# "No fertilizers" - pictures of extremely healthy plants



## bsantucci

How established was this tank out of curiousity? Did it already have a good amount of mulm in the substrate?


----------



## niko

Tank was setup for 2 years. Yes, it did have mulm but not a lot - when you vacuumed you didn't remove massive amounts of dark brown muck.

And that is really the secret to such tanks - the microorganisms must establish properly. Then the flow of nutrients is what it is supposed to be. It is not forced, it is not supressed, it is not instable. These are all typical for a high fertilizer tank. 

The above means that yes, there is mulm, but it is being processed properly. That involves not just mineralization. It involves the nutrients and other factors being in a state that is dynamic. This is a big thing that is never discussed and it does not just mean chelation (as in chelated Iron). The same fertilizer can act very differently depending on how it is processed - both biologically and inorganically.

The simplest, cheapes, and best example of the above is adjusting the Ca:Mg ratio. It is very easy to do and to see the difference. Once you get close to the proper ratio (4:1) AND with the proper fertilizer you will see very fast and very positive changes in the plants. You will find that the plants actually need way less of the other fertilizers too which is only a good thing - leading to a more natural and stable system. The "secret" proper fertilizer is very simple - Dolomite. Dolomite powder to be exact. 

So yes, after 2 years, that tank had mulm but it was minimal and if stirred it settled very fast. The fish were 6 discus. So you see that the pollution of the tank was not low. But it was handled the right way.

And no - this tank did not get 50% water changes a week. This is reserved for high fertilizer tanks in an effort to combat accumulation of nutrients and waste. But as more and more people now see that does not work as drawn on a chart because the tank is a dynamic living system

--Nikolay


----------



## DennisSingh

Nice pictures Niko, I do not find it hard to believe that that sword can grow in those conditions. 

Can you explain more this plant permaculture and resting...?


----------



## bsantucci

niko said:


> Tank was setup for 2 years. Yes, it did have mulm but not a lot - when you vacuumed you didn't remove massive amounts of dark brown muck.
> 
> And that is really the secret to such tanks - the microorganisms must establish properly. Then the flow of nutrients is what it is supposed to be. It is not forced, it is not supressed, it is not instable. These are all typical for a high fertilizer tank.
> 
> The above means that yes, there is mulm, but it is being processed properly. That involves not just mineralization. It involves the nutrients and other factors being in a state that is dynamic. This is a big thing that is never discussed and it does not just mean chelation (as in chelated Iron). The same fertilizer can act very differently depending on how it is processed - both biologically and inorganically.
> 
> The simplest, cheapes, and best example of the above is adjusting the Ca:Mg ratio. It is very easy to do and to see the difference. Once you get close to the proper ratio (4:1) AND with the proper fertilizer you will see very fast and very positive changes in the plants. You will find that the plants actually need way less of the other fertilizers too which is only a good thing - leading to a more natural and stable system. The "secret" proper fertilizer is very simple - Dolomite. Dolomite powder to be exact.
> 
> So yes, after 2 years, that tank had mulm but it was minimal and if stirred it settled very fast. The fish were 6 discus. So you see that the pollution of the tank was not low. But it was handled the right way.
> 
> And no - this tank did not get 50% water changes a week. This is reserved for high fertilizer tanks in an effort to combat accumulation of nutrients and waste. But as more and more people now see that does not work as drawn on a chart because the tank is a dynamic living system
> 
> --Nikolay


Thanks for the extra info. You mentioned something I've thought was the cause of a lot of problems with my tank here. The Ca to Mg ration. I have a GH of 4 and KH is non-existant. I think my Ca to Mg is off, and I often have stunting and crinkled leaves. 

I now add a teaspoon of GH booster to the tank at water change. Is that enough do you think to get the proper ration? My thoughts are plants don't use a ton of this, so adding that extra bump weekly should in theory work, assuming the GH booster is mixed to a proper ration.

Any thoughts there or should I just get Ca and Mg separate and mix my own?


----------



## niko

Here are pictures of a tank from 2015. An example of how the state of the tank makes all the difference.
For years I ran this tank with water column fertilizers. It was up and down. Since it was a service tank I was there every Wednesday, no questions asked.
Everything that could be done to keep this tank clean was done. Will not describe all the products and practices. They were dumb because the basics were not in place.

The tank transformed to a very clean, very fast growing tank once the water column nutrients were reduced, and the Ca:Mg was adjusted properly with the proper material (Dolomite). Prior adjustments of the Ca:Mg ratio with CaCl2 and MgSO4 were borderline successful.

Once the tank gets in the "proper mode" you can see it - the water becomes extremely clear, the plants start to grow very healthy looking, and the stability of the system is unbelievable. And this is all done with LESS fertilizers, LESS water changes, and way less other maintenance as a result (removing old leaves, scraping algae here and there, filter maintenance, etc)





































--Nikolay

Bump:


bsantucci said:


> Thanks for the extra info. You mentioned something I've thought was the cause of a lot of problems with my tank here. The Ca to Mg ration. I have a GH of 4 and KH is non-existant. I think my Ca to Mg is off, and I often have stunting and crinkled leaves.
> 
> I now add a teaspoon of GH booster to the tank at water change. Is that enough do you think to get the proper ration? My thoughts are plants don't use a ton of this, so adding that extra bump weekly should in theory work, assuming the GH booster is mixed to a proper ration.
> 
> Any thoughts there or should I just get Ca and Mg separate and mix my own?


I hope you see were I'm going with that post - I'm looking for the people that have started to see the new direction of this hobby - the real Natural tanks, not what ADA promoted as such so they can sell their products.

Help me out if you feel so. Get some powdered Dolomite powder off ebay. It is a supplement for humans - some kind of health benefits from eating it. If you buy that powdered Dolomite you will have a guaranteed clean product AND I guarantee you that you will see amazing change in your tank. 

An easier way to get Dolomite is to go to a pile of rocks that road workers place under asphalt. That is dolomite. But it is in form or rocks and you can't control the amount you add very well. Years ago I had setup a tank with these rocks as a substrate. Out of ignorance I learned a lesson - these rocks grew plants at an amazing rate. But they fogged the water - I had too much of it. I could not see but 4-5 inches into the tank. But the plants grew super fast - 6-8" sword leaves in 6 hours! I also had other plants, stems included (Rotala, and others). In a month and a half I trimmed so much plants that the local pet store gave me $40 credit as soon as they saw them. That is a story about the benefits of Dolomite. 

So give Dolomite a try.

GH booster is a mix of chemical that will supply Ca and Mg but not in the proper form. Yes, it will work in some tanks - mainly tanks that do not have critical organics accumulation. I've ran such tanks in the past and the growth rate of stems was unbelievable (some plants shot 16" in 36 hours!). But the tank required constant maintenance. And as usual - shutting down if you can't take care of it for several days. That is the ultimate proof of an unstable tank. Believe it or not at least some of the ADA distributors have the same instability problems. These are the guys that show cool looking showrooms full of Japanese copy-cat tanks.
And yes, a tank that runs fast and healthy with the incorrect nutrient dynamics will be inferior to a tank that is properly supplied with nutrients - because of the work involved to maintain the tank in a good shape and because of the inherent instability of such improperly run tanks.


----------



## mistergreen

Nice looking tank. Of course your choice in plants are limited and also goes to show you how important CO2 is even in small amounts.
Most of the nutrients are coming from fish poop.


----------



## niko

mistergreen said:


> Nice looking tank. Of course your choice in plants are limited and also goes to show you how important CO2 is even in small amounts.
> Most of the nutrients are coming from fish poop.


True. If you don't know anything but 8 fertilizers that is.

Plus - that was not my tank. Not my choice of plants. Or fish.

So if I took 5 lbs. of fish poop and dumped in a new tank and put some good LED lights on it and 0 fertilizers I'd have a perfect planted tank? No. I will have an algae heaven for sure. It is the way everything works together. 

And one more argument: Can you tell me why these same plants you see on the pictures did not do that well with high CO2, N=20, P=2, and all kinds of Fe chelates + traces, + GH Booster? Plus big water changes, plus Purigen, plus a brand new huge Eheim filter, plus the best lights money can buy? Please give me some idea, I'd like to know.

And what "high demand" plants are we always bringing into the conversation? If we start to name them we may also provide information about their natural environment. Which is *never* what a high tech tank is - CO2=30, Nitrate 10-20, Phosphate 1-2...

A guy that grew Erios for sale told me some years ago how much light he blasts them with. All I wanted to know is if that's how they grow in nature - with 14 hours of 200 PAR. But he sold them for good money and most people would call him "smart". The plants grew, he made money - for most people that is the end of the line. And that is why this hobby has reached an end line some years ago too.

So how do these "special" plants do it in Nature? Definitely not they way we are growing them. There are things we are missing. Things we've neglected for 10+ years now. Is it some kind of special mud they live in? Is it the soft water? A critical micronutrient? No. Again - it is the way everything works together. 

--Nikolay


----------



## mistergreen

niko said:


> Can you tell me why these same plants you see on the pictures did not do that well with high CO2, N=20, P=2, and all kinds of Fe chelates + traces, + GH Booster?
> --Nikolay


What case where these plants don't do well with those parameters?

High demanding plants require high light, meaning high CO2 and nutrients as well. Yes, natural systems do provide high CO2 and nutrients in the substrate/sediment. CO2 is produced by bacteria eating on the organics and in turn release nutrients. Bacteria are single cell creatures but they do a lot of work. Just look at yeast in a DIY CO2 situation.

Walstad tanks mimmic this natural system.

btw. Some plants in the wild grow emerged. Plants access CO2 from the air easier than water.


----------



## AWolf

I don't see any difference in adding CA and Mg in other horticultural forms. This is basically saying that this particular tank (and I'm sure many others like it), had the necessary nutrients in the tap water and fish poo and were under the correct amount of light to utilize the nutrients most efficiently. A balanced tank. 

I submit that same exact tank with LED lights, or less fish, or a different water source may not be balanced, no matter the dolomite & CO2.


----------



## Hoppy

How do you use the powdered dolomite? Do you just dump it in the water, put it in the substrate, below the substrate, etc.? And, do you dose it on a schedule or just when you set up the tank?


----------



## easternlethal

*&quot;No fertilizers&quot; - pictures of extremely healthy plants*

Nikolay I have a window sunlit tank I set up after reading Walstad's book which has even more par that grows very well with no water changes, an hob producing laminar flow and natural fertilisation from fishfood. And as we can see here it works under artifical lighting too (although I don't know why with such nice natural light in the room the back of the tank is blacked out) Over time the healthy plants survive and the weak ones don't. sort of like - natural selection taking its course. 

But with this approach I had to let the plants decide whether to grow and where to grow and didn't feel like I had much say over the evolution of the tank. That's not necessarily bad and in some ways it's a purer more natural and holistic form of aquascaping I feel, but If I wanted to go real bonsai and exert more precise control (i.e. everything must grow where i put them when I put them during my weekly maint.) and there's a lot of rescaping then its back to pressurized co2 and dosing because the tank doesn't have time to settle. 

Is that your experience or do you think it's still possible? I'd be interested in pushing that boundary..


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> The pictures below do not prove that it is possible to have extremely healthy plants without any fertilizers. What it proves is that if a tank is run in such a way that the plants have time to "rest" and accumulate nutrients they can grow healthier than we normally think. *That is the same principle used by ADA, but not popular in the US.* It is about what is known as "permaculture" - using the natural trends of a system.
> --Nikolay


I'm having a hard time understanding how this is like ADA Japan. ADA uses an extremely nutrient rich substrate that will grow pretty much anything for probably a year without even adding water column dosing, yet they're system still requires you dose on a regular basis to make sure the plants aren't lacking in anything. In addition they require large regular water changes to reduce nutrients and other organics in the range of 30%-60% weekly.

So far all I've really seen is a couple of very limited setups with easy to grow plants. If you could grow what has been traditionally high demand carpets with showy stems like most of the ADA tanks using your method I would be more than willing to listen.


----------



## tapwater

above question also interests me

Bump: the dumping of dolomite one


----------



## MtAnimals

This makes a lot of sense....I have one tank plants seem to just thrive in,if a plant isn't doing well,I put it in my spec v and it goes nuts,along with everything I put in it.It had 1 O+ cap 6 or 7 months ago,since then,all I do is drop in about .25 ml of ammonia for the bio filter and the plants grow.


----------



## Mikevwall

Hmmmmmnm.....
Some pretty serious claims.
Im with house of cards on this one. Your proof is subpar, to say the least.


----------



## Zorfox

I think the title of your post has confused a lot of people. Maybe it should be "No fertilization added on a regular basis and healthy plants". 

Plants need nutrients. There's no way around that. The plants are getting nutrients from the substrate and/or food we add to keep our fish healthy.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's harder to pull off a perfectly balanced low tech tank than it is for a high tech setup. High tech tanks follow a basic maintenance routine that when done properly requires little thought. Balance an entire ecosystem perfectly? Well that takes experience in my opinion. I admire a truly balanced low tech tank far more than any high tech setup I've ever seen. Reproducing nature in a box is not as easy as many seem to think it is.

All that said I think your'e comparing apples to oranges. Low tech setups are geared towards low maintenance with little regard to plant growth rates. High tech on the other hand is the complete opposite. This requires a lot of maintenance but the reward is accelerated plant growth. You simply can't compare the two.

Now for the negative. 6-8 inches of growth in 6 hours is an inch an hour! Let's be honest, that never happened. We aren't talking about kelp here. Most macrophytes do not grow at these rates even under perfect conditions.

Dolomite is nothing more than Calcium, magnesium and carbonates. That's it! It's simply a GH booster with a very poor solubility. It will not result in crazy growth rates we have never seen. In fact, too much will decrease growth rates.

I'm not trying to be rude about the claims you've made. I do however don't want new people to the hobby to think they can have the growth rates you say were possible. It's simply not fair to the hobby. Can we have healthy plants in a low tech non-fertilized tank? Heck yes! Will the growth rates exceed a high tech? Never happen.


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding how this is like ADA Japan.....


House,

Read this by itself:
_"...if a tank is run in such a way that the plants have time to "rest" and accumulate nutrients they can grow healthier than we normally think. That is the same principle used by ADA.."_

The reference is to the peak light period coupled with increased CO2 calculated to be at its highest when the strong light comes on. So you have 1-5 hours of very strong light + higher CO2. The plants kick into high gear ONLY during this period. The rest of the 24 hours is either low light or darkness. The plants are not rushed to grow and use up internal and external resources. Releasing waste is also reduced - plants polluting the tank is a topic that few people even think of. Compare that to a 10-14 hour high light tanks. Plants running at their fastest. Eating and leeching what not. Fast. Can I stress the importance of "rest" once again? Look at the first two pictures of the Sword and the 12" tall Crypt. These were "rested" plants that showed their potential in an environment that most enthusiasts would consider borderline acceptable for plans. And we all know what would happen if I stuck a plant from a high light tank into this same tank (lower light, zero fertilizers, some substrate mulm) - they will go through a period of shock. So the question is why bother comparing the two environments if both grow great plants? Here's why:

The result of the ample "rest period" that ADA employs - if we can believe ADA's professionally timed and produced pictures of course - are plants that are exceptionally healthy with substrate fertilization and minor daily doses of fertilizers. Simply put - clean water and food hidden away from the algae. You will agree - such tank is more stable, the plants look especially healthy, and if there are any issues they can be handled way, way easier. There is something to be learned from that, isn't there?

Don't get me wrong - ADA's approach is not perfect. I'm not sure what is wrong with it if there is a need to change water weekly and if their distributors are all over the gizmo that bubbles Oxygen radicals to reduce algae. Some time ago one of their European distributors made a lengthy review on how this device worked in his own showroom. It was strange to read how all his tanks got algae in one week when he was away. That was his starting point to prove that the device worked. I did not understand why an entire showroom full of ADA tanks, ran with ADA products, by people that can do that 24/7 if needs be, would deteriorate so fast. My best answer is that as a business ADA has to somehow continue to support the need for products. It would not make sense to sell you a few things and tell you how to get to a point where you don't need anything any more.

I started this topic for a reason completely different from clarifying how the two main "methods" work - EI or ADA's - and much less discussing which one is better. In addition - there is so much misunderstanding about both approaches that it's not even funny. The bottom line is that we can all agree - if you were long enough in this hobby you have seen situations that will make you think that a truly Nature based method of setting up and running the tank is not only possible, but the best logical approach. The word is "permaculture" and if we close our eyes when we see it it will not just go away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

It is time we start understanding what really matters in planted tanks - microorganisms first, nutrients and their transformations second, everything else follows. But I personally want to know how to setup such tanks, not necessarily to know the name of every bacteria, chemical, chelate, etc. And I think that I have made some progress on that. Hope to have some news soon.


----------



## niko

mistergreen said:


> What case where these plants don't do well with those parameters?
> 
> High demanding plants require high light, meaning high CO2 and nutrients as well. Yes, natural systems do provide high CO2 and nutrients in the substrate/sediment. CO2 is produced by bacteria eating on the organics and in turn release nutrients. Bacteria are single cell creatures but they do a lot of work. Just look at yeast in a DIY CO2 situation.
> 
> Walstad tanks mimmic this natural system.
> 
> btw. Some plants in the wild grow emerged. Plants access CO2 from the air easier than water.


Mister,

I had tried virtually everything to make that tank work without problems. After all it was a tank that I visited once a week. Nobody wants and unpredictable tank.

So for years I believed that water column fertilizers will actually work just fine if I manage to dial them right. The best results I got were good plant growth WITH some algae still lurking around the corner. I attributed that to my own mistakes - test kits, water quality - as well as the owner of the tank maybe overfeeding.

So the bottom line is that I could never get that tank to run absolutely clean and stable. I used every practice and approach that you can name - all in the direction to clean the tank and make good use of those water column fertilizers. 

You maybe right about some bodies of water having high CO2. But 30 ppm? And coupled with high fertilizers? No. Not the algae-free bodies of water. In addition - bacteria are only part of the organisms that make or break the planted tank. There is a table floating around showing how little of the bacteria actually does for converting Ammonia into Nitrate. It is somewhere in the range of 5-10% of the overall biofiltration. So what are the rest of the microorganisms? What is the other 90%? These are questions that we should have clarified a long time ago. Something is shifting in this community and it looks like more and more people are starting to look that way.

Yes, some plants grow emersed. That is actually something that often makes me laugh at our hobby. In reality most plants that we keep in our tanks would love one thing - to get out of the damn glass box. But we force them in. Together with plants from completely different parts of the world and different requirements. You see where this is going - we are doing everything else but "Natural". ADA with their "Nature Aquarium" slogan is doing the very same thing. 

So some people are looking ahead - for some time now there has been a European biotope contest. I know, you'd expect tanks with a few plants, bunch of wood and rocks and some ugly ass fish. Well, not so... You will be surprised at what you see. As I said - things are changing. Changing in a different direction.

Bump:


StrungOut said:


> Nice pictures Niko, I do not find it hard to believe that that sword can grow in those conditions.
> 
> Can you explain more this plant permaculture and resting...?


Strung,

What if I told you that right now I have 27" tall Swords with leaves 2-3 inches wide, making one 16" long new leaf every 36 hours? And these swords are planted in 1 inch deep substrate... I thought deep rooting is a must. I thought that water column fertilizers are a must.

And get this - the swords that I described above are in a 24" deep tank that has PAR 20 on the bottom. 60W of LEDs dimmed to about 40% - meaning that I grow these monster swords with 25 watts of light. That is truly weird. But it is happening right here right now.

The "secret" is root supplementation - 5 months ago I put some laterite + some root tabs in that substrate. And also the other day I noticed that accidentally 4 out of the 5 swords are directly illuminated by the Warm White LEDs in the fixture. Meaning that the LEDs shoot their light directly into the rosette of the plants. The Sword that does not get illuminated like that still grows - just it makes a new leaf every 2-3 days. Either way - if I can grow a 27" tall sword using a 5W LED at 40% something is weird - that's just 2W! . Something in that tank is helping things tick differently from what we all think is right...

And yes - I add only Dolomite. Maybe 3 doses in the last 45 days. TDS is 87 so the Ca and Mg are not a lot. The fish are 2 pearl gouramies and 6 Cories - hardly supply any fertilizer. Tank is 180 gallons. 

Here's a video from yesterday (got some Cory fry so I made the video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UA_IzQATlc


----------



## niko

AWolf said:


> I don't see any difference in adding CA and Mg in other horticultural forms. This is basically saying that this particular tank (and I'm sure many others like it), had the necessary nutrients in the tap water and fish poo and were under the correct amount of light to utilize the nutrients most efficiently. A balanced tank.
> 
> I submit that same exact tank with LED lights, or less fish, or a different water source may not be balanced, no matter the dolomite & CO2.


Wolf,

No, I'm not saying that the tank was just perfect and my magical Dolomite made sparkles fly.

There are three things about using what I call "proper" fertilizers:

1. You are not adding unneded elements
Example - Sulphur and Chloride (MgSO4 adds S, CaCl2 adds Cl).
Accumulation of things we overlook has become a new trend in some discussions. Apparently it is a big, very big deal. Once again - big water changes do NOT clean the tank perfectly. Have you tried to lower your P from 1 to 0.5? Did it take a 50% water change? No. It took many 50% water changes - about 5 in average - that's 250% water change. And here we like to think that a weekly 50% water change will remove all the Sulphur we have added with our MgSO4. Or K, or Cl, or a long list of microelements that we don't even know how they play a role in the tank when excessive.

2. There is something different in the way the nutrients are processed IF you are letting them actually move from one form into another.
Example - Adding MgSO4 and CaCl2 - the two molecules dissociate very easily in water. But adding Dolomite involves at least some kind of sustained release because you are basically adding rock that you disolve in the slightly acidic water. The release is not the end of the story. In three tanks now I've seen the strong effects of adding Ca and Mg that way. In one of these tanks I had actually added Dolomite pebbles as a substrate. The tank got milky white - I could not see deeper than 1-2 inches in the tank. In this milky chalky soup about 8 or 10 varieties of plants grew as if there was no tomorrow. Swords and stems (Rotala). This example gets even weirder if you know that the tank was brand new + there were no water column fertilizers added. Just light and CO2.

So there is something in the transitional states of fertilizers that makes a big difference.

3. German fertilizers
Toby, FlowGrow, introduced a fertilizer system, here on TPT some time ago. The basis of it were fertilizers that not only supplied only the needed elements without the unneeded extras, but also seemed to work based on some sort of synergy - the elements seem to "match" together and produce very, very good growth. I apologize but so far, pretty much everything that Germans make has always proven to work - for good or for bad. Toby's ideas were eventually dismissed on this forum because of our mindset. But the truth remains - we should not add unneeded elements AND we should know that the form in which you supply the fertilizer matters. Matters a lot. Dolomite is only one example that I personally have seen work without any doubt.

The balance of a planted tank:
I can tell you directly - a stable planted tank can handle way, way more than we all think. 40% evaporation, CO2 ran out, fish overfed, strong light, low light, high CO2, fish never fed, frequent water changes, barely any water flow, no water flow, TDS in the 700s, TDS in the 150s... That is how stable a true balanced tank is.
And yes - it will not grow all plants whenever I decide to stick them in. Like everything else in life - if we miss the big picture we are up for a beating. Don't stick a Java Fern in that tank when the P is zero. Don't expect it to grow a sword if there is no CO2 and no ferts.. 
The bottom line is that you will have a tank that will always be there for you - ready to play along whatever you fell like doing today. It will not have to be "shut down" when you go an a vacation. It will not have to have the water changed or else.

I have a tank like that behind me right now. And right now it looks like a wild creek - overgrown vals, super clean Anubias, and some mosses. Can I turn it in to a high light tank that grows much more plants? Or reduce it to a moss only tank? Yes, and yes of course. If I feel like it. There will be zero issues either way. 

That tank established itself over 1 year period. I worked 16 hour days and never even looked at it. There was water, gravel and circulation. Nothing else. In one year, in spring, all of a sudden some plant seeds sprouted in that tank by themselves. I let the tank go wild - added light, CO2, more circulation. In about 2 moths the plants filled it so much that the fish I had added could not swim. That was 2008. Algae? You are kidding again... Never.

Actually that tank cleans BBA in 1 to 30 days from Anubias. I tried that with 4 different Anubiases. Worked every time. Yes, one of them cleared in 1 day! Here are pictures:

Day 1, Anubias #1









Day 1 from above, Anubias #1:









Same Anubias #1, Day 4:









Same Anubias #1, Day 14:

























Day 20 of Anubias #2. Took 30 days to clear.









Day 7 of Anubias #3, Took 7 days to get this clean:









Hope you see how a truly stable tank is - very different from what we believe it can be.

Bump:


Hoppy said:


> How do you use the powdered dolomite? Do you just dump it in the water, put it in the substrate, below the substrate, etc.? And, do you dose it on a schedule or just when you set up the tank?


Yes, kind if stir in some water. It does not disolve really - it just forms a foggy white liquid. The fine particles shimmer under the light while floating around the tank.

In a slightly acidic tank the fog goes away in about 30 min.

Alternatively you can use a turkey baster to deposit it somewhere in the back of the tank and watch the white piles diminish over about 36 hours. 

Either way - it works. Like nothing else.

Bump:


Mikevwall said:


> Hmmmmmnm.....
> Some pretty serious claims.
> Im with house of cards on this one. Your proof is subpar, to say the least.


Not as serious as me telling you to turn your water toxic by adding Nitrate to 20 ppm and Phosphate to 2 ppm. Any water company will really want to know where you got this polluted water sample from. But I will tell you that countless people grow plants that way.

And will not tell you about stability, clean water, or accumulation of unneeded factors.

The rest will be finished off by the internet - many people with little understanding will give you a lot of the same advice. You will indeed think that it is a good way to run a tank. Nothing subpar here - we all know that more is better


----------



## mistergreen

To be honest, my low tech dirted tanks looks more lush than my high tech tanks. I think having a nutrient rich substrate is key. That's why ADA is so successful. I got out of the high tech tank business. Growing fast plants isn't my thing anymore.

Yes, natural systems can produce 30ppm of CO2. Where do you think that number came from?  Scientists had been studying and analyzing this for a long time. In my dirted tank, it generates about 18-20ppm of CO2. I measured with a CO2 sensor.

There are truths that you can't get away from. Plants need water, light, CO2, and nutrients to live and grow.


----------



## Zorfox

mistergreen said:


> To be honest, my low tech dirted tanks looks more lush than my high tech tanks. I think having a nutrient rich substrate is key. That's why ADA is so successful. I got out of the high tech tank business. Growing fast plants isn't my thing anymore.
> 
> Yes, natural systems can produce 30ppm of CO2. Where do you think that number came from?  Scientists had been studying and analyzing this for a long time. In my dirted tank, it generates about 18-20ppm of CO2. I measured with a CO2 sensor.
> 
> There are truths that you can't get away from. Plants need water, light, CO2, and nutrients to live and grow.


I agree that a rich substrate is key in a "low tech" system as well as a good high tech system. We all seem to fall prey to the inert substrate idea that has been around for decades. It's true that if we supply enough water column dosing plants do quite well with inert substrates. Do the same with rich substrates and they do even better. Remove water column dosing and most will still do quite well.

I agree that there has not been enough research into what is actually happening in the substrate. How much CO2 can be produced? How much of those micros we add are "recycled" by bacteria?

I have been impressed with the amount of CO2 in studies I've read. For the most part, spring fed rivers are the highest of all. The water feeding the rivers is very high in CO2 much like our tap water is until it's degassed. Some papers I've read have even shown lakes have higher than normal CO2 levels. Bacterial process? Probably.

I'd love to hear how your separating the sensor from the water mistergreen. I assume a semi-permeable membrane? I've been thinking about a way to not only supply CO2 to tanks but measure it as well for a while now. It seems there is a simple way to do both using Henry's law. When I get ready to actually do it I'll send you a PM. It seems you have a solid grasp on the electronics side. My grasp is more on the physics of the gas exchange. Honestly, it seems the hobby has been ignoring the obvious for a while. A membrane is slow is it not? There is a simple solution. Maybe we can trade ideas and come up with something new.


----------



## AWolf

Isn't Dolomite the proper name for 'lime'? Wouldn't that harden your water considerably?


----------



## theatermusic87

Aly tanks are seeded with sediments from lakes around me to get whatever bacteria they have going on my tanks. Also i think sunlight and UV especially (in its natural full spectrum form) are grossly undervalued for it's ability to break down organic compounds in the water for bacteria. It appears amazes me that we change the volume of water as frequently as we do and yet nature is fine with water changes rates on the order of decades for large bodies of water.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

AWolf said:


> Isn't Dolomite the proper name for 'lime'? Wouldn't that harden your water considerably?


Dolomite = calcium magnesium carbonate CaMg(CO3)2

lime = calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2

In slightly acidic water it will all dissolve.
Dolomite having the Mg content would make a better balance.


----------



## Hoppy

Niko, if I am reading you right, you are advocating a different way to set up a tank to get good, healthy growth, without algae problems, which does not require dosing KNO3, KH2PO4 and trace element mixes. How do I replicate your success?

What substrate? How about a half inch layer of topsoil, covered with about 1 to 1.5 inches of black grit blasting media?

What lighting? How about a couple of Finnex Planted Plus lights spaced about 6-10 inches apart, which should give me about 50-60 PAR at the substrate?

How long should that light be on? How about 4 hours a day? Or, perhaps 2 hours on, 2 hours off, 2 hours on?

For CO2, how about DIY CO2 to get around 10-15 ppm of CO2, but with some fluctuations?

What choices of plants should work with this?

I'm asking because I am thinking about restarting my 65 gallon tank soon, and this sounds interesting.


----------



## burr740

Some interesting discussion here.



niko said:


> Algae: You got to be kidding.


Maybe Im seeing things wrong, but top right, is that not a leaf with fuzz algae on the perimeter, and then a big wad of clado behind it? Bottom right looks like cyano, and then some bba over to the left.

Granted it is minimal, but let's not pretend this is some magical way of doing things that is somehow immune to algae. 

What I see is a slowly driven tank with non-demanding plants doing fine with fish poop, tap water and some additional gh. In other words, just a nice low tech set up. Am I missing something?


----------



## Mikevwall

^lol


----------



## niko

Here we go again. We are trying to fit something that we don't understand in the frames of what we already kind of know. 
This has happened many times with many other posters that introduce things that are not the usual "wisdom" spread on the internet. Usually such threads go South because people just can't help showing their ignorance. I'm guilty of that too so I recognize it when I see it. Let's make an honest attempt for something different this time, ah?

Here is a challenge:
1. Show me pictures of a tank in which you can dip a BBA covered plant and have it clean in some days. Show me pictures of that being done a few times with different plants.
2. Show me pictures of plants as healthy or healthier than the red Sword and the 12" tall Crypt I posted in the beginning.
3. Show me pictures of a tank that you can leave by itself for 2 weeks and nothing will deteriorate. Make that a month. Make that 3 months.
4. Show me pictures of your amazing high demanding plants after 14 days of no care looking just fine. Explain how do they exist in Nature when you are not there.
5. Show me a picture of some plant covered in BGA that you dipped in your super-duper tank today and the BGA went away in 6 hours. I did that yesterday with a Buce. Surely you can show me the same thing.
6. No, I don't expect to see any pictures for items 1 through 4. But I kind of hope someone can muster a disappearing BGA picture. That one is easy to do. ...I hope...

