# walstad method



## R_Barber001

can someone convince me that the walstad method of mineralized soil is better then a substrate i can buy at a store? Seems like a lot of time for something I can buy and put in my tank in a day.


----------



## SgtPeppersLHC

Great if you want a low tech, set it up and let it do it's own thing kind of tank. I just top off mostly with an occasional wc. Have a lot of crypts and a few bushes of chain sword so I really just do WCs and filter cleaning every so often.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaguar

Walstad method is not the same as using mineralized top soil. Walstad includes organics such as wood chunks and mulch, which decompose in the tank and provide the plants a natural source of CO2. Adversely that can cause some smelly air bubbles coming up from the substrate, but as long as you have the proper dirt/cap depths and don't heavily hardscape it shouldn't be an issue.

It took me about an hour to set up my Walstad 10 gallon - I used Miracle Gro Organic Potting Mix, sifted it really well to remove big bark chunks, and in the tank it went. I did 1" dirt, 1" sand, and a half inch of small gravel on top. On day 4 and all is good so far.


----------



## allaboutfish

the walstad method is totally worth it. people have great results. i just started mine


----------



## trixella

I think with Walstad it's recommended to soak the soil in a bucket of water for a while (couple of days or so) and then spread out to dry outside in sun on a cookie sheet before putting it into the tank.


----------



## R_Barber001

Jaguar said:


> Walstad method is not the same as using mineralized top soil. Walstad includes organics such as wood chunks and mulch, which decompose in the tank and provide the plants a natural source of CO2. Adversely that can cause some smelly air bubbles coming up from the substrate, but as long as you have the proper dirt/cap depths and don't heavily hardscape it shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> It took me about an hour to set up my Walstad 10 gallon - I used Miracle Gro Organic Potting Mix, sifted it really well to remove big bark chunks, and in the tank it went. I did 1" dirt, 1" sand, and a half inch of small gravel on top. On day 4 and all is good so far.


 whats the difference between using MTS and MGOPS?


----------



## wkndracer

*reading the book*

To answer what the 'Walstad Method' is you actually should read the book.
The Walstad Method is a low tech planted aquarium following the idea of a balanced mini ecosystem. Balancing demands between flora and fauna maintaining an easy to care for simple system. Haha! everything I try to say describing it won't fit or comes out wrong. Aquariums are complex little systems of interaction and we rarely understand what's going on or care too. 

It's a complicated interaction of many things happening in the glass box and her book explains that in great detail and in simple terms both. Also you accept some limitations. Posing the question as you did in the OP I'm not answering to try and convince you of anything. 

Reading her book helped me gain an understanding of the many interactions going on within my box of water and weeds. Simply using natural soils or dirt containing organics alone is not a 'Walstad' tank, using dirt is not limited to low tech or is it the best answer for everyone. 

NPT/MTS
Mineralized soil is a process that's involves many steps and the end result is a nutrient rich readily available base. NPT or simply dumping the dirt in and capping it are the same processes at work only at different times as the same thing happens. It's just a question of where. Mineralizing the dirt the activity of bacteria breaking down the organic compounds releasing the minerals happens on a tarp in open air. The activity of bacteria breaking down the organic compounds over time creates several changes within the tank that MTS completes first eliminating these shifts from occurring in the aquarium. The conversion of organics and the break down is slowed greatly in the tank because of less available oxygen. The submerged steady state of decay once established in the tank takes about a year to happen. During that time settling or collapse of the organics reduces the thickness of the substrate. This doesn't happen using MTS. The organics have been consumed / converted back to mineral content alone by the bacteria before the dirt ever goes in the tank. Biggest difference between the two, MTS and NPT is where the organics are broken down, in tank or before.

Be it MTS or NPT remember light drives the bus but for cost, ease of upkeep and growth results dirt works used in either form and is the cheapest way to play.

I see tank dirt this way; Lowest cost for setting up, minimum water changes once established, no required attention or dosing just feed the fish and trim the plants.

Just because its dirt doesn't make it low tech or a 'Walstad' tank.
Very few tankers are truly following what most call the Walstad methodology but many adapt it and have great looking tanks. 

The Walstad Method is not simply using dirt as a planting medium.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...bum/155609-all-natural-planted-soil-tank.html

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...um/142646-dirtland-10g-growing-mushrooms.html

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/low-tech-forum/86457-55-gallon-low-tech-soil-sub.html


----------



## R_Barber001

why do people want this break down in there tank? shouldnt everyone wet and dry the soil?


