I credit Tom Barr for sharing his low tech approach and would advise anyone new to the hobby,
Well Diana Walstad is a strong Advocate for the non CO2 method also, as was Dorothy Reimer before her(who's now since passed, she was a very nice sweet high energy gal), and many others. I grew a number of species without CO2 long before I got into planted tanks in earnest.
We each have folks that give us ideas and we modify them.
I was curious if we took the sediment out of the equation, the rate is well known with CO2 vs non CO2, that water column dosing and fish waste should be able to do the trick and then we can measure and look at it closer.
But I came at it from the other end, started with non CO2, then CO2 enriched side, then returned back and applied what I knew from both methods.
Sediment ferts works and can/should be added as well, it will make the method for either non CO2, Excel or CO2 enriched methods work even better.
"My" method is just the water column, but does not negate anything in the sediment either. It complements those sources.
Location is less critical, however, proponents of sediments ferts often claim, falsely at that........we can and have shown otherwise, adding ferts to sediment somehow is some advantage that prevent algae.
No, it does not.
Folks still have troubles with this issue, claim otherwise, even though you add it and see that in many tanks, there's no algae inducement.
Thus it cannot be possibly be a correct speculation/hypothesis
Folks can huff and belly ache all they want, but they cannot avoid this fact.
That is the observation, and it's a demostratable result.
This is true for non CO2, Excel and for CO2 enriched methods.
That's a bold and true statement that took some time to arrive at and lot of tanks, testing and folks trying it to realize.
Still, many get algae and blame the nutrients.
But if that was the really the cause, we would have to see in all cases, or at least 95% or so. But we do not, we have newbies or folks where the CO2, water changes, plant densities, etc are not truly independent. So they look for the old myths and dogma since they really do not know.
Then it gets repeated.
Some folks promote methods all the time.........and they work, the real question is why they work.
This is critical. This can prevent myths and solve more issues for the folks that have not had the success that perhaps others have had.
Nutrients are less important, CO2 stability/light are really much more critical.
This is still true here for non CO2/carbon enrichment methods.
So not doing those water changes seems to stabilize things for many, having higher plant density, why do some plants do well while others not? CO2 competition mostly(we can provide good light and nutrients easy enough). Allelopathy can be ruled out via activated carbon etc. So it leaves us mostly with CO2 stability as a root cause for issues=> algae, which is indirectly related to poor plant health that leads to algae. So it's all about the plant's health, when that is disturbed, then we have algae.