# Mineralized soil substrate vs "Wormstrate"



## solution7 (Oct 29, 2008)

Wow that looks like a good idea. I might try this I am about to change over my 29g from and African tank to a planted aquarium and I have almost no resources left $ after redoing my 65g this week. I hope to try this. It looks like the worm castings would be less time consuming than mineralizing soil.. I am very interested in this idea


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

solution7 said:


> Wow that looks like a good idea. I might try this I am about to change over my 29g from and African tank to a planted aquarium and I have almost no resources left $ after redoing my 65g this week. I hope to try this. It looks like the worm castings would be less time consuming than mineralizing soil.. I am very interested in this idea


You might find this thread interesting. 
http://www.barrreport.com/co2-aquatic-plant-fertilization/4319-diy-substrate.html

It is no secret that I tend to be a strong follower of Tom Barr as IME I have observed a lot of what he states seems to be true based on my observations of tanks I have set up based on his advice. Worm castings are an alternative to mineralized topsoil, whether they work as well is another story. I would love to set up two tanks side by side to test, but space is really limited in my home to set up another tank, so I pretty much have to go with one method or another and since I started mineralizing some topsoil I will stick with the toposoil.


----------



## fish dork (Jan 13, 2008)

I will let you know what I find out... when I do the next teardown I'm planning on using coco peat (inert) mixed with worm castings, capped with gravel. This was on the advice of a local hygro shop worker.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

fish dork said:


> I will let you know what I find out... when I do the next teardown I'm planning on using coco peat (inert) mixed with worm castings, capped with gravel. This was on the advice of a local hygro shop worker.


Cool.... reallyLooking forward to that. By the way, I love your 80 gallon as per your signature.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Sounds to me like it would lead to GW battles due to the super-high organic content, but I'm really interested to see how it works out so please keep us posted!


----------



## fish dork (Jan 13, 2008)

I think the GW is a pretty good possiblity, but... I'm going to try it anyway. GW can be killed anyway. After a while is there any algae that we don't experience? I think I've had them all LOL!

And Homer: Thanks!


----------



## krisw (Nov 24, 2004)

I just found this thread... I'm the guy referred to in the first post who did this experiment. Currently, I have a 40G aquarium that's been setup with earthworm castings/sand/clay/dolomite/potash underneath ADA Amazonia that was used for 1-2 years, and was basically depleted of its initial load of nutrients. 

I've also setup a 50G aquarium similarly, except with fresh aquasoil. 

So, far, my observations are mixed. In both tanks, I underwent a period of hair/thread algae, but never green water. This is not so different from many of the experiences I've witnessed in soil setups. Currently, my 40G aquarium is algae free. I dose iron/traces and a little bit of K every once in awhile, but never N or P. I'm surprised that the traces are required, but that probably has as much to do with my original worm castings as anything. I made the castings myself, in a worm bin fed by kitchen scraps. It's probably a case of what goes in, comes out, and maybe the veggies/fruits I was adding were more heavily weighted in some micro-nutrients than others. Again, this is a theory. You might get totally different results with commercially bought earthworm castings. 

Now, from a number of experiences relayed to be by fellow GWAPA members who run soil tanks, I do believe that they can become somewhat deficient in one nutrient or another. Usually, the recommended cure is to add a very small piece of a Jobe stick underneath the deficient plant. I haven't yet tried this approach in my tank. 

So, my results thus far have eliminated the need for N+P, but haven't eliminated dosing altogether. The plants would probably do better in my tank if I went on vacation for 2 weeks, than a tank with purely a commercial substrate because they could get some nutrients, but for peak plant condition and growth speed, dosing is required. (Soil tanks also grow plants slower and smaller than dosing tanks.)

Good luck, and let me know if anyone else tries this.


----------



## fish dork (Jan 13, 2008)

I had forgotten about this thread! I'll have to subscribe. I now have finished reseting my tank and the substrate is earthworm castings, coco peat, dolomite, potash and clay capped with black gravel. I can't say much for the results yet, it's about a week in. I am seeing hygro deficiencies (polysperma) and have started dosing the water coloum as well. This is a very fast growing plant and I'm not suprised to see it showing issues, I think I'll have to dose ferts with hygros in the tank. I am seeing growth on the crypts and the microsword is throwing out runners. On another note, I'm pretty sure I have a pregnant Otto in there at the moment too.