1 of 5. C'mon. All these years on internet forums, all this knowledge sharing and experience. And gorgeous aquascapes full of high maintenance plants...

It'd be funny if it was not kind of sad.


----------



## niko

burr740 said:


> Some interesting discussion here.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Im seeing things wrong, but top right, is that not a leaf with fuzz algae on the perimeter, and then a big wad of clado behind it? Bottom right looks like cyano, and then some bba over to the left.
> 
> Granted it is minimal, but let's not pretend this is some magical way of doing things that is somehow immune to algae.
> 
> What I see is a slowly driven tank with non-demanding plants doing fine with fish poop, tap water and some additional gh. In other words, just a nice low tech set up. Am I missing something?


Yes, you are.

Read previous post more carefully of you want. The two pictures were taken after a very long period of neglect, low light, no CO2. And six discus in the tank. What do you expect to see? Super clean tank? Yes, there were algae. But anyone that knows a little big about planted tank will understand that if you can grow such incredibly healthy plants in that tank very soon there will be zero algae in sight. 

In adition - look at the Cladophora in the top right. Does this seem like the normal form of Cladophora to you? Don't you see that it's transitioning to the non-invasive form?

Maybe you see some leftover BGA in the bottom right. Once again - these are leftovers from months of neglect and having dirty fish.

BBA was never a problem in that tank. Not sure what you see as BBA.

Once again - this thread is not about what is right what is wrong. It is about a better way to run a tank. Simpler, easier, more predictable. It's about introducing the idea of stability and "rest" as primary factors. Nothing new, but you do see how novel it all sounds. These are things that are more than 40 years old knowledge. The same things that ADA re-packaged in order to turn itself into the ultimate authority. And still going strong with the same old aquascapes from up to 2005.

Look at the bigger picture. Not "this tank is simple, that one is high tech cool." That is mentality that belongs to the period 2005-2010.


----------



## Mikevwall

It's not that everyone is bashing you or your concept, nothing you are claiming is truly proven.You may be dosing your tAnk with algicide, we don't know. We can't call you a definitive liar, but there's no hard evidence. And with the growth rate you are claiming, you must trim your plants every night. When you leave for a few days, your plants must be touching the moon when you come home. With a game changing breakthrough, or concept, you need more documentation for it to be considered. 
So you're saying you could throw a few stems of pantanal, or senegalensis ( 2 co2/ micro/macro hogs off the top of my head) in that set up, and after the adjustment period you will see the same results?


----------



## mistergreen

I think we can all agree that there are many paths to the same result. The only difference is speed.

This is my 10G dirted tank that I basically ignore beside feeding the critters inside. The carpet plant is the slow growing/demanding crypto parva. This tank does receive a lot of light actually. There's some clado algae on the intake but I live with it.


----------



## AWolf

I love this kind of stuff. Controversy! Possible new ways to do things. It always helps someone, somehow.

A year or two ago I started keeping tanks without filters, substrates or air. I added weekly Leaf Zone, (some months I only added Leaf Zone once) and that was all. By charts using pH and KH I figured extremely high CO2 in these stagnant water tanks by the end of the week just before water change. Biofilm covered the top, and the air bubbles from the plants pearling stuck in the biofilm like little stars in the sky. Beautiful to me. I was laughed off stage when I spoke of the high CO2 levels I was calculating. I didn't have a CO2 meter, and as it turns out, using the tables to calculate by pH/KH is way too fallible according to the experts. Let's just say that I believe the CO2 could not escape and built up under the biofilm. My beginner type plants grew well, and algae was reasonable. So I am quite interested in your experience, as I have an open mind to it all. Would you please share all parameters/metrics regarding your lighting, CO2, substrate, water source, fish, food, etc?

I documented my success and progress: aquariumexperiments.com


----------



## GrampsGrunge

Well as a partial confirmation of this technique. A Eugene LFS owner was big on crushed Dolomite as a gravel additive for his own in-store's aquarium gravel. He also was starting up a water gardening center and was using a lot of Dolomite in his pond plant substrate, used at his greenhouses. I think folks like myself with extremely soft water should consider that a bit of balanced carbonate hardness isn't a bad idea as a base for your water chemistry. George and Karla Booth recommended it for soft water planted tanks back in 1993. 

Finding powdered Dolomite might be a challenge though, as the supplement grade Dolomite has been cited as potentially having Lead and other heavy metals as co-contaminants, and will have the baleful eye of the Food and Drug folks on it's sale, if it isn't under scrutiny already.

This in itself does give me a bit of a pause in endorsing this.


----------



## AWolf

A link to the type of dolomite you are using would be helpful.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

AWolf said:


> A link to the type of dolomite you are using would be helpful.


Are you asking me or Niko? Presently my only water treatment is to add a tiny amount of KCl and Potassium Gluconate as an extra source of carbon, with every other water change.

Seems to have helped my Java Fern mostly.


----------



## Hoppy

I am confused! I'm also far from young, so maybe that is my problem. Anyway, Niko, you started a thread about a way to have a very nicely growing planted tank, using dolomite to obtain a good ratio of calcium an magnesium, with minimal fertilizing. That is certainly of interest to many of us. But, unless you provide sufficient information for us to duplicate your results, this isn't of much value. As I posted earlier, I am looking for something like this for when I restart my 65 gallon tank. I can't use your method without knowing a lot more about it, and you haven't provided that information. See my last post, from last night, for some of the information I need. Also, how do you determine how much dolomite to add, and how often to add it? It is easy to get powdered dolomite from Amazon, but if I have no idea how to use it, it isn't worth the bother.

I'm not asking for a book, like Diana Walstad wrote, just some simple data.


----------



## AWolf

GrampsGrunge said:


> Are you asking me or Niko? Presently my only water treatment is to add a tiny amount of KCl and Potassium Gluconate as an extra source of carbon, with every other water change.
> 
> Seems to have helped my Java Fern mostly.


I'm not finding a type of Dolomite that isn't also called 'lime', which the OP says is not the same. The OP mentions getting it from road work supplies, but where else is it available?


----------



## GrampsGrunge

AWolf said:


> I'm not finding a type of Dolomite that isn't also called 'lime', which the OP says is not the same. The OP mentions getting it from road work supplies, but where else is it available?


Found this, http://www.amazon.com/KAL-Dolomite-Powder-16-454/dp/B00020HVU0

Not sure why they would call Dolomite 'Lime' I mean Lime can be anything from CaCO3 to Crushed chalk to Ca Hydroxide, it's too broad a definition. And it's not Dolomite


----------



## Smooch

AWolf said:


> I'm not finding a type of Dolomite that isn't also called 'lime', which the OP says is not the same. The OP mentions getting it from road work supplies, but where else is it available?


There was a discussion about this very issue here back in 2009. Here's the thread. http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/29-substrate/80589-dolomite.html

From all that I've been able to find, Dolomite used to be sold as a substrate for SW tanks. Seems as though crushed coral and aragonite have taken over that scene.


----------



## tapwater

Dolomite is used extensively in the mining industry to cover coal dust and minimize methane explosions. As far as I know it is a lime. It is also used to assist in the decomposition of decaying matter as follows:
* It will prevent the growth of microorganisms and will inhibit the decomposition process for a while. It will also neutralize and immobilize acidic components formed in the decomposition process. This will reduce the odour of decomposition. For this purpose lime is also used in the treatment of sewage and of animal & human feces. For example in outdoor toilets, powdered lime or limestone should be added regularly, to suppress the smell. Furthermore by its neutralizing property, lime can also promote the aerobic breakdown of organic components, as many aerobic bacteria are hampered by the acids formed in the decomposition. The inability of aerobic bacteria to cope with such acidic conditions can result in an anaerobic decomposition. As you might know, anaerobic decompositions produce compounds like methane, H2S and NH3 (among many others), which cause strong odours as well. Finally, the neutralization caused by lime and even more so limestone is more moderate than for e.g. with caustic soda because lime will release its alkalinity slower and over a longer period, resulting in more stable pH conditions during the decomposition.


----------



## AWolf

Smooch said:


> There was a discussion about this very issue here back in 2009. Here's the thread. http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/29-substrate/80589-dolomite.html
> 
> From all that I've been able to find, Dolomite used to be sold as a substrate for SW tanks. Seems as though crushed coral and aragonite have taken over that scene.


Thanks! I was asking every question the linked thread answered. Perfect.


----------



## Smooch

AWolf said:


> Thanks! I was asking every question the linked thread answered. Perfect.


You're welcome. If I understood Tom's post correctly, crushed coral will do the same thing. There is nothing magical about it. I use it to keep my pH stable.


----------



## mistergreen

Right, I do have bits of Coral in my dirt substrate. Walstad does say that soil that's too acidic is not a good environment.

You can get a bag of dolomite lime from Espoma at your nearest Home Depot btw.


----------



## Hoppy

A few years ago Plantbrain had a planted tank with 100% crushed dolomite as the substrate. As you probably would suspect, the tank looked great and grew plants well. It does dissolve in water, but very slowly if the the pH is near 7.0 or higher.


----------



## Goomie

My question is, what types of effects would this have on fish? The OP claims the powder would make the tank "milky" which, to me, sounds like the fish wouldn't like it that much.


----------



## AWolf

Hoppy said:


> A few years ago Plantbrain had a planted tank with 100% crushed dolomite as the substrate. As you probably would suspect, the tank looked great and grew plants well. It does dissolve in water, but very slowly if the the pH is near 7.0 or higher.


For those of us hovering around 6.4pH, this could milk up the water, couldn't it?


----------



## DennisSingh

Everything ever known and ever done all revolves and resolves around lighting.....


----------



## Hoppy

AWolf said:


> For those of us hovering around 6.4pH, this could milk up the water, couldn't it?


It would result in a rising KH and GH, which would eventually raise the pH high enough to greatly reduce the the speed of dissolving of the dolomite.


----------



## houseofcards

StrungOut said:


> Everything ever known and ever done all revolves and resolves around lighting.....


Very Carl Sagan..ish

"The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.."


----------



## GrampsGrunge

houseofcards said:


> Very Carl Sagan..ish
> 
> "The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.."


"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe_."

_
"Our planet, our society, and we ourselves are built of star stuff."


----------



## Maryland Guppy

mistergreen said:


> You can get a bag of dolomite lime from Espoma at your nearest Home Depot btw.


The Espoma MSDS does not list content, it is their trade secret clause.
True dolomite will contain the Mg portion.

Is this really any different than adding CaSO4 or CaCO3 and MgSO4 to an aquarium to reach a certain level?
Mind you the Ca compounds don't dissolve well anyway.
They sink to the bottom as a suspension and dissolve when they can.

Many cichlid owners used crushed coral or dolomite, ect.. in a filter sock suspended somewhere in there filter???

Milky water, I have not seen this yet.
I have a 55 that sucks up Ca, cannot keep it in the water column.
I just use a pinch of CaCO3 once or twice a week, Ca of about 20ppm this way.


----------



## Hoppy

If I dose dolomite I cannot get a 4-1 ratio of calcium to magnesium, unless I also have a significant amount of calcium from my tap water. Here is the calculation:









If a 4-1 ratio is of any significance I would have to first figure out how much calcium and magnesium I already have in the tank water, then calculate the dosage of dolomite that would get me near that ratio. And, I would have to continue doing this every water change, or even with no water change, I would have to because of top offs of tap water.

Incidentally, "milky water" is the undissolved dolomite suspended in the water. The only effect pH would have is on how long it takes to dissolve that suspended dolomite.


----------



## heel4you

*@ hoppy*

Hey Hoppy,
What fert calculator are you using?
I like it 
Thanks


----------



## ecotanker

Perhaps we need to calcium carbonate along with dolomite to get to the 4:1 ratio?

Niko, please give us a guideline so people can test this methodology you have come across.


There is a relatively cheap form of "food" grade dolomite on amazon from Greenway Biotech.
Farmers feed it to ther animals, so it is unlikely to impurities like lead or copper.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> *The result of the ample "rest period" that ADA employs* - if we can believe ADA's professionally timed and produced pictures of course - are plants that are exceptionally healthy with substrate fertilization and minor daily doses of fertilizers. Simply put - clean water and food hidden away from the algae. You will agree - such tank is more stable, the plants look especially healthy, and if there are any issues they can be handled way, way easier. .


What rest period are you referring to with ADA? I must admit I haven’t been keeping tracking of their current guidelines with some of the newer LEDs, but back in the day when Riccia wasn’t a dirty word and all those stunning pics came out they lit their tanks for 8-10 hrs. Their standard light for a 60p was a Solar One (150 Watt MH) so there was no dimming or a second switch it was the 150 watt suspended at various heights whether you wanted a non-limiting tank or limited one in terms of plant type.


----------



## Hoppy

The calculator I use for fertilizers is Rotala Butterfly | Planted Aquarium Nutrient Dosing Calculator I like it for a number of reasons.


----------



## mistergreen

FIY, Ca & Mg are consider Secondary Macro nutrients besides the usual NKP. If you don't provide them in larger quantities, your plants will hurt. I don't think the ratio matters. Some plants need more of it than others of course. Your tough plants like anubias need lots of it. Ca is used to build cell walls and retain other nutrients and Mg is used for making sugars and starches. Sulfur belongs in this group as well.


----------



## niko

One thing you will notice is that I don't talk about crazy new ideas. It is all old knowledge, observations. Things that if you have been in this hobby for some time have become evident to you too. In fact more or less every single thing I talked about can be found on the two main American forums if you search back in time.

What is important to notice in this here thread is how people react to that or just flat out refuse to even read it normally. It's important to notice because it has to do with how we limit ourselves and how you move forward.

Violent knee-jerk reactions either way are a common phenomenon when introducing something new. But I don't even introduce new facts. What is new is the angle - we are all used to divide planted tanks into high-tech and low tech:

*High-tech* grows hard to grow plants, it's bright and beautiful, full of water column fertilizers, requires lots of maintenance, and shutting down if you are away for a week. 
*Low-tech* is is slow, ugly, and can't grow all kinds of plants because the nutrients are in the substrate only, hardly any maintenance, no need to shut down if you can't take care of it. 

Do you really believe that is all there is to it? What we all have seen in our own tanks suggest that is not the end of the story.

_My argument is that by using the natural tendencies employed by low tech tanks (and proven over more than 70 years) we can lead a tank to a state in which it can function at a different level. Stable, clean, predictable, replicable, allowing you full freedom to scale up or down every single factor._

With or without me on the things we discuss here it would be wise to take away the following:
*High-tech and Low-tech approaches are not the end of the story.*

That is what this thread is about.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

We get what the thread is about. What we're not getting is a formula, a how to, an exact amount of Dolomite per gallon needed to make this work.


----------



## Smooch

I don't think this thread is nearly clean cut as it is now being portrayed as. Good tank husbandry whether it be the crazy, high maintenance tank or the ugly low tech that can't grow anything react the same way when they are properly taken care of. There is no magic in Dolomite. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be a entire section dedicated to algae because there wouldn't be any.


----------



## heel4you

Niko,
I am in agreement with GrampsGrunge, that we do know what the thread is about.
This is what I would like to know, so I can try it:
1. What is your formula? 
2. How much dolomite do you use per gallon?
3. How do you introduce the dolomite to the tank?
If we have these answers we can try it, which I would like to, just need direction.
Thank you


----------



## AWolf

I really do appreciate this forum. It is a place to share experiences and knowledge. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my methods. I wish you would do the same. But since you won't, we will go looking elsewhere for the information. Maybe we should have subforum called 'Teasers'.


----------



## AWolf

niko said:


> The simplest, cheapes, and best example of the above is adjusting the Ca:Mg ratio. It is very easy to do and to see the difference. Once you get close to the proper ratio (4:1) AND with the proper fertilizer you will see very fast and very positive changes in the plants. You will find that the plants actually need way less of the other fertilizers too which is only a good thing - leading to a more natural and stable system. The "secret" proper fertilizer is very simple - Dolomite. Dolomite powder to be exact.
> 
> --Nikolay


How much dolomite powder? And you mention the proper fertilizer, which ones and how often/much do you use?


----------



## niko

Good old read below.

Is the first tank in that thread a typical High-tech tank? 
Read the guy's notes about stability and gradual increase of light.
Read the guy's notes about some plants just not growing without CO2. 
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...-3ft-high-tech-low-tech-nano-experiments.html

Here's a good experiment:
Take some simple plants - Ferns, moss, simple stems, Anubias, some easy carpet grassy plants. Make a High-tech tank. It will look very healthy. Unstable but healthy, no doubt.
Then compare it to every single tank in the ADA gallery. Are these High tech tanks? They use puny light most of the day. The fertilizers are minor. The CO2 never, ever drops the pH below 6.8. These don't fit the understanding for High tech tanks. But they are not Low tech either. 

They are something we, in America ignore. When was the last time you told a newbie asking how to start his tank to learn from the Japanese? Never. A newbie gets advice about NPK and micros first. 
THAT is what is the next phase of this hobby - not emulating Japanese tanks but following the principles that they "borrowed" from the Old School hobby and blending them with what we already know about High tech.


----------



## Raymond S.

Here is a hypothetical for you...
I already have the parameters in what has been labeled by a few persons to be
"just right" on GH/KH and PH.
6.8 on the PH, don't remember the order on these if it's 3/5 or 5/3 but those were
the numbers I got from the test on them when I did them.
But I believe it was KH 3 and GH 5.
I know, that suggest it's time to do them again...LOL...
But if they are correct as is, how can I add the 4/1 GH booster CaSO4/MGSO4 and
still have the above mentioned parameters as they are.

BTW: I mentioned this in a thread a couple of days back. Anyone can set up a tank(almost anyone) but let's see any of these tanks above in Post #65
after two years. I realize the above tanks did not pop up overnight. But what will that same tank look like after a couple of years.


----------



## Smooch

No surprises in the link posted. Good husbandry, light bio-loads, water changes and the OP uses modifed IE for ferts. So, if your point was not to use ferts at all, you posted a bad example. Beautiful tanks though.


----------



## Mikevwall

You're arguing with yourself at this point OP. Most, including myself, here are skeptical due to lack of information you provide besides dolomite and time.Then There are multiple members, that are VERY active in this forum/thread (hoppy and awolf, and we know awolf is all about experimentation),that are simply trying to get a formula out of you. Why are you avoiding this? Why are you acting like you are not reading those comments? Spill the beans already! You're like a highschool date at this point, a wolf nailed it, a tease.
Get these respected members the info they need to start having the same success as you do so the rest of us can join the bandwagon.


----------



## DennisSingh

Are u guys trying to rape him for an answer? Now that we dropping to those analogies...


----------



## Smooch

StrungOut said:


> Are u guys trying to rape him for an answer? Now that we dropping to those analogies...


Nah, just wondering what and where the miracle is. Certainly if OP knows something that nobody else does and it can do all these wonderful things, I would think it would be worth sharing as why bother posting about it if sharing wasn't a option in the first place.

That and I'm confused as this was supposed to be about not using ferts. Which is it? Use ferts? Don't use ferts?


----------



## Zorfox

I've questioned the validity of claims by the OP. However, give him a chance to respond! We all seem to jump on out of the ordinary claims without regards to people's real lives. Hopefully, we all have real lives to deal with. We may not have time to respond in what's considered an appropriate time frame. i.e I may make a perfectly legitimate claim, however, if I don't respond in two or three days it's dismissed. That's not fair! 

I personally question the claims made, yet I'm willing to listen to the reasoning behind them. I may say (and I do) that Dolomite is nothing more than Calcium, Magnesium and carbonate. What's the difference between that and GH booster? Who knows? Dolomite is a grab bag of other minerals which may, quite possibly be significant to the hobby.

Will we expect to see ridiculous growth rates? I doubt it. However, until we open our minds to new ideas the hobby will stagnate. Most likely I'll be the biggest advocate against what the OP is suggesting. My thought process is geared towards each element contained and adjusting those levels. Old school? Maybe so. Never the less, let the guy explain what he's seen. I've read the OP's posts on APC. He's not a complete idiot! He does have a clue to what's going on. Give him a chance. Again, I may be the biggest proponent against this but until then let's at least listen! 

End rant... 

I reserve the right to tear the claims of the OP apart until such time he can persuade me to understand why the claims are superior!


----------



## AWolf

StrungOut said:


> Are u guys trying to rape him for an answer? Now that we dropping to those analogies...


I think our questions are being dismissed. The OP could have easily responded to the posters questions but instead chose to post more argument for his unknown formula. We are being strung along, strungout!:wink2:


----------



## Hoppy

I don't think we should be too hard on Niko. It looks like he had very good success using powdered dolomite, and combined that with some of the other things he did with his successful tanks, then tried to tell us about it. I'm not happy with the amount of information provided, but that's all. I may decide to try powdered dolomite as a supplement to my GH booster, but in any case it did stimulate some thinking on my part.


----------



## Mikevwall

After seeing awolfs last post using dolomite I will not. 
I have three 20 gallons that need set up to my outdoor system and was also considering this.
We do all have lives, I understand that, but he does respond, and his responses are not posted without doing some research and putting some time into it.


----------



## thedood

Mikevwall said:


> After seeing awolfs last post using dolomite I will not.
> I have three 20 gallons that need set up to my outdoor system and was also considering this.
> We do all have lives, I understand that, but he does respond, and his responses are not posted without doing some research and putting some time into it.


Awolf tried to use it as a substrate if I read correctly. I think it would be a good tool for pre-charging sts or kitty litter.


----------



## Jeff5614

Raymond S. said:


> ... But what will that same tank look like after a couple of years.


Are you saying they will be better or worse. Just curious.


----------



## AWolf

I gather this much:
He uses LED's with 20 PAR @substrate
He uses them between 1 - 5 hours a day possibly
He adds fertilizers of some sort occasionally.
He uses some amount of powdered dolomite mixed in some amount of water and poured into the tank
He uses CO2 for some amount of time
He is using laterite in some kind of substrate

I feel like I'm on a bad date! But hey, I'll take a bad date over no date.


----------



## Mikevwall

thedood said:


> Awolf tried to use it as a substrate if I read correctly. I think it would be a good tool for pre-charging sts or kitty litter.


I feel like if that was his method, he would have said so, don't you agree?


----------



## thedood

Mikevwall said:


> I feel like if that was his method, he would have said so, don't you agree?


I agree, my mistake. What he had said was he wondered if it could be used as a substrate and then his next post negated that premise (I need to slow down when I read at times lol). I stand corrected. However that doesnt negate my premise that dolomite or lime would be a good tool for pre-charging sts or kitty litter. The premise being that what I have read that sts and kitty litter will absorb carbonates from the water column. Pre-charging in theory would prevent that from happening, it would also eliminate the mudwater results that Awolf experienced.

Bump: I want to also give some credit the the op for challenging conventional wisdom and thinking outside the box. How many advancements in aquatic husbandry exist because of new ideas and outside the box thinking? Not every idea works but kudos for the effort none the less.


----------



## Zorfox

Hoppy said:


> I don't think we should be too hard on Niko. It looks like he had very good success using powdered dolomite, and combined that with some of the other things he did with his successful tanks, then tried to tell us about it. I'm not happy with the amount of information provided, but that's all. I may decide to try powdered dolomite as a supplement to my GH booster, but in any case it did stimulate some thinking on my part.


+1 Let's give the guy a chance! 

You may not completely agree, as I don't, yet I've been wrong before! Nothing wrong with listening to other ideas. If we can't do that, this hobby will never advance! This is coming from one of the most reserved users here. You have to show me before I jump on the bandwagon. Never the less, I'll take a ride if it may benefit the hobby! Just saying. Show me the proof or even a suspicion of the evidence.


----------



## Smooch

Zorfox said:


> +1 Let's give the guy a chance!
> 
> You may not completely agree, as I don't, yet I've been wrong before! Nothing wrong with listening to other ideas. If we can't do that, this hobby will never advance! This is coming from one of the most reserved users here. You have to show me before I jump on the bandwagon. Never the less, I'll take a ride if it may benefit the hobby! Just saying. Show me the proof or even a suspicion of the evidence.


I'm more than willing to listen, however, OP has decided not to talk. He's going to talk about everything but what his thread was supposed to be. People do know when they are being played. Some people are willing to overlook this behavior more than others.

I have hunted down the You Tube channel of a member here by the name of Xiaozhuang; the same person that OP linked to last time he posted. Yet another opportunity to answer questions that was intentionally avoided.

If a person wants to know how to keep a high tech / low tech tank ( plants don't care about the labels we toss around) then Xiaozhuang is a prime example of a person to look to. 

There are no secrets, no magic fixes, no promises about substances that act like fairy dust, ect... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDdpUe4Olcg

OP brought this problem on himself. If there finger wagging going on, OP needs to trot off to a mirror. If this was nothing more than a way to get attention, I would suggest he find a alternate means of doing so, preferably one that is at least somewhat constructive. We didn't all fall off the turnip truck yesterday...


----------



## Mikevwall

Smooch said:


> I'm more than willing to listen, however, OP has decided not to talk. He's going to talk about everything but what his thread was supposed to be. People do know when they are being played. Some people are willing to overlook this behavior more than others.
> 
> I have hunted down the You Tube channel of a member here by the name of Xiaozhuang; the same person that OP linked to last time he posted. Yet another opportunity to answer questions that was intentionally avoided.
> 
> If a person wants to know how to keep a high tech / low tech tank ( plants don't care about the labels we toss around) then Xiaozhuang is a prime example of a person to look to.
> 
> There are no secrets, no magic fixes, no promises about substances that act like fairy dust, ect... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDdpUe4Olcg
> 
> OP brought this problem on himself. If there finger wagging going on, OP needs to trot off to a mirror. If this was nothing more than a way to get attention, I would suggest he find a alternate means of doing so, preferably one that is at least somewhat constructive. We didn't all fall off the turnip truck yesterday...


preach it brotha! We all just want to hash out the details here.
Beating around the bush for this long is not nice.


----------



## Zorfox

Smooch said:


> I'm more than willing to listen, however, OP has decided not to talk. He's going to talk about everything but what his thread was supposed to be. People do know when they are being played. Some people are willing to overlook this behavior more than others.
> 
> I have hunted down the You Tube channel of a member here by the name of Xiaozhuang; the same person that OP linked to last time he posted. Yet another opportunity to answer questions that was intentionally avoided.
> 
> If a person wants to know how to keep a high tech / low tech tank ( plants don't care about the labels we toss around) then Xiaozhuang is a prime example of a person to look to.
> 
> There are no secrets, no magic fixes, no promises about substances that act like fairy dust, ect... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDdpUe4Olcg
> 
> OP brought this problem on himself. If there finger wagging going on, OP needs to trot off to a mirror. If this was nothing more than a way to get attention, I would suggest he find a alternate means of doing so, preferably one that is at least somewhat constructive. We didn't all fall off the turnip truck yesterday...


I have no idea if Niko is Xiaozhuang. I seriously doubt it. I've been a member on APC for quite a while. Niko is a valued member there with thousands of posts. His posts have been pretty straightforward. I'm willing to give him a chance. I don't agree with everything that's been said but his support to the hobby deserves an audience in my opinion. The lack of response is not a result of the OP's diligence. As I said in my previous post, we all have real lives. We're not all sitting on pins and needles awaiting the next response. Some of us have real things to do. This is a hobby. We can't all be expected to await every response. Just like a planted tank, patience is a virtue!


----------



## GrampsGrunge

This thread title says 'No fertilizers', the example the OP gives of his system working, is an example from Xz's thread.... Well, Xz uses AquaSoil which is a fertilizer as a substrate, with no mention by Xz using an additional amount of GH or KH booster, Dolomite, Aragonite or whatever. Xz also lives in the Tropics, no mention of his water sources parameters, out of tap.

I'm out, if I seemed a bit impatient, it's because I think the OP is stretching this way out. If he's from Texas and the first tank images were from Texas, what were the GH and DH of the water used to begin with, ( isn't most of Texas's water pretty hard, and a lot from carbonates?) Why add more carbonate hardener?

I'm considering that I will keep my own council and play with what I know, and not get into trying to change my water parameters wildly on the hope that it will suddenly, magically make my tank burst into new growth.

I appreciate that the OP is trying to help, but not everyone has the same water coming out of their taps for a 'one-size-fits-all" scheme to encompass.

My present situation is I've just started a dirted 20 gallon using a really small amount of my yard's subsoil and some 'dirt' from our little water source's stream bed. I have about 8 really young White Clouds and 9 small Neons as stock right now and I'm feeding minimally.

My tank is presently a big Diatom farm. it's smothering all of my plants, and coating the gravel.

Our tap water is practically Rio ***** water conditions, PacNorWest blackwater, but it's always been a source of Diatoms. If I grow one type of algae really well, it's diatoms. And that means I have excess silicates and I don't think the tannins and Iron are helping either.


----------



## Hoppy

To add to the general confusion:The GH booster from Nilocg contains 3 parts CaSO4 and one part MgSO4 (plus 3 parts K2SO4) The Calcium to Magnesium ratio for that is about 4.4 to 1, which is a lot closer to 4 to 1 than the ratio for dolomite, which is about 1.6 to 1. So, if you are using Nilocg's GH Booster to raise the GH, adding Magnesium also, you are much more likely to have a 4 to 1 calcium to magnesium ratio than if you use dolomite. You could use the dolomite to reduce the 4.4 to 1 ratio down to 4 to 1. My brain is foggy now, so I haven't figured how much dolomite added to 1 tsp of GH booster will yield a 4 to 1 ratio.


----------



## Smooch

Hoppy said:


> To add to the general confusion:The GH booster from Nilocg contains 3 parts CaSO4 and one part MgSO4 (plus 3 parts K2SO4) The Calcium to Magnesium ratio for that is about 4.4 to 1, which is a lot closer to 4 to 1 than the ratio for dolomite, which is about 1.6 to 1. So, if you are using Nilocg's GH Booster to raise the GH, adding Magnesium also, you are much more likely to have a 4 to 1 calcium to magnesium ratio than if you use dolomite. You could use the dolomite to reduce the 4.4 to 1 ratio down to 4 to 1. My brain is foggy now, so I haven't figured how much dolomite added to 1 tsp of GH booster will yield a 4 to 1 ratio.


What is the perfect ratio though and is there really such a thing in the first place? For those that have been in this hobby for awhile, this 'perfect' solution is starting to sound hauntingly like chasing the perfect pH. What is the perfect pH? Cichlid owners are not going to be happy with a pH of 5.5, while Discus owners are not going to going to dump liquid rock in their tanks. 

At any given time my filters are covered with calcium deposits and I have soft, acidic water. I'm almost willing to bet a doughnut my water is even more acidic than usual due to the lack of rain, but I'm not willing to buy a low range pH test kit to find out. The joys of well water. My point is even if there was a perfect ratio, that ratio would be completely out of whack with one winter where we have a few feet of snow. 

Then there is the issue of adding a product made for a garden to a tank. In the thread dated back to 2009, Tom makes a point to talk about the differences dolomite sand vs the stuff that is used to buffer soil. I'd be curious to know what the lime content is of dolomite sand versus the stuff that is created in a factory to make somebodies hydrangea happy.

One of the things OP keeps talking about is tank stability. My tank would not be stable using this method because my water source is constantly changing. I have found a way to deal with my KH issue so my fish don't get sick or I crash my tank from constantly tinkering with my water parameters. Water changes have never been so easy as I don't have to spend all my time trying to make the water parameters match. I don't drain my tank with water changes, so what tiny pH swing there is doesn't bother anything.

