Beauty as the ultimate proof: The (mis)correct criteria for assessing the condition of aquarium plants and animals

Chapter 1: Assessing the true status of plants/animals is not as easy as it first appears

1) First premise: The overall condition of an organism can be assessed by its external form or by its internal contents.
--- with the content being [with few exceptions] more important than the form, because the specific form is [in most cases] based on the content
--- the content has more predictive value than the form
--- there are exceptions when form may override content: e.g. external mechanical damage [e.g. due to too strong water flow or leaf nibbling by snails/fish] or algae/cyanobacteria infestation of plants [not due to their poor condition, but simply due to uncontrolled algal overgrowth]

2) Second premise: Most aquarists judge the condition of their plants/animals by their external form.
--- typically by growth rate, size, coloration, absence of external deformities or absence of algae (in plants) or by liveliness/vigor, appetite and ability to reproduce (in animals)

3) Result: Most aquarists judge the condition of their plants/animals by secondary (and therefore potentially misleading) measures.

Examples (possible combinations) of external and internal organism conditions that can theoretically occur:

A) good form + good content

1) External form = good​

2) Internal content = good​

3) Overall condition = optimal​

B) good form + poor content

1) External form = good => e.g. disturbed internal metabolism but not reflected in external appearance​

2) Internal content = bad​

3) Overall condition = suboptimal​

• Example (in fish): higher concentration of harmful substances in internal organs, nephrocalcinosis (deposits in kidneys), higher mortality rate of fry, shorter lifespan, overall higher stress levels etc.
• Example (in plants): higher concentration of harmful substances or too high concentration of nutrients in the tissue, "obesity", increased excretion of organic exudates, mild poisoning (narcotic effect), different colouration - richer or paler (paradoxically considered desirable by aquarists and as evidence of optimal condition)

C) poor form + good content

1) External form = bad => e.g. external deformation due to purely external damage (without serious impact on the overall state of internal metabolism)​

2) Internal content = good​

3) Overall condition = suboptimal​

D) poor form + poor content

1) External form = poor => e.g. disturbed internal metabolism which is also reflected in the external appearance​

2) Internal content = bad​

3) Overall condition = suboptimal​

It is important to realize that we do not know the inner content (i.e. the current state of metabolic processes) and we do not have many options to find out. However, if we don't know the second (and more important) part of the equation, we can't be sure of the outcome either!

PS: Many times we do everything we can to achieve the image we want to see in our aquarium, even at the cost of "torturing" its inhabitants. We are not interested in what our plants (or animals) like, but we have elevated our aesthetic preferences to a standard (measure) by which to judge their condition. If a plant fits our aesthetic preferences, then we declare it "perfectly healthy" (i.e. in optimal condition), without acknowledging the possibility that it may be in state B (i.e. good form + poor content).

Chapter 2: So how do we properly assess the condition of our plants/animals to be as close to reality as possible, even if we can't see inside them?

1) Take inspiration from nature (with its laws), use common sense and do not use extreme methods (typically for example unnaturally high nutrient doses)!

A number of scientific studies have presented the evidence that unnaturally high concentrations of certain nutrients (or inappropriate ratios) can be harmful to different plants [under certain circumstances].
--- For example, some studies have suggested that CO2 concentrations above 40 ppm can have a narcotic effect on some plants. Other specialized or scholarly literature recommends 10-20 ppm as the maximum recommended long-term CO2 concentration for aquatic organisms, as higher concentrations can lead to various internal metabolic and physiological disturbances. If it is true that we should not expose aquarium animals to CO2 concentrations above 20 ppm, but we still expose them to such concentrations [long term], then what else can we call it but deliberate torture?

Such high nutrient concentrations [that are used and recommended by some aquarists] are not commonly found anywhere in unpolluted natural waters.
--- While this does not mean anything in itself, it is good to realize that if something is not commonly found in nature (i.e. plants and animals do not normally encounter it), then it is highly likely that they have not developed any mechanisms to cope with such unnatural concentrations (= extremes), or they do have some mechanisms, but they are not built for such extreme situations (i.e. extreme nutrient concentrations). This assumption is logical and central, and is supported by a number of scientific studies.