----------



## krisw (Nov 24, 2004)

Fish dork, how's the earthworm castings substrate doing for you after 3 weeks?


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

So where do you get the worm casting substrate?


----------



## fish dork (Jan 13, 2008)

Whoops! I missed this thread lately! The tank is doing pretty well although I am still dosing the water column as well, using the EI method. I started with lean dosing of dry ferts and had green spot algae growing on everything... it's starting to get better since I went back to the EI method. I am seeing excellent growth with the heavy root feeders, swords and crypts. The stem plants were suffering and showing signs of deficiencies (that's when I started dosing the column again) and are now recovering and showing nice new full leaves. I am also battling BGA at the moment but that is another story.

Hilde: I bought the worm castings from a local Hydroponic shop, as well as the coco peat that is mixed in with it.

And good news! No GW yet! I think the gravel cap does a decent job of keeping the nutrients in the bottom of the tank. When I test the water coloumn I don't see huge amounts of nutrients leaching into it. 

When I filled the tank and started planting a lot of the coco peat came up and I thought it may have been a really big mistake using it but after a few weeks it appeared to have soaked up enough water to stay under the gravel. When I disturb it now it stays where it is.


----------



## krisw (Nov 24, 2004)

Just like soil substrate, it's a DIY substrate. You should be able to get earthworm castings at your local hardware stores/garden center around now since gardening season is nearly upon us. Otherwise, I make my own, keeping a container of earthworms and occasionally adding vegetable scraps, shredded newspaper, etc. Google 'worm composting' for more information on making your own.


----------



## JDowns (Mar 6, 2008)

Hilde said:


> So where do you get the worm casting substrate?


I use WormGold Plus from a local nursery. Any nursery should carry some type of wormcastings.


----------



## TheCryptKeeper (Mar 9, 2008)

J.. do you have any pics of your tank with it? I would love to see it!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I think this became popular when a few brazilian folks started using it with CO2.
They just had sand alone and things like KNO3,KH2PO4, etc are harder to find etc. So adding a nutrient rich sediment becomes a better trade off and you get much nicer results since there's no ADA AS, or water column dosing nutrients etc, and the old myths like add things to sediment and you will not get algae, old timers using the sediments, old books suggesting it etc are very strong............

So if you have two options, say some sediment nutrient sources vs plain old sand...........of course you will get better rave results with more nutrients.
However, where they are located are less meaningful than Soil, ADA, WC proponents like to suggest.

Plants don't care, they are opportunistic.
Algae don't care, they grow well in either case and a not "limited".

It's much more a plantgrowth issue and what is easier for us as aquarist growing plants.

So, adding nutriens to both the the water column AND the water column makes the most sense, and it's easy adding ferts. The heachaches are high light and CO2, not the ferts. They are easy.

Adding ferts to both the sediment and water column allows you to get more life out of the sediment, and makes the consistency dosing to the water column less critical. You also can add ferts to both locations so that plants do not need to do any transport energy for nutrient allocation, it's right there whether it's a root or a shoot.

Additionally, this hokey business about plants prefer this nutrient or that nutrient in the root or water column, is satisfied no matter what species or preference you care to cook up.

So using both methods, not trying to BS your way to one vs the other baloney seems far more logical and a good dose of common sense.

Some still think that lower nutrients in the water column are the key to algae, so they suggest such methods and fall back on myths that cannot possibly be correct. Water column only folks think "why change"? but they can have gains as well and make their method easier/better with little effort. Same for sediment only folks. 

I think if you focus on plants, not worrying about all the agae myths and baloney, you fair much better and can see things more logically. When the plant nutrients, CO2 etc are not addressed, that's when you get algae, so focus there.

A number of the SFBAAPS folks used the WC, it was hot for about 1-2 years, now few folks do it. These days, they are on the mineralized top soil kick. Tomorrow , who know...........?

The basics are still there, this is not new stuff, the concepts and general notions have been here for a long time. They boil the WC for 10-15 minute to oxidize the oragnic matter and NH4 to NO3, this can be done with any soil for that matter, or you can do it with bacteria and water, shallow pan for 3-4 weeks, or do the Dry start method which will do the same thing.

