glueyporchtreatment said:
I agree with Mr. Farmer on all but 2 points. The article itself contains the important caveats:
5. Aquarium plants require loads of light
Hobbyists seem to be growing what used to be regarded as difficult species in tanks with very relatively low light. Providing the plants are sufficiently fed via good nutrients and circulation then most species can be successfully grown with two T8 fluorescents with reflectors or an equivalent.
I honestly haven't seen any tanks with 'difficult' species that only have 2 T8 bulbs.
Which of course does not mean that it hasn't been done. Difficult plants typically are slow growing species and the reason for using higher light intensities have to do with accelerating the growth rates. There are no species which require high intensities, but we are impatient and we want the tank to "fill in" quickly. This is entirely consistent with the entries:
item #7: Many of today’s aquascapers like to grow relatively demanding plants so they will require higher levels of lighting, and therefore have a higher carbon and other nutrient requirement...........
one paragraph later: To do this they need high-energy systems and the associated equipment. While it’s possible to have a successful and long-term planted aquarium without resorting to ‘modern’ growing methods, it does make it easier and is essential for some species.
High light is essential if you intend to enter an aquascaping contest 4 months from now and if you need to get the tank filled in and presentable. Adding high light then requires high everything else.
glueyporchtreatment said:
And of course the much more controversial issue:
10. Nitrates and phosphates cause algae in the planted tank.
However, since the early 1990s, many hobbyists have been adding nitrates and phosphates via dry chemicals to their planted tanks and some companies are producing liquid fertilisers containing nitrates and phosphates.
And this proves what exactly??
It proves exactly that commercial fertilizer companies realize their msitakes of not using NPK in their products, rendering these products useless.
glueyporchtreatment said:
Some people chain smoke their entire lives and don't get cancer. Does that refute the scientific evidence that says otherwise??
If someone smokes and does not get cancer it's because the person has a genetic permutation that resists the biological processes that results in cancer. It might be of great value to study these people who resist the effects that other have.
Likewise, if someone adds NPK to a tank, and if the tank resists algae then it would be of great value to study those tanks in order to determine why the tank resists algae. George Farmer adds copious amounts of NPK to his tanks and his tanks do not get algae. I add copious amounts of NPK to my tanks and my tanks do not get algae. Other people avoid NPK like the plague and yet their tanks continually suffer algae. What this means is that we do not yet full understand what causes algae and that we should try to understand why adding NPK to a tank results in no algal blooms.
glueyporchtreatment said:
And if nitrates and phosphates were unproblematic, why would the same article contain the following comments???:
. Add a comprehensive liquid fertiliser daily — one also providing nitrogen and phosphorous if you have low fish stock — and an additional source of carbon, either from liquid carbon or CO2 gas.
However, adding these nutrients is not always appropriate in every case. If not heavily planted and a high fish load, sufficient nitrates and phosphates for the tank’s well-being may already be present in your water.
I'm not trying to be a pest, and as I mentioned, I agree on all the other points, but I think a little clarification is needed to clear up these contradictory points.
The answer is very simple: If sufficient NPK is already in the tank adding more becomes expensive and unnecessary. Adding more NPK causes more growth than the hobbyist might have intended, which then requires more pruning and maintenance than intended. If maintenance is ignored and growth rates not held in check the tank becomes a victim of it's own success and this leads to other problems which can then lead to algal blooms.
In fact these points are not contradictory at all. It is the reader who lacks the knowledge of plant husbandry to make sense of it all. The article is excellent and all of us here live by these tenets. As a result, we have a higher degree of success than most. What the reader needs to do is to implement these concepts and to learn plant husbandry as a whole, not as isolated points. It is often not possible to determine what
causes a phenomenon, therefore it is necessary to take a different tack. That means, by process of elimination we can often determine what
does not cause the phenomenon.
Following this logic, if I add high quantities of nutrients to a tank and the tank completely avoids algal blooms then there is scientific evidence that refutes what others have postulated. I therefore have proof that nutrients alone cannot be the cause of algae. On the contrary, it is very easy for me to demonstrate that LACK of nutrients can be correlated to an algal bloom.
Through our efforts, we have demonstrated a very high correlation between poor nutrition, poor CO2 and high lighting with algal blooms. It is suggested that you study the threads on this website for further details.
Cheers,