# Walstad Method



## mrpixel (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm working on going through her book. I dove right to the lighting section as that was the part that I was most interested in and immediately found that what she was saying was inaccurate based on my previous research.
I researched lighting before I read her book and when I came across the section about par readings and saw that what she was saying didn't match up the science part of the research that I had done previously, I called up the techs at Apogee who manufacture par meters and are well known in the hobby for have accurate meters and knowledgeable staff. I went over with them the part in the book about her par readings and light and they agreed with me that what she was saying was untrue, and her readings and statements about there results where impossible. 
I tried to contact her in this regard to get her side of the story so I could see if I was missing something that they left out of the book that would make up for the fact that what she said was inaccurate, but she never responded. 
Thus I had to put all of her scientific research into the questionable / false science category. 

It just bothers me that she her method is so popular in the hobby and no one has bothered to vet her book and see if it is true.

Sorry for Highjacking your post.
Link to a post that also questions the use of organic potting soil. 
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=115170

In the link above, Tom Barr (who is a near God when It comes to aquaria) has several good post, comments, and links to articles that talk about what you are trying to do.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

mrpixel said:


> I'm working on going through her book. I dove right to the lighting section as that was the part that I was most interested in and immediately found that what she was saying was inaccurate based on my previous research.
> I researched lighting before I read her book and when I came across the section about par readings and saw that what she was saying didn't match up the science part of the research that I had done previously, I called up the techs at Apogee who manufacture par meters and are well known in the hobby for have accurate meters and knowledgeable staff. I went over with them the part in the book about her par readings and light and they agreed with me that what she was saying was untrue, and her readings and statements about there results where impossible.
> I tried to contact her in this regard to get her side of the story so I could see if I was missing something that they left out of the book that would make up for the fact that what she said was inaccurate, but she never responded.
> Thus I had to put all of her scientific research into the questionable / false science category.
> ...


What Isaac Newton said about the relationships between mass and velocity are not always true either, but we don't knock him for not knowing what Einstein figured out. The same is true for Walstad. She did her research and book writing before a lot of what is now known was known. It doesn't mean her method is wrong, just that there are some things that could now be added to it to improve it.


----------



## Fantastic5 (Aug 29, 2013)

There is plenty of evidence right here on this forum that her method works. My tanks are VERY low maintenance and beautiful to look at.


----------



## Ghosty (Mar 1, 2015)

shes just someone who has taken everyone else's experiances and ideas wrote a book and called them her own,

Anyone can put aquatic soil Capp it with fine gravel and put some plants in, 

People have been doing it for longer then she has with ponds her idea is nothing new at all

and natures been doing it even longer


----------



## Raymond S. (Dec 29, 2012)

+1 for Hoppy


----------



## mrpixel (Feb 28, 2012)

Hoppy said:


> What Isaac Newton said about the relationships between mass and velocity are not always true either, but we don't knock him for not knowing what Einstein figured out. The same is true for Walstad. She did her research and book writing before a lot of what is now known was known. It doesn't mean her method is wrong, just that there are some things that could now be added to it to improve it.



I understand what you are saying. 
If she had written this book in the late 80s or early 90s, I could agree with what you are saying as far as the lighting part of the book.
The first edition of this book was Published in 1999. I will consed the point that Lighting has come a long way since 1999 with the introduction of LEDs, but Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) has been known and Studied since the Late 60s if not earlier and we have had PAR Meters since the Late 80s. 
I purchased the 3rd edition of her book which was published in 2013.
If you have a new edition, it means that there where corrections, retractions or additions to the information which constituted a new edition vs a reprint of the first edition. 
So I can't agree with your argument as far as the lighting part of the book is concerned. 
As far as the Organic soil part goes. I haven't finished reading it so I couldn't say one way or another whether what she is saying is true or not. 

When reading a book that uses scientific data such as this book, I usually compare it against the data of other Proven scientific literature or peer review literature if nothing has been proven yet.

Why Follow one persons theory when it has been disproved further along the way.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

mrpixel said:


> Why Follow one persons theory when it has been disproved further along the way.


Walstad didn't propose a theory, she presented a well proven method for creating and maintaining a planted tank. She also didn't say it was the only way to go, just that it was a good way. So, if you want a "cookbook" for a planted tank, her book is one. You can try it, and if you find it doesn't meet your needs, you can try something else.