WC work pretty well, like many things sediment, it has a limited life span, you can increase that by adding water column ferts. Same is true for the nutrient effects of ADA AS.

You can also add Osmocoat etc, which is a longer term nutrient source that's pretty stable as far rate of nutrient release and really cheap.

Peat etc......

You get the idea.

Regards, 
Tom Barr




















But that's not the issue, the issue is how to


----------



## TheCryptKeeper (Mar 9, 2008)

Tom,
Is there a recommended dosage when using the topsoil? Do you still dose everyday like a regular water column dosing regiment, or can you get away with a few times a week?


----------



## JDowns (Mar 6, 2008)

Torpedobarb said:


> J.. do you have any pics of your tank with it? I would love to see it!


You can see a progression in my album in my profile. The actual write-up is on Tom's site. I haven't updated a photo in a few weeks been busy planning and redoing the plumbing. Also removed a few stem species and replaced with others.


----------



## TheCryptKeeper (Mar 9, 2008)

I am going to check it out!


----------



## TheCryptKeeper (Mar 9, 2008)

I looked it over and I like the results that you have.. especially as quickly as it took off!


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

Torpedobarb said:


> Tom,
> Is there a recommended dosage when using the topsoil? Do you still dose everyday like a regular water column dosing regiment, or can you get away with a few times a week?


When I run out of Flourish comprehensive. I am going to try it with just dosing KNO3 in the water column.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

JDowns said:


> You can see a progression in my album in my profile. The actual write-up is on Tom's site.


Could you give a link to it?


----------



## JDowns (Mar 6, 2008)

Here


----------



## smoq (Feb 19, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> I think this became popular when a few brazilian folks started using it with CO2.
> They just had sand alone and things like KNO3,KH2PO4, etc are harder to find etc. So adding a nutrient rich sediment becomes a better trade off and you get much nicer results since there's no ADA AS, or water column dosing nutrients etc, and the old myths like add things to sediment and you will not get algae, old timers using the sediments, old books suggesting it etc are very strong............
> 
> So if you have two options, say some sediment nutrient sources vs plain old sand...........of course you will get better rave results with more nutrients.
> ...


Thank you for a great explanation. I'd like to start a 75g tank very soon and I'd like to start it right from the beginning (substrate-wise). I read a lot about mineralized topsoil and that was the way I wanted to do my tank, but I have no space at my apartment to mineralize the soil, so do you think worm castings would be a fair alternative to the soil?


----------



## krisw (Nov 24, 2004)

In my experience, when dosing a soil or worm-castings based tank, you're trying to fill the gap that you may be missing the substrate. In my case, I had plenty of N/P in the substrate, but I found that it was beneficial to supplement potassium and traces to get nicer looking stem plants. Each experience should be very specific, however, depending on the makeup/sources of the original wormcastings or soil. I made my own wormcastings, so I suspect they're quite different than ones produced commercially. 

The nice thing about rich substrates is that the plants aren't as dependent on as in dosing-only schemes. In theory, you should be able to go on vacation without worrying about your entire tank crashing. Of course that depends on how demanding the plants you're keeping are, but they should be able to pull most of the nutrients they need from the soil while your gone.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (May 10, 2007)

krisw said:


> In my experience, when dosing a soil or worm-castings based tank, you're trying to fill the gap that you may be missing the substrate. In my case, I had plenty of N/P in the substrate, but I found that it was beneficial to supplement potassium and traces to get nicer looking stem plants. Each experience should be very specific, however, depending on the makeup/sources of the original wormcastings or soil. I made my own wormcastings, so I suspect they're quite different than ones produced commercially.
> 
> The nice thing about rich substrates is that the plants aren't as dependent on as in dosing-only schemes. In theory, you should be able to go on vacation without worrying about your entire tank crashing. Of course that depends on how demanding the plants you're keeping are, but they should be able to pull most of the nutrients they need from the soil while your gone.