If we cannot be 100% certain that the concentrations of nutrients (or other agents) we use are truly harmless to our plants/animals, then it is certainly reasonable to stick to such concentrations and mimic conditions that are as close as possible to the natural ones in which the plants/animals in question have thrived for thousands of years (and are thus perfectly evolutionarily adapted to).

While using extremely high doses of nutrients may result in "bigger, faster growing and more colourful" plants, it may also place an unnatural strain on their internal metabolism (in other words, stress them continuously).
--- I have unfortunately met aquarists who cannot admit this possibility. They believe that "good form" is automatically unquestionable proof of overall optimal condition.

2) Continue to evaluate plants/animals by external form, but with the understanding that it is not the only (and obviously not the most important!) measure.

3) If you can afford it, also perform internal content analysis (e.g., dry matter nutrient content can be a relatively useful indicator).

4) Conduct comparative tests.

--- Why use extreme methods when similar results can often be achieved with much more moderate methods that are much gentler on aquarium plants/animals?
--- Take a look at my latest experiment for example, where I only use something like ~11 ppm CO2 (+ very low doses of other nutrients) and think about whether it is really necessary to use that much more.

A few final notes on algae:

Sometimes we use to say that "algae only attack unhealthy plants". But how can we know that a plant infested with algae is unhealthy if we are only able to judge its health by its external form?

Of course, it is possible (even likely) that a fast-growing leaf is a worse surface for algae to attach to than a slow-growing (or stagnant) leaf. Of course, a healthy organism is generally more resistant to disease than an unhealthy one. But does this always and everywhere (in all circumstances) apply? Will a plant that grows in an environment perfectly suited to algae successfully resist it? And will it resist them even if we remove all algae eaters (snails/shrimps) from the aquarium, cancel filtration, stop using the surface skimmer, stop regular maintenance and water changes? I highly doubt it. On the contrary, I am convinced that if you remove all the means that help keep algae at bay from the aquarium, then the healthiest plant will not be able to resist them. In an aquarium with no filtration and no bunch of shrimps, algae will simply appear after a month, even if you crawl on hands and knees over broken glass. And regular maintenance and weekly 50% water changes won't help either. On the other hand, with an army of shrimps I don't have to do anything and the algae will never show up.

I know this topic will probably be a bit controversial for some, but I wanted to bring it up here anyway, so that we can at least think about it. I am not imposing my views here on anyone. Advocates as well as opponents of my views will surely find many other arguments to support their views (which is certainly a good thing).

 

[GreggZ]

Marcel I read your post with great interest.

The question I have is........what is the goal of a planted tank?

Are we trying to achieve absolute optimum plant health? If so it would be nearly impossible to keep a wide variety of plants in a single tank as most have different optimum conditions.

For myself and loads of people I know in the hobby we have a different goal. We are trying to create a beautiful underwater garden that captures your gaze. I think of it as a form of art.

Now could someone nitpick and call out every imperfection of my tank? Sure. Go ahead. It would not diminish the pleasure I get from standing in front of it and soaking it all in.

In my tank I am keeping about 25 species and it's a balance to keep them all happy. Over the years I have experimented with many different methodologies. Low CO2, low light, low ferts......very high CO2, very high light, and very rich ferts.....and everywhere in between.

In the end I always go back to rich everything. If you believe the charts/calculators my CO2 is about 90ppm. I keep the water column at about 30ppm NO3, 10 ppm PO4, and 40 ppm K. Light is just under 200 PAR.

For my goals this is what works best for me. But that is MY goal. I know why I am in the hobby, and I know what makes me happy. Standing in front of my tank gives me a lot of joy.

When I read your posts I am always curious.......what is YOUR goal? Do you ever keep a "display" type tank? Or is your interest limited to the types of experiments you have been doing for years? I really am curious.

For reference a pic of my tank in the conditions described above. Are the plants in optimum condition? Or do I even know what the optimum condition is? Heck I don't know. And I don't really care. I just know when I walk by the tank it makes me happy.

