Plantbrain
Aquarium Advice Freak
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 284
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
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