I think a recent exchange with CRS's keepers got me thinking about what it is about such adjectives used to describe that are not descriptive so much, but rather conjure up negative imagery.
I've seen plant zealots, folks who have no or virtually no fish in the aquarium.
I've seen discus zealots, 3-4x a week water changes, over feed, play with pH/RO etc.
I've seen shrimp zealots, no ferts, no nothing
I've seen Angels fish zealots, RO only, similar to Discus folks
I've seen Rift cichlid zealots, insisting on high pH
So where is the balance in all of this muckery?
I have little doubt that for each prospective goal, the methods tend to be precise and specific for each
area of specialty. But what happens when we add these fish and plants together?
What trade offs should we place?
Should we entirely ignore plants?
Should we ignore the fish and assume healthy plants = healthy fish? What is a healthy plant?
What words should be used to descrive a primary focus on livetstock or plants only without much regard for the other facects of the aquarium?
I've never been entirely comfortable with adding plants without regard for them and 90-100% focus on the livestock. Likewise, I've never been comfortable with going 90-100% to the plant demands.
I've argued that there is a middle ground and we should assume there is a middle ground.
One where we can keep healthy fish, plants, inverts etc all together with relative ease for a typical caring experienced aquarist can manage over years/time with low risk of failure. I'm not sure how to communicate this balance and moderation between these without offending some group and exposing the real risk or lack thereof.
We have this same issue in the area of Weed Science.
Invaders, exotic, noxious........many are military words.
They conjure up images associated with those words that do not reflect the descriptions of the weeds or what they do/are capable of. They may or may not be "bad", depends on the management goal/s and whether they have tested whether or not the weed can establish, colonize and invade that area, even then, it might not cause a real risk or problem.
Likewise, being focused on the real risk within the aquarium hobby is also a wiser approach.
It can be hard to get to this point when we have different groups not looking at the goals or assuming there is risk, when it simply has not been shown.
Risk can only be tested well, just like testing algae causes...when you are competent enough an aquarist to provide a good reference tank. If you cannot do this, you cannot isolate any factors.
Too much potential interference/confounding factors, lack of independence in the test.
So you need good ability with at least two of the groups you plan to test, say Discus and plants, not just one or the other.
Some get lucky and have good results without much experience in the other area, some do not.
Each specialist who lacks exeprience in the other argues their points, but has little experience with the other.
Thus little moderation and balance between the two.
How can this be solved/resolved?
Regards,
Tom Barr
I've seen plant zealots, folks who have no or virtually no fish in the aquarium.
I've seen discus zealots, 3-4x a week water changes, over feed, play with pH/RO etc.
I've seen shrimp zealots, no ferts, no nothing
I've seen Angels fish zealots, RO only, similar to Discus folks
I've seen Rift cichlid zealots, insisting on high pH
So where is the balance in all of this muckery?
I have little doubt that for each prospective goal, the methods tend to be precise and specific for each
area of specialty. But what happens when we add these fish and plants together?
What trade offs should we place?
Should we entirely ignore plants?
Should we ignore the fish and assume healthy plants = healthy fish? What is a healthy plant?
What words should be used to descrive a primary focus on livetstock or plants only without much regard for the other facects of the aquarium?
I've never been entirely comfortable with adding plants without regard for them and 90-100% focus on the livestock. Likewise, I've never been comfortable with going 90-100% to the plant demands.
I've argued that there is a middle ground and we should assume there is a middle ground.
One where we can keep healthy fish, plants, inverts etc all together with relative ease for a typical caring experienced aquarist can manage over years/time with low risk of failure. I'm not sure how to communicate this balance and moderation between these without offending some group and exposing the real risk or lack thereof.
We have this same issue in the area of Weed Science.
Invaders, exotic, noxious........many are military words.
They conjure up images associated with those words that do not reflect the descriptions of the weeds or what they do/are capable of. They may or may not be "bad", depends on the management goal/s and whether they have tested whether or not the weed can establish, colonize and invade that area, even then, it might not cause a real risk or problem.
Likewise, being focused on the real risk within the aquarium hobby is also a wiser approach.
It can be hard to get to this point when we have different groups not looking at the goals or assuming there is risk, when it simply has not been shown.
Risk can only be tested well, just like testing algae causes...when you are competent enough an aquarist to provide a good reference tank. If you cannot do this, you cannot isolate any factors.
Too much potential interference/confounding factors, lack of independence in the test.
So you need good ability with at least two of the groups you plan to test, say Discus and plants, not just one or the other.
Some get lucky and have good results without much experience in the other area, some do not.
Each specialist who lacks exeprience in the other argues their points, but has little experience with the other.
Thus little moderation and balance between the two.
How can this be solved/resolved?
Regards,
Tom Barr
So no stress here.