 

[Burr740]

if we cancel filtration, stop using the surface skimmer, stop regular maintenance and water changes? I highly doubt it. On the contrary, I am convinced that if you remove all the means that help keep algae at bay from the aquarium, then the healthiest plant will not be able to resist them

Of course there will be algae if you remove key components that keep the plants healthy to begin with

In my experience 99% of all algae we deal with is caused by two things - unhealthy plants and/or dirty conditions. This is 100% true for BBA

BBA never gets on new healthy leaves. Its always on the old or unhealthy leaves. This is because unhealthy leaves, or any decaying plant matter, leeches out what bba feeds on. The common term is dissolved organic waste, that may or may not be technically accurate. But BBA doesnt feed on NO3, PO4 etc. It eats this. The more bad leaves/plants you have, the more of this invisible waste there will be water column (aka dirty conditions)

It has been observed that BBA tends to show up in high flow areas. This is because those areas make direct contact with a higher volume of water than other areas. Its very common for the filter outflow pipe to collect BBA , even when its nowhere else in the tank. This is because the outflow pipe makes direct contact with every ounce of water in the tank several times an hour. To use a milligram analogy, if the avg spot in the tank gets 50 milligrams of this dissolved algae food, the filter pipe gets 5000

If bba is on the hardscape or substrate, then there is too much of this waste in the water. If bba is on a plant leaf, then that leaf is not entirely healthy. Notice how it first appears on the edges of plant leaves. Thats because the edges are often the first thing to degrade

This applies to almost all algae. Older damaged leaves tend to get it first. New healthy growth hardly ever gets it. Even long stringy hair types, if you trace a big strand to its origin, its usually coming from unhealthy leaves

This is why its so important to keep old or degrading leaves religiously pruned out of the system. Its natural for older leaves to degrade and get algae. Just pich those leaves off, problem solved. Algae doesnt just show up and attack our plants. Unhealthy plants or leaves effectively generate it.

Imagine leaving a bunch of dead fish laying around to rot. Nobody thinks that'd be a good idea, right? Same principal

Thats why getting the plants healthy should always be the number one focus whenever there's algae troubles, along with clean conditions (water changes to remove excess waste, clean filters, remove crappy growth, etc) Once algae takes hold it may require treatments to kill it, spot treating, etc. But its never about "fighting the algae" Its about getting the plants healthy and the conditions clean

The lone exception to this is green dust algae (GDA). It can be caused by an actual excess of macro nutrients, especially NH4, or something like an immature bio cycle. Almost every other algae - the plants are causing it

 

[GreggZ]

In my experience 99% of all algae we deal with is caused by two things - unhealthy plants and/or dirty conditions. This is 100% true for BBA

Joe this was going to be my next point. Too many people focus solely on ferts. But they can't see the forest through the trees.

If a tank is well maintained (uber clean) and there is good horticulture you can get by pretty well on a wide range of fert dosing. When I spend time talking with other well known successful planted tankers, fert dosing is never the main topic.

It's always everything else............... CO2, light, maintenance and horticulture.

I remember when I got more heavily into the hobby, I read Vin's going Dutch with Aquasoil thread many times over (and your original thread too!) and there was always a common theme. When things went south and algae cropped up, he didn't play whack-a-mole with ferts. Instead he rolled up his sleeves and got in there and cleaned things up, removed dying/dead plant matter, and created a little more elbow room between the species.

And not to say fert dosing doesn't make a difference. But if you don't get the other parts right the most perfect fert dosing in the world won't save you.

There is a reason there is an old saying in the hobby.........keep your sleeves wet! It's the solution to most problems.

And there is another old saying which I believe can help a lot of people. Think growing plants not defeating algae. Happy healthy growing plants is easily the best defense against all algae.

 

[Burr740]

For reference a pic of my tank in the conditions described above. Are the plants in optimum condition? Or do I even know what the optimum condition is? Heck I don't know. And I don't really care. I just know when I walk by the tank it makes me happy.

