Tom, what are your thoughts on this PFK Article?

[atrixnet]

Tom,

What are your thoughts on this somewhat recent article in Practical Fish Keeping? It kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure I agree with everything being said. Before I draw any hard conclusions of my own, can I get your perspective? What do you think about what's being said and suggested here?

The new school | Practical Fishkeeping magazine

Many thanks

 

[atrixnet]

Interesting that I just noted the line at the bottom of the article that it was first published in october of 06, and now they send it out as a leading story in their newsletter. Could they be hurting for good material? Sheesh.

Anyway, the question remains...

 

[Dave Spencer]

Hi atrixnet,

It would be nice to hear what conclusions you have drawn, before Mr Barr passes comment.

Dave.

 

[fjf888]

Atrixnet

I'm not Tom, I know but it appears to me to be a relatively good article, more substantive then I have seen any magazine such as TFH cover the topic in the states. Can't argue his results either.

Didn't seem to be anything controversial or a problem with it. Some people may argue substrate heating as bunk, but I don't recall in the article that he actually advocates it, just mentions it.

Fred

 

[Tom Barr]

There is a certain person that it might be controversial towards, perhaps a small group........but not most folks.

I like/d the article and the magazine.
Rather than my opinion, I'd rather you think, read, and form your own opinion and be able to reason well.

Teach a person to hunt,grow crops, gather etc you no longer have to give them food all the time

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[aquabillpers]

it is a long article. I read part of it and didn't see anything new or controversial in what I read.

Is there some specific point in it that you want to discuss?

Bill

 

[aquabillpers]

. . . Teach a person to hunt,grow crops, gather etc you no longer have to give them food all the time

You used to be an anarchist but now you are sounding like a Republican!

Bill

 

[VaughnH]

I read the whole article, and all that I found that I consider incorrect, was the directions for measuring CO2 by measuring tank water pH and KH. He didn't advocate substrate heating, just mentioned it. I have yet to read an article of that type where I agreed with every single statement in it.

 

[George Farmer]

That article was my second every published piece. I have over 50 now.

I've learnt a fair bit since, in particular CO2 measurement - thanks to Hoppy, Tom and co.

I don't advocate substrate heating. Readers of my other PFK features and blogs will know that very well indeed.

I wrote it for the 'average' PFK reader, that was reletively new to these techniques of growing plants. Striking a balance is hard. You cannot please everyone, all of the time.

I guess the OP is a reflection of this.

 

[Tom Barr]

You used to be an anarchist but now you are sounding like a Republican!

Bill

Who said I'm not still an anarchist?
I'm asking for folks to think for themselves and use critical thinking............something I do not associate with any political party.....hence an Anarchist

There is no "Plant Politics".


Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

That article was my second every published piece. I have over 50 now.

I've learnt a fair bit since, in particular CO2 measurement - thanks to Hoppy, Tom and co.

I don't advocate substrate heating. Readers of my other PFK features and blogs will know that very well indeed.

I wrote it for the 'average' PFK reader, that was reletively new to these techniques of growing plants. Striking a balance is hard. You cannot please everyone, all of the time.

I guess the OP is a reflection of this.

Yep, no one method will please everyone.

I do not suggest any one, writer, hobbyists helping another etc, should hold such a view either.....................

If you seek to learn, then do what you claim you want to do.
Learn.

That means learning about various methods that each achieve a different goal and set of trade offs.

Not just one method and then go all over claiming it's the "best" and putting everyone else down in the process. It's one thing to support and discuss a method, but it's another to inject agenda and bad mouth other methods unfairly.

I've really gone after a few folks that have done this and essentially torn them a new one............and rightly so, they added personal BS to the discussion, offered no real support.

A real student of plants will not stop with one method and one goal, there is no such nirvana, it is on going and ever evolving.

Look at George Farmer?
He;s grown a great deal and has learned a lot, now he is offering ever more to his fellow hobbyists, that is what helping folks is really about, that is the payment I seek in return.

We all learn and become wiser. When we think we know it all and become complacent, that's when we are had and no longer can learn any further.

