Importance of methodology and controlled environment

[Andy Thurston]

Just need to speak your truth quietly and clearly while listening to other's.

I agree but sometimes the meaning/context can get lost in the text on forums. I find that things can be written wrongly, translated wrongly and read wrongly, sometimes this can cause unintentional arguments. Not everybody who uses the forum can write with perfect grammar and sometimes, myself included, should remember this and allow for it.

 

[James O]

While I can understand scientific inquiry, I'm sure most people use the information (anacdotal/scientific) presented here and muddle through, often repeatable and highly successfully. The success is obvious/visible/proven using this anacdotal evidence without recourse or even being aware of the scientific minutiae

Different strokes for different strokes I guess.

For me the proof is in the pudding, not measuring the ingredients to 0.0001g

 

[Marcel G]

We went over some of the same ground in 2012 in <"Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience">.

I did not know about this thread. I must say I like it very much. I think this part is especially applicable for our discussion here:

There is a "causal chain", a series of events that go all the way back to the big bang. Every event is both a cause AND an effect - since each cause is actually an effect from a previous cause and by the same token each effect is actually the cause of another effect. :?

What the more scientifically oriented people try to do, is uncover the "direct cause" for a particular effect. The closer two events are on the "causal chain" the more direct or more accurate is the conclusion that "x caused y". In order to "get closer" they work on the molecular/atomic level and take the "causal chain" metaphor literally. This is the reductionist approach and it's conclusions are limited in scope - say in a petri dish. The results can be applied to our tanks with variable success.

On the other hand, the more casual tank owner isn't concerned with molecules. He works with light duration, nutrient concentration dosing, quantity of fish etc In terms of the "causal chain" he has many more events between x causing y.

Some might say that the scientists view of the "causal chain" is more valid than the casual users view because it's more direct and must therefore be more accurate. This isn't neccessarily true, both views are equally valid within their own context.

A tank is not a petri dish, it's a complex dynamic system. A "causal chain" is only a chain in a limited context, in a tank effects have more than one cause and causes have many effects. The chain merges into a complex web of interaction.

The way I see it, generally speaking, the casual users context is less accurate but more useful, the scientists context is more accurate but less useful. The problems come when people mix up their contexts.

"Hearsay" or anecdotal evidence is still evidence and just as valid as scientific evidence or "proof". The problem is that anecdotal evidence is typically presented with assumptions and without knowing what these assumptions are it's difficult to assess it's validity. Science suffers the same problem but to less a degree.

It revealed to me another perspective, although I'm still convinced that by well-done experiments we can find out many answers to some of our questions. So I would say that both approaches are much needed, and unfortunately, I don't see the second (scientific) approach too often.

 

[Chris Jackson]

I think Marcel's site is a tremendous resource and I admire and appreciate his persistence. Methodology, controlled environment and replicable results make a great contribution but it's a slow road.

I'd like a definitive answer on the CO2 Mist versus dissolved question. Anecdotally Jose found mist worked great for him as did T.Barr and others I didn't find that myself as have others.
I'd have thought that might be fairly easy experiment but even then all the variables? Do you compare amount of CO2 injected to plant mass grown?

I found I needed to inject more CO2 as mist to get the same ph drop so therefore there was theoretically more CO2 available to plants because it was present in both dissolved and gas forms. If mist is really more effective should it be judged by injecting an amount through a reactor to get 1ph drop and then injecting the same amount through an atomiser and comparing the plant mass grown? Is mist really more effective or are you actually just adding more CO2 using that method?

Eeek I'm tired already....

 

[Jose]

I'd like a definitive answer on the CO2 Mist versus dissolved question. Anecdotally Jose found mist worked great for him as did T.Barr and others I didn't find that myself as have others.
I'd have thought that might be fairly easy experiment but even then all the variables? Do you compare amount of CO2 injected to plant mass grown?

This is simple experiment. CO2 is kept the same (bps) and all you change is the co2 delivery method. So you have a tank running with a reactor which is dissolving al co2 and no bubbles going into the tank. You measure O2 levels and maybe they measure 8 ppms. Then you add an inline atomizer with the same bps (and maybe adjusting bps to the preassure in it). Then measure O2 again at the same time of day. Maybe now O2 is at 9 ppms. If everything else was kept the same (which should be easy because its the same tank) then the results can only mean more photosynthesis. No need to measure complex stuff only need a good O2 metre.

I think people dont see the results of this because they think they need to get the same pH drop and because they think that o2 bubbles are co2 collecting in the leaves. You dont need same ph drop because we are not measuring dissolved co2 and we dont need the same dissolved ammount of co2. If the dissolved co2 is the same then obviously both methods will work equally well at least. We want to know which is better not which one dissolves co2 in water more efficiently.