----------



## zdnet

wkndracer said:


> NPT/MTS
> Mineralized soil is a process that's involves many steps and the end result is a nutrient rich readily available base. NPT or simply dumping the dirt in and capping it are the same processes at work only at different times as the same thing happens. It's just a question of where. Mineralizing the dirt the activity of bacteria breaking down the organic compounds releasing the minerals happens on a tarp in open air. The activity of bacteria breaking down the organic compounds over time creates several changes within the tank that MTS completes first eliminating these shifts from occurring in the aquarium. The conversion of organics and the break down is slowed greatly in the tank because of less available oxygen. The submerged steady state of decay once established in the tank takes about a year to happen. During that time settling or collapse of the organics reduces the thickness of the substrate. This doesn't happen using MTS. The organics have been consumed / converted back to mineral content alone by the bacteria before the dirt ever goes in the tank. Biggest difference between the two, MTS and NPT is where the organics are broken down, in tank or before.


Yes, anyone who has read Diana's book will know that it does NOT ask you to mineralize or soak the soil before hand.

Using soil as is, bacteria will do the work for you, i.e. mineralize the soil.


----------



## zdnet

R_Barber001 said:


> why do people want this break down in there tank? shouldnt everyone wet and dry the soil?


Because much less work is required.

BTW, when the bacteria in a tank are mineralizing the soil, they produce CO2 which is in short supply in a NPT.


----------



## zdnet

trixella said:


> I think with Walstad it's recommended to soak the soil in a bucket of water for a while (couple of days or so) and then spread out to dry outside in sun on a cookie sheet before putting it into the tank.


Not true. You may want to read the book "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium".


----------



## DogFish

R_Barber001 said:


> can someone convince me that the walstad method of mineralized soil is better then a substrate i can buy at a store? Seems like a lot of time for something I can buy and put in my tank in a day.


When it comes to substrate nothing is "Better". But some options might be a better choice for you. Do you want to do more work up front i.e. build your substrate or more work later add root frets to inert clay substrates?

You can write a check or get dirty, it's really just that simple.


----------



## Razorworm

I am a proponent of MTS. Over the years ( 40 ) I've had many tanks, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Last year, having never done so, I decided to immerse (haha) myself in the world of planted tanks. I chose to go the route of MTS because the process looked interesting and I felt it would be a learning experience. For me the enjoyment in the hobby is about learning. Keeping fish only tanks became boring. Creating and managing an ecosystem is a multi faceted never ending process. Every situation is unique, no two people have the exact same setup. ( no two bags of dirt are identical, no two people have the exact same water chemistry etc )

I thoroughly enjoyed Walstad's book. I learned a lot about aquatic plants, some useful to the hobby, some not. But, even the information not necessarily pertinent , was interesting nonetheless. I believe that her "method" is not so much a method to be followed ridgidly, but more of a template into which numerous procedures and materials may be followed. 

Having said all that, all of the substrates discussed on TPT have pluses and minuses, the best substrate is the one you feel comfortable working with.


----------



## Daximus

I don't understand why everyone makes NPTs so complicated. I'm on my 3rd MGOPS tank and I love it. So simple. Dirt, cap, water, grow. Do 50% water changes for a week or two and look out. I have yet to lose a fish or plant. I have yet to see any serious spikes in anything. 

The one thing I do that might be making my method work easier and keep me away from some of the horror stories is that I plant HEAVILY right out the gate.


----------



## DogFish

Daximus said:


> I don't understand why everyone makes NPTs so complicated....
> 
> ...The one thing I do that might be making my method work easier and keep me away from some of the horror stories is that I plant HEAVILY right out the gate.


roud:roud:roud:

Look at my Toxic Ten tank, I went to extremes to show that very point.


----------



## Razorworm

Daximus said:


> I don't understand why everyone makes NPTs so complicated. I'm on my 3rd MGOPS tank and I love it. So simple. Dirt, cap, water, grow. Do 50% water changes for a week or two and look out. I have yet to lose a fish or plant. I have yet to see any serious spikes in anything.
> 
> The one thing I do that might be making my method work easier and keep me away from some of the horror stories is that I plant HEAVILY right out the gate.


+1 especially on planting heavily


----------



## zdnet

Razorworm said:


> I am a proponent of MTS. Over the years ( 40 ) I've had many tanks, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Last year, having never done so, I decided to immerse (haha) myself in the world of planted tanks. I chose to go the route of MTS because the process looked interesting and I felt it would be a learning experience.


In Diana's book, she wrote:

"In tanks with CO2 injection, there is little need for this organic matter. But in my tanks, soil organic matter is crucial;"

And what does mineralizing soil do? It converts the soil's organic minerals to the inorganic form. Hence, the mineralized soil has much less organic matter than before. After going through the messy but not recommended MTS hassle to prepare for their Walstad tank, people are actually making things worse!

It reminded me of some people injecting CO2 into their Walstad tank. In the beginning, the tank showed spectacular growth. But afterward, poor plant growth or even algae outbreak unless they started dosing fertilizer or replaced the soil substrate.

What is good for other types of tank may NOT be so for a Walstad tank.




