# schultz aquatic soil



## Justbeginningfish (Mar 28, 2008)

I will be setting up our new 50 gallon long this week and am trying to figure out substrate issues.
I can not get flourite, soilmaster or any of those locally and I really dont want to have to pay to ship that much weight.

Im thinking of doing a bottom layer of the shultz aquatic soil from home depot with a top layer of Black tahition moon sand in areas and the majority of the top layer with small smooth river pebbles.

What is your experience with the shultz soil?
it is very lightweight? 

Im thinking the top layer of sand or gravel will be necessary because Cories are likely to churn up the soil without it and turn the water nasty.

how deep should the layer of soil be for the tank, it is 48" long and 13 deep
Also does anyone know if it will affect PH at all, i am thinking i will likely need to add peat along with driftwood in order to get the proper water conditions for a south american tank?


----------



## starsunmoon (Apr 5, 2008)

well I do know that the aquasoil, has NO benefits, no nutrents, it looks ok, YES it is very light, barley holds down a stem plant, you would have to use another sub on top of it, ir mixed with it , You can go to bigals.com and usually they sell some of the eco-complete pretty cheap, I got mine on clearance and it was actually 10.00 less than driving 3 miles to my lfs. ! but I am not sure if its still on sale, you can also try that fish store that pet place .com, lol,., they have wonderful speacials and deals all the time !! 

the aquasoil does NOT affect your ph as far as I know, it may lower it and I have NO proof of that , .. but the sand sounds neat, I wish I had some of that ! I am actually about to set up a 90 , and I want a riverbed in the middle, I am thinking pool filter sand, but I may go crazy and get some purple sand if I find its ok to use...!! LOL, 

OK, as far as in deep, I will say about 2 in , nomatter what size tank,. now if you decide on the aquasoil, you may wanna go ahead and do almost 3, because it doesent take much !! I would say one bag should be enough for your 50- , I know sounds crazy but you will see !! but add somthing like the pea gravel to make it heavier, the corys will love the sand, try and make a all sand corner, you can research how people do that , just do a search in the forums!! good luck !! and rember post everything you do and pics!! we like to watch !! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~starla


----------



## starsunmoon (Apr 5, 2008)

OO, dont worry about the water being nasty' with corys, as long as you do gravel cleans with your water changes you should be fine . and with the right filter nothiing should stay clody too long ..lol, just my 2 cents hth ~~


----------



## Justbeginningfish (Mar 28, 2008)

my cories keep the tank super clean right now and they love to bury their heads i the sand and burrow around.
If the aquasoil has no benefits at all i might go with a layer of peat or pure potting soil (without any extras like ferts) with layer of river pebbles and sand in some areas.

I've also heard of using laterite only around the roots of plants that might be an easy option or even just going with mainly sand and adding root tabs.
Im planning on trying to do a river type tank though so sand might get moved around to much if it is the main substrate.


----------



## goalcreas (Nov 18, 2006)

Schultz can and usually does strip your water of KH and can lower the PH for a time, to forever.

This is beneficial and is a good thing IMO.

I have never used any top layer on it.
It can be difficult to plant in and it traps air in it for a few weeks. When you put it in and put some water in the tank before planting you can stir it up to release most of the trapped air. This is proof that it has high CEC and good flow thru the substrate.

It is a good substrate IMO for the price. For fine stem ground cover type plants like HC and hairgrass, you should plant right in the moon sand so they will stay down and grow, they prefer it. for heavy planted areas, especially where you plant heavy root feeders, good Idea to put some root tabs.

I also have always used a thin layer of Peat moss and laterite under it.
This can lower your PH and soften a bit further, but nothing to worry about IMHO and IME.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

IME, Schultz Aquatic Soil grows plants as well as fluorite but for the fraction of the cost. It does not mess with water parameters at all. I set up a 10 gallon tank using SAS(80%, 10% fluorite,and 10% seeded planted gravel from an established tank) as the substrate and monitored PH, KH, GH, ammonia, nitrites, and nitrates. These remained pretty consistent over a period of 6 months. The only thing that I would recommend if you use SAS is to combine 75% SAS with 1 mm grain size pool filter sand or gravel to give it some weight so that your cryptocornes, and fine stem plants remain anchored and rooted.


