# An algae and fert free solution to keeping fish tanks



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

A picture of "air roots" on a crypt and a _Nymphoides sp. "Taiwan":
_








These roots can be quite long - up to about 10 cm.

Wiki on cyanobacteria which actually can produce one of the most poisonous toxins known.

A Dutch page in English about what happens when the "Redfield ratio is out of order".

Wiki on the Redfield ratio.

I've never seen air roots on anubias which leads me to the assumption that they are fully dependant on getting the phosphate through the soil. Anubias is the type of plant which quickest gets GSA in my experience and phosphate deficiency then leads to BBA and staghorn on the leaves. As can be seen from the picture in #1 it is possible to fully avoid GSA via the use of a substrate with limestone and shells.

Of course gravel from the beach is not exactly the same all over the world so here's a picture of mine separated in two piles with gravel containing and not containing lime:









On the far right I've tried to make a pile of eggshells which could replace the limestones. Because of the surface of eggshells being much smaller than that of powdered lime, you'd end up with about 35 g/10 kg. One (standard European) eggshell weighs about 7 grams.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Have others tried to duplicate your results? That is what it takes before a theory can be taken very seriously. What would you suggest as a standard experiment that would show that this is a correct theory?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Hi Hoppy. I'm getting old, so I've had fish tanks for about 52 years.
When I was a boy I built my own tanks and bought used ones and at a time had over 30. The money were small though so I simply had to find a cheap solution and this was getting the substrate at the beach.
So I've used beach gravel for almost 50 years without having to fight algae in these.

Then, some 35 years ago, I bought the 250 litre tank which came with the granite gravel and all the problems with a lot of different types of algae began. It was rather frustrating to have both a lot of algae free tanks and then the problem child, but I knew I was staring at the answer without knowing it. So my theory is my best shot on a possible explanation. I can't say that I know of anybody else using beach gravel. But in Denmark it's common to use red clay with sphagnum as a bottom soil and it works perfectly except it'll make your crypts dark of some reason. But it does help you keeping your plants algae free without affecting the pH. You could still have (very) little staghorn growing on the substrate though.

With the beach gravel I don't have staghorn on the substrate, but I once experimented with adding a little sugar as a replacement for CO2 instead of using liquid CO2. I was told it would work on a forum, but all it did was giving me an outbreak of staghorn growing on the substrate - none on the plants though. The solution was adding 8 times the normal dose of EasyCarbo twice. This killed the algae and then I simply changed the water to get rid of the sugar, I've not seen any staghorn since.

Our tap water has a pH of 7.6. In the tank with beach gravel I measure a pH of 8.3 which is lowered to 7.8 when adding CO2 from a small ½ liter yeast bottle reactor. I've had a lot of different fishes and shrimps in this tank not showing any sign of illness.

So if it doesn't matter you get a higher pH I'd suggest using 35 grams of eggshells per 10 kilos of substrate. 
An acute treatment is using lime powder which will bind the phosphate currently in the water. This method makes it easier to monitor and change the pH as well.

If pH matters you could use red clay in the form of sticks (pencil thick). You should use about 500 grams per 10 kilos of substrate. I haven't tried using blue clay, but since it has less iron and more lime, it might work better.

There's no reason to be afraid of trying these methods as both clay and lime is present in the soil all over the world and as such also in lakes and rivers. The problem with algae in fish tanks arise when we use only one sort of material as substrate. Adding clay or lime or for that matter a little plant soil or sphagnum like the Walstad method suggests is actually closer to nature than not doing so.

Using the Walstad method with plant soil means you probably won't experience signs of phosphate deficiency, but the plant soil might not be balanced according to the Redfield ratio and hence give an outburst of diatoms and cyanobacteria.
Many people trying the Walstad method have reported this. I wouldn't dare to recommend the use of lime in this case since the soil will continue to pump too much phosphate into the water and you might end up with too much lime.

Let me also add that using lime or clay will have a certain max capacity for binding the phosphate. When that capacity is exceeded you might not get GSA because there's no deficiency, but you'd probably see diatoms and cyanobacteria again.
This means algae are not all bad since they clearly signal problems in the tank.

Let me show you what I mean by 'making my crypts dark'.

Here's the color of a C. Becketii which have no soil - the roots get all their nutrients from the water:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=677401&thumb=1

And here's how they look when planted in the granite substrate with red clay added (the dark greenish one):

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=677409&thumb=1

They are nice and look healthy enough of course, but I'd like to have some light green ones.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

I have dug into my archive to show you how my plants looked some 2½ year ago before starting with red clay in my 250 litre. Like many others I had severe GSA on the plants, and at some point also an outburst of staghorn like this closeup shows:









This is when I redid the tank. The substrate was cooked and I added red clay plates under the substrate and began using ferts. From then on I didn't get any algae on the plants, but, as mentioned before, my crypts turned darker.
My other plants aren't affected so it could be a crypt-thing. Since the dark crypts actually look healthier than the green ones with a thicker cuticle, I might be on the wrong track. But if you see the whole picture:









you maybe agree it would be prettier with the C. Affinis in the middle to be light green instead of dark brownish green.- anyway that's what I'm after.

So with both red clay in the soil and using ferts I never saw any algae on the plants. But because of the dark colored crypts I redid the tank once again about a year ago. This time I used some new granite gravel called Råda Sand which has a little smaller size grains. This time I didn't add red clay, but I still used ferts.
Now I got GSA on the leaves and the C. Affinis didn't look healthy. I also had a little staghorn or BBA on the leaves. Then I stopped adding ferts and instead put red clay sticks in the substrate to get healthy plants over light green crypts and got rid of the algae.

That's how I can tell it's the red clay working and _not_ the ferts.

I'll suggest everybody having plants with severe GSA and BBA/staghorn like I had should give red clay or limestone a chance since they have nothing to lose.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

I've tried to dissolve 5 grams of lime powder in a glass with 2 dl of tapwater with a pH of 7.6.
After that I shaked it couple of times and let it settle:

View attachment 678425


According to Wiki lime powder should have an alkalinity of 9.
But when I now measure the pH in the water I only get 8.1 which must be due to it's low solubility (0.013 g/l).according to Wiki. 

I take this as a sign it's safe to use lime powder instead of eggshells in my recipe. The bigger surface of the lime powder will make more readily available to the plants. The good thing about the lime powder is it can be added to an existing tank so you'd not have to rearrange it. If you fear for your fishes you could of course remove them until the powder has settled. I let mine stay and have no signs of damages, but please don't sue me for this.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Would a clay based substrate work as well as the clay sticks?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Probably, but if it's only clay _based_ I'd need to know what else it contains to give a correct answer.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

With all due respect, all I see is a tank with some Crypts, algae and a bunch of snails. Do you have more tanks where you can show how this is actually working or do you only have the low-light tank with Crypts in it?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

As you can see from the second picture in #1 from my 54 litre with beach gravel I don't have algae on my plants and only green algae on the substrate as described.