I never understand when somebody claims that the conditions found in the wild are the optimal best for a plant. Surviving in nature=/= thriving in nature

Ive used the analogy before of lions in Africa. Every year there is a dry season, water is scarce, food is scarcer. The lions look like walking skeletons at the end of it, many of the old and weak ones have died. It would be a mistake to take those loins as nature's best intended shape to be in, or that those were the optimum conditions for them to live

In our aquariums these plants are pampered with plenty of the right food, plenty of co2, and the closest thing to sunlight as we can get. They grow fat colorful and happy

Yet somehow that goes "against nature" according to some. Nature doesnt always provide the optimum conditions. Nature doesnt care, survive or die

And besides, nobody is trying to grow Ludwigia to look like it does in the neighborhood creek



If you ask me this is a much better state for them to be in



And I believe nature would agree with me

 

[ElleDee]

Marcel, I apologize for not engaging on your experiment thread. I started a response several times and got sidetracked by real life. I think you would appreciate this paper about differing perspectives about what constitutes "plant health" and it is very relevant here as well.

However, I don't agree with your basic framework here. This is partly a values issue, for which I am happy to agree-to-disagree about. I see this as ornamental horticulture, where aesthetics is the primary outcome. I also care about the enhancement of the aquatic environment to my livestock, but I'm not putting that to any sort of formal test. At any rate, I care about the wellbeing of my fish, whereas I don't think my plants even have a wellbeing that I could care about. With plants, I care about how they perform in the role that I have assigned them. To that end I am constantly cutting off parts of my plants for literally any reason I want. I throw them away in the garbage without second thought. I certainly am not concerned with any secret internal health indicators so long as they have no meaningful effect (i.e. one I can observe) on my system. You see it differently and that's fine, but I do not accept your premise about form and content as it relates to plants.

But aside from that foundational disagreement, I don't understand how these metaphors to human health are supposed to relate to plants. What do you think are these hidden metrics in plants are exactly? I need you to be way, way more specific on this:

Example (in plants): higher concentration of harmful substances or too high concentration of nutrients in the tissue, "obesity", increased excretion of organic exudates, mild poisoning (narcotic effect), different colouration - richer or paler (paradoxically considered desirable by aquarists and as evidence of optimal condition)

This reads to me like a hodgepodge of issues that need some evidence that they are an actual problem before we start worrying about them.

What do you mean by "obesity" in reference to plants?? Plant metabolism is so unlike those of animals I don't know where you are going with this analogy. I am having trouble of thinking of how a metabolic issue in plants would not directly manifest in the plants physical appearance.

I do hear your point about how coloration can be attractive *and* be indicative of a nutrient issue, extreme plant stress, or even disease (I have heard that there's a Hygrophila polysperma cultivar that gets its variegation from a virus, but I don't know if that is true or if it's just reminiscent of a viral breaking pattern), but I'd argue that should fall in the form category as well.

1) Take inspiration from nature (with its laws), use common sense and do not use extreme methods (typically for example unnaturally high nutrient doses)!

This is fine as a statement of personal ethos, but it's not a binding law of anything. Our civilization hinges on people taking extreme measures with plants. I wouldn't even say that surpassing nutrient levels found in nature is extreme anyway - that's one of the most basic ways of increasing plant growth. And from an ornamental perspective, humans tend to be very good at getting our garden plants to surpass their wild counterparts if we put our minds to it, we just can't do it at scale. (This is on a plant by plant basis; I think from a design standpoint the natural world has an edge over human gardens.)

2) Continue to evaluate plants/animals by external form, but with the understanding that it is not the only (and obviously not the most important!) measure.

Again, what exactly is this other measure specifically?

A few final notes on algae:

Sometimes we use to say that "algae only attack unhealthy plants". But how can we know that a plant infested with algae is unhealthy if we are only able to judge its health by its external form?

Of course, it is possible (even likely) that a fast-growing leaf is a worse surface for algae to attach to than a slow-growing (or stagnant) leaf. Of course, a healthy organism is generally more resistant to disease than an unhealthy one. But does this always and everywhere (in all circumstances) apply? Will a plant that grows in an environment perfectly suited to algae successfully resist it?