The one thing I need to do is to continue adding more fast growing stem plants so they can soak up any natural swings that happen seasonally and back off a bit on the ferts. Not because I have a issue with ferts, rather because since my tanks are made up of mostly slow growing plants so they don't need ferts 6 days a week. When that ratio changes, I'll deal with any tweaks that need to be made then.

Among many things OP has said, I also question his idea of stable and perfect solutions.


----------



## Hoppy

Smooch said:


> What is the perfect ratio though and is there really such a thing in the first place? For those that have been in this hobby for awhile, this 'perfect' solution is starting to sound hauntingly like chasing the perfect pH. ....


As best I can tell, from several years of reading what the experts tell us, and from my own experience, there is no "perfect" ratio for anything in a planted tank. In fact, I doubt that there is any value in trying to get a ratio between any of the parameters of our water. Instead, the goal should be to have an adequate concentration of every one of the plants' needs, without having way too much of anything. This is a complicated hobby, in my opinion, and adding another complication isn't likely to be of any benefit.

However, I have always had mixed results with my tanks, and most often have had problems figuring out why my plants do what they do. So, I'm always looking for more knowledge that might improve my results.

I have also been wrong so often that it is hard for me to be certain about much of this hobby.


----------



## niko

Listen all,

The following is written in pretty short sentences because it is no news that some people can't follow more than 4 words in a sequence. That leads to gross misunderstandings and an overall bad aftertaste. It diminishes the value of what anyone here says;

I don't have time to answer as soon as everybody wants me to. I have not read the thread since the other day, only added to it. Someone told me people started to act up as usual. So here it is:

It is no news that ignorance is a big problem in this hobby. That is why we are where we are today. Without answers to basic questions. There are people trying to figure out some better ways. To keep algae at bay from all things. Just like freaking 15 years ago. Because ignorance and shallow understanding have dominated the US hobby for 15 years. US aquascaping is non-existent, knowledge base is a hair higher than 15 years ago - we mainly know what NOT to do. We are down to one active forum. Mainly because of sponsors. This is not good. Can't deny that.

So for those that are willing to learn something new and advanced, or just want to get a breath of fresh air in this hobby - please, stick with the thread. In the next few days I will connect the idealistic/theoretical thoughts with actual practical applications. Even if you just start to use different fertilizers as a result of reading this thread you would have made a step ahead. And if you want to stick to what you already believe and do blindly or half-blindly - fine, who cares? That's how some people are wired. At least until some point.

Or we can turn this thread into the usual "I'm right, you are wrong" exchange. And go back to our usual programming. Same thing that we have had many times over in the last decade. Do we want this to be our hobby? No. Do we want it to be an enjoyable thing? 

*Yes.*

--Nikolay


----------



## Goomie

@niko

Ive been following this thread since it got started. Waiting. Patiently. I want to know this formula. I want to know what works. I have a 15G tank that failed to grow much until I stayed to add flourish to it. If there is an easier way, I want to know, because I'm still battling algae even with my modified dosing and light regime. 

I've been following. Reading all the whisping words and promises. Comprehending. Wondering. Curious and confused. 

I haven't made much comment on this thread except regarding fish, which was not answered. 

Literally all we want is a formula or a method or some kind of step by step.

If we are as stupid as you say we are then you should know that we need a full, and very detailed, breakdown of how you've achieved these accomplishments.

I will continue to wait. I just wanted to point out that not all of us are stupid, or ignorant... Just curious.


----------



## burr740




----------



## AWolf

I thought this was a forum for inquiry. I don't usually expect a thesis. It is a bit difficult to learn this way. By leaving out some key information to the end effect of your methods, I feel I'm strung along unnecessarily, and I wonder to what end?

But I will drop in on this thread upon occassion, hoping some of our inquiries are answered directly. Your motives for stringing us along are becoming more interesting than the topic, in my opinion. :nerd:


----------



## tapwater

To do lomite or not to do lomite - that is the question!


----------



## GrampsGrunge

Well at least it was only 6 pages from, "I'm going to show you a better way.." to insulting your audience's intelligence.

Not one to be into requiring bona-fides, but this isn't my first trip around the block with planted aquaria.


----------



## Mikevwall

How does one find time to read and answer his own thread when his tank's plants are breaking world records for the fastest growing plant(s) on the planet!?


----------



## Smooch

Mikevwall said:


> How does one find time to read and answer his own thread when his tank's plants are breaking world records for the fastest growing plant(s) on the planet!?


LOL! 

I think this thread needs a title change as clearly using ferts is now the topic. Don't want to mislead the newbies to the hobby...


----------



## Jeff5614

I think it's time to toss in my 2 cents. I've known Niko for quite some time and had many conversations with him on APC. Without speaking for him, he's advocating running a tank with very lean water column ferts and a rich substrate, similar to ADA's method, which also includes moderate CO2 levels and moderate lighting. Tom Barr posted an analysis of ADA's liquid ferts a few years ago and I was surprised by them. The amount of nitrate in the recommended daily dose was well below 1 ppm. I want to think it was like 0.1 ppm as was PO4. Of course those recommendations would be laughed at by most people on TPT even taking into account an enriched substrate.

As for the amount of dolomite needed for a tank. Figure it out yourself. There are some very smart people on the forum who I think can find the amount of Ca and Mg in a given amount of dolomite and calculate how much is needed in X amount of water to obtain say 4 dGH. Which I think most can agree on as being a reasonable general hardness for planted tank.

While his style of communication may rub some of you the wrong way, he is merely interested in seeing the hobby advance past what he considers an inefficient and unstable way of managing a tank to a more stable method. A lot of people won't agree with him and you can feel free to disagree, but there's no need for some of the juvenile comments and respect for your elders might be something to consider even though that has largely been tossed out by our culture.

I welcome his posts on the forum and find them interesting and a cause to consider how I run my tank even if I don't agree with all of them. One of things I like the most is that I know he will still be in the hobby and interested in advancing it long after a lot of you have forgotten you even had an aquarium.


----------



## Smooch

As the saying goes... you attract more bees with honey than vinegar. Stating that everybody that has been in the hobby for the 15 years is ignorant is rude. If this is about lean dosing, then call it lean dosing. If this is about advancing the hobby, then by all means do so, but a person should do so with credibility. And since I'm one of those ignorant people that has been in this hobby for 15 plus years, it's not likely I'm going to forget my tanks any time soon.


----------



## Jeff5614

Smooch said:


> As the saying goes... you attract more bees with honey than vinegar. Stating that everybody that has been in the hobby for the 15 years is ignorant is rude. If this is about lean dosing, then call it lean dosing. If this is about advancing the hobby, then by all means do so, but a person should do so with credibility. And since I'm one of those ignorant people that has been in this hobby for 15 plus years, it's not likely I'm going to forget my tanks any time soon.


I don't recall saying anyone was ignorant. I'm not singling out anyone. Had I been I would have quoted them. 

I guess it's all in good fun to mock someone on the forum though, at least until the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## Smooch

Jeff5614 said:


> I don't recall saying anyone was ignorant. I'm not singling out anyone. Had I been I would have quoted them.
> 
> I guess it's all in good fun to mock someone on the forum though, at least until the shoe is on the other foot.


I didn't say you called anybody ignorant...



niko said:


> It is no news that ignorance is a big problem in this hobby. That is why we are where we are today. Without answers to basic questions. There are people trying to figure out some better ways. To keep algae at bay from all things. Just like freaking 15 years ago. Because ignorance and shallow understanding have dominated the US hobby for 15 years. US aquascaping is non-existent, knowledge base is a hair higher than 15 years ago - we mainly know what NOT to do. We are down to one active forum. Mainly because of sponsors. This is not good. Can't deny that.


Nuff said.


----------



## theatermusic87

The more I think about it the more I think his method isn't about add x amount of dolomite to get a desired result. More so to add it in sufficient quantities that it can dissolve into the water column and achieve whatever natural ca/mg concentrations the tank needs to run at. Whether is 4 to 1 or not is immaterial of tank balances. A balance between rate of uptake by plants and rate of dissolutions into the water column. I suppose this could be why there is no mention of a magic number to add.

My guess is that finding the right material you could probably get similar results with iron and micros as well


----------



## Jeff5614

Smooch said:


> I didn't say you called anybody ignorant...


I took what you said wrong then and I apologize. Imagine that though, misreading someone on a forum. :laugh2:


----------



## DennisSingh

could be renamed
people vs. barr
haters vs. ei
personal agenda vs T.b.

stirring more pots
smoking more trees

The plant gods are laughing at us, putting all our gadgets on a box
which eventually becomes an apocalyptic algae field.
Investing all that dough 

Niko nailed it. US aquascaping is almost non-existent, senske's n barr
what else he nailed is a mystery of vagueness


----------



## thedood

strungout said:


> could be renamed
> people vs. Barr
> haters vs. Ei
> personal agenda vs t.b.
> 
> Stirring more pots
> smoking more trees
> 
> the plant gods are laughing at us, putting all our gadgets on a box
> which eventually becomes an apocalyptic algae field.
> Investing all that dough
> 
> niko nailed it. Us aquascaping is almost non-existent, senske's n barr
> what else he nailed is a mystery of vagueness


lol


----------



## Hoppy

One problem with dolomite as a means of adjusting the calcium/magnesium ratio is the very slow rate at which dolomite dissolves in water. It you are using real dolomite, even if it is a powder, the amount of it in the water will constantly rise until it is finally all dissolved. I think the higher the pH, the slower it dissolves. This is also the biggest attribute of dolomite. When you use it you don't have to worry about a big spike in calcium or magnesium, just a very slow increase. As I noted before, if you get cloudiness from dosing the dolomite it is because it isn't dissolved, and when the water clears the dolomite is probably all down on and in the substrate, not dissolved yet. You can even use dolomite gravel as a substrate without getting a huge increase in GH.

I'm thinking about setting up my tank with a thin layer of dolomite gravel on the bottom, with mineralized topsoil on top of it, and inert substrate as a cap.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

I wouldn't be under the mantle of GrampsGrunge if I wasn't aware of a bit of my own crusty stubbornness.

That being said, I started with my first planted tank back in spring of 1992.

Basically an experiment from an article I read in Tropical Fish Hobbyist combined with George and Karla Booth's long running planted tank series in Aquarium Fish Magazine. Bolstered by the wit, wisdom, and basic aquarium husbandry from Jorge Vierke's book The Natural Aquarium.

I started in with a 29 gallon tank, what could be called a semi 'dirted' tank. It actually was a 2"~3" depth substrate, fine river gravel purchased from a local rock quarry that I left the fine dust in. And I made a DIY substrate heating element from airline tubing and heated it with excess heat from the 125 watt Mercury vapor lamp ballast for lighting. It wasn't heavily stocked with plants to begin with. Just two 'pots' worth of Rotala Indica and Heteranthera zosterifolia each and a few big Water Sprites and Java Fern/Moss. A few Pencilfish and my Flame Tetra grow-outs. I used bottled sparkling water for CO2 to begin with before making a DIY yeast/sugar system. It was quite literally the most plant growth I'd have ever seen from a aquarium with plants. Even friends who visited were more than a bit surprised.

I used no EI dosing, ( was not really being done then, although the Booths did talk about keeping a good base level of carbonates in the water for CO2 buffering.) Iron supplements, micro or macro ferts. But then our local water, out of the tap at the time was made for planted tanks. Jorge's recommendations of not messing with the water parameters unduly and stocking lightly were probably a good part of it's success. Dutch style aquariums were discussed in Jorge's book.

I had nearly no algae right from the beginning despite feeding my little flock of tetras pretty heavily. This tank ended up being the tank that did the best growth of all 4 I finally set up. I did do a small light amount of gravel vaccuming mainly in the corners and to remove old dead leaves, etc.

So yeah Niko can make all sorts of classless, asinine presumptions about anyone(s) who disagrees with him, past aquarium history. It was about 23 years ago, what the heck would I know?...

I've got the old snapshots and 38 minute VCR video of these tanks. When the video was made they had been up and running for 4 years. I was still using a little to none fert regime then. Mostly I just changed out my DIY CO2 bottles as they ran out of sugar.

I sold half gallon ziplock bags of Water sprite, Java moss and Rotala at our Aquarium club meetings semi monthly.

I also miss being that young man in that video.


----------



## thedood

GrampsGrunge said:


> I also miss being that young man in that video.


What we lose in youth we gain in wisdom.


----------



## Jeff5614

GrampsGrunge said:


> I've got the old snapshots and 38 minute VCR video of these tanks.


Those would be great to see. Especially the video.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

Jeff5614 said:


> Those would be great to see. Especially the video.


My Avatar and the Siggy pictures are screen captures..

More images. 

Thedood has already seen some of these, I need to get a NTSC to digital converter, someday


----------



## Goomie

+1 for @GrampsGrunge.

Thank you for your post... Maybe that VCR video makes it onto a DVD soon and we get to see it  

All in all we are just struggling to comprehend half of what Niko has said. Most of it is vague at best. And thanks to our local mad scientist... @AWolf ... We are learning more about dolomite and how it might affect our aquariums. I don't think it was ever unreasonable for us to ask for some glimmer of a recipe, most of us have put hundreds of dollars into our tanks. And are not willing to test an unproven, non-evidence based claim to unholy plant growth. What happens if we get the wrong kind of the many forms of powdered dolomite and it kills everything we've worked toward? Without sufficient evidence to these claims... Or even a brand name... A product... Anything... Nobody will listen. 

Thank you AWolf for putting your time and effort into clarifying this subject.

Also this is not my attack against Niko. I want to hear what he has to say... When he gets around to it. But for now, without anything to grasp to but straws, I'm watching AWolf's thread more closely.


----------



## Jeff5614

GrampsGrunge said:


> My Avatar and the Siggy pictures are screen captures..Thedood has already seen some of these, I need to get a NTSC to digital converter, someday


Yes you do. 

Seeing those pics reminds me of "Guppies to Groupers" with Paul Speice back in the 70's. Of course trying to watch a PBS channel on UHF living in a small town left more to the imagination than you were able to actually see on a very snowy TV screen.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

I will patiently wait for this new miracle recipe to be posted.

This thread is, never-mind, patiently waiting on my end.
Missouri: The show me state!


----------



## theatermusic87

GrampsGrunge said:


> My Avatar and the Siggy pictures are screen captures..
> 
> More images.
> 
> Thedood has already seen some of these, I need to get a NTSC to digital converter, someday


Find someone that has a home theater pc... or a computer with a tv card, or you can buy a usb tv tuner card... if memory serves they were very easy to setup and record with (though it's been years since I've done anything more than over the air broadcasts)


----------



## houseofcards

Threads like these that have these provocative titles are always going to end this way (this one's on the way out), like the other thread a while back "High nutrients promote algae growth and are toxic to aquatic life".

The OPs aren't that innocent. They know it's going to stir people who hold opinions on either side. There's enough evidence to know that successful planted tanks can be run many different ways. Most plants aren't that picky.

Calling Americans ignorant with aquascaping is actually pretty accurate. Most don't have the exposure. There's a large cultural difference between here and Asia. ADA didn't start in Japan by just coincidence. Are we ignorant of soccer, most Americans don't get it, it's culture. Doesn't mean it should be bigger here it is what it is. 

These threads have no real facts or significant sample sizes and are just nichy at best. They are more ego-driven IMO and do very little to advance the hobby.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

Goomie said:


> +1 for @*GrampsGrunge*.
> 
> Thank you for your post... Maybe that VCR video makes it onto a DVD soon and we get to see it
> 
> All in all we are just struggling to comprehend half of what Niko has said. Most of it is vague at best. And thanks to our local mad scientist... @*AWolf* ... We are learning more about dolomite and how it might affect our aquariums. I don't think it was ever unreasonable for us to ask for some glimmer of a recipe, most of us have put hundreds of dollars into our tanks. And are not willing to test an unproven, non-evidence based claim to unholy plant growth. What happens if we get the wrong kind of the many forms of powdered dolomite and it kills everything we've worked toward? Without sufficient evidence to these claims... Or even a brand name... A product... Anything... Nobody will listen.
> 
> Thank you AWolf for putting your time and effort into clarifying this subject.
> 
> Also this is not my attack against Niko. I want to hear what he has to say... When he gets around to it. But for now, without anything to grasp to but straws, I'm watching AWolf's thread more closely.


You know I think I already know what the outcome of this is.

Hoppy's posts about the way Ca and Mg carbonates dissolve, they sort of self regulate to an equilibrium close to the ideal level.

The balance of Mg to Ca is of question. and what would be a good minimum level of CalMag to water volume is all I'm asking.

Back in the 90's our local neighborhood's fish store's owner was starting up a pond plant greenhouse, and he was pretty knowledgeable about aquatic plant care and optimums. If you bought a freshwater aquarium from his shop, you got as part of the deal, a generous amount of gravel he mixed up special, that was a mix of McKenzie River gravel and Dolomite.

Eugene, OR water was fairly soft out of tap, but pH adjusted for some alkalinity. Usually about 7.4 to 7.6 and kH of about 3 according to my not so trustworthy Tetra kH test kit. Our aquarium club president was the head chemist at the Walterville treatment and mixing plant for Eugene Water Electric Board. It was kinda cool knowing your water quality for the entire two cities of Eugene-Springfield was being overseen by a fastidious Discus keeper.


----------



## Goomie

GrampsGrunge said:


> You know I think I already now what the outcome of this is.
> 
> Hoppy's posts about the way Ca and Mg carbonates dissolve, they sort of self regulate to an equilibrium close to the ideal level.
> 
> The balance of Mg to Ca is of question. and what would be a good minimum level of CalMag to water volume is all I'm asking.
> 
> Back in the 90's our local neighborhood's fish store's owner was starting up a pond plant greenhouse, and he was pretty knowledgeable about aquatic plant care and optimums. If you bought a freshwater aquarium from his shop, you got as part of the deal, a generous amount of gravel he mixed up special, that was a mix of McKenzie River gravel and Dolomite.
> 
> Eugene, OR water was fairly soft out of tap, but pH adjusted for some alkalinity. Usually about 7.4 to 7.6 and kH of about 3 according to my not so trustworthy Tetra kH test kit. Our aquarium club president was the head chemist at the Walterville treatment and mixing plant for Eugene Water Electric Board. It was kinda cool knowing your water quality for the entire two cities of Eugene-Springfield was being overseen by a fastidious Discus keeper.


I definitely do not want to discredit dolomite. I believe that it could be a great tool for starting up. But, my water parameters are crazy out of tap. PH goes well over what my cheapo test kit can even determine. SUPER alkaline. I have to treat with Seachem neutral regulator at all water changes just to maintain my tank PH... a swing that harsh surely would kill every but of the money I've spent on my tank... And it isn't a fault of anyone but the water treatment facilities here where I live. It happens to be a not so great part of town and I'm sure there's a lot to do with it there... As the water just 4 miles away out of tap was 100% PERFECT for my tank. 

I just want to see some more science, more evidence... I want to know more. I am interested just not amused... 

It's cool that you know that though. I used to live in Winston/Roseburg. I know the water in that area was also reasonable.


----------



## roadmaster

I am always willing to learn, but I am skeptical by nature.
So it was when I first happened upon a modified version of EI for low tech approach.
I decided to give the person the benefit of the doubt and tried the method he layed out with a specific dosing scheme he suggested, and it has worked well for me.
Until such time as Niko lay's out a similar, or specific dosing scheme for those blessed,or cursed with soft water.
I file away much of what has been posted thus far in this thread along with ..Twin star algae beater upper,Dan's special N (urea based) fertz, Micro nutrient toxicities at a glance, high nutrient's kill fish and plant's.
I am also mindful that what may work in plant only tank's may not be readily appreciated by fauna(fishes/shrimp's) and that photo's of tank's are just that,a photo which could easily be a bunch of healthy plant's plopped into a tank for the sake of a photo.
Is not until you get to the meat and potatoes of how they grew them, and what their dosing,water change routine, fishes if any,CO2 level's,lighting, substrates,etc that you begin to be able to tell how much effort was needed to produce their result's.
If they are not willing to give you/me specific's,well then all that can be said truthfully ,is that they are trying a different way to grow the weed's and there are many.PMDD,EI,PPS,Redfield ratio,etc.
Choose some ones truth is my method, and if I fail,then I can say I tried it as per directed
Hard to give a new idea a chance if the info is not shared though many claim that is all they really want us to consider.
I am currently practicing phosphate limitation to combat some GSA that is attacking my wall of anubia with a vengeance in my low tech, and take some comfort that a few other method's spelled out pretty clearly ,also employ this tool.
Too early to tell yet, but at least this tool was made available and the premise made clear as to what P limitation might produce. (relief from CO2 limitation,slower plant growth).
Didn't have to drag it out of somebody's idea to see how many pages of a thread I was willing to follow.
I'm from the Show me state,You gotta do better that the thread has thus far when asked for specific's.
Just sayin.


----------



## roadmaster

Hoppy said:


> Niko, if I am reading you right, you are advocating a different way to set up a tank to get good, healthy growth, without algae problems, which does not require dosing KNO3, KH2PO4 and trace element mixes. How do I replicate your success?
> 
> What substrate? How about a half inch layer of topsoil, covered with about 1 to 1.5 inches of black grit blasting media?
> 
> What lighting? How about a couple of Finnex Planted Plus lights spaced about 6-10 inches apart, which should give me about 50-60 PAR at the substrate?
> 
> How long should that light be on? How about 4 hours a day? Or, perhaps 2 hours on, 2 hours off, 2 hours on?
> 
> For CO2, how about DIY CO2 to get around 10-15 ppm of CO2, but with some fluctuations?
> 
> What choices of plants should work with this?
> 
> I'm asking because I am thinking about restarting my 65 gallon tank soon, and this sounds interesting.


 I too am interested,I am going to reset my 80 gal low tech with soil.peat,cat litter,and maybe even some dolomite powder?
Have all the bit's together save the dolomite,just need to source some and know how much to use.
I already have fairly hard water at 12dgh and am struggling to understand how increasing the hardness even more will produce better result's?
Without number's.. then all that can really be said is the Sky is high,and the Ocean deep.
Not unlike a while back, when high nutrient's were decidedly toxic to plant's and fauna.
Never seen anything that told us what was high ??


----------



## roadmaster

niko said:


> Here we go again. We are trying to fit something that we don't understand in the frames of what we already kind of know.
> This has happened many times with many other posters that introduce things that are not the usual "wisdom" spread on the internet. Usually such threads go South because people just can't help showing their ignorance. I'm guilty of that too so I recognize it when I see it. Let's make an honest attempt for something different this time, ah?
> 
> Here is a challenge:
> 1. Show me pictures of a tank in which you can dip a BBA covered plant and have it clean in some days. Show me pictures of that being done a few times with different plants.
> 2. Show me pictures of plants as healthy or healthier than the red Sword and the 12" tall Crypt I posted in the beginning.
> 3. Show me pictures of a tank that you can leave by itself for 2 weeks and nothing will deteriorate. Make that a month. Make that 3 months.
> 4. Show me pictures of your amazing high demanding plants after 14 days of no care looking just fine. Explain how do they exist in Nature when you are not there.
> 5. Show me a picture of some plant covered in BGA that you dipped in your super-duper tank today and the BGA went away in 6 hours. I did that yesterday with a Buce. Surely you can show me the same thing.
> 6. No, I don't expect to see any pictures for items 1 through 4. But I kind of hope someone can muster a disappearing BGA picture. That one is easy to do. ...I hope...
> 
> 1 of 5. C'mon. All these years on internet forums, all this knowledge sharing and experience. And gorgeous aquascapes full of high maintenance plants...
> 
> It'd be funny if it was not kind of sad.


 
I can show you 1 through four under my thread's "300 litre low tech " 
Have since added echinodorus Indian Red that does quite well.
Tank has been running for three year's approx.
As for number 5 All that is needed is to introduce peroxide at four tablespoon's per 10 gal for approx. 15 minutes, to achieve the same effect followed by large water change.(remove filter media during treatment).
That's my super duper treatment tank. :grin2:

P.S. My photo indicates NON CO2 .no excel.glut.etc.
Plant's pictured are no more demanding than those in your photo's.
Can say with fair amount of certainty that sword plant's will not grow for long in one inch of substrate with or without root tab's and or CO2.(been growin em for year's)
Certainly not at the rate you suggest, 16 inches in 36 hour's.?? Pfffft!
Believe you are just trolling here, so thing's must be slow over at APC.


----------



## micheljq

Thanks for sharing, nice tank, nice crypts, nice Echinodorus (27" tall is not exceptional though for an Echinodorus). Your skills and experience are surely better than mine. The lighting in this case has a lot to do, and the skill/experience of the aquario.

For the asumptions, sorry i do not buy most of them.

This is just yet another successfull planted tank with fish poo fertilisation. We know it can be done already, that kind of tank exists since the hobby exists.

As for me, I do continue to dose KNO3, KH2PO4, GH buffer, CO2 about 15ppm.

Again, congrats on nice tank.

N.B. : I just want to add, it's nice i have an idea since many years of a larger tank without much trouble, like 180G, no CO2, less fertilisation, not a big fish population, lower maintenance, if possible.

Michel.


----------



## nyskiffie

GrampsGrunge said:


> I've got the old snapshots and 38 minute VCR video of these tanks. When the video was made they had been up and running for 4 years. I was still using a little to none fert regime then. Mostly I just changed out my DIY CO2 bottles as they ran out of sugar.


And to think, with a bit of dolomite you would have had nearly an inch of growth included in that video... according to some.


----------



## woodytoo

*Niko*

how can I get ahold of you, can we private message


----------



## Hoppy

woodytoo said:


> how can I get ahold of you, can we private message


Find a posted comment from the person you want to send a message to, then click on that persons name in the left "from" column and select "send a private message".


----------



## lksdrinker

Wow.....lots of ideas and information in this thread. I can see why/how everyone wants to jump on one side or the other but there are lots of variables that seem to be ignored in this discussion; and I'm very surprised how many people are looking for the "formula". We all have vastly different water before it goes in the tank right? Different nutrients already present or lacking; different amounts of dissolved gases, different ph, kh, gh levels, etc etc etc. Just like how there is no "correct" bubbles per second rate for injecting co2 there is really no "correct" formula for almost anything involved in this hobby. What works for you might not work for me and vice versa. Sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and be willing to try (or be willing to fail I suppose is a better way to term it). Sometimes you have to admit that certain plants just wont grow in your setup even though you've done everything someone on the internet said to do. I know I've given up on certain plants that are supposed to be easy and have great success with others that I knew nothing about. I know its tough to see someone succeed doing it the "easy" way when so many people put so much effort in....and still end up failing. 

I think we've all got a bit of a skewed perspective just from being members of this particular forum. The majority of us here have done the research and have been told (without necessarily learning anything) what to do and how to do it; and the typical answer or reason is "because thats what works" or "thats what the plants need to thrive". Very few can explain why (and fewer really understand why....myself included)

There is definitely more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are surely more popular than others but that doesnt make any one way correct. 

I think the OP's method (or any similar lower tech method) is something that people have been doing for quite some time. Many succeed, many fail, and many likely consider themselves successful whether or not their tank looks like an ADA masterpiece. The people succeeding in that fashion aren't necessarily the same people who bother running to the internet with their results though; or if/when they do they get yelled at and told they're not doing it right and/or must be lying. No one talks about the guy who shrugs his shoulders when someone asks how he achieved such great plant growth when all he did was achieve a balanced setup that works without really knowing the reasons why it works.

I drank the kool aid and bought into certain methods that were supposed to guarantee results. What I've found in the end is that I personally have the best success after I stopped dosing any ferts and started letting my tank tell me what works instead of listening to what other people say should work. I've had luck with dirt substrates, co2 injection and "decent" lighting. I suppose the answer in my case is that I get enough nutrients from the substrate, feedings, and waste; and have the right balance of co2 and light for certain plants to thrive. I was dosing ferts for some time and while I was getting fast growth, I dont know if I'd say it was necessarily "good growth". The plants didnt necessarily look all too fantastic; and I was spending far more time trimming plants than anything else....then I blinked and one of my tanks was essentially crashing as it was a huge planted mass rather than a fishtank!


----------



## ichy

Wow just read that whole thing....but skimmed the ugly parts.
Some of those growth rates are pretty crazy! Corn doesn't even grow that much in the midwest on a 90 degree day!

That said;
If you look at the BIG picture it brings up a lot of thoughts. 
I have a 50 gallon tank that is two months old. I intentionally went the low tech route for a couple reasons:
1. I have a high tech 20 long and that fulfills my high tech "curiosity". It started to get some hair algae and everyone said you have to add nutrients so the plants out race the algae. Well that worked to a point but if I missed one day of Metricide or dosing, etc. the algae won! It seems like I am chasing my tail with that tank.
2. I really want to see how well a low tech tank does with a minimum of maintenance. I travel most of the summer for work and my wife hates aquarium maintenance! So my thinking was can I get a tank to a point that I have good plants, healthy fish and can ignore it for a couple days or a week.

so this is where this thread comes in. How do you get a low tech tank into balance? I'm currently in the brown/diatom stage, but this is the road I'm going down once the tank is more established.
I believe planted tanks can do well without water column ferts, Excel dosing etc. as long as the aquarist knows what they are getting into.

For example, all the plants were chosen for their low light, tough demeanor. Lots of crypts, java fern, anubias, etc.
I knew going into this that i would not be doing a lush baby tears carpet, instead, crypt parva was my choice.

So maybe that was a lot of typing to say, maybe if you step back and look at the REALLY BIG picture of what the OP is saying, you can have a lush tank without chasing the additive/fert regime. That is my goal. But as someone mentioned, isn't that goal of all low techers?
Will simply adding dolomite get me there? Doubt it, but it may be part of the big picture to get the tank in balance.


----------



## thedood

@ichy If you like take a look at the last two pics in my 75g journal linked in my sig. Notice the 3 weeks difference. Low tech CAN have good growth and CAN be very lush. Fast growth comes in spurts in my experience. Mine seems to have taken off after the addition of purigen, coincidence? Eh maybe.


----------



## ichy

thedood said:


> @ichy If you like take a look at the last two pics in my 75g journal linked in my sig. Notice the 3 weeks difference. Low tech CAN have good growth and CAN be very lush. Fast growth comes in spurts in my experience. Mine seems to have taken off after the addition of purigen, coincidence? Eh maybe.


Yep, I know it is possible, I'm letting my tank settle in so I can really get it dialed in for growth. You suppose adding puringen cleared your water and gave you a little PAR bump?


----------



## thedood

ichy said:


> Yep, I know it is possible, I'm letting my tank settle in so I can really get it dialed in for growth. You suppose adding puringen cleared your water and gave you a little PAR bump?


Possible. I did have some tannins in the water from the soil, had some peat in it I think. Water had a light yellow tinge.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

Regarding lo-tech tanks.
My wife has 2-20 gallon long tanks with inert quartz substrate.
Each has crazy breeding RCS and Moscow guppies.
One tank red and the other blue for guppies.
She refuses to add any ferts or CO2 for any reason.
We have decent tap water, 4GH, 2-3KH, 30-40ppm Ca, TDS around 80ppm, pH 7.2-ish.
Water changes are the only replenishment and fish poo.
These tanks are two total jungles with pearlweed carpets in the front.
Lighting is a dual strip of 5630 LED's 30" long, low light for sure.