Razorworm said:


> I thoroughly enjoyed Walstad's book. I learned a lot about aquatic plants, some useful to the hobby, some not. But, even the information not necessarily pertinent , was interesting nonetheless. I believe that her "method" is not so much a method to be followed ridgidly, but more of a template into which numerous procedures and materials may be followed.


In her book, Diana explained the principles involved in a planted tank. There is a lot of details. The interactions among principles may not be obvious to the reader. Therefore, the book capped with a chapter named "Practical Aquarium Setup and Maintenance". That chapter translates the principles into core practices. When learning her method, it is important to follow it closely. After mastering the fundamentals, then one can venture out to different variations. Learn to walk before we can run.


----------



## allaboutfish

zdnet said:


> In Diana's book, she wrote:
> 
> "In tanks with CO2 injection, there is little need for this organic matter. But in my tanks, soil organic matter is crucial;"
> 
> And what does mineralizing soil do? It converts the soil's organic minerals to the inorganic form. Hence, the mineralized soil has much less organic matter than before. After going through the messy but not recommended MTS hassle to prepare for their Walstad tank, people are actually making things worse!
> 
> It reminded me of some people injecting CO2 into their Walstad tank. In the beginning, the tank showed spectacular growth. But afterward, poor plant growth or even algae outbreak unless they started dosing fertilizer or replaced the soil substrate.
> 
> What is good for other types of tank may NOT be so for a Walstad tank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In her book, Diana explained the principles involved in a planted tank. There is a lot of details. The interactions among principles may not be obvious to the reader. Therefore, the book capped with a chapter named "Practical Aquarium Setup and Maintenance". That chapter translates the principles into core practices. When learning her method, it is important to follow it closely. After mastering the fundamentals, then one can venture out to different variations. Learn to walk before we can run.


wait to Co2 in a walstad tank is a no no?


----------



## zdnet

allaboutfish said:


> wait to Co2 in a walstad tank is a no no?


Yes and Diana had covered that in her book.


----------



## wkndracer

allaboutfish said:


> wait to Co2 in a walstad tank is a no no?


Following the method outlined in the text of the book yes. But the details makes the story so I wouldn't panic here. Many use a soil base and inject they're systems. While tagging the terms most don't actually follow her outlined method. (repeating my earlier post)

Having dirt in a tank and using gas is not a problem.
Injecting CO2 and calling it a Walstad tank is.


----------



## plantbrain

In otherwords, you can use CO2 and soil/dirt based fertilie sediments.
Or not...........and you may also use water column dosing in a CO2 enriched or non CO2 enriched tank with or without soil/enriched sediments also.

To me, it makes the most sense to add ferts in BOTH locations, this gives you the most flexibility and fudge factor, then you fret less over ferts or forgetfulness(did I dose Sat or Fri??), and spend more on good CO2, gardening and fish.

ADA aqua soil is simply clay, similar to rice paddy clay........that's been rolled and stabilized. This way you do not need a sand cap and it's an all in one, aesthetically pleasing looking sediment. It's load with ferts, just like rice paddy soil which is thick clay loam, less organic matter than most dirt/soil mixes.

Rice paddy soil is also wetland soil, which is where wetland plants grow, and wetland/aquatic weeds.


----------



## zdnet

Injecting CO2 into a soil-based tank will cause problem down the road unless people dose fertilizers or replace the substrate.


----------



## allaboutfish

zdnet said:


> Injecting CO2 into a soil-based tank will cause problem down the road unless people dose fertilizers or replace the substrate.


what kind of problems?


----------



## zdnet

allaboutfish said:


> what kind of problems?


Poor plant growth or algae outbreak.


----------



## wkndracer

zdnet said:


> Injecting CO2 into a soil-based tank will cause problem down the road unless people dose fertilizers or replace the substrate.





allaboutfish said:


> what kind of problems?





zdnet said:


> Poor plant growth or algae outbreak.


as this seems to continue as a posting topic can a time line be provided for these reported 'problems' to start occurring? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## R_Barber001

wkndracer said:


> as this seems to continue as a posting topic can a time line be provided for these reported 'problems' to start occurring?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Maybe they're educated guesses that more co2 means you'll need more nutrients bc the ones in the soil are used up faster. Just my opinion.


----------



## zdnet

wkndracer said:


> as this seems to continue as a posting topic can a time line be provided for these reported 'problems' to start occurring?


No, I use the information found in Diana's book.

First, in a tank without fertilizer dosing, the major source of ongoing nutrient supply is fish feed that eventually replenishes the soil substrate in the form of accumulated fish mulm. But that form of nutrient replenishment takes time and is much slower than the spectacular plant growth made possible by CO2 injection. When the rate of nutrient removal is faster than the rate of replenishment, it is just a matter of time before certain nutrients run out. The tank will then have poor plant growth or algae outbreak.

