I can't be derogatory about the article, Jeff clearly has no algae issues in the final tank, his methods work but as we say are not suited to everyone.
And they do work, it's just much easier for the other methods is all, but the method works not for the reasons Jeff claimed.
I have tanks and have lab growth chambers with no water column nutrients other than dissolved gases.
The plants do pretty well with only sediment fertilization at the light levels, (200 micromols. about 1/10 full sun)
Ludwigia "cuba" does very nicely in CA river Delta mud.
While I can and have done Jeff's "method" for about 20 years and have grown many plants and ruled out many assumptions, he's not the done the same in return.
Plants can and do get nutrients from both locations and the higher the light, the more demand from eithe rlocation.
So since both methods work as nutrient sources, why not combine the two to provide a synegistic approach?
That way you get more out of the sediment and more out of the water column and more resilelent approach to the method.
This "Either or" business is the zealot approach.
You can/should exlpore both sides, not just one.
He's not limiting algae via the water clolumn, anyone of sound frame and mind can clearly see that cannot possibly be true.
So why no dosing for the first month?
NH4.
Once that is gone an settled down, then you can dose without algae.
If he soaked the sediment for 3 weeks in a shallow tray, boiled it, added Zeolite to the filter etc, then he could dose right away.
BTW, my water column pure tanks have no algae. I'll post some pics later.
You need to isolate both sources to explore their effects, you cannot say much if you have not done that and proven it to yourself.
So when starting a new tank:
Add mulm
Cycle filter in a bucket fir 2-3 weeks first+ NH4
Soak NH4 sediment for 3 weeks/boil 10 min/bake 1 hour
Do 2-3x a week 50-70% water change
Add Zeolite to filter(not if you do Fishless cycling though!)
Add lots of plant biomass from day one.
Then you can dose right away.
You'll note, I did not disagree with Jeff's method, I actually know more about it than he does and what works, why and which parts are contributing to successes and failures, as well as how to augment it.
The goal is to understand plants, not a peeing contest. I do not ask folks to place me into a position of authority, just prove it to yourselves and then you'll know and then I tell folks how to go about it and see what they think.
I can give a person a deer for dinner or...... I can teach them how to hunt and never need to give them deer meat again, I prefer the latter.
The method proscribed suggest a basic tenet that suggest we can limit algae via PO4 and NO3 and still provide plants without enough to grow well. However, this is easily falsifiable thus must be rejected as a reason for algae limitation.
But........that does not imply that the plants do not have a source of nutrients(fish waste and sediment) and cannot grow well etc under some conditions, nor that a method is successful or not.
We fail, not the method and we make assumptions about things and limit ourselves and own understanding.
Making this distinction is often lost in the fray.
Plants can grow in both lean and rich nutrients for both the sediments and the water column.
Why folks want to claim one is better than the other, "Either or" is beyond me.
EI is simple, that's all, there are
many methods for many goals, but to claim one causes algae as reason is balony.
And that's why, rather than saying PPS, EI, non CO2,m Jeff's method etc are wrong, bad, do not work etc these folks incur my full wrath
Our goals have a set of assumptions, those define a method(which are assumed to be able to be successful) we chose.
Some think leaner is better.
some think richer is better.
Some sediments, some water column
Some both
Some like lower light
Some garden, some scape
Some like non CO2
Some don't care and wonder why the debate at all.
Some wonder why Fish hobbyists even keep fish.
Regards,
Tom Barr