I have 3 tanks, 1 hi-tech and 2 lo-tech, 40, 75, and 55 respectively.
These 3 tanks have been a 2-year experiment only.
No organization, just a jungle to see what I can grow well.
3 different substrates and 3 different worlds of algae too!
3 different styles of LED lighting are also incorporated.

All of this was done to learn where I want to be.
I want a large shallow frag tank which will be easy to illuminate.
15-20ppm of CO2, PPS Pro (-NO3) dosing due to average bio-load.
Soil capped with STS and 6-7 species of plants (Dutch style).
I think I can make it happen!


----------



## easternlethal

niko said:


> Actually that tank cleans BBA in 1 to 30 days from Anubias. I tried that with 4 different Anubiases. Worked every time. Yes, one of them cleared in 1 day! Here are pictures:
> 
> Day 1, Anubias #1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Day 20 of Anubias #2. Took 30 days to clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you see how a truly stable tank is - very different from what we believe it can be.


By the way I wouldn't exactly describe it as the tank cleaning BBA. Rather, it is BBA naturally dying because it has just moved from a nutrient rich environment to a poor one. 

I had the same issues with buces in my high tech high light EI tank. They were covered in bba and clado because I placed them right under the lights. As soon as I moved them to my low light low tech tank the same thing happened. 

Low techs are good like that.


----------



## niko

A link to a 2012 read. A must read. In case someone missed it. I didn't know it was compiled like that. Someone sent it to me today so I add it here. It has to do with what this thread is about: Mindset change.

http://plantednanotanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Plantednanotanks.com-eBook-1.pdf

No worry, I will respond to everybody soon. Running late for work as we speak.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

nyskiffie said:


> And to think, with a bit of dolomite you would have had nearly an inch of growth included in that video... according to some.


Let's see.. 23 years times 365 = roughly 8000" of growth since then. That's a hell of a lot of RAOK's 

Two of the other tanks were running gravel from the LFS with the Dolomite granule supplement, one with a slight bit of tank bottom glass pane heating. This is not to say they all didn't do well in their own ways.


----------



## houseofcards

I just noticed the price of dolomite is really trending up on [Ebay Link Removed] You guys better hurry!


----------



## GrampsGrunge

houseofcards said:


> I just noticed the price of dolomite is really trending up on [Ebay Link Removed] You guys better hurry!


Operators are standing by now.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

thedood said:


> @*ichy* If you like take a look at the last two pics in my 75g journal linked in my sig. Notice the 3 weeks difference. Low tech CAN have good growth and CAN be very lush. Fast growth comes in spurts in my experience. Mine seems to have taken off after the addition of purigen, coincidence? Eh maybe.


OK this is an important observation. Not many of you folks are on straight well water, in fact I'm betting a large part of the water from your taps is processed though a water treatment plant.

Not so with my water, it's straight from a stream to a cistern to our pressure pump. 

If I fill a 5 gallon bucket with our water, it's a rather alarming shade of deep yellow when full. That's the tannins, we can't escape them, they're part of the forest's ecosystem. They also vary in strength to the seasons.

When we moved in, we had our water tested for bad micro-organisms, The water testing people did a cursory chemical analysis for free. We have lots of dissolve organics ( tannins, pretty typical for this area.) really low pH, silicates and iron. Our local municipality does a typical water treatment for this area, they add a chemical to bind the organics to and then add some sort of powder as a 'flocculant' that precipitates out the organics as a whitish gel-like stuff. My dad built water treatment plants, so I'm somewhat up on what happens in the process. 

So maybe my buying Purigen and using it religiously would help? :surprise:

Changing my water only adds more organics, they're good organics, my fish especially like water changes, my recently acquired Neon Tetras have been in an enhanced state of wanting to spawn with each other, and my Barbs and White Clouds are always really colored up. Always did well with soft water fish here.

Plants on the other hand, Java fern/Moss, Cryptocorynes and Oakleaf Water Sprite seem to be the only plants I can presently grow. I can't help but surmise that adding another chemical to my already pretty turgid primordial soup would just bollox up what is working in a limited way.


----------



## thedood

GrampsGrunge said:


> OK this is an important observation. Not many of you folks are on straight well water, in fact I'm betting a large part of the water from your taps is processed though a water treatment plant.
> 
> Not so with my water, it's straight from a stream to a cistern to our pressure pump.
> 
> If I fill a 5 gallon bucket with our water, it's a rather alarming shade of deep yellow when full. That's the tannins, we can't escape them, they're part of the forest's ecosystem. They also vary in strength to the seasons.
> 
> When we moved in, we had our water tested for bad micro-organisms, The water testing people did a cursory chemical analysis for free. We have lots of dissolve organics ( tannins, pretty typical for this area.) really low pH, silicates and iron. Our local municipality does a typical water treatment for this area, they add a chemical to bind the organics to and then add some sort of powder as a 'floccuant' that precipitates out the organics as a whitish gel-like stuff. My dad built water treatment plants, so I'm somewhat up on what happens in the process.
> 
> So maybe my buying Purigen and using it religiously would help? :surprise:
> 
> Changing my water only adds more organics, they're good organics, my fish especially like water changes, my recently acquired Neon Tetras have been in an enhanced state of wanting to spawn with each other, and my Barbs and White Clouds are always really colored up. Always did well with soft water fish here.
> 
> Plants on the other hand, Java fern/Moss, Cryptocorynes and Oakleaf Water Sprite seem to be the only plants I can presently grow. I can't help but surmise that adding another chemical to my already pretty turgid primordial soup would just bollox up what is working in a limited way.


I cant say definitively purigen will help. What I can say is that I have seen drastic improvements of the water quality in the tanks in which I have used it. I would say it cant hurt and since it is insert it should have no negative affects on your water chemistry other than said removal of organics.


----------



## ichy

houseofcards said:


> I just noticed the price of dolomite is really trending up on [Ebay Link Removed] You guys better hurry!


That's funny you say that....I was thinking last night when he was going to come out with his line of dolomite enhancer...
BUT that said I then went and ordered GH booster from Nilogc.
I top off with RO water so figure it could not hurt!

Stand back! Swords should be blasting out of the tank next week!>


----------



## pipelayer

Like a few so far, I am a little surprised by the laziness of many on here to just demand a recipe. A few of the claims laid out so far seem to be a bit far fetched but the core concept seems to be heading in the right direction. 

As someone already mentioned, everyone has different parameters based on their local water so there will not be a formula that works for everyone, just like everything else. 

I did buy some powdered dolomite and will see what it does in my tank. At the very least, it looks like a cheap additive for Ca, Mg, and some Fe. At the best, it could be exactly what my tank needs to balance itself out. Only time and effort will tell.


----------



## tapwater

When adding anything new you need to make haste slowly

Bump: * Confucius or Amano


----------



## burr740

ichy said:


> That's funny you say that....I was thinking last night when he was going to come out with his line of dolomite enhancer...
> BUT that said I then went and ordered GH booster from Nilogc.
> I top off with RO water so figure it could not hurt!
> 
> Stand back! Swords should blasting out of the tank next week!>


Sword leaves blasting out of the water like a dolphin at Sea World. 

Time to feed the fish......where did I put those safety glasses?


----------



## Zorfox

pipelayer said:


> Like a few so far, I am a little surprised by the laziness of many on here to just demand a recipe. A few of the claims laid out so far seem to be a bit far fetched but the core concept seems to be heading in the right direction.
> 
> As someone already mentioned, everyone has different parameters based on their local water so there will not be a formula that works for everyone, just like everything else.
> 
> I did buy some powdered dolomite and will see what it does in my tank. At the very least, it looks like a cheap additive for Ca, Mg, and some Fe. At the best, it could be exactly what my tank needs to balance itself out. Only time and effort will tell.


The powdered dolomite does have Ca and Mg. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the ratios really are or what else may be in it. A simple GH booster seems more appropriate than an unknown in my opinion. Besides, with GH booster we know exactly how much will actually dissolve.

Your are correct!. There are a lot of different parameters to consider. What works in one tank may not work in another. I wish there was a one size fits all recipe for fertilizing plants! Some have little nitrates where others accumulate a lot. It does seem like people are lazy wanting a one size fits all recipe for plant fertilization.

I wonder what would happen if we just added enough fertilizers including GH boosters, or dolomite, and changed our water to flush them out frequently. Really! Think about it. If we just did water changes those parameters wouldn't matter so much. Lets say we really don't need 20 ppm of nitrate but we add it anyway. As long as we change water enough then it would not really be a problem. In fact, if you think about it, if you change water often enough then those different parameters really don't make any difference. Just dose more than you need and flush the tank often, say once a week with water changes. I think that would work great! If anyone cares to try that maybe we can call it the Zorfox method. Seems fitting since I just suggested it. :wink2:


----------



## Smooch

Zorfox said:


> The powdered dolomite does have Ca and Mg. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the ratios really are or what else may be in it. A simple GH booster seems more appropriate than an unknown in my opinion. Besides, with GH booster we know exactly how much will actually dissolve.
> 
> Your are correct!. There are a lot of different parameters to consider. What works in one tank may not work in another. I wish there was a one size fits all recipe for fertilizing plants! Some have little nitrates where others accumulate a lot. It does seem like people are lazy wanting a one size fits all recipe for plant fertilization.
> 
> I wonder what would happen if we just added enough fertilizers including GH boosters, or dolomite, and changed our water to flush them out frequently. Really! Think about it. If we just did water changes those parameters wouldn't matter so much. Lets say we really don't need 20 ppm of nitrate but we add it anyway. As long as we change water enough then it would not really be a problem. In fact, if you think about it, if you change water often enough then those different parameters really don't make any difference. Just dose more than you need and flush the tank often, say once a week with water changes. I think that would work great! If anyone cares to try that maybe we can call it the Zorfox method. Seems fitting since I just suggested it. :wink2:


Look at you being all clever and stuff. :hihi:


----------



## pipelayer

> The powdered dolomite does have Ca and Mg. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the ratios really are or what else may be in it. A simple GH booster seems more appropriate than an unknown in my opinion. Besides, with GH booster we know exactly how much will actually dissolve.


Well, this part just does not seem to be the case. The powdered dolomite I ended up ordering lays out very clearly how much of each is in each 5g dosage. 

In 5 grams of powder there are 1100 mg of Ca and 630 mg of Mg with a meager 2 mg of Fe. The rest is made up of Carbon. So it is approx. 2:1 as someone else had already mentioned. Now I am hoping that the 4:1 ratio may not be entirely necessary or that the dissolution rate is different enough of dependent on other factors to get to this 4:1. Either way, only one way to find out. 

The product guarantees (which I know may not be true but I like to believe) that there are no other additives so that just about covers it.


----------



## AWolf

> =Zorfox;9279241
> Your are correct!. There are a lot of different parameters to consider. What works in one tank may not work in another. I wish there was a one size fits all recipe for fertilizing plants! Some have little nitrates where others accumulate a lot. It does seem like people are lazy wanting a one size fits all recipe for plant fertilization.
> 
> I wonder what would happen if we just added enough fertilizers including GH boosters, or dolomite, and changed our water to flush them out frequently. Really! Think about it. If we just did water changes those parameters wouldn't matter so much. Lets say we really don't need 20 ppm of nitrate but we add it anyway. As long as we change water enough then it would not really be a problem. In fact, if you think about it, if you change water often enough then those different parameters really don't make any difference. Just dose more than you need and flush the tank often, say once a week with water changes. I think that would work great! If anyone cares to try that maybe we can call it the Zorfox method. Seems fitting since I just suggested it. :wink2:


This is what I am banking on. I'm having an issue with my new milligram scale, so I'm using teaspoons for individual dry fert measurements. The water changes should keep me from accumulating a poisonous amount of any one fertilizer. But it also means that my pH, etc., may change drastically since I may be adding too much of something, or that algae will ruin my tank if I don't have enough plants to compete. 

This is where the substrate, in my case coir, kicks in I hope. How much fert does coir and other high CEC substrates take from the water column? Maybe a dirted and capped substrate does not absorb much in the way of ferts, where the coir and other things like kitty litter (without a cap) will be actively? pulling ferts out of the water column.??

I've heard coir locks up calcium.
I wonder about kitty litter and these values as well. Kitty litter could be a very good thing. (Not capped.)


----------



## Zorfox

AWolf said:


> This is what I am banking on. I'm having an issue with my new milligram scale, so I'm using teaspoons for individual dry fert measurements. The water changes should keep me from accumulating a poisonous amount of any one fertilizer. But it also means that my pH, etc., may change drastically since I may be adding too much of something, or that algae will ruin my tank if I don't have enough plants to compete.
> 
> This is where the substrate, in my case coir, kicks in I hope. How much fert does coir and other high CEC substrates take from the water column? Maybe a dirted and capped substrate does not absorb much in the way of ferts, where the coir and other things like kitty litter (without a cap) will be actively? pulling ferts out of the water column.??
> 
> I've heard coir locks up calcium.
> I wonder about kitty litter and these values as well. Kitty litter could be a very good thing. (Not capped.)


The PH should be more stable with frequent water changes. The nutrients we typically add does not influence PH. Dolomite? Yes, this will increase PH. This is yet another reason I don't recommend it's use in powdered form.

Yes, coir "holds" on to calcium. It also "holds" on to magnesium, potassium, iron and any other cation, but what the heck is a cation?

Every element we add has an electrical charge. When we hear that a substrate has a high CEC (cation exchange capacity) what does that really mean?

Well, a cation is a positively charged ion (nutrient). Forget the chemistry jargon and think in common terms. Ever hear the term opposites attract? That's the basis for that term. Positive attracts negative and vice versa. If a substrate has a high a high CEC it means it will attract positive particles, cations are positive and anions are negative hence the term cation exchange.

High CEC substrates sound great! If we have one then it will hold onto nutrients and release them to the plant roots over time right? Well, that's only half true. We like to use nitrate (NO3) as a nitrogen source since it does not cause algae. However, nitrates have a negative charge so the substrate will not "hold" onto them. Ammonia is another nitrogen source. It has a positive charge and a high CEC substrate will "grab" them. This is one reason we see ammonia spike with new ADA aquasoil. The same for phosphates, a negative element. Potassium on the other hand is positive. So a high CEC will hold onto that. 

If you go down the list of necessary nutrients you'll see that it's a mixture of cations and anions. Essentially, what this means is that high CEC substrates will hold some, but not all, of the nutrients we need. So we have to dose the water column or have the negatively charged nutrients placed in the substrate such as "root tabs".

High CEC substrates are a very good idea. They at least hold a significant reserve for our plants as opposed to an inert substrate which holds nothing. However, we have to account for this when we think about fertilization.


----------



## Maryland Guppy

niko said:


> A link to a 2012 read. A must read. In case someone missed it. I didn't know it was compiled like that. Someone sent it to me today so I add it here. It has to do with what this thread is about: Mindset change.
> 
> http://plantednanotanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Plantednanotanks.com-eBook-1.pdf
> 
> No worry, I will respond to everybody soon. Running late for work as we speak.


Did anyone check out this 100 something page link by chance???
Advertisement for ADA products to some degree.
Anyone's thoughts???


----------



## AWolf

Maryland Guppy said:


> Did anyone check out this 100 something page link by chance???
> Advertisement for ADA products to some degree.
> Anyone's thoughts???


It's a general survey of ADA ferts.


----------



## roadmaster

Zorfox said:


> The powdered dolomite does have Ca and Mg. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the ratios really are or what else may be in it. A simple GH booster seems more appropriate than an unknown in my opinion. Besides, with GH booster we know exactly how much will actually dissolve.
> 
> Your are correct!. There are a lot of different parameters to consider. What works in one tank may not work in another. I wish there was a one size fits all recipe for fertilizing plants! Some have little nitrates where others accumulate a lot. It does seem like people are lazy wanting a one size fits all recipe for plant fertilization.
> 
> I wonder what would happen if we just added enough fertilizers including GH boosters, or dolomite, and changed our water to flush them out frequently. Really! Think about it. If we just did water changes those parameters wouldn't matter so much. Lets say we really don't need 20 ppm of nitrate but we add it anyway. As long as we change water enough then it would not really be a problem. In fact, if you think about it, if you change water often enough then those different parameters really don't make any difference. Just dose more than you need and flush the tank often, say once a week with water changes. I think that would work great! If anyone cares to try that maybe we can call it the Zorfox method. Seems fitting since I just suggested it. :wink2:


 Is close to estimative index, but water changes with EI method are not for flushing out excess nutrient's as most believe, but rather that which plant's respire under accelerated growth (enzymes,protein's, mulm,decaying food,dead plant matter).
The re-dosing of nutrient's with EI is to replace what plant's have used, and maintain a reserve or excess so that we know plant nutrient's are independent,small player,with regard's to overall plant health.
Leave 's light and CO2 as major player's.
I might encourage everyone to go to "my thread's" and look for thread entitled "Algae hater" and read the attached link that I attempted to attach and which member Klib's was kind enough to fix.
Then we might discuss our thought's on the author's view's.
Read the link a few times,and then a couple more times since it first was presented in 2005.
Don't have to agree with it ,but it might place the focus more on plant growth ,and help create less thread's bout various treatment's of algae and or poor overall plant growth whether you are running high energy tanks,or low tech NON CO2.
I found much of it helpful.


----------



## Smooch

roadmaster said:


> Is close to estimative index, but water changes with EI method are not for flushing out excess nutrient's as most believe, but rather that which plant's respire under accelerated growth (enzymes,protein's, mulm,decaying food,dead plant matter).
> The re-dosing of nutrient's with EI is to replace what plant's have used, and maintain a reserve or excess so that we know plant nutrient's are independent,small player,with regard's to overall plant health.
> Leave 's light and CO2 as major player's.
> I might encourage everyone to go to "my thread's" and look for thread entitled "Algae hater" and read the attached link that I attempted to attach and which member Klib's was kind enough to fix.
> Then we might discuss our thought's on the author's view's.
> Read the link a few times,and then a couple more times since it first was presented in 2005.
> Don't have to agree with it ,but it might place the focus more on plant growth ,and help create less thread's bout various treatment's of algae and or poor overall plant growth whether you are running high energy tanks,or low tech NON CO2.
> I found much of it helpful.


Sometimes I leave here with the feeling that some people think plants are like vacuum cleaners. By that I mean if the plant doesn't use nutrients right away, then why bother feeding them as it is a waste of time and money. 

Plants in a tank or even terrestrial plants don't work this way. Sure there are plants that will soak up nitrates in a tank, but unless a person has the plant mass and volume in a tank to soak up every thing that it is fed, there is going to excess that the plants will not absorb or stash it if the substrate allows for it. 

I personally have always found the EI method intimidating. I understand it, I do water changes on weekly basis, but I don't have the plant volume so there is always this nagging fear whether it be legit or not that that there is going to be too much of everything because my tanks are not packed in every corner with fast growing stem plants. Lean dosing works better for me. It keeps my plants happy and satisfies my brain. 

There is of course the counter argument that I could simply add CO2, but I don't want CO2. That and I don't want the maintenance. I have enough of that kind of thing going on outside, my tanks are my down time hobby. As of late, I prefer my tanks over mowing the lawn, picking weeds, ect...


----------



## pinkkiwi1230

I don't see why everyone finds an argument in this. The guy showed us a beautiful low tech tank. That's all I want and knowing it's possible without all the bells and whistles, is very encouraging. Thank you for your post. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Smooch

pinkkiwi1230 said:


> I don't see why everyone finds an argument in this. The guy showed us a beautiful low tech tank. That's all I want and knowing it's possible without all the bells and whistles, is very encouraging. Thank you for your post.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


There is nothing to argue about. Take a neglected tank, clean it up, BBA goes away. One does not need anything to accomplish this other than elbow grease and time. 

It's this Dolomite fixes everything that I take exception to.


----------



## niko

Last night I went over the last 8 pages or so. Didn't read every single thing. Will do that though - it provokes thoughts. Which is exactly why I started this thread. So to everybody - weird or well-meaning: Thank you for participating in the thread. Seriously, I'm not being ironic.

Will answer all questions/challenges. Especially that one where someone started to think that I'm an undercover Chinese, haha. ...if I read that right, it's kind of hard to believe someone will think that.

Three quick things now:

1. Note the quotes in the thread title. Quotes mean that whatever is between them is either referenced or it is debatable. Do you really believe I meant that a tank can be run without fertilizers?
Honestly.. many years ago I tried that too. Inert gravel super clean water, no mulm, no fish. Plants looking at me, me looking at the plants. Nothing ever moved. I assure you - no nutrients = no growth. Unless you got some Indian Yogi plants that do not need food 

2. The thread was started to share observations. This should, at least in theory, push some people, not all, to think. The thread is not about introducing another "miracle" method - like all "methods" that we know about and are in love with. But it can lead to seeing how the best "method" is one that uses the natural tendencies, processes, states of the tank. This is called "permaculture" and the concept is used in agriculture and social fields (Wikipedia). But the principle of using the natural state/tendencies of things can and should be applied to every single field you can think of.
Look at the first two sentences in post 1:
_"...I'm posting this in the "Fertilizers" forum because it has to do with NOT using fertilizers. And it has to do with using the natural variations of the tank's environment for an extreme benefit to the plants..."_

3. Dolomite is not some kind of miracle product like all the other "amazing", "tested", "proven", products in the market. I use it not because it adds some miracle compounds to the water. What I said and I believe is THE MANNER in which nutrients are supplied. It makes a huge difference and we can't deny that. As I said above, Dolomite breaks down and during this process I've observed not just positive, but very pronounced positive effects. That includes setting up a tank with a Dolomite substrate in 2002 which both worked in high speed and it was 100% not practical because of the milky water. The lesson to be taken away from that was exactly what I'm doing now - using Dolomite powder in carefully measured amounts because its gradual release of Ca and Mg (and probably other, minor, elements) has proven to work better than adding straight Mg and Ca ions.
Someone mentioned that I like and use Dolomite because I have soft water. That is not so. Once again - Dolomite is about THE MANNER in which Ca and Mg are supplied. One of my most recent and very successful experiences with Dolomite started in a tank with GH of 18. Again - this is not about the "magic" Dolomite. It is about "using the natural" tendencies of the tank. Not harshly interfering with them and making things work the way we want them.

I will start another thread on how I calculate the amount of Dolomite I add. It is nothing special, but a few people asked me here and in PMs.

--Nikolay


----------



## GrampsGrunge

Maryland Guppy said:


> Did anyone check out this 100 something page link by chance???
> Advertisement for ADA products to some degree.
> Anyone's thoughts???


I've already commented, yeah it's ADA advertising in a somewhat passive aggressive sales style.

Disingenuous at best.

'Something, blah, blah about being happy with your tank, how can you be happy with your tank if it's making you work at keeping it clean, It's a hobby, you should be happy! How can you be happy if you don't spend money on stuff that works."

"CLICK HERE FOR ADA PRODUCTS!"


----------



## theatermusic87

If you're relying on the natural processes to break down the dolomite, and you think those natural processes are beneficial (no arguement there) any reason you're using powdered dolomite instead of something bigger/more granular with less surface area to slow down those processes so you don't end up with milky water? Something similar to those mineral rocks that sometimes get put into shrimp tanks..


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

GrampsGrunge said:


> My tank is presently a big Diatom farm. it's smothering all of my plants, and coating the gravel.
> 
> Our tap water is practically Rio ***** water conditions, PacNorWest blackwater, but it's always been a source of Diatoms. If I grow one type of algae really well, it's diatoms. And that means I have excess silicates and I don't think the tannins and Iron are helping either.


Hi GrampsGrunge,

ROFL @ PNW blackwater

Yes, diatoms are definitely a challenge for us in the NW were our water comes from snow melt off the Cascade Mountains or in your case the coastal mountain range; it is just so darn soft!

Are you sure that your silicates are high? I ask because of water supply here in Seattle has 9.40ug/l (.0094ppm) silicata. I tried to find the latest water analysis by the Lakeside Water District but apparently it is not online.

I do agree that diatoms are an issue, I find that 1-2 Otocinclus per 10 gallons of tank capacity keeps diatoms in check.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

I'm on my own well, it's a surface stream with cistern. 

IIRC Lakeside gets it's water from Eel Lake, just a couple miles to the North of Lakeside. Eel lake is a partial sand dune lake and like most of these little ponds and lakes, when you have Elodea growing in it it tends to get smothered in diatoms. We had our water tested for micro-organisims when we moved in. It came back from the lab with a cursory chemical analysis, with being very soft, tannin-ish acid, fairly high iron levels, some sulfides, and silicates being the predominate dissolved minerals.



> I do agree that diatoms are an issue, I find that 1-2 Otocinclus per 10 gallons of tank capacity keeps diatoms in check.


Well locally I doubt I'll find any Oto's for sale, our pet stores are a bit limited. Plus I think 4 Otos for this tank would push it past the max stocking it could take. I'm seriously considering adding some Western Chorus Frog tadpoles as an alternative as I've got a lot of those. :icon_redf

I just messed up and didn't get enough fast growing plants established for a dirted tank. It will eventually clear. I'd like to find some Oak-leaf Water Sprite (Ceratopteris Cornuta ) 










..as this fine, pennately divided leaved stuff is waste of tank space.


.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist

GrampsGrunge said:


> I'm on my own well, it's a surface stream with cistern.
> 
> IIRC Lakeside gets it's water from Eel Lake, just a couple miles to the North of Lakeside. Eel lake is a partial sand dune lake and like most of these little ponds and lakes, when you have Elodea growing in it it tends to get smothered in diatoms. We had our water tested for micro-organisims when we moved in. It came back from the lab with a cursory chemical analysis, with being very soft, tannin-ish acid, fairly high iron levels, some sulfides, and silicates being the predominate dissolved minerals.
> 
> .


Hi GrampsGrunge,

Possibly the difference being that you are close to the coast (and the great sand dunes in that area). What I can say is even with our low ppm of silicates diatoms still try to run rampant in my tanks. Since I run my tanks snail-free Otocinclus are my diatom cleaners.


----------



## niko

For those that asked = here's the Dolomite use thread

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...052842-dolomite-source-ca-mg.html#post9305290

Bump:


GrampsGrunge said:


> I've already commented, yeah it's ADA advertising in a somewhat passive aggressive sales style.
> 
> Disingenuous at best.
> 
> 'Something, blah, blah about being happy with your tank, how can you be happy with your tank if it's making you work at keeping it clean, It's a hobby, you should be happy! How can you be happy if you don't spend money on stuff that works."
> 
> "CLICK HERE FOR ADA PRODUCTS!"



I'm not sure if anyone dislikes ADA more than me. Ah yes, I know one more person and he really sees through the games. The direct advertisement inside the link I posted is child's play compared to the massive advertising game that ADA involved everybody in the last 15 years and still goes strong doing it. One can write a marketing research paper on how that was done and is being done. I'm not sure how blind one needs to be to not notice their tactics. The bottom line is - it is insulting.

But if you mentally delete all the references to ADA in that 108 page compilation of posts by Frank Wazeter you will see a great explanation on how a planted tank can be run. In addition - it is beyond me why that information is not a sticky on every planted tank forum under the sun. To me ADA should spend a little money to make it a sticky. But their well planned promotion tactics work big time anyway. No matter like it or not that is why we are here today on this forum shooting the breeze about planted tanks.


----------



## niko

theatermusic87 said:


> If you're relying on the natural processes to break down the dolomite, and you think those natural processes are beneficial (no arguement there) any reason you're using powdered dolomite instead of something bigger/more granular with less surface area to slow down those processes so you don't end up with milky water? Something similar to those mineral rocks that sometimes get put into shrimp tanks..


Ease if dosing. 

Once you get the Ca:Mg right with a good KH of 2-4 and Gh of no more than 5 you will be adding minor amounts of Dolomite. You can't control that very well with pebbles or rocks.

I must have mentioned - I did have a tank with Dolomite pebbles as a substrate. The CO2 dissolved so much of it that the tank water turned densely white. Plants grew like there was no tomorrow despite obvious problems with light penetration. That was the first time I thought that Dolomite does something special. That was in 2002.


----------



## niko

Smooch said:


> There is nothing to argue about. Take a neglected tank, clean it up, BBA goes away. One does not need anything to accomplish this other than elbow grease and time.
> 
> It's this Dolomite fixes everything that I take exception to.


The "clean it, BBA goes away" part is not as simple as it seems. Most people just don't do that. They'd change huge amounts of water and spent countless hours on forums but BBA is still in their tanks. My point is - whatever you see as simple in this hobby it is not as simple as it looks. For years we were convinced by the biggest US guru that BBA is a result of low CO2. Despite the fact that often BBA grows not only on the tubing leading to the CO2 difuser but on the damn diffuser itself. Then people started killing BBA with Peroxide. Note - not cleaning their tank but adding more chemicals to it. Peroxide is short lived but the mentality of adding more and more is deeply engrained - more CO2, more H2O2, more.... Dolomite now.

This thread was not started to introduce Dolomite in any way. But look what people are getting out of the thread - first drama, and second - another chemical becomes the focus.

I hope you get what I'm saying.

Bump:


pinkkiwi1230 said:


> I don't see why everyone finds an argument in this. The guy showed us a beautiful low tech tank. That's all I want and knowing it's possible without all the bells and whistles, is very encouraging. Thank you for your post.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk


I clean tank that is easy to maintain is possible. Look at all the Japanese tanks on the net. Ignore the product placement and the fascination with the same old same old layouts and layout elements. Find what makes these tanks work. 

I posted a link to a 100+ page e-book explaining how it is all done. That information should be a sticky. I guess commercial interests and advertising tactics make the information hard to find. 

Find the link in one of my previous posts here. It's wort reading. Keep in mind that the guy that wrote it worked for the best American aquascaping company ever. What he says is pure experience. Not some calculation, opinion, observation in a couple of home tanks. Check it out. And please ignore the ad placement inside.


----------



## niko

Smooch said:


> ...I personally have always found the EI method intimidating. I understand it, I do water changes on weekly basis, but ...
> 
> ... That and I don't want the maintenance. I have enough of that kind of thing going on outside, my tanks are my down time hobby.....



Think again if you understand EI. Read the original sticky from 2005 a few times. Try to see it differently. To me it appears that EI was a general guideline on how much fertilizers are "reasonable concentrations" in an average tank. The "reasonable" and "average" are blurry notions. But at that time of the hobby 10+ years ago, we did not have any guidelines what was too little what was too much. EI gave some guideline numbers, that's all. Then later these fertilization guidelines started to be seen as a method of running a planted tank. Wow. 

I do believe, EI has been misunderstood from day 1. People wanted concrete numbers. For most people EI is N10-20, P0.5-1, Fe01, CO230, big water changes. It is not about adjustments, it is not about the big picture. It is about getting 8 parameters right. Another wow.

Bump:


Maryland Guppy said:


> Did anyone check out this 100 something page link by chance???
> Advertisement for ADA products to some degree.
> Anyone's thoughts???


Did anyone check the above post by Maryland Guppy? I just have no time to read it. Anyone's' thought's??!?

Just read it ignoring the ADA ads. Try to understand what is the logic behind what he shows in details.


----------



## niko

pipelayer said:


> Like a few so far, I am a little surprised by the laziness of many on here to just demand a recipe. A few of the claims laid out so far seem to be a bit far fetched but the core concept seems to be heading in the right direction.,,.