----------



## Justbeginningfish (Mar 28, 2008)

ok then sounds good!
I actually want fairly soft water and low ph since i am thinking amazon river type river tank...we will see if that is how it ends up LOL

I am thinking I will mix it with sand and then add the river pebbles in the places that I want them and make that mostly non planted areas.


----------



## customdrumfinishes (Apr 4, 2008)

goalcreas said:


> Schultz can and usually does strip your water of KH and can lower the PH for a time, to forever.
> 
> This is beneficial and is a good thing IMO.
> 
> ...


 
i had yes had 95% shultz aquasoil from home depot in a 29g tank. my ph stayed a 6.3 and was very very hard. was never like this before the aquasoil. it does def lower ph and make your water hard as hell. it was not doing good for my plants so i had to get rid of it! no matter how many water changes i did the ph went from 6.8 after water change then strait to 6.3 after a few days. not good as only substrate for sure, maybe 20% aquasoil but thats it


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Ok there's some seriously contradictory info in this thread!!! LOL

I've never used Schultz Aquatic Soil to date, so I've got nothing to compare against; but so far there are reports that it will lower pH and hardness, lower pH but RAISE hardness (???), and that it's totally inert in respect to water parameters...

Any more input on this?

I would think the stuff should be inert, since my understanding is it's supposed to be just DIRT with no organics?

Justbeginning- I'd be careful with potting soil- that stuff can turn the tank into a mudsludge, plus it's hard to be sure about organic content; I'd use the Schultz before that?


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

Tried Schultz for a couple of years in two of my tanks. I had major algae outbreaks and varied plant growth. Changed the two tanks back to Flourite this past year and they are doing much much better. I'd avoid it. Get a good quality substrate you won't regret it.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

I stumbled across this http://www.aquascapingworld.com/magazine/April-2008/Magazine/How-to-Mineralize-Soil-Substrates.html the other day; it's kind of labor intensive but seems like something I'd like to try sometime. Essentially it's a method that minimizes (or completely eliminates) water column dosing by using a home-made, mineralized 'super-substrate.' I think it might fit in with what you're trying to accomplish and the resources available, and give you (and your son) a pretty fun weekend project...the results seem impressive.


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

I agree with lauralee, the confusion that is often found on this forum is annoying. I trust the results of HomerSimpson, as it matches everything else that I've read from other more knowledgeable people who have used the product. I have read somewhat consistently that the kH can be affected for a few weeks, but later returns to normal. 

About using the potting soil. I would recommend instead river silt. It is natural (from the river, right?) and with a little prep, is in my eyes, the ideal substrate additive. I won't use anything other than a river silt mixed substrate from now on. The difference it makes in the plants is unbelievable. 

Here's how you do it:
-Soak sediment is a shallow pan for a while(3 weeks) with an inch of water over it.
-Mix and screen well, then let settle for a day.
-Allow to dry out good to a nice paste.
-Then add with 3:1 Sand: soil.
-Add 1" of this, then cap with 3" of sand.

This is a quote from Tom Barr from www.barrreport.com 

I highly recommend that website for info you can count on.


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

EdTheEdge said:


> Tried Schultz for a couple of years in two of my tanks. I had major algae outbreaks and varied plant growth. Changed the two tanks back to Flourite this past year and they are doing much much better. I'd avoid it. Get a good quality substrate you won't regret it.


Algae outbreaks are not a result of inert substrates. Thinking this is simply not correct. If you are growing plants in an inert substrate, common sense tells you that water column fertilization is necessary to some degree. Also, if you are providing high light to the tank, let's say, in excess of 2.5 wpg or so, Co2 is also going to be critical. Less than 2.5 wpg I'd recommend using Seachem Excel for smaller tanks. With balanced parameters, algae outbreaks will not occur. Plain and simple. 

I've two tanks with inert substrates. One has just sand, the other has a river silt and sand mix. Neither tank has had an "algae outbreak" while the tanks were maintained properly. I had a green water outbreak in the sand only tank while I was away on business once, and had a growth of cladophora in the river silt/sand tank while away on business another time. The green water was caused from ammonia because the tank was underfiltered and somewhat new, and the clado came from low CO2 levels. After remedying both those situations, the tanks are algae free.

