Is Tom Barr's Approach Still The Go To Approach For Low Tech?

[27482]

I'm a newbie here, so I apologize if my post sounds silly, but I think the key to solving this (or any other) question is to first define the terms correctly - in this case the term "goal". What is the true goal of this forum? Its name says "aquatic plant society". But what exactly does that mean? If I understand correctly, Maq interprets this term (= goal) as "wellbeing of plants" (with "plants" at the center of the action), while other discussants interpret it more as "having nice display tank". From the sound of the rules of this forum, then, it seems to me that the admin leans towards the latter interpretation. The interpretation of "paths" then logically follows from that. It is my understanding that if our goal is optimal plant health, our steps will be different than steps that are directed towards a nice display tank (with nice "tank" at the center of the action). I suspect, since that is what your discussion suggests to me, that most of the discussants here on the forum probably prefer the latter interpretation (i.e., a nice display tank), while Maq prefers its inhabitants (plants, microbes). It seems to me that if we put the aesthetic impression of the aquarium (and not the inhabitants like plants, animals, microbes) at the forefront of our interest, then the inhabitants can easily become a victim, an obstacle or a mere object to achieve our goal. What I am saying is that until you clarify that goal, then everyone will probably be talking about something else and there will be unnecessary friction around it. For example, Wookii writes that the goal of most aquarists is probably to achieve a certain nice look (with plants more as a means to that end), and there are different paths to that goal. It reminds me of the question of whether your goal is to "look nice" or "be healthy". While there are indeed many paths to looking good (and these paths depend mostly on subjective taste), there are fairly clearly defined paths to health (such as eating moderately, exercising, and avoiding what is bad for us). However, if the goal is optimal condition of plants and animals, and we have certain initial conditions in the aquarium (e.g. slightly acidic pH, low alkalinity ... in combination with certain "favourite" species of plants and animals), then we may never achieve their optimal condition, because we have species next to each other that are incompatible in the sense that one species prefers e.g. acidic water while the other species prefers alkaline water (and similarly with other parameters). And it seems to me that this is what Maq was referring to (and let him correct me if it's not) when he asked whether a method where high concentrations of nutrients are deliberately added to the aquarium is really optimal for all plants or animals, especially when those plants are severely limited by light and CO2. What do you think about this?

 

[_Maq_]

if you go through the techniques Tom Barr outlines in that linked post, you may find it shares much more in common with your own approach than you realise - sand substrate, minimal dosing, importance of O2, advocating not using CO2

I admit I've not studied diligently everything what Tom Barr had ever said (written). I've got very different impression from what I've read...
BUT. If what you say is correct, if he truly advocated these things, then his methods are fatally misinterpreted! What can we see Estimative Index users doing? Sand substrate, minimal dosing, importance of O2, not using CO2? Oh, certainly not. I hope we can agree on that.
The question is, then, what went wrong, what is the source of such a deep misunderstanding?

 

[Wookii]

I admit I've not studied diligently everything what Tom Barr had ever said (written). I've got very different impression from what I've read...
BUT. If what you say is correct, if he truly advocated these things, then his methods are fatally misinterpreted! What can we see Estimative Index users doing? Sand substrate, minimal dosing, importance of O2, not using CO2? Oh, certainly not. I hope we can agree on that.
The question is, then, what went wrong, what is the source of such a deep misunderstanding?

Gotta ask @_Maq_ - have you actually read through the post by Tom Barr on The Barr Report website linked to in the opening post? It doesn't even mention the Estimative Index in reference to running a low tech tank?

 

[_Maq_]

have you actually read through the post by Tom Barr

No.

 

[Wookii]

No.

Lol @_Maq_ - that's the whole basis of this threads discussion!

So you've basically seen the name "Tom Barr" and made the assumption he has one singular approach. Easily done I guess, but as they say, assumptions are the mother of all . . .

 

[_Maq_]

Lol @_Maq_ - that's the whole basis of this threads discussion!

@Wookii, you made me read the initial post. It was an agony. My opinion of Tom Barr has got only worse.

 

[Wookii]

@Wookii, you made me read the initial post. It was an agony. My opinion of Tom Barr has got only worse.

