# Importance of methodology and controlled environment



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Many hobbyists want to know what's going on in their tanks. Many hobbyists experience different kinds of problems and ask here (or on other forums) how to solve it.

I think that the best way to solve any problem is to test is under controlled conditions. Let me discuss this in more detail here.

The strength of scientific methods is in the repeatability of the experiments. Not the interpretation of the results but rather the repeatability of the experiment is what has the biggest value. In other words, the experiment is of any value if anybody can repeat it with the same results elsewhere in the world. And on the contrary, the experiment is useless if you can't repeat it with the same results. Not until we understand this, can we move our hobby any further. The biggest problem with our discussions (seeking answers for our questions) is that we base our findings on non-verifiable results.

A few examples:
1) Let's say I make an experiment with growing few aquarium plants under controlled conditions (light intensity of 100 µmol PAR for 10 hours a day, water temperature of 25°C, hardness of 5°dGH, alkalinity of 3°dKH, nutrient content of 35 ppm CO2, 30 ppm NO3, 3 ppm PO4, 20 ppm K, 0.3 ppm Fe, moderate flow, inert substrate, etc.). I'll find out that these plants grow at different growth rates => some grow faster than others. If I describe the methodology (i.e. the exact parameters of this experiment) well enough, anybody elsewhere can do the same experiment and get the same (or very similar) results.

2) Let's say I make the same experiment but I don't know the exact parameters of my setup => I don't know the exact PAR values of my light intensity. I don't know the exact nutrient content of my aquarium water nor the substrate. I don't know what other factors are in play in my tank. So I can't describe the methodology of my experiment. If someone on the other side of the world tries to repeat this experiment, it's highly probable he will get a different results. Why? Because no one knows the exact parameters of the initial experiment.

Now, why do you expect to find any reasonable solution to your problems in your own tank, if we (nor you yourself) know the exact parameters of your aquarium? I think that this is the core problem of most of our discussions. Without first learning the exact parameters and conditions in our tanks, we are doomed to endless speculations. Without the proper methodology and controlled environment we never ever can be sure what's really going on in our tanks.

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.

So are we doomed to endless speculations or is there any hope in more hobbyist using proper scientific methods?


----------



## Edvet (28 Jul 2015)

I am afraid one of the biggest problems will be reliable testing. Only with lab quality testing the parameters will be equal, and sadly that will be out of reach for most.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> 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.



You have a higher chance of success simply because you are buying a ready made pack. I think there is a lot to learn from ADA but not from what they say but from what they dont say which is all in theyr videos.

Also things that T Barr has tested that you never give credit for. Yes its not scientific but nothing in this hobby is and at least its free.
-Content of AS soil
-Effect of CO2 mist compared to dissolved CO2
-Ammount of light used by ADA and theyr followers

just to name a few. This things never get mentioned by companies and I dont know how we'd have a clue otherwise.


----------



## Crossocheilus (28 Jul 2015)

I think a lot of the problem comes down to time and money. People are not willing/able to spend thousands of pounds on par meters etc and to buy tanks only to set them up as experiements. Nor can people afford a full ADA setup. Most people may only have 1 or 2 tanks and they want these to be beautiful aquascapes not functional scientific experients.

Obviously the ideal is that everyone with a healthy tank can post full data on their tank environment making it repeatable. However this is unachievable because people are often unwillingly to follow scientific rigour and cannot afford (until the technology becomes cheaper) the reliable equipment for accurate testing of parameters.

That leaves us trying to make do with specualtion and educated guesses, as its the best we have.

That said, even just a few well informed scientists who either specialise or have links to those who specialise in these areas, with access to reliable testing equipment, can be of great benefit to the hobby.

Although perhaps not all that efficient, as long as people do not just blindly follow speculation and expect success, but agree to adjust something in their own tank based on the experience of another to see if their is any change, that is not a huge problem, it is not ideal but it is the best we can manage.

Sorry for the long reply and inevitable repetition in what I say... although I hope I put across some decent points.