That is a fundamental problem -we all want clear cut, fast, cheap solutions. All while real life shows us how to do things right. This thread is about this very thing - slow down, admit what you have seen, don't blindly follow popular trends. But it is not surprising that even this brings requests for yet another miracle method, another miracle product, another ridicule of things that don't fit the accepted notions that somehow never work very well since we can't advice a newbie very well 

Far fetched? Here's another one - Cichlids. Fish you know. About 100, different sizes - 2" to 10". In about 100 gals of water. Place that next to another tank like that. Make a row of about 200 tanks like that. 200 tanks long, 5 tanks wide. That's a lot of fish. In not a lot of water. Africa, 1986, Wild lake in the middle of nowhere. I thought someone had thrown food so all the damn fish had come to eat. No, stood there for 30 min. watching the fish, waiting for them to disappear. No, that was the way things were. Unreal, they should all be dying from Ammonia poisoning. 

Nature is something we will never understand. Some of it is in that glass box in your living room.

Bump:


GrampsGrunge said:


> OK this is an important observation. Not many of you folks are on straight well water, in fact I'm betting a large part of the water from your taps is processed though a water treatment plant.
> 
> Not so with my water, it's straight from a stream to a cistern to our pressure pump.
> 
> If I fill a 5 gallon bucket with our water, it's a rather alarming shade of deep yellow when full. That's the tannins, we can't escape them, they're part of the forest's ecosystem. They also vary in strength to the seasons.
> 
> When we moved in, we had our water tested for bad micro-organisms, The water testing people did a cursory chemical analysis for free. We have lots of dissolve organics ( tannins, pretty typical for this area.) really low pH, silicates and iron. Our local municipality does a typical water treatment for this area, they add a chemical to bind the organics to and then add some sort of powder as a 'flocculant' that precipitates out the organics as a whitish gel-like stuff. My dad built water treatment plants, so I'm somewhat up on what happens in the process.
> 
> So maybe my buying Purigen and using it religiously would help? :surprise:
> 
> Changing my water only adds more organics, they're good organics, my fish especially like water changes, my recently acquired Neon Tetras have been in an enhanced state of wanting to spawn with each other, and my Barbs and White Clouds are always really colored up. Always did well with soft water fish here.
> 
> Plants on the other hand, Java fern/Moss, Cryptocorynes and Oakleaf Water Sprite seem to be the only plants I can presently grow. I can't help but surmise that adding another chemical to my already pretty turgid primordial soup would just bollox up what is working in a limited way.



Organics are a favorite topic of mine. Removing them is trendy. You can even find pictures of bad, yellowish, water coming from ADA tanks. Look in that 108 page link I posted a link to. The guy harps on and on how bad a slight yellow tint in the water is. Because these are "organics". You must remove them somehow. And I agree. I have experimented with lots of organic removal media in a fluidized bed reactor. It works big time. Stops BBA dead. 

But... in the old days... 1980 and earlier... Yellow water was considered good. "Old water" is what it was called. Aquarium books talked about the benefits of it. And back then I followed them. I never, ever had algae. Still remember the day I went to the LFS and fell in love with a green plant I had never seen before. You know what it was? It was a freaking tuff of hair algae! I had never even seen algae for 1 year in this hobby. Yellow water you know... bad for you. At least in 21-st century Japan.. .and America...


----------



## niko

easternlethal said:


> By the way I wouldn't exactly describe it as the tank cleaning BBA. Rather, it is BBA naturally dying because it has just moved from a nutrient rich environment to a poor one.
> 
> I had the same issues with buces in my high tech high light EI tank. They were covered in bba and clado because I placed them right under the lights. As soon as I moved them to my low light low tech tank the same thing happened.
> 
> Low techs are good like that.


Then were do ADA tanks fall? Low tech?

If what you are saying is right then no low tech tank will ever have BBA. That is not so. And according to everybody and their brother high light, CO2 to the gills, and lots of fertilizers make plants grow and then they just kill algae. No high tech tank should have BBA. 

What I'm saying is that the microorganisms are the foundation. They are your aquarium. Everything else is decoration, including some pretty plants I grew so nicely tanks to the internet forum. If the foundation is off then you look for a million ways to put on makeup on a sick patient. I can even make him look great, then quickly snap a picture to show everybody


----------



## niko

ichy said:


> ... How do you get a low tech tank into balance? I'm currently in the brown/diatom stage, but this is the road I'm going down once the tank is more established.
> I believe planted tanks can do well without water column ferts, Excel dosing etc. as long as the aquarist knows what they are getting into.
> 
> For example, all the plants were chosen for their low light, tough demeanor. Lots of crypts, java fern, anubias, etc.
> I knew going into this that i would not be doing a lush baby tears carpet, instead, crypt parva was my choice.
> 
> So maybe that was a lot of typing to say, maybe if you step back and look at the REALLY BIG picture of what the OP is saying, you can have a lush tank without chasing the additive/fert regime. That is my goal. But as someone mentioned, isn't that goal of all low techers?
> Will simply adding dolomite get me there? Doubt it, but it may be part of the big picture to get the tank in balance.


Yes, you can have a low tech tank that always stays clean. That is in short my point. But I also claim that such properly established tank is "scalable" - you can increase the light any time you want and add CO2 and add new plants and the tank will run clean anyway. That is so because IF you have the microorganism population established right the processes in the tank are balanced. Let's say I'm wrong and the microorganisms are not that important - we will be back in the mess we are in currently - constantly chasing fertilizers, concentrations, chemicals, water changes. It simply does not work in a stable way.

Advice to end up with a stable tank? Start it very slowly. In the first few week have only ambient light. Let the plants grow as slow as they want. Do not interfere (big water changes). No fish or a few fish. Chose plants that will survive - don't be using plants that are known to require high light for example. Once again, as written above - note that ADA uses only a very limited choice of plants. Follow the same logic. Some "simple" plants are not simple at all - Java Fern does not do well in low tech tanks. 

Have some water movement. No need to e 10X the volume of the tank per hour. Have a tiny little CO2 running - CO2 at low light has proven to greatly enhance plant growth. From what I've seen it is not the growth itself but it keeps the plants intact - without the CO2 many plants disintegrate in 2-3 days in very low light. 

Have a cleaning crew. This is a concept that I believe I'm introducing for the first time for planted tanks. Here's the logic, it is a result of observation of events that I didn't plan but could not help noticing. Have Amano Shrimp, Dwarf Shrimp, Nerites, other smaller snails, Otos. All of them. What happens is a conveyor like processing of waste. Remove one of the species and you will see a visible result - the waste is not processed as well. And do not forget - the last step in that conveyor are the microorganisms. 

As a general picture - remember that this is not about not having fertilizers. This is about HOW they are processed by the tank. Anything forced will result in instability. So you must start slow and continue slowly. Maybe everyone should ask themselves "Why am I in a hurry to have this tank looking good?". Who is rushing us really?  6-8 months is an actual, reasonable time period for a tank to get established. That is not my view, I heard it from one of the best American aquascapers. And I had to agree - a tank is not established in the first 3 months, not even close. Remember that.

Bump:


lksdrinker said:


> Wow.....lots of ideas and information in this thread. I can see why/how everyone wants to jump on one side or the other but there are lots of variables that seem to be ignored in this discussion; and I'm very surprised how many people are looking for the "formula". We all have vastly different water before it goes in the tank right? Different nutrients already present or lacking; different amounts of dissolved gases, different ph, kh, gh levels, etc etc etc. Just like how there is no "correct" bubbles per second rate for injecting co2 there is really no "correct" formula for almost anything involved in this hobby. What works for you might not work for me and vice versa. Sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and be willing to try (or be willing to fail I suppose is a better way to term it). Sometimes you have to admit that certain plants just wont grow in your setup even though you've done everything someone on the internet said to do. I know I've given up on certain plants that are supposed to be easy and have great success with others that I knew nothing about. I know its tough to see someone succeed doing it the "easy" way when so many people put so much effort in....and still end up failing.
> 
> I think we've all got a bit of a skewed perspective just from being members of this particular forum. The majority of us here have done the research and have been told (without necessarily learning anything) what to do and how to do it; and the typical answer or reason is "because thats what works" or "thats what the plants need to thrive". Very few can explain why (and fewer really understand why....myself included)
> 
> There is definitely more than one way to skin a cat. Some ways are surely more popular than others but that doesnt make any one way correct.
> 
> I think the OP's method (or any similar lower tech method) is something that people have been doing for quite some time. Many succeed, many fail, and many likely consider themselves successful whether or not their tank looks like an ADA masterpiece. The people succeeding in that fashion aren't necessarily the same people who bother running to the internet with their results though; or if/when they do they get yelled at and told they're not doing it right and/or must be lying. No one talks about the guy who shrugs his shoulders when someone asks how he achieved such great plant growth when all he did was achieve a balanced setup that works without really knowing the reasons why it works.
> 
> I drank the kool aid and bought into certain methods that were supposed to guarantee results. What I've found in the end is that I personally have the best success after I stopped dosing any ferts and started letting my tank tell me what works instead of listening to what other people say should work. I've had luck with dirt substrates, co2 injection and "decent" lighting. I suppose the answer in my case is that I get enough nutrients from the substrate, feedings, and waste; and have the right balance of co2 and light for certain plants to thrive. I was dosing ferts for some time and while I was getting fast growth, I dont know if I'd say it was necessarily "good growth". The plants didnt necessarily look all too fantastic; and I was spending far more time trimming plants than anything else....then I blinked and one of my tanks was essentially crashing as it was a huge planted mass rather than a fishtank!


I got to say that your post rings intelligent very loudly. Part of it is the way you are able to see the big picture. Or maybe I just like to see that someone looks at something and is actually critical and objective.

One thing that maybe interesting to you is the so called "survivor bias". Look it up on Wikipedia. In our planted tank case it translates in notions perpetuated because of the narrow internet window. It is my view that we see the tanks that "survived" the onslaught of devices and chemicals. They look good for a picture, but the maintenance, stability, replicability are nothing we really hear about or discuss. So for some time now I've been wondering how many failed tanks were out there over the years vs. the ones that make it on a half-ass good picture on a forum and pass for a proof of success of some method/approach? Including ADA's. 

If one sticks around in this hobby the result is always the same - tanks that are less work, slower growth, more enjoyment. In a way in this hobby there is some kind of individual development. Maybe the avatars should say "planted tank child", or "planted tank teenager", and "planted tank helpless case" for some people that just refuse to leave the internet part of the hobby like the many people that actually know what they are doing and you will never see on any forum ever again.


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> ...These threads have no real facts or significant sample sizes and are just nichy at best. They are more ego-driven IMO and do very little to advance the hobby.


You got it! Many times I've stated that I post things to let them flow out of my mind. The posts are for me really. They help me think more about what I'm interested in. In a way everybody that participates in one of my threads - good or bad - is helping me do my thing.

But what I try to do is to "inflict" the same effect on others. Read my thread, get riled up a little, have some drama, find some soberness, follow a link or two, agree with a letter I typed. You will get somewhere new. 

I like a certain word: "Serendipity". Welcome, all, to the journey 

..."Very little to advance the hobby.." unlike other things that have taken us very, very far - talk about calculating fertilizers, LED, PAR and the latest most amazing freaking CO2 regulator 

Bump:


GrampsGrunge said:


> My Avatar and the Siggy pictures are screen captures..
> 
> More images.
> 
> Thedood has already seen some of these, I need to get a NTSC to digital converter, someday


What ugly tanks! Those must be low tech tanks without CO2. How can I unsee all that? 

Those plants were plastic. Admit it. They can not grow without LEDs.

Bump:


tapwater said:


> To do lomite or not to do lomite - that is the question!


Oh wait till I unveil the Dohighmite. Dolomite is its weak younger brother...

Bump:


Mikevwall said:


> How does one find time to read and answer his own thread when his tank's plants are breaking world records for the fastest growing plant(s) on the planet!?


The plants stopped growing today. So here I am answering all questions. 

Happy now?

Bump:


Jeff5614 said:


> I think it's time to toss in my 2 cents. I've known Niko for quite some time and had many conversations with him on APC. Without speaking for him, he's advocating running a tank with very lean water column ferts and a rich substrate, similar to ADA's method, which also includes moderate CO2 levels and moderate lighting. Tom Barr posted an analysis of ADA's liquid ferts a few years ago and I was surprised by them. The amount of nitrate in the recommended daily dose was well below 1 ppm. I want to think it was like 0.1 ppm as was PO4. Of course those recommendations would be laughed at by most people on TPT even taking into account an enriched substrate.
> 
> As for the amount of dolomite needed for a tank. Figure it out yourself. There are some very smart people on the forum who I think can find the amount of Ca and Mg in a given amount of dolomite and calculate how much is needed in X amount of water to obtain say 4 dGH. Which I think most can agree on as being a reasonable general hardness for planted tank.
> 
> While his style of communication may rub some of you the wrong way, he is merely interested in seeing the hobby advance past what he considers an inefficient and unstable way of managing a tank to a more stable method. A lot of people won't agree with him and you can feel free to disagree, but there's no need for some of the juvenile comments and respect for your elders might be something to consider even though that has largely been tossed out by our culture.
> 
> I welcome his posts on the forum and find them interesting and a cause to consider how I run my tank even if I don't agree with all of them. One of things I like the most is that I know he will still be in the hobby and interested in advancing it long after a lot of you have forgotten you even had an aquarium.


I've known Jeff for some time now. Bad person, very bad person. 










Bump:


StrungOut said:


> could be renamed
> people vs. barr
> haters vs. ei
> personal agenda vs T.b.
> 
> stirring more pots
> smoking more trees
> 
> The plant gods are laughing at us, putting all our gadgets on a box
> which eventually becomes an apocalyptic algae field.
> Investing all that dough
> 
> Niko nailed it. US aquascaping is almost non-existent, senske's n barr
> what else he nailed is a mystery of vagueness


"Mystery of Vagueness" is my favorite band. I especially like their album "Polka all the way". I'm sure you, Strung Out, know the words of every song by heart! Cause "Strung Out" is the first song.


----------



## easternlethal

niko said:


> Then were do ADA tanks fall? Low tech?
> 
> If what you are saying is right then no low tech tank will ever have BBA. That is not so. And according to everybody and their brother high light, CO2 to the gills, and lots of fertilizers make plants grow and then they just kill algae. No high tech tank should have BBA.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the microorganisms are the foundation. They are your aquarium. Everything else is decoration, including some pretty plants I grew so nicely tanks to the internet forum. If the foundation is off then you look for a million ways to put on makeup on a sick patient. I can even make him look great, then quickly snap a picture to show everybody


I never said low tech tanks cannot have BBA or otherwise. I just said it's possible to take a BBA plant from one tank and put it in another tank and watch BBA disappear. That tank itself may be low tech, high tech, or just a glass of water or even have BBA itself. That experiment just doesn't prove anything one way or another.

ADA measures low because they can determine how much ferts are actually required and don't need to flood the tank with it. I live in Hong Kong and most aquascapers here don't read english and have never heard of EI and can produce great tanks with just a few squirts of commercial ferts. But it has taken them years to figure that out through many years of trial and error. One day I hope to figure that out myself. This precise knowledge is the difference between East vs West imo. You can go to a shop here and ask them how they create such marvellous landscapes and they will sell you a $2 bottle of fert from china. I can do that or I can go next door to the ada shop, buy co2 and flood my tank. Is there a right answer to this?

Many people forget aquascaping came from bonsai, which is more about learning from nature and what the plant reveals to you as opposed to having something imposed upon it. This practice has been around since the 14th century. There is no way to replicate this with just a few decades experience no matter how much we lament about our sorry state in the west.

We can go ahead and try to do the same thing, believing in our forefathers in their ancient civilisation or we can believe that we have broken with the past in our age of enlightenment and can do better. There is nothing wrong with that either.


----------



## niko

Here. A kind of a monkey wrench in this vibrant discussion:

This is an example of the so-called "Dutch aquascaping". Not sure if this particular tank is true Dutch. As I understand the original Dutch planted tank is a dying breed. No more contests with judges that check the plant roots and make sure the tank looks great at all times, not just timed for a cool internet picture. 

What is interesting here? These tanks were ran with low light, reddish spectrum, and Phosphate was considered the devil. All the bad things you can think of. Until you let the image suck you in:










*No CO2.* Didn't exist as a concept at that time.

Good night now.


----------



## GrampsGrunge




----------



## niko

GrampsGrunge said:


>


Haha. You thought it was going somewhere else? You are a helpless optimist about people, including me. I too, just like you and most everybody else, care little about what every internet character has to say about anything.

And I like where this forum is already. Where all the other forums are, just very pretty with those ads all over. Hell, now I see ads ON TOP of pictures I posted. People would read 10 pages of mainly crap opinions and be bombarded with ads but ain't nobody got no time to read a 108 page book that has 2.5 simple links to idiotic ADA products that can easily be ignored.

That is the state of the US hobby today. Welcome to 21-st century American Aquascaping  Check out the ads to the right, on top, bottom, and at the bottom of this post as if I endorse them or something. We can't do better so this is our precious.

Hope some things from this thread stick to some people's minds. If there will be any kind of development away from 21-st century American Aquascaping that is the way.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

NoScript is a a blessing but tends to make the margins here look like someone has randomly strewn about chunks of old Usenet forum.

I've have already succumbed to the pull of advertizing, I bought a little 3.0 oz. Morton NoSalt and some Potassium Gluconate supplement.


----------



## theatermusic87

niko said:


> Here. A kind of a monkey wrench in this vibrant discussion:
> 
> This is an example of the so-called "Dutch aquascaping". Not sure if this particular tank is true Dutch. As I understand the original Dutch planted tank is a dying breed. No more contests with judges that check the plant roots and make sure the tank looks great at all times, not just timed for a cool internet picture.
> 
> What is interesting here? These tanks were ran with low light, reddish spectrum, and Phosphate was considered the devil. All the bad things you can think of. Until you let the image suck you in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No CO2.* Didn't exist as a concept at that time.
> 
> Good night now.


looks great, I would assume that if co2 wasn't around then, and since the surface of the water looks glass calm... that you have some decent natural co2 build up from all those microbes going on in the substrate 


You mentioned organics being a favorite topic of yours, mine too as of late, specifically why they tend to build up in our aquariums (not a surprise) but more so what natural process happens in nature where they don't build up. There is a 400 acre lake I've been visiting for decades, some of the clearest freshwater anywhere, plants growing to depths of 20 feet or more, with gin clear water. at the top of it's water shed, spring fed with a water retention rate of 1 year+, ph of 7ish, not affected by acid rain (has a limestone and iron buffer) and a very healthy and large fish population... why isn't the water yellow?

My current thinking is natural sunlight, esp the uv part of it that is often missing in or tanks.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> You got it! Many times I've stated that I post things to let them flow out of my mind. The posts are for me really. They help me think more about what I'm interested in. In a way everybody that participates in one of my threads - good or bad - is helping me do my thing.
> 
> But what I try to do is to "inflict" the same effect on others. Read my thread, get riled up a little, have some drama, find some soberness, follow a link or two, agree with a letter I typed.


Glad to hear you admit it. I always pictured you maybe with one of your devoted followers laughing at all the responses that come in.


----------



## Hilde

MtAnimals said:


> This makes a lot of sense....I have one tank plants seem to just thrive in,if a plant isn't doing well,I put it in my spec v and it goes nuts.


What substrate is in the spec v(tank?)?

Bump:


niko said:


> Mister,
> So the bottom line is that I could never get that tank to run absolutely clean and stable. I used every practice and approach that you can name - all in the direction to clean the tank and make good use of those water column fertilizers.


Did you ever test the tap water?


----------



## MtAnimals

Hilde said:


> What substrate is in the spec v(tank?)?
> 
> eco,same as 2 other tanks.
> 
> Bump:
> Did you ever test the tap water?


gh/kh both at 5,ph pretty high out of the tap.I'd have to go find the well report for the rest,but for drinking we've been told it's exceptional.I think there's some silicates in it,I get brown diatoms in the animal troughs and dishes as well as some tanks.


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> Glad to hear you admit it. I always pictured you maybe with one of your devoted followers laughing at all the responses that come in.


Are you on the left or on the right?

Try a better joke next time. This one - too shallow. But hey, look were we are - it fits well here.

Re-read what I said to you. I'm honest and push the envelope and I get crap in return. Is it because that's what most people have in their heads? 

Bottom line is - people want to hear what they like. It's easy to bump them off center. But that is fun only for a bit - you get nothing in return other than low brow impulsive reactions. Look at many of the posts above - they contain nothing.


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> For years we were convinced by the biggest US guru that BBA is a result of low CO2.
> 
> I posted a link to a 100+ page e-book explaining how it is all done.


Once I got rid of the BBA increasing KNO3. To me it is a matter of balancing nutrients.

I wonder what the gh and kh is of niko's tap water. 

Those whom have well water seem to have easy to care tanks.

Very interesting thread. I like that it leans toward low amount of ferts. For EI dosing is too regiment for me.


----------



## micheljq

Well, it is beyond the scope of this thread but co2 injection exists since at least 1962.

Michel.


----------



## niko

micheljq said:


> Well, it is beyond the scope of this thread but co2 injection exists since at least 1962.
> 
> Michel.


Really? I'm being ironic here. Truth is most people believe that Amano himself invented CO2 supplementation. One of his books describes poor young Amano waking up early morning to dump bottles of soda water in his tank as a way to add CO2. Then the story goes on... and the products we see today come in the picture.

The point is - this thread is about a reality check. We have sunk into our own world that has little common sense. Many things were not invented 15 or 5 years ago. That includes CO2, fertilizers, stability concerns.

One big problem is that pictures from the old days are just about non-existent. I can harp all day about tanks from the early 80's without any equipment (just incadescent bulbs, nothing else) that grew like there is no tomorrow but without a picture they don't exist for most people. Nowadways day in day out all we see is idiotic ADA aquascape copy-cats. Every single new posh looking cute "showroom" that you see on the internet full of ADA tank copies is a business. It pushes the product, nothing else. People don't understand that for some reason. That maybe ok if it didn't promote a shallow mindset. A reality check is needed, as I said above.

Below a picture from 1963. Not sure if this tank had CO2? Do you believe it did? Most people with the mindset of "low tech vs. high tech" will have an easy answer. But how many US hobbyists can actually produce a lush tank like that and have it running clean AND stable? I say nobody.

Note the number of plant species:









Now compare the above picture to a modern flashy Japanese HD image. It works on the average mindset with its modern look, the surroundings, the "high end" appearance. And most people get one message - "these products are the best. They are unique". Which is not exactly so as we have all figured by now. But it still maintains the shallow mindset:

Note the number of plant species - not even close to the 1963 picture. But the average Joe loves this tank:


----------



## niko

Hilde said:


> Once I got rid of the BBA increasing KNO3. To me it is a matter of balancing nutrients.
> 
> I wonder what the gh and kh is of niko's tap water.
> 
> Those whom have well water seem to have easy to care tanks.
> 
> Very interesting thread. I like that it leans toward low amount of ferts. For EI dosing is too regiment for me.


Honestly BBA is a modern day plaque. 30 years ago there was no BBA anywhere. That being said the thing responds to certain factors for sure.

Had a tank chock full of fish. Saw BBA show up. Saw 2 dead fish (agressive, came to age and killed each other). Removed dead fish, changed water, 2 days later BBA went away.

Repeated the above many times. Every time BBA showed up there was a dead fish somewhere. Removing it and changing a little water made BBA disappear every time. Afeter weeks of that agony only 1 out of 50 fish was left - the strongest I guess. Now you see how many times I saw BBA come and go connected with a slight increase of waste in that tank - at least 20 times. 

These were agressive wildcaught fish (a kind of Half Beak) that voraciously ate anything. They even swarmed and bit my hands if I put them in the tank. I mean there was a lot of fish waste for sure.So the tank was full of fish and their waste all the time but only a slight increase would trigger the BBA growth. That made me think of organics, waste, processing, balance. And how "clean" is relative. In the old days yellowish water was considered good. It was considered "processed", "alive". Today ADA makes us believe that a tiny yellow tinge in your water is the devil. Could be because today's tanks are unstable houses of cards.

That logic meant that practically anything we do in this hobby can be re-examined. This thread pushes in that direction.


----------



## burr740

niko said:


> This thread pushes in that direction.


Honestly Niko Im not even sure what direction you are pushing at this point. First dolomite was the answer to everything, including the need to perform any maintenance, apparently. CO2 and ferts are the devil. ADA is ruining the hobby with their flashy rimless tanks and all that designer equipment. 

Now it appears we are coming around to organic waste is the big bad guy. That is something I can definitely get behind. Wish you had started out that way.

But frankly I'd just like to know what it is you are trying to sell. You seem like a knowledgeable guy with lots of experience, which Im sure could be valuable to anyone reading this, myself included. So is it possible to come down off the soapbox for 5 minutes and offer up something useful, rather than endless paragraphs of pretentious criticism that drone on and on, in no particular direction?


----------



## easternlethal

Niko I have learnt many things from your posts. And I do hope that you continue to contribute even if some responses frustrate you.

That said, I think you have a love hate relationship with Amano. You seem to like the fact that he doesn't use a lot of ferts and has a very deep understanding of the ecology in the aquarium and what it needs. 

But you dislike his marketing 'machine' and believe that he has or other people have developed some misconceived ideas about how to go about creating it. 

And in order to prove this latter point, you compared this







with this







and remarked how few species of plants there are in the latter one.

In doing so I think you discredit unfairly the aesthetic behind the japanese philosophy and fall into the same trap that you accuse other American aquascapers of falling into. The philosphy behind that Amano tank is to create form and space. Less is more. It is not about showing off your horicultural skills.

It's a little bit like comparing this: 







with this:







wow! what a boring zen garden this is. Not even a single plant!

You point out the dutch style from the 80s as somehow preceding the natural style but you do not appreciate that the natural style came from zen and bonsai styles. How old do you think the concept of the miniature tree is? I can tell you it's a lot older than the dutch style.


----------



## niko

burr740 said:


> Honestly Niko Im not even sure what direction you are pushing at this point. First dolomite was the answer to everything, including the need to perform any maintenance, apparently. CO2 and ferts are the devil. ADA is ruining the hobby with their flashy rimless tanks and all that designer equipment.
> 
> Now it appears we are coming around to organic waste is the big bad guy. That is something I can definitely get behind. Wish you had started out that way.
> 
> But frankly I'd just like to know what it is you are trying to sell. You seem like a knowledgeable guy with lots of experience, which Im sure could be valuable to anyone reading this, myself included. So is it possible to come down off the soapbox for 5 minutes and offer up something useful, rather than endless paragraphs of pretentious criticism that drone on and on, in no particular direction?



Problem is I need to use short sentences. If you read my long posts slowly you will see what I'm saying. I'm guilty of the same issue - I skim through the internet too fast - so I understand the problem.

Also there is a general lack of focus when reading an internet forum. A long, detailed writing does not fly well. As I said above - a big reason for me to even post on TPT was selfish - writing and getting whatever feedback helps me think more, and hopefully better. It helps me put things into words in my own mind.

People see as much as they know. I too am in that category. And that's why I try to know more any way possible, not just in the planted tank hobby. But when I mentioned Dolomite people decided I'm saying that it is some kind of miracle chemical because the mindset of the US hobby is about fertilizers as #1 to run a planted tank. Read my Dolomite thread that I started yesterday. In the very beginning I say that Dolomite is not a cure for all and that I post details only because people asked.

Finally - everything has at least two sides. There is no straight line from A to B. That includes ADA. They revolutionized this hobby 15-20 years ago. But they also brought a lot of negative things. We can learn from the good and from the bad. But we can also fall into admiring aquascapes that could have been done 10 years ago or 3 days ago - they are so very similar. Once again - the simple pattern of dividing black/white, good/bad. I'm sure you can agree with the tank picture part and can see how the simple dividing pattern works.


----------



## niko

easternlethal said:


> Niko I have learnt many things from your posts. And I do hope that you continue to contribute even if some responses frustrate you.
> 
> That said, I think you have a love hate relationship with Amano. You seem to like the fact that he doesn't use a lot of ferts and has a very deep understanding of the ecology in the aquarium and what it needs.
> 
> But you dislike his marketing 'machine' and believe that he has or other people have developed some misconceived ideas about how to go about creating it.
> 
> And in order to prove this latter point, you compared this
> View attachment 641785
> 
> with this
> View attachment 641793
> 
> and remarked how few species of plants there are in the latter one.
> 
> In doing so I think you discredit unfairly the aesthetic behind the japanese philosophy and fall into the same trap that you accuse other American aquascapers of falling into. The philosphy behind that Amano tank is to create form and space. Less is more. It is not about showing off your horicultural skills.
> 
> It's a little bit like comparing this:
> View attachment 641801
> 
> with this:
> View attachment 641809
> 
> wow! what a boring zen garden this is. Not even a single plant!
> 
> You point out the dutch style from the 80s as somehow preceding the natural style but you do not appreciate that the natural style came from zen and bonsai styles. How old do you think the concept of the miniature tree is? I can tell you it's a lot older than the dutch style.
> View attachment 641817



Your post is a rare one. It's about insight. I liked the part about "The philosphy behind that Amano tank is to create form and space. Less is more. " Your response is not "Give me your method" or "How do I use the magic fertilizer Dolomite?". So thank you for a breath of fresh air.

Two things about Japanese tanks/marketing:

* - Blind admiration*
The less you know the more you are lead by someone else. At least in some areas of life you can do something about it, haha. 

That is what you see on the internet more and more. And that is how the marketing works. Most people can not tell the difference between ADA tanks made to please an average mind and those truly made well. I myself can't, but someone that could walked me over many of their tanks and explained what is in there. It was engineered to the gills to please. It's comparable to a genius artist that mixes cheesy popular elements with great ones to please the crowd. Some are obvious, some are a more subtle mix. At the end - the whole thing has one goal - selling a product. ADA is a business.

How can one like a tricky setup like that? I don't.

*- Boredom as a result of marketing*
I'm taking Iwagumi as the extreme example of how boring this Japanese invention is IF made wrong. I've seen just a few in real life. One was made by supposedly the best US aquascapers - ADG. Back when they were in bed with ADA so everything was ADA. Tank was in a pretty much empty room so it really looked like some kind of a special jewel.

It was amazing. We could not stop staring at the simplicity and the tiny details.

Then, in about 15 minutes the magic was gone. I kept looking back again and again. Something was missing, badly missing. The thing looked so darn empty. Same angles, same lines, same fish going to the left, going to the right... I did not understand what happened. Looked around the room - not a single person was looking at the tank. 2 hours meeting - nobody really checked it out.

Two things may have been a problem - our American mindset is not Japanese and that particular Iwagumi was probably not the best example of the style. My guess is that Iwagumi is extremely hard to execute properly because of the simplicity. A friend of mine, an artist, once said "The hardest thing to master is the single, thin, black line." So I do think that the ADG tank fell along these lines.

On the internet we look at a picture for a few seconds. Even a so-so Iwagumi works very well for that. But place it in your living room - good luck, I think soon it will be gone.

The above applies to all aquascapes that are made to look good but are not the real thing. You can have a wild tank, hairy and disorderly and it is nothing else but that. It works at some level because it is genuine. Or you can have a contrived setup, made to look pretty, but very unnatural, manicured, ordered according to whatever golden rules you mustered to kind of understand. This one somehow does not have the same "melody" as a truly great tank. It's like pop music  And you have to see the live, not for a few seconds, on some picture on the internet.