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

*My new Walstad style. natural planted nothing artificial added tank.*

Hello from England.

I saw this thread as a guest.. so thought i would join just to share my experience. short as it may be.

I have a 300 litre or 79 US gallon tank thats been running in a walstad style for 3 weeks now. (today March 11 is 21 days since the tank was set up - first fish added the following day)

what can I say? its been a success. so far.. though its still very early days. I had one slight hitch.. a very small Nitrite reading and Nitrate. I think.. because I had over done the fish population without enough fast growing plants. I did a water change and resolved that. added more plants including floaters. and soldiered on.

main thing to note.. is I have not read her book. I have used the pick and choose option while researching.. the research has been over a fairly long time. almost a year.

My results have been far beyond expectations.

No Cycle.
No Algae - beyond normal background.
No cloudiness/bacterial bloom.
No fish deaths.. nor any ''off colour"
New fish.. arriving stressed. were fully coloured and spawning within 24hrs.
Plant growth... excellent. with only two species not doing much. they were replaced today. after 3 weeks of doing not much at all.

One water change in 21 days - this is astonishing. Its one thing reading about this.. its quite another to experience it.

I do have a filter.. a canister. but this was new out of the box. just like the tank was.. in fact everything. My reason for having it being, I intend having more fish in this tank than a 'pure' Walstad can manage. It also makes sense to me. Im relying on the plants to maintain water purity.. and the plants plus the bacterial population across the entire system to take care of NH/NO. if the plants can't deal with it.. because there is simply too much. The filter will pick up the slack.

I produced my own soil. by mineralising it using the rinse dry and repeat method. so on first fill I had no tannin staining. no algae bloom.
I used top soil... the cheapest i could find. it held about 5% partially decayed wood and peat. all of which floated and was poured away during the preparation.
I figured doing this would effect the microbes - maybe kill some. so.. when the soil was put in the tank it was seeded with a small amount of dirt straight from my yard. not much.. but i didn't think it would take much. I did pick out anything that looked suspect. wood stone and bugs.

Although i admire planted tanks Ive seen.. especially the 'pampered style' Amano... etc. This doesnt interest me.. I want minimum intervention. I want a barely restrained riot. a jungle. kept under control to a degree.. but no proper 'gardening' No Rocks. or anything 3 dimensional above the gravel.. No interest in that. for me its all about the growing and living. rocks reduce water volume. IMO. 2 pieces of 3/4 buried Mopani wood.. acting as a barrier with 90% of the plants behind..also they're holding the vast bulk of the soil back too. the immediate foreground has virtually none. just gravel. with.. as you can maybe see a few exceptions, so its not entirely bare of plantlife.

So this... is how it looks today. day 21. excuse the piece of carrot on the bottom right. the Otos seem to enjoy Carrot... as some kind of aperitif maybe.










as for the fish.. its a Barb tank.. with Danios as a daily egg supply and Otos to help with any Algae.

species list so far

Pentazona Barbs x 16
Gold Barbs x 8
Cherry Barbs x 9
Checkered Barbs x 10
Zebra Danios x 8
Otocinclus x 6

I have stopped there.. to watch developments before the next stage. I want to see how this current population grows. how it looks. and then.. increase it further. I also want to add some specimens.. possibly Gouramis. species undecided so far.

as for more Barbs. I am ignoring the possibly trouble. Tigers, Black ruby and so on. but that still leaves plenty to choose from. more Pentazona - definitely.

Ive also not added any bottom feeders yet. the Barbs.. particularly the Cherry seems to spend a lot of time picking about in the gravel. so.. no need for dedicated bottom feeders just yet. i may change my mind.. especially if something irresistible appears at the store.

so.. thats me done for the day.

Cheers.


----------



## mrpixel (Feb 28, 2012)

Eutexian said:


> Hello from England.
> 
> I saw this thread as a guest.. so thought i would join just to share my experience. short as it may be.


Welcome. Glad to see you here.




Eutexian said:


> I produced my own soil. by mineralising it using the rinse dry and repeat method. so on first fill I had no tannin staining. no algae bloom.
> I used top soil... the cheapest i could find. it held about 5% partially decayed wood and peat. all of which floated and was poured away during the preparation.


This is a great way to go. That bark, wood, and peat are what break down and release ammonia over time. It's also what the store bought "Organic" soil is primarily composed of which is why it could be a bad idea to use. 
So you dodged a bullet there. 
I hope to do something similar as you.