----------



## Edvet (28 Jul 2015)

Crossocheilus said:


> 1 or 2 tanks and they want these to be beautiful aquascapes


go low tech/low light and have patience.......


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Crossocheilus said:


> Obviously the ideal is that everyone with a healthy tank can post full data on their tank environment making it repeatable. However this is unachievable because people are often unwillingly to follow scientific rigour and cannot afford (until the technology becomes cheaper) the reliable equipment for accurate testing of parameters. That leaves us trying to make do with specualtion and educated guesses, as its the best we have.


That's true. I just wanted to point out that without proper scientific methods we are left to speculations (or educated guesses at best as you say). And we should be aware of it. One possible solution to this problem I see in co-operation and teamwork. In the US there is a number of local clubs. Maybe in UK it's the same (or at least you have "UK aquatic plant society"). Is it such a problem for the members to donate some small amount of money for these aquarium experiments? In each club there may be someone willing to do the experiments if you lend him the proper equipment. You provide the equipment and he/she provide his/her time and enthusiasm. This way we can get to far better results than just "educated guesses" in so many areas of our interest. I myself put more than £1000 into the proper equipment for aquarium experiments, and about 15 hobbyists contributed me with some financial amount. So what about some bigger organisations or clubs? If you are not willing to give couple of bucks to your local "researcher", then don't cry here you don't get answers to your questions. Some experiments may be really hard for being done, but many experiments can be done quite well even at home under standard conditions => for example testing whether CO2 mist offers better results than fully dissolved CO2, or if there is any difference in the growth rates of aquarium plants grown under 10 ppm NO3 vs. 30 ppm NO3 ... or 10 vs 30 ppm CO2, or what's the difference between plain sand vs. ADA Aqua Soil (and is this difference substantial), or whether plants grow better in hardwater or soft water if both are supplied with CO2, etc., etc. There are so many experiments that can be performed at home if you have the proper equipment. And I'm sure that everywhere there is at least one hobbyist willing to invest his/her time into it. Are you willing to support it? You can also create some discussion board where people from the local club/society may discuss the main topics/questions they would like to see answered. Why not to go this way? Or do you really believe that from our endless speculative discussions on our forums something really helpful and revealing may arise?


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> That's true. I just wanted to point out that without proper scientific methods we are left to speculations (or educated guesses at best as you say). And we should be aware of it. One possible solution to this problem I see in co-operation and teamwork. In the US there is a number of local clubs. Maybe in UK it's the same (or at least you have "UK aquatic plant society"). Is it such a problem for the members to donate some small amount of money for these aquarium experiments? In each club there may be someone willing to do the experiments if you lend him the proper equipment. You provide the equipment and he/she provide his/her time and enthusiasm. This way we can get to far better results than just "educated guesses" in so many areas of our interest. I myself put more than £1000 into the proper equipment for aquarium experiments, and about 15 hobbyists contributed me with some financial amount. So what about some bigger organisations or clubs? If you are not willing to give couple of bucks to your local "researcher", then don't cry here you don't get answers to your questions. Some experiments may be really hard for being done, but many experiments can be done quite well even at home under standard conditions => for example testing whether CO2 mist offers better results than fully dissolved CO2, or if there is any difference in the growth rates of aquarium plants grown under 10 ppm NO3 vs. 30 ppm NO3 ... or 10 vs 30 ppm CO2, or what's the difference between plain sand vs. ADA Aqua Soil (and is this difference substantial), or whether plants grow better in hardwater or soft water if both are supplied with CO2, etc., etc. There are so many experiments that can be performed at home if you have the proper equipment. And I'm sure that everywhere there is at least one hobbyist willing to invest his/her time into it. Are you willing to support it? You can also create some discussion board where people from the local club/society may discuss the main topics/questions they would like to see answered. Why not to go this way? Or do you really believe that from our endless speculative discussions on our forums something really helpful and revealing may arise?




I am willing to donate some money for the right experiments. Im specially interested in testing hard water and co2 mist. let me know ardjuna if yiu ever do them.


