I'd guess that even the people who do make their own mixes are going to use a commercial <"
trace element mix">
I think it depends on whether you believe in necessity to use chelates.
The problem with these types of experiments is that it doesn’t account for the many other variables from tank to tank. Pretty much what this proves is what happened in those particular tanks, with that particular set up, and those particular plants.
The way to reveal step by step the significance of individual variables in relation to the whole is doing precisely this kind of experiments. I took care to keep as many as possible variables identical in all four tanks and make them differ in two parameters only: acidic vs. alkaline and lean vs. rich. I've demonstrated that both species are able to benefit from rich nutrition, and only one of them is well adapted to alkaline environment.
And not to be lost is that different plants have different optimal conditions.
But that was exactly what made me to make the test - to demonstrate different responses to external conditions by two species.
But even so the plants in these tanks do not look to be in peak health. Lot’s of algae on old growth and the substrate looks dirty with algae as well.
I agree. Only that what you see is mostly fungi, most likely, because they appeared during dark cycling. However, you seem to fail to understand what experiments are performed for. It is not to take some plants and gradually adjust conditions to a state when they look (unnaturally) perfect. It is to expose them to chosen conditions and then observe, describe, and discuss the results. If algae appear, then be it. If the plants outright die, then be it. That's what experiments work like.
But frankly, I've seldom seen Ludwigia glandulosa in better shape (in tank A), even in CO2 enriched tanks. Perhaps more detailed photos would show, but, interestingly, you did not show interest.
I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank like a science experiment.
I think sometimes folks make the mistake of looking at a tank designed for simple scientific experiments by judging it by their personal approach to the hobby.
I fully understand that most hobbyists will ever be just hobbyists and never perform experiments. But to dismiss them, par example with an argument that
one experiment cannot solve the whole truth in its full complexity, is just wrong. My tests are not truly "scientific", but in broader terms, this is how the science is made. Step by step, always with limited (and disputable) results, yet always pushing the limits of our knowledge a bit further.
Some invent/create new cars, and many many more just drive them. Ignorance is fully permissible, but some people still must create new, better cars.
Funny thing is that when you get to know some of the best in the hobby not once does the discussion of Marschner's ratio come up. In fact dosing is pretty low on the list of what is discussed.
Who are some of the best? I suppose they are those who are eminent in what
you consider the result. Believe or not, I'm tired and actually don't like high-tech gardens which are so adored by general public. When it comes to aesthetic value, they are mostly kitch, a popular art. When it comes to learning the nature, they are outright the opposite because their methods and goals are unnatural.
I'm not about to fight a war to change this state of affairs. I'm just trying to explain that your approach is not the only possible.
That said, I'll be the first to stress over and over that care for plants does not begin with mineralization/fertilization. Does it mean we should not investigate the influence of nutrition?
www.plantedtank.net
