# What needs to be updated in Walstad's book, newbie setting up



## colisalalia (May 17, 2011)

Hi,

I am just about to try a low tech tank. I have a basic fish tank right now.

I have been reading some of Diane Walstad's book. I am game. While researching other topics I have come across people saying it is outdated although useful. Also people mentioned issues with the miracle grow soil putting out lots of ammonia... mineralizing soil.

So to be updated what should I do different than her book says?

On the forum there is so much info but it is broken up in pieces. I am not even sure sometimes what I should be searching. 

Can anyone direct me to a place where I can get instructions that are up to date and cover the how to for a low tech tank. 

I just bought a 20 gallon long. I was going to buy a coralife dual T5 30" but now am unsure whether that is too much for a low tech tank. I would like something low profile. There is an overhang that covers part of the tank with only 4.5 inches of space. I need to fit the light there. So there is no option to make the light higher. In the front of the tank there is nothing so I can still reach in. 

Is that light okay?

Thanks so much for any assistance,

Christy


----------



## ktownhero (Mar 21, 2011)

The Coralife dual T5 setups are discontinued and since they use custom 30" bulbs, I'd stay away. You want to find a fixture that uses 22" bulbs, since those are the standard size.

Unfortunately, for a 20L, there is nothing that I'm aware of that is manufactured that is good for "low light" specifically, you'll want to find some sort of 24" single T5HO fixture and hang it high above the tank, most likely (which is what I do for my 29g). 

As for updates to the Walstad method, I don't think there are too many except that mineralized top soil (MTS) is considered far superior to regular soil these days. It is less "dirty" and doesn't "go bad" really. But people have used all sorts of soils for years with success so it's hard to say which is really better. 

My extra piece of advice, which is what Walstad also recommends, is that you remember to PLANT HEAVILY with FAST GROWING STEMS from day one. This is absolutely key with a low-tech tank (IMO, all tanks) and is something a lot of people disregard or underestimate.


----------



## Michael in Texas (Jul 27, 2010)

Ditto on ktownhero's comments. The only major topic in Walstad's book that is outdated is her discussion of artificial lighting. Essentially, the technology available is much different with more efficient lighting. The old "watt per gallon" rules do not work with the higher intensity of new fixtures and lamps.

Is there somewhere else you could put the tank that does not have an overhang? The easiest way to control excess light from these hot new fixtures is to raise them above the tank. You can also use window screen or other mesh to lower the amount of light entering the tank.

Good luck!


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

I can agree with everything ktown posted except the part where MTS should be considered far superior to regular/natural soil. Natural soil substrates can be supplemented just as MTS is by adding potash and clays as the tank is filled with base material. The breakdown of the organics within the system has benefits also that MTS forego.

The major change (imo) is in the use of hardscape. It should be either a minimum foot print or skipped all together with NPT to avoid the chance of trapping gasses and creating 'sour' pockets. I have both MTS and NPT tanks. My opinion is bang for the buck ($$$) NPT and the possible 'high maintenance' break in period is well worth it rather than all the prep creating MTS for a tank.

I have three journals on the site that track two NPT tanks and one MTS. The 2yr old NPT is still without boost to the base material.


----------



## ktownhero (Mar 21, 2011)

I defer to wkndracer's comments on MTS, as he has a great deal more experience with this type of setup than I.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I think people get really hung up on "which method is best." I don't think there is an answer to that outside of first defining your goals with your planted tank (how much work you want to do to assemble it/make soil substrate, how often you want to trim, how often you're willing to do water changes, etc) and THEN just picking the method that works best for you.

NPTs are designed to MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR WATER CHANGES AND FERT DOSING. These tanks generally have low lighting and low bioloads. I personally have never wanted to set up an NPT because I keep aquariums first for the fish and then the plants, so I'd rather have a fully stocked tank and do water changes.

MTS is designed to be a VERY LONG-LASTING substrate. It can be used with high or low tech tanks. Main disadvantage IMHO is it takes some running around to pull together all the materials and takes time to make it yourself.

Miracle Gro Organic potting soil isn't really a "method" per se- it's just one soil substrate that's proven to work pretty well and be aquarium-safe when capped with another heavier substrate. To me the main advantage is I know it's safe, it's cheap, easy to find, and takes minimal effort to put together in a tank. It meets my own goals very well... but other substrate systems may work better for other people.