----------



## Edvet (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> Or do you really believe that from our endless speculative discussions on our forums something really helpful and revealing may arise


There is plenty annecdotal evidence about what doesn't work (blasting plants with loads of light melting them into a mush), and in my believes also a lot of evidence of things that can work (indeed things like light driving the need for CO2 and bypassing Liebig's law by giving plenty ferts).This won't solve all problems, and will leave us with seemingly strange findings, but there is truth in numbers.
What you propose is a nice, alas i don't think it will be realised. Only if Tropica, Eheim or Dennerle would help it could be done.


----------



## Edvet (28 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> testing hard water and co2 mist


How many variables in the term "hard water" alone? (just looking for bears on the road now, and pointing to all the difficulties to expect)


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Edvet said:


> How many variables in the term "hard water" alone? (just looking for bears on the road now, and pointing to all the difficulties to expect)


Just KH which seems to be the important one for some plants. I doubt GH has an effect at all but that can be another experiment.
It would be a really easy experiment with KH. Keep a tank with low KH untill everything is groing great then add hard water and documment the findings. I know this is not scientific. Does anybody know what an experiment must have to qualify as scientific proof?
People get lost in all the variables but all you have to focus is in just changing one variable whilst keeping the tank the same.
The problem I see is precipitation issues.
I think if results are posted along the way on this forum then it might be worth the while.


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Edvet said:


> There is ... a lot of evidence of things that can work (indeed things like light driving the need for CO2 and bypassing Liebig's law by giving plenty ferts).


Without the people doing the experiments you won't have any such evidence! This evidence (light driving the need for CO2 or ferts decreasing the demand for light) did not rise from discussions on forums!
So I must repeat my question: Do you really believe that from our endless speculative discussions on our forums something really helpful and revealing may arise?


Edvet said:


> How many variables in the term "hard water" alone?


I see four variables here: 
1) soft (0-3°dGH)
2) moderately hard (3-7°dGH)
3) hard (7-10°dGH)
4) very hard (> 10°dGH)
Each one can be tested.


Edvet said:


> Only if Tropica, Eheim or Dennerle would help it could be done.


You're right. If you are not willing to become involved, then it can be done only if Tropica, Eheim or Dennerle do it for us and share their results (which is a nice sci-fi).


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> So I must repeat my question: Do you really believe that from our endless speculative discussions on our forums something really helpful and revealing may arise?


Yes, from these forums we debated things like precipitation of nutrients, cation exchange, flow, co2, EI all of which make it easier to keep a planted tank. Are they fact? No, but its all we have for now.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> I see four variables here:
> 1) soft (0-3°dGH)
> 2) moderately hard (3-7°dGH)
> 3) hard (7-10°dGH)
> ...



This is the problem IMHO. Are we asking the right questions? in order to invest our hard earned money.

Is there any interest in knowing all these ranges of GH? I dont think so. Plants have been shown (only on forums) that they can grow perfectly well under any GH if your not limitting nutrients.

What are the actual questions that we can get something out of them?

You can run out of a life time and have not answered one useful question.


----------



## Edvet (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> I see four variables here:
> 1) soft (0-3°dGH)
> 2) moderately hard (3-7°dGH)
> 3) hard (7-10°dGH)
> ...


 I meant in variables in hardness origin alone, variations between amount of Ca and Mg.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Edvet said:


> I meant in variables in hardness origin alone, variations between amount of Ca and Mg.


I agree. This adds to why GH doesnt make for a good experiment for me. Because its two variables in itself.


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> Does anybody know what an experiment must have to qualify as scientific proof?


I recommend you to read the following articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method



Jose said:


> we debated things like precipitation of nutrients, cation exchange, flow, co2, EI all of which make it easier to keep a planted tank. Are they fact? No, but its all we have for now.