Second, as plants grow, they release allelochemicals and other inhibitors into the soil substrate. Those chemicals are in turn decomposed by soil bacteria. They therefore do not cause problem. But with CO2 injection, plant growth and chemical release are much faster. At the same time the rate of decomposition by soil bacteria remains the same as before. When the rate of release is faster than the rate of decomposition, the chemicals begin to accumulate. Eventually, there is enough of them to actually inhibit plant growth.


----------



## wkndracer

I truly enjoy D.Walstad's book as a ready reference but nothing like what was just posted can I take away from it or from my personal use of dirt can I see it happening in a way that causes me concern at all. Can you plz locate and provide an actual thread showing this failure? Find a member unhappy with his results based on CO2 injection?
Release of allelochemicals and other inhibitors is shown in case study and further speculated on within the text but again show me the link to your tank thread plz or another that documented all this crashing a tank within the forums.

The simple fact that by injecting CO2 we are no longer discussing the Walstad method seems to be lost in this thread exchange.



R_Barber001 said:


> Maybe they're educated guesses that more co2 means you'll need more nutrients bc the ones in the soil are used up faster. Just my opinion.


I don't think first hand experiences have anything to do with these posts. I don't believe CO2 alone makes plants grow faster. I do believe light energy drives the bus and with more light CO2 levels become more critical. The discussion within this tread is twisted up like a plate of spaghetti.
Been here before but didn't realize it until tonight.
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/substrate/120301-does-soil-need-mineralized.html
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/substrate/128274-topsoil-question.html
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/g...cussion/148988-treating-ich-planted-tank.html
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/g...-filter-really-needed-heavily-planted-el.html
I use the information found in books too but also validate it in my own tanks before I recommend what works or not by what I see in my water weed boxes.
Plenty of threads posted showing what was used, what happened and when have my user name on them. Many more are found in the membership of the Fraternity of Dirt. Few follow the strict methods stated within D. Walstad's book. Not all dirt use is low tech. Changing things up a bit doesn't always lead to this forecast of doomed failure no matter how many times it's posted. Move me to Missouri and show me plz.

I've already been told my tanks should last a decade and beyond. Do I care? not really
Betting a straw poll would result in the majority of people being thrilled with 2 years of great results investing $10 or less in a bag of dirt.

The posts made by Razorworm and Tom Barr make many great points that should be strongly considered by those reading this thread in my opinion.


----------



## Razorworm

I am honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as Tom Barr.:icon_mrgr:icon_mrgr:icon_mrgr


----------



## wkndracer

Razorworm said:


> I am honored to be mentioned in the same sentence as Tom Barr.:icon_mrgr:icon_mrgr:icon_mrgr


hahahaha!


Razorworm said:


> I am a proponent of MTS. Over the years ( 40 ) I've had many tanks, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Last year, having never done so, I decided to immerse (haha) myself in the world of planted tanks. I chose to go the route of MTS because the process looked interesting and I felt it would be a learning experience. For me the enjoyment in the hobby is about learning. Keeping fish only tanks became boring. Creating and managing an ecosystem is a multi faceted never ending process. Every situation is unique, no two people have the exact same setup. ( no two bags of dirt are identical, no two people have the exact same water chemistry etc )
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed Walstad's book. I learned a lot about aquatic plants, some useful to the hobby, some not. But, even the information not necessarily pertinent , was interesting nonetheless. I believe that her "method" is not so much a method to be followed rigidly, but more of a template into which numerous procedures and materials may be followed.
> 
> Having said all that, all of the substrates discussed on TPT have pluses and minuses, the best substrate is the one you feel comfortable working with.


Felt this read like a helpful and honest post with enough experience and insight to consider the variables so you mentioned them. Expect similar results but don't expect to see cookie cutter tanks ever with a living bio load in the aquarium.

_*'I believe that her "method" is not so much a method to be followed rigidly' *_ Simple statement and mirrors my use and opinion of the book. While a 'method' is presented that is as old as dirt and water mixed into mud. The real value is in understanding the interactions she explains. 
I have followed her defined method on a tank and followed Tom's EI along with playing around with the PPS mixes too. 

The easiest way to maintain a tank for me is not relying solely on any single 'method' in rigid steps but a combined approach. 
Use a rich substrate and light chemical dosing of the water column is what I like the best.


----------



## R_Barber001

interesting.


----------



## Daximus

wkndracer said:


> The easiest way to maintain a tank for me is not relying solely on any single 'method' in rigid steps but a combined approach.
> Use a rich substrate and light chemical dosing of the water column is what I like the best.


I'm in agreement. 

People get all worked up when someone says they have a "Walstad" style tank, then starts coloring outside of the lines. 

A true Walstad tank...while super easy to maintain, is probably not the sexiest tank on the planted. In essence she suggest creating a small pond in an aquarium. It works, and it works well. Just go look at a pond, lol. 