Eutexian said:


> so.. when the soil was put in the tank it was seeded with a small amount of dirt straight from my yard. not much.. but i didn't think it would take much. I did pick out anything that looked suspect. wood stone and bugs.


If you where lucky, your yard dirt contains at least some worm poop which is great for planted tanks. I've heard of people who purchase it and mix it in with there dirt before planting there tank. A great fertilizer.




Eutexian said:


>



What a Beautiful looking tank. Great Job.


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

mrpixel said:


> Welcome. Glad to see you here.
> 
> 
> This is a great way to go. That bark, wood, and peat are what break down and release ammonia over time. It's also what the store bought "Organic" soil is primarily composed of which is why it could be a bad idea to use.
> ...


Thank you very much.

just on the soil underlayer,

Its probably the biggest change i made from Walstad. Forgive me if Im wrong - but I understand that she recommends for American/Canadians. "Miracle Grow Organic" and for us on this side of the pond "John Innes no.3". I followed the experiences reported in blogs and forums of a lot of people who had used "M-G" and saw time after time the problems they had.

lots of floating material
Algae Blooms
Cloudiness.. possibly bacterial blooms.
Severe Tannin staining

None of which is a deal breaker as such..but it seemed to me from the 'looks of the water', aesthetic appearance - point of view. plus the obvious downside of a tank flooded with an explosion of Algae. either green water or growth on the substrate or plants and glass. That this was not the route to take.

John Innes. here in the UK isn't a brand. its a recipe. people go to garden supplies stores and buy it.. it could be made by anyone. but you'll know exactly whats in it regardless. its soil based. I didn't bother with it because the local garden store only had huge sacks.. far more than i would need. They had a very basic top soil.. with no additives whatsoever. so I grabbed a big bag of that. weighed maybe 20lbs. I can't remember exactly. Mineralising meant it lost maybe 5-10%. of its bulk.. all stuff that floated. and a few larger bits of wood.

I read, again and again that mineralising was a much better way forward. theres some effort involved. It takes a few days to do. but I thought that little sacrifice was more than worthwhile.. and the end result kinda proves it was.

Ive had none of the problems listed above.

It doesn't seem to have affected the 'goodness' of the soil in any way. In 3 weeks Ive seen plants triple in size. even the slower growing have put out new leaves and increased. Only two species.. out of probably 20+ 10 individual plants out of 100+ weren't successful. they didn't die.. they just didn't do anything. when i took them out the roots had increased. but not the green parts.. or not much. not enough.

so.. all in all using this modified top soil has been a resounding success and I recommend it to everyone. 

Because it started off as a very ordinary top soil from uncontaminated ground, It comes complete with worm casts. I imagine it was alive with them originally.

my only addition was a good handful of laterite to provide a steady and slow source of Iron. My water is on the hard side.. so no need for any extra calcium.

and as I mentioned.. but it bears repeating a small amount of soil fresh from my own (chemical free) garden.. just to add a living population of bacteria to bring the processed soil back to its original state. I reckoned all the soaking and drying might have affected that. it was my own very minor innovation.


As for the tank as it is now. its only 3 weeks old.. I intend leaving it another 5 or 6. and then steadily reducing the number of faster growing species. like Elodea and so on. because by then the slower growers will have grown enough to make them irrelevant. and although plants like that will always have a place in this tank. i don't want many of them.. because i don't want to have to keep on cutting them back. As I mentioned i want a jungle.. a riot of plants.. but also I still want to be able to observe the fish and not be a full time gardener.


cheers.


----------



## beefcks (Jan 30, 2015)

FreakyFishes said:


> I'm going to be starting a 20gallon tall Walstad tank soon. Has anyone come across any good Walstad threads? I've been trying to read up on it as much as possible to understand the science of it.
> 
> I appreciate the symbiotic nature of the fish and the plants and the soil and prefer this method over technological intervention such as CO2 injection and dosing with chemical fertilizers, although there certainly is nothing wrong with that method.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.





Fantastic5 said:


> There is plenty of evidence right here on this forum that her method works. My tanks are VERY low maintenance and beautiful to look at.


 Here is evidence of it working


----------



## zozo (Dec 28, 2014)

mrpixel said:


> I researched lighting before I read her book and when I came across the section about par readings and saw that what she was saying didn't match up the science part of the research that I had done previously...


