

Allow me to inject some humor- I recently received a t-shirt with the slogan "What you say is called an opinion. What I see is called a fact". It appears that sentiment may express how you feel about Walstad's theories?

I would suggest you try the method personally.
Patience is rewarded and it's so easy to care for. Nano tanks are ideal also, they need trimmed often if you add CO2 etc, not if you go non CO2!!

I fully intend to, eventually, but am currently specing out a high tech, EI dosed tank for my living room. Since I don't want to make a mistake in setup, I am quite happy to spend months working on the specs before I spend any money.

 

[Plantbrain]

Well, I think I fairly proved these notions to be untrue very effectively.
I know algae well, did my MS on them in FL springs.
I do not think there are any folks with a fair amount of phycology in the hobby of planted tanks other than myself perhaps.
Never heard nor met any.
I do get around also so...........

Mrs. Walstad references an experiment in which a very small amount of iron was added to a low Fe ecosystem, which resulted in an algae bloom. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy of her book with me at the moment, but can provide this study. Fe levels were raised by an insanely small amount- Again, I'm not providing the exact figure because I'm not 100% sure I remember it.

However, I MUST beleive that this was an atypical ecosystem- In this particular case, Fe may have been a major limiting factor. That would rarely, if ever, be the case in an aquarium- Fish Food and Trace mixes provide far more Iron they they added.

This is a bad example, because I as a hobbyist can compare the two ideas, and see that your theory makes a heck of a lot more sense. But it does serve to illustrate a point- Both you and Walstad have studies which back up your ideas. As a hobbyist who lacks the ability to recreate these experiments, it sometimes becomes difficult. (My own solution to this problem, by the way, is to evolve into a hobbyist who has the ability to recreate these experiments. Don't tell my wife how much money this involves, or that she is going to lose half the basement to it!)

Just because she was able to show(not prove) her hypothese was "perhaps" correct for that case, does not mean it was correct. I've made this poor assumption in the past as have many aquarist.

Adding X causes algae.

But this is correlation, not causation.
I have the same type of system, I add Fe and I do not get algae.

How can we both be right?
We cannot.
Now for her hypothese to be correct, we must accept that adding Excess Fe must induce algfae in the non CO2 that is otherwise doign well, this would in essense, destablize it and cause algae spores to germinate.

But..........I add Fe way beyond the levels proscribes by her: no algae.
I repeat ther test a few times with wide tank comparisons.
Others do the same.
We find similar observations.

A similar monkey business approach with correlation= causation was attempted with PO4 excess = algae.

Again, but a similar approach, I refuted this, rather barbarically.

In this style of aquariums, large, regular water changes are Bad- I've heard them referred to as "You touch it, you'll break it" styles. After setup, you do nothing but feed it fishfood, top off the water, and prune occasionally.

Herein lies a key part of the non CO2 method, but she fails to realize the significance of this and how water changes influence things.

I don't follow this. Her book certainly gave me the impression that she realized a hands off attitude was significant- She talked of DOC's needing to build so they could act as chelating agents, the importance of fish food being allowed to decay to recharge the substrate and eventually release Co2, and other reasons.

Is this another one of those things were she has the "What to do" right but the "reasons it works" wrong? I do not recall her mentioning that water changes can cause temporary elevated Co2 levels, which may trigger algae growth.
[/quote]

I did, I mention this.
To accept this as true, adding AC will remove the DOC etc and we should see an algae bloom, again, we do not.

Easily testable.
Thing is, many love hypothese but do not test well.

The test need to have good safe assumptions, most aquarist make often very poor assumptions in their test.

It's a very different techique then a "Tom Barr" style or "High Tech" aquarium with Co2 injection and EI Ferts.

Not really, the dosing is easier because the rate of growth is so slow.
One is growing plants 1 faster, perhaps more.
Both provide CO2 stabilty, one at the low in, the other at the high end.
I also reduced the EI dosing to 1/10 or a tad less and did the approach with inorganic ferts with better success. You can see my site for more info on this method. The "how" is simple for both methods, the why is rather long and involved.

I've read that thread- I read everything on your site except the Lifetime Members forum, but especially the threads that involve Carbon Limited tanks. (I currently keep 3 carbon limited tanks)

I think I made a mistake when I referred to the "Tom Barr" style. While you have the reputation of being the Guru of High-Tech Planted Aquariums, you also have published guidelines for the low tech aquarium, as well as Excel dosed and Marine.