As you can see from the closeups in #4 I don't have algae on the plants in my 250 litre either. I do have some thread algae left on the substrate near the front. I take guess it's because I was a little lazy when placing the red clay sticks since I only stuck them under the plants and not in the free spaces. I've tried adding som lime powder where the thread algae are, but they don't disappear from one day to another. So yes, my 250 litre has some thread algae on the substrate near the front.

Sounds to me like you don't like snails and crypts? I like snails and prefer crypts over a lot of other plants, just want them greener.


----------



## York1 (Dec 18, 2014)

Do you have any instances where this method works on a high light tank?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> For fighting diatom algae and cyano, common advices are to lower the light or turn it off, more filtration or flow, raise CO2 and a lot of other peculiar, not working, tricks since they don't alter the reason for the algae.
> .


If your going to name a thread "An algae and fert free solution to keeping fish tanks" that is a pretty bold, broad statement you'll need to show a lot more than some crypts before you dismiss some of the things quoted above. 

You need to at least show a few full tank shots with a multitude of plants growing healthy and algae free.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

houseofcards said:


> If your going to name a thread "An algae and fert free solution to keeping fish tanks" that is a pretty bold, broad statement you'll need to show a lot more than some crypts before you dismiss some of the things quoted above.
> 
> You need to at least show a few full tank shots with a multitude of plants growing healthy and algae free.


I have to agree with Houseofcards. I really do not mean to be offensive, but a tank with green algae and thread algae on the substrate is not algae free. And let's face it, most crypts will grow in the dark, and need very little in the way of ferts. 

That being said, I'm always interested to hear new theories, and it's interesting to see how it's working in your tank. I'm just not sure what you are showing is very persuasive to support the title of your thread.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

I agree with you both. A better title would've been "A solution for keeping your plants free of algae without need for ferting" or the like. According to the Redfield theory you either have diatoms and cyano OR green algae except you can hit the excact ratio of 16 N per 1 P. You can of course still use ferts if you can't be without them.

My solution simply pulls the phosphate out of the water and binds it in the bottom where the plants can use it. As mentioned before it gives me some green algae on some of the stones on the substrate, so it might not be perfect for all, but I don't mind the green algae since they are food for my shrimps and some of the fishes.

I didn't bring a full picture of the 54 litre since I find it hard to see the details, but here's one:









How's that?

Bump: When the talk is about the light, I've made a mega thread on our forum and also experimented to find the optimal light. Furthermore I've optimized my lamps to get the most out of them, but I'll keep the light out of this thread. I might make another thread about light though.

Edit: 
Bump: You'll probably argue that anubias is an easy plant as well. I totally disagree since people with BBA problems often show their anubiases drowning in algae, so for me a clean anubias is the best proof this solution works as described (or elsehow, but still works).


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

Dane William,

Are you the same person with the series of YouTube videos about breeding Celestial Pearl Danios in your greenhouse?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Nope. I'm this William. As you can see I've only made 3 videos so far. I find timelapse videos fun, so...


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> ...My solution simply pulls the phosphate out of the water and binds it in the bottom where the plants can use it.
> 
> Bump: You'll probably argue that anubias is an easy plant as well. I totally disagree since people with BBA problems often show their anubiases drowning in algae, so for me a clean anubias is the best proof this solution works as described (or elsehow, but still works).


Why can't the plants use the phosphate in the water column?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

I can't say that I know why. Some plants try by developing air roots to get hold of the phosphate in the water. Anubiases seem to be unable to do so, but though they can grow submersed they're not true waterplants as is the case with fx Vallisneria. In short GSA is a symptom on phosphate deficiency so plants with GSA haven't succeeded getting enough.

I do have an anubias that doesn't get GSA:









This one has just been floating in a breeding tank for years and I never saw GSA on it though I don't use ferts in this tank and also don't use a substrate. In fact it's what brought me to my theory since I have different implementations which each gave different results.

Floating in the water this anubias can still get phosphate through the roots since all nutrients are present there.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Do you have a reference that says that plants cannot get phosphate through the leaf surfaces? If they can, doesn't that shoot down your theory?


----------



## Redneck tenner (Aug 21, 2016)

They can take it in through leaf material. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Bailey (Aug 2, 2016)

I had a massive GSA problem on my Anubias, I removed them and put them into a low light breeding tank and the GSA is slowly dying off...Lighting has as much to do with algae growth as nutrients do, water changes can also help lower the phosphates...or you can switch to RO water instead of tap water for a similar result....IMO


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Several years ago I found that increasing the dosage of KH2PO4 would eliminate GSA attacks, once I cleaned up the existing spots. I have relearned this every time I cut back on dosing KH2PO4. As a result I now routinely dose more than the EI method suggests and don't get GSA at all. The more light I use the more important this is. But, that phosphate is dosed in the water, not buried in the substrate.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

In my 250 litre I had, as mentioned, a big attack of GSA and diatoms/cyano even though I dosed ferts for half a year. Then, when I added clay sticks and though I stopped ferting, my GSA disappeared.
You can read a lot of places that GSA is a symptom on phosphate deficiency. And according to the Redfield theory/law cyano is a result of too much phosporus in comparison with nitrogen.

I can't comment on people's experiences without knowing their actual setups. 
One possible explanation dosing ferts helps fight GSA could be there actually was a phosphate deficiency. If you setup a new tank, put in a lot of plants, dose CO2 and a lot of light with no mulm in the substrate, the plants simply have nothing to live on.

If you, on the other hand, start with low light, only a few plants and maybe dose ferts until the substrate contains enough mulm, you'd probably not see GSA. Instead of ferts you could put a handfull of potting soil or fish mulm under the substrate. But by time (i reckon) as the mulm fills the substrate, the negative charge of the soil becomes stronger, so if you haven't got anything in the substrate to bind the phosphate it could be repelled by the soil and the GSA will break out.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

******* tenner said:


> They can take it in through leaf material.


Now, I find that a rather bold statement. The plants we use in fish tanks come from a big variety of habitats.
A Vallisneria which is a true water plant in that it cannot be grown emersed (I've tried) will probably have learned to get at least some nutrients via the leaves. An anubias which gets a lot bigger leaves when grown emersed as a sign it prefers that, has learned to grow submersed since it's habitats get flooded for periods. But it might not have adapted to take up phosphate via the leaves.But I'm not an expert in this field and has no bulletproof answer. 

On the other hand GSA is still a symptom of phosphate deficiency, so nomatter some plants can make use of phosphate in the water column, apparently they don't get enough that way if they develop GSA.