What specific section are you referring to? I just got her book in Kindle format and didn't see anything about par readings. Maybe I missed it.


----------



## lochaber (Jan 23, 2012)

mrpixel said:


> This is a great way to go. That bark, wood, and peat are what break down and release ammonia over time. It's also what the store bought "Organic" soil is primarily composed of which is why it could be a bad idea to use.
> So you dodged a bullet there.
> I hope to do something similar as you.


A bit of a generalization, but ammonia comes from proteins breaking down, and there aren't many proteins (or nitrogen in general) in wood, bark, and peat. Wood, bark, and peat (I think, I'm less certain on peat...), are primarily cellulose and lignin, and are mostly carbon. When they break down, they release tannins and humic acids, and this is why the water gets darker and more acidic. When they break down enough, you end up with humus, the organic part of soil, and it's got a lot of good qualities (moisture holding, high CEC, and a bunch of other stuff I can't remember right now).

I've sifted my bag of MGOCPM, but I had set up a tank with unsifted first, and after a few months, some of the chunks of bark/twigs surfaced. Didn't look bad in the setup at the time, but I didn't want to deal with it in future setups, so I sifted them out.


----------



## Aplomado (Feb 20, 2013)

A friend used MGOCPM. We have basic water. It dropped the ph to about 6... he replaced it with mineralized soil. It did grow plants well, but made the ph to low.


----------



## mrpixel (Feb 28, 2012)

zozo said:


> What specific section are you referring to? I just got her book in Kindle format and didn't see anything about par readings. Maybe I missed it.


Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), or photosynthetic photon flux (PPF), is the spectral range (wave band) of solar radiation from 400 to 700 nanometers that photosynthetic organisms are able to use in the process of photosynthesis. A Par meter measures (µmol m-2 s-1) Micromoles per square meter per second. which is used commonly to describe PAR in the 400-700 nm waveband.

Diana reference µmol/m-2/s/ in her book Which is PAR in layman terms.
On page 147 a question was asked how do you convert µmol/m-2/s/ (PAR) to Lux to which she responded "There is no way to precisely convert PAR to LUX. Here is a Link that shows exactly how to convert PPF (PAR) to Lux.
This wasn't what I was referencing in my original post it bothers me that she says that it isn't easy when it is. How simple is Multiply the PPF (PAR) by the noted conversion factor to get Lux?

Page 181 talks about PAR and Light Spectrum. She hypothesized that aquatic plants have evolved to use the green and yellow spectrum fairly efficently. Which contradicts her sources and goes against decades of research proving the opposite. 
This shows an Aquatic Light Chart which she sites as a reference. When I looked into her sighting, I found that that article that she sighted was sighting the same chart and information from someone else. Following the rabbit trail, I found the original author of the par readings and creator of the chart (Spence, D.H.N "Light and plant response in fresh water" 1975) Spence is the author, put I can't find the referenced literature except when being sighted in other articles. So there isn't any way to actually verify that the original information was correct. 
When I called the Manufacturers of the my PAR meter who also sell Spectroradiometer (Used to define the spectrum from a given light source) They said that the Chart I was describing was highly unlikely to be accurate because of the analog technology that they where using back then.
The Charts are also inconsistent with current data that shows that the blue spectrum penetrates water the best and should thus how up on chart as a significant spike on the blue spectrum.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

mrpixel said:


> Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), or photosynthetic photon flux (PPF), is the spectral range (wave band) of solar radiation from 400 to 700 nanometers that photosynthetic organisms are able to use in the process of photosynthesis. A Par meter measures (µmol m-2 s-1) Micromoles per square meter per second. which is used commonly to describe PAR in the 400-700 nm waveband.
> 
> Diana reference µmol/m-2/s/ in her book Which is PAR in layman terms.
> On page 147 a question was asked how do you convert µmol/m-2/s/ (PAR) to Lux to which she responded "There is no way to precisely convert PAR to LUX. Here is a Link that shows exactly how to convert PPF (PAR) to Lux.
> This wasn't what I was referencing in my original post it bothers me that she says that it isn't easy when it is. How simple is Multiply the PPF (PAR) by the noted conversion factor to get Lux?


She is correct. There is no way to accurately convert lux to PAR or vice versa. There are some published correction factors, but they are only approximate.