I thought I knew CO2 back 15-20 years ago, heck I still don't today truthfully.
I have 100+ experiments that I'd like to see done with it and aquatic submersed plants. I'm not even remotely done learning, I've just started I feel like.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[atrixnet]

Tom, I wanted to know what your thoughts were on the following, sometimes hotly contested points that were presented in the article. In my exhaustive reading of your and others' points of view here at TBR I have a better feel for your opinions on these topics; however at the time of reading, this article presented some ideas that went against the grain with some ideas that conventional planted tank principles dictate, and my knowledge of your opinions on such topics was still infantile at best. Might I clarify also while citing some examples hereafter that I have no quarrel with the author's ideas, only questions; I just wanted to know what Tom Barr thought. Really, that's it. Not a grand or exceptional request, just an RFC if you will.

Some points made in the article that stood out to me as "different" or "new", as the title of the article would imply:

Contrary to popular belief, flow rates do not have to be very low. Turnover figures of less than the tank's volume per hour have been recommended but in my experience between three and five times the tank’s volume per hour works very well, with many successful planted aquarium enthusiasts running higher turnover rates.

Why does this raise questions? Well, like it says, it's "contrary to popluar belief", so naturally I wanted to know what the plant guru team thought about it.

And here we have another idea that, in my reading of your material, Tom, doesn't gel. You've said that surface agitation can be important, yet:

Using a submerged spray bar one can ensure the flow is directed appropriately to minimise disturbance to the plants and surface agitation that can drive off valuable CO2.

Tom, you've stated that an environment of non-limiting nutrients is not a cause of algae, rather an anecdotal "correlation", and the author states here:

The waste fish produce is the biggest nitrogen-related algae trigger (20x more than nitrate) so limiting fish will help limit algae.

Isn't fish waste ultimately mineralized to nitrate anyway (and maybe some other traces)? What am I missing? ...And what are your thoughts on this next one? I really can't guess.

Actinic tubes and those designed for marine/reef aquariums should be avoided as these can stimulate algae growth. If possible, go for the full-spectrum or tri-phosphor types as these produce the highest intensities and generally last longer.

As for this:

A technique I have had success with is to have the CO2 flow directly into the external filter intake.

...it has been said here in recent discussion that misting throughout the tank is best. Well, does this not disagree with that concept? Which is correct, or, which is the better of the two?

And here we have a statement that has been very forcefully denounced at TBR. Would it not merit clarification, if not at least dissenting reinforcement from the plant guru team? -->

CO2 and pH are intrinsically linked and it is this relationship that allows us to test CO2 levels in the water by using KH as a constant.

To measure CO2 you need pH and KH test kits. The results are simply cross-referenced on a pH/KH/CO2 chart.

It was also stated:

CO2 is only required during lighting.

...but here at TBR it has been stated by yourself, Tom, that CO2 is also required prior to lighting as well. Hmmm. Again I ask, what do you think?

Then we also read:

...injecting CO2 24/7 can be perfectly fine...

Tom, you may remember from some of my posts that I posed questions about this. In the original post I was seeking the distinguished opinion(s) of the plant guru team on this point. The idea has been a few times designated as incorrect here at TBR on more than one occasion.

The definition of controversy wraps within it an element of contradiction; we therefore see contradiction in many if not all of these points, and thereupon controversy. What does the plant guru team think? What does Tom Barr think? I sense that in the interest of protecting feelings and avoiding controversy yourself that you have taken the stance in your initial response to me that

There is a certain person that it might be controversial towards, perhaps a small group........but not most folks.

I like/d the article and the magazine.
Rather than my opinion, I'd rather you think, read, and form your own opinion and be able to reason well.

...And yet your specificities in conversations here in the forums just don't agree with that benevolent generalization. Then you descend into a pithy colloquialism that really doesn't help me at all:

Teach a person to hunt,grow crops, gather etc you no longer have to give them food all the time

Come on buddy! Throw me a bone! You either agree or you don't or you have reservations. I'm sure I respect your kindness, but I'm asking for the facts.

In conclusion, I had refrained from laying out a litany of "controversial" points identified myself because I figured that you would have recognized the items yourself of greatest import in your eyes and commented solely on those; those items judged of yourself to be such, I decided beforehand that my remaining questions would be of little consequence and that I would be satisfied with what you had to say on those items of your own choice.