Precipitation of nutrients, cation exchange, flow, CO2 ... these are all things you won't know much about without some scientific research. How do you know about boundary layer? How do you know about CO2 chemistry? How do you know about compensation point, saturation point and half-saturation constant? Did you discovered all these things by means of some theoretical discussion? Of course not! First some researches have to discover it, then publish it, then someone read it and shared it with you. In the same way, by simple discussion on forum you will hardly find any meaningful answers to your questions. You (or someone else) have to do the scientific experiments.



Jose said:


> Are we asking the right questions? in order to invest our hard earned money.


When you are buying some expensive piece of hardware for your tank, do you ask the right questions also before you buy it? What are you buying decisions bases upon?


----------



## parotet (28 Jul 2015)

Well, I don't want to disappoint you but the truth is that very few people are interested in knowing more, or at least to know that much. 

On the business side (ADA approach) it would be their end, but honestly I don't think this is the real problem. On the hobbyist side, I'm not really sure if people want to squeeze their brains or just have something cool in their living room. Just think on the following situation you have probably seen in your LFS: someone ask the manager to give him a solution to get rid of "some little treads attached to the plants"... Do you think that in 5 minutes the shop manager is going to explain "all you need to know about planted tanks that you did not read in the last years"? Does the customer really wants to hear all this? Or do he prefer to pay for a magic solution?

IMO all the brands are selling more and more "complete packs" following the ADA approach. The intention is to deliver a kind of foolproof recipe for success: if you use my tank, my light, my substrate, my ferts, etc. you won't fail. You don't need to know why, but it works. An application will tell you what, how and when to do it.

Let's admit it, this is the trend and brands will only support their how research for developing their own products. My guess is that they focus on new products and gadgets (Twinstar is a very good example) you don't probably need but that can produce good benefits.

We are weird people  

Jordi


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Edvet said:


> I meant in variables in hardness origin alone, variations between amount of Ca and Mg.


You're right again. It's all so complicated that there is no way to find anything. Actually I don't know why scientists even try to find something. They are doomed to darkness. There is no way to test even such a simple relationships like Ca and Mg ratio ... Stop all experiments and keep discussing. That's all we can (and should) do. Experiments belong to scientists, and speculations and discussions belong to hobbyists. That's our final destiny.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> When you are buying some expensive piece of hardware for your tank, do you ask the right questions also before you buy it? What are you buying decisions bases upon?


Oh yes. I buy cheap but if I buy a tank I want to know its capacity, the watts/lumens of a light, the flow a pump can deliver the concentrations of ferts etc etc.



Marcel G said:


> Precipitation of nutrients, cation exchange, flow, CO2 ... these are all things you won't know much about without some scientific research. How do you know about boundary layer? How do you know about CO2 chemistry? How do you know about compensation point, saturation point and half-saturation constant? Did you discovered all these things by means of some theoretical discussion? Of course not! First some researches have to discover it, then publish it, then someone read it and shared it with you. In the same way, by simple discussion on forum you will hardly find any meaningful answers to your questions. You (or someone else) have to do the scientific experiments.



How would you know
30 ppm is normally safe for our fish?
That the more O2 you have the more co2 you can inject?
If a certain soil is adsorbing nutrients or the amount of time you should be doing water changes until its safe for your fish because its not releasing ammonia anymore?
How would you know which co2 diffussion method is more efficient?
How would you know that in hard water you will probably need to add more phosphates because they are precipitating?
How would you know what size of filter to use or the ammount of T5s you need?

Yes you might find some scientific evidence for some of this but not applied to planted tanks.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Here is an extrat from the link you added Ardjuna.

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,".[14]

This only proves that if you do an experiment now showing T Barr is wrong it will have the same weight as T Barrs theories. not more, not less (unless its obviously wrong).