And that's fair enough mate (I personally welcome the wider discussion - I'm not specifically a Tom Barr advocate, more I'm playing devils advocate for the most part here) but now at least you can argue directly against the specific points on that specific suggested technique, rather than generalised assumptions.

 

[MichaelJ]

I don't know much about Tom Barr's method either, but the little I know seems to revolve around a few simple principles about fertilizer dosing (mostly in abundance), water change and not much more - and if it turned out thats all there ever was to it, then I guess we've all been wasting our time ... But seriously, at least I have learned - in large part thanks to the luminaries on this forum - that a whole lot more goes into being successful (or at least more successful) with a planted low-tech aquarium, such as maintaining a stable healthy microbial community, stable and appropriate water parameters, aeration, nutrient distribution and of course appropriate fertilizer dosing based on the specifics (hardness, alkalinity/pH etc.) of the tank and in the right ratios when applicable - and a whole lot more... and how all these things relates to our livestock in addition to our plants. All topics that keep UKAPS interesting - at least for me.

Tom Barr described at Non CO2 methods.

Personally, I find it cursory, but I am sure it would probably work as a starting point.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Happi]

I highly Respect Mr. Barr and whatever he has done for the hobby. During his Era and whenever his method was born, it was designed to keep things simple without the need for testing, worrying about the nutrients etc. it was solely or primarily focused on dosing excessive and plant will use whatever they need. while I agree that this method attracted many hobbyist during that Era and I was one of them. Later as I advanced in the hobby, I learned more and more about the plants and highly focused on fertilizer and nutrients. we live in different Era now and things has changed over time, there are more scientific research, technology, things are more advance compared to what they were during Mr. Barr's Era. While Mr. Barr's Method is good for newbie/Beginners or keeping things easy and simple for the user. but, it may be lacking in many aspects. primarily, because this method was never designed to look into those aspects. we live in different Era now, where we have more tools and technology to dig deep into plants, nutrients and fertilizers.

there are several different ways to setup a low tech tank, it depends on the user what they are trying to achieve, many methods can be applied including whatever Mr. Barr has suggested. In my opinion Mr. Barr method may be bit outdated and may require some modification.

Quote from Mr. Barr:
"Based off of my testing, I'd estimate close to 5 to 10 times slower than a CO2 enriched tank at 2-3 w/gal. This rate of growth is such that the fish waste alone is enough to supply the needs for the plants. If we added more light then the CO2 would start becoming a more limiting factor and allow algae to grow better (algae need higher light to grow well in non CO2 enriched systems whereas the plants are much more limited without CO2). A lower light level is required, generally about 1.5 to 2w/gal is good."

I may have different opinion on this one. usually high light low to no CO2 isn't the problem. but under such scenario usually higher nutrients can become a problem. Mr. Barr usually advocate that nutrients doesn't cause algae, I highly disagree with this statement and everything that I have studied or tested up until now contradict with Mr. Barr's finding.

"Rather than suggesting allelopathy, Fe algae limitation, or PO4 limitation, I will say none of this exist. Rather, non limiting nutrient levels for plants will provide better conditions."

again, this is a big statement. both Fe and PO4 are well documented to cause different kind of algae's. suggesting non limiting for both P and Fe is likely to result in precipitation for one or the other or both, the end result being both being limited.

"Same applies for CO2 enriched systems, they just grow faster, but in both examples, the algae are never limited, algae is indirect, poor plant growth typically leads to algae blooms, thus plants define the system, not nutrients. When plants do poorly, they no long define the system, and algae can grow."

I agree with the poor plant growth being one of the causes for algae. but it also cannot be denied that you can have both algae and plant growing well at the same time. nutrients actually support both algae and plant growth, so we cannot say that nutrient don't matter.

"We can add KNO3 and KH2PO4 and show that in a non CO2 tank, excess PO4, NO3 (and Fe) do not cause algae blooms. We can add NH4 and induce a bloom just like a CO2 enriched tank."

this is likely due to combination of things, precipitation is one of them. excess PO4, NO3, Fe not causing algae would be incorrect statement without fully understanding the overall picture. while for whatever reason NH4 is a major contributor of algae? this is also an incorrect statement when not looking at the overall picture.