This is an interesting question and I don't really have an answer to it. My observations are that when an aquarium is balanced very well, algae is a poor competitor, but I don't understand why that is. I also have an aponegeton right now where all the old leaves, grown when the bulb was in a different tank, are covered in BBA but the newer leaves are pristine and have been for weeks, even in high light, high flow areas. It's the same plant in the same tank, but whatever it is that is affecting BBA infestation differs from leaf to leaf.

 

[Kwyet]

Marcel, I apologize for not engaging on your experiment thread. I started a response several times and got sidetracked by real life. I think you would appreciate this paper about differing perspectives about what constitutes "plant health" and it is very relevant here as well.

However, I don't agree with your basic framework here. This is partly a values issue, for which I am happy to agree-to-disagree about. I see this as ornamental horticulture, where aesthetics is the primary outcome. I also care about the enhancement of the aquatic environment to my livestock, but I'm not putting that to any sort of formal test. At any rate, I care about the wellbeing of my fish, whereas I don't think my plants even have a wellbeing that I could care about. With plants, I care about how they perform in the role that I have assigned them. To that end I am constantly cutting off parts of my plants for literally any reason I want. I throw them away in the garbage without second thought. I certainly am not concerned with any secret internal health indicators so long as they have no meaningful effect (i.e. one I can observe) on my system. You see it differently and that's fine, but I do not accept your premise about form and content as it relates to plants.

But aside from that foundational disagreement, I don't understand how these metaphors to human health are supposed to relate to plants. What do you think are these hidden metrics in plants are exactly? I need you to be way, way more specific on this:

This reads to me like a hodgepodge of issues that need some evidence that they are an actual problem before we start worrying about them.

What do you mean by "obesity" in reference to plants?? Plant metabolism is so unlike those of animals I don't know where you are going with this analogy. I am having trouble of thinking of how a metabolic issue in plants would not directly manifest in the plants physical appearance.

I do hear your point about how coloration can be attractive *and* be indicative of a nutrient issue, extreme plant stress, or even disease (I have heard that there's a Hygrophila polysperma cultivar that gets its variegation from a virus, but I don't know if that is true or if it's just reminiscent of a viral breaking pattern), but I'd argue that should fall in the form category as well.


This is fine as a statement of personal ethos, but it's not a binding law of anything. Our civilization hinges on people taking extreme measures with plants. I wouldn't even say that surpassing nutrient levels found in nature is extreme anyway - that's one of the most basic ways of increasing plant growth. And from an ornamental perspective, humans tend to be very good at getting our garden plants to surpass their wild counterparts if we put our minds to it, we just can't do it at scale. (This is on a plant by plant basis; I think from a design standpoint the natural world has an edge over human gardens.)


Again, what exactly is this other measure specifically?


This is an interesting question and I don't really have an answer to it. My observations are that when an aquarium is balanced very well, algae is a poor competitor, but I don't understand why that is. I also have an aponegeton right now where all the old leaves, grown when the bulb was in a different tank, are covered in BBA but the newer leaves are pristine and have been for weeks, even in high light, high flow areas. It's the same plant in the same tank, but whatever it is that is affecting BBA infestation differs from leaf to leaf.

Interesting article! The term “plant health” really opens multiple “kettles of worms.” My main takeaway is that perhaps instead of putting things in terms of plant health, it would make more sense to discuss plants as being in optimal condition for a specified purpose, whether that’s food, propagation, aesthetics, etc.

 

[Anonymous_One]

So, at the end of our brief discussion [elsewhere], it becomes apparent what has been obvious to some people from the beginning - namely, that each person's views are a mirror of his/her deeper philosophical attitudes. I've done my "recon by fire" here (on ScapeCrunch), noting the philosophical background of most of the debaters. Its results are interesting to me, but expected (in line with other areas of human activity). The only question I am still asking myself is whether it makes sense to try to have a discussion and share the results of my experiments in an environment that is so philosophically (i.e. in its deepest essence) distant from me. Some would certainly not hesitate to give me a negative answer to this question, and I am inclined to agree.