----------



## Redneck tenner (Aug 21, 2016)

Dane William said:


> Now, I find that a rather bold statement. The plants we use in fish tanks come from a big variety of habitats.
> A Vallisneria which is a true water plant in that it cannot be grown emersed (I've tried) will probably have learned to get at least some nutrients via the leaves. An anubias which gets a lot bigger leaves when grown emersed as a sign it prefers that, has learned to grow submersed since it's habitats get flooded for periods. But it might not have adapted to take up phosphate via the leaves.But I'm not an expert in this field and has no bulletproof answer.
> 
> On the other hand GSA is still a symptom of phosphate deficiency, so nomatter some plants can make use of phosphate in the water column, apparently they don't get enough that way if they develop GSA.


I make statement based on 20years of applying products to plant material. As well as formal education. Theres no reason in my mind that they can't. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## MChambers (May 26, 2009)

If I'm following this thread correctly, doesn't this technique result in a relatively high pH? That's fine if you've got African lake fish or Central Americans, but it won't work for the vast majority of my tanks, with West African or South American fish. Am I missing something?


----------



## Redneck tenner (Aug 21, 2016)

MChambers said:


> If I'm following this thread correctly, doesn't this technique result in a relatively high pH? That's fine if you've got African lake fish or Central Americans, but it won't work for the vast majority of my tanks, with West African or South American fish. Am I missing something?


Thats what I would think. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

According to my little experiment with adding 5 grams of lime powder to 2 dl of water it seems like the maximum pH caused by adding lime would be about 8.1. I have had both angel fish, barbs, zebra fish, guppies, galaxies, other cichlids and labyrinth fish in my 54 litre, but just searching for the pH i Rio ***** showed a pH between 2.9 and 4.2 which is almost the same as vinegar (2.52 over here). Of course adding CO2 brings the pH down from 8.3 to 7.8 in my 54 litre, but I agree it's not (at all) ideal for tetras.

Depending on the pH you have, using red clay is a more pH-neutral solution, but the aluminum herein is still said to be toxic when the pH gets under 6.

So if your pH can get lower than that I can't recommend using my solutions. Do you have problems with GSA at low pH-values?

Some kind of ironoxides might be the solution for you, but I have no experience with that. Or maybe there's enough iron in granite gravel since iron is said to bind phosphate at low pH-values. From what I've read iron is used at pH-values under 6.5, lime over 7.1 and aluminium pretty much binds inbetween this interval and also overlaps some.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

A standard answer to why adding ferts to my 250 litre did not work would probably be something like: "add more" - people always suggest adding more light, flow, CO2, ferts or whatever, always more and more and more. I did the opposite and even stopped ferting, but added red clay. In nature there's nobody to add artificial ferts to the plants and they grow anyway.

Instead of people trying to shoot down my 'theory' which is just my best shot at a logical explanation why it works, I would find it rather more constructive if people tried to come up with an alternative explanation.

The purpose of presenting my solution was to help people fighting with GSA, BBA, staghorn, diatoms and/or cyano. I've shown pictures of my plants free of algae and described my setups for others to try if they want.
I'll be happy to answer questions on lighting, pH, amounts of this and that used, but I don't think I have to prove anything - my plants already did just that.


----------



## HaeSuse (Aug 18, 2016)

Regardless of the scientific aspects here, or lack thereof, I think the dude is on to something. Regardless of his explanation, it seems clear he very seriously reduced his algae communities, with the simple addition of clay.

That alone is nifty, and useful. Hoppy is right, though. Can we dream up some ways to test the theory? I might have a 10G I can donate to the cause, if we come up with a good plan.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> A standard answer to why adding ferts to my 250 litre did not work would probably be something like: "add more" - people always suggest adding more light, flow, CO2, ferts or whatever, always more and more and more. I did the opposite and even stopped ferting, but added red clay. In nature there's nobody to add artificial ferts to the plants and they grow anyway.
> 
> Instead of people trying to shoot down my 'theory' which is just my best shot at a logical explanation why it works, I would find it rather more constructive if people tried to come up with an alternative explanation.


You'll never gain any traction without showing a well-rounded planted tank that has been done 'your way' and it's appealing to a wide range of planted tank hobbyists. You can talk nature all you want, but all you've shown is a tank with some Anubias and a few other low-light plants that I can grow in my garage if I open the door twice a day to let some light in. 

Do a search on planted tanks, aquascaping, etc. and see what people have created adding dry ferts, co2 and many times more light.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Now that's what I call constructive criticism and what I was hoping for.

I think the best way to prove it's working would be to treat an already running tank which has a lot of GSA and maybe diatioms/cyano and possibly BBA or staghorn as well. Then you would see the difference as soon as the new leaves appear. 
You should also see the diatoms/cyano come off in flakes shortly after since their the N balance is tilted towards N.

Using it in a new/empty tank is easy though it might take a lot longer to confirm it's working.
Do you want to go with the lime or eggshell solution (higher pH) or the red clay solution (darker crypts)?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

#31:you just can't stop, can you? 
I'm not saying ferts, CO2 and whatever won't work (that would be a very bold statement), but that it didn't help me in my 250 litre. I don't know what you consider difficult plants, but in my timelapse video you can see some stellatus and helferi from when I had them. For me anubias is still one of the most difficult plants to keep free of algae.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> #31:you just can't stop, can you?
> *I'm not saying ferts, CO2 and whatever won't work (that would be a very bold statement),* but that it didn't help me in my 250 litre. I don't know what you consider difficult plants, but in my timelapse video you can see some stellatus and helferi from when I had them. For me anubias is still one of the most difficult plants to keep free of algae.


Is this not part of your opening statement in this thread? 



Dane William said:


> For fighting diatom algae and cyano, common advices are to *lower the light or turn it off, more filtration or flow, raise CO2* *and a lot of other peculiar, not working, tricks *since they don't alter the reason for the algae.
> GSA (Green Spot Algae) is another problem, people often give up fighting or don't really have a solution for.
> .


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Dane the problem with any of these theories that people try to "prove", is that no two tanks are alike. 

On this forum you will find people who have wildly different opposing philosophies and practices, and yet both can have absolutely stunning tanks. Someone else might follow one of those successful "recipes", and wind up with a bunch of melted plants covered in algae. Someone else follows the same “recipe”, and creates a planted paradise. Why? Who knows?

There are so many variables, from the local water chemistry, source of plants, lighting intensity/duration, ambient light sources, filters, flow, surface agitation, tank maintenance/water changes, ferts, co2, livestock type/stocking level, fish food type/quantity, substrate, etc. etc. etc that it simply can't be a controlled experiment. 

That being said, I enjoy reading about the techniques and theories of others. Always good food for thought, and sometimes I run across ideas I try in my own tank. One thing I have learned, if it works out or not, the only thing I’ve proven is the effect is has in MY OWN tank. As the common disclaimer says, "Your results may vary".