"We can also add Fe at high rates and also not get any algae. This assumption and knowledge frees us from limitation of nutrients which ultimately does more harm to the plants' health and well being, allowing a better environment for algae to grow."

again, this is a big statement regarding high Fe not causing any algae. when such scenario occurs, it occurs due to improper water parameters that will interfere with the Fe. weather its high PO4, High KH/PH. But Fe not causing any algae is also incorrect statement.

am not saying Mr. Barr is wrong at whatever conclusions he came up with during that time. But I strongly believe that they were rather results of not able to see the overall picture or lacked the understanding of every aspect, either from the lack of tools, data, research or technology. similar to if you were to look through the telescope 100 year ago, you would probably only see the moon through it and came to conclusion that there is only earth and moon. 50 years later with the new research, data, tools and technology, with the new telescope, you can see Mars, Venus, Jupiter etc. and now you know that there were more planets other than earth and moon. as we advance, we learn about new things and find new things that we previously thought didn't exist. My own conclusions regarding plants, fertilizers, nutrients are subject to change as we learn more and more. but am not going to make conclusive statement such as "Nutrients doesn't cause algae" because this statement is incorrect and can be easily falsified in the modern Era.

The best Method is when you do your own experiment and learn from it, there is no perfect method out there.

 

[ElleDee]

I don't know much about Tom Barr's method either, but the little I know seems to revolve around a few simple principles about fertilizer dosing mostly in abundance, water change and not much more - and if it turned out thats all there ever was to it, then I guess we've all been waisting our time

I think it's useful to mentally separate the EI concept, which is basically the fertilization/WC practice you've laid out above, the specific amounts of nutrients recommended to achieve "EI levels", and then anything else Tom Barr has said. Even if you just read the Barr Report newsletter archives it's a lot of content that spans many topics.

 

[Guest]

It’s a shame Tom @plantbrain isn’t around to comment, and perhaps set the record straight. I think his ideas were often misunderstood from the get go. And over time seem to have become more so.

 

[MichaelJ]

It’s a shame Tom @plantbrain isn’t around to comment, and perhaps set the record straight.

I agree that it would be helpful to have Mr. Barr around on UKAPS. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that a lot of the quoted advice and findings that floats around dates back several decades - and some people swear to it like its some sort of Gospel of Planted Aquarium keeping (which I don't think Mr. Barr would be in support of given his background as a Scientist) ... so having him around to offer a fresh perspective would be great!

I think his ideas were often misunderstood from the get go. And over time seem to have become more so.

and yet his ideas certainly still has a great deal of influence in the community - as this thread and countless others on UKAPS shows.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[PARAGUAY]

When l joined UKAPS ,,l was reading a lot by George Farmer and most of his articles were about pressurised CO2 l purchased a DD 600. CO2 set and reading also about EI on UKAPS ,tried EI system ( of sorts) and all l can say is the plants went ballistic l was giving a bucketful weekly to the LFS. So from my experience it's a proven system, my tank ended up a nice jungle From a low tech perspective l believe you only need fertilise a fraction

 

[MichaelJ]

When l joined UKAPS ,,l was reading a lot by George Farmer and most of his articles were about pressurised CO2 l purchased a DD 600. CO2 set and reading also about EI on UKAPS ,tried EI system ( of sorts) and all l can say is the plants went ballistic l was giving a bucketful weekly to the LFS. So from my experience it's a proven system, my tank ended up a nice jungle

Sure thing... we all know many people (mostly CO2 users) gets good results from EI. It's just that there are alternatives that works better (with controlled waters) and wont require you to pummel your tank with exorbitant levels of fertilizers and change large amounts of water at a high frequency or constantly prune your plants - which is only really meaningful if you are in the business of selling plants 🙂

From a low tech perspective l believe you only need fertilise a fraction

And Yes, you can get away with very low amount of fertilizers even in a CO2 tank:

A couple of examples of the top of my head:

90P High Light (Plants are happy, Algae are happy too)

Snapping a close-up pic of the Metas. This at the back of the tank so the dominant light is the Week Aqua P900. I have dialed the red back for the P900 quite a bit but its still casting a reddish tinge to the A.Goldens. (some of the tinge is probably reflections of the colours of the Metas as well).