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

lauraleellbp said:


> NPTs are designed to MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR WATER CHANGES AND FERT DOSING. These tanks generally have low lighting and low bioloads. I personally have never wanted to set up an NPT because I keep aquariums first for the fish and then the plants, so I'd rather have a fully stocked tank and do water changes.
> 
> MTS is designed to be a VERY LONG-LASTING substrate. It can be used with high or low tech tanks. Main disadvantage IMHO is it takes some running around to pull together all the materials and takes time to make it yourself.


Not to butcher your post by the cut quote but rather to pull out the assumption of rigid format I challenge here.

NPT is not just reduced water changes and or eliminating fert dosing anymore than MTS is. The Walstad method of tank keeping is I agree but not the use of soil in and of itself.

It's simply an enriched substrate that includes the organics prior to the breakdown preformed by the bacteria during mineralization. Following the last online debate regarding this topic the next tank I set up included the additions everybody makes with MTS but rather than repeated wet/dry cycles I buried the organics under the cap intact letting the submerged bacteria do the work.

Why can't you have natural soil under high light conditions and inject CO2? Why can't water column dosing be added along the way just like Tom Barr and Arron posted about? Why does a dirt tank instantly require things be limited? I don't think it does.

nonc injects CO2, as do I on some of my tanks. (those tanks have dirt in the sub:smile


----------



## colisalalia (May 17, 2011)

Here are some points to clarify all the above posts and my questions:

I called coralife and they said they are not discontinuing the T5 normal output dual. They are discontinuing the single.

I really want to have the tank in this spot because it is where I work all day. Otherwise I would only see the tank when I made a point of walking to where I never do and watching. So the most clearance I can get is about 4.5 inches above the water.

Why would I get a high output and then put it really high? Why wouldn't I just get a normal output?

I would rather not cover the tank. I lie looking in and letting things stick out.

I was trying to find what NPT means in the glossary. I am getting a little lost because I don't know the techniques and their differences.

I am on a very tight budget so I would take the labor over the cost.

I may have a higher stocked tank for this technique. I really want a dwarf gourami, 2 aquatic african dwarf frogs. I currently have 4 pink danios, 2 guppies, a shrimp, ram snails in another tank that I was planning on transferring into the tank unless that is too much.

I have quite a lot of plants from getting donations at a plant club meeting. I counted them. I have about 40 plants. Most are babies or chunks separated. I don't like all of them but I could plant them until the others get going enough. I also have a big clump of hornwort and enough of a floating plant to cover a square foot thickly. It is the kind with the hairy roots that descend and is supposed to be great at cleaning water, very fast grower.

I would like to put some rocks and driftwood in.

So is that enough to start the tank out? I plan on using water from my established tank.

The soil, light and whether to do the submerged power head or the submerged UV sterilizing filter are the decisions holding me up. I am getting worried for the plants waiting to be planted.

Suggestions for my situation? Links explaining how to do the soil you suggest?

Thanks so much,

Christy


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

Hi Christy, 
I try to track everything in my journals and have two on using Potting soil in aquariums. 
Both are 55g and both threads contain tested water parameters, depth of the layers used, lighting and the calendar of events. The oldest is following the Walstad method fairly close and the second is a modified mix.

My 'second' oldest tank LOL gets boring after a few pages when things settle down with the soil.
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/low-tech-forum/86457-55-gallon-low-tech-soil-sub.html


Newer one with the dirt tank filled at the bottom of page #1.
(never saw a nitrogen cycle on this tank)
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/t...bum/131940-stainless-2-story-56k-warning.html

Hope these threads help answer some questions for you without adding to the confusion. 

:smile:


----------



## ktownhero (Mar 21, 2011)

colisalalia said:


> I called coralife and they said they are not discontinuing the T5 normal output dual. They are discontinuing the single.


Hmmm, that is suspect to me. Nobody has had these fixtures in stock for months except for a few oddball sellers here or there, and they've be unlisted from places like Big Al's. 

If that's true then AWESOME because they are the perfect "low tech" lighting fixtures, but just do your research and be careful. You don't want to end up with a 30" fixture that uses special 30" bulbs that you either can't get in a year or have to pay out the wazoo to the guy that stockpiled them in his basement.