The longer exposure reveals a lot. One good example are tanks that we considered amazing back in 2007 or so. Look at them now. My god, the magic is gone. Because they were never great. To me, personally, one such example is Jason Baliban. Good guy, clean tanks, nice plants, layouts that seemed so good. Then you look at them today and see them very differently.

So at the end - to answer your questions - a business comes, takes some centuries old techniques, applies them in ways that the average mind will love, promotes that as the highest level using elitism, a rigged up contest, and glossy images. That is very, very far from the beauty of a tiny little plant doing it's thing in a tiny little container or better yet - unseen somewhere in Nature. One is fake, the other one is real. Hate you say, love you say - yes, I maybe guilty of that. Hope you now you see why 

...That post made me think of something... I believe you can handle my irony:
I'm now off to try to paint Kim Kardashian as Leonardo's Mona Lisa. I think it has been done before.. But it's so inspiring, don't you think? They are so beautiful... So alike:


----------



## niko

burr740 said:


> ...
> But frankly I'd just like to know what it is you are trying to sell. You seem like a knowledgeable guy with lots of experience, which Im sure could be valuable to anyone reading this, myself included. So is it possible to come down off the soapbox for 5 minutes and offer up something useful, rather than endless paragraphs of pretentious criticism that drone on and on, in no particular direction?


This is how I see it: One needs to get some things inside moving to start thinking. Not you, per se, specifically you, Burr740. Anyone.

How does that happen? By clear explanations, following steps, perfect proof of everything? You know the answer is "No". 

If this thread made you think of one single new thing it did well.

Ah yes. I'm sorry that my writing style is so different from your real life in which everything is clear cut, short, precise, proven, correct, with one big beautiful direction. As real life always is


----------



## easternlethal

Well Amano was a photographer after all. His job was to reflect and I do not think it's fair to compare him to da vinci or even a master kobayashi. I am sure he will also tell you the same if he were here. 

Even if he was still imitating at the end of the day and it's not clear whether aquascaping can really ever be a real artform I think the japanese are happy he managed to come closer than anyone else.

Do you think we can ever reach these heights:








This tree has been cared for 800 years. Imagine that when we all pat ourselves on the back because we managed to keep our tanks going for 8 months.


----------



## Hilde

I was wondering what is your favorite type of substrate? You may have mentioned it previously. If so please repeat for I am feeling to ill to read the whole thread.

Thanks to for the cal mag ration. Have never seen it mentioned anywhere.


----------



## burr740

niko said:


> This is how I see it: One needs to get some things inside moving to start thinking. Not you, per se, specifically you, Burr740. Anyone.
> 
> How does that happen? By clear explanations, following steps, perfect proof of everything? You know the answer is "No".
> 
> If this thread made you think of one single new thing it did well.
> 
> Ah yes. I'm sorry that my writing style is so different from your real life in which everything is clear cut, short, precise, proven, correct, with one big beautiful direction. As real life always is


If I started a thread claiming to make a boat out of Jello that could sail around the world in 3 days. doesnt it seem natural to you the first thing people would want to know is....OK, how?

Obviously I'd have no answer because I personally havent done it, nor are my claims even possible.

So when that didnt go well, the next thing I'd probably do is spend 10 pages changing the subject, and questioning the mental capacity of my audience with enough text to make a Steinbeck novel.

Finally I'd be all like, guys, Im just being ironic here, trying to get you to think about things in a different way. :hihi:


----------



## Smooch

Niko- If using your magical Dolomite makes you happy, keep using it. I prefer my primitive ways to maintain my tanks. 

In a half hour, 3 tanks were vacuumed, had water changes, glass cleaned, plants trimmed, fish looked over and I got love nibbles from the occupants in the 10 gallon. All done without a single chemical in sight and I got a arm workout as I still lug buckets. It was the quietest, most peaceful half hour I've had all week and I loved every minute of it. 

It's okay, we can have our differences of opinion. I don't need a revolution for something that isn't broken in the first place.


----------



## houseofcards

Niko, you come across as a one man crusade to try and teach us 'dumb Americans' how to Aquascape and grow aquatic plants. I'm not sure why you feel this is your role to lead. Instead of showing other people/professional setups, lets see your portfolio of 'Mona Lisa' Aquascapes created by your methods. Please describe the ones that are short and long term. I'll go grab some popcorn and hopefully when I return you'll have some examples or a link to your collection. Thanks much!


----------



## niko

Hilde said:


> I was wondering what is your favorite type of substrate? You may have mentioned it previously. If so please repeat for I am feeling to ill to read the whole thread.
> 
> Thanks to for the cal mag ration. Have never seen it mentioned anywhere.


Substrate - I do not think you can beat AquaSoil. But you can also do anything you want with any other substrate.

The "trick" is to know how to use them. AquaSoil included. You can find old and not so old posts where people complain about AquaSoil releasing Ammonia. My god, that is what it is supposed to do. That is how it works up to a certain point of the tank development. The lesson is - you must know how a substrate works and you will have success with it.

For homemade I've had great success with a simple mixtture of laterite, peat, activated carbon. Topped with an inert layer of sand.

Keep in mind that the substrate development is one of the main things that made me start that thread. If the substrate has "aged" properly you will have healthy plants and a stable tank. That is exactly what I talk about in the first few posts in this thread. In short - if you let your tank develops slowly the substrate becomes what it needs to be. But the process takes time.

Commercial substrates try to help you in some way. Give you advantages like sucking nutrients from the water. That hides them from the algae and makes them available to plants. Also some substrates will soften the water a bit. AquaSoil does the above two plus it contains some organics for the long (but not very long) run. AquaSoil lowers the pH and that is a big deal.

I have a potted terrestrial plant in 100% AquaSoil for 3 years now. It's a fern. I do not know what the AquaSoil provides but the Fern is doing great. Meaning that AquaSoil does provide some kind of nutrients or an environment what some other substrates won't provide. I don't think I can plant a terrerstial plant in Fluorite or EcoComplete. 

Maybe some of the AquaSoil copy cats that you can find on the market today can be used with success but I do not know about them, you have to ask someone else that has used them.

At the end - there is nothing you can not do with any substrate, root tabs, some source of Iron. Read the link to the 108 page book that I posted earlier. The guy talks a lot about the logic behind AquaSoil. You can copy a lot of it with any other substrate combination.


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> Niko, you come across as a one man crusade to try and teach us 'dumb Americans' how to Aquascape and grow aquatic plants. I'm not sure why you feel this is your role to lead. Instead of showing other people/professional setups, lets see your portfolio of 'Mona Lisa' Aquascapes created by your methods. Please describe the ones that are short and long term. I'll go grab some popcorn and hopefully when I return you'll have some examples or a link to your collection. Thanks much!


I am an American too. Something bothers me in the fact that we have all the resources, all the room, all the choices and the Aquascaping sub forum on the only barely surviving US planted tank forum has close to none real aquascapes. Look at it today - the only good aquascape is that of this Chinese guy. I apologize - he is an American too I believe... And it is all influenced by ADA once again. A Japanese business. Without a sticky of their "method" on any forum. How do you respond to that mess?

Tank pictures from years past were lost when the club website went down. How's that for a cop out? It is true though. But for you it is a cop out, I'm sure. Nothing I can do about your mindset.

Since when I have a "method"? I thought a method was a big deal - like EI and PPS and ADA. They all work very well, correct? Or do they? Read on:

Here's some truth. "Some" because I can't say 100% of it because the nice moderators here will kick me out. 2 years ago I posted a link to a certain tank. Very popular tank. Everybody knows it. There are a few amazing videos of it on YouTube even today. If anyone showed you that tank you will think they really know what they are doing.

What nobody wanted to hear was that it took 3 (three) days for that tank to go from great looking to an algae cesspool. There were pictures of that too. I posted links to the before and after. Moderators deleted the thread as inciting arguments before anybody even responded. I left APC for some time because of that bs. Who are we kidding? 3 days without CO2 and that was the end of it. That passes as great. Where? in the US hobby... 

Then there was a loudly applauded public cleaning of the tank. 4 days of work and it was looking amazing again. Meaning that it is now again kept 3 days away from catastrophy at all times. Like a patient at an Intensive Care Unit.

What is that an example of? Of what we all fall for - pictures. 
And here you are - asking me for my pictures so I convert you into my fan or something.

And more - I said it before - you can go on the UK forum and find a long thread talking about TwinStar. One of the European ADA distributors uses his own cool gallery as an example how all the tanks crashed in less than 7 days. Then how he fixed them using TwinStar. Ok, he is trying to sell TwinStar. But who is stupid here? He just said that his entire collection of showroom tanks are super unstable. Can't last a week without care. Despite that being his only full time job. Wow. But you can see pictures of his tanks all over. Beautiful pictures. Fans like them. He apparently knows what he is doing too...

I'm not going to change your mind. But you can't deny that some things in this hobby can be different. If it is not me wasting my time typing all that, who it will be that says that some things could be done better. You maybe?

Do it. Find a way. I suggest using short sentences. No more than 4 words each. That is what people seem to handle best. Speaking form experience :smile2:

Bump:


burr740 said:


> If I started a thread claiming to make a boat out of Jello that could sail around the world in 3 days. doesnt it seem natural to you the first thing people would want to know is....OK, how?
> 
> Obviously I'd have no answer because I personally havent done it, nor are my claims even possible.
> 
> So when that didnt go well, the next thing I'd probably do is spend 10 pages changing the subject, and questioning the mental capacity of my audience with enough text to make a Steinbeck novel.
> 
> Finally I'd be all like, guys, Im just being ironic here, trying to get you to think about things in a different way. :hihi:


Ok. Talk about changing the subject. A big "THANK YOU!". Let's go back to page 2. 

Here it is again. Simple. Clear. I asked. Nobody has responded to it yet. 

_"...Here is a challenge:
1. Show me pictures of a tank in which you can dip a BBA covered plant and have it clean in some days. Show me pictures of that being done a few times with different plants.
2. Show me pictures of plants as healthy or healthier than the red Sword and the 12" tall Crypt I posted in the beginning.
3. Show me pictures of a tank that you can leave by itself for 2 weeks and nothing will deteriorate. Make that a month. Make that 3 months.
4. Show me pictures of your amazing high demanding plants after 14 days of no care looking just fine. Explain how do they exist in Nature when you are not there.
5. Show me a picture of some plant covered in BGA that you dipped in your super-duper tank today and the BGA went away in 6 hours. I did that yesterday with a Buce. Surely you can show me the same thing...."_

Link to that post:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/11-fertilizers-water-parameters/1047585-no-fertilizers-pictures-extremely-healthy-plants-2.html#post9261441

I apologize. There was 1 (one) response to that challenge. The guy said that if you dip BBA in any low tech tank it will go away because low tech tanks are like that. 

Don't change the subject now, people. It'd be best if you posted pictures with the responses. And no, please, no more Bonsai or raked Japanese Sand Garden pictures. Items 1 to 5 as asked above. 

Easy challenge, right? Let the "methods", ferilizers, pictures flow


----------



## burr740

A human cant go an hour without oxygen. Does that somehow diminish the species? 

Likewise, certain types of tanks are dependent on CO2. If it goes out for a few days they get algae. So what?


----------



## niko

easternlethal said:


> Well Amano was a photographer after all. His job was to reflect and I do not think it's fair to compare him to da vinci or even a master kobayashi. I am sure he will also tell you the same if he were here.
> 
> Even if he was still imitating at the end of the day and it's not clear whether aquascaping can really ever be a real artform I think the japanese are happy he managed to come closer than anyone else.
> 
> Do you think we can ever reach these heights:
> View attachment 641857
> 
> 
> This tree has been cared for 800 years. Imagine that when we all pat ourselves on the back because we managed to keep our tanks going for 8 months.


No. Amano was many things and one of them was to be a very cold business mind. Why do you think ADA had some problems getting in the US market? Because these are cold businessmen that want cold income from their distributors. I heard some numbers back in the day and could not believe them. 

I'm saying that because the photographs, magazine, videos, the "Japanese aquascaping style", the contest - it is all about business. The beauty is precisely measured to make you respond with what you understand r not understand. These tanks are not pieces of art. They are pieces of marketing.

You can also notice that somewhere around year 2007 Amano stopped creating anyting new. Whatever new trend was presented was short lived. Like placing tuffs of stem plants pretty much stuck to the front glass. ADA limited themselves to layouts that were easily replicable. That was the time when Amano started going around doing practical demonstrations... of the same few layouts over and over again. Business moves - the Guru had descended from aquascaping heaven and is showing mere mortals how easy it is all done. Ok good. Some beauty entered more into our lives, no doubt. But it also triggered copy cat mentality like no other time until that point. We are still victims of that momentum.

And trust me - most of us here can not keep a tank going clean for even a few weeks. It is a common practice to "shut down" the tank when you go on vacation. And resuscitate it back to life when you are back. You can shed a tear here if you want :smile2:

In contrast - Dutch tanks - at least the original kind - were made and judged at many levels one of them being actual long term maintenance. Even the equipment was not supposed to be makeshift. Like my posts and style or not, please read the posts by Marko Aukes in the link below. You may find a new interest in the planted tank hobby. If nothing else you will learn about the simple way they divide the tank in sections and how they make perspective in simple ways. You will be able to quickly evaluate tanks that say they are "Dutch". It's a cool read, go on:

Crash course Dutch style Aquascaping | UK Aquatic Plant Society

Bump:


burr740 said:


> A human cant go an hour without oxygen. Does that somehow diminish the species?
> 
> Likewise, certain types of tanks are dependent on CO2. If it goes out for a few days they get algae. So what?



Beg to differ. It is 3 minutes. Maybe 5 tops. The Oxygen you see on your plants that are pearling is the same thing that keeps you 3 min. away from death your entire life. 

At times I show people that come to my house Oxygen bubbles on the plants. Then I tell them about the 3 min thing. Some have a kind of break down. Some stare like dumb animals. People are different you know...

And no - it is CO2 that is a big deal indeed. It's not just for "some tanks". I'd venture to say that all tanks are dependent on CO2 way more than we think. I had a tank in utter darkness for 23 hours and 1 hour of strong light. Including floating HC. Plants were fine, ok, growing very slowly. But CO2 kept them alive. Many of them decomposed in 48 hours when the small trickle of CO2 stopped.

And here's an article that someone pointed me to. Apparently planted tank folk consider it a must-read. What I found was not really a must-read. It says that with big light and big CO2 plants grow very fast. As if we didn't know that. But what is more important is the situation where they say that higher CO2 and lower light results in very good growth rates. Way better than we'd all think. Hope you can read through the article. I have an easy to read summary of it somewhere but as I see you don't like long reads so here it is - just the article:

http://www.bio-web.dk/ole_pedersen/pdf/hydrobiologia_2202_477_163.pdf

And don't tell me again I didn't tell you a single useful thing 

The problem with tanks getting algae:
The problem is not about the tanks. In Nature algae are always there and rather beautiful I should say. It is us that hate them. And pictures of clean manicured tanks have made us not stand algae at all. So there are tall claims of how to run tanks without algae. It is a deviation in a way. Thing is - I'm interested in long term ways to manage, reduce, not let algae grow at all. Most people claim they can do that by forcing the plants to grow very fast. That works. I've followed these recommendations and the results were amazing but VERY unstable. So here you have it - algae is normal, I want them out, everybody wants them out. We are a little off. But what I know we can figure out is how to make this unnatural situation actually last long term.

For some inspiration of how algae fits in the whole picture look at these videos. I don't think that even I can say a single word while watching them. They are breathtaking:
https://www.facebook.com/FLoutdoors


----------



## burr740

Tom Barr has been saying for years that CO2 is great for low light tanks. Actually can get by using less light than a non-CO2 tank.


----------



## niko

Smooch said:


> Niko- If using your magical Dolomite makes you happy, keep using it. I prefer my primitive ways to maintain my tanks.
> 
> In a half hour, 3 tanks were vacuumed, had water changes, glass cleaned, plants trimmed, fish looked over and I got love nibbles from the occupants in the 10 gallon. All done without a single chemical in sight and I got a arm workout as I still lug buckets. It was the quietest, most peaceful half hour I've had all week and I loved every minute of it.
> 
> It's okay, we can have our differences of opinion. I don't need a revolution for something that isn't broken in the first place.



Thank you for allowing me to use my precious Dolomite. Dolomite is the only reason I started this thread.

Be careful liking your real tanks too much. It leads to abandoning the internet forums. I know people like that. Horrible, horrible people, they will never hear about My Dolomite 

But if you ask them how do they know what to do what you usually get is some kind of scaled down version of all the amazing products and approaches the internet hobbyists discuss. Basically people go back to proven practices with a little enhancement here and there. It works. Very well. And some of it I showed in the beginning of this thread. It feels like grounds for arguments as you can see. Because it contradicts the entire powerful internet 

Today I got the most pleasure out of doing something simple too. It was not the sleeping late, going to the gym. It was taking a quick picture of my tiny window sill hydroponic setup with Marsilea. It is about 10 days old now I think and it has shot pretty little clover leaf leaves.

I wish the best part of the day was typing posts here. But it was a simple, real life thing. Just like you cleaning your tanks. Ah yes, I kissed the dogs in the morning, that was wonderful too 




















Bump:


burr740 said:


> Tom Barr has been saying for years that CO2 is great for low light tanks. Actually can get by using less light than a non-CO2 tank.


Hm. Apparently others have been saying that before him - when he was still studying. In an actual scientific article. Read the PDF link above.

And remember Amano and his soda bottles. I wonder why that story was included in one of the ADA books. As if he had never heard that people experimented with pressurized CO2 already.

Some things are indeed older than we think. Some knowledge is way older than we all think. It is good to know the history of it. One of the first descriptions of pearling as Oxygen in a planted tank dates from the early 1900. Like 1910. It's pretty strange to read it. It makes you appreciate Nature more - way older than we tend to see it.


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> I am an American too. Something bothers me in the fact that we have all the resources, all the room, all the choices and the Aquascaping sub forum on the only barely surviving US planted tank forum has close to none real aquascapes. Look at it today - the only good aquascape is that of this Chinese guy. I apologize - he is an American too I believe... And it is all influenced by ADA once again. A Japanese business. Without a sticky of their "method" on any forum. How do you respond to that mess?
> 
> Tank pictures from years past were lost when the club website went down. How's that for a cop out? It is true though. But for you it is a cop out, I'm sure. Nothing I can do about your mindset.
> 
> Since when I have a "method"? I thought a method was a big deal - like EI and PPS and ADA. They all work very well, correct? Or do they? Read on:
> 
> Here's some truth. "Some" because I can't say 100% of it because the nice moderators here will kick me out. 2 years ago I posted a link to a certain tank. Very popular tank. Everybody knows it. There are a few amazing videos of it on YouTube even today. If anyone showed you that tank you will think they really know what they are doing.
> 
> What nobody wanted to hear was that it took 3 (three) days for that tank to go from great looking to an algae cesspool. There were pictures of that too. I posted links to the before and after. Moderators deleted the thread as inciting arguments before anybody even responded. I left APC for some time because of that bs. Who are we kidding? 3 days without CO2 and that was the end of it. That passes as great. Where? in the US hobby...
> 
> Then there was a loudly applauded public cleaning of the tank. 4 days of work and it was looking amazing again. Meaning that it is now again kept 3 days away from catastrophy at all times. Like a patient at an Intensive Care Unit.
> 
> What is that an example of? Of what we all fall for - pictures.
> And here you are - asking me for my pictures so I convert you into my fan or something.
> 
> And more - I said it before - you can go on the UK forum and find a long thread talking about TwinStar. One of the European ADA distributors uses his own cool gallery as an example how all the tanks crashed in less than 7 days. Then how he fixed them using TwinStar. Ok, he is trying to sell TwinStar. But who is stupid here? He just said that his entire collection of showroom tanks are super unstable. Can't last a week without care. Despite that being his only full time job. Wow. But you can see pictures of his tanks all over. Beautiful pictures. Fans like them. He apparently knows what he is doing too...
> 
> I'm not going to change your mind. But you can't deny that some things in this hobby can be different. If it is not me wasting my time typing all that, who it will be that says that some things could be done better. You maybe?
> 
> Do it. Find a way. I suggest using short sentences. *No more than 4 words each. * That is what people seem to handle best. Speaking form experience :smile2:


You yada yada over my request to see your tanks. Here's 3 words. 
"Lead By Example" 

I wasted a whole bag of Popcorn on this. I thought I was going to see some real eye candy of yours, where the leaves glisten and little pearls float away and the fish swim through their festive aquascape and they laugh because of the paradise you have given them. They laugh again, because they know they are lucky. Because you have at last figured it all out.


----------



## Hilde

pipelayer said:


> Like a few so far, I am a little surprised by the laziness of many on here to just demand a recipe.


I don't think it is because people are lazy that they ask for a recipe. To me they seem caught in a regiment supported by EI dosing. 

Fischman -
Remember, living things are hard to control, you can't stick 2 identical families in 2 identical homes and expect them to stay the same for long.

Also I know someone whom had 3 10 gallon tanks set up similar. One he had problems with BBA. When dealing with nature nothing is written in stone.

I would like to see a thread on 1 of Nikos tanks. I would then combine his with mine and come up with my own tank.


----------



## burr740

Hilde said:


> Also I know someone whom had 3 10 gallon tanks set up similar. One he had problems with BBA.


Probably he just forgot the dolomite in that one.


----------



## niko

burr740 said:


> Probably he just forgot the dolomite in that one.


If I ever meet you in real life I'll make sure to bring a bag of rotten tomatoes. For you to throw. Look at your responses here - it is apparent you will love throwing rotten vegetables at anything.

Picture yourself with hands full of dripping rotten tomatoes. Picture a tall white Dolomite wall. Tell us what do you feel like doing.

:grin2:









Bump:


Hilde said:


> I don't think it is because people are lazy that they ask for a recipe. To me they seem caught in a regiment supported by EI dosing.
> 
> Fischman -
> Remember, living things are hard to control, you can't stick 2 identical families in 2 identical homes and expect them to stay the same for long.
> 
> Also I know someone whom had 3 10 gallon tanks set up similar. One he had problems with BBA. When dealing with nature nothing is written in stone.
> 
> I would like to see a thread on 1 of Nikos tanks. I would then combine his with mine and come up with my own tank.


Thank you for your post. Beaware that posts like that make some people impulsively react with whatever they can type fast. 

Please don't think I'm some kind of guru. I have been in this hobby since 1981. I have two Master's degrees - Chemistry and Biology. I speak 4 languages and that has allowed me to dig up planted tank information that is hidden for most people here. I have posted links to it many times too but people just don't want to even Google translate and read for themselves.

And I will be the first one to tell you that I know very little. Look at my writing style - you will rarely find something that I claim that is not questioned by me myself. While many people here will be quick to tell you how much they know, how much proof there is for something, how much the hobby gurus know. And overall how ridiculous your ideas sound. I do not know what makes people be that way to someone else. I guess that is another hobby too, :smile2:


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> For homemade I've had great success with a simple mixture of laterite, peat, *activated carbon*. Topped with an inert layer of sand.


:surprise:Was shocked when I read that you used activated carbon. I may do a 10 gallon tank with that combination. Was planning to put up a 29g tank but after reading this thread thinking of just putting up a 10g to grow my favorite plants,Alternanthera reineckii and Echinodorus tenellus. They are just barely surviving in my 20g high.


----------



## niko

Hilde said:


> :surprise:Was shocked when I read that you used activated carbon. I may do a 10 gallon tank with that combination. Was planning to put up a 29g tank but after reading this thread thinking of just putting up a 10g to grow my favorite plants,Alternanthera reineckii and Echinodorus tenellus. They are just barely surviving in my 20g high.


Activated carbon in the substrate is a way to suck nutrients out of the water. That prevents "things" that may cause problems in the first few weeks to pollute the water. 

The carbon absorbs many things and some of them are nutrients. Thing is - once the stuff, whatever it is, nutrients included - gets in the tiny channels of the carbon it CAN be taken out by the plant roots. Meaning that now you sucked the food from the water and stored it inside the activated carbon.

Basically carbon acts as a primitive AquaSoil - removing stuff from the water and making it available to the roots.

But Carbon is not some miracle substrate additive. First of it "plugs up" very fast - after 2 weeks it will not suck much more stuff. Another problem with activated carbon in any situation - under gravel or in the your filter - is that all of a sudden it could release a lot of the stuff that has absorbed. I can only guess that under the gravel that is not going to be a big issue.

Either way - I have a tank at someone's house that was setup with laterite, peat, and carbon more than 9 years ago. My guess is that by using Activated Carbon the tank went through the first several weeks of development without any issues. It has never, ever, ever, had a single algae issue. Light CO2, medium light. Often the DIY CO2 runs out and my friend does not fix it for weeks. At times the filter was not working for months (water bypassing the media). Talk about stability. Tank never has problems. Water change is 5-10% a week. It usually looks like a glass box stuffed with plants - growth is great.


----------



## easternlethal

Is there really anything different between what you're saying vs Walstad?


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> But Carbon is not some miracle substrate additive. First of it "plugs up" very fast - after 2 weeks it will not suck much more stuff.
> 
> Either way - I have a tank at someone's house that was setup with laterite, peat, and carbon more than 9 years ago.


Nature is unpredictable. Thus nothing will work as a miracle. The decision is between Red Bag Kitty litter and carbon or I may do an experiment with both. If I do both I will put carbon on 1 side and kitty litter on the other side. This would be an experiment that I could explain. I have my own means of experimentation which is unexplainable.

Another thing I feel people forget is what the city is dosing the water with. When I started this hobby my ph was 8.6 and was very soft. High ph usually means the water is hard. Read somewhere that that occurs when the city is dosing phosphates in the water to prevent pipes from corroding.


----------



## niko

easternlethal said:


> Is there really anything different between what you're saying vs Walstad?



Yes. You missed it because I type long posts and because people polluted this thread to where it's hard to sift through it.

My point is that based on "Old School" principles, including Walstadt's, I believe that there is a way to make a tank not only stable but also "scalable". Think of it as a slightly enhanced Walstad tank - all the benefits of the original and added benefits from what we call "high tech". Go more in either direction as you please.

"Scalable" means that you will be free to change anything you want up or down. Low light or high light - your choice. CO2 or not - your choice. Meaning that you will be totally free to grow any plant you want. The stability of the tank will be amazing - neglect it for months and nothing bad happens. All that means freedom to aquascape if you so desire, in any way you desire.

And the above is not just a dream or hope. I have seen tanks develop that way. I posted pictures and some details in the beginning of this thread. The idea does not sit well with many people because it goes against the grain of what is considered normal in the US aquarium hobby. People in a few other countries laugh at me when I talk about my ideas as something new - some of them already do it. What I don't like is that they seem to mix these good ideas with the Japanese aquascaping style which I despise as being repetitive.

As it stands right now most people in the US are happy to "keep algae at bay" and "grow healthy plants". Because we, as a whole, ignore basics. And because there is no good advice for newbies on how to start and maintain the tank clean and trouble free. If you want trouble free you should go "low tech", if you want nice plants you should go "high tech". That is a flawed mentality.


----------



## Hilde

easternlethal said:


> Is there really anything different between what you're saying vs Walstad?


With a Walstad tank you generally do not inject Co2 and have minimum water changes. In fact Walstad did not do water changes for a year. She managed this by using a uv sterilizer. Thus it is not really El Natural as is labeled on APC forum. What they have in common is a balanced Eco-system which is minimum maintenance. Water changes and Co2 have been discussed on this thread.

Bump:


niko said:


> Yes. You missed it because I type long posts and because people polluted this thread to where it's hard to sift through it.


Yeh, you do tend to ramble on. You don't seem to get insulted easy. I wonder if you are using this thread to keep all your thoughts from keeping you from going insane.:hihi: You probably have a high IQ. For from what I have read men tend to not be good at learning languages and you know 4. If insulted did not mean to do so.


----------



## niko

In the beginning of this thread I mentioned a few things about the role of the microorganisms in a planted tank. Basically the invisible populations of microorganisms are your tank. They make it or break it. Everything else - nice plants for example - are added on top of that foundation. I was suprised to read the pretty much exact same description of that in the 100+ page document that I linked in an earlier post. It is a writing describing in details how and why an ADA tank is setup and ran the way it is. Wort reading, even if you don't like ADA too much.

So, yesterday I observed something that pretty much blew me away. I have a 180 gallon tank that I've been babying trying to get the microorganisms to be the "right" kind. Which is a topic we can not discuss because nobody knows what they are. But you can see the results of their presense - clear water, plant growth with very little light and CO2, stability. 

I have a floating hatchery box in that tank. 2 tiny Cory fry have been living in it for 3 weeks. I feed them microworms + dry powdered baby fish food. The bottom of the hatchery quickly became covered with globs of brown rotting matter. I never cleaned it. I placed the hatchery in a calm area of the tank. Flow through the hatchery is zero as far as I can tell. I changed water by lifting the hatchery - it has thin slits for water to pass through.

Ok, boring story of 2 fry in a dirty little plastic box. Until last night. I go to feed the fry. Wow! The bottom of the hatchery that was nasty that same morning is now crystal clear! As if someone scrubbed it with a sponge. The fry can not eat all that crap. There was no flow that could make that stuff just evaporate. I suspect that the microorganisms did their thing. There was a thick oily film on top of the surface in the hatchery - organics to the gills. I looked at the damn box for a long time trying to figure out how did it clean itself. There was no flow indeed, nothing. It has got to be bacteria. No other reasonable explanation.

That is a story of the power of microorganisms and their cleaning ability. That is what one needs to strive to have going in their tanks. If you have that going what do you think will happen to all the waste? What do you think this means in terms of stability? Water clarity? Fish health? And yes - plant growth?

Video of the tank descirbed above. Hatchery setup with some brand new fry in it. 2 survived. Last night the bottom of the box looked as clean as you see it on that video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UA_IzQATlc


----------



## ichy

niko said:


> In the beginning of this thread I mentioned a few things about the role of the microorganisms in a planted tank. Basically the invisible populations of microorganisms are your tank. They make it or break it. Everything else - nice plants for example - are added on top of that foundation. I was suprised to read the pretty much exact same description of that in the 100+ page document that I linked in an earlier post. It is a writing describing in details how and why an ADA tank is setup and ran the way it is. Wort reading, even if you don't like ADA too much.
> 
> So, yesterday I observed something that pretty much blew me away. I have a 180 gallon tank that I've been babying trying to get the microorganisms to be the "right" kind. Which is a topic we can not discuss because nobody knows what they are. But you can see the results of their presense - clear water, plant growth with very little light and CO2, stability.
> 
> I have a floating hatchery box in that tank. 2 tiny Cory fry have been living in it for 3 weeks. I feed them microworms + dry powdered baby fish food. The bottom of the hatchery quickly became covered with globs of brown rotting matter. I never cleaned it. I placed the hatchery in a calm area of the tank. Flow through the hatchery is zero as far as I can tell. I changed water by lifting the hatchery - it has thin slits for water to pass through.
> 
> Ok, boring story of 2 fry in a dirty little plastic box. Until last night. I go to feed the fry. Wow! The bottom of the hatchery that was nasty that same morning is now crystal clear! As if someone scrubbed it with a sponge. The fry can not eat all that crap. There was no flow that could make that stuff just evaporate. I suspect that the microorganisms did their thing. There was a thick oily film on top of the surface in the hatchery - organics to the gills. I looked at the damn box for a long time trying to figure out how did it clean itself. There was no flow indeed, nothing. It has got to be bacteria. No other reasonable explanation.
> 
> That is a story of the power of microorganisms and their cleaning ability. That is what one needs to strive to have going in their tanks. If you have that going what do you think will happen to all the waste? What do you think this means in terms of stability? Water clarity? Fish health? And yes - plant growth?
> 
> Video of the tank descirbed above. Hatchery setup with some brand new fry in it. 2 survived. Last night the bottom of the box looked as clean as you see it on that video.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UA_IzQATlc


Not being a smartarse, but why is this earth shattering news? That's how low tech tanks are suppose to work.
You balance flora and fauna and they are in balance and its all good.