And then there are certain someone’s out there who I am convinced are “plant whisperers” with a green thumb who can grow anything. I believe the reason is that this hobby may really be more art than science.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Why do we consider only N and P when discussing the Redfield Ratio? That ratio includes carbon (C) too. To meet the Redfield Ratio you need 106 carbon atoms, 16 nitrogen atoms and 1 phosphorous atom. Why do we assume that having 106 carbon atoms per phosphorous atom is not important for stopping algae, but having 16 nitrogen atoms per phosphorous atom is important? I'm pretty uninformed about this subject, so I have no idea what the answer to this is. But, it looks like people, who are sure that phosphates must be a problem, just grabbed the Redfield Ratio as something to justify their opinion. (I don't mean you, or anyone else specifically, because this discussion has gone on off and on for a long time.)


----------



## Redneck tenner (Aug 21, 2016)

Greggz said:


> Dane the problem with any of these theories that people try to "prove", is that no two tanks are alike.
> 
> On this forum you will find people who have wildly different opposing philosophies and practices, and yet both can have absolutely stunning tanks. Someone else might follow one of those successful "recipes", and wind up with a bunch of melted plants covered in algae. Someone else follows the same “recipe”, and creates a planted paradise. Why? Who knows?
> 
> ...


+1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

CO2 is often mentioned as a limiting nutrient, but I haven't read that lacking CO2 will give you algae - just slow down growth. About 50 % (dry weight) of a plant is carbon, so no question it's important. 

In the case of low CO2 many plants have the ability to do ion exchange with carbonates to get hold of it. Floating algae (Chlorella) also have this ability. I grow Chlorella to feed my daphnia, but even though I don't add CO2 they grow willingly:









I take it the lime-like layer on the sides of the tanks is a result of the ion exchange trick. 
I used to get a thick layer of diatoms and cyano in these tanks and then the Chlorella slowly died. After adding a little lime powder the diatoms and cyano are gone and the Chlorella are "clean" and safe for feeding the daphnia. I also got diatoms and cyano in the daphnia cultures which were cured by adding lime powder.

But I do add CO2 from a small yeast bottle reactor to both my 250 litre and the smaller one since I know it speeds up the growth of the plants. And since I stopped using filtration in my 250 litre I want the plants to do the filtration for me.

I've seen no difference between adding and not adding CO2, so though I can't prove it, I assume it's not of that big importance since it's needed by both plants and algae.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Greggz: What you're saying is basically that there's nothing to do about plants and algae and that some people seem to have the x-factor and others don't. It sounds to me like giving up in beforehand. What might seem like a result of "green thumb" to you, could be the result of a person like me who gave it a lot of thoughts over many years.

I've been so fortunate to have tanks with beach gravel for many years thereby freeing me from other algae than green algae which I find natural. Then I've had the problem child, my 250 litre. But I also knew that in nature nobody is adding extra CO2, ferts, filtraton or the like, so it should be possible to replicate nature.

This thread is about letting people, who gave up, new hope since it's rather simple to achieve plants free of algae and hence better plant-growth. So don't give up!


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Dane William said:


> Greggz: What you're saying is basically that there's nothing to do about plants and algae and that some people seem to have the x-factor and others don't. It sounds to me like giving up in beforehand. What might seem like a result of "green thumb" to you, could be the result of a person like me who gave it a lot of thoughts over many years.
> 
> I've been so fortunate to have tanks with beach gravel for many years thereby freeing me from other algae than green algae which I find natural. Then I've had the problem child, my 250 litre. But I also knew that in nature nobody is adding extra CO2, ferts, filtraton or the like, so it should be possible to replicate nature.
> 
> This thread is about letting people, who gave up, new hope since it's rather simple to achieve plants free of algae and hence better plant-growth. So don't give up!


Dane I think you completely missed my point. No offense, but you are not one of the people I consider to have a green thumb. Pretty much anyone can grow crypts and swords with "natural" green algae all over the substrate. I don't understand how that is unique. 

When I mentioned folks with a green thumb, I was talking about folks who create underwater art with a wide variety of colors, shapes, and sizes. And it was tongue in cheek, as it's not luck, it's dedication to finding and providing the right mix of everything for their particular tank.

And I have no idea where you came up with "So don't give up". I have a planted tank that I enjoy very much. And I hate to say this, but the pictures you have provided aren't what I would call a beacon of hope to many on this board. Heck, it's hard to kill crypts if you tried to.

But listen, if you enjoy experimenting with your tanks and you like the results, that's great. I just don't see where growing the easiest plants to grow with algae on the rocks is something many aspire to.


----------



## mik778866 (Aug 22, 2014)

HaeSuse said:


> Regardless of the scientific aspects here, or lack thereof, I think the dude is on to something. Regardless of his explanation, it seems clear he very seriously reduced his algae communities, with the simple addition of clay.
> 
> That alone is nifty, and useful. Hoppy is right, though. Can we dream up some ways to test the theory? I might have a 10G I can donate to the cause, if we come up with a good plan.


Many have already tried the soil and clay mix in the walstad with a twist method.


----------



## fablau (Feb 7, 2009)

One note about nature: I have never seen plants in natural streams without algae around to some extent. IME algae in nature are always present, more or less. What we are trying to accomplish in our tanks is something extremely artificial: not having algae at all. Maybe that's why we provide ferts and Co2 at will... isn't that why?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> ... But I also knew that in nature nobody is adding extra CO2, ferts, filtraton or the like, so it should be possible to replicate nature.


Somebody beat you to the whole natural aquarium thing:


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Dane William said:


> CO2 is often mentioned as a limiting nutrient, but I haven't read that lacking CO2 will give you algae - just slow down growth.


But, it is very well established by many people that, if you have high light, or even medium light, you need to be adding CO2 or BBA will soon get a good foothold on the tank. So, that seems to me to be much stronger evidence that the Redfield Ratio is applicable to having sufficient carbon than it is to having either nitrogen or phosphorous. But, I can't recall anyone using this as an argument for the need for CO2. I'm curious about whether anyone else has.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

How very mature of you houseofcards.
I hope it's not the intellectual level of all on this forum.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Hoppy: I think there could be another explanation to the BBA in case of low CO2. The red algae like BBA and staghorn can grow on the leaves of plants feeding on leaking carbohydrates in the case of nutrient deficiencies. Since carbohydrates have a formula like C6H12O6 they'll get their CO2 from sugar. They can also grow on the substrate, and granite can have quite high contents of carbon which they might be able to take up. Decomposing plant material and roots (which fungi will break down to sugar) will also act as carbon sources.

This way red algae would seem to grow while the plants are put on hold. But you asked why the carbon part of the Redfield ratio could be left out. You might be on to something here. I don't have BBA or staghorn in my 54 litre, but I have had some on the substrate in my 250 litre. I am dosing CO2 though so this could be the reason I'm not having them right now.

But I'm quite sure you won't get BBA on your plants caused by low CO2 or I would have had them in my 54 litre where I didn't add CO2 for longer periods. Also, adding CO2 would just be another carbon source for the red algae as well for the plants.

I did do an experiment in my 54 litre some years ago. I was told that sugar could be used as a replacement for CO2, so I added a teaspoon full. Immediately I got a lot of staghorn on the substrate, but not on the plants since they were healthy so this proves that staghorn love sugar.