Allow me to rephrase- Walstad's approach is very different from a High Tech, Co2 injected, EI dosed tank both in amount of work required and amount of plant growth seen.[/quote]

It's simpler than that, it's a difference in growth rates through limiting factors (namely less light/ low CO2).

He seems to disagree with her about why some things work, but not that they work.

Thank you for saying it that way
It does work, but what she attributes and sees is different than what I see.

Allow me to inject some humor- I recently received a t-shirt with the slogan "What you say is called an opinion. What I see is called a fact". It appears that sentiment may express how you feel about Walstad's theories?[/quote]

I do not discount my theories will evolve, they have and folks have stated that I must somehow be wrong from then on if I chose to evolve and learn

Good God. I hope so!!
We all should.

I like to go out and test my ideas in a more thorough manner, and apply much more relevant research for support.

It does imply however, I am "right" or have found absolute "truth".
I put them out there for challenging through testing and hypothese, not semantical drivel and arm chair philosophy. Such modes of discourse are a waste and in the relmn of pseudo sciences and Astrology, so vauge and open to interptation you gain nothing and yet they can be applied to everything based on belief rather than critical thinking.

What it does imply is that what is called falsability of a hypothese.
You must challenge your own hypotheses and try to refute them!!
A good theory will have lots fo verification test trying to refute it!!!
If a test refutes it, we leave the hypothese and ask a new question.
Holding on to such hypothese when refuted is a very poor poor method and habit of many.

Evolution is classic example of a well tested theory. We know more about it and have tested it far more than gravity but few question gravity and basic physics.

I have shown that algae is not induced by high PO4.
That is a fairly universally accepted observation today.
You may prove this to yourself.

This test does not prove what causes algae, only what it is not.
I am not sure folks are clear about this concept.

I cannot know everything but I can know that adding PO4 does not cause algae.

This is a fallacy of inductive reasoning.
It might lead you to believe such things that PO4 causes algae in planted tanks.

But unless someone comes along, and see that it does not and fixes the issues that really where causing the algae, then you'd still believe that PO4 excess causes algae through induction.
I do not like inductive reasoning that much personally.
It's suspect.

So when I see things and try to answer questions, I look for the wide range of test and conditions that will prove me wrong.

I just do not see that type of behavior in hobbyists as a general rule, nor in DW's book. The Hypothese are great, but the resolution is poor.

I seek resolution and safe assumptions.
I ask folks if they see the same things.
Your eyes may play tricks on you.
Ask 5 folks what happened at the Bar fight last night and you'll get 5 different stories.
Seeing is not believing.

Such uncertainty is unsettling to many.

I would suggest you try the method personally.
Patience is rewarded and it's so easy to care for. Nano tanks are ideal also, they need trimmed often if you add CO2 etc, not if you go non CO2!!

I fully intend to, eventually, but am currently specing out a high tech, EI dosed tank for my living room. Since I don't want to make a mistake in setup, I am quite happy to spend months working on the specs before I spend any money.[/quote]

Wise.
Think about placement, cabinet etc as well as what is inside.
You have to live with it.


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Devilishturtles]

This is a very informative post. Just as an update, I did finally do a water change on my tank and rearranged, as I noticed the leaves starting to lack the same appearance as they did when I was doing bi-weekly water changes.

I guess they really do help in most cases.

 

[MarkP]

I did, I mention this.
To accept this as true, adding AC will remove the DOC etc and we should see an algae bloom, again, we do not.

I'm not ashamed to say I had to think this over a few times before the full impact hit me.

My first thought was "Doesn't he mean that removing the DOC with AC in a Walstad aquarium should result in less growth?".

But of course, that two sides of the same coin- Again, something in which you and Walstad agree on (Good Plant Growth = No algae) but disagree on Why.

Even moreso, central to Diana's theory is that the iron in her water column is bound as DOC-FE3+ and unavailible to the algae. Again, if she was correct, removing the DOC should result in a major algae bloom.

Incidently, I'm looking at the studies Walstad mentions as support. She references Goldman, CR, 1972- The role of minor nturients in limiting the productivity of aquatic systems. She even points out that Goldman did his studies in Lake Tahoe- Hardly the same as my aquarium. Lake Tahoe may experiance an algae bloom after added .005 PPM- If this was true for my aquarium, I would have an algae bloom after every feeding.

She further references Martin JH, Gordon RM, and Fitzwater SE, 1991 The case for iron. This experiment showed Iron can cause algae blooms in the open ocean... Again, not my aquarium.