I think most people who have read her book and like her style run Walstad *inspired* tanks. Meaning the use dirt (some form), and try to let the tank balance it's self out as much as possible, but, they might nudge things a bit with some ferts or even some Co2. At that point, true, it is not a Walstad tank...*but it could be Walstad inspired. *

I don't think Diana Walstad would slap you on the hand with a ruler if you set up a tank using her methods then tinker with some of your own design, lol.

I can't believe this thread is 3 pages long. :icon_mrgr


----------



## Razorworm

Daximus Well put! "Walstad inspired" :thumbsup:


----------



## zdnet

wkndracer said:


> I truly enjoy D.Walstad's book as a ready reference but nothing like what was just posted can I take away from it


I am not surprised. Someone even claimed to have read Diana's book and yet said most of the book "were not related to practical planted tank keeping." May I suggest that you carefully re-read her book. Some of the things in that book may finally sink in as you re-read it.



wkndracer said:


> Can you plz locate and provide an actual thread showing this failure? Find a member unhappy with his results based on CO2 injection?
> Release of allelochemicals and other inhibitors is shown in case study and further speculated on within the text but again show me the link to your tank thread plz or another that documented all this crashing a tank within the forums.


You may get it from other source, but not from me.




wkndracer said:


> The simple fact that by injecting CO2 we are no longer discussing the Walstad method seems to be lost in this thread exchange.


I am not sure of your definition of the term Walstad method. But I was referring to the CO2 injection in a soil-based tank. I hope you are not suggesting that Diana's book is no longer applicable when a soil-based tank has CO2 injection.




wkndracer said:


> I don't think first hand experiences have anything to do with these posts.


You are wrong.




wkndracer said:


> I don't believe CO2 alone makes plants grow faster


Carbon is all too often the limiting nutrient in plant growth. Injecting CO2 provides the badly needed carbon and therefore makes plants grow faster. You can find more details in Diana's book.


----------



## Hoppy

zdnet said:


> Carbon is all too often the limiting nutrient in plant growth. Injecting CO2 provides the badly needed carbon and therefore makes plants grow faster. You can find more details in Diana's book.


True, but when you add CO2, the plant's increased growth rate causes a need for more of the other nutrients too. So, one could say that just adding CO2 won't make the plants grow faster. You need an adequate supply of CO2 and NPK plus trace elements.


----------



## Razorworm

Yes, carbon IS often the limiting factor in plant growth but, as soon as you add carbon increased lighting and frets are needed. It's proportional. Also, as soon as you add carbon you aren't adhering to the Walstad method but, as Daximus said, doing a "Walstad inspired " hi tech tank.


----------



## Patriot

I read her book and enjoyed it as I learned somethings that I never thought I would. I'm not going to say that I fully understand everything she said because I'm no good with chemistry and technical stuff, but I did understand where she was going. Her book will definitely help me better understand aquarium plants needs and point me in the right direction. I can't go full walstad tank because it doesn't fit my needs or interest as I like to tinker with my tanks.


----------



## Hoppy

Razorworm said:


> Yes, carbon IS often the limiting factor in plant growth but, as soon as you add carbon increased lighting and frets are needed. It's proportional. Also, as soon as you add carbon you aren't adhering to the Walstad method but, as Daximus said, doing a "Walstad inspired " hi tech tank.


Using CO2 doesn't mean you need more light. CO2 is very beneficial to plants at even very low light.


----------



## Razorworm

I realize that, but if one were to add co2 to a lo tech tank ( low light ) doesn't the lower level of light become a limiting factor? And then when you add light, more nutrients are needed. I am under the impression that once you make the move away from a lo tech tank and start adding co2 etc, the trick is getting the proportions correct.


----------



## Daximus

I think you all are arguing the same side of the coin. If you add Co2 to a low tech light will _most likely_ become the limiting factor for plant growth assuming the nutrients are there. I think true. 

That said, too much Co2 (within acceptable fishy limits) isn't going to wreak havoc like too much light would or too many ferts. I think true as well.


----------



## zdnet

Hoppy said:


> True, but when you add CO2, the plant's increased growth rate causes a need for more of the other nutrients too.


Yes. But for carbon to qualify as a limiting nutrient, those other nutrients have to be in sufficient supply to support the faster growth made possible by the added carbon.




Hoppy said:


> So, one could say that just adding CO2 won't make the plants grow faster.


No, not when the person also agrees that carbon is a limiting nutrient. Agreeing that carbon is a limiting nutrient implies that adding carbon will make plants grow faster. That is the meaning of labeling carbon as a limiting nutrient.

As mentioned earlier, adding CO2 will speed up plant growth and the rate of nutrient removal.


----------



## Hoppy

zdnet said:


> Yes. But for carbon to qualify as a limiting nutrient, those other nutrients have to be in sufficient supply to support the faster growth made possible by the added carbon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not when the person also agrees that carbon is a limiting nutrient. Agreeing that carbon is a limiting nutrient implies that adding carbon will make plants grow faster. That is the meaning of labeling carbon as a limiting nutrient.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, adding CO2 will speed up plant growth and the rate of nutrient removal.


