My point is really about the Clowns that brings this crap up.
It's a trade off and one you make personally.
That's not for me to decide for anyone, they must make the right decision for them, not for me.
I just just a little ticked off when some Clown claims that excess water change is bad, while keeping 4-5w/gal of lighting. The impact of a 10 Gal vs 50 Gallon is also part of that, do you need a 50 Gal? No.
So if I can afford 1600 Gallon tank, and it's a drop in the bucket on my wallet, less so that the 10-50 Gal example for someone with less $, does that mean the same rules do not apply also?
If you are into the green thing and saving electric, water etc, then why do they cut hairs about it and poo poo a method that clearly has a much less impact than another that supposes higher light is needed?
It's very convenient to whine about a method using water changes and then use high light and claim to be "green", "ecological sound", "natural", "balanced" and a bunch of other horse manure buzz marketing words often used to sell crap to the public. Then not focus on the other stuff that is really counter to the entire set of logic they are using to sell it in the first place.
You cannot win that argument using that logic. You do the very thing you claim to be trying to argue against.
If sustainable approaches are the goal, then there's a method for that, but many still want to use CO2, still, there's a good sustainable approach there, not as good as non CO2, but much better than the higher light, test kit method for sure.
Every little bit helps right? That's the favorite catch phrase.
If you want to use less, do fewer water changes etc, have less impact, then reduce the light watt first. This makes all the downstream components much easier to reach that goal.
If you want to accept some use, , consumption etc, who doesn't "here" really? Then we have to presuppose to have an aquarium, plants, a light etc, perhaps living in some places, no light is required, tank etc, because you have a stream out where you live full of plants etc(Florida etc). Most do not. then the question becomes, how can we do this with plants with the least impact?
Now you have a non CO2 method.
Any more amplification to growth rates adds to the waste and after all, every little bit helps right?
Water is pretty far down on that list, CO2 and light are at the top.
Light is not reusable either in aquariums, water most definitely is.
Regards,
Tom Barr