Will a fertilized substrate (doesn't fluorite only contain iron and traces anyway? Otherwise it is just a high CEC inert substrate just like Shultz) provide you with some amount of screw-up room? Perhaps. But if you learn to keep the tank properly, no problems will occur.

Best of luck to you


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

> Algae outbreaks are not a result of inert substrates. Thinking this is simply not correct. If you are growing plants in an inert substrate, common sense tells you that water column fertilization is necessary to some degree. Also, if you are providing high light to the tank, let's say, in excess of 2.5 wpg or so, Co2 is also going to be critical.


OK so everything is the same in these two tanks EXCEPT for the substrate change. After changing the substrate I am no longer having problems with algae or poor plant growth. The only difference is that I changed from Schultz to 100% Flourite. I have always added ferts and root tabs to both the Schultz and Flourite. SO I am quite sure it was not a nutrient problem. 

I stand by my asserton that the change from Schultz to Flourite was a definite improvement.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I personally chose Fluorite over Schultz for the nutrient content as well- but I think your algae reasoning is faulty- the fact that Fluorite DOES contain nutrients obviously gave your plants the edge over algae. I think you're looking at the wrong cause; Schultz didn't cause your algae, lack of nutrients did, and the Fluorite corrected that problem.

Schultz may still be a more budget-friendly choice, however.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

lauraleellbp said:


> I personally chose Fluorite over Schultz for the nutrient content as well- but I think your algae reasoning is faulty- the fact that Fluorite DOES contain nutrients obviously gave your plants the edge over algae. I think you're looking at the wrong cause; Schultz didn't cause your algae, lack of nutrients did, and the Fluorite corrected that problem.


agreed...your algae went away not because of a substrate change per se, but because of a change in available nutrients as a RESULT of the substrate change...


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

EdTheEdge said:


> OK so everything is the same in these two tanks EXCEPT for the substrate change. After changing the substrate I am no longer having problems with algae or poor plant growth. The only difference is that I changed from Schultz to 100% Flourite. I have always added ferts and root tabs to both the Schultz and Flourite. SO I am quite sure it was not a nutrient problem.
> 
> I stand by my asserton that the change from Schultz to Flourite was a definite improvement.


As long as it makes since to you, I guess that's ok. 

I guess you fall in the category where the wiggle room provided by a [somewhat] fertilized substrate made the difference. 

I like to know why something does or does not work myself. It's not enough to simply say that something doesn't work just because I couldn't succeed with it. I need proof that something that doesn't work is such for a specific and consistent reason.

Lots of other people here on the forum grow plants in Schultz and SMS just fine. If everyone that used Schultz or SMS had algae outbreaks, do you think anyone in their right mind would recommend it? Heck no! I wouldn't recommend something that makes my tank a mess.

EDIT: ninja'd twice!


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

> I personally chose Fluorite over Schultz for the nutrient content as well- but I think your algae reasoning is faulty


OK if you guys insist. I'll just continue to use a quality substrate and spend more time enjoying my tanks instead of trying to correct problems with them.

I don't like Schulz and will never use it again. I had it in two tanks for several years. Always added ferts and CO2 and those two tanks never thrived as my other non Schultz tanks did. I maintain that it was the substrate or a problem with the substrate.


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

EdTheEdge said:


> OK if you guys insist. I'll just continue to use a quality substrate and spend more time enjoying my tanks instead of trying to correct problems with them.
> 
> I don't like Schulz and will never use it again. I had it in two tanks for several years. Always added ferts and CO2 and those two tanks never thrived as my other non Schultz tanks did. I maintain that it was the substrate or a problem with the substrate.


I am glad that you've found something that works. However, you cannot prove that you treated the tanks the exact same with both substrates. 

If I increase the photoperiod in my tanks by one hour, I can induce Green spot algae. By reducing my Co2 levels a very minute amount, I can induce cladophora. By reducing nitrate levels in can induce BGA. The amount of change needed to cause these algae are minute, and could be overlooked by most aquarists. 

To assume and tell others that a substrate was to blame would require detailed testing and repeatable tests that could be done by other people. Could I recreate the conditions in your tank and experience the same uncontrollable algae problems? 