Yes, you are right. And, adding CO2 can make the light the limiting factor, which is exactly where you want to be.


----------



## demonr6

That's the thing, it's not. People are making this way more complicated than it should be. There's no complex mathematics to solve or complicated puzzles to assemble. I have three dirt tanks now in service for almost a year now and I have not had any issues whatsoever other than the occasional algae popping up but that is due to my fault and maintenance upkeep and not the dirt going funky on me. Plant the hell out of it from the get go and within a week of water changes and keeping tabs on the water quality you are good to go.


Daximus said:


> I don't understand why everyone makes NPTs so complicated. I'm on my 3rd MGOPS tank and I love it. So simple. Dirt, cap, water, grow. Do 50% water changes for a week or two and look out. I have yet to lose a fish or plant. I have yet to see any serious spikes in anything.
> 
> The one thing I do that might be making my method work easier and keep me away from some of the horror stories is that I plant HEAVILY right out the gate.


----------



## zdnet

demonr6 said:


> People are making this way more complicated than it should be.


Indeed! Diana's book did not ask people to mineralize their soil. Nor did her book ask people to inject CO2.

Complicating the set up by mineralizing soil will actually make things worst.

Complicating the maintenance by injecting CO2 will require people to dose fertilizers.


----------



## MoeBetta

So... If one uses a non-dirt substrate in a high tech aquarium, injecting CO2, dosing ferts, and tanning next to their tank allelochemicals and other inhibitors do not build up?


----------



## Daximus

All fish tanks, dirt, not dirt, Walstad, or otherwise need water changes. The more balance you have the less water changes you need. Even Walstad says water changes are needed...albeit less often. Which makes perfect sense because she suggest planting a *lot more plants* and having a *lot less fish* than most of us. 


Again people...I think all this debate is getting a little silly. Do you want a perfect ecosystem?...You can have it! 

Get a 5 gallon tank, put some dirt, water, and a bunch of plants in it then shake the hell out of it. Put it in a warm room with lots of sun, treat the water for chlorine, and toss in a single Betta or a couple shrimp and *walk away*. Don't even plant the plants, just walk away. Feed the fish a bit everyday and don't *touch* it for 6 months. 

I'm willing to bet, notwithstanding some sort of fish fungus or something, that the plants will look great and fish will be fine. The whole mess will be an unsightly algae farm, and might smell funny, but it will be pretty close to a balanced ecosystem. 

Heck, I have a spare 5 gallon tank...I might even try this, lol.

EDIT: I was trying to make a point above by being slightly sarcastic...but I still think this could work. After a bit more thought, I think it might take more than a 5 gallon to accomplish if you go the Betta route...they are messy little fish.


----------



## astrosag

I'll start by saying that this whole "debate" is a mess lol - hard to follow and you're left wondering if there's anything actually being debated here!

Going back to the OP's question...the best method, imo, is to use Miracle Grow Potting Soil and cap it with store-bought substrate (sand, eco-complete, flourite, etc.) OR buy expensive ADA soil that is enriched with nutrients. Either way will help provide nutrients to rooted plants and will ease the amount of water column ferts you would otherwise have to add for these plants (of course for non-rooted, floating plants you'll still have to add ferts in the water column). 

The Walstad method is inspiring and very informative but I highly doubt most of us would want a true Walstad - tank. Like someone before me stated, these tanks aren't designed to be pretty but rather prove a point. For most us, they wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing without some major attention and landscaping.

Though not Walstad, I would recommend the substrate/soil advice even in CO2 tanks - I'm not sure whoever arguing against this is trying to say. In most cases, the potting soil will not compensate for a steady supply of injected CO2.


----------



## astrosag

Hoppy said:


> Yes, you are right. And, adding CO2 can make the light the limiting factor, which is exactly where you want to be.


Limiting factors work differently. CO2 as a limiting factor is much more of an adversary to great growth than light being the limiting factor - exactly what Hoppy is saying. Low-light isn't going to stop you much from reaching the equivalent of top tanks. Not having CO2 will. 

If you take a look at what the low-light people are saying and the tanks they're posting, you'll quickly see that with low-light you can see the same results as with high-light (save growth rate and perhaps a few plants). 

With low-*tech* (no CO2), you will never really see the high-light results we're all so familiar with and entranced by.


----------



## Robert H

Arguing what is better, what gives you the best growth, and what is the limiting factor and what isn't is really highly subjective and open to interpretation. 

What is not open to interpretation is what constitutes a "Walstad, or NPT" approach. Using mineralized soil is NOT the Walstad method. Using "soil", (the term 'dirt' is misleading and kinda derogatory) mixed with Eco Complete is not the Walstad method. Adding C02 in any amount is not the Walstad method.