This book is not only a great source of tips for a low-tech aquarium setup, it's also a remainder that a theory is subject to being disproven. Makes me want to setup 3 10 gallon Walstad aquariums, leave number 1 alone, add AC to number 2, and dose number 3 with ammonia.

Also makes me want to ask when I can buy a book with "Tom Barr" plastered across the cover.

 

[Plantbrain]

I did, I mention this.
To accept this as true, adding AC will remove the DOC etc and we should see an algae bloom, again, we do not.

I'm not ashamed to say I had to think this over a few times before the full impact hit me.

You should not be ashamed at all, rather, a point of real enlightenment.
It takes folks a few reads to get stuff.
I have to hammer some things in a few times myself

My first thought was "Doesn't he mean that removing the DOC with AC in a Walstad aquarium should result in less growth?".

No, it'll actually improve growth in and of itself.

But of course, that two sides of the same coin- Again, something in which you and Walstad agree on (Good Plant Growth = No algae) but disagree on Why.

Even moreso, central to Diana's theory is that the iron in her water column is bound as DOC-FE3+ and unavailible to the algae. Again, if she was correct, removing the DOC should result in a major algae bloom.

Such hypothese are valid unuit they are proven otherwise, she makes the hypoithese, I've shown they are not valid in my cases I've tested, I've done several runs and not seen what her hypothese suggest, nor does she attempt to falsify them either. :?
To explain what I see, I need to offer a new alternative hytpothese that is better able to explain the observations and test.

Incidently, I'm looking at the studies Walstad mentions as support. She references Goldman, CR, 1972- The role of minor nturients in limiting the productivity of aquatic systems. She even points out that Goldman did his studies in Lake Tahoe- Hardly the same as my aquarium. Lake Tahoe may experiance an algae bloom after added .005 PPM- If this was true for my aquarium, I would have an algae bloom after every feeding.

Look at where Goldman teachs at
UC Davis (where I am at), nice guy about ready to retire.
I know him, not just read him 8)
Same with many of the reference list.

She further references Martin JH, Gordon RM, and Fitzwater SE, 1991 The case for iron. This experiment showed Iron can cause algae blooms in the open ocean... Again, not my aquarium.

You are sharp!
I made this case against poor references used for supporting evidence as a tiny picoplankton marine algae, 2000 miles from land vs an FW planted tank as entirely different, not anything I would dare use as support.

I made this point on the APD some years ago. No one refuted my claim/criticism, that does not imply there aren't any, but I do try to goad a response here an there(what? Me? Never ).

This book is not only a great source of tips for a low-tech aquarium setup, it's also a remainder that a theory is subject to being disproven. Makes me want to setup 3 10 gallon Walstad aquariums, leave number 1 alone, add AC to number 2, and dose number 3 with ammonia.

It's not hard to do and requires less effort than the high light CO2 methods and you can learn many of the same types of things.

Also makes me want to ask when I can buy a book with "Tom Barr" plastered across the cover.

I've never been much on self promotion.
Much more about getting other folks to think critically and be creative in a scientific manner:

Asking good questions/hypothese
Coming up with creative ways to disprove and test such hypothese to see if they stand up to such falsification and validation.
Be observant and try new things, ideas etc.

I've arrived at the same old place again and it's always new everytime.

If you can and are able to think/test, deduce, induce well, you will not fall into the traps that support myths, rather, be part of a evolving path that leads successsively to an ever increasing and progressive path to what is really causing such things in nature.

Things change in science, sometimes slow, sometimes fast.
Not everyone see the same things either.

But you still need to try and see what other plausible alternatives there are before rendering a verdict. DW makes room for many such alternative speculations and leaves her self an out in most cases, many miss that part and take each idea as "law". thus it's les sher, and more the hobbyists causing some of the issues in their own interptation of her work in the book.

My book will be forthcoming in about 1-2 years.
I have some other things to discuss and write about before then and why I started the BarrReport e magazine.

regards,
Tom Barr

 

[zenkatydid]

this thread has been very interesting reading for me (a beginner), so thank you all!

the talk of how DOC's affect algae interests me. before i setup my DIY CO2 system, i had the spray bar on my tank right at the water line, to agitate the water as much as possible. this ensured that the protein film was broken up and could be filtered. since adding CO2, i have reduced as much surface agitation as possible to keep the levels stable, but this has resulted in the film appearing again. i assume this indicates i have a high level of DOC's. is this likely to encourage algae? should i regularly use AC to remove DOC's?