----------



## Edvet (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> so complicated that there is no way to find anything


Just pointing out there are many many variables. In order to make it scientifically valuable you need to standardize a lot, and even then it's not always applicable to everyones situation. It will give better insight but there will always be unexplained problems due to those variables. A lot of claims in the hobby/hobbymanufacturers are derived from data from analysis from horticultural research (where there is so many more money to do research). Do these results carry over to our underwater plants? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> I don't want to disappoint you


You are not to disappoint me. This thread is not about me and my experiments. It's about hobbyist crying and seeking solutions to their problems. I don't want you to give your money to me, I'm just asking you if you think you can get your questions answered just by speaking and discussing. For example, hobbyists think that there are just few kinds of algae in our tanks: BBA, Staghorn, diatoms, GSA, GDA. You can speak about it endlessly ... or you can buy a microscope and see if there is something on it. After you study a few books on algae and find out that there are hundreds of algae species in your aquarium water, you may change your simplistic view of algae. That's just one example. In other words, I just think that without investing (whether our skills, time or money) into some serious research first, we won't see any meaningful results. As Jose says, we will have just some limited knowledge based mainly on our subjective experiences. Sometimes it may help us, sometimes it will fail. If you think we can build our knowledge upon such a weak foundation like "30 ppm is safe for fish" or "CO2 mist is the most efficient dissolution method" without testing it in controlled environment, then keep the endless discussion about these topics.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> CO2 mist is the most efficient dissolution method



So what do we have to do to proof this ardjuna? If you do this experiment and you see the same as T. Barr will this be scientific proof then? How many people have to do it? How many years can go by until scientists say ok this is true but I dont care because it doesnt have an application for me? Im really interested in knowing these. 



Marcel G said:


> "30 ppm is safe for fish"


I said normally safe which changes the whole affirmation. I didnt say always.


----------



## Edvet (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> hobbyists think that there are just few kinds of algae in our tanks: BBA, Staghorn, diatoms, GSA, GDA





Marcel G said:


> hundreds of algae species in your aquarium water


This is a good example: by defining them as a few main groups, we can use some standardized ways to handle them (http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/algae.htm) and this seems to have succes in a large amount of the cases.. If this treatment doesn't succeed there is the possibility we stumbled upon one of the many alternatives and then the simplistic view is not good enough. But now we already cleared a lot of problemcases. This doesn't make the simplistic way invaluable, just flawed to some extent.


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> This only proves that if you do an experiment now showing T Barr is wrong it will have the same weight as T Barrs theories.


First of all, you took the whole sentence out of context. First, you need to formulate your hypothesis. Then you have to create an environment where you can test it. The testing have to be replicable so that you can verify your results. If the results confirm your hypothesis then you have a theory (however, this does not mean it's the ultimate truth). So strictly speaking you can't be never sure that your theory is true, but you have made a theory based on some replicable results. Anyone in the future may refine, alter or expand your theory, or your theory may show to be wrong. But from the scientific point of view, theory is much better than just hypothesis or speculation. It's based on some results, scientific findings, known methodology, replicable data. Anyone can verify it. Anyone can subject it to his own analysis. Until someone finds it to be otherwise, the theory holds to be true.

Second, I do not do any experiments to show T.Barr is wrong. I do my experiments to find out some answers to my personal questions. I may do my personal comments on T.Barr, and may do the wrong conclutions also. That's fine. We all do.



Jose said:


> So what do we have to do to proof [the CO2 mist hypothesis]? If you do this experiment and you see the same as T. Barr will this be scientific proof then? How many people have to do it? How many years can go by until scientists say ok this is true but I dont care because it doesnt have an application for me?


If you do the experiment in a controlled environment and describe in detail your methodology (and proceed in accordance with scientific methods) then you can consider it as a proof under the tested conditions. In other words, if you develop a theory based on replicable and verifiable results, you may consider it a proof (until someone else falsifies it). Normal planted tank can't be considered a controlled environment IMO. As I already said, the problem of T.Barr is that he did all such experiments in his tank, not in some controlled environment, and that he did not described in detail his methodology, so no one can really verify his results.



Jose said:


> I didnt say always.


Me neither.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> some controlled environment



Can you elaborate what this is?
He did explain his methodology, he said what instrument he used and how he did his experiment. But he obviously didnt get into how he calibrated his instruments etc. He gave measured results as O2 ppm and the rest was kept exactly the same. Could he be lying? Sure. But there is more anecdotal evidence like ADA and everyone keeping ADA style tanks who have very little dissolved co2 and for me I saw great growth with mist.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> Me neither.