 

[Kwyet]

Does it matter if people disagree with you? As long as the discussion is civil, I think it’s worthwhile to hear diverse opinions and reasoning for such. Your experiments probably aren’t going to change anyone’s philosophy/ideology, but they’re still adding to the knowledge of the hobby, so I say keep them up and keep sharing your results. I guess you could ask people not to comment, and just let it be read-only (is there an option for that?). I would miss it though, because I don’t see these kind of discussions about the hobby anywhere else.

 

[Anonymous_One]

This is not some random disagreement in a discussion on a certain topic, but a much deeper contradiction of our philosophical approaches. If I were to compare this to anything, it would be more like an atheist trying to have some meaningful discussion on a Christian (Baptist) forum [or vice versa]. No one there will try to take your arguments seriously, and their reactions to you there will be [oddly enough] very similar to those here. A minority will try to positively (and politely) evangelize you, the active members will start to get hard on you (mostly emotionally, irrationally, sophistically), and the majority will just sit silently by. It's the same everywhere. The fact is that an atheist is unlikely to break through on a Christian forum (and it's probably not even a good idea to try, because the result, at best, is only excommunication).
P.S. The example of the atheist on a Christian forum is purely fictional. At the same time, this is not to say that an atheist is better than a Christian in any way (I am not putting myself in any superior position by using this example).

 

[Kwyet]

Did you read the article @ElleDee recommended to you? It went over a ton of philosophies. Obviously there’s fundamental disagreement. That doesn’t mean the discussion is worthless. There will be some points people agree on, others they disagree on, and everything in between. That’s pretty much the nature of a forum. It doesn’t really have any bearing on whether you should continue or not. Do what makes you happy (as long as it’s respectful of others), and let people find value where they find value. That’s my 2 cents.

 

[Anonymous_One]

The discussion would be valuable if it were balanced, i.e. if the different philosophies were more or less evenly spread across the various users (opinions). However, if you get into an environment where a certain mainstream dominates and other views are marginal, then having any discussion is very exhausting and fruitless.
PS: It's ironic that I just became an "active user" here (having reached the 100 post mark), even though I plan to retreat into the background.

 

[Joel Armstrong]

.

 

[Anonymous_One]

.

 

[Joel Armstrong]

.

 

[Pepere]

The only question I am still asking myself is whether it makes sense to try to have a discussion and share the results of my experiments in an environment that is so philosophically (i.e. in its deepest essence) distant from me. Some would certainly not hesitate to give me a negative answer to this question, and I am inclined to agree.

Personally I find your posts interesting and thought provoking. Philosophically I might differ, but I personally find value in reading your thoughts and insights…. I also find value in reading the thoughts and insights of opposing views…

Plants are alive. It certainly begs the question whether they are living “beings” or “entities”, or what. Is it ethical to consume plants or animals? If it is not ethical, than it puts all animals in a hard spot unless we can evolve to photosynthesize our own energy. I dont intend to be glib here. I read at one time a religious discipline where the monks would only consume begged vegetative table scraps , peelings cutoffs that would have otherwise been discarded over concern for vegetative life. I am not ridiculing the viewpoint or concern, only pointing out the quandary animal life has with that concern.

Some groups have also believed all matter is created and hence a creature. Ie, water, rock, soil, air, etc… and that raises concerns how we interact. And science tells us that even the vacuum of space contains structure in the very extreme sparseness of particles in that vacuum…. Ie gravitational waves passing through a lack of substance…

It all boggles the mind to contemplate…

If plants as living creatures have feelings or experience discomfort and pleasure, how can I discern the difference? If 30 ppm co2 in the water column acts like a narcotic, do the plants like it and wish for more? Humans can go to great lengths to satisfy their cravings for narcotics…. And some humans work to avoid narcotics. If 30 ppm in the water column is narcotic, what of the 400 ppm and up as the plant emerges from the surface of the water? In my bedroom with the door closed co2 levels in the air can rise to well over 1,500 ppm . Am I subjecting my terrestial houseplants in the bedroom to cruel narcotic effects? Again, none of this intended to be dismissive or ridiculing. I simply do not have the ability to understand how plants “experience” their physical world. I have no idea if they are experiencing pleasure or discomfort.

