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