Of course I have no idea what the sugar did related to the Redfield ratio.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

For people who find my solution mumbo jumbo here's a description of the CEC on Wiki.
CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) is a well known and very important property of soils. As can be read in this same article there is also something called AEC which binds both phosphate, nitrate and sulphur, but according to this study from University of Hawaii AEC is dependant on low pH-levels and - as far as I understand it - doesn't really come into play at the pH-levels we have in our tanks (depending on the substrate used).

A fish tank is in principle a cube cut out of nature. For practical reasons we add a substrate to hold the plants. I take it granite gravel is the most common. One error with this approach is we didn't dig deap enough when we cut out that cube from nature since both the mud and the clay at the bottom of the river or lake is also important.

It's pure logic that a pea-sized lump of clay in a 100 gallon tank doesn't help much. Mulm has a CEC value at least 3 times that of the best clay, so we really don't need the clay's CEC-properties if we have a substrate rich on mulm (or use a Walstad-like soil which will have the same properties). But mulm alone won't bind phosphate if it doesn't have a very low pH-level. Clay can be used for this.

As with the pea-sized lump of clay a thin layer of mulm must have a lower CEC-value than a thicker one. So that's were my 'solution' comes in if you used a substrate without anything to bind the phosphate to the substrate: you can add clay sticks to achieve this binding. According to the description on Wiki a clay rich on iron and low on aluminium is to be preferred, but I know my red clay to have 15-20 grams of Al2O3 and 5-7 grams of Fe2O3 per one kilo of clay to be working (it's from germany) though it might not be the ideal clay. 

If you have some sort of scape or heavily planted tank without animals to produce mulm you might never experience problems when ferting since the phosphate isn't repelled by the substrate. In this respect running a scape or heavily planted tank is easy. The problem arises when a tank with a lot of animals reaches the point where the substrate is 'full of [censored][censored][censored][censored]'. Then it will have a high CEC-value which (could) mean it'll repell phosphate giving you problems with diatoms and cyano on pretty much all the interior among which are the plants and you'll see signs of phosphate deficiency on your plants.

If you're setting up a new tank the ideal substrate/soil must hence be one of the many solutions available out there containing af mixture of clay and compost of some kind. The compost will contain ferts for a long time. You should use one which is balanced especially for fish tanks though or you could end up with cyano if the N ratio is not the right.
But I hope I've hereby made it clear that it's possible to repair a tilted tank and that 'just' using fish mulm is also a way to go. Some apparently don't think my plants are 'difficult' enough to prove it's working, but I can assure you that anubiases and crypts can also get GSA if you don't do it right.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Cat litter,flourite,safe-t-sorb,are all clay material that combined with soil have produced my best result's with the auqatic weed's.
I once used red pottery clay and made some plug's with osmocote prill's inside.
I then baked the clay plug's in the oven and after they were dry, I pushed them down into inert fine gravel (bird's eye).
The tank's plant's never did much for me with just fish food's and fish poop, so after a few month's,I tore down the tank to experiment with soil's and afore mentioned cat litter mix only to discover the clay plug's I had made were all very much intact and I have doubt's that the osmocote inside the plug's ever found it's way out.
Currently using plain top soil with green sand,osmocote,and capped with safe-t-sorb.
Plant's have only been in the newly re-dirted tank for four week's but are doing well minus a few leaves dropped by the crypt's which I expected. 
Folks tend to associate dirt tank's with low tech approach but they can work in high tech as well.
In my experience,the dirt will become exhausted over time with large plant mass feeding from it, but the clay will help hold the nutrient's a bit longer than soil alone.
I also add small amount's of NPK once a week after a couple month's (8 week's), and have seen good growth.
My tanks are all low tech,non CO2,excel,etc.
As I already have fairly hard water,I fear the lime would not work for the fauna I keep and my past experience with the clay ball's led me to explore something a bit easier to mix into the substrate before planting and that had the ability to improve CEC.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Hi roadmaster, thanks for sharing your observations.

People not having experience with using clay might think that the clay will dissolve into the water, at least I did. But as you've observed the clay (fresh clay, that is) has several interesting properties among which is it's ability to bind all the particles strongly together. This is an important fact since it contains about 60 % silicates that would else become available for diatoms. The silicates are important for the plants though. Some grasses and rice contain up to 12 % silicates since it helps them to 'stay upright' or 'make them stiffer'. Plants can also use it to build some sort of shield right under the cuticle to defend themselves against algae and insects. Silicate is also said to help plants take up nutrients faster as it's said about lime. In a study on rise it was found that silicates also help the plants to better resist cold periods and drought.

Another important thing is that though clay in the tropics can have a high content of aluminum, it'll stay in the clay and apparently bind phosphate even in the form of sticks. Though clay is not a big contributor to nutrients, it does contain some potassium, magnesium and phosphorus to get the plants started.

Some clay products - especially the burned ones - might create some dust that you don't want in your tank. Since fresh clay works and is closer to nature, it's what I would recommend.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Re-reading Diana Walstads "Ecology of the planted aquarium" (3rd edition) I found that she does mention that plants prefer root uptake of phosphate on page 117. On page 140 she also has an example from a fish pond where the water was measured to contain as little as 0.04 mg/l of P, the soil water 1.0 mg/l and 1,000 mg/l (or 1 g/l) bound in the soil. The plants can get hold of the bound phosphate via normal root respiration where CO2 is released from the root tips which will then make the soil water acidic and thus dissolve the bound phosphate making it available for the plants to use.

Again, iron oxides are necessary to bind the phosphate or phosphate can react directly with iron. Since iron has a positive charge (Fe2+) it will bind to humus which has a negative charge.

So, clay can be used because of it's content of both iron and aluminum. Lime will also bind phosphate and is at the same time a macro nutrient. Though lime may raise the pH to 8.1 this isn't unnormal in nature. Lime alone will not add silicates though which are also important for plants. Besides, dosing CO2 will bring down the pH again.

Or, I guess, we can simply add some iron nails to the substrate. They will rust and hence have the ability to bind phosphate without being toxic to fish or shrimps. But be sure to use non-galvanized nails and use about one nail for each 2 inches so all the plants' roots have acces to them. Though I've not tried to use nails as a replacement for clay, I used to put nails in the substrate in the old days since we were adviced to do so to make swords thrive, and apparently this old advice is still viable.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

I don't feel comfortable recommending people something I've not tried myself, so:









I let 50 iron nails soak in water and H2O2 for 10 minutes to make them rusty (warning: probably releases hydrogen while oxidixing) .

As mentioned before, I have some thread algae growing on the substrate near the front in my 250 litre, since I was lazy when placing the clay sticks. So i thought I'd try and add some nails. I also placed a C. Affinis by itself in an area where I didn't add clay sticks and gave it 4 nails to see if that should do something to it's color.