> Page 181 talks about PAR and Light Spectrum. She hypothesized that aquatic plants have evolved to use the green and yellow spectrum fairly efficently. Which contradicts her sources and goes against decades of research proving the opposite.
> This shows an Aquatic Light Chart which she sites as a reference. When I looked into her sighting, I found that that article that she sighted was sighting the same chart and information from someone else. Following the rabbit trail, I found the original author of the par readings and creator of the chart (Spence, D.H.N "Light and plant response in fresh water" 1975) Spence is the author, put I can't find the referenced literature except when being sighted in other articles. So there isn't any way to actually verify that the original information was correct.


 I think she is wrong about plants evolving to use yellow and green light. The sun's spectrum is heavily loaded with infrared and red light, even though the water vapor in the atmosphere absorbs a lot of it. The sun also gives us a lot of ultraviolet and near ultraviolet, which plants use, if only to attract pollinators.


> When I called the Manufacturers of the my PAR meter who also sell Spectroradiometer (Used to define the spectrum from a given light source) They said that the Chart I was describing was highly unlikely to be accurate because of the analog technology that they where using back then.
> The Charts are also inconsistent with current data that shows that the blue spectrum penetrates water the best and should thus how up on chart as a significant spike on the blue spectrum.


I don't have that chart handy, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

On the green light thing; you might want to google/read this paper "Green light drives leaf photosynthesis more efficiently than red light in strong white light" and also google "importance of green and blue light in plant physiology" 

There are a number of papers published that show plants do use green light despite being green. That being said, those studies are done on terrestrial plants as are most studies so discussing low light aquatics might be a very different case.


----------



## dcutl002 (Apr 8, 2014)

I recently purchased her book about 6 months ago and I love it. There are a lot of scientific terms that are above my head, but I do my best to understand what she says. I have also been watching Dustin's Fish Tank videos on YouTube who is a huge fan of Walstad. Justin has wrote his own version of the Walstad method, so that may be worth looking into. Overall, I think Diana proposes a good method that let's nature do it's thing and function in a balanced ecosystem that is relatively inexpensive and less work than say the EI method.


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

mrpixel said:


> I will *consed* the point


You can't pass judgement on someone entirely based upon one flaw.

While I don't practice her method, it's been proven by many hobbyists to work for them over the past 16 years. One would be foolish to write her off entirely.


----------



## mrpixel (Feb 28, 2012)

scapegoat said:


> You can't pass judgement on someone entirely based upon one flaw.
> 
> While I don't practice her method, it's been proven by many hobbyists to work for them over the past 16 years. One would be foolish to write her off entirely.


I've said in previous posts that I have only looked at the parts of the book regarding lighting. I won't pass judgement on the other parts as I haven't finished reading them and vetting her sources and material. 

It just bothered me that the one part that I did read was inaccurate and partly wrong.

Bump:


Hoppy said:


> She is correct. There is no way to accurately convert lux to PAR or vice versa. There are some published correction factors, but they are only approximate.


Where did you read that the conversion factors where approximate? I would be more than happy if you could provide me the article or source to read. I'm always looking for new information.


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

mrpixel said:


> It just bothered me that the one part that I did read was inaccurate and partly wrong.


Friendly suggestion. Don't let it bother you. I think Im correct in saying her book has undergone at least 2 revisions.

If you have found an error. contact her... its not difficult. and point it out. Assuming you're correct - it will be fixed for the next edition.. Walstad is a serious scientist and Im assuming will not allow an error of any magnitude to continue into future revised editions. Im guessing she has not finished with this book as it continues to sell.


easy as that.

Cheers.


----------



## Qwe (Jul 8, 2013)

+1 Eutexian

Also, I'm pretty sure, as others have alluded to, Walstad did not claim this method as her own. She simply documented her findings and wrote a book about methods that worked for her. It's been hobbyists that have gone on to label the method "Walstad".

FreakFishes - There is a whole section dedicated to the method on another forum, where they call it "natural planted tank": http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/
Great threads/stickies there to read up one.


----------



## mrpixel (Feb 28, 2012)

Eutexian said:


> Friendly suggestion. Don't let it bother you. I think Im correct in saying her book has undergone at least 2 revisions.
> 
> If you have found an error. contact her... its not difficult. and point it out. Assuming you're correct - it will be fixed for the next edition.. Walstad is a serious scientist and Im assuming will not allow an error of any magnitude to continue into future revised editions. Im guessing she has not finished with this book as it continues to sell.
> 
> ...



