Beginner plants for non-soil tank?

[Lilyann]

Some of them are actually members here, but are no longer active because they get tired of continually having to justify their credentials. And they are not going to want to debate accepted biological fact (such as how fish "live" in water), that just wastes their time for no purpose. Dr. Neale Monks is one, we are personal friends online and frequently have discussions of this and that. I doubt any authority in the hobby is as highly respected as Neale.
The attempt to "dumb down" the conversation in order to reflect on my intelligence with the "fish living in water" reference says more about you then me. I am very well read, my friend. Have a University education. Try me with your basic science on this question instead of trying to attack my intelligence with fallacious arguments and silly diversions.There is no need for that.
More specifically, because it would be more helpful to the OP if you actually paid more attention to the question at hand: Why is it more harmful to fish in all cases to buy terrestrial fertilizers over bottled/liquid or pelleted aquatic fertilizers sold by commercial companies for the planted aquarium hobby?


About the microbiologist: Yes, if she/he is not willing to explain the science that they are utilizing as a "basic set of assumptions" on a fish forum then they need to move on and find others that speak their language. [Others that drink in the same well to fill out their belief system.]
But, just because you are a microbiologist doesn't make you an expert in all things aquatic. It gives you some specific knowledge that helps for specific things. Good scientists know where their knowledge ends and begins and when its best time to collaborate with others.

 

[Ingrid]

I like moss balls too . If your tank is well ventilated you could try floating plants too such as salvinia or water lettuce

 

[Byron]

The attempt to "dumb down" the conversation in order to reflect on my intelligence with the "fish living in water" reference says more about you then me. I am very well read, my friend. Have a University education. Try me with your basic science on this question instead of trying to attack my intelligence with fallacious arguments and silly diversions.There is no need for that.

I wish you would take the time to actually read what I write. You earlier disputed my claim that substances added to the water get inside fish and this is detrimental. I am saying this is basic established biology, and I am not going to argue it. I don't care what you believe, but that does not alter the fact.

You asked me to include some of the knowledgeable authorities in discussions, and I explained why they cannot be bothered. It is not my fault.

About the microbiologist: Yes, if she/he is not willing to explain the science that they are utilizing as a "basic set of assumptions" on a fish forum then they need to move on and find others that speak their language. [Others that drink in the same well to fill out their belief system.]
But, just because you are a microbiologist doesn't make you an expert in all things aquatic. It gives you some specific knowledge that helps for specific things. Good scientists know where their knowledge ends and begins and when its best time to collaborate with others.

It has nothing to do with explaining the issue. I've been doing that, and more than one member has mentioned that I am thorough in my explanations, and thanked me for it.. Those explanations are founded on the biology. You appear not to want to ever accept anything I post. That's your prerogative. And no one is claiming to be expert.

 

[Lilyann]

So, your argument is-- what? All fertilizer is detrimental to fish no matter what level of content? Or, aquatic fertilizers are fine but terrestrial fertilizers aren't. Your objective is getting fuzzier and fuzzier as we go on.

Um- no one claiming to be an expert? No? Are you sure? You dis my claims and state your own as "scientifically-based" and then muddy the water by saying the science behind your views are- self-evident. There is nothing scientific about claiming all fertilizers at any rate and every circumstance is detrimental to the health of your fish. You can keep repeating that it is and calling it self-evident ( and some may believe you sadly) but it doesn't change the fact that your basic premise is faulty. You can also claim that terrestrial fertilizers are much more dangerous to the health of fish than some glamorous fertilizer that is deemed necessary for the first world capitalist. But, without context, you are no closer to science than... let me use your analogy...than those who believe the world is flat rather than spherical.
No, Ive read some things that you have said/ recommended and liked them, nodded, etc...
But, Byron, you are not always right - sorry. And, more importantly, you should be open to collaboration and discussion when asked to explain what others find a bit questionable. I have noticed that you tend to argue points with newbies sometimes with "judgement". You know- "finger-wagging". Kinda like that signature that falls under your comments. Its not necessary.
You might remember that these are beginners to the hobby like you once were and put on a more instructive rather than judgemental tone to your advice.

 

[Byron]

So, your argument is-- what? All fertilizer is detrimental to fish no matter what level of content? Or, aquatic fertilizers are fine but terrestrial fertilizers aren't. Your objective is getting fuzzier and fuzzier as we go on.

Substances added to the tank water will get inside the fish, into their bloodstream and internal organs. Soft water species have difficulty over this, to varying degrees depending upon the species and the levels. Therefore, all additives should be kept minimal and only what is actually essential. This holds for any additive, not just plant nutrients.

