• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

"Aquarium Science" has some new planted tank articles

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
13,682
Location
nr Bath
Last edited:

NotoriousENG

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2021
Messages
117
Location
Eastern USA
The sentence about fertilizing with urine was interesting as well

"Humans urinate urea, so human urine can be used to fertilize an aquarium. Urine averages 2% urea. So one needs roughly 75 grams of urine or one third of a cup of human urine added twice a week. The big problem here is that the concentration of urea varies a huge amount depending on how much a human is drinking. This makes it difficult to control."

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,691
Location
Minnesota, USA
but there were bits I really enjoyed, to quote.
......... Seachem makes a whole line of very overpriced and in many cases useless products for planted tanks. It is advantageous to look at each of these products........
Thanks Darrel for reminding me of all the money I've wasted over the years on their potions :lol: I still have a bunch of this sitting unused in my cabinet along side Tropica fertilizers... With the possible exception of Excel, which I don't think the average hobbyist can DIY (?), all these product are essentially +98% water and exponentially more expensive than anything you DIY. In all fairness to Seachem, I do like and buy some of their other products such as the Tidal filters, filter medias and select items such as Prime.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Thread starter
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
13,682
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
In all fairness to Seachem, I do like and buy some of their other products such as the Tidal filters, filter medias and select items such as Prime.
I would agree, I don't like <"their advertising">, but a lot of their products "work" and the "Tidal Filters" look pretty good..

I think fertilisers are different from everything else, in that every K+ ion is the same as every other one, the only thing that differs is <"their price">

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:

jaypeecee

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
2,590
Location
Bracknell
It is a shame really, a lot of it is really good, but when he moves onto planted tanks it all starts to unravel a bit.

I might try contacting him.
Hi Darrel (@dw1305)

I guess you must have his contact details? There have been times when I would have liked to contact him but he is keen not to disclose his identity, etc. I have to say that I really like his site although I don't always agree with what he says. But, such instances are few and far between. What's more, chances are that he's right and I'm wrong. I think it's a breath of fresh air to find a site that takes an in-depth look at the science behind the aquatic world. A very welcome change from hearsay, speculation, etc.

JPC
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,691
Location
Minnesota, USA
Hi again, Darrel (@dw1305)

If my memory serves me well, I seem to recall that the Tidal Filter range are made by Sicce, an Italian company.

JPC
Correct but sold and marketed by Seachem, I currently own and run 4 - best HOBs I've ever owned (and I have owned a lot of different HOBs and Canister filters over the years), and never failed or had any issues with them.
 
Last edited:

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,691
Location
Minnesota, USA
I think it's a breath of fresh air to find a site that takes an in-depth look at the science behind the aquatic world. A very welcome change from hearsay, speculation, etc.
Well, I hate to disagree with you on that one JPC. I know you have a scientific background (just as I do) but his (aquariumscience.org) approach is not very scientific at all...heck we dont even know if he have the background that he claims... The write-ups comes across as very overbearing, patronizing and obnoxious. He mostly rush in with claims that are not backed by any practical experience or scientific approach that we know of. The fact that there are zero track record there is a massive red flag for me. Just imagine reading a scientific paper, on say Physics, where the author(s) are anonymous with no references or background ? ... I don't think you would take that very serious. I do like contrarian opinions and maverick approaches and different takes on these matters, but his approach is just not very compelling and does not meet the high standards of such claims. For me extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence.

Just some examples:

"Do NOT fertilize plants until they start putting out new shoots. And then, initially, only very lightly fertilize. If one fertilizes too much too early one will get an algae overgrowth which will kill the plants."

"Many make the mistake of adding a “complete” soluble fertilizer to the water of a planted aquarium. This is a fertilizer which contains nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. This is not wise. It will result in algae overgrowth. ..... By adding fertilizer only to the substrate ONLY rooted plants can access the fertilizer and thus ONLY the rooted plants can flourish."

"Phosphorus has limited solubility and is definitely best supplied through the roots. In the water column phosphorus is a major reason for algae growth."

"Nitrogen is very soluble, and is best supplied in the water column as ammonium."

The list goes on and on...

I know these quote are taken somewhat out of context and bits of the info on the site is actually very good - specifically on fish-only tanks ... but with no track record and no background reasoning behind the claims its very hard to take any of the controversial claims serious. With the UKAPS's designated Experts (Clive / @ceg4048 and Darrel / @dw1305 ... I know there are several others here that merit that designation, but I'm making a point here, so no offense) you can at least track their deep history (14 and 13 years respectively.. and 22000 posts between them) of Q/A and engagement on this forum and read their evolving experiences, reasoning and advice and tell from the feedback if it works or not (narrators voice: It works!). Of course, they are not always right, no one is, but the likelihood they are is overwhelming given their track record.