So there you have it...my curiosities revealed! May I now renew my request to have your thinking on the points in the article that not necessarily come from my list above but from your own judgment as most important and deserving of clarification? Surely you can see that these points don't harmonize.

My thanks extended, I am as ever,

 

[atrixnet]

That means learning about various methods that each achieve a different goal and set of trade offs.

Not just one method and then go all over claiming it's the "best" and putting everyone else down in the process. It's one thing to support and discuss a method, but it's another to inject agenda and bad mouth other methods unfairly.

I hope no one thinks that this is how I meant to pose my question, or thinks that it was my intention to do that in any way whatsoever. I hope that posing questions isn't going to be interpreted as smearing someone each time I ask about a given article, product, methodology, etc.

And while it might hold true that there isn't a "best" way of doing things at all times, certainly in most cases one way is "better" than others for any given situation. It's just not logical to say everything is equal when you also say that misting is a better way of distributing CO2 than with an inline reactor, or that dosing CO2 is best achieved by watching a drop checker and controlling bubble rates than using a pH probe as a CO2 controller, for example. You have expressed your thoughts on those matters and have most certainly said in unambiguous terms that you hold one method over the others.

Wow, I didn't know I was going to ruffle so many feathers. It was just a solicitation for advice. Damn if I don't feel like an unwelcome wart now.

 

[phanmc]

And here we have another idea that, in my reading of your material, Tom, doesn't gel. You've said that surface agitation can be important, yet:

Too much surface agitation will drive off CO2 but no surface agitation or movement will not allow gas exchange for 02 to enter the tank. you're looking for a balance where you aren't wasting excessive amounts of CO2 while also maintaining a proper 02 level throughout the day and night. A filter with controllable submerged outflow is ideal for this.

Isn't fish waste ultimately mineralized to nitrate anyway (and maybe some other traces)? What am I missing?

Fish waste is first converted to ammonia, then nitrites, and then nitrates. Excess ammonia will induce algae while nitrates won't. Waiting for the ammonia to convert to nitrates allows the algae to take advantage of it, so limit the available ammonia with a light fish load and manually provide the nitrates for the plants.

...it has been said here in recent discussion that misting throughout the tank is best. Well, does this not disagree with that concept? Which is correct, or, which is the better of the two?

Tom had a theory that CO2 misting may provide more CO2 by both dissolving into the water and also having CO2 bubbles stick to the plants for an additional burst. He also mentioned in another post that this may simply be due to increased water flow.

It's a theory and not fact, and it doesn't negate the effectiveness of the method described in the article.

CO2 and pH are intrinsically linked and it is this relationship that allows us to test CO2 levels in the water by using KH as a constant.

To measure CO2 you need pH and KH test kits. The results are simply cross-referenced on a pH/KH/CO2 chart.

Drop checkers work on the same principle as the pH/kH chart, it just enhances it by ruling out the possibility of contaminants messing up the reading.

Before drop checkers became common, the pH/kH chart was the only reasonably available method to measure CO2 in a tank. The cheaper CO2 test kits all suffer from the same problems as the pH/kH chart in that other acids and buffers will mess up the readings. The more accurate CO2 test kits are expensive and beyond the reach of the average consumer.

CO2 is only required during lighting.
...injecting CO2 24/7 can be perfectly fine...

24/7 CO2 injection can be perfectly fine but plants only use the CO2 during the lights period for photosynthesis, so you are essentially wasting CO2 when you are injecting it during the night. The reason why Tom and others recommend injecting CO2 an hour before lights go on is to ensure there is CO2 saturation when the lights go on so plants can take advantage of it immediately rather than having to wait for the CO2 to build up.

 

[atrixnet]

Thanks so very much for the answers!

 

[Tom Barr]

And while it might hold true that there isn't a "best" way of doing things at all times, certainly in most cases one way is "better" than others for any given situation.

As long as you state that "goal"(situation?) up front ............

I said"

Not just one method and then go all over claiming it's the "best" and putting everyone else down in the process. It's one thing to support and discuss a method, but it's another to inject agenda and bad mouth other methods unfairly.