I think if we crack the tricks for co2 then it will suddenly become a loooot easier for brginners.

 

[Jose]

And here is an idea if someone tries it. To test for co2 bubbles with the least ammount of gas dissolved all you have to do is create an intensive ripple at the surface whilst having mist in the water. This way co2 wont build up although there will always be some dissolved.

 

[Jose]

If mist is really more effective should it be judged by injecting an amount through a reactor to get 1ph drop and then injecting the same amount through an atomiser and comparing the plant mass grown?

This is the idea, although measuring plant biomass is slower to achieve and chances of things changing in your aquarium are higher. For one plant biomass wont be identical. But if you measure O2 in two or 4 conscutive days you wont have this problem. I think the more complex an experiment is then the more leeway for error there is. T. Barr is light years away in all this, well not really maybe just ten years ahead.

 

[Marcel G]

This is simple experiment.

I would agree with it, although I would say that the best way how to compare these two method of CO2 distribution is to set up two identical tanks (not just one). Then you need to ensure you supply the same amount of CO2 (the same "bps") into each tank, but you need to pay attention also to the same intensity of surface rippling in both tanks. If you have two tanks you'll have the same temperature in both which is very important in this experiment. Then you need to put a couple of same plants into both tanks. The actual photosynthesis rate can be monitored whether by measuring O2 levels (for this you need an O2 meter), or by measuring the growth rate of plants in both tanks (for this you need just a school ruler). I think also that this experiment should proceed at least for one month, not just a couple of days. We want to know the long-term effects of both methods, not just the minute ones. What I see important in this experiment is to keep the same temperature in both tanks (under different temperature the O2 and CO2 dissolution rate varies), same flow, and same plants (same initial height/length, same initial weight, same age). Also you should repeat this test with different kind of plants to be sure it works not just for one plant species.

I think I have the right equipment to do this experiment. I also have the O2 meter, so I can go both ways (measuring O2 level as well as the growth rate or biomass gain). Unfortunately, right now I need this equipment for another growth experiment, which will last at least 6 months.

PS for Jose: I can imagine that the CO2 mist might work better, so I'm not questioning the result. What I question is making some resolute conclutions based just on someone's subjective observations. That's all. I don't mean any harm, and I'm not any ultimate judge so I may be awfully wrong.

 

[Jose]

PS for Jose: I can imagine that the CO2 mist might work better, so I'm not questioning the result. What I question is making some resolute conclutions based just on someone's subjective observations. That's all. I don't mean any harm, and I'm not any ultimate judge so I may be awfully wrong.

No worries, its just a debate. We are allowed to say almost anything.

Also you should repeat this test with different kind of plants to be sure it works not just for one plant species.

This is a biggie I think. I think mist works very very well for some plants like HC or eleocharis acicularis which interestingly enough are used a lot by Amano. Yet Althernanthera Reinecki mini shows some co2 deficiencies in my tank (notice Amano doesnt really use this plant at all).

I think the experiment can be carried out in two different tanks but its going to be a lot harder to keep everything the same but its possible. And another thing we have to make sure that the flow does not change between mist and dissolved so we have to keep the reactor in place after adding the atomizer. I am just putting some thoughts out here. Also I think plant biomass has to be high if your going to go the O2 measuring route if you want to see a noticeable difference (just one plant might not produce enough oxygen).

Please let us all know when you do this experiment. It would also be nice to follow it life.

 

[Paulo Soares]

Well...after reading all this and the issues i´m having in my tank right now as i´m writing this and after wasting some thousands dollars.. the one million dollar question:

Why in Gods name is so damn difficult to set well a tank?

Why at the minimum fault it all came down?
F*** me! Are we all donkeys? Is this normal? maybe ... just maybe we are complicating to much.. or we are going after interests of an industry not regarding simple aspects. maybe we are doing it hard to ourselves..
I´m getting to a crack point now... i´m almost there.

I think i´m having enough of planted tanks.
One tiny bit less or more of CO2 and we are fuc*** up! One tiny bit less or more of lights and we are fuc*** up! One tiny bit less or more of nutrients and we are fuc*** up! One tiny bit of etc etc.
Well i guess we should called this hobby a different name cause the tax rate of sucessfull tanks are really really under, but very deep under of those not sucessful...
We´re all trying to find what? The holy grall? Or the lost arch? As i´m not masochist im going to give one last shot in my tank.

After that or he comes to normal or it will die definitely.
Had enough.

Even God said that nature always find is path... well it is not in our tanks for sure.