Point is, when you take the influential high ground and conduct yourself as an authority, as aquariumscience.org is trying to do, you better have the ability to back your claims. aquariumscience.org just falls flat and doesn't pass that bar for me.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,598
Location
Chicago, USA
Yeah, this is just more pseudoscience from The Matrix. I love the part about phosphorous's limited solubility. I wonder if the municipal water companies who dissolve PO4 in the systems are aware of this so-called fact.
I never knew it was impossible to keep lots of fish in a planted aquarium. Wow, gripping stuff.
It's funny how some folks eagerly digest this material without ever requiring any kind of scientific approach. I reckon that's just down to confirmation bias. When we, on this website, present information, we're consistently barraged with calls for "independent peer review", yet these (ahem) "mavericks" somehow are allowed free passage.

Cheers,
 

erwin123

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2021
Messages
831
Location
Singapore
I very much prefer the 2hr aquarist articles where he actually discusses ADA style dosing and EI , and their relative merits.

In Aquariumscience the author is prone to saying 'just do what I say' without trying to explain why his method is better than other established fertilisation regimes. The 'elephant in the room' question the author fails to deal with is that if too much ferts cause algae, is he saying that EI causes algae (he is obviously aware of EI as he gives it a passing mention, without commenting on whether EI will cause algae even though he implies it does).
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,598
Location
Chicago, USA
Exactly. He's aware of EI but has he tried it? Don't know.
His claim is easy to falsify, right? EI dosers add too much ferts and don't get algae.
We can add the appropriate nutrient to a tank experiencing algae and the bloom is reduced or eliminated, further falsifying the claim.

Cheers,
 

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Thread starter
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
13,682
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
I guess you must have his contact details?
I don't, it would have to be via the web site.
His claim is easy to falsify, right? EI dosers add too much ferts and don't get algae.
That would be one of my problems with the web site. When I first read about EI my initial thought was that it had a <"snowball in hell's"> chance of working, but as you read through the forum (and particularly look at the pictures) it becomes obvious that it does work. At that point, after the pictures, you really have two options, you can either try and <"understand what is happening">, or you can become an "EI denier", in face of overwhelming evidence.
Point is, when you take the influential high ground and conduct yourself as an authority, as aquariumscience.org is trying to do, you better have the ability to back your claims.
That is also an issue for me, we all have things <"we believe in">, and we may be pretty sure we are right, but they are, to some degree, <"faith" positions"> and we need to ackowledge that.

cheers Darrel
 
Last edited:

Geoffrey Rea

Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
27 May 2017
Messages
1,753
Location
Cambridgeshire
That is also an issue for me, we all have things <"we believe in">, and we may be pretty sure we are right, but they are, to some degree, <"faith" positions> and we need to ackowledge that.

Suppose you can’t really talk anyone out of a belief, that’s the point. They operate in the absence of evidence, in the face of ambiguity and as a default.

Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try talking with folks who’s point of view you vehemently disagree with though. Sort of the way the Royal Astronomical Society made Samuel Shenton a fellow and even facilitated his lectures as founder of The Flat Earth Society. Tough crowd for Sam 😂 They still couldn’t change his mind though.
 

Nick potts

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2014
Messages
920
Location
Torbay
Had a read through some of the articles (mostly the planted ones), sounds to me like mostly the ramblings of a "superior" degreed chemist with a hate for "profit-driven marketers" who likes to stay anonymous.

A lot of what he says can be disproven just on here in a few minutes.
 

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Thread starter
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
13,682
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try talking with folks who’s point of view you vehemently disagree with though
Agreed.
of a "superior" degreed chemist
Back to <"Lord Kelvin and stamp collecting">. I think "shades of grey" are conceptually easier for scientists who work in the "softer", more inferential sciences.
with a hate for "profit-driven marketers"
I'm good with that one.

cheers Darrel
 

dw1305

Expert
UKAPS Team
Thread starter
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Messages
13,682
Location
nr Bath
Hi all,
I have to say that I really like his site although I don't always agree with what he says. But, such instances are few and far between. What's more, chances are that he's right and I'm wrong. I think it's a breath of fresh air to find a site that takes an in-depth look at the science behind the aquatic world. A very welcome change from hearsay, speculation, etc.
I wouldn't argue with that. I think they are laudable aims and the majority of what he says makes perfect sense (or re-inforces my own prejudices, delete as appropriate). This is what he has to say about <"Diana Walstad's book">.
.......Her book is called “The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium”. If one wants to know this topic in depth from a true expert, I heartily recommend this book (I think I’ve probably read it about five times!). She is the ONLY aquarium book author that “did it right” and based her work on what the scientific articles say about the topic rather on parroted myths and profit minded marketing hype.......

cheers Darrel
 
Top