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

[dw1305]

Hi all,

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

<"Same for me">. One advantage of low and slow is that if things go horribly wrong it is a slow car-crash, giving you time to apply the break, rather than having a full head-on collision.

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.

That does make sense.

I <"talked a bit with Tom"> (@plantbrain), and one of the drivers for "Estimative Index" <"EI daily methods or PMDD + PO4"> was that you weren't reliant on water testing.

EI was developed mainly in response to folks that had no test kits that lived in 3rd world countries and for lazy/cheap folks.

So he had my number right from the start, I'm both <"lazy"> and <"cheap">.

I also think that that thread explains some of the issues people have had with knowing exactly what he said. He would be the first to admit that he doesn't have the greatest prose style and sometimes this makes what he said a bit ambiguous.

As some will know I like a <"good analogy">, so just so I can <"re find this post"> he is more <"Dan Brown">* than <"Albert Camus">.

* Obviously "Dan Brown" doesn't help here, you can't search for three letter words and "Brown" appears frequently, but "Albert Camus" <"should do">.

cheers Darrel

 

[LondonDragon]

Hi all,

<"Same for me">. One advantage of low and slow is that if things go horribly wrong it is a slow car-crash, giving you time to apply the break, rather than having a full head-on collision.

cheers Darrel

Problem is instant gratification and throwing everything at it without learning the basics, then most fail and give up on the hobby! which is a shame!

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Problem is instant gratification and throwing everything at it .... then most fail and give up on the hobby!

I think so. It is very much "go big or go home" and a lot of people end up completing both options in quick order.

At least if you use <"seasoned tank time"> and the <"Duckweed Index"> it takes longer to get to the "give up" option.

@Edvet originally <"posted this one">, but I <"re-found it today"> and it made me laugh.

cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

He would be the first to admit that he doesn't have the greatest prose style and some times this makes what he said a bit ambiguous

I should also have said that years ago we did talk about writing a book (when books were still a thing), but this foundered on the fact that both of us write horrible prose and he didn't think that my suggestion, that we wrote it in the style of <"Dr Seuss">, was a good idea.*

* Some of this may be true.

cheers Darrel

 

[Happi]

If I were to recommend something to Low Tech folks, it would look something like this:

500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon (with decent fish load)

10.54 grams K2SO4
19.2 grams MgSO4.7H2O
3.634 gram Solufeed Coir TEC
0.25 gram potassium sorbate

Fe 0.05 (chelated by DTPA Fe)
Mn 0.02135
B 0.0028415
Cu 0.0017665
Zn 0.015745
K 1
Mg 0.4
S 0.94
Mo 0.0013055


500 ml solution, 20 ml per 50 gallon (No fish load)

10.184 grams KNO3
19.567 grams Mg(NO3)2.6H2O
2.536 grams Urea
2.780 grams KH2PO4
3.634 gram Solufeed Coir TEC
0.25 gram potassium sorbate
5 ml White Vinegar

N 1
K 1
P 0.13
Fe 0.05 (chelated by DTPA Fe)
Mn 0.02135
B 0.0028415
Cu 0.0017665
Zn 0.015745
Mg 0.4
Mo 0.0013055

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

you may have even made the wrong change

Been there, done that. @Hufsa 's manganese (Mn) deficiency <"being a prime example">.

Also, some problems can be prevented but can't be remediated after they have happened.

That one as well.

The first time I used the moler clay "Tesco Cat Litter" I rinsed it in our tap water (hard about 18dGH/dKH). It didn't get rid of the smell, and it meant that all the exchange sites were filled with Ca++ and HCO3- ions, so it raised the pH and hardness of the <"rain-water tanks I used it in">.

If I'd used it in a tank with our hard tap water, it wouldn't have had any additional effect effect, because the ion exchange sites would already have been in equilibrium with the water.

cheers Darrel

 

[MichaelJ]

I should also have said that years ago we did talk about writing a book (when books were still a thing)

Books are still a thing... However, it would be a real challenge to follow your links from a paper book - an e-book would work though.

Cheers,
Michael

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

are they really that insane?

Except for K that you pointed out, I would say no - not insane. The Fe is probably a bit on the high side, but whatever... it depends - see below.

I think when people hear the name Tom Barr they automatically assume that means "lard on the ferts"

That is unfortunately true... and we see that in the fertilizer / plant help section on a regular basis... beginners asking questions, describing their fertilizer regime that is very often excessive - personally I rarely comment on it as it always seems to spur controversy, and just give advice based on the provided information over all. The sad thing about these fertilizer discussions is that they rarely get to the finer points beyond tech level, such as plant mass/type, water quality - are we dealing with a soft acidic tank or liquid rock at high pH etc. what livestock etc... I don't poke fingers at Tom Barr, just saying that a lot of the advice I've seen (including the article that was quoted in the OP) are not taking any of this into account. I also don't like that every time we have these discussion there are certain fellow hobbyists that are all over it like some of us are trying to burn the scriptures and turn everyone into devil worshippers because we have the audacity to question some findings and advice that was given two decades ago.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I also don't like that every time we have these discussion there are certain fellow hobbyists that are all over it like some of us are trying to burn the scriptures and turn everyone into devil worshippers because we have the audacity to question some findings and advice that was given two decades ago.

We may have had a times, as a forum, where "heterodox" views weren't <"universally well received">.

Books are still a thing...

I love books and you can't really read a <"popular science book"> on a Kindle etc. Electronic readers are designed for linear reading (start at the start, end at the end), but useless if you need to go backwards and forwards, refer to the references, index etc.

a real challenge to follow your links from a paper book - an e-book would work though.

I'm still not convinced. <"To paraphrase"> Groucho Marx* "I'm not convinced that I would read any book that I had written".