In my mind, the areas where I didn't add clay sticks might be oozing phosphate to the water, which the thread algae can feast on. If the nails will stop this oozing will take time to tell, so I'll get back on this. I could of course remove the algae manually or treat them with chemicals, but as you probably know they'll keep coming back until the reason they're there is taken care of.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Taking a closer look at the thread algae near the front glass, I found that it looked like some kind of snail churchyard:









There were some other spots in the back of the tank with similar piles of empty snail shells and also with thread algae. Since I only added clay sticks under the plants' roots and the snail shells end up in free spots because of water movement, it seems like not only could the soil be oozing phosphate to the water, but it's also bound to the snail shells which consist mostly of lime. Since the thread algae only appear on the substrate near the snail shells it could be an indication they prefer high phosphate content. As mentioned in the previous post, I stuck iron nails in the substrate under the thread algae, but it might not be enough to remove the algae as long as the snail shells remain.

So, to remove the shells I made a coarse sieve out of some net which I believe came with some oranges once and two pieces of small plastic buckets:









The sieve lets the gravel through, but holds the snail shells back. Now I've removed the shells - regrettably it also removed a lot of the thread algae, but enough should remain to prove the iron nails to do the trick.

This observation also tells me that if people are going to try my solution to phosphate defiency, it's best to place the clays sticks, egg shells, iron nails or whatever _under _the substrate to keep the phosphate out of reach of algae growing on the substrate. Lime powder should still find it's way down into the substrate, so I wouldn't worry about algae on the surface using lime powder.

Edit: others might not experience similar amounts of empty snail shells, but my angel fish taught themselves to hunt and eat the bigger snails, so I actually add extra snails to give them this kind of snail snacks.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

I've tried to find some more about the uptake of phosphate. It's not easy to find something convincing, since not many studies have been made and the process is yet not fully understood. 

But here's a very good (and readable) article about it. To sum it up, plants can't just make use of phosphate in the form of PO4. One known way is to get it via colonies of mycorrhizal fungi growing on the roots of the plants. The fungi get C from the plants and provide them with P and other nutrients in return. 

Such colonies are not likely to grow on the plant leaves, which could explain why phosphate is not available via the leaves - at least not in high quantities. Again, this means it's utterly important to bind the phosphate in the soil thereby giving it a chance to be available to plants.

Edit: it would be interesting to know if these fungi are growing on 'air roots', that would make a whole lot of sense.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> ... Again, this means it's utterly important to bind the phosphate in the soil thereby giving it a chance to be available to plants...


So if this was true how are my plants getting phosphate via only PO4 dosing in the water column?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Not 'if this was true', 'since this is true'.

As I've mentioned before I can't possibly comment on people's setup without knowing all details and you haven't given me any. If you don't have a thick layer of mulm built up in your substrate, the phosphate might not be repelled by the soil and hence it will find it's way to the roots. Or maybe you have something in your substrate that does bind the phosphate without you knowing it.

I'm not an expert so I can't promise to have all the answers, but as can be read in the article, not even the experts have all the answers since the uptake of phosphate is not yet fully understood. 
If you don't have a problem with dosing phosphate I'd say you just continue with that. *"If it ain't broken, don't fix it!"*.

Should you once in the future experience GSA on the leaves and/or diatoms/cyano on the whole interior, then you're welcome back to search for a solution.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> Not 'if this was true', 'since this is true'.
> 
> ...but as can be read in the article, not even the experts have all the answers since the uptake of phosphate is not yet fully understood. .


So your saying it's true, based on an article, but your also saying "even the experts don't have all the answers about phosphate uptake." BTW isn't that article based on terrestrial plants?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

As mentioned before I've run an experiment for about 3 weeks with aluminum hydroxide as a binding agent for the phosphate. I also added some talcum powder to prove that silicates don't give a lot of diatoms on it's own. 
It did work, fish were happy, shrimps likewise and the plants were pearling.

The problem with this experiment was it's in a 33 litre where I keep sids (Botia Sidshimunki) which I wanted to have a low pH, but it was up at 8.5 probably due to the use of talcum powder which contains a lot of magnesium. Adding CO2 brought pH down a little, but not enough.

Thought I might as well redo it with nails, so:









Here's 50 shredded beech leaves as a long-term CO2 source. A handful of nutrient enriched potting soil (80 grams).
On top of that I spread about 32 iron nails.
Plants were placed on the soil:









I never cut the roots since the plants will reject cut roots and have to grow new ones setting growth back.
Some gravel on the roots:









More gravel:









Water, fish and shrimps back and up and running again in an hour:









The iron solution is probably the most safe way to go overall since the iron will not be toxic at low pH values.
According to Mulder's diagram iron has an influence on the uptake of phosphate. A high content of calcium could reduce the uptake of magnesium, so the iron solution is probably to be preferred for the lime solution since magnesium is also a macro nutrient.

Think I'l redo my 54 litre one of these days...

Bump: Dear houseofcards. With all due respect I don't know what your agenda is, but you're seemingly not interested in a constructive discussion so I'll have to say that I don't want to waste any more time on you. It's a free world, do whatever you want and have a nice day.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

It would be interesting to grow some aquatic plants that can be grown emersed, with inert substrate, like pool filter sand, and fertilize them entirely with a misted on water/fert mix. This should ensure that all nutrients are absorbed by the foliage, and not the roots. I haven't read anything I can recall where this was tried, so I can only guess, based on what I think I know, what the result will be.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> Bump: Dear houseofcards. With all due respect I don't know what your agenda is, but you're seemingly not interested in a constructive discussion so I'll have to say that I don't want to waste any more time on you. It's a free world, do whatever you want and have a nice day.


I have no agenda other than to refute things that you are saying are fact, which of course they aren't. Your saying it's a fact that plants need phosphate through the roots and you attach a terrestrial plant study that isn't at all applicable. Why shouldn't I state that it's not true based on my experience. I've done plenty of setups with inert substrate that had plants like anubias, moss, java fern and I've only dosed po4. There have been no issues.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Hoppy: you just have to look through the algae category on this forum. Lots of people have made threads where they complain about GSA, BBA and diatoms/cyano though some even dose ferts. I've read some of these and to me it seems they have one thing in common: they have a matured tank with some kind of granite substrate and their problems start when the substrate is filled with mulm.

I'm not going to tell all these people about my (possible) solution since I take it they can read. It would be nice if people would present us with a picture and a thorough description so we had some case studies to judge from instead of just stating something like "Dosing PO4 works for me!" - sure it does, but that doesn't mean plants can uptake PO4 directly through the leaves.

Most of the plants we keep in fish tanks are terrestrial by nature, they just had to be able to survive in nature since their habitats are flooded for periods fx in Amazon. I've done a lot of experiments with emersed plants which at least prove the plants can uptake phosphate via their roots since it's doesn't come by air.