Since you said Schultz is low quality, is sand from Home Depot even lower quality, since it has virtually no CEC value? 

I do not mean to condescend, but giving advice that may be faulty to someone who is new to this hobby can be very costly to them and their enjoyment.


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

OK you guys are getting to be a bit too critical. The original poster was asking for observations and/or opinions. I gave mine and I don't feel that I need to prove it to anybody.

I have been keeping aquariums for over 40 years. Planted for the past 15. I have had many many more successes than failures during that time. 

I am NOT giving faulty advise to ANYONE! Would you agree with me that Flourite is better than Schultz? I guess at this point you wouldn't. Well, that was my advise. Use a better substrate to start off with and you will have fewer problems. Therefore I am giving a newbie good advise. If a newbie will have a better success using Flourite why is it faulty to give that advice?

Sheesh.........


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I love debating over glorified dirt! :icon_lol: 

Personal opinions and advice are always subjective and IMO I don't think anyone's given any BAD advice so far! Just different perspectives... :thumbsup:


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

I repeat that I do not mean to condescend. 

I do think that saying Schultz causes algae is false, but I'll let you have the final word. Sorry if I came off as harsh, I only wish to educate the OP.

I agree that Fluorite is a fine substrate. I also think Schultz is a fine alternative. You were speaking of it like it was trash.

To the OP: If this is your first planted tank, Fluorite may be a good choice. ADA Aquasoil may be even better, as it may provide even more screw up room. I started my first planted tank years ago with painted gravel. After learning about plants and thinking about how they grow and utilize things necessary for photosynthesis, I realized that inert substrates work just fine. Plants can absorb nutrients through their leaves as well as their roots. 

If you do not want to invest a lot of money in your first tank, a less costly substrate like Schultz, sand, etc may be a great choice, but also may require more consistency on your part when fertilizing, adding Co2 and light, to keep the tank in balance and the plants growing healthily. Keeping a planted tank is not hard at all, once you learn the basics. 

Best of luck to you


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

lauraleellbp said:


> I love debating over glorified dirt! :icon_lol:
> 
> Personal opinions and advice are always subjective and IMO I don't think anyone's given any BAD advice so far! Just different perspectives... :thumbsup:


You said my reasoning was faulty. All I ever said was that my experiences with Schultz was not a good one and that I would avoid using it. I don't know why I had problems with it and I was not concerned with trying to find out. I switched and now am happy. 

I had tanks side by side for several years two with Schultz and two sometimes three with Flourite. The Flourite tanks always did better with less work and effort. That ALONE was enough to convince me that Flourite was better than Schultz. So my experiences would dictate that I would suggest one product over the other.


----------



## EdTheEdge (Jan 25, 2007)

eyebeatbadgers said:


> I repeat that I do not mean to condescend.
> 
> I do think that saying Schultz causes algae is false, but I'll let you have the final word. Sorry if I came off as harsh, I only wish to educate the OP.
> 
> ...



OK lets put this to bed.... I never said that the Schultz was THE cause. I said my tanks did not THRIVE while using it. That's all I said. If I implied otherwise I apologize. I never intended to say that simply adding Schultz to a tank will cause algae problems.......

Man you guys are tough!


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

This is a logical conclusion to draw: 


EdTheEdge said:


> I had tanks side by side for several years two with Schultz and two sometimes three with Flourite. The Flourite tanks always did better with less work and effort. That ALONE was enough to convince me that Flourite was better than Schultz. So my experiences would dictate that I would suggest one product over the other.


This isn't:


EdTheEdge said:


> switched and now am happy.


That said, I tend to agree that fluorite is a great substrate, and would most likely use it before schultz...


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

eyebeatbadgers said:


> ...I trust the results of HomerSimpson..


I appreciate the show of confidence. I just want to state for the record that what I am suggesting is based on water parameter results that I tested on a monthly basis from the time that I set up a 10 gallon tank July 22 2007 to present. In fairness, the substrate mix was about 80% schultz aquatic soil combined with about 10% seeded aquarium gravel from an established tank, and about 10% fluorite regular(I had some left over and did not want to throw it out). I only had an unexplainable KH spike one month during that time and don't have an explanation. I did experience a GH spike but that is after I dosed calcium sulphite and magnesium during water changes given that my tap water is sub-marginal with respect to calcium levels. Once I stopped dosing calcium sulphite, the GH levels dropped and normalized. C02 was through DIY with a modified hagen submersible filter to act as a diffuser, c02 brew was changed weekly to maintain c02 consistency, c02 drop checker indicated ideal c02 levels(lime green - 30 ppm) but a on-line c02 calculator that uses KH and ph levels to calculate c02 indicated c02 levels of only 11.7 ppm.