To think that just by using soil in the aquarium is a NPT Walstad style is ridiculous. People have been using soil in the aquarium for decades. Diana Walstad was inspired by Dorothy Reimer and her use of soil.

Diana wrote her book based on her own research and experimentation and took several principals, and tied them together in such a way that people could use as a defined approach to growing plants in an aquarium. Thats it plain and simple. Now you can pick it apart, argue it has flaws or that some other approach is better, but it does not change what it is. If people take bits and pieces of it and make it their own, great. More power to you. but do not call it an NPT Walstad approach. 

How can you gauge or judge the effectiveness of a method if you have never followed it to the letter? I think that is what bothers "purists" the most. Before you water down a method and have people follow your example, give the true and tried method a chance. That allows others to judge for themselves.



> The Walstad method is inspiring and very informative but I highly doubt most of us would want a true Walstad - tank. Like someone before me stated, these tanks aren't designed to be pretty but rather prove a point. For most us, they wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing without some major attention and landscaping.


That may be your opinion, but it is not shared by many people. Lack of aquascaping skills can be readily seen in both high tech and low tech approaches. I have seen some pretty ugly high tech tanks! Just because someone has not yet created an award winning aquascape using the Walstad method does not mean it is not possible. And your simplistic view on using Miracle grow in the substrate could certainly be challenged. Point is there are many approaches to growing plants that follow a certain methodology and each is valid in its own way. The Walstad method is no different.



> the potting soil will not compensate for a steady supply of injected CO2.


In the Walstad method it does. That is the whole point of the Walstad method. I do not understand how anyone who read the book could not see that. Will it give you 40ppm? No of course not.


----------



## astrosag

I'll add for the OP that simply adding Potting Soil and capping it with store-bought substrate shouldn't take much more time than substrate alone would. Mineralized soil, though not familiar with it, I hear is a more tedious process. 

Potting soil can enchance plant growth and require less fertilizing for rooted plants. Its easy to do and if you stick to just an 1" to 1.5" capped with 2" of any other substrate, you shouldn't have any problems. I echo planting heavily from the get-go.

I don't think this was meant to be a true Walstad debate...Walstad is however Ms. Walstad said it is. Anything different from that is your own interpretation and morph...no longer Walstad, imo.


----------



## nonconductive

adding co2 to soil tanks causes problems? thats funny...


----------



## astrosag

Robert H said:


> That may be your opinion, but it is not shared by many people. Lack of aquascaping skills can be readily seen in both high tech and low tech approaches. I have seen some pretty ugly high tech tanks! Just because someone has not yet created an award winning aquascape using the Walstad method does not mean it is not possible. And your simplistic view on using Miracle grow in the substrate could certainly be challenged. Point is there are many approaches to growing plants that follow a certain methodology and each is valid in its own way. The Walstad method is no different.


You should be much more careful with your reading. I didn't say it was impossible and you're *simply* countering my opinion with your own - very simplistic. Beauty of course, is in the eye of the beholder but that doesn't mean that we cannot, therefore, assess what most people find to be visually pleasing. I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics but if the forums and local So Cal hobby is any indication of the rest of the hobby, the Walstad method is not popular. That doesn't _read_ possible or impossible. Unless you get hurt by anything that isn't pro-Walstad, you couldn't possibly have read in my post that the Walstad method isn't valid.

By the way, citing the possibility of high-tech tanks looking ugly too is ridiculous and not a valid argument. Walstad tanks are inherently more haphazard than the more mainstream tank due to the method itself. Silly attempt there.


----------



## astrosag

Robert H said:


> In the Walstad method it does. That is the whole point of the Walstad method. I do not understand how anyone who read the book could not see that. Will it give you 40ppm? No of course not.



You're jumping to conclusions in your over zealous defense of the Walstad method - and I'm not even for or against it! The simple point I was making is that in most tanks, potting soil alone will not provide enough CO2 for results that one would normally see in high-tech tanks. Otherwise I would be seeing similar results to a high-tech tank in my low-tech tank with potting soil. You'll probably cite light as my limiting fact (simplistically of course) but people have demonstrated that low-light is normally not the limiting factor (people have grown flora at the same level as high-light tanks) - but CO2 is. Otherwise, we would see plenty of tanks replicating high-tech tanks without the use of CO2 - but we don't.

In forums, its usually wise to read posts in the context of the entire discussion. My discussion never questioned Walstad but simply provided practical advice for the OP based on my experience - use potting soil regardless of CO2.


----------



## nonconductive

astrosag said:


> Walstad tanks are inherently more haphazard than the more mainstream tank due to the method itself. Silly attempt there.


this is stupid.... and false, just because walstad doesnt scape, doesn't mean people who use her method cannot.




and there are ALOT of ugly high tech tanks... just look at this forum.


----------



## astrosag

Let me rephrase for you...