 

[Paulo Soares]

This is my main objection to Tom Barr also. He makes a lot of conclusions based just on his own speculations. As far as I know, he never did any trully controlled experiment with well documented methodology. So no one can faithfully repeat his results. He uses a clay-based substrate in his main tank, very high CO2 levels, very low pH, very high light levels, quite high flow, big army of algae-eaters, do frequent water changes ... but in fact, we don't know all the parameters which may be in play in his tank. And this is the reason, why his method can't work universally and under all conditions (i.e. with different kinds of substrate, different water parameters, different plant species, different fish etc.). His method works in his tank under the given (fully unknown) conditions. But we don't know what these conditions really are. We know just what he lets us know or what he thinks is important for the success. But that's not trully scientific method. That's nothing more than speculation based on some experience. Until he is able to controll all the variables in his tank, and tell us what variables are at play there and how they affect the whole, we won't be able to repeat the same results elsewhere in the world. We can be lucky and have the same or similar results, but we will never be sure why. It's never a good idea to do any experiments in fully uncontrolled environment like our tanks. And the main problem with T.Barr is that he did all his experiments right in his tank.

Takashi Amano is a similar example although he seems to know better what he's doing. His system is based on the use of concrete materials with concrete parameters. He doesn't let us know the exact methodology behind his system, but if you use his ADA system there's much higher chance you succeed as the crucial parts will be always the same (light intensity; nutrient content in the substrate and water column; filtration capacity, efficiency and flow; CO2 management). You are also recommended to use water with low hardness and alkalinity. If you follow his advice, you can repeat his success elsewhere in the world with much higher probability than with T.Barr's recommendations. Unfortunately, this know-how (hidden methodology) is very pricey. Even in this case we will never be sure why.

I´m one thousand percent with you on this ! And for quite a long time now. It´s not a case of now.
I sign this!

 

[Marcel G]

Why in Gods name is so damn difficult to set well a tank?

I understand your frustration, Paulo. Maybe its so difficult because we are trying to create a "miniature piece of nature" (called "aquarium") which is something only God can do right. In the nature (as well as in its miniature picture = our aquarium) there are so complicated relationships that no one can really understand it, let alone control it. Although we try our best, I would say that most things are working despite our interventions. In other words, most things in our tanks work not because we make them so, but because they finally find its own ways. In fact, we play God ... but without really knowing what are we doing.

 

[parotet]

I understand your frustration, Paulo. Maybe its so difficult because we are trying to create a "miniature piece of nature" (called "aquarium") which is something only God can do right. In the nature (as well as in its miniature picture = our aquarium) there are so complicated relationships that no one can really understand it, let alone control it. Although we try our best, I would say that most things are working despite our interventions. In other words, most things in our tanks work not because we make them so, but because they finally find its own ways. In fact, we play God ... but without really knowing what are we doing.

Completely agree, it is called over simplification of an ecosystem, something crucial when you work on ecosystem restoration. It is the same reason why when you plant trees after a fire, you don't have a forest... You just have something that barely looks like a forest, a bad imitation. The truly forest is probably the longterm the result of a pasture that evolved to a shrubland and then to a very young forest. In this process the soil changed, the hydrology, the microconditions (temperature, humidity, etc.) and of course the plants and animals leaving there. The young forest then matured and what you can see is the last step (your last visible step, it will keep evolving). Once we are aware of this time scale, let's think about the space scale. So imagine, beside reproducing an over simplified forest, we want to reproduce a 20 square meters forest... Ridiculous, isn't it? That's what we do in our tanks. This is why I am so skeptic when I read about "nature aquarium" and having a "piece of nature at home". I only know a few super large low tech plants that are really close to this.

Jordi

 

[parotet]

I understand your frustration, Paulo. Maybe its so difficult because we are trying to create a "miniature piece of nature" (called "aquarium") which is something only God can do right. In the nature (as well as in its miniature picture = our aquarium) there are so complicated relationships that no one can really understand it, let alone control it. Although we try our best, I would say that most things are working despite our interventions. In other words, most things in our tanks work not because we make them so, but because they finally find its own ways. In fact, we play God ... but without really knowing what are we doing.

Completely agree, it is called over simplification of an ecosystem, something crucial when you work on ecosystem restoration. It is the same reason why when you plant trees after a fire, you don't have a forest... You just have something that barely looks like a forest, a bad imitation. The truly forest is probably the longterm the result of a pasture that evolved to a shrubland and then to a very young forest. In this process the soil changed, the hydrology, the microconditions (temperature, humidity, etc.) and of course the plants and animals leaving there. The young forest then matured and what you can see is the last step (your last visible step, it will keep evolving). Once we are aware of this time scale, let's think about the space scale. So imagine, beside reproducing an over simplified forest, we want to reproduce a 20 square meters forest... Ridiculous, isn't it? That's what we do in our tanks. This is why I am so skeptic when I read about "nature aquarium" and having a "piece of nature at home". I only know a few super large low tech plants that are really close to this.

