Algae Article In New Pfk Mag

[AndyTaylor]

Has anyone had a chance to read the latest planted tank article in the latest PFK? Why does it seem to be stating completely the opposite of everything that seems to work for everyone on here?
I know that gf has mentioned this before but every new issue of this series of articles seems to be re-iterating old ideas of nitrate & phospate being the 'enemy of the planted tank', which seems to fly in the face of peoples experience here.
If anyone else has read it and has an opinion it could be an interesting discussion thread?
Alternatively, with enough input from the more experienced among us, I'll happily submit an article to PFK detailing the EI point of view....

What you think? I hate bad science!!

Andy

 

[Jen]

Unfortunately, most writers for these kind of magazines are still going by the rules they grew up with. As far as I am concerned... the EI method is still fairly new. I hadn't heard of it before this time last year (or whenever zig and George stated at it and doccumenting it for us).

Its hard to teach old dogs new tricks, as they say.

 

[jimbooo]

hi andy. yep i've been reading those as well. in my opinion (and feel free to disagree george etc..) .but the old school way of thinking does work in the low teck planted tank. ie a tank with some plants in it. not exactly what we refer to as a planted tank. with low lighting high concentrations of nitrate and phosphate are more of a hinderance as the plants aren't growing fast enough to use the nutrients available. as expected in such a case algae will be more than happy to use them up and flourish. hence why the article points to ideal levels of both being zero. we only run into problems when we upgrade our lighting and co2. as a direct result the plants are suddenly using up all available nutrients leaving a defeciency which would not previously have occured.

bearing in mind PFK is a mainstream magazine the majority of readers will not be spending £000's on their tanks, more likely struggling to grow plants in of the shelf systems. for those people keeping nutrients down will be beneficial.

did that make any sence to anyone else. i know what i'm trying to say but not sure if anyone else will.

 

[kenneth_kpe]

i agree with jimboo, i have no experience with the PFK magazine, is it the largest fish keeping mag in EU ? or UK specifically ? Well IMO at least the magazine should have covered at least the potential of tanks with higher lighting and uber fertilization via the EI method

 

[jimbooo]

it's the only one in the UK just a general fish mag covering marine and fresh water. probably 70% marine though. there is a guy in there doing a series of articles on plants/algae etc..but it's all old school stuff ie keep nitrate and phosphate as low as possible, talks about using rain water blah blah... your not missing much mate it just confuses us lot when an "expert" is telling you how to do something when we already know better.

gf225 sent in a letter challenging his views (worded very politley of course) it was published but the annoying thing is there is no replies to the letters. seems kind of daft, they print your letter but dont answer it.

 

[AndyTaylor]

I understand what you're saying jimbooo....even with my friday morning head on it makes sense! Maybe if the pics in the article were of low tech planted tanks it would make more sense, instead of pics of obviously high tech tanks stuffed with light demanding red leaved plants. If they grew in a tank with 0 nitrate and phosphate i'll eat my riccia!
The idea that plants will use all available nitrate and phosphate in minutes makes no sense to me either but it seems to be based on some research. I'll have to look into that one.
I saw gf's letter but, as you say, no response from the mag!

 

[George Farmer]

EI is cutting edge in the UK.

The author is old-school and has success with his methods so he sees no reason why one should be adding nitrates and phosphates to water. I understand his view, if it works, why fix it?

It is important to understand his set-up though.

1. Mercury vapour lighting
2. Soil-based substrate (where N and P will be)
3. Rainwater and tap

How relevant is this to 99% of planted hobbyists? Not very, just as not adding NO3 and PO4 is not relevant to anyone with a high-growth set-up.

It is a great shame that PFK employed this author to write the series at it is so backward thinking. It does nothing for the UK hobby, in fact its effect will probably be more negative overall IMO.

I'm away for 4 months soon so it will give me plenty of opportunity to write a few articles for submission. It will be interesting to see if they print them though as they will contradict much of what has been said already. At least they'll reflect the modern approach and be more appropiate for today's hobbyist.

Anyway, I understand your confusion. Ignore his views on nitrates and phosphates if you have a high growth set-up and stick with EI or similar. It works - period.

 

[oldwhitewood]

I tend to agree with George in that the articles the guy does are long term more detrimental to the hobby than beneficial. From my own point of view just because he has his method that works for him in his setup what is that going to prove? There are many people that are going to see a picture of a tank say from this site and immediately they're going to wonder how it's done, but if they read PFK it's like being in the dark ages. It's akin to reading a manual on MS DOS and not realising you have windows XP available, and there's potentially Mac OSX with ADA kit errm *coughs*

*realises geek credentials have been exposed*

I'll get my coat..