aquabillpers;18470 said:
Tom,
You have always been supportive of different ways of growing aquatic plants. Hi tech, low tech, no tech - all get good, helpful comments from you.
But, most of the posters here prefer high light, injected CO2 approaches. That is fine - we low light folks can learn a lot from their experiences. I think the "bias", if you will (or "tilt" or "emphasis"), of most sites is largely determined by the posters and the topics that they introduce and the advice that they give. And here that "tilt" is, naturally, in the direction of higher light, injected CO2.
In this context, "bias" is not a bad word.
Bill
Which is why we should all support using various methods for ourself, as well as for others. Then you can see and appreciate the joys of the various methods and know what they entail.
Yes, there is a strong bias, I'm not suggesting that bias itself is bad, many have bias and they have done both methods to high level.
But those folks are rare.
I know many that talk to me are trying out the lower light tanks, and a few are going the low tech method without CO2.
We all make some assumptions when some asks a question about "how to grow aquatic plants".
I resign myself to helping them based on their goals, rather than a method. That's secondary.
Many folk believe that their method is best. I do not. It's a secondardy consideration. Each has its specific trade offs and goals and
is best under a certain set of critieria only.
It's hard to chose which one to promote. So I suggets both.
Folks generally promote only what they know and have had success with though.
What I often suggest and promote is having the CO2 folks try the non CO2 methods, that's not as hard, and the non CO2 folks try the CO2 methods(that's harder to sell them on).
That way we have lots of folks that can do both methods well and think in those terms. Right now, we are just starting to see this trend happen(both).
That seems like a wise approach and gets away from bias.
I know Vaughn has a non CO2 tank up and running and many others are enjoying the low work load and the nice ease of care.
Non CO2 tanks are super for the nanos and additional tanks if you have less time, tend to neglect tanks for longer time frames or just want a slower growing less intense care tank.
Hard to argue with that direction
But back to your point, the bias is not just here, it's everywhere.
APC has plenty of bias, just go look at the newbie sections, no site is immune. Edward had it bad when I argued with him about why not use non CO2 methods if "excess is bad" for nutrients/CO2 or if you want less/fewer water changes. He never once gave an answer to that trade off. It did not support his belief or argument
I kept pounding that issue, his pals got mad and started calling me names and getting personal.
But he never answered that conflict in his advice, the rest does not matter.
Diana is at least consistent and certainly takes things to a higher level in terms of her logic and approach. I do not agree with some of the things, but she can at least support them and addresses such questions.
You have to face the music at some point. You cannot have all the benefits and arguments for, without giving something up in return. If so, you are just promoting agenda, not the hobby. Yet light limiting is not discussed(actually Edward suggest adding as much as possible which is backwards based on plant growth requirements, it all starts with light which drives CO2, which drives nutrient uptake etc), only ferts and CO2 and then if you accept that the argument less is better, then why isn't Edward supporting non CO2 low light methods exclusively?
If that is your arguement and you want to hold it up as the defining aspect(less is better), then go all out, none of this something in between, that sounds too much like a "range" or an "estimation". Non CO2 tanks have extremely little variation in CO2, nutrients such as NH4 and NO3 at often immeasurable levels.
Add only sediment ferts since less is better in the water column, again, he supports inert sediments exclusively.
Diana does not, she suggest the opposite, however, I've done
both well to a high degree. So knowning both sides really helps get a better perspective. But simply trying it without successful execution is worthless also, you have to
master the method, not merely try it .......to speak with less bias.
Convincing folks that is tough to say the least, they "believe" otherwise, but you can falsify their belief's easily by providing a nice example of a method that they failed at. That gets them madder however
I've never bought into the notion that less is really better, that was the idea behind algae limitation methods. That's not what I'd argue for as evidence suggest otherwise.
I've long known the trade offs, that several methods work well. I'd rather have several tools in my tool box than being a one trick pony. I think folks that grew plants well long before the net/the web appeared are quite different.
Every method has a set of trade offs, the person's goals therefore should define those trade offs, not the other way around.
This is actually less plant science and more social science.
Regards,
Tom Barr