There are 3 editions so far. 

Thinking about it, I guess the reason I say it bothers me is not so much the fact that the book has issues, but that so many people are recommending it and praising it as such a good book when the first thing I read in it was questionably wrong. 
Its the whole perpetuating ignorance. 

I said in my original post that once I validated my concerns with the manufactors, I attempted to contact her multiple times via email raising my concerns with sections of the book, and asked her if there was something that I was over looking that addressed them or if I was just miss understanding something. 
She never contacted me back.
We will have to see if she addresses it or not in the next edition/revision.


----------



## mrpixel (Feb 28, 2012)

Qwe said:


> +1 Eutexian
> 
> 
> FreakFishes - There is a whole section dedicated to the method on another forum, where they call it "natural planted tank": http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/
> Great threads/stickies there to read up one.


I'll definetly have to check this out. 
Thanks.


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

mrpixel said:


> There are 3 editions so far.
> I attempted to contact her multiple times via email raising my concerns with sections of the book.... She never contacted me back.


This doesn't surprise me either.. she must get bombarded. "multiple times" was probably where you went wrong. 

FWIW she didn't reply to multiple emails from "Practical Fishkeeping" magazine here in the UK either.



> Editorial comment
> "I've tried contacting Walstad several times. Her methodology is interesting though represents a time from the past to many."


Shameful schoolboy spelling.. but hey ho. I had to laugh when I read that, Seems to me they have forgotten that the word "Practical" is in the title of their much read magazine.


----------



## BrynnaCC (Jan 5, 2014)

I've had three Walstad tanks going for over a year using MGOC with a 60% water change once every three months. They have been extremely successful, the only "problem" being tannins, which can be easily remedied with water changes. Chemistry looks great (Ammonia: 0, Nitrites: 0, Nitrates < 20), no algae, fish are thriving, and my dry start Walstad shrimp tank is still successfully growing HC with no CO2. I can't recommend this method enough.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

mrpixel said:


> I've said in previous posts that I have only looked at the parts of the book regarding lighting. I won't pass judgement on the other parts as I haven't finished reading them and vetting her sources and material.
> 
> It just bothered me that the one part that I did read was inaccurate and partly wrong.
> 
> ...


I don't go entirely by what I read where lux, PAR, lumens, and other light intensity issues are concerned. I have spent about 3 years working on light measurement - trying to design a really cheap way to measure light in PAR units instead of spending $350 on a PAR meter. As a result I had to learn a lot about the subject.

Lux meters measure the light with it filtered so as to roughly match human eye sensitivity. That is the definition of lux. That means a lux meter measures mostly green and yellow light. But, once you get away from standard fluorescent lights, the spectrum of light produced by an aquarium light is very variable. Two different "cool white" LED lights, for example, can have different spectrums. Now, if you look at the more expensive LED lights you find big differences in spectrum. Some produce a lot of their light in areas of the spectrum that a lux meter filters out. And, the degree to which they do this varies from light to light. With just that information it isn't possible to have a single conversion factor from lux to PAR units. Today's 6700K T5 light is very likely not to have the same spectrum as todays 10,000K T5 light, let alone the pink planted tank T5 bulbs. No one could determine an accurate conversion factor for every single version of just T5 bulbs. Again, it isn't possible to have an accurate conversion factor. Then, there is sunlight, a constant - except that it isn't a constant. If it is hazy, or slightly cloudy, or in the shade of trees, etc. the spectrum for that "sunlight" is different. So, even a single conversion factor for sunlight can't possibly be accurate.

Fortunately, it isn't at all necessary to know with any accuracy what the light intensity in our tanks is, in PAR units. It actually varies widely from point to point in our planted tanks anyway.


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

BrynnaCC said:


> I've had three Walstad tanks going for over a year using MGOC with a 60% water change once every three months. They have been extremely successful, the only "problem" being tannins, which can be easily remedied with water changes.