* I expect you can guess why <"he is here">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Happi]

am a lousy experimental guy with two kids to take care of. but whenever I get a chance, I try to do my experiments.
any guesses on how much Fe, K am I dosing in these tanks? and these are high light, CO2 enriched tank with Inert Silica Sand.

Pic #1


Pic #2


Pic #3


Pic #4


Pic#5

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I am sure Tom did do a very successful non C02 tank,

He definitely did. I'll see if I can find it, I can actually remember what it looked like, but that doesn't help with searching for it on the forum.

Found the original, purely by serendipity - <"has anyone read this? (sears-conlin article on algae)">.

cheers Darrel

 

[MichaelJ]

any guesses on how much Fe, K am I dosing in these tanks?

I've probably seen this... But I would say less than 1.0 K and less or about 0.1 Fe?

Cheers,
Michael

I'm still not convinced. <"To paraphrase"> Groucho Marx* "I'm not convinced that I would read any book I have written".

That one always cracked me up. Along the same lines, "I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Happi]

I've probably seen this... But I would say less than 1.0 K and less or about 0.1 Fe?

Cheers,
Michael

1-3 ppm K weekly and 0.02 - 0.1 ppm Fe weekly. the point is that low tech tanks would have far less of an uptake and the needed nutrients.

 

[hypnogogia]

10.184 grams KNO3
19.567 grams Mg(NO3)2.6H2O
2.536 grams Urea
2.780 grams KH2PO4
3.634 gram Solufeed Coir TEC
0.25 gram potassium sorbate
5 ml White Vinegar

How do you prevent the phosphate and iron reacting with each other?

 

[Happi]

How do you prevent the phosphate and iron reacting with each other?

Solufeed Coir TEC contain DTPA Fe, which itself is highly protected from the Phosphate interference. we further add some vinegar to acidify the solution to lower the PH which keep things more soluble and protected.

 

[rdk1402]

My 2 cents...

I've never conducted solomon-designed experiments in the past, but I did fool around with different amounts and different ratio's of minerals in different tanks, for different plants, all kept in a cool (17 - 19 C), dark basement, with similar, dedicated aquarium lights at a whopping 1% output, for 8 - 16 hours per day, and I just can't tell any of it mattered.

Over the years, or decades I should say, I assume that in low energy conditions, plants enter a dormancy mode, where they hardly show any growth but retain their green colors. Minerals are just not much of a concern and algae are non-existent (not in their visible outfit).

No doubt, my conditions don't match the average 'low tech' aquarium.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Over the years, or decades I should say, I assume that in low energy conditions, plants enter a dormancy mode, where they hardly show any growth but retain their green colors

I think this very much <"depends on the plant">. I'd actually use normal leaf colour as an indication, plants with <"dark green leaves"> are likely to <"survive on petrol fumes">, but some other plants are <"turned up to eleven plants">, which need plenty of everything.

We have <"had some discussion"> about which plants may have the lowest Light Compensation Point (LCP) <"Name some SUPER low light plants">.

all kept in a cool (17 - 19 C)

I think that is relevant as well, survival "cool and dark" will be much better than it would be "warm and dark".

cheers Darrel

 

[rdk1402]

Thanks for referring me to the links. I'm noticing the usual suspects, but the list can be extended.

Besides the more obligate aquatic species, the list includes popular Hygrophila, Rotala, Ludwigia, Eleocharis, Hydrocotyle, Lilaeopsis, Micranthemum (MC), Echinodorus, Myriophyllum, Limnophila, and my favorite bulk plant, H. zosterifolia. Some species belonging to these genera I have less success with: Hygrophila pinnatifida and Rotala Wallichii come to mind.

However, the list of species and genera can be further extended when CO2 gas is added, but light intensity and water temperature are kept equal. Likely due to its effect on the LCP.

I'm currently conducting an experiment with the same conditions (18C, 5 lumen/liter), but this time with CO2 gas injection. Plant species are Pogostemon deccanensis, HC cuba, R. walichii, Rotala h'ra (already proven, but love the plant), Limnophila aromatica 'mini', Myriophyllum 'guyana', Ludwigia palustris, Nesaea pedicellata, Rotala macrandra 'mini type 2', and intending to add Tonina fluviatilis soon.

Nesaea pedicellata and Rotala macrandra 'mini type 2' are big question marks. HC cuba looks fine, but with upwards growth tendency. L aromatica was only introduced last week and shows some melting. But the other plants are growing surprisingly well. Hence I'm following 'a certain mineral management regime' once again.

 

[hax47]

1-3 ppm K weekly and 0.02 - 0.1 ppm Fe weekly. the point is that low tech tanks would have far less of an uptake and the needed nutrients.

I suppose the water is soft / the alkalinity is low in these tanks?

 

[erwin123]

Hi all,

I think this very much <"depends on the plant">. I'd actually use normal leaf colour as an indication, plants with <"dark green leaves"> are likely to <"survive on petrol fumes">, but some other plants are <"turned up to eleven plants">, which need plenty of everything.

We have <"had some discussion"> about which plants may have the lowest Light Compensation Point (LCP) <"Name some SUPER low light plants">.

I think that is relevant as well, survival "cool and dark" will be much better than it would be "warm and dark".

cheers Darrel

Here's a closeup of A.Pedicatella adjusting to a lot less light than its neighbours by staying very green...

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

A.Pedicatella appears to be able to adapt to low light by staying green. Here's a close up of a very green A.Pedicatella suriving on a lot less light than its neighbours.

That looks fairly conclusive.

You get it with variegated cultivars of Ivy (Hedera helix) as well, they go green ("produce more chlorophyll") in very low light conditions. You get it a lot in the winter when you keep them as houseplants.

cheers Darrel