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

i would have to say that i prefer NPT style tanks over MTS. for 1 you get free co2 for awhile, and after the organics break down you are left with something similar to MTS anyways. 
as mike said, soil substrates do not have to be low tech. i run co2, t5ho, fancy filters and pumps and water column dose when needed.

as for hardscapes in NPT's, just dont put soil underneath your wood & rocks.


----------



## colisalalia (May 17, 2011)

I still can't find what NPT means when I look at the acronym list and do searches.

Please enlighten me.

Thanks


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

Natural planted tank


----------



## colisalalia (May 17, 2011)

Why are people comparing that to MTS? I thought MTS is mineral treated soil.

Doesn't the natural plants go in the mineral soil?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

colisalalia said:


> Why are people comparing that to MTS? I thought MTS is mineral treated soil.
> 
> Doesn't the natural plants go in the mineral soil?


Mineralized top soil, or rather...oxidized prior, then used, this removes all the N basically.

Here's a simple thing Diana tried a few years after I suggested the DSM to her, which works to Mineralize the soil and allows root development and bacterial cycling and zero algae and fast rate of growth to fill the aquarium in prior to filling it up:



http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00388Shrimp.pdf

Works quite well.

But so does water column only, but both seems like the best management for most folks and the plants.


----------



## colisalalia (May 17, 2011)

Yes I was thinking of doing the DSM except all my plants come from an aquatic club and are already used to submerged conditions.

What is the other method... "water column only." Does that mean planting it and submerging immediately?


----------



## nonconductive (Jan 29, 2010)

i assume tom means water column ferts only.


----------



## requiem (Oct 25, 2008)

ooh that article from Diana is a great summary of many tidbits I`ve learned over time from these boards - thank Tom for pointing it out


----------



## Karackle (Dec 11, 2007)

So if you are set on using a soil based substrate then you can ignore the rest of this comment :tongue: 

However, if low tech is your major goal, I just thought I would point out that there are other options too. I run only low light / low maintenance / low tech tanks. 2 of them have EcoComplete substrate and 2 of them just have good old inert aquarium gravel, one with a layer of mulm under it. 3 of the tanks have a bunch of root tabs stuffed into the substrate, the really low light 60g just has the eco complete. Other than that, I basically just slightly over stock the tank and let the fish waste do the rest of the fertilizing  And I mostly just do top-offs to compensate for evaporation and the occasional water change. Just thought I'd mention it as another low tech option roud:


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

wkndracer said:


> Not to butcher your post by the cut quote but rather to pull out the assumption of rigid format I challenge here.
> 
> NPT is not just reduced water changes and or eliminating fert dosing anymore than MTS is. The Walstad method of tank keeping is I agree but not the use of soil in and of itself.
> 
> ...


I'm merely explaining definitions that have been set out by the authors themselves. Of course you can mix and match methods.

I notice a ton of confusion on this forum about Natural Planted Tanks (NPTs). People setting up soil-based substrate tanks and then calling them NPTs... but just having a soil-based tank does NOT make it an NPT. NPTs, by the AUTHOR's definition, are a specific type of setup with a very, very specific goal- the attempt to create a self-contained ecosystem that allows plants to grow and eliminates water changes. There are all sorts of compromises that must be made to achieve this in comparison to other methods of setting up and maintaining a planted tank (bioload vs plantload being one of the largest, but others as well).

Can you use the same substrate composition method as published by Diana Walstad and apply it to other types of tank setups? Of course. But you can't then call/discuss that tank as an NPT without causing considerable confusion... Make sense?