You can remove tannins easily and permanently without water changes. By adding a bag of Purigen. Mine is at the very final stage of the filter.. I had a pretty slight tannin problem this cured it and continues to control it; completely.

fwiw.. my tank is almost exclusively populated with Barb species. I did a water change in the second week. I over reacted to a Nitrite spike.. my own fault for moving too quickly with stocking the tank before the plant 'biomass' was large enough to cope... and the filter not running optimally. The fish were largely unaffected by this change aside from one species. Desmopuntius pentazona - the males lost their rosy pink glow and this took a week to return. Not a disaster by any means but i found it, not exactly disturbing but very telling. Im not in any hurry to do another and the next will not be anything like the same magnitude. The water change was about 60%.

I see no purpose to performing water changes at all so long as the conditions remain as they are. Nitrate levels in my tap water are higher than in the tank!! so theres nothing to be gained on that side of the equation. Excess 'toxins' will be removed from the environment as and when the plants are pruned or removed entirely. so why add more? The analysis of my tap water is mind boggling.. with a trace of arsenic being one of the stand-outs on the list.

Any future water changes will be minor. maybe 10%. 30 litres out of 300 and as infrequent as my innate paranoia allows.


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

just though you might be interested to see my tank as it is now.. at 10 weeks of age. been some fairly big changes.

the most stark difference between now.. and the photo i posted earlier in this thread is the clarity of the water and how 'black' the rear wall now looks. its settling down nicely.

still a jungle of course.


----------



## Fishumms (Apr 21, 2010)

Here is my Walstad 55 gallon tank. I have had it running for over 2 years. Just do a water change once a week.


----------



## DavidZ (Nov 17, 2009)

Looks like I will need to add more plants, lol
Sounds like that's the key to find balance.


----------



## HDBenson (Jan 26, 2015)

Since we're finally showing NPTs on this thread... please disregard the residual greenwater...


----------



## DHElder (Apr 18, 2015)

Fishumms said:


> Here is my Walstad 55 gallon tank. I have had it running for over 2 years. Just do a water change once a week.


I thought the idea behind the Walstad method was that the tank setup balanced itself for the most part and water changes should be done minimally. Maybe twice a year.


----------



## Mariostg (Sep 6, 2014)

DHElder said:


> I thought the idea behind the Walstad method was that the tank setup balanced itself for the most part and water changes should be done minimally. Maybe twice a year.


It is the idea. and that is the practice I follow. So far I am at 10 months, no water change. Today, while installing an HOB planter in my little 15 gal I realized that the canister filter had been unplugged. It's probably been a month. No water change, no filter, looks like plants did their job. Mind you there are lots of emersed plants (Forget me not).


----------



## Akwaskape (May 5, 2015)

All my tanks are walstad, I think Diana referred in her book that early water changes could by useful to mitigate the very high initial ammonia release. But apologies if I missed it earlier in the thread but I think the breaking down of organic matter benefits the tank by releasing co2. And helps the tank grow quicker early on hence pulling the excess nutrients from the water. Imo it's not important what in the soil nutrient wise as this will build from overfeeding. It's the porous properties of dirt/soil that lends itself to this method. Along with soils vast surface area. 

Sustainable Aquaria


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

Akwaskape said:


> All my tanks are walstad, I think Diana referred in her book that early water changes could by useful to mitigate the very high initial ammonia release.


I believe she now favours using MTS to prevent this.



Akwaskape said:


> it's not important what in the soil nutrient wise as this will build from overfeeding. It's the porous properties of dirt/soil that lends itself to this method. Along with soils vast surface area.


Any terrestrial soil will be vastly more nutrient rich than most 'natural' aquatic soils.. even post mineralisation. So regardless whether the soil is dug up or bought the 'nutrient' content will be huge.

also, you missed out what is probably *the* most vital component in soil.. its bacteria. the food left over from overfeeding will only be processed if the heterotrophs are there waiting for it. similarly the bacteria involved in the nitrogen cycle.. without them it can definitely be less than satisfactory in the early days. They migrate from the soil and populate the entire tank. Producing nitrates which some plants require as part of the 'mix'. These bacteria also help support the tank while the plants decide that this is a nice place to live and grow. In my own aquarium, the plants essentially did nothing for the first week and then practically exploded into life.

because 'top soil' sold here in the Uk is generally 'sterile' my advice to anyone embarking on this kind of set up is. 1. mineralise the soil. and 2. when you came to set it up - add a little 'live' soil from a garden, it doesn't take much. for my 300L i added a handful of fresh soil from my own garden that was just sieved to remove stones and bugs.

since day 1 I haven't had a single 'positive' test result for Ammonia.

fish plants and bacteria - all thriving.