While the experiment was to more to test anti-algae measures than the substrate, if one averages the monthly water parameters over the duration of the setup , in my case the water parameters remained consistent and within the range considered ideal for plant growth. A uv sterilizer was put in and operated 24/7 and even seachem purigen was put in the hob filter to filter out heavy organics. The tank was heavily planted.

At the end of it, while water parameters remained fairly consistent, algae still overtook the tank. It started with blue green algae at the beginning despite the fact that the nitrates tested on the high side, and I should mention that the nitrate and phosphate kits were calibrated for accuracy. Then black brush algae followed. BBA went died and receded when I started dosing Seachem Excel, but then the tank was overtaken with green spot algae with is what I am left with now. It should also be noted that this started happening after I did some major(possibly excessive) trimming of plants that may have thrown the tank out of balance. I should also mention that heavy fish losses ensued for the tiem the tank was up despite 50% weekly water changes and the use of a UV Sterilizer. I suspect that overstocking may have had a lot with this as ammonia and nitrite levels tested okay. Also, with the algae, I am at a loss as to what caused this. A heavily stocked 40 gallon tank with the exact same substrate layering, pressurized c02, dense plant mass, and same EI fert dosing did not develop algae after I cleaned up the initial breakout. I believe the size difference between both tanks may also account for the differences between both tanks. I just added 5 Amano Shrimp, plan to increase water changes to twice a week, and I have reduced lighting to 8 hours of 20 watts(2 10 watt compact fluorescent 6500 K daylight) from 30 watts( 2 15 watt compact fluorescent 6500 K daylight) in an attempt to get the green spot algae to recede. This tank will only be in operation for 2 more months to test this measure. If there is no significant improvement, I plan to tear the tank down and redo it using ADA Aquasoil soil, low light, Excel dosing for carbon and 20 watts lighting, with low light plants, just to see the difference over the same time. 

FWIW, you can read about the progress of the tank and what happened at http://azdhan.googlepages.com/thelostworld. 

I also want to say that I was only trying to share what I had learned/observed and I know that peoples' mileage with Schultz Aquatic Soil may vary. I apologize if I added confusion to the issue. Also, in fairness, I changed too many variables during this setup so it was difficult to pinpoint what exactly what caused the tank to go downhill. Also, I had set up a similar 10 gallon with hardly any fish using 100% fluorite and with all other things being equal, plant growth progressed at the same rate, and green spot algae also overtook that fluorite based tank. With respect to fert dosing, Estimative Index(although towards the end with the 10 gallon mentioned above) was employed in both cases and there was certainly no deficiency of nitrates or phosphates as tested with calibrated phosphate and nitrate test. kits. The *ONLY *real lesson I learned here is it is best to pay more and go for *ADA AQUASOIL*, I am not having even a quarter of the issues with my 15 gallon ADA AS II Experimental tank that I ended up with growing plants in SAS and fluorite, sorry to say. Expensive, well considering that ADA AS has a life expectancy of 7+ years vs 3 or so years for fluorite and eco-complete, I would say it all boils down to a matter of perception.


----------



## aznkonner (Oct 18, 2007)

Just adding my two cents in on Schultz.

I'm sure flourite and aqua soil and all that other good stuff sold for aquariums is better then SAS however the price is second to none. It's much less costly then any gravel/fertilizer in the aquarium market. that being said, we shouldn't expect it to work as well. You can't compare a pressurized co2 system to work the same as a DIY co2 system you made out of coke bottles. 

Ok now my experience with SAS is that it works better then having normal gravel. I never tried flourite or aqua soil or watever but the difference between SAS and normal gravel is huge. I've also put soil underneath the SAS and noticed that root growth is much quicker and plants are much more healthier then when it's just SAS alone. One downside to SAS is that is it light and it makes cleaning the gravel a bit troublesome. It's not impossible but it just takes a little longer for the SAS to fall down from the tube. It also makes planting things a bit more difficult.