High-tech's potential as a clean, crisp tank with luscious growth is what people pursuing them expect. That's regardless of whether there are many ugly high-tech tanks or not. They see the potential in it. 

The minimalist nature of walstad tanks combined with the fact that there's probably slower growth rate than with high-tech tanks makes them more prone to be the bushy, less clean cut type of tanks. 

Now you can definitely say "well I think THAT's pretty..." and you're entitled to your opinion. But the facts remain that the high-tech tanks are the front-page, popular brand in this hobby. Fact is people who compete in this hobby use high-tech, not Walstad.

You guys think this is a zing where as this is a simple observation of whats going on. I am actually a big fan of Walstad's method and even though I probably wouldn't make my main tank a Walstad tank, my current tank is closer to a Walstad tank than a high-tech, highly regulated tank. 

What's stupid is citing some ugly high-tech tanks as evidence that Walstad tanks can be comparably appealing to mainstream planted enthsiasts. Every method has its slew of "ugly" tanks. Walstad tanks aren't the most appealing to people. If they were, at the very least, we'd see tanks that look more like them rather than more like the highly-regulated, monitored tanks that require a much higher degree of "human intervention" than the Walstad method.

Let me ask you this. How much is pruning, clipping and cleaning a tank in keeping with the true Walstad method? Doesn't the walstad method rely on dead leaves and waste to maintain the cycle? Is it not then counter intuitive to think that you'll find a *true* Walstad tank that is crisp, clean, nicely manicured with a clean tank floor - normally what people value in a visually appealing tank? If you're going to argue that thats what *you* find to be visually pleasing, then that's a completely different argument - actually its not much of an argument, just an opinion. I'm saying whats more likely than not. Walstad tanks are more likely to be less manicured -front page type tanks than a high-tech tank. 

That's not the point to a Walstad tank, I understand. Its a different method that has different values. Perfectly legitimate.


----------



## Jaguar

Such a simple question turned into this ... bahaha... oh, this forum is just beyond ridiculous sometimes. Can't even say anything without someone turning around and trying to pick a fight with you or trying force their opinions/beliefs down your throat. So silly, really. I feel sorry for people who have their threads hijacked like this.



R_Barber001 said:


> interesting.


:thumbsup:

He really didn't even ask WHAT the "Walstad method" was... more the pros/cons of a dirt substrate over other generic readily available substrate types. If anything, he mistakenly confused MTS (mineralized soil) for a Walstad-based substrate (organic soil) system and that was all I really felt the need to point out... not to start a hot headed debate about what this "Walstad method" is or isn't, according to your own opinions or the book itself.

PS. I tried to read the book and found it was interesting but too much unnecessary dry reading from a hobbyist's standpoint.


----------



## Hoppy

R_Barber001 said:


> can someone convince me that the walstad method of mineralized soil is better then a substrate i can buy at a store? Seems like a lot of time for something I can buy and put in my tank in a day.


Let's go back to the original question. It is pretty clear that all the OP was asking is whether mineralized topsoil is better than commercial substrates. The answer is no. It isn't better. It is just another option, one that gives you a relatively nutrient filled substrate. It has good points and not so good points, just as does any other substrate.

And, a side issue: The Walstad method doesn't use mineralized topsoil, so that part is irrelevant.


----------



## Jaguar

Thank you Hoppy. Too many times in my short time here I've seen threads like this get blown way out of proportion and taken off track while the OP sits and wonders what the heck went wrong, or what they said to make everyone turn into savage beasts. I am not trying to be a white knight but this guy barely has 100 posts, this shouldn't be happening here. A simple and understandable mix-up between Walstad and MTS did not need to end up like this.

I have a *~*~"WALSTAD INSPIRED"~*~* (I will no longer call it Walstad in fear of someone finding out where I live and assassinating me in my sleep) 10 gallon shrimp tank, and when we get down to the nitty gritty it was easy, cheap, and it grows plants nicely without having to go crazy on ferts, CO2, etc. I don't do any maintenance on it other than minimal plant trims and water changes when too much evaporates.

Maybe I'll throw in a pro/con list, since it's what we're really looking for here. This is in regards to my above setup, with MGO Potting Mix and a sand/gravel cap. No ferts, no CO2. 35 watts of halogen lighting 8 hours a day. 7 Ghost shrimp and a betta. Growing swords, java ferns, java moss, and pygmy chain sword. And a little bit of hair algae. This is from a hobbyist's perspective. Nothing technical, just the basics.

Pros: 
Cheap and easy to set up
Relatively low maintenance
Nearly eliminates the needs for CO2/ferts for months to years (unconfirmed what the actual date is)

Cons:
Can be messy
Anaerobic conditions may burp up bubbles and disturb the substrate
Messy when replanting, especially big rooters like swords
Can mess with water parameters, ie. high peat in the soil will lower your pH


----------