Hey, Krisw just wanted to say, thanks for sharing your experience and observations. The issue of water column dosing vs no dosing with mineralized substrates rages on and the debate and controversy continues. I know everyone's mileage will vary depending on their specific tank(light intensity and or c02), but it good to see a post from someone who has dosed water column with a mineralized substrate without issues.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

I think a different term should be used for the "dosing" of mineralized soil tanks. The term "dosing" makes a lot of people automatically assume the aquarist is going in with his daily regimin of NPK, micros, etc and going EI on the tank. Some people have used this method, but in that case the mineralized soil is no different from any other nutrient rich substrate, since by most plants it'll only be used to uptake any nutrients that might be deficient in the water column. (not a bad idea of course)

However, the normal "dosing" of a mineralized soil tank (as Krisw stated already) is merely filling in a gap here and there when you see a deficiency somewhere. Basically, it's a role reversal of sorts. Your water column dosing is there ONLY to make up for some minor deficiency issues. (so far I've only heard of micros, and K, and of course iron, but I think almost everyone could dose more iron and only see benefit) 

Keep in mind, I have very limited experience with the mineralized soil substrate thus far. I AM one of the only people I've heard of though that has had a mineralized soil substrate tank at the light levels I'm running without showing a single strand of nuisance algae to date. (5 weeks) I'm mindful of it, but I just haven't seen any yet. If there are similar experiences I'd love to hear about them, as I was told by everyone to expect many algae battles for the first few months until the tank settled down.

as per the original question, I have no experience with worm castings so cannot add anything there.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I think there's a key issue here that many assume with rich N and P sediments, while you might have to dose N or P........we all know, not guess, not assume, not believe, that higher nutrients for N and P in the water column do not lead to algae, issues etc.

So why would anyone avoid adding KNO3 and KH2PO4 to the water column if they use a sediment with N and P????????

I mean if you want longer life out of the sediment, whether it's ADA, WC, Soil, Peat mixes, Jobes, Osmocoat, various manures....... whatever the source of N and P, why would you force the plants to get them all from the sediments?

Like *krisw* suggest that you can get away with less dosing and go on vacation, likewise you have a lot more flexiability and stay on top of things better if you add rich sediments+ water column dosing.

This gives you the best of both methods, extends the life of the sediment, removes any deficiencies an variations between mixes added, and also helps the water column dosing issues if you mess things up.

You can go rich or lean in the water column, your choice, but it should not matter and be independent of algae and fish health. Those are issues we know are true.

It also makes sense logically and from a plant physiology perspective.
Plants do not have transport anything from one end to the other. You also have each loocation backing up the other for a source of nutrients, allowing more/greater flexibility for each individual method(water or sediment).

Just because you can get away without dosing N and P for a time, does not imply that method is best:thumbsup: That logic does not follow, unless you assume N and P cause issues for fish and algae.

Which has long long been clearly demonstrated, that cannot be the case.
You also do not save yourself from dosing the water column, just remove 1-2 things vs 3-4 things. So that's not much savings either. 

There are advantages to each method of adding ferts, so use them together, not "either or". You'll get far more out of each.

Further, if you want to follow this logic some more...........using low to moderate light, will extend the life of a sediment even farther out. It also will place less demand on CO2(perhaps the biggest issue for algae and dead fish), and thus will reduce nutrient draw from both the water column and sediment.

Even with such a system, adding excess N and P still does not influence algae or fish health in any way I have found over a very wide range.

So this is a strong argument to add richer sediments like WC, soil, ADA AS etc and also add water column ferts.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

Tom, I think the value here (for me) does not lie in sediment "life" nor am I in ANY way trying to *avoid algae* by hiding the nutrients in some little box under the cap. We all know that the fish and water changes will provide PLENTY of nutrients for the algae to thrive on if other things aren't in balance.

My point here is one of goals. So, in answer to your question, "So why would anyone avoid adding KNO3 and KH2PO4 to the water column if they use a sediment with N and P????????" my answer is this:

Because I can. I'm not worried about the life of my substrate, as I'm certain I'll have to tear down the tank before either runs out. (I rent) My goal with this tank was twofold.