----------



## TwoStrokeKing (Mar 24, 2011)

I haven't read walstads book but I have 4 dirt tanks. My high tech 30 gallon for example. I run 48 watts of T5 HO. DIY co2.I use EI dosing and do a lot of water changes. You cab make a soil tank high tech


----------



## wkndracer (Mar 14, 2009)

*stuck on tittles*

NPT, natural planted tank, *using dirt as a substrate* wasn't originated by Diana Walstad. Fred Flintstone and his friend Barney Rubble did it LOL. Using soils in a tank goes back to what many call outdated methods. The term NPT was used by others years ago and was not originally coined by or is it owned by D. Walstad. Admittedly as time goes by the tie between her and the phase grows with every passing post it's true. NPT with reference to soil use is part of the "Walstad Method" and her efforts publishing the guide are truly to be applauded. The research and detail of her book are a fantastic aid to tank keeping. APC terms it's sub forum 'El Natural' D.W. moderated that forum for years. I think many get really hung up on what defines a 'method'.



lauraleellbp said:


> I think people get really hung up on "which method is best." I don't think there is an answer to that outside of first defining your goals with your planted tank (how much work you want to do to assemble it/make soil substrate, how often you want to trim, how often you're willing to do water changes, etc) and THEN just picking the method that works best for you.
> 
> NPTs are designed to MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR WATER CHANGES AND FERT DOSING. These tanks generally have low lighting and low bioloads. *I* *personally have never wanted to set up an NPT because I keep aquariums first for the fish* and then the plants, so I'd rather have a fully stocked tank and do water changes.
> 
> ...


The Walstad method includes all the mentioned limitations listed above for NPT and yes indeed I follow that method on one of my tanks. Repeatedly reference has been made regarding this method being unhealthy for the livestock yet for over 2 years in my own tank following this method nothing has exhibited illness, early death, stunting or other malformation in what's kept in it. (included above) Following the Walstad Method in rigid format and maintaining a naturally planted tank are not exclusive (IMO). More to the substrate used along with other measures including less mechanical filtration. I easily see a broad range in the defined method of tank keeping _NPT_ and a very narrow one in the published Walstad method.

Truly if we are honest there's nothing 'natural' in the variety and density of life we keep in our little glass boxes. Using soils, limited (or unlimited) lighting, CO2, applied water column dosing or not the tank still has a more 'natural' base for a planting medium if soil containing organics are used. 
I'll again refer to the running debate between AaronT and Tom Barr over the use of reduced water column dosing (EI) being an aid with MTS. 
Page after page of debate from the purist view point and the blend of methods to achieve lasting results. Most when asked will say lasting results is the true goal.

Should I take away from this that if one is not exactly following the published Walstad method then they are banned from using the term NPT? That seems a very narrow view.

My favorite quote from Tom Barrs many posts; *never a one trick pony*


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I think the difference I'm trying to establish here is that Walstad actually PUBLISHED "her" method, and that the method involves much more than just a having a soil substrate. Her book, her APC forum, and her method are pretty well known and established in the world of planted tanks. You can consider it a "hang up" if you want- but the fact remains that her method is extremely specific, detailed, and simply it is a foregone fact that in the planted aquarium community at large her name and the method are inseparable at this point.

I am NOT arguing that her way is the only way- if you've ever read any of my other posts you'll know that one of my favorite saying is "there's always more than one way to skin a cat." I have soil-based substrates in most of my tanks right now. I just understand very clearly that they are soil-based substrate tanks- they aren't even close to NPT setups.

The only point I'm making here is that if a person goes about setting up a soil-based substrate and calls it an NPT or El Natural tank, then anyone who knows what Walstad's NPT method actually is- who've read Walstad's book and articles, participated in her forum, and/or been exposed to the method as a part of the planted aquarium community- is going to make the assumption that the person has the goal of minimizing if not eliminating water changes from the tank they're setting up. This IS going to cause confusion when that person goes to try and explain their setup and ask for advice.

Defining one's goals is IMO one of THE most crucial factors in setting up a successful planted tank. If one does not understand their goals, then they will end up lost in the world of lighting choices, whether or not to go with CO2, what type of fert regimen they need to put together, etc etc etc. So confusing terminology like this I actually feel is extremely counterproductive to helping someone navigate through all the options in setting up a planted tank. I'm not really interested in "banning" anyone from calling their tank whatever they want- what I'm really concerned about is helping people define and explain their goals with their tank in the clearest terms possible so that they can get the best advice possible, and come out the other end a happy, successful hobbyist. 

Last but not least- I never said that healthy fish can't be kept and maintained in NPTs. I've seen stunning NPTs with gorgeous healthy fish, including amazing discus tanks. I clearly stated that the compromises needed to set up NPTs don't fit into my own PERSONAL goals. I prefer to maintain higher bioloads and do water changes.


----------