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> Yesterday I observed something that pretty much blew me away. I have a 180 gallon tank that I've been babying trying to get the microorganisms to be the "right" kind. I have a floating hatchery box in that tank. 2 tiny Cory fry have been living in it for 3 weeks. The bottom of the hatchery quickly became covered with globs of brown rotting matter. I placed the hatchery in a calm area of the tank. I go to feed the fry. Wow! The bottom of the hatchery that was nasty that same morning is now crystal.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UA_IzQATlc


May I ask what ferts you dose in this tank? Do you have dolomite in the filter?

Bump:


ichy said:


> That's how low tech tanks are suppose to work. You balance flora and fauna and they are in balance and its all good.


I believe he is trying to get those whom have high tech tanks to think how they can balance the eco-system without constantly dosing specific ferts as EI dosing recommends.


----------



## Axelrodi202

Hilde said:


> I believe he is trying to get those whom have high tech tanks to think how they can balance the eco-system without constantly dosing specific ferts as EI dosing recommends.


Yes, I correspond regularly with niko outside this forum and this is exactly the idea - to have a 'high tech' CO2 supplemented tank founded on the basis of these ecological principles (as low tech tanks often are) instead of constantly relying on an IV of ferts and incessant manual removal of algae. One that won't collapse into chaos or eutrophism if you don't look at it for a few days.


----------



## easternlethal

*&amp;quot;No fertilizers&amp;quot; - pictures of extremely healthy plants*

Alright then let's leave the philosophy and criticisms of Ada behind and talk about microorganisms. I did write a longish post about that but decided not to post it because I wasn't sure that was the unique point in your 'no fertiliser' method. But it sounds like it is.

Unfortunately the term is a little vague so I have two questions. What 'microorganism' are you referring to (bacteria? enzymes? viruses?) and what's the biological process that lead to algae removal?

I can understand the argument that in a heavily cleaned tank with hardly any bacteria that is flooded with inorganics, the sudden appearance of organics, say, from a period of inactivity will cause an algae bloom and maybe even eutrophication and so heavy bacterial activity can create a buffer and provide 'stability' (like the comparison between new and old lakes). But that is not new.

You seem to be going beyond that and saying that algae can actually be naturally removed by something other than plants or lack of nutrients. So let's explore some of these fundamentals in more detail and not just through anecdotes. I'm not asking for proof here just, some solid basic theory.


----------



## ichy

Axelrodi202 said:


> Yes, I correspond regularly with niko outside this forum and this is exactly the idea - to have a 'high tech' CO2 supplemented tank founded on the basis of these ecological principles (as low tech tanks often are) instead of constantly relying on an IV of ferts and incessant manual removal of algae. One that won't collapse into chaos or eutrophism if you don't look at it for a few days.


OK, probably should not have said Low tech, but ALL tanks/aquarists are striving for that perfect balance.
But again I don't find these concepts all that earth shattering, unless I'm missing something. 
All ecosystems strive for diversity, strength of an ecosystem starts at the base with the widest variety of single celled to multi-celled organisms. That's where it starts. My alfalfa field operates best when the soil is conducive to nitrogen fixing bacteria.
As soon as you wipe this out and produce some sterile, monoculture situation, it only takes one little imbalance to start a downward spiral.

Appy this to your fish tank, hi or lo tech. You need a wide base or bacteria/"unseen" organisms to be healthy. This is ecology 101.

This would have been a great conversation but the OP tends to be a little disingenuous. :wink2:

At my age, the only silver bullet I have found for anything is PreparationH.


----------



## Greggz

niko said:


> Video of the tank descirbed above. Hatchery setup with some brand new fry in it. 2 survived. Last night the bottom of the box looked as clean as you see it on that video.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UA_IzQATlc


So sadly I just read this whole thread (OK....I admit it.....only the short sentences). I can take the insults, the demeaning tone, and the holier than though attitude. 

But is the "proof" of whatever it is that is being advocated the low light tank with 4 swords in it? I don't know what I was expecting, but I gotta say that was a bit of a thud. I've seen many very healthy low light, low tech tanks with low light plants. What is new here?


----------



## niko

Hilde said:


> With a Walstad tank you generally do not inject Co2 and have minimum water changes. In fact Walstad did not do water changes for a year. She managed this by using a uv sterilizer. Thus it is not really El Natural as is labeled on APC forum. What they have in common is a balanced Eco-system which is minimum maintenance. Water changes and Co2 have been discussed on this thread.
> 
> Bump:
> Yeh, you do tend to ramble on. You don't seem to get insulted easy. I wonder if you are using this thread to keep all your thoughts from keeping you from going insane.:hihi: You probably have a high IQ. For from what I have read men tend to not be good at learning languages and you know 4. If insulted did not mean to do so.



Yes, somehow the phrase "balanced eco system" is excluded from the understanding of what is a "high tech" tank. Does that have to be that way? I say no, and I know the answer is "no" indeed. ADA does it, can't deny that. What prevents us from taking basics from El Natural or Walstad and adding something new all while keeping the "balanced" part intact? Only our mentality, I believe.

Ramble maybe. But if you can connect dots from one long thought to another you will see it is not really rambling but more of a search for patterns, associations, new angles. And yes, I could easily say I might be dipping into loose associations which are a mental disorder symptom, haha. People that can't follow logic for too long could easily write me off as crazy without even knowing the term "loose association". I guess then we are talking crazy vs. stupid. Also delving deep into discussions to keep yourself from insanity could be viewed as "intelectualization" - another symptom of some mental disorders. No matter how we look at it the search for new angles to see the world does seem at least a little insane. Look at the time we spent here discussing what not about planted tanks from all things - someone can easily call us all crazy. At least one friend of mine has been called "weird" because she is into planted tanks. And these are all art hipster folk far from being conservative in any way so I guess it is indeed strange to discuss and be interested in planted tanks, ahha. So I don't think that "insult" is the right word. Our main problem is bad communication - some talk and say too much, some have problems comprehending, some don't care to finish a sentence they read, some lurk and post "likes" without participating.

4 languages... Ask me how I feel when I meet people that speak 6 or 8. I happen to know a few. Talk about high IQ. It makes you see a hierarchy ladder of "smart" and most people that normally pass as "smart" barely reach the first step of that ladder. Especially if they try to pass their education as intelligence.

Bump:


Greggz said:


> So sadly I just read this whole thread (OK....I admit it.....only the short sentences). I can take the insults, the demeaning tone, and the holier than though attitude.
> 
> But is the "proof" of whatever it is that is being advocated the low light tank with 4 swords in it? I don't know what I was expecting, but I gotta say that was a bit of a thud. I've seen many very healthy low light, low tech tanks with low light plants. What is new here?


Care to read boring stories about my own stable tanks over the years. Without pictures either. 

If you indeed think I got a tank the other day, stuck 2.5 swords in it, drew some grandiose conclusions and ran here to argue with every single home grown guru I think... You got everything correct! :smile2:

Before you decide to take offense in the above irony quickly read this:
*This is about using basics that have been proven to make a stable clean tank and enhancing them through careful additions of factors that we are used to associate with "high tech" tanks.*

Hope that makes sense and is interesting to you. If it is - take time to see how ADA does things so you get some feel of the idea. And no, this is not another cunning product placement technique. One needs to know a lot to come to simple solutions.


----------



## niko

ichy said:


> Not being a smartarse, but why is this earth shattering news? That's how low tech tanks are suppose to work.
> You balance flora and fauna and they are in balance and its all good.


And may I ask how are high tech tanks supposed to work?
Forcing you to change a lot of water often, to fertilize, to shut them down when you are absent for a few days, to assume that algae are a natural constant threat?

For most people the answer is "yes".

If you care to dig for it you will see that the topic of removing organics has surfaced on the US forums about 2 years ago. Don't know about you but I find that sad. Proper processing of organics is a big mystery to us. Yet - it does and it will take care of more issues than we'll ever know. Unlike adding some dry ferts in a tank with jacked up light and CO2.


----------



## Hilde

I read the link you provided here It seemed they were just promoting ADA products. They are too expensive for me.


----------



## houseofcards

Hilde said:


> I read the link you provided here It seemed they were just promoting ADA products. They are too expensive for me.


Well yes, the author of that piece at the time of writing was working at ADG (an ADA US Distributor) and his job was to promote ADA products. No big secret there.


----------



## Hilde

houseofcards said:


> Well yes, the author of that piece at the time of writing was working at ADG (an ADA US Distributor) and his job was to promote ADA products. No big secret there.


I didn't help me understand how to balance the Eco-system as I had hoped.


----------



## theatermusic87

niko said:


> In the beginning of this thread I mentioned a few things about the role of the microorganisms in a planted tank. Basically the invisible populations of microorganisms are your tank. They make it or break it. Everything else - nice plants for example - are added on top of that foundation. I was suprised to read the pretty much exact same description of that in the 100+ page document that I linked in an earlier post. It is a writing describing in details how and why an ADA tank is setup and ran the way it is. Wort reading, even if you don't like ADA too much.
> 
> So, yesterday I observed something that pretty much blew me away. I have a 180 gallon tank that I've been babying trying to get the microorganisms to be the "right" kind. Which is a topic we can not discuss because nobody knows what they are. But you can see the results of their presense - clear water, plant growth with very little light and CO2, stability.
> 
> I have a floating hatchery box in that tank. 2 tiny Cory fry have been living in it for 3 weeks. I feed them microworms + dry powdered baby fish food. The bottom of the hatchery quickly became covered with globs of brown rotting matter. I never cleaned it. I placed the hatchery in a calm area of the tank. Flow through the hatchery is zero as far as I can tell. I changed water by lifting the hatchery - it has thin slits for water to pass through.
> 
> Ok, boring story of 2 fry in a dirty little plastic box. Until last night. I go to feed the fry. Wow! The bottom of the hatchery that was nasty that same morning is now crystal clear! As if someone scrubbed it with a sponge. The fry can not eat all that crap. There was no flow that could make that stuff just evaporate. I suspect that the microorganisms did their thing. There was a thick oily film on top of the surface in the hatchery - organics to the gills. I looked at the damn box for a long time trying to figure out how did it clean itself. There was no flow indeed, nothing. It has got to be bacteria. No other reasonable explanation.
> 
> That is a story of the power of microorganisms and their cleaning ability. That is what one needs to strive to have going in their tanks. If you have that going what do you think will happen to all the waste? What do you think this means in terms of stability? Water clarity? Fish health? And yes - plant growth?
> 
> Video of the tank descirbed above. Hatchery setup with some brand new fry in it. 2 survived. Last night the bottom of the box looked as clean as you see it on that video.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UA_IzQATlc


First... That's quite believable to me.. I leave the sides of my shrimp tanks be (besides the main viewing side) and they will of course slowly get grown in with green dust algae/green spot algae/other bio film/etc yet every couple weeks they will go through a 2 day or so change. They get almost to the point of being unable to see through, to being swarmed with small micro organisms (usually pods/limpets and other unknowns) and the next day that section will be spotlessly clean. No snails, no sucker fish of any kind

Second.. You seem like a smart person that loves little bits of trivia... The latest information on humans and breathing at least from a life saving stand point, are that humans can go for upwards of an hour without breathing. That's why the new guidelines for cpr don't have rescue breathes nearly as often anymore... just chest compression's to keep the already oxygenated blood flowing... Totally off topic, but thought you'd get a kick out of it


----------



## easternlethal

niko said:


> Yes, somehow the phrase "balanced eco system" is excluded from the understanding of what is a "high tech" tank.


Excluded by whom? There are many posts about the role of bacteria on forums such as this when discussing Co2, ferts etc. Even T. Barr has written articles about enzymes, dissolved organic carbon, decomposition process etc. Maybe this is overlooked in the brochures of ADA.

It's true the concept of 'balance' may not be used as widely, but that's maybe because it's coming across as just another vague and mystical ideal which can be achieved via dolomite/flow/[insert whatever technique is preferred]. How is this different to ADA marketing?

Let me use an example. You mentioned organics. Do we remove or leave it to encourage the decomposition process? Or does the answer depend on what is needed to achieve 'balance'? If so, how do we know how much is needed? And more precisely how exactly does one 'balance' a bacterial process? 

If we're not able to propose a clearer hypothesis other than just saying that balance means a symbiosis between plants and fish then really there's no difference to what Walstad is saying. 

If the high tech/EI method really is all about removing microorganisms or bacterial activity then I can see why you might think that Walstad + Co2 (let's call it 'Waltstad+') is a novel approach but that really just isn't the case. Not all ADA/EI/High Tech tanks get algae blooms after 3 days of inactivity or need to be 'shut down' (whatever that means..) and I personally do not know any aquascaper or read any post by anyone saying it's good to prevent an eco-system from occurring within their tank.


----------



## Hilde

Having trouble finding a test kit for calcium for freshwater tank. Anyone got a link to 1?


----------



## Mathman

*&quot;No fertilizers&quot; - pictures of extremely healthy plants*



Hilde said:


> Having trouble finding a test kit for calcium for freshwater tank. Anyone got a link to 1?




Salifert has a calcium test kit that works for salt and freshwater.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ursamajor

Oh for God's sake.

I can't believe I just read this thread. After trying to piece together Niko's rambling monologues about "pushing the envelope" here's what I gathered. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He often uses aquasoil. He has LED lights on a short photoperiod. He supplements CO2. He has an algae cleanup crew. He lets his tanks mature. He supplements some minerals.

This is absolutely nothing new. Low-tech proponents have been doing this for years (perhaps minus C02) and this is almost EXACTLY what Amano himself did with many of his tanks. I know because I have an ENTIRE BOOK of his aquariums, with pictures and exact specifications (Takashi Amano Nature Aquarium: Complete Works 1985-2009). Amano was making low mainenance tanks (1/3 water change every two weeks) that supported dense and diverse growth 24 years ago, and all he used was fluorescent bulbs, CO2, gravel, power sand, and potassium supplements (See page 18 of the aforementioned book). Then he lets the aquarium mature over years. Sure, his company developed and pushed more products over time, but the method of making a successful aquarium that Niko describes is long established, and it definitely is nothing he needs to lecture us close-minded unenlightened ones about.

And don't tell me I'm trying to fit new ideas into old molds. I did my homework. Niko's practices do in fact fit comfortably into an established method of aquarium-keeping.

Also, I completely support this community's desire to see the specs of Niko's tanks. If you do something that works, share it. That's how we learn and become better aquarists. I'm glad Amano wasn't so tight-fisted with his practices.


----------



## ursamajor

One more thing - if anyone is interested I can start a thread about my observations from the book I referenced. Not an ADA advertisement, I swear. I'm trying out what I learned in a nano tank right now without any ADA gear (cause I'm broke), and I can update on that too, although it really isn't anything remarkable.


----------



## roadmaster

ursamajor said:


> Oh for God's sake.
> 
> I can't believe I just read this thread. After trying to piece together Niko's rambling monologues about "pushing the envelope" here's what I gathered. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> He often uses aquasoil. He has LED lights on a short photoperiod. He supplements CO2. He has an algae cleanup crew. He lets his tanks mature. He supplements some minerals.
> 
> This is absolutely nothing new. Low-tech proponents have been doing this for years (perhaps minus C02) and this is almost EXACTLY what Amano himself did with many of his tanks. I know because I have an ENTIRE BOOK of his aquariums, with pictures and exact specifications (Takashi Amano Nature Aquarium: Complete Works 1985-2009). Amano was making low mainenance tanks (1/3 water change every two weeks) that supported dense and diverse growth 24 years ago, and all he used was fluorescent bulbs, CO2, gravel, power sand, and potassium supplements (See page 18 of the aforementioned book). Then he lets the aquarium mature over years. Sure, his company developed and pushed more products over time, but the method of making a successful aquarium that Niko describes is long established, and it definitely is nothing he needs to lecture us close-minded unenlightened ones about.
> 
> And don't tell me I'm trying to fit new ideas into old molds. I did my homework. Niko's practices do in fact fit comfortably into an established method of aquarium-keeping.
> 
> Also, I completely support this community's desire to see the specs of Niko's tanks. If you do something that works, share it. That's how we learn and become better aquarists. I'm glad Amano wasn't so tight-fisted with his practices.


 
I think you pretty much got the method right.(been around for a while)
But the claim's made with respect to growth mentioned( nearly overnight ),, are suitable for print and use only as toilet paper IMHO
With or without dolomite/CO2/lean nutrient's/EI dosing or any other method.


----------



## geekdad

ursamajor said:


> One more thing - if anyone is interested I can start a thread about my observations from the book I referenced. Not an ADA advertisement, I swear. I'm trying out what I learned in a nano tank right now without any ADA gear (cause I'm broke), and I can update on that too, although it really isn't anything remarkable.




Please do it!


----------



## Hilde

Mathman said:


> Salifert has a calcium test kit that works for salt and freshwater.


It is at least $15, thus I will wait and see if I can do without it. Just let the plants talk to me.

Bump:


geekdad said:


> Please do it!


I second it.

This is an expensive hobby even when you do things the cheap way.


----------



## easternlethal

Hilde said:


> It is at least $15, thus I will wait and see if I can do without it. Just let the plants talk to me.


You can try using a GH tester instead because that measures both calcium and magnesium. You won't know the breakdown but you can just raise the GH with the correct Ca:Mg ratio and over time the tank will end up having that concentration.


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> Well yes, the author of that piece at the time of writing was working at ADG (an ADA US Distributor) and his job was to promote ADA products. No big secret there.


How many times will I be typing "Glaze over the idiotic ADA sales pitches. Look at the logic. How it's done."?

Do you want me to type this one more time? Just for you? Care to explain what exactly is it that you didn't understand the 3 times now?


----------



## niko

Code:







Hilde said:


> I didn't help me understand how to balance the Eco-system as I had hoped.


The problem is that the guy, just like me, puts thing into too many words. Look a the 3 "Principles" that he explain at the end of the e-book. A page for each. That does not work. Most people want simple and clear. That is what EI did in 2005 - told you to add 1/2 spoon of A and 1/4 spoon of B. Most people like that simplicity. But nobody want to admit that a planted tank is more than a few ingredients added with a spoon.

In short:
1. You must have proper bacteria in the substrate
2. That substrate bacteria will need food for some time in a brand new tank
3. Huge water changes every day (definitely every day in the firs 10 days or so) take care of the problems that naturally arise in the first month.
4. Canister filter is 80% Activated Carbon the first month.
5. Very light fertilization is maintained the first month. This fertilization is a must because you are changing water so much and the plants and bacteria will starve if you never added ferts.
6. CO2 is very low - pH 6.8 (this is not the CO2 measured when the CO2 is running. That is the pH of the system without CO2 (at night). Running CO2 during the day will lower the pH. That is not the pH6.8 that must be maintained.
7. KH is very low - 2. 

So, if you are up to doing huge water changes every day for some time - go for it. He explains how short that process actually is. He also says that if you let the tank go bad the first month you will have problems 6 months ahead. 

The part where he says that you don't need all ADA products says what the basic parts are - bacteria for the substrate is #1. Keep the pH6.8 and KH2. Huge water changes first month. Done. 
If you want it explained simple - that is how it is done.

And I do not like it. But it gives a good idea what works every time and what are the things you have to know and watch out for. Once again - this is a professional guy. Like not a single person here. Anybody with any scientific background can't say squat to experience with actual tanks for well paying customers that will chop your head off like that because they could care less about a pretty little planted tank they ordered to be setup for them to make them feel special.


----------



## Hilde

easternlethal said:


> You can try using a GH tester instead because that measures both calcium and magnesium. You won't know the breakdown but you can just raise the GH with the correct Ca:Mg ratio and over time the tank will end up having that concentration.


Yeh I am planning to get the Gh/Kh test kit for I tend to have low Kh. Since I will be injecting Co2 in 1 of my tanks the low Kh concerns me.


----------



## niko

theatermusic87 said:


> First... That's quite believable to me.. I leave the sides of my shrimp tanks be (besides the main viewing side) and they will of course slowly get grown in with green dust algae/green spot algae/other bio film/etc yet every couple weeks they will go through a 2 day or so change. They get almost to the point of being unable to see through, to being swarmed with small micro organisms (usually pods/limpets and other unknowns) and the next day that section will be spotlessly clean. No snails, no sucker fish of any kind
> 
> Second.. You seem like a smart person that loves little bits of trivia... The latest information on humans and breathing at least from a life saving stand point, are that humans can go for upwards of an hour without breathing. That's why the new guidelines for cpr don't have rescue breathes nearly as often anymore... just chest compression's to keep the already oxygenated blood flowing... Totally off topic, but thought you'd get a kick out of it


I tried to go without breathing few minutes ago. I discovered I had a brain. A little trivia told me that I can go without Oxygen forever but my brain can't. 

My neighbor who is a pediatric ER nurse told us a funny thing. Something along the lines of "We all should know CPR. Every single day at the ER I see brain damaged kids. Only because the adults around the swimming pool did not know CPR. Takes 3 minutes and the kid is brain damaged for life. Learn damn CPR!"

Alive. brain damage. 3 minutes. Oxygen. Trivia.

I will ask her what happens after 5 minutes and relate that to you. Without pictures. Should I ask her what happens with 1 hour of no Oxygen or you think I will sound brain damaged?


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> In short:
> 1. You must have proper bacteria in the substrate
> 2. That substrate bacteria will need food for some time in a brand new tank
> 3. Huge water changes every day (definitely every day in the firs 10 days or so) take care of the problems that naturally arise in the first month.
> 4. Canister filter is 80% Activated Carbon the first month.
> 5. Very light fertilization is maintained the first month. This fertilization is a must because you are changing water so much and the plants and bacteria will starve if you never added ferts.
> 6. CO2 is very low - pH 6.8 (this is not the CO2 measured when the CO2 is running. That is the pH of the system without CO2 (at night). Running CO2 during the day will lower the pH. That is not the pH6.8 that must be maintained.
> 7. KH is very low - 2.


Very interesting! Now I understand why I had problems in the beginning. Now when I setup a tank I use old substrate and old filter media. Still may implement some of these procedures.

Bump:


niko said:


> I will ask her what happens after 5 minutes and relate that to you. Without pictures. Should I ask her what happens with 1 hour of no Oxygen or you think I will sound brain damaged?


This reminds me of my experience when I went from private to public school in the US. Public school was so easy, for I had to do was memorize facts. Very few asked questions.

Learning something unfamiliar is like walking through the woods. At first it is not clear and then the path becomes clear. Just be patient niko. Not all have had the education you have.

I will give the video another look when I feel better for now not able to concentrate long periods.


----------



## Smooch

Hilde said:


> Very interesting! Now I understand why I had problems in the beginning. Now when I setup a tank I use old substrate and old filter media. Still may implement some of these procedures.


Give this video a try if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLofw2pWRKY

It talks about microbial beds and other things that make a tank successful.


----------



## niko

I implore you to fill this thread with more ridicule and free flight opinions. It already feels like a bar with a free spirit of "anything goes".

To sum it up:

We clarified that Frank Wazeter's e-book was another ADA marketing scam. 

The Japanese aquascaping style is still the best. How do they do it every time is not something we want to know.

We now know that Dolomite does not work because I mentioned it in the beginning of the thread and the other thread where I explained how it works is too wordy.

We finally realized that plants do need fertilizers. The more the better.

We do not want to discuss the benefits of low tech tanks using elements of high tech because everybody knows they are different. Like "stupid" and "cool". Like "dumb and dumber" (picture attached above to make this thread fun).

I have 1 (one) tank. It is full of algae and that is why I do not want to show pictures of it. I also lie that had other tanks over the years but all their pictures got lost somehow.

Great working biofilter is no news. Everybody knows about it and has their tank running top notch "biofiltrated". That's why we can all finally focus on adding more and more spoons of fertilizers.

I hate American aquascaping. It does not exist but I hate it.

This thread is too long to read. Because I ramble.

I'm very smart.

Dutch tanks from 1963 had secret CO2 injected.

Amano invented CO2 in the 80s.

Amano invented substrate bacteria in the late 80's .

Tom Barr said <add something here> to end a discussion.

This is the Dolomite thread.

Give me your method or bust.

You are reading the above and believe it says what it seems to say.


----------



## Hilde

Smooch said:


> Give this video a try if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLofw2pWRKY


Great video! It was simple and to the point.

Bump:


niko said:


> I have 1 (one) tank. It is full of algae
> 
> Tom Barr said <add something here> to end a discussion.
> 
> This is the Dolomite thread.
> 
> Give me your method or bust.


Now you are getting it. Objective is stated simple and to the point.

You seem to have a great method of balancing the Eco-system, yet 1 tank has algae. This just proves my point that 1 method does not work for every tank. You have to go slow and experiment. To me the 
EI estimated works for you are overdosing and change water frequently. This leads some to have a service come in to do maintenance on the tank. 

Now that you have got me thinking I am going to work on a few plants in a 10g tank before setting up my 29g tank. This way I will have more plants and hopefully not have to buy many plants for the 29g


----------



## Jeff5614

Smooch said:


> Give this video a try if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLofw2pWRKY
> 
> It talks about microbial beds and other things that make a tank successful.


He's so cool I can barely make it through the video. All you "planted tank freaks" out there. I must say I do like the 5th secret to having a successful tank - faith. You just gotta believe and it will all work out.

Hey, Niko maybe you need to take some lessons on how to speak to your audience from this guy, lol. Not that his information isn't good. It's just hard to get past his speaking style, fish freaks.


----------



## Smooch

Jeff5614 said:


> He's so cool I can barely make it through the video. All you "planted tank freaks" out there. I must say I do like the 5th secret to having a successful tank - faith. You just gotta believe and it will all work out.
> 
> Hey, Niko maybe you need to take some lessons on how to speak to your audience from this guy, lol. Not that his information isn't good. It's just hard to get past his speaking style, fish freaks.


It never ceases to amuse when people whine and complain about sarcasm and yet use it at every opportunity given. Do as I say, not as I do. A reoccurring theme in this thread. Use Dolomite, but keep a tank full of algae? How did Dolomite fix BBA then? 

At least the term 'fish freaks' isn't a insult, unlike calling the masses dumb, stupid and ignorant. I'm not sure on what planet calling your audience ignorant while claiming to teach is considered acceptable, but clearly it is according to some small circles.


----------



## Jeff5614

Before my last post pisses anyone off let me say I did enjoy the video. I just had to post something sarcastic since that seems to be the general style of this thread and it seemed it would be lacking something without it.

What I found interesting was his preference for dosing with organic compounds. We see so many times where such things are called "snake oil". I can think of 4 items, Phyton Git, ECA, Green Gain, Green Bacter, all organic compounds that ADA sells and when they're mentioned the first thing you hear is that they're worthless and just a source of revenue for ADA. So what do you guys think? Is Seachem Envy in the same category or maybe the ADA items might have some benefit?

Bump:


Smooch said:


> It never ceases to amuse when people whine and complain about sarcasm and yet use it at every opportunity given. Do as I say, not as I do. A reoccurring theme in this thread. Use Dolomite, but keep a tank full of algae? How did Dolomite fix BBA then?
> 
> At least the term 'fish freaks' isn't a insult, unlike calling the masses dumb, stupid and ignorant. I'm not sure on what planet calling your audience ignorant while claiming to teach is considered acceptable, but clearly it is according to some small circles.


I like sarcasm. It's one of my main forms of communication. Just ask my wife, lol.


----------



## niko

Hilde said:


> ...You seem to have a great method of balancing the Eco-system, yet 1 tank has algae....


I have no method. I have algae. :smile2:

No I do not have a method for anything. What I have is observations. Look at the beginning of this thread - it is all pictures of weird things and explanations. Plants that should not be growing well, algae that should not be disappearing magically. Yet - it is all a fact.

These things are a starting point to go further. To have tanks that are intentionally setup so the maintenance is not mandatory. Where algae are never an issue.

I have algae in 2 of my 3 tanks. 
Tank 1 has only BBA. It is going away steady. 
Tank 2 has BGA. It has been neglected for more than a month, has a huge amount of light, low CO2, and I overfeed the fish. Disbalance to the gills.
Tank 3 is the one in which I can dip any plant covered with algae and it will be clean in a few days.

Guess which tank get the least maintenance? #3.
So yes, it is possible to create such a tank. But I have no method to outline. The only method you can find on the internet is described in Frank's e-book. Which we all wrote off as ADA advertisement. Because we don't ever let anyone lead us by the nose.


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> I have algae in 2 of my 3 tanks.
> Tank 1 has only BBA. It is going away steady.
> 
> Tank 2 has BGA. It has been neglected for more than a month, has a huge amount of light, low CO2, and I overfeed the fish. Disbalance to the gills.
> 
> Tank 3 is the one in which I can dip any plant covered with algae and it will be clean in a few days.


What is the substrate in #3?
Do you plan to do what you did with tank #3 with the other 1s?


----------



## houseofcards

So what are the specs on tank #3? Light, Substrate, Plants, etc. Can you share or is it patent-pending?


----------



## Hilde

Thinking about the carbon you used in 1 tank and dolomite I decided my next setup will be a 10g with this substrate with 5 levels.
1st Activated Carbon
2nd Red Bag Kitty Litter
3rd Dolomite
4th KNO3 & Sodium Bicarb & Scott's Hyponex Potting Soil
5th River Sand

I have everything from other tank setups, thus cost is 0. To find the time is difficult for me. I will start a thread on it after it is up for a month.


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> So what are the specs on tank #3? Light, Substrate, Plants, etc. Can you share or is it patent-pending?


It's an ADA tank.


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> It's an ADA tank.


What is the tank size?

 Probably the most expensive 1. I will never buy ADA. I spend to much on this hobby as it is without buying from ADA.

I am a DIYer. Found that lights are more expensive to DIY and not as good as the right light. I have been fortunate to buy my lights at local club.


----------



## theatermusic87

niko said:


> I tried to go without breathing few minutes ago. I discovered I had a brain. A little trivia told me that I can go without Oxygen forever but my brain can't.
> 
> My neighbor who is a pediatric ER nurse told us a funny thing. Something along the lines of "We all should know CPR. Every single day at the ER I see brain damaged kids. Only because the adults around the swimming pool did not know CPR. Takes 3 minutes and the kid is brain damaged for life. Learn damn CPR!"
> 
> Alive. brain damage. 3 minutes. Oxygen. Trivia.
> 
> I will ask her what happens after 5 minutes and relate that to you. Without pictures. Should I ask her what happens with 1 hour of no Oxygen or you think I will sound brain damaged?


lol never said it was 3 minutes without oxygen... just breathing  she's absolutely correct.. 3 minutes is bad... 5 minutes... well at that point you might never need oxygen again


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> It's an ADA tank.


What does that mean exactly? Does it receive the full Frank W. treatment?


----------



## Smooch

houseofcards said:


> What does that mean exactly? Does it receive the full Frank W. treatment?