A: I love experiments. I've used EI with great results in past tanks, so I know how it works, and have a whole drawer full of different salts for dosing tanks. I wanted to see if I could get comperable results without dosing. Not the *same* results, just comperable. I am, and so far without the algae issues everyone else warned me about. I do not (let me repeat that lest anyone be confused) NOT attribute that fact to the "lack" of nutrients in the water column. There are a few key factors that I believe are aiding in my success where the lack of algae is concerned and I do plan on divulging these when more time has passed and I'm sure of the method. I don't want to be one of those who goes around saying that my method is best ever (even for me) before I see full results, so I won't go into that now. You have the right to after all of your work in the hobby.

B: Time. I actually took this part from you, Tom. (in a roundabout way) I don't have a way of making sure I'm DEFINATELY at my tank to dose/maintain on given days. I most likely will be available to do these things, but it's not an assurity. One of the most common things I hear you saying (and I certainly expect you to correct me if I'm arong here) is that consistency is key. Algae adapts far more readily to new conditions than plants do. Hence, I wanted to see if I could get away with NOT having a set schedule with my tanks and still have an enjoyable plant growing experience. So far, I'm succeeding. 

In summary: 

Do I think my particular method is the best? Nope. I don't think there is a best method out there, as each person has different needs and goals. (I think even Tom would agree on that point)

Do I think everyone should use this method? Nope. If I had a lot more definite time with my tanks to tend and watch over them I'd keep on using EI, as it gave great results for me in the past. I'm certainly NOT saying people should use this method as a way to "get out of doing chores" as it were. This will NOT account for laziness. I do spend a lot of time with my tank, I just don't have a guarantee I can do so constantly, so this seemed the best answer at the time.

Am I just getting lucky? Maybe, but that doesn't satisfy the scientific side of the brain, now does it?


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

marcinsmok said:


> I read a lot about mineralized topsoil and that was the way I wanted to do my tank, but I have no space at my apartment to mineralize the soil, so do you think worm castings would be a fair alternative to the soil?


I read 1 person made the mineralized soil in a bucket. He didn't dry it out. He kept it aerated in a bucket with water for a month. I think he had water a few inches above the dirt.

I think the worm castings is superior than mineralized soil. For the castings will have baby worms in them, thus probably a lot of protein and amino acids which are the builders of DNA. You have to boil them to kill them.


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

krisw said:


> I made my own worm castings.


Would you explain how you did this and the supplies you used, please?

In the tank that you had the worm castings did you add anything to the water column?


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

jargonchipmunk said:


> So, in answer to your question, "So why would anyone avoid adding KNO3 and KH2PO4 to the water column if they use a sediment with N and P????????" my answer is this:
> 
> Because I can. I'm not worried about the life of my substrate, as I'm certain I'll have to tear down the tank before either runs out. (I rent) My goal with this tank was twofold.
> 
> A: I love experiments. I've used EI with great results in past tanks, so I know how it works, and have a whole drawer full of different salts for dosing tanks. I wanted to see if I could get comperable results without dosing.


Experimental questions.........see what things do individually, then the next step is adding them together(my suggesting and question to you). That was a suggestion and a question, and is the next logical step if you know that water column works and what issues and good points are present for that and now sediments as well.

I'm just saying if you have done this, why not try the water column + sediments?

If you like to experiment.......this is the next step in looking at all 3 cases is it not??



> Not the *same* results, just comperable. I am, and so far without the algae issues everyone else warned me about.


Not me, I was not one of those folks that predicted that algae issues would be present It's just a different location of the nutrient, you still add it. There are well defined reasons for those who had algae issues using the method also. Same for the water column.
I agree and would predict comparable results.



> I do not (let me repeat that lest anyone be confused) NOT attribute that fact to the "lack" of nutrients in the water column. There are a few key factors that I believe are aiding in my success where the lack of algae is concerned and I do plan on divulging these when more time has passed and I'm sure of the method. I don't want to be one of those who goes around saying that my method is best ever (even for me) before I see full results, so I won't go into that now. You have the right to after all of your work in the hobby.


I think over time, you will look to use both the water column and sediment rather than one isolated from the other. For experimental purposes, most are much better off seeing what each location does and behaves. Then... you have enough background to evaluate both together. So the next step is taking from each their advantages and see how both work in conjunction. 