Aquarium plant fertilizers take into account the specific nutrients and proportions that aquatic plants require, and this is quite different from terrestrial plants. Consequently, terrestrial plant fertilizers will be adding substances that are not only not needed by the plants but will impact the fish for no reason. Nitrate and phosphorus particularly. And the proportions of other nutrients are likely going to be different, and this can lead to further plant issues. Excess of some nutrients will cause aquatic plants to shut down assimilation of certain other nutrients. Point being that terrestrial/aquatic plants are different and it is better to understand this and not experiment.

Also, substrate fertilizers such as Seachem's Flourish Tabs will not release these nutrients into the water column. I've no idea how Seachem manage this, but studies indicate it is the case. I doubt that is the situation with these osmocote products. So here again we have problems that we can avoid, if we care about the fish.

 

[SRbettas]

Anubias barteri is nice and fairly low maintenance

 

[Lilyann]

So, basically, it is your understanding that all substances outside of water and de-chloriantor ( I dont know, you may argue that's detrimental as well) added to the aquarium are harmful to fish.
This is the "basic fish pathology" you are going on about? Um, okay.
This sounds to me more like a generalization made without context.
Its a bit hysterical. Kinda like germ phobs, they cannot distinguish between the healthful, the neutral, and the detrimental. So, as response to all those germs they cannot distinguish between--- they just call everything harmful. Its easier.

You make alot of generalizations in your response to the question of terrestrial/aquatic fertilizers.
You assume all tanks dont need nitrogen and phosphorous without allowing for the vast differences aquariums have in plant mass, types of plants, fish load, etc... Only to say "they are not needed." This is a blanket statement that has no context. Some tanks will use nitrogen/phosphorous up quickly, others do not need any additional dosing. But, it depends on the tank. Thats pretty basic.
Also, what substances are in terrestrial fertilizers ( and not in aquarium fertilizers) that wont be used by aquarium plants? Nitrogen and phosphorous? We already now this isnt true. Tanks will use these two nutrients at different rates depending on variables.

What are these extra substances (not in aquarium fertilizers) that will be detrimental to fish? Nitrogen and phosphorous? [If not these- what are you specifically talking of?] As far as N and P, whether coming from terrestrial or aquatic manufacturer, one should always monitor how much is needed in ones system. Again, due diligence.

You said:

"Excess of some nutrients will cause aquatic plants to shut down assimilation of certain other nutrients. Point being that terrestrial/aquatic plants are different and it is better to understand this and not experiment."

This "shut-down" of the assimilation of other nutrients due to excess nutrients is way more complicated than you are trying to portray here. It has to do with water chemistry, hardness, alkalinity, types of plants involved in a particular case. Just because you dose with an aquatic fertilizer doesn't make the occurrence of this phenomenon less likely than when using terrestrial fertilizers.

The amounts of nutrients in terrestrial fertilizers are "likely" to be different? Is this kinda like maybe? LOL.

Can you link me to a study that demonstrates Seachem's ability to eliminate the possibility of leaching of nutrients into the water column as opposed to terrestrial fertilizers ( namely, Osmocote).
Thanks!

 

[Byron]

This is going to take some explaining to respond, but I will take the time hoping you are being sincere.

So, basically, it is your understanding that all substances outside of water and de-chloriantor ( I dont know, you may argue that's detrimental as well) added to the aquarium are harmful to fish.
This is the "basic fish pathology" you are going on about? Um, okay.
This sounds to me more like a generalization made without context.
Its a bit hysterical. Kinda like germ phobs, they cannot distinguish between the healthful, the neutral, and the detrimental. So, as response to all those germs they cannot distinguish between--- they just call everything harmful. Its easier.

No, this is not correctly stated. Most aquarists do not understand the incredibly complex relationship of fish to their aquatic environment, and with respect, the above clearly shows that you are not. It is unlike the relationship of any terrestrial animals to air (amphibians being the exception). The fish "is" their aquatic environment in a very real sense. The water in which they swim is continually entering their bodies via osmosis through every cell, and also in the gills. It enters the bloodstream and is carried to the internal organs. Everything in this water goes along, as water is the most powerful solvent on this planet. This is why it is so important to replicate their habitat water/environment. Any change causes significant issues physiologically (it is physiology not pathology) and that causes stress. The fish must adjust its blood pH to match the water, and this causes stress. The minerals in the water can block the kidneys (in soft water species) and this causes stress and will kill the fish in time. All of this stress weakens the immune system and the general functioning of the complex processes.

Second, I used the term detrimental, not harmful, for a reason. Detrimental implies that the fish is being affected in a negative way, but it is not necessarily harmful in the sense of causing immediate death. Though in time the fish will die prematurely because of all this "unnatural" environment and the stress and difficulty it causes the fish. It is not being hysterical, it is understanding the "life" of the fish.