Jordi

 

[parotet]

I understand your frustration, Paulo. Maybe its so difficult because we are trying to create a "miniature piece of nature" (called "aquarium") which is something only God can do right. In the nature (as well as in its miniature picture = our aquarium) there are so complicated relationships that no one can really understand it, let alone control it. Although we try our best, I would say that most things are working despite our interventions. In other words, most things in our tanks work not because we make them so, but because they finally find its own ways. In fact, we play God ... but without really knowing what are we doing.

Completely agree, it is called over simplification of an ecosystem, something crucial when you work on ecosystem restoration. It is the same reason why when you plant trees after a fire, you don't have a forest... You just have something that barely looks like a forest, a bad imitation. The truly forest is probably the longterm the result of a pasture that evolved to a shrubland and then to a very young forest. In this process the soil changed, the hydrology, the microconditions (temperature, humidity, etc.) and of course the plants and animals leaving there. The young forest then matured and what you can see is the last step (your last visible step, it will keep evolving). Once we are aware of this time scale, let's think about the space scale. So imagine, beside reproducing an over simplified forest, we want to reproduce a 20 square meters forest... Ridiculous, isn't it? That's what we do in our tanks. This is why I am so skeptic when I read about "nature aquarium" and having a "piece of nature at home". I only know a few super large low tech plants that are really close to this.

Jordi

 

[parotet]

(double post sorry)

 

[Edvet]

Lol Jordi, hit the same button 4 times?

nature aquarium" and having a "piece of nature at home

In Amano's eyes he's recreating the feeling of a piece of nature.
In my mind I am trying to recreate the conditions as they apply to a fish as reasonable as i can (giving the constraints of a small volume) while being pleasing to my ey. That's why i like biotope recrating tanks. They alow natural behaviour and a healthy lifespan for my inhabitants.

 

[parotet]

Actually when you try to reproduce a forest after a fire or any other important disturbance, the most common mistake was (and still is) to reproduce something similar to the previous forest. Now we know, that it is much better to work on a strong foundation (not the forest but a young step of this evolution): simple, less expensive and more effective. Time will hopefully push it it the right direction. My guess is that in the low tech super large tanks this is more or less the approach... owners don't want to create a mature ecosystem in one months, but they just introduce the minimum elements needed and let it evolve. For example both, the Bucket o' Mud and Poco Pozo are tanks that look like a truly mini pond when they have been running for months.

 

[parotet]

Lol Jordi, hit the same button 4 times?

I thought it was only a double post... OMG, four times!

 

[roadmaster]

Well...after reading all this and the issues i´m having in my tank right now as i´m writing this and after wasting some thousands dollars.. the one million dollar question:

Why in Gods name is so damn difficult to set well a tank?

Why at the minimum fault it all came down?
F*** me! Are we all donkeys? Is this normal? maybe ... just maybe we are complicating to much.. or we are going after interests of an industry not regarding simple aspects. maybe we are doing it hard to ourselves..
I´m getting to a crack point now... i´m almost there.

I think i´m having enough of planted tanks.
One tiny bit less or more of CO2 and we are fuc*** up! One tiny bit less or more of lights and we are fuc*** up! One tiny bit less or more of nutrients and we are fuc*** up! One tiny bit of etc etc.
Well i guess we should called this hobby a different name cause the tax rate of sucessfull tanks are really really under, but very deep under of those not sucessful...
We´re all trying to find what? The holy grall? Or the lost arch? As i´m not masochist im going to give one last shot in my tank.

After that or he comes to normal or it will die definitely.
Had enough.

Even God said that nature always find is path... well it is not in our tanks for sure.

Have followed lot's of thread's on different forum's, and do not see much in the way of problem's with those who when having issues in low tech,or high tech high energy tank's, when they reduce the lighting .
They immediately reduce demand from the plant's for that which they may be lacking and resulting in poor growth/health.
Nope,the folks believe that cause they are injecting the gas that they must also use uber lighting.
Lower lighting would make it easier for plant's in low energy or high energy, and plant's suffering possibly could recover in a few week's.
These result's are not fast enough for those with issues and then they become student's of the various method's of battling algae.
They want overnight relief but don't wanna move off they're mega watt's and or slow the machine down.
As mentioned,,they wanna turn everything up to eleven.(Wished I had coined this phrase).