www.ukaps.org

My 60p soft water

I actually do have some green slimy thread algae which is rather annoying, but since it's so thin it's almost invisible until you get up close. 😂 Aha! I knew it wasn't perfect! :lol: ... we'll have that fixed for you soon enough...

www.ukaps.org

(Not CO2 injected... rare, but still very valid):

Lean dosing pros and cons

The natural level of CO2 in our tanks is a , the (at and 20 oC) is about 0.6 ppm and "3 ppm" is often quoted, but the only reference we could find for this was . I'm guessing that 3 ppm is nearer than 0.6 or 10 ppm, but it would be . I would agree and suspect no one with a low tech tank is...

www.ukaps.org

Cheers,
Michael

 

[ElleDee]

If a person wants to get into the weeds about fertilizer there are always people around for a pick up game, but one of the things I like about not injecting CO2 is that I have the privilege of shrugging my shoulders and leaving the bulk of that to the natural cycles in the tank. I feed my fish, and eventually it gets to the plants. I do add a smidge of fertilizer to make sure I don't bottom out of anything, but it's pretty zen. I can't exactly know what all my inputs are - a large percentage is just a big black box - and so I am relieved from the burden of micromanaging. Sure, I've had to tweak a couple of things as my tanks have aged (pesky iron), but slower growth means problems are slower to develop as well.

 

[MichaelJ]

I do add a smidge of fertilizer to make sure I don't bottom out of anything, but it's pretty zen.

More time to enjoy your tanks and attend to other real life duties… pretty much my approach as well.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[John q]

I think his ideas were often misunderstood from the get go. And over time seem to have become more so.

I think when people hear the name Tom Barr they automatically assume that means "lard on the ferts" which in high tech tanks was often the case, but even then he openly admitted the levels he quoted were the absolute upper levels needed and could, and he even suggested folks reduce these numbers to fit their own requirements/tanks/goals.

Going back to the the question in hand of low tech. Tom often suggested ¼ to ⅕ of Ei would be sufficient for these tanks. So lets take the upper levels of Ei.
No3: 20ppm
K: 30ppm
Po4: 3ppm
Fe: 0.5ppm

If we divide by 4 for lowtech we get.
No3: 5ppm
K: 7.5ppm
Po4: 0.75
Fe: 0.125

Whilst I appreciate the above numbers (especially K) won't sit well with the lean dosing crowd, the question is are they really that insane?

 

[Andy Pierce]

Going back to the the question in hand of low tech. Tom often suggested ¼ to ⅕ of Ei would be sufficient for these tanks. So lets take the upper levels of Ei.

Also some with low tech (me) don't have fish to convert food into organic waste / fertiliser. I'm using approximately the levels of ferts you describe above, around 1/4 of EI, except that I include more Po4. If I'm honest it is total guesswork with me.

 

[LondonDragon]

I would say if you want to churn out Aquascapes every 6-12 months for competitions etc and want super fast growth to get the photoshoot you need then CO2 and high ferts are a must to get that.
As I always advise newcomers, you dont need hight light and high everything (all the gear no idea) to have a great planted tank, always best to start with a low tech tank, with less demanding plants, and low amounts of ferts, learn how to maintain a tank algae free and plants healthy and just be patient, just enjoy the tank long term, after you learn these skills in the first 12-18 months then you can if you wish venture into the CO2 world, I have 6 tanks and only one has CO2, and only one I dose 50% of E.I., the rest no CO2, rarely do a water change, and no fertelizers.
Tom gave you a starting point to get successful results in an era where Aquascaping was shooting off and people were all about the gear and heavy planted tanks, its then up to you to adjust to your needs, I think when people mention the word E.I. you automatically assume you dumping bucket loads of salts into your tank! For me just means I am making my own custom regime with dry salts! Every tank is different and like I said many times, you can start with E.I. and then reduce on quantities once a month until you hit the sweet spot for your tank.

 

[Guest]

To reduce EI or tailor it to your own requirements, Tom recommends you back off the Fertz incrementally until a deficiency occurs then return to the previous level. It’s not rocket science nor is it particularly controversial, just horticultural common sense.