You took out the "normally" from my words. No big deal but your affirmation wasnt the same as mine.


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> Normal planted tank can't be considered a controlled environment IMO


I cant see how this can be. If youre testing things related to a planted tank how can this not be a controlled environment.


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Every scientific article on the web has a chapter called "Materials and methods" (which is what I call "methodology" here). The articles are short versions of the full research, so sometimes the details are not as detailed there. But it should be described how exactly and under what conditions the experiment was conducted. What was the light intensity, temperature, plants used, etc. The goal is that anyone else who imitate the exact conditions described will get the same results. Then there should be the "Results" chapter which describes the results which one should expect if he follows this experiment. There should be enough descriptive data (graphs, charts, pictures, tables). For example, if I study the growth rate of different plants under CO2 mist vs. fully dissolved CO2, there should be some comparative pictures, graphs with the record of measured biomass gain, etc. If Tom Barr did anything like this, I never saw it (which of course does not mean he really did not do it). I just said I don't know of any of such methodology of any of his experiments.


Jose said:


> If youre testing things related to a planted tank how can this not be a controlled environment.


Controlled environment means you have all the variables under control. Normal planted tank have such a complex environment that it's practically impossible to control everything in there. This is the reason why I think it can't be a truly controlled environment. In reality, we will never be able to control the environment completely, but we should do our best to do so. So using normal planted tank in our experiments is not a good idea. Of course you can do it, but the results won't be probably replicable in other tanks (due to the huge amount of unknown variables in the original experiment).


----------



## Jose (28 Jul 2015)

-He measured O2 production by plants which is linked to photosynthesis and thus plant biomass production so no need to measure plant biomass, thats only one way of doing it. Do you agree that more O2 in the water = higher photosynthesis rate if everything else is kept the same like surface agitation?. No need to show graphs or anything of course you can but its a simple experiment to show a simple thing.

Im not saying he did a conclusive experiment but we might die waiting for one that satisfies all scientific criteria. And why would he do it if only the aquascaping world is interested in this? Maybe if a company finces it. To see the results we dont need to know all parameters in the tank because they are kept constant and only one of them changes (CO2 delivery method). If you want to measure everything then the experiment will become to complex and will deviate you from the actual repeatable results of changing a single variable. will it still be true in every other circumstance? I doubt it, probably only where CO2 is limitting in some way.


----------



## roadmaster (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> Many hobbyists want to know what's going on in their tanks. Many hobbyists experience different kinds of problems and ask here (or on other forums) how to solve it.
> 
> I think that the best way to solve any problem is to test is under controlled conditions. Let me discuss this in more detail here.
> 
> ...



While I appreciate the opportunity to learn something new,It sure is tiresome to me listening to your bashing of Tom,Clive.
Give it a rest would ya?
Many have been able to duplicate the result's Tom suggest's are possible and some will alway's struggle .


----------



## parotet (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> You are not to disappoint me


I know  you are passionate about planted tanks, I can't imagine you giving it up



Marcel G said:


> In other words, I just think that without investing (whether our skills, time or money) into some serious research first, we won't see any meaningful results.


This is exactly what I meant, but it can be disappointing to realize that a lot of hobbyists are not bothered by meaningful results. This is maybe off-topic but it does happen not only with planted tanks but with many things in our lives. Intellectual curiosity shall be a priority part of education. It's the door to en endless and enjoyable path, isn't it?



Marcel G said:


> ...then keep the endless discussion about these topics.


Yup, but this is much easier than learning... forums are plenty of false assumptions, I would say that forums are 90% collection of false assumptions on tank management, 5% swap/sale posts and 5% basic advice and material review.