----------



## Akwaskape (May 5, 2015)

I dont think top soil in the uk is sterile, it's been sitting in garden centres. Bacteria don't take long to get going again. Although that's interesting, will have a re read as i dont remember the bacteria bit in the soil in the book. Although def the garden soil is about as far as I would go, not feeling the whole add extra stuff to it. I can only talk from experience best result I have had is top soil straight from the bag.

Sustainable Aquaria


----------



## Akwaskape (May 5, 2015)

@Eutexian that's part of the beauty of the Walstad. Stick to a few basic rules of do's and loads of do nots and your pretty much there. Appreciate the theory for sure, but im more on the practical side. I kinda do what I do by sticking to the rules and it's worked for me. What's your view on capping? Material, depth etc.

Also I should have been clearer, and actually included the point I was trying to make lol about its not important about what's in the soil. I took is as given that garden soil / top soil was nutrient rich, the point was I can't see the benefit of adding extra nutrient like some people do into the soil at start up or even worrying about it. It's more about what the soil including all that it comes with can do.

Thanks for the clarification 👍😊

Sustainable Aquaria


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

Akwaskape said:


> What's your view on capping? Material, depth etc.


i took a fairly different tack so far as capping went, the general advisory is small gravel - large enough to allow the water to 'move' - but small enough to act as an 'anti-floater' cap. I didn't like the idea of that. moreso because as well as a 'natural' tank from the way it works.. i also wanted it to look natural 'as is'. So I used two types of gravel a much larger than usual one and a smaller. the vast majority of the cap is this larger type.. with smaller scattered here and there and thats more about holding some of the stem plants in place until they rooted than any other reason. the water gets down into the soil sub-layer far more easily i think.. and the variation in gravel size looks more 'natural' to me.. also these bigger gaps between the gravel stones allows the 'stuff' to get down out of sight much more quickly where the bacteria can break it down. I mineralised the soil so nothing has ever floated. I had a fairly minor yellow cast to the water for the first week or two - but that vanished.

I added nothing to the soil aside from a little laterite placed directly on the glass. i have fairly hard water so iron toxicity wasnt something i needed to worry about.

The overall depth of the substrate is a little under 3" and is 'flat' from front to rear.. no slope up to the back. I have nothing 'structural' in the tank, no rocks or wood branches etc aside from two pieces of mopani wood that are half buried and act as a barrier... soil behind. no soil in front. so, its easier for me to keep the very front of the tank looking nice and clean. thats pure vanity though.

My next tank is going to be rather different in practically every respect. But, I'll leave discussing that till nearer the time.


----------



## Akwaskape (May 5, 2015)

Thanks, new project  

Sustainable Aquaria


----------



## Fishumms (Apr 21, 2010)

DHElder said:


> I thought the idea behind the Walstad method was that the tank setup balanced itself for the most part and water changes should be done minimally. Maybe twice a year.


I don't know really. It's been about 5 years since I read the book, and the tank does not strictly follow the method. I have 2 canister filters on it, not powerheads. I wanted to be able to have a lot of fish. The tank also isn't completely full of dirt. It is actually in pots with the plants in them. They are buried and hidden behind the driftwood. Also, even without water changes I'd have to put in about 10 gallons a week due to evaporation anyway. Freaking air conditioning. It's not even under direct air movement.


----------



## Eutexian (Mar 11, 2015)

Akwaskape said:


> I dont think top soil in the uk is sterile, it's been sitting in garden centres.


Yes.. in sealed poly bags. maybe some garden centres sell it 'loose' but not that Ive seen, the bag i bought and others Ive seen were all marked 'sterilised' - people get a bit upset when they buy top soil and find its full of weed seeds and non-beneficial insects - thats the justification for sterilising it as far as I can tell. and whatever process they use.. if its 'savage' enough to kill seeds as well as insect life - then the bacteria aren't going to come off well either I would have thought.

I suppose you can wait for airborne bacteria carried on dust particles etc to get into the 'system' - but as Walstad recommends 'organic' and therefore 'Live' soil/compost. adding some from the garden to 'inoculate' the soil made good sense to me. It doesn't take much, I have read that every cubic cm harbours billions and of various families. it seemed right to add as many types as possible, from natural soil as it seems likely that some, perhaps most - wont survive being drowned.


----------