I've even kept anubias and crypts in direct sunlight: (seems like I've exceeded my upload limit. Is it really true you can only upload 10 MB of pictures?).


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I wonder..If plant's cannot take up nutrient's via water column,how do mosses,anubia,floating plant's,survive/thrive ?
Not sure dosing nutrient's to the the water would have ever come about if plant's were not able to draw nutrient's in that way or if benefit of doing so was not realized.
Have seen the benefit of water column dosing in inert sand/gravel from those trying to determine how much PO4 for example plant's can actually use in a day/week.(test tank's)
Inert substrates were used so as not to influence/skew the result's.
Plant's will take nutrient's from both substrate and through their leaves or one would not be able to see improvement from deficiencies by merely adding more to the water with inert substrates or nutrient rich substrate and many of the different dosing schemes being used by many.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Let me emphasize once more: mulm is known to have a negatively charged surface, and my hypothesis is that this is apparently strong enough to repel the phosphate so it stays in the water. The more mulm, the stronger the electrical charge it will have. I haven't got a clou if using an inert substrate would represent a problem, but since it's probably not negatively charged I don't see why it wouldn't work.

When it comes to the different kinds of plants: well, if you take a closer look at moss it actually has kind of roots which it can use to attach itself to fx roots. Anubiases floating in the water still have roots as do most floating plants. Duckweed i.e. has some kind of roots, pistia too. I guess plants floating in nature will have developed a way to get the needed nutrients (they must have, or they wouldn't grow). My crypts growing in a hollow root, which I burned myself, don't have any substrate and do just fine. But they still have roots via which they can uptake phosphate. 

So it all comes down to plants growing in the substrate which could - over time - be filled with mulm. If the substrate is not filled with mulm there's probably not a problem with phosphate.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Plant stomata function is interesting read for those interested and one might glean some further info.
Also see,,Hydrophyte adaptation's.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Dane William said:


> Hoppy: you just have to look through the algae category on this forum. Lots of people have made threads where they complain about GSA, BBA and diatoms/cyano though some even dose ferts. I've read some of these and to me it seems they have one thing in common: they have a matured tank with some kind of granite substrate and their problems start when the substrate is filled with mulm.
> 
> I'm not going to tell all these people about my (possible) solution since I take it they can read. It would be nice if people would present us with a picture and a thorough description so we had some case studies to judge from instead of just stating something like "Dosing PO4 works for me!" - sure it does, but that doesn't mean plants can uptake PO4 directly through the leaves.
> 
> ...


I'm sure there is some limit on uploads, but I don't know what it is. I keep mine on Photobucket, and link them when I use a photo here.

Yes, plants definitely can get phosphate through the roots. But, true aquatic plants also can get it through the foliage, or everything I have seen indicates they can. And, I'm pretty sure terrestrial plants can too, since many terrestrial plants can be fed that way, but there is rarely any reason to do so.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Dane William said:


> CO2 is often mentioned as a limiting nutrient, but I haven't read that lacking CO2 will give you algae - just slow down growth.


This can be true at lower light levels with undemanding plants where not much CO2 is needed in the first place.. But once you move up to more demanding species that require more light and depend on CO2...it is patently false.

Cut the co2 from a high light tank full of stems and you'll see all kinds of plant problems and deformities pop up, including death.

It is both true and false to say "low co2 causes algae." Stalled or unhealthy plants cause algae, and low co2 causes unhealthy plants. The term "low" meaning not enough to meet the needs of a particular set up based on light levels and type of plants.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Nice tank, Burr740, sure looks like you know what you're doing. I also prefer 'real' plants for these watercress-like plants often used for scapes. I do understand it's necessary, just don't fancy them. On the other hand I dropped stems since they crave too much pruning. I prefer my tanks to be as maintenance-free as possible giving my fish peace.

My statement about the CO2 was meant as a general statement. Going from high CO2 to none all of a sudden is probably not an everyday event for most people. I don't claim to have high light in my tanks, but I have had both stellatus and helferi and know they grew willingly and without algae even with no or only a little CO2 added.

Well, back to phosphate: I've been reading like crazy on the socalled foliage ferting. It is correct that you can add ferts through the leaves though the mechanisms are not yet fully understood, but...

According to Diana Walstad plants have been tested to prefer root uptake over leaf uptake. Some plants might uptake about 40 % from the leaves while others only uptake about 1 % through the leaves. This is when given a choice. The reason for this preference is believed to be that root uptake is faster than uptake via the leaves.

What I am thinking is: why bother developing 'air roots' if phosphate could as easily be taken up via the leaves? And why then, did my plants get GSA even though I dosed ferts?

I guess the conclusion must be that we don't know enough about phosphate uptake to pass a judgment. What I do know for a fact is that dosing ferts didn't help me in my 250 litre, but adding red clay sticks did.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Dane William said:


> What I do know for a fact is that dosing ferts didn't help me in my 250 litre, but adding red clay sticks did.


Dane I am confused about something.

In the very first post of this thread you state: 

_For half a year I dosed ferts without any result. I then added a lot of red clay-sticks
under the plants' roots and also stopped using ferts._

So you added clay sticks and stopped dosing ferts at the same time. How did you determine the results weren't from the stopping of ferts rather than the addition of the clay sticks?

In my experience, dosing ferts into a low tech tank with slow growing plants can create an algae farm pretty quickly. 

If the stopping of ferts played no role, are you suggesting that low tech low growth tanks can dose ferts freely as long as there are clay sticks to absorb the ferts into the substrate for root feeders?


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

I did have red clay plates and dosed ferts for one and a half year, which worked fine. 
Then I changed the gravel to a new one without red clay and dosed ferts. That's when I got the algae (GSA, BBA, diatoms/cyano). I also did my weekly waterchanges to get rid of excess ferts.
Then I stopped ferting and added red clay sticks and the algae got away.

GSA are not a result of adding ferts since it's a symptom on phosphate deficiency to my understanding. 
I've never heard dosing ferts should be a problem, but would be glad to read up on it. Where do you have that from?


----------



## klibs (May 1, 2014)

ok I didn't read 99% of this (only made it past the first few paragraphs in the first post) but I think this is a massive stretch due to only one line which I will paraphrase:

"my new tank had all sorts of algae issues and then I added clay in my substrate and then fast foward 6 months and everything is great!"

You are IMO stating the obvious. IMO it is more likely that your tank became ESTABLISHED over time and balanced out mitigating algae's success. throwing a bunch of clay sticks under your substrate and claiming hallelujah seems pretty far-fetched.

Again in your latest post you are essentially saying the same thing... Your tank was established and doing fine then you TOTALLY DISTURBED THE BALANCE... You changed ALL OF YOUR SUBSTRATE essentially resetting your tank again and you got new-tank-syndrome like algae issues (which to me is no surprise...) There's a reason people don't do this... substrate contains a ton of beneficial bacteria and stirs up all kind of matter into the tank that was not there before if you disturb it too much. this essentially spikes certain levels while killing a good chunk of your beneficial bacteria. this will no doubt create better conditions for algae to come in. Algae came back because of these reasons... not because the clay was no longer in your tank...

