Joined
·
84 Posts
Re: Why live with a wood burning stove?
*I posted this on the other thread, but I figured I'd REpost it here*
The funny thing about this thread is that everyone has agreed with everyone else on the most basic of principals... plants and fish need to be healthy, and each of us has found a way to make that happen. I digress, Ray has actually tried to tell people that their fish aren't healthy when he's never seen them. I guess that'd be the caveat to that. At any rate, aquariums are not nature, they are emulators. Ph does NOT remain constant in nature, save VERY large bodies of water, and we're not dealing with saltwater here, and by and large, not dealing with the African rift lakes either where Ph is pretty darned constant throughout.
If your fish are healthier than Tom Barr's fish, great! If your plants grow a miniscule amount faster than Tom Barr's tanks fantastic! (although I'd really have to see a side-by-side on this one. no, it wouldn't be "scientific" but doubting the harsh reality of what a side-by-side comparison of methods would do is simply admitting defeat.) From everything I've read (I'm a big forum stalker lol) Barr relies the MOST heavily on observation of plant and fish health/growth to find his sweet spot for Co2. This ability comes from all of his experience and scientific testing, so he's used everything from drop checkers to controllers, gas testing devices, and whatever's in between all this to do REAL scientific testing, with a certified "control." Unfortunately, most of us don't have these years of dedicated testing under our belts to go on, so we must rely on some device other than our eyes to KNOW what's going on in the tank. Most people use the drop checker because it's cheaper. Most SMART people use the drop checker as a START and go from there, and end up with a lush (hopefully algaefree) aquarium with happy, breeding, eating, partying-when-you-turn-the-lights-off fish.
I'm not by any means saying Barr's a "god." There's only one of those, but Barr has certainly put in his time where planted tanks are concerned and had MASSIVE success with them on all levels. I can't remember the last time I heard of Ray-the-pilot's Estimative Index fertilizing methods. I've heard of Barr's though. In fact, I use it with great results, as well as some of his advices on Co2 levels from thebarrreport.com forums. Heck, that would be a great place for you to copy and paste this thread. I'd be interested to see both points of view come together. (from a scientific standpoint, not a drama one)
my $0.02
P.S. Tom Barr never touted the use of a controller any more than he touted the use of the drop checkers. His gripe was with reliance on unreliable (or potentially unreliable) equipment rather than actual scientific evidence. You can't claim to have a "control" when calibrating your tests, of you don't have a second aquarium run by the other method sitting directly beside. That said, nothing will ever be completely scientific in an aquarium since we can't tell the fishies to sit still while we test our flow rate
*Edit* My grandmother used a woodburning stove to great effect when heating her house. I wouldn't be able to because I'm not used to it, but on a cold winter night, she knew exactly how much wood to toss in there to keep her space nice and toasty. Adding a "thermostat" wouldn't do too much for the hot/cold spots in your house, unless you added one for each room. (each different flow area in our aquariums) so your controller needs several probes per aquarium to accurately deal with this issue if you really think you have to have it THAT regulated to make fish and plants happy. Obvisouly, (or at least hopefully) you weren't attempting to make a direct correlation between the two, but the analogy remains the same. Some people have enough experience with their drop checkers to use them as a very reliable starting point, and some people like their controllers. On the last three tanks I set up, (and grew out very nice plants, as well as breeding fish and invertibrates) I didn't use a controller OR a drop checker, so I'm not rooting for either method. I agree that if the controller COULD test the perfect average of the Co2 level in the tank(not just the Ph swings), and adjust flow accordingly, it would be the best tool we had in our arsenal, and in fact might still be the best tool regardless of that small flaw, but (while we're going for inane references that don't really correlate) you're telling people who are perfectly happy with their VCR's that they NEED to switch to a DVD player to make their guests happy. They'll end up with the same movie in the end, and the popcorn will taste just as good.
*I posted this on the other thread, but I figured I'd REpost it here*
The funny thing about this thread is that everyone has agreed with everyone else on the most basic of principals... plants and fish need to be healthy, and each of us has found a way to make that happen. I digress, Ray has actually tried to tell people that their fish aren't healthy when he's never seen them. I guess that'd be the caveat to that. At any rate, aquariums are not nature, they are emulators. Ph does NOT remain constant in nature, save VERY large bodies of water, and we're not dealing with saltwater here, and by and large, not dealing with the African rift lakes either where Ph is pretty darned constant throughout.
If your fish are healthier than Tom Barr's fish, great! If your plants grow a miniscule amount faster than Tom Barr's tanks fantastic! (although I'd really have to see a side-by-side on this one. no, it wouldn't be "scientific" but doubting the harsh reality of what a side-by-side comparison of methods would do is simply admitting defeat.) From everything I've read (I'm a big forum stalker lol) Barr relies the MOST heavily on observation of plant and fish health/growth to find his sweet spot for Co2. This ability comes from all of his experience and scientific testing, so he's used everything from drop checkers to controllers, gas testing devices, and whatever's in between all this to do REAL scientific testing, with a certified "control." Unfortunately, most of us don't have these years of dedicated testing under our belts to go on, so we must rely on some device other than our eyes to KNOW what's going on in the tank. Most people use the drop checker because it's cheaper. Most SMART people use the drop checker as a START and go from there, and end up with a lush (hopefully algaefree) aquarium with happy, breeding, eating, partying-when-you-turn-the-lights-off fish.
I'm not by any means saying Barr's a "god." There's only one of those, but Barr has certainly put in his time where planted tanks are concerned and had MASSIVE success with them on all levels. I can't remember the last time I heard of Ray-the-pilot's Estimative Index fertilizing methods. I've heard of Barr's though. In fact, I use it with great results, as well as some of his advices on Co2 levels from thebarrreport.com forums. Heck, that would be a great place for you to copy and paste this thread. I'd be interested to see both points of view come together. (from a scientific standpoint, not a drama one)
my $0.02
P.S. Tom Barr never touted the use of a controller any more than he touted the use of the drop checkers. His gripe was with reliance on unreliable (or potentially unreliable) equipment rather than actual scientific evidence. You can't claim to have a "control" when calibrating your tests, of you don't have a second aquarium run by the other method sitting directly beside. That said, nothing will ever be completely scientific in an aquarium since we can't tell the fishies to sit still while we test our flow rate
*Edit* My grandmother used a woodburning stove to great effect when heating her house. I wouldn't be able to because I'm not used to it, but on a cold winter night, she knew exactly how much wood to toss in there to keep her space nice and toasty. Adding a "thermostat" wouldn't do too much for the hot/cold spots in your house, unless you added one for each room. (each different flow area in our aquariums) so your controller needs several probes per aquarium to accurately deal with this issue if you really think you have to have it THAT regulated to make fish and plants happy. Obvisouly, (or at least hopefully) you weren't attempting to make a direct correlation between the two, but the analogy remains the same. Some people have enough experience with their drop checkers to use them as a very reliable starting point, and some people like their controllers. On the last three tanks I set up, (and grew out very nice plants, as well as breeding fish and invertibrates) I didn't use a controller OR a drop checker, so I'm not rooting for either method. I agree that if the controller COULD test the perfect average of the Co2 level in the tank(not just the Ph swings), and adjust flow accordingly, it would be the best tool we had in our arsenal, and in fact might still be the best tool regardless of that small flaw, but (while we're going for inane references that don't really correlate) you're telling people who are perfectly happy with their VCR's that they NEED to switch to a DVD player to make their guests happy. They'll end up with the same movie in the end, and the popcorn will taste just as good.