> B: Time. I actually took this part from you, Tom. (in a roundabout way) I don't have a way of making sure I'm DEFINATELY at my tank to dose/maintain on given days. I most likely will be available to do these things, but it's not an assurity. One of the most common things I hear you saying (and I certainly expect you to correct me if I'm arong here) is that consistency is key. Algae adapts far more readily to new conditions than plants do. Hence, I wanted to see if I could get away with NOT having a set schedule with my tanks and still have an enjoyable plant growing experience. So far, I'm succeeding.


You are preaching to the choir here:redface:
But along these same lines of logic, adding sediments to a water column dosing routine will also enhance that stability will it not? And provide even longer term stable conditions and less variation?

Adding water column ferts becomes much easier, and you can run them leaner and get away with fewer water changes if that is a goal(lack motivation, kids need attention, too tired etc) or richer and more water changes (motivated to garden more, kids away at school etc) etc. So sediment ferts are a way to add more flexibilty to water column routines and make those much easier, and if you do leave for a week or two, things are in decent shape.

Now if you add lower light to this also......... now you have skewed things to a really robust method. No algae, good stable consistent moderate growth, easy to care for etc.



> Do I think my particular method is the best? Nope. I don't think there is a best method out there, as each person has different needs and goals. (I think even Tom would agree on that point)
> 
> Do I think everyone should use this method? Nope. If I had a lot more definite time with my tanks to tend and watch over them I'd keep on using EI, as it gave great results for me in the past. I'm certainly NOT saying people should use this method as a way to "get out of doing chores" as it were. This will NOT account for laziness. I do spend a lot of time with my tank, I just don't have a guarantee I can do so constantly, so this seemed the best answer at the time.
> 
> Am I just getting lucky? Maybe, but that doesn't satisfy the scientific side of the brain, now does it?


No, I do not think luck is part of any of this.
Your rational is well founded for the goals.
You also realize you can improve the method and at least to me, appear ready to see about adding 2 or more variables together now, such as water column(if you remember) + sediments.

I'm about that way myself.

This is one reason why the ADA As works well for many folks.

Now add lower light to a water column dosing routine, now you have 3 things providing lots of flexibility, but still nice looking growth with a very wide range of species, and ...if you forget or lack the time, things will not get away from you.

I'm really promoting this use of sediment ferts, but this does not mean I also do not promote the WC and lower light also as a set of methods to get more out of the methods to meet those set of goals you have.

This enhances those goals you mention, not detract or add more work etc.
I'm not different than you here, I'm even lazier:thumbsup: 

But consider the ideas about dosing the WC and less light, see how you can add those ideas to this now you have a good experience with both locations of nutrients, that's the next natural step it seems. I'd say this for most that have tried the Soil/WC and ADA AS methods...........

I think overall, in the long term, most/many will go this route. I get tired of working on tanks etc, I want better management, modify routines and growth rates, allow more flexibility if I flake and forget to dose, travel often etc............

The dry start method works well also for being lazy and works very well with this soil/WC method as well, or ADA etc. 

So all 3-4 things coalesce into a lazy method that works very well. I'm certainly with you on your points. 

As you learn more, you can focus the best solutions to meet the goals of your own, but better able to meet the goals of others as well. I hardly support just EI alone, I also support sediment ferts, Non CO2, marine methods, light changes for modification of the rates of growth and through that, rates of demand for CO2/nutrients.



Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## krisw (Nov 24, 2004)

Hilde said:


> Would you explain how you did this and the supplies you used, please?
> 
> In the tank that you had the worm castings did you add anything to the water column?


Hilde, personally I use a product called "Can-O-Worms" which consists of three stackable trays that you put leftover vegetable scraps or organic material for the worms to digest. You can also just use a Rubbermaid type container, but the separate trays help to allow the worms to migrate out of "finished" ones, so you don't have many worms left in the castings. I suggest you google "worm castings" for tons of information on a number of different ways to use worms to compost your kitchen scraps. 

In my 40G aquarium with 2x96W PC lights and pressurized CO2, I found that N and P were satisfied, but I do dose traces/iron and occasionally K. Realize that what you put in is what comes out, so if all you put in are potato peals, you'll only end up with castings having the nutrients contained in potato peals. Likewise, if you don't eat pesticide-free vegetables, you may ultimately be introducing those to your aquarium.