You make alot of generalizations in your response to the question of terrestrial/aquatic fertilizers.
You assume all tanks dont need nitrogen and phosphorous without allowing for the vast differences aquariums have in plant mass, types of plants, fish load, etc... Only to say "they are not needed." This is a blanket statement that has no context. Some tanks will use nitrogen/phosphorous up quickly, others do not need any additional dosing. But, it depends on the tank. Thats pretty basic.
Also, what substances are in terrestrial fertilizers ( and not in aquarium fertilizers) that wont be used by aquarium plants? Nitrogen and phosphorous? We already now this isnt true. Tanks will use these two nutrients at different rates depending on variables.

Now you are taking things out of context. Aquatic fertilizers that are quality have the nutrients in the proportions to avoid the issues of too much of this or that. Osmocote does not. There is no need to be adding nitrate and phosphorus to any aquarium with fish, unless you are running a high-tech system which is more an aquatic garden, with no fish (most of those have no fish). In a tank with fish using the low-tech or natural method (which was the OP's) there is more than sufficient phosphorus from fish foods. And ammonia/ammonium supplies the nitrogen needed. CO2 is more likely to become depleted long before either of these naturally-occurring nutrients.

The rest of your post is related to this, so I'll leave it. As for Seachem, you can contact them as easily as the rest of us. They are usually very helpful.

 

[BlueOnyx]

Anubias barteri is nice and fairly low maintenance

I do have a variation of that in there, the otos seem to enjoy it a lot.

 

[BlueOnyx]

No one should ever assume something is accurate or reliable just because it is said on the web. Anyone can set up a site and pass themselves off as some sort of expert. Most are nothing of the sort. The professional scientific folks know what they are doing.

So you are assuming that I believe anything I read online without researching it?

Sheesh. I'm just going to take my leave now. I appreciate everyone's help.

 

[Lilyann]

So you are assuming that I believe anything I read online without researching it?

Sheesh. I'm just going to take my leave now. I appreciate everyone's help.

He does. He believes his knowledge and his belief system is the end and the beginning to all discussions.
This guy would NEVER admit to be wrong in the face of any counter to his belief system.
If you look at what he writes, it is a healthy dose of rigid opinion, a spattering of science, and a good load of judgement on what others "should" be doing with their fish.
Not at all dismissing that there is some knowledge here to be learned, certainly, but the whole "Im the end all to all" is just a bit nauseating.

Thanks for the patronizing diatribe. You tried. But, there is just nothing there there.

 

[Lilyann]

This is going to take some explaining to respond, but I will take the time hoping you are being sincere.



No, this is not correctly stated. Most aquarists do not understand the incredibly complex relationship of fish to their aquatic environment, and with respect, the above clearly shows that you are not. It is unlike the relationship of any terrestrial animals to air (amphibians being the exception). The fish "is" their aquatic environment in a very real sense. The water in which they swim is continually entering their bodies via osmosis through every cell, and also in the gills. It enters the bloodstream and is carried to the internal organs. Everything in this water goes along, as water is the most powerful solvent on this planet. This is why it is so important to replicate their habitat water/environment. Any change causes significant issues physiologically (it is physiology not pathology) and that causes stress. The fish must adjust its blood pH to match the water, and this causes stress. The minerals in the water can block the kidneys (in soft water species) and this causes stress and will kill the fish in time. All of this stress weakens the immune system and the general functioning of the complex processes.

Second, I used the term detrimental, not harmful, for a reason. Detrimental implies that the fish is being affected in a negative way, but it is not necessarily harmful in the sense of causing immediate death. Though in time the fish will die prematurely because of all this "unnatural" environment and the stress and difficulty it causes the fish. It is not being hysterical, it is understanding the "life" of the fish.



Now you are taking things out of context. Aquatic fertilizers that are quality have the nutrients in the proportions to avoid the issues of too much of this or that. Osmocote does not. There is no need to be adding nitrate and phosphorus to any aquarium with fish, unless you are running a high-tech system which is more an aquatic garden, with no fish (most of those have no fish). In a tank with fish using the low-tech or natural method (which was the OP's) there is more than sufficient phosphorus from fish foods. And ammonia/ammonium supplies the nitrogen needed. CO2 is more likely to become depleted long before either of these naturally-occurring nutrients.

The rest of your post is related to this, so I'll leave it. As for Seachem, you can contact them as easily as the rest of us. They are usually very helpful.

Thanks, you have reiterated your opinion again as expected. Nothing new here.
Im bored. (sigh)
Carry on...