By the same token, I have no way of “knowing” if the fish “enjoy” the habitat I provide for them.

All are good philosophical questions to ponder.

As an aside @Marcel G , I love your signature to your post arguing for the existence of truth. I have copied it and shared it with others as I was impressed with it.


I do hope you continue to share here. I do enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Burr740]

The problem with this "debate" is not philosophical differences. Its that the OP will not take the debate further when somebody brings up a counterpoint. He didnt address any of Greggs questions specifically, or mine, or Elle Dee's excellent post. All brought up specific, valid counterpoints.

But these counterpoints were completely ignored. The OP just waves his hands in frustration because nobody immediately agrees with what he said. Nobody is reacting harshly. People just suggested counterpoints to the original post

To actually have a debate, it would then be the OP's turn to address these specific counterpoints that were brought up. But not a single counterpoint was addressed. Thats not how meaningful debates work, and it has nothing to do with philosophical differences

 

[GreggZ]

I see this as ornamental horticulture, where aesthetics is the primary outcome.

Very well put. IMO this is a visual hobby, and a combination of science and art.

What many people don't know is that this same discussion has been going on for years. A decade ago on another forum Marcel referred to me as a "Luddite".

I disagree then and I disagree now.

That being said I still enjoy discussions like this. It's good to test norms. Look at Sudipta's non CO2 tanks. I find them fascinating, and there is something to be learned there. It's a long way from my method, but that's OK.

I've said for many years that if you show me a colorful, healthy, well presented tank I am interested to learn more about it. Doesn't matter if it's a completely different methodology than mine.

Now getting back to the thought of ornamental horticulture and aesthetics. When I started the hobby I read everything I could by Vin Kutty, Joe Harvey, and Tom Barr. Why? Because they demonstrated success in a style that I wanted to emulate. They all kept a wide range of healthy looking colorful plants arranged in beautiful presentations. And this is where my interest lies.

Now many years later I have tested many different methods myself through trial and error. And I've come to conclusions about what works best to achieve MY goals. But that doesn't in any way discount other methods. That is why I still enjoy reading posts from people like Marcel who have different approaches. And after many years I am still learning. That is what keeps the hobby interesting to me.

This is how the hobby evolves. I've said many times over the years that whatever I said I believed to be true at the time I said it, as my views on some things has changed over the years. And while I report what works best for me, another disclaimer is that your mileage may vary. There are so many variables between tanks that it's difficult to replicate any tank 100%.

Marcel I hope you continue to post. While we may not agree on everything, we don't need to. Healthy discussion is good the for hobby and I always look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[GreggZ]

Thats not how meaningful debates work, and it has nothing to do with philosophical differences

Agreed! Like I said above healthy debate is good for the hobby. Lots of rabbit holes to jump down. I hope that is where this goes, but sadly I think it's unlikely.

As to the comparison to philosophy I don't get it as well. We are talking about growing plants here. What works and what doesn't. Not sure how philosophy gets inserted into that but hey everyone is entitled to their opinion and point of view.

 

[Pepere]

Agreed! Like I said above healthy debate is good for the hobby. Lots of rabbit holes to jump down. I hope that is where this goes, but sadly I think it's unlikely.

As to the comparison to philosophy I don't get it as well. We are talking about growing plants here. What works and what doesn't. Not sure how philosophy gets inserted into that but hey everyone is entitled to their opinion and point of view.

Well, epistomology is a branch of philosophy and Epistomology is a bear…it is squishy….

Epistemology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“The school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge while fallibilism says that knowledge is never certain. Empiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience, whereas rationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on it. Coherentists argue that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs. Foundationalists, by contrast, maintain that the justification of basic beliefs does not depend on other beliefs. Internalism and externalism disagree about whether justification is determined solely by mental states or also by external circumstances.”

So yeah, it is pretty much impossible to not have your philosophy affect what you believe in some ultimate sense…