As mentioned, there's lots more information out there on worm composting or vermacomposting.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

You may also compost your aquatic weed trimmings:thumbsup: 
Use that, mulm etc..........those can be dried out and packed up for later use.

Many options.
And overall, pretty safe and routine if some guidelines are followed.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

http://www.aquahobby.com/tanks/e_tank0311b.php

I have no idea why folks are not more interested in this method.
I think it's well proven that it works well.

Look for yourself.

regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

Tom,

Now that you are writing a column in FAMA magazine, is this a subject you are going to tackle in FAMA? I think it would be very interesting to see an in depth look at substrate rich and water column feeding in a comparison study.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

Holy ressurected thread Batman! haha.

Coincidentally, I'm in the process of setting up my 120 in the basement of my new house (told you I'd have to move lol) and plan on using a rich sediment + water column routine with slightly lower light levels than I had in the 75.

I learned a lot from that tank for sure, but I'm excited for a new glass box of weeds.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Robert H said:


> Tom,
> 
> Now that you are writing a column in FAMA magazine, is this a subject you are going to tackle in FAMA? I think it would be very interesting to see an in depth look at substrate rich and water column feeding in a comparison study.


You mean the mag that;'s going out of business this June?
hehe, not much I'll be able to say there

I need to write more elsewhere anyhow

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Robert H said:


> Tom,
> 
> Now that you are writing a column in FAMA magazine, is this a subject you are going to tackle in FAMA? I think it would be very interesting to see an in depth look at substrate rich and water column feeding in a comparison study.


See Cedergreen and Tom Madsen's paper from 2002,

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118946813/abstract

States what we have known for many years.
They can do both, not just one or the other business.

They even cut the roots off and the upper shoot has the SAME rate of growth. So sediments play no role in (some) species in terms of growth rates.

Even if you argued in favor of sediments or water column, you cannot ignore the simple fact aquatic plants, all of them, are opportunistic.They will go where ever the nutrients are and as long as they are in high enough NON LIMITING amounts in each location, then the growth rates should be the same. If they become limiting in the sediments, they will try the water column, if they become limiting in the water column, they will try the sediments.

It's S+WC = total nutrients.

The total is the key to grow rates.

For EI and it's general non limiting approach for nutrients, adding sediment nutrients higher is only going to be beneficial and make the non limiting concentrations easier to obtain for aquarist.

I think there's this group of hold outs that seems to assume, and they are wrong, that not adding NO3, PO4 to the water column is somehow better, preferred, less trouble etc. They still add K+ and other things, traces etc, feed fish, other "laborious" horrible dosing, *why is so much unfounded prejudice placed on N and P?*

I don't get it.

I can understand less labor etc, but that's the point, there's less labor because you have both locations, dosing is easier for both locations. Not either or. Then if there's any chance of preference of locations, or a back up, you are covered, this makes the best management practice.

So why do more not do it this way?
We have examples where worm sediments work very well, mud/soil, ADA AS alone or with PS all work well, even plain old sand, but also where high water column dosing and rich sediments are used as well for excellent results with little effort. Less light also makes it easier.

The key is less sediment rich soils etc.......the key is more about light for many. Nutrients are rather simple and easy as far as management if you use both locations and last indefinitely.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## chad320 (Mar 7, 2010)

Strange this thread should stop in 2009 on this note. I was researching wormcastings to see who else uses them and if they use them like I do. I keep red worms in a steralite tub topped up with water. Red worms can live for months without drowning. I top up the container and let it evaporate until the soil is nearly dry. When I get ready to do a new tank, I just take the soil from it, sift it, and add it. I never even considered boiling it. 

Is there an advantage to this other than baby worms?

It needs sifted for gravel and organic matter anyway so it removes all of the worms then. 

Id also be interested to hear if anyone puts salts under their WC or MTS like its mentioned with peat, dolomite, etc.? What are the percieved advantages/disadvantages to this?
I have always used peat under mine, but if I can extend the life of it, hey, why not?

Sorry for dragging up old bones here but I didnt want to start a new thread when such great information is already stored on here


----------