I'm not talking about you here, I wanted to be clear about that.
I'm talking about another group of folks(they know who they are) and in general. Many folks can be swayed down such paths, don't fall for it.

I often will talk in general terms about folks in general, these statements are not a personal directed at you type of thing, there's a level of psychology mixed into advice, helping others, advice and the web in general.

In person when I talk this way, this comes across very different. Some folks have taken this to mean them personally, even though I say folks, not their name etc.
We can assume such things rather easily, but have thicker skin and ask if you think it was directed at you.
I'm not nearly as onerous or mean as some make me out to be

It's just not logical to say everything is equal when you also say that misting is a better way of distributing CO2 than with an inline reactor, or that dosing CO2 is best achieved by watching a drop checker and controlling bubble rates than using a pH probe as a CO2 controller, for example. You have expressed your thoughts on those matters and have most certainly said in unambiguous terms that you hold one method over the others.

Yep.
The real question is "why" it works better.
Asking a good question, say
"Why does CO2 mist yield such good results vs a CO2 reactor tube?"

That will get a good answer.
And such answers have already been discussed.
Many of the BR newsletters discuss such things.

Wow, I didn't know I was going to ruffle so many feathers. It was just a solicitation for advice. Damn if I don't feel like an unwelcome wart now.

Naw
I'd not feel that way, you are on the web, folks can easily think one thing and write it, and it can easily be taken many different ways, but........in person?
Such communication is far easier and easy to confirm what is meant.
A bit of thick skin is required on the web.

Just do not take things personally.
I apologize if if it sounded that way, I'm actually pretty easy going in person, I come across a bit serious on line though

Stay focused on the plants, why they grow, why CO2 mist works vs something else, why CO2 drop checkers are useful, why current might be important.

Just ask the question directly.
Or you can ask it like this:

Under what conditions might CO2 reactor and CO2 mist methods have a similar effect?

These type of questions and lines of reasoning will help you much more.
There are already many threads here and elsewhere about the questions posed.

I do not mind rehashing either.

The opinions and reasons are already out there...so if you look, the answers are right there. I justify them more so in the BR newsletters.
Give them a read.

Do not be scared of anything and any question, there's no need to be if you are honest.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[atrixnet]

All points noted.

Many thanks, Tom.

 

[Tom Barr]

Do not worry about it, keep asking
I kind of like picking on George truth be told

regards,
Tom Barr

 

[George Farmer]

I kind of like picking on George truth be told

regards,
Tom Barr

You're not the only one, Tom. But you mean well...

 

[Tom Barr]

CHALLENGING AND PICKING ON IDEAS IS FINE, YOU CAN DO THAT ALL DAY LONG.

People?
No.
The arguments need to make sense or at least go somewhere.
We use to tease and prod one another on the APD.
But the bottom line was serious debates about the issue and what was best based on a clear logic, testing, and research. a lot was unknown then, still is for that matter.

Folks used critical thinking.
Hey, use it on me as well.

I've said things in past that I disagree with today, George does as well.
I know George. He knows me somewhat, but very few folks know me from 15 years ago...............

I've changed(a lot), as will you all over time and the longer you are in this hobby.
Heck, I hope I change!

We all should.

But admitting "Hey, I was not right about that, that was a dead end etc, and now I learned something, now I can go back and not worry much about that." is a good thing, not bad, or one that discredits you.

We all make our own mistakes.
But repeating them or not seeing through them later is bad.

I get pretty testy with folks that do not pony up and admit things. I have to swallow the same pill myself

Careful not to be too hard on folks, they may not think the same thing from 2-5-10 or 20 years ago as they do today, Amano, Horst, myself, Randall, Sears, Booth, we all think very differently today.

But as George states, we (I) meant well.

Still, the evolution of learning is about getting closer to the truth and having better methods, however, we never really get to the ultimate "truth", only progressively closer and have more understanding about how aquatic ecosystems interact with plants.

There are many things we can over look in the hobby or in our writing style, choke! hack! cough cough! ahem!
We all are human. Me more than most

Regards,
Tom Barr