It doesn't mean anything. Apparently ADA tanks are so special that nobody could possibly get the same results using another tank with another name on it. This of course is nonsense as I've seen plenty ADA tanks that are just as algae-ridden as any tank made by Tetra, Aqueon, ect... :icon_roll 

Maybe I should stick big ol' Aqueon stickers on my tanks and wait for the grumbling about how I didn't buy something else. :hihi:


----------



## niko

houseofcards said:


> What does that mean exactly? Does it receive the full Frank W. treatment?


No man. Don't you know me by now? That was irony because here nobody likes ADA sales pitches.

The tank that kills BBA on contact (just about) is very old. Setup in 2007. Left churning for 1 (one) year. No fish, no plants, no CO2, no light. Just water/filter/old Fluorite.

I described that tank already. After about 1 year because of the season the sun hit the tank for 30 min a day. That caused some seeds in the substrate to sprout Hygro angustifolia. A few months later this tank was stuffed with that plant.

The point is - this tank has established itself "properly". I have ran CO2, had more light, no light, had many plants in it over the years. NEVER a single problem. Let it evaporate 25% for weeks on end.. No problem.

Rotala, Downoi, Calloglossa, Vesuvius, H. corymbosa, H. angustifolia, HC, Pellia, Fissidens, Melon Sword, Anubias, Crypts, Umbrella plant (small leaf), Lilies, Java Fern. These are the plants I've had in it over the years. All of them went through "seasons" - one plant would always dominate, then be replaced by another. Took a very long time for ex-dominant plants to die off - at least 1 year. I never fertilized seriously; CO2 was never too high - If I have to estimate - 15 ppm at the highest.

Never added any macros in it. Not even my precious Dolomite. At times I added K, Fe, Micros. Pinches, never measuring.

No fish, too many fish, starved fish, overfed fish, dead fish...Never an algae problem.

The Amanos in that tank are at least 7 years old. Never a problem with them so the tank does not release anything toxic at any time.

This is one of several tanks that I've had over the years that I consider to be a starting point for something bigger - ideas how to get a tank to be extremely stable and always clean, no matter what. Remember - being in this hobby since 1981 piles up a lot of observations. Some make little sense in the Age of Fast Food Solutions ADA/EI.

And no, I have not tested the water in that tank. Ever. Why would I? To get values that make no sense but the tank does what it does? Look at the first few pages of this thread - the BBA on Anubias pictures were taken in this same tank. I don't think that some fertilizer values being high or low will tell us anything. I'm sure it has excess of something and way low of something else. That's where our well rounded knowledge of planted tanks ends and Nature wins.

Microorganism populations seem to be the only reasonable explanation for that tank. Definitely not the levels of N or P or whatever. Not even accumulation of X or not.

So. The main question is "Can I grow anything I want in that tank?" I do believe so. Since I can play with the CO2 and light all I want the answer must be "Yes". Anybody would love to say that about their tank.

Too long of a read? You should have accepted the original "ADA" response


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> No man. Don't you know me by now? That was irony because here nobody likes ADA sales pitches.


LOL You got me!

So which tank do you dose with dolomite? 
How is it doing?


----------



## niko

Smooch said:


> It doesn't mean anything. Apparently ADA tanks are so special that nobody could possibly get the same results using another tank with another name on it. This of course is nonsense as I've seen plenty ADA tanks that are just as algae-ridden as any tank made by Tetra, Aqueon, ect...


I approve of that post. Not joking.

I read and read and read Frank's e-book. Lotsa water changes. bacteria, Oxygen additive to the substrate... Ok, makes sense. But last night I think I scared him off my persona on Facebook when I said "... and I want to see if I can NOT use ADA products." Not saying that in a bad way. Once again - the guy is a truly experienced professional. We are lucky to have someone like that talk to us in any way. And here we go - the members of this fine forum have scared him away a long time ago. That was a dumb move, seriously. ADA or not. Just like my words last night.

Now you are back to Niko and his Magic Dolomite. Or the popular "you need more CO2" advice. Or the revolutionary idea of PPS... Wait.. I can get a $400 CO2 regulator! That ought to fix something!


----------



## Hilde

Since the only tank you have which is not riddled with algae you are not dosing Dolomite, I don't understand how you can say it helps kill off algae.


----------



## Smooch

And so the conspiracy of all that is ADA continues. LOL! 

Can you imagine a world were adults decide how and where to spend their money? OMG! 

Many people plunk a few grand on a DSLR that never leaves auto mode. Does this make Canon or Nikon evil? Maybe. Do I need ADA Bacter to cycle my tanks? Nope! Got cycled filters and a one dollar bottle of pure ammonia. Do I need ADA Aquasoil to grow plants? Not at all. As a matter of fact, Aquasoil will never make it into my tanks because the pellets remind me of bunny poop. I have enough of that in my life, I don't need round pellets in my fish tanks as well. Do other people buy these products? Absolutely, it's their money. Do I care what and how ADA advertises? No, because who cares aside from you? Walmart is far more obnoxious with their advertising. I see their plastic bags hanging from trees all over the place because they refuse to clean up the trash from their parking lots. 

If you makes you happy looking for a imaginary boogyman that doesn't exist, so be it. The sky is not going to fall down because somebody bought a tank with a ADA sticker on it as much as you'd like it to. Don't like the advertising ( except for your own push for Dolomite sales of course) ignore it. Smart people know how to do such simple tasks...


----------



## houseofcards

niko said:


> No man. Don't you know me by now? That was irony because here nobody likes ADA sales pitches.


I walked right into that one, knowingly. 

May I recommend this for your BBA problems:


----------



## theatermusic87

I think you nailed it with your non bba algae tank... you "neglect it" not that thats exactly a good thing for your fish... but for your plants and ecosystem, you have let it do it's thing, hands off. Too many times I feel we try and force nature to be what and how we want it to be. We don't like how our plants are filling in, time to rip them all out and replant them how we think they should go. it disturbs your substrate, disturbs your plants, dispturbs your bacterial colonies, releases and undoes what ever natural processes we have going on in the tank.

I think there has been too much of a rub off from the contests on aquascaping in genereal. The professional aquascapers will set up a tank for a couple months, crank the nutrients and co2 and lights to get a blast of growth, trim it once or twice, take a picture and tear it down and start over. Or they like to see something different, so they tear down and start over, or something isn't going the way they want, so they start over. It's never about the long term balance and sustainability, and this rubs off on the average hobbyist because we see them doing this.

Reefers take MONTHS to cycle a tank, regardless of what the nitrogen cycle says... is it that they understand the underlying processes (below ammonia->nitrate) any better than us, probably not, but they have noticed that it works better in the long run take a look at this thread Dave's 1,200 gallon double reef drop off it's long, so skimming through the pictures is really all thats needed, but it was over a year from when he started the build until he had any kind of livestock in there. And look at all the algae he let run rampant! The horror! BUT after a several months and a decent clean up crew, the tank found a balance and most of the algae receded. Also if you're ever looking to get lost in an EXTREMELY detailed build thread... all 300 or so pages are well worth the read


----------



## easternlethal

theatermusic87 said:


> Too many times I feel we try and force nature to be what and how we want it to be. We don't like how our plants are filling in, time to rip them all out and replant them how we think they should go. it disturbs your substrate, disturbs your plants, dispturbs your bacterial colonies, releases and undoes what ever natural processes we have going on in the tank.


Do you have anything more on this supposition? How exactly does uprooting and replanting affect biological activity for the worse and how would you respond to those who suppose the opposite that uprooting is good because it helps introduce oxygen and prevents a buildup of anaerobic activity etc.? Is the bacteria 'killed'? Displaced so badly that it can't grow back? made dormant? and which type of bacteria are we referring to? How is the process interrupted and why can't it resume?

I'm not looking to put you on the spot but I just feel that this thread is just focusing on what some have observed and how they have set things up to produce this phenomenon without any discussion of what's really actually going on in detail. We don't know whether it is a cause or correlation. I'm not asking for proof. Just something more (even if it's just a guess) that perhaps one day can develop into a real hypothesis.

Without it it's just trial and error with no insight and not what I would say is really 'scaleable' (as niko puts it).

Maybe for others just seeing something is enough but I guess my preference is for something more theoretical.


----------



## roadmaster

Stability .
Moving pant's about ,fiddling with lighting period's ,intensity,chasing magic pH number's, etc all work against stable condition's.
Plant's are capable of adapting to stable condition's,low CO2 level's,lower lighting,which in turn decreases demand for fertz, but most want jack in the Beanstalk growth and run everything in overdrive.(age of instant gratification).
As for uprooting plant's introducing O2,,they are capable of transporting O2 to the area's surrounding their root's without being uprooted so less chance of all manner of organic matter being released suddenly from substrate and fueling algae bloom and or ammonia spike = unstable condition's. (great for algae)
Also less chance of anaerobic area's and the hydrogen sulfide boogeyman that many fear.
Believe anaerobic and aerobic bacteria are both needed in mature tank's, but have no scientific proof.
Seldom see tank's High tech/low tech that have been allowed to mature,perhaps this is somewhat what Niko is driving at.
Some never see sustained growth for this reason, for they are always trying this or that aquascape,this or that plant which might not be suited for the method they are employing.
Some are trying to incorporate several method's into one ,some report stunted growth/algae and rip everything out and start over making same mistakes (been there)
Best info I ever got was to choose a method,,and learn it well.Master it..then choose another.
Choose someone's advice that is achieving what you wish to achieve ,and follow it.
Hard to do sometimes when you have to wring the info out of em ,or info shared is vague at best.
If the person won't make clear what you need to know,,choose someone else.
Much to be said in my view for stable condition's.


----------



## easternlethal

*&quot;No fertilizers&quot; - pictures of extremely healthy plants*



roadmaster said:


> organic matter being released suddenly from substrate and fueling algae bloom and or ammonia spike = unstable condition's. (great for algae)
> Also less chance of anaerobic area's and the hydrogen sulfide boogeyman that many fear.


So on the one hand we shouldn't be cleaning because we need the bacteria and organics, but on the other hand if we move something the substrate releases the bacteria and organics and suddenly they become bad and have no place being in the water column? Does this mean that I should then remove the water too so i can get rid of the bad bacteria and organics? And does this process somehow hurt the neighbouring plants now there's less bacterial activity in the soil?

And those dutch aquascapers who follow this supposedly more natural route... Do they never move any plant? I find it hard to believe they just planted seedlings and they all grow up to fill naturally into the scape. On the other dutch thread I follow there seems to be quite a lot of moving plants around..


----------



## niko

Hilde said:


> Since the only tank you have which is not riddled with algae you are not dosing Dolomite, I don't understand how you can say it helps kill off algae.


You didn't read the fairy tales I write about other tanks I've had over the years? They are all real. Seriously

Here - at one time I had 70 tanks in my house. Seriously. Does that help my credibility? Or I need to show a few aquascaped tanks, say a little about them, hide the ugly parts? Like most amazing aquascapers do?

Here's a dirty secret: We have all seen nice Japanese style aquascapes. With some kind of amazing looking Japanese rocks with Japanese holes all over. Amazing, clean tanks. Clean rocks too. You know how that happens? Drain tank 50%. Take a WIRE BRUSH. Scrub rocks. 

Yes, the tanks do stay clean. But rocks looking like brand new happen with a wire brush.










In addition - tank #1 described above, the one that has BBA. I didn't tell anyone that the BBA has been going away. It does not grow at all. The last few days it started to actively fall apart. How? That's another story. Like the story with pictures in the beginning of this thread. And no, it is not about using a Japanese wire brush.

Bump:


Smooch said:


> And so the conspiracy of all that is ADA continues. LOL!
> 
> Can you imagine a world were adults decide how and where to spend their money? OMG!
> 
> Many people plunk a few grand on a DSLR that never leaves auto mode. Does this make Canon or Nikon evil? Maybe. Do I need ADA Bacter to cycle my tanks? Nope! Got cycled filters and a one dollar bottle of pure ammonia. Do I need ADA Aquasoil to grow plants? Not at all. As a matter of fact, Aquasoil will never make it into my tanks because the pellets remind me of bunny poop. I have enough of that in my life, I don't need round pellets in my fish tanks as well. Do other people buy these products? Absolutely, it's their money. Do I care what and how ADA advertises? No, because who cares aside from you? Walmart is far more obnoxious with their advertising. I see their plastic bags hanging from trees all over the place because they refuse to clean up the trash from their parking lots.
> 
> If you makes you happy looking for a imaginary boogyman that doesn't exist, so be it. The sky is not going to fall down because somebody bought a tank with a ADA sticker on it as much as you'd like it to. Don't like the advertising ( except for your own push for Dolomite sales of course) ignore it. Smart people know how to do such simple tasks...


Smooch,

Would you tell me how to sell Dolomite to planted tank enthusiasts? I see a lot of potential. Raking the money.

Did you notice that post where I described how much I DO NOT LIKE ADA?

Fairy tale time:
Guy never had a tank in his life. Asks me for advice. I have none. I got no method. But I got an old established tank running fine. 

I give the guy a 1 gallon jug of dirty water from the bottom of that tank. Bacteria that is. Squeeze the filter sponges there too. I also give him 10 Amano shrimp for free cause I'm merchantile as you said.

Guy disappears. 3 months later meet him accidentally: 
"How's the tank? Does it have algae?"
"What algae? Never! It's perfectly clean."

I should have suggested Dolomite and ADA's bacteria... To make myself rich, you know.

Bump:


houseofcards said:


> I walked right into that one, knowingly.
> 
> May I recommend this for your BBA problems:


Does it have Amano's authograph? I get only that level of items.

So should you.


----------



## niko

theatermusic87 said:


> I think you nailed it with your non bba algae tank... you "neglect it" not that thats exactly a good thing for your fish... but for your plants and ecosystem, you have let it do it's thing, hands off. Too many times I feel we try and force nature to be what and how we want it to be. We don't like how our plants are filling in, time to rip them all out and replant them how we think they should go. it disturbs your substrate, disturbs your plants, dispturbs your bacterial colonies, releases and undoes what ever natural processes we have going on in the tank.
> 
> I think there has been too much of a rub off from the contests on aquascaping in genereal. The professional aquascapers will set up a tank for a couple months, crank the nutrients and co2 and lights to get a blast of growth, trim it once or twice, take a picture and tear it down and start over. Or they like to see something different, so they tear down and start over, or something isn't going the way they want, so they start over. It's never about the long term balance and sustainability, and this rubs off on the average hobbyist because we see them doing this.
> 
> Reefers take MONTHS to cycle a tank, regardless of what the nitrogen cycle says... is it that they understand the underlying processes (below ammonia->nitrate) any better than us, probably not, but they have noticed that it works better in the long run take a look at this thread Dave's 1,200 gallon double reef drop off it's long, so skimming through the pictures is really all thats needed, but it was over a year from when he started the build until he had any kind of livestock in there. And look at all the algae he let run rampant! The horror! BUT after a several months and a decent clean up crew, the tank found a balance and most of the algae receded. Also if you're ever looking to get lost in an EXTREMELY detailed build thread... all 300 or so pages are well worth the read



This guy from Rochester NY, makes the most sense from all posts in this thread. Including mine. Seriously.

Not everybody understands how much smoke and mirrors are used in professional aquascaping. In particular ADA. Leading a tank to a photo opportunity moment is a scheduled effort involving many people. Then you look at that tank and you think "I can make that too!". And the company makes you think you really can. 

Once again - for 1 tank that we see on the internet that is nice and clean there are hundreds of cesspools that we will never see. That is how the internet has shaped the hobby.

And everything has to happen fast and now. Just like TheaterMusic said. This hobby pretty much as far from "Natural" as it comes. It would be good if we go closer to Nature - using better fertilizes, better techniques. Slowing the charade down.

Thank you for your post!


----------



## roadmaster

easternlethal said:


> So on the one hand we shouldn't be cleaning because we need the bacteria and organics, but on the other hand if we move something the substrate releases the bacteria and organics and suddenly they become bad and have no place being in the water column? Does this mean that I should then remove the water too so i can get rid of the bad bacteria and organics? And does this process somehow hurt the neighbouring plants now there's less bacterial activity in the soil?
> 
> And those dutch aquascapers who follow this supposedly more natural route... Do they never move any plant? I find it hard to believe they just planted seedlings and they all grow up to fill naturally into the scape. On the other dutch thread I follow there seems to be quite a lot of moving plants around..


 
If you must root around in the substrate,then performing largish water change right after would be my suggestion to remove the organic matter,snail poop ,fish poop,Fish food's,decaying plant material all of which can cause issues once it becomes mixed with the water .
Is how most of the true guru's do it whenever they do big trim or remove or plant a bunch or a few plant's.
Cannot speak to Dutch aquascapes for I have never attempted it.:frown2:
Nowhere will you ever see me suggest not keeping tank's clean, filter's too.
Goes with good tank husbandry.
P.S. I do not consider myself a true guru, just sayin.


----------



## hbosman

In addition to a large water change after rooting of plants, don't up root more than 1/3 at a time. Every time I have, I suffered a green water bloom. Just do it over three weeks.


----------



## houseofcards

If there is a "magic bullet" it's Good Husbandry. 

Look ADA has a staff of people that change water, clean algae off glass/pipes, rocks, wood. In their really big tank they have people don scuba equipment and clean (I do it with snorkel, see Avatar). Even if you utilize the full ADA playbook you will get some algae, they don't hid this fact. Amano would mention this in his books etc. If algae wasn't part of it they wouldn't sell tools to get rid of it. 

Uprooting, yeah that creates problems, Ammonia released and green water or other algae spores blossom. I always have 1/2" filter tube in my other hand when I move stuff around. Immediately remove the water around the uprooting and then some.


----------



## easternlethal

Thanks for the advice. and for illustrating my point about there being too much focus on how-to's and not enough detailed discussion. I'm with niko on that one.


----------



## AWolf

roadmaster said:


> Stability .
> Moving pant's about ,fiddling with lighting period's ,intensity,chasing magic pH number's, etc all work against stable condition's.
> Best info I ever got was to choose a method,,and learn it well.Master it..then choose another.


I've learned some different things working with no filters in all of my tanks, other than a diatom filter for a few hours each month. The most important lesson for me lately is that my tanks do inexplicably better when I have coir in them. The other glass bottom tanks, PFS tanks, and gravel substrate tanks are more off balance. 

I'm thinking it must be because of the biological actions in the coir. It seems to 'smooth out' the otherwise 'knocking' engine of my tanks.


----------



## GrampsGrunge

Hilde said:


> Thinking about the carbon you used in 1 tank and dolomite I decided my next setup will be a 10g with this substrate with 5 levels.
> 1st Activated Carbon
> 2nd Red Bag Kitty Litter
> 3rd Dolomite
> 4th KNO3 & Sodium Bicarb & Scott's Hyponex Potting Soil
> 5th River Sand
> 
> I have everything from other tank setups, thus cost is 0. To find the time is difficult for me. I will start a thread on it after it is up for a month.


My 'yard soil' experimental dirted tank soil has a fair portion charcoal in it's mix naturally. Not sure where this charcoal comes from, but I'd wager there was some slash burning when they logged the old growth here back in the early 20th century.


----------



## theatermusic87

easternlethal said:


> So on the one hand we shouldn't be cleaning because we need the bacteria and organics, but on the other hand if we move something the substrate releases the bacteria and organics and suddenly they become bad and have no place being in the water column? Does this mean that I should then remove the water too so i can get rid of the bad bacteria and organics? And does this process somehow hurt the neighbouring plants now there's less bacterial activity in the soil?
> 
> And those dutch aquascapers who follow this supposedly more natural route... Do they never move any plant? I find it hard to believe they just planted seedlings and they all grow up to fill naturally into the scape. On the other dutch thread I follow there seems to be quite a lot of moving plants around..


Not quite... it's not that them being in the water column is necessarily "bad" it's the manner in which they are introduced. Abruptly, and potentially in large quantities. Nature is very good at adapting to changed, some things are able to capitalize on these changes faster than others. Take a house plant in a window and spin it around, so the light hits the opposite side of the plant; it'll rotate it's leaves within a day to face the sun. If a branch dies on a tree, it typically dies slowly and the tree is able to heal around it before it falls off, but if you cut that same branch off with a saw (or in nature ice storm breaks it etc) the tree takes a longer time to heal the wound. My guess is that algae takes advantage of the rapid changes, better than slow gradual changes that plants can deal with (I think there is something in walstad's book to about this but I can't really remember.

Not directly related to aquariums, but if you use an herbicide to control aquatic weeds in a lake/pond/etc you're only supposed to do ~50% of the water body at a time (less is better) with a couple week gap in between. Why? Because if you have a large volume of decaying plant matter all appear at once, the bacterial decomposers explode in population, drive down dissolved oxygen levels to the point they become fatal for fish, as well as releasing a huge nutrient bloom into the water column which drives algae explosions, because there are no more plants to use the nutrients.

If you look towards reef keeping sites, pretty much any time some one talks about changing out substrate, they are always recommended to do it gradually. Whether it's adding, removing, replacing, stirring, they are usually advocating for doing 25% or so at a time, waiting a couple weeks and doing more. I'm sure this stems from the fact that it works... Why? my guess it's it's a more gradual change. Same goes for acclimating fish, drip is better than cut the bag open and pour... why? the change is gradual

I think that is one of the big things no one really talks about with drip water changes and automated fert dosing... you can set it up to be consistent all the time... does ferts every day, keep the water stable and change it slowly. It shouldn't really matter what the parameters or ferts are that you use the fact that they are consistent and change slowly is the important part. The tank can adjust slowly

Lastly I'm not saying don't move plants or disturb the substrate, just try and keep it to a minimum. In general most of the tanks i see in threads with people having issues (besides be WAY WAY out of balance on ferts/lighting/co2) revolve around the "i didn't like this plant here so i moved it over there, I moved the plant that was over there to over here, and I'm thinking about moving this to back there" and the tanks that everyone seems to have shocking success are the "I just tossed some plants in my grow out tank and left them be and now look at how well they are doing" kind of tanks. Things that settle into the substrate do so naturally, nature has ways of dealing with that, detrivours, scavengers, worms, aerobic and anerobic microbes, even layers of silt over time to encapsulate everything. Make changes slowly and in gradual steps and all these natural process have time to adapt, recolonize, adjust etc. If it takes a month or so to complete a nitrogen cycle on a new tank... it stands to reason that it takes as long or longer for a substrate to mature. Why then is it common practice to not replace/remove more than half your filter media at a time, but it isn't common practice to not move more than half of your plants at a time? or a quarter, or less or more, what ever the magic number needs to be based on trial and error?

I'm starting to feel like niko rambling on on and lol...

tldr; make changes more gradual so things can adapt, rather than large abrupt shocks to the system


----------



## easternlethal

theatermusic87 said:


> Things that settle into the substrate do so naturally, nature has ways of dealing with that, detrivours, scavengers, worms, aerobic and anerobic microbes, even layers of silt over time to encapsulate everything. Make changes slowly and in gradual steps and all these natural process have time to adapt, recolonize, adjust etc. If it takes a month or so to complete a nitrogen cycle on a new tank... it stands to reason that it takes as long or longer for a substrate to mature.


Continuing to play devils advocate in the hope of furthering the discussion, what do we mean by 'mature'? This implies there is an optimal and suboptimal state of bacterial activity for our tanks. But is there really such a thing? In the limnology studies I have read, there are young and old lakes - some hundreds of years old. But there is no such thing as a perfectly 'matured' lake. They just exhibit different characteristics throughout the ages and continuously evolve. So when I think about it in those terms the concept of a 'mature substrate' is not as natural as it first appears. Just like the notion of 'balance' and 'stability'. It really does not exist in nature. Also in practical terms how can we tell if our tank has reached such a state? We have no precise way to tell other than by just 'giving it a few months'. 

Another point I'll make is that, yes of course low maintenance tanks can look better than our high maintenance ones. It's the same reason why lakes are beautiful too. But the main difference is lakes don't choose to look a certain way and we can't control how our low tech tanks will look. High tech tanks are artificial by definition because we want to control which plants grow where and change it as we like. So I'm afraid I don't see the need to try to emulate 'nature' or whatever our idea of that is for my high tech tanks. Maybe this is too simplistic and there really is a middle way as niko says. But that's neither here nor there imo.


----------



## Hilde

niko said:


> Here - at one time I had 70 tanks in my house. Seriously. Does that help my credibility? Or I need to show a few aquascaped tanks, say a little about them, hide the ugly parts? Like most amazing aquascapers do?


I don't doubt that you have some good tanks. Just seems your tank with Dolomite is not doing as well as the tank with ADA substrate. I would like to know more about the tank with Dolomite.


----------



## dukydaf

niko said:


> I have been in this hobby since 1981. I have two Master's degrees - Chemistry and Biology. I speak 4 languages and that has allowed me to dig up planted tank information that is hidden for most people here.





niko said:


> Activated carbon in the substrate is a way to suck nutrients out of the water. That prevents "things" that may cause problems in the first few weeks to pollute the water.
> 
> The carbon absorbs many things and some of them are nutrients. Thing is - once the stuff, whatever it is, nutrients included - gets in the tiny channels of the carbon it CAN be taken out by the plant roots.


Hey Niko, given your post-graduate studies perhaps you can elaborate on the interaction between activated carbon in the substrate and the plant nutrients. More precisely, what specific plant nutrients are you suggesting are absorbed ?

Does it matter if it is in the substrate or can it be in the filter ? 

Under what conditions do these nutrients become available for plants again ? Pure breakdown, pH ?


----------



## theatermusic87

easternlethal said:


> Continuing to play devils advocate in the hope of furthering the discussion, what do we mean by 'mature'? This implies there is an optimal and suboptimal state of bacterial activity for our tanks. But is there really such a thing? In the limnology studies I have read, there are young and old lakes - some hundreds of years old. But there is no such thing as a perfectly 'matured' lake. They just exhibit different characteristics throughout the ages and continuously evolve. So when I think about it in those terms the concept of a 'mature substrate' is not as natural as it first appears. Just like the notion of 'balance' and 'stability'. It really does not exist in nature. Also in practical terms how can we tell if our tank has reached such a state? We have no precise way to tell other than by just 'giving it a few months'.
> 
> Another point I'll make is that, yes of course low maintenance tanks can look better than our high maintenance ones. It's the same reason why lakes are beautiful too. But the main difference is lakes don't choose to look a certain way and we can't control how our low tech tanks will look. High tech tanks are artificial by definition because we want to control which plants grow where and change it as we like. So I'm afraid I don't see the need to try to emulate 'nature' or whatever our idea of that is for my high tech tanks. Maybe this is too simplistic and there really is a middle way as niko says. But that's neither here nor there imo.


Devil's advocate is fun, though it's not just to stir the pot for the sake of stirring it (which i find quite obnoxious actually)

Anywho when I say mature in this case i mean that you have a tank that has had adequate time to develop as many varieties of the bacterial colonies as possible. Whether or not they develop may be important to other aspects of tank health, but in this particular arguement for a"mature" they need to be given the chance.

If you start off day one with a tank, just add water , filter, substrate. You will have almost 0 bacteria established in the tank. Sure you have some that comes in floating in the water column, and you can add whatever bottled bacterial supplement you want, use tank squeezings etc, but there is none established in your tank, and all these really do is jump start the population in the tank so they can establish faster. I would argue this is immature. We can probably agree that once a filter (or lack of filtered tank) can convert ammonia to nitrate, we can call the filter mature. But there are other areas where bacteria/microbes/what ever the magic bugs are live besides the highly oxygenated filter.

Lots of advice you see about substrates and substrate depth involve not going too deep (most say 4 inches or so is fine, but not much more) and about how fine the grain size is to avoid compaction. The logic behind this seems to generally be that it keeps the substrate from becoming anaerobic and producing sulfide gas (I've seen some threads lately where people are starting to question if its fatal or other poor care practices are to blame). In order for that to even happen you need to have a oxygen poor area in the tank to begin with, if everything was recently stirred up and the tank is new there will be none. It takes time for the oxygen levels to slowly decrease, and then you need additional time for the bacterial populations to begin to build (and no you can't add these from an oxegynated bottle (which is really too bad... they're probably useful)). If we look at coil denitrators or deep sand beds from reefing they take time to mature to remove NITRATES from the water. Deep sand beds people talk about taking 3-6 months to come up to speed... there is no real way of testing them directly so take that with a grain of salt, however coil denitrators are very easy to test. You feed water with nitrates in, and once 0 nitrates come out the other end you're "cycled and matured". This I've seen reports of taking anywhere from 1-3 months. In case anyone is unfamilar with the gadget, it's basically a long long piece of tubing that you slowly drip water through, idea being that the water loses all of it's dissolved oxegyn before it reaches the end and anerobic bacteria are able to grow and turn the nitrate into nitrogen gas...

There may be other bacteria that live in our substrates that have other functions, such as breaking down nutrients so they are more bio available etc that require similar time periods and conditions to develop; Again no real way of testing for any of these. If we take the average lengths of time to cycle a tank (nitrogen cycle as well as nitrate conversion from the preceding paragraph estimate) We're looking at 2-4 months or so for the conditions to develop in a tank where aerobic and anaerobic bacteria have a change to grow, and at this point i would call the tank "mature" what the populations do or don't do over time is immaterial. As long as the tank parameters change slowly so will the bacteria, taking advantage of optimal conditions to grow, or dying off in sub optimal conditions and something else taking it's place, same as in lakes

That 2-4 months seems to coincide pretty nicely with "new tank syndrome" of old that seems to typically taper off around 3 months and we really only revisit these conditions if we reset the tank, go rooting about in large amounts of the substrate, use something that kills bacteria (medication), or have more likely to a lessened extent have drastic changes in water parameters..


As to high vs low maintenance tanks looking better or not I think is all a matter of personal opinion. I personally don't have a high tech tank (doesn't mean i don't have maintenance intensive ones) but I would expect that they also reach a point where they "mature" as described above. It may even happen faster because if my memory serves me, as you dissolve more co2 into the water it pushes the amount of dissolved oxygen down so you might even be able to make the substrate anearobic faster, but that's just speculation and probably not testable either...

It's not so much (for me anyways) about emmulating the water nature looks (cause honestly most of the time it's pretty mundane and boring), but to emmulate the ways in which nature behaves to allow things to grow. we focus on 2 very narrow slices of the eco system. fish and plants, and we might be overlooking other areas of the food chain above and below that are important, albeit unseen

Ok i SWEAR I'm done hijacking niko's thread


----------



## burr740

These last few posts have been both interesting....and thought provoking! 



theatermusic87 said:


> if my memory serves me, as you dissolve more co2 into the water it pushes the amount of dissolved oxygen down so you might even be able to make the substrate anearobic faster, but that's just speculation and probably not testable either...


Oxygen is not displaced by high CO2, the two are independent. Adding or subtracting one has no effect on the other as far as concentration.


----------



## theatermusic87

burr740 said:


> These last few posts have been both interesting....and thought provoking!
> 
> 
> Oxygen is not displaced by high CO2, the two are independent. Adding or subtracting one has no effect on the other as far as concentration.


Not sure why I was thinking that...


----------



## easternlethal

I think I understand what this 'no fertiliser' approach is really all about now, which in technical terms is really some kind of mesotrophic state.

I've started another thread elsewhere comparing some reading I have been doing on lakes which I think will help with the discussion.

Similarities between tank care and lake restoration techniques | UK Aquatic Plant Society


----------