Marcel, I have said before (and I keep on saying) that your website is IMO one of the best current sources for planted tanks information, but unfortunately only a few of us, even in the hobby, find it really exciting. And I believe the reason is that even when complex things are easily explained, you have to re-read some parts, some others won't be really understood, lots of things will remain unexplained and confusing, etc. And of course, many people are not prepared for this. Forums are plenty of people that need a definitive answer to their problems but unless for very basic management issues, most of the "big questions" remain open and are actually recurrent. Another typical reaction is the "threaten of new approaches and ideas" that can be quite controversial for a lot of people, as it entails: 1) that your little knowledge universe collapses, and that 2) embracing the new theory you admit you were wrong. 


Jordi


----------



## dw1305 (28 Jul 2015)

Hi all, 





parotet said:


> Marcel, I have said before (and I keep on saying) that your website is IMO one of the best current sources for planted tanks information,


 Definitely "_hats off_" to Marcel, and I think he is going in the right direction. 

If people haven't seen his web-site I would definitely encourage them to visit.

Having said that  I also think it is going to be really difficult to quantify all the factors that lead to success, however you might define it. We went over some of the same ground in 2012 in <"Low Energy, Water Changes, CO2, Algae, and Pseudoscience">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

parotet said:


> I can't imagine you giving it up


Believe it or not, from time to time I'm really disappointed by the reactions of some people, and I regret I invest so many time (and so much money) into this hobby.
So I can definitely imagine the time when I give up.


----------



## Andy D (28 Jul 2015)

Marcel, can you add a link to your site please?


----------



## Marcel G (28 Jul 2015)

Andy D said:


> Marcel, can you add a link to your site please?


Clicking on whatever link in my signature should take you safely there.


----------



## Andy D (28 Jul 2015)

Sorry, I use Tapatalk so cannot see the signature. 

I'll check it out via a browser. Thanks!


----------



## Andy Thurston (28 Jul 2015)

roadmaster said:


> While I appreciate the opportunity to learn something new,It sure is tiresome to me listening to your bashing of Tom,Clive.
> Give it a rest would ya?
> Many have been able to duplicate the result's Tom suggest's are possible and some will alway's struggle .


isn't it these types of questions/arguments that help science progress


----------



## roadmaster (29 Jul 2015)

Big clown said:


> isn't it these types of questions/arguments that help science progress


Yes,Measured opinion's,expierience's,should and will alway's generate discussion/learning.
Doesn't need to  include argument's .
Just need to speak your truth quietly and clearly while listening to other's.
Even the dull and the ignorant such as myself, have their story


----------



## flygja (29 Jul 2015)

My advice is to give advice/scientific data, but don't need to argue with someone else. I'm a BMW fan, he's a Mercedes fan, she's a Jaguar fan... it all leads to flame wars and an overall loss for the hobby. Lets all accept each others opinions, take some as more scientific then others. If there are no attacks, there will be no need for defense. 

I have tried to replicate other hobbyist's setups and regimes with no success. Just for the sake of discussion, I have also tried to replicate some of Marcel's conditions in his tests, but to no avail. Of course, mine isn't the same controlled environment as his!


----------



## Andy Thurston (29 Jul 2015)

roadmaster said:


> 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 (29 Jul 2015)

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 (29 Jul 2015)

dw1305 said:


> 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:


sWozzAres said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (29 Jul 2015)

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 (30 Jul 2015)

Chris Jackson said:


> 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 (30 Jul 2015)

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 (30 Jul 2015)

Chris Jackson said:


> 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 (30 Jul 2015)

Jose said:


> 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 (30 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> 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.



Marcel G said:


> 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 (30 Jul 2015)

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 (30 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> 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 (30 Jul 2015)

Paulo Soares said:


> 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 (31 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> 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 (31 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> 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 (31 Jul 2015)

Marcel G said:


> 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 (31 Jul 2015)

(double post sorry)


----------



## Edvet (31 Jul 2015)

Lol Jordi, hit the same button 4 times?



parotet said:


> 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 (31 Jul 2015)

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 (31 Jul 2015)

Edvet said:


> Lol Jordi, hit the same button 4 times?


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


----------



## roadmaster (1 Aug 2015)

Paulo Soares said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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).


----------