In the end I can only say I enjoy my SAS quite much and would recommend it to anyone on a budget. If you got extra cash then splurge and go with the more specialized stuff. Heck even if it's just a normal tank with no plants SAS is cheaper then the gravel sold at the LFS but that's going into a whole different topic. Schultz ftw!


----------



## Justbeginningfish (Mar 28, 2008)

Ok here is what we went with:
a 50/50 combo os sand and shults with a small amount of plain nothing added peat mixed in as a 1/2 inch thick bottom layer.
Then on about 1/3 of the tank I have a tahitian moon sand top layer with the rest being a river pebble mixture.
We added root tabs to all stem plants and buried them with laterite around the roots as well. Plants rigth now are all easy to grow low light plants with the exception of the babys tears/pearlweed which is acxtually planted in a clear acrilic rectangle behin g some river rocks to hide the container. this keeps it from being uprooted all the time by the cories.

Its all set up and running and looks awesome, i still need some roots or big pieces of grey driftwood and more low light plants but im liking it so far.
Pictures will be added to my journal page as soon as i find the camera usb cord!


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Sounds great; looking forward to pics! :thumbsup:


----------



## doodle (May 13, 2008)

Here is another observation. I started a 40g with SAS about 2 months ago. A couple of weeks ago I got an API phosphate kit. Green spot algae has been starting on some plants, especially Anubias nana. I was surprised to find the phosphate level was offscale, > 10ppm. My tapwater has 0. Out of curiosity, I put about 1/8" of new SAS in the test tube w/tapwater. It also measured off the scale. I've been doing a lot of water changes (20%) since then and the level has come down some. Has anyone else with SAS measured high phosphate levels? I'd be interested if anyone else can repeat my experiment, and whether there is any other conclusion to draw from the result. 

Gary


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

doodle said:


> Here is another observation. I started a 40g with SAS about 2 months ago. A couple of weeks ago I got an API phosphate kit. Green spot algae has been starting on some plants, especially Anubias nana. I was surprised to find the phosphate level was offscale, > 10ppm. My tapwater has 0. Out of curiosity, I put about 1/8" of new SAS in the test tube w/tapwater. It also measured off the scale. I've been doing a lot of water changes (20%) since then and the level has come down some. Has anyone else with SAS measured high phosphate levels? I'd be interested if anyone else can repeat my experiment, and whether there is any other conclusion to draw from the result.
> 
> Gary


I have a 10 gallon running with 80% SAS+ 10% fluorite + 10% regular seeded gravel from a previous tank. I tested water parameters weekly. You can check out my logs at: http://azdhan.googlepages.com/thelostworld

The water parameters remained and continue to remain stable and for 6 months the tank remained **** and span and plant growh was incredible. With the exception of minute(hardly noticeable) green spot algae on the some plant leaves(not glass) and blue green algae, which erythromycin dosing eradicated, there was no algae at all.

After 6 months, despite no major changes to tested water parameters the tank became engulfed in green spot algae on the glass and BBA. The funny thing is that as soon as lighting was reduced to 20 watts from 30 watts, 5 Amano Shrimp were added, some stem plants were added, and tank was double dosed with excel daily, things cleared up in almost a week. The green spot algae has totally disappeard off the glass, the water is crytal clear. There were no other changes(no change in EI fert dosing, water change frequency, or c02 injection). Go figure. It is interesting what observation can teach you. I was ready to tear the tank down to as it was a real dog's breakfast, but left it running just to test out a few things. Note, my phosphate levels have always tested 10+, but I believe that high lighting intensity and lack of carbon may have had more to do with the development of algae than the high phosphates. With no reduction in phosphate levels, the algae cleared up when I increased carbon(via double dosing excel daily) and reduced lighting by 10 watts total.


----------



## steak (Sep 3, 2007)

I only use schultz and a layer of miracle-gro sphagnum peat moss. It rocks. Eco-complete is overpriced. A good investor would buy beach property in Costa Rica, dig up the beach, and bag it. I'm pretty sure that's what eco-complete is...volcanic rock.


----------