Also by stopping dosing so much in a low tech setup it makes sense that algae would subside. I would make the argument that if you did everything you did before and did not add the clay you would get the same results.

Not trying to be a dick - just saying I disagree with the claims


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

You are assuming a lot, aren't you? I've had tanks for 52 years and made quite a few startups during that time, so I'm not exactly a newbie. That's why I pointed out that the first period of one and a half year with both clay and ferts I had no problems even after startup. 
Of course you can always argue that even when you get better after taking a pill you might have gotten better without it.
But there's a big difference between having a mild attack of diatoms after startup and having a heavy attack of GSA and BBA or staghorn, the latter being a symptom on phosphate deficiency. 

Not trying to be a d... - just saying I disagree with your unscientific speculations.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Dane William said:


> I've tried to find some more about the uptake of phosphate. It's not easy to find something convincing, since not many studies have been made and the process is yet not fully understood.
> 
> But here's a very good (and readable) article about it. To sum it up, plants can't just make use of phosphate in the form of PO4. One known way is to get it via colonies of mycorrhizal fungi growing on the roots of the plants. The fungi get C from the plants and provide them with P and other nutrients in return.
> 
> ...


Like this is all fact right? You claim that aquatic plants only take up phosphate through their roots and then (as other's have done here) attach some study about terrestrial plants. And you even state that it is fact:



Dane William said:


> Not 'if this was true', 'since this is true'..


As I said before. Your not going to get much traction, without at least showing more than a tank with some easy to grow plants and some algae. It sounds to me you just like to experiment with things and share your theories here.


----------



## klibs (May 1, 2014)

Again I agree with houseofcards here. A lot of bold statements with a lot of thought behind them are being made. Which is great and will only help out the hobby and it is certainly appreciated.

But these kinds of threads all have one thing in common:

_You guys only grow the easiest plants._

In my QT tank right now I literally do nothing but change the water for new fish and add Prime and Equilibrium when I do so. No ferts whatsoever. It has a few inches of black diamond in it and some plants: crypts and AR mini that I have lying around. I have one of those little 10" or so planted + clip lights (really low light for tank that size) and the crypts and AR mini are growing fine (slowly obviously but healthy enough) and I have no issues with algae or anything like that.

Could you say that my QT tank is an example of "An algae and fert free solution to keeping fish tanks"? Yes, you could say that. _But it only works on that one kind of tank so I would not make that claim._ It is an easy tank to get these results in.

The point we are trying to make (correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth houseofcards) is that all of the experimentation and theories that are tried are all fine and good and it is nice to share results but it is frankly not hard to succeed in those circumstances... those plants need so little to do fine without algae that it doesn't that it really discredits sweeping claims that you may not need to dose tanks at all as long as you do XYZ... This type of claim needs to be followed by: *Only works for low tech slow growers* or else it is frankly not true.

Show me the same process with results being some healthy, colorful, pearling rotala macandra or another difficult plant and I will be a believer of any methods used in an instant.

Again, I don't post a response like this just to rain on someone's parade. I generally think it is misleading and others may try to emulate your results and end up in massive failure. No, I am not going to spend hours researching stuff and coming up with a more 'scientific' response and if you believe that discredits my views that's fine. It's just that every time I click on a clickbait thread like this making claims against the hobby's norm right in the subject title all I see EVERY TIME are some crypts or anubias or whatever and it is misleading IMO. I truly appreciate experimentation and sharing detailed explanations of thoughts and results because that kind of stuff is great. Thank you for the time you took detailing your thoughts. However I don't agree with claims that are made based on some of the experimentation. There is a big difference in sharing observations and theories and making claims based on your results.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Those are pretty much my thoughts @klibs. 

I never said you can't do things for example without dosing ferts regularly or even water changes it's just that it's limited to certain conditions by either plant type, plant mass, lights, etc. If you turn that around and dose ferts and do water changes it helps every setup regardless of plants, plant mass, light, etc. 

This would have been better off in the low-tech sub-forum, maybe under some sub-category titled 'Experiments' since when it's discussed here it seems like a general solution.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

I'm with both Klibs and Houseofcards above.

You know the funny thing about this thread is that I never knew anyone was desperate for a solution for growing crypts and swords with algae all over the substrate. Since you can throw them into a bucket by a window and they will grow, I never figured people were really spending much time trying to figure anything out.

For low light low tech set ups there is a great thread on this site:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...h-tank-show-tell-low-tech-can-lush-too-=.html

Lot's of examples of people with beautiful low tech tanks and the methodology they employ. I don't recall reading about red clay or the 16:1 ratio in any of the 133 pages.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Dane William said:


> Well, back to phosphate: I've been reading like crazy on the so called foliage ferting. It is correct that you can add ferts through the leaves though the mechanisms are not yet fully understood, but...
> 
> ...............
> 
> ...


My opinion, based on what others who know more about this than I do tell me, is that stem plants move to better growing sites by breaking off pieces, which then float away until they anchor again to the substrate. Many of those species tend to "rot" at the base, letting the tops break free. In order for this to work the plant has to be able to send out new roots from any node on the stem. Those roots are what lets the plants stay at the new site where growing conditions are good. The roots are therefore there to anchor the plants.

Many of the stem plants are also able to grow in swampy sites, emersed, not just in submersed sites. That requires that they be able to also use those roots as terrestrial plants do, so they do uptake nutrients through the roots.

As far as I can recall, all of the stem plants I have used grow aerial roots. Some grow a lot of them, some don't. Some grow them from every stem, others seem to grow them so the aren't exposed to the light. Some only grow occasional aerial roots.

I don't believe that aerial roots are a sign of a plant striving to get more nutrients.


----------



## Dane William (Oct 1, 2016)

Seems like you all agree with each other. I'll leave you in peace. Goodbye!


----------



## mik778866 (Aug 22, 2014)

Greggz said:


> For low light low tech set ups there is a great thread on this site:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...h-tank-show-tell-low-tech-can-lush-too-=.html
> 
> Lot's of examples of people with beautiful low tech tanks and the methodology they employ. I don't recall reading about red clay or the 16:1 ratio in any of the 133 pages.


Dont think the link is correct.

But ya. We dont appreciate the beauty, ease and savings of a low tech tank.


----------



## sfshrimp (May 24, 2016)

The result will be explosive growth. This is how you feed carnivorous plants with Seamax 16-16-16 - on the leaves via mist.



Hoppy said:


> It would be interesting to grow some aquatic plants that can be grown emersed, with inert substrate, like pool filter sand, and fertilize them entirely with a misted on water/fert mix. This should ensure that all nutrients are absorbed by the foliage, and not the roots. I haven't read anything I can recall where this was tried, so I can only guess, based on what I think I know, what the result will be.


----------

