# Why does my neglected tank look good?



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Since setting up my 180g tank three months ago my 46g bowfront has been severely negelcted. Despite an almost complete lack of fertilizing, the plants continue to grow very nicely and show no signs of defficiency. Algae is also a non-issue in this tank.

I'm using a DIY hood with new spiral CF's for light, totalling 4wpg for 11 hrs/day. Compared to T-5's with good reflectors I'm probably in the 2-3 wpg range. The substrate is SMS charcoal and the tank has been set up for about 6 months now.

Plants include H. leukocephala, Blyxa japonica (growing slowly, but nicely), R. vietnam, R. rotundifolia, L. repens, H. zosterifolia, a variety of crypts, L. palustris, Didiplis diandra (with beautiful, blood-red tips), Bacopa carolina and a few other odds & ends. The tank requires a major trim every 2 weeks or so. I had to remove L. 'cuba' and P. stellatus for lack of growth, but everything else is doing ok.

I have only 3 neons, 4 small corries, 5 oto ******, and 3 glass cats in the tank. They get fed next to nothing, maybe 3 or 4 times per week.

I've been doing a 40-50% WC once every 4-6 weeks and CO2 goes in via an in-line reactor at 1 bps. I've added a few ppm of NO3 and PO4 only twice in the past three months!!!! I add maybe 10 ml's of TMG once every 2 weeks or so.

Any ideas on why this tank is doing ok with a mix of fast & slow growers? Why no deficiencies? Why no algae? It's almost driving me crazy. The plants are certainly doing fine. What are they using as a macro source?

The 180g tank is carefully kept with every-other-day dosing of NO3, PO4, and traces at roughly average EI levels. The plants look a little healthier and grow a bit faster, but there is a very small quantity of BBA and thread algae too.

I'll offer my thoughts later, but first I want to hear yours.


----------



## Glouglou (Feb 21, 2006)

*Neglected tank...*

If you look at xperiment like the one conduct by Kekon

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/science-of-fertilizing/34528-ca-mg-k-no3-po4-mysterious.html

You can see that lot of people probably sursaturate their tank with nutrient. It seen that the problems with this tanks are not nutrient deficiency but nutrient blockage caused by heavy concentration...

This is the parameter of Kekon:


> My tank volume is 200 liters. The tank has always been heavily planted and it has always been dutch style tank.
> I did 25% water changes each week. It was only RO water reconstitued with commercial mixture
> 
> lighting: 4 x 30 W (3000K)
> ...


It is amazing to see that these numbers are very close to Sears & Conlin PMDD experiment.
http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/pmdd-tim.html

Personnally I'am going back to these number and see what happen.


----------



## Cassie (May 27, 2006)

what water do you use for water changes? Mine, right out of the tap, has about 30ppm of nitrates, so that works well with my no ferts tank...  but even then you only change it every 4-6 weeks...not sure. Perhaps, with the low lights, low co2, and low nutriants everything is balanced perfectly which results in the slower, yet healthy, growth


----------



## Troy McClure (Aug 3, 2005)

My 85gal is sorely neglected as well....can't complain about the growth and lack of algae though!










I don't dose any ferts besides CO2, lights are 2x55 AHS, bulbs have never been changed in over 20 months, no water changes, just top-offs. Whenever I stop over at my parent's house, I'll pull out any dead leaves and move things around if needed...that's about all the attention it gets.

I think it's stability. Granted, most of the plants in there aren't very demanding, but I'm sure if I added something like Limnophila aromatica, it would grow just fine as long as it wasn't shaded too much.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

I use tap water from a private well for my very occasional WC's. It runs about GH 17, KH 10, 5 ppm NO3, and has no measurable phosphates.

There's no denying that organic material is being incorporated into the mass of new growth. The vast majority of a plant's mass is water and carbon accounts for a good bit of the remainder. Still, a certain % is nitrogen and phosphorus and this has to come from somewhere....

I'm finding it hard to reconcile what I'm observing and what has been suggested by others regarding usual uptake rates of N and P.

I'm suspecting that tanks that have arrived at a "balanced" state can hum along pretty well with quite low levels of N and P. Growth isn't explosive, but it's good enough to keep the plants looking good. I'm not sure I've figured out why algae isn't an issue. It may be related to the lower light levels, but that's not the whole story. I've had plenty of algae issues before in that same setup.

Personally, I think the real answer lies in the substrate. I haven't vacuumed the SMS for several months and the tank had a larger fish load and higher macro dosing previously. I'm suspecting that the plants are currently getting most of their nutrients from their roots, much as they would in nature. If this is true, it will probably run out at some point, maybe leading to future problems.

A recent article in TAG described some waters in S. America. Water column nutrients were essentially undetectable, but plant growth was vigorous and thick. Massive pearling could be seen underwater. The mystery there was solved when they looked at the organic material in the substrate. N and P were present in small, but consistent quantities.

The magical powers of ADA's substrates are certainly derived from the same idea.

Any other ideas? Observations? Experiences?


----------



## Troy McClure (Aug 3, 2005)

As for the algae, I think I read in another thread that there might be something aleopathic produced by the plants that suppresses algae, and all these huge water changes removes those chemicals. Again, I'm not stating that as fact, it's just what I recall reading in another thread on APC and I'm throwing it out there for consideration.

As for the substrates, do ADA subs actually provide a source of N and P? If so, I was completely unaware of that. I might have to buy a bag of Power Sand for a new 10gal I'm working on and test it out.


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Another case for 'less is more'. You may be right about the substrate. I think many folks od their tanks on ferts. Whether that has any ill effects or not, is open for debate. The whole idea of EI is to have excess nutrients so all the plants needs are met. IMO, this certainly works, especially before the tank has fully 'matured' (another subject to debate). But after time, I think it needs 'refinement'. 

I started dosing EI 2-3X/wk with my 2.5wpg 50gal tank. I was measuring NO3's weekly to see how they changed using a calibrated LaMotte's kit. Doing 50% weekly water changes, over time, I saw that it was actually slowly creeping up. I have now cut back to adding approx 5-10ppm NO3 at water change and no more during the week. Been doing this now for about 2-3months with no problems. 

FWIW, I too have hard water. I am no plant physiologist, but from personal experience compared to what others have said about their tanks, there's something askew, so to speak, with us hard water folks. I don't think uptake is as quick in the hard waters - can't prove it, but it sure 'feels' like it.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Bert H said:


> from personal experience compared to what others have said about their tanks, there's something askew, so to speak, with us hard water folks. I don't think uptake is as quick in the hard waters - can't prove it, but it sure 'feels' like it.


This is the problem with a single person reporting on extensive testing using mostly the water that comes out of their tap. Water conditions are highly variable around the world. All that I know for sure is that this whole nutrient uptake thing is far more complex than we'd like to think.

I've certainly seen clear deficiency states, especially when NO3 bottoms out. The big problem in my estimation is inconsistency. I suspect that plants that are accustomed to "easy living" when it comes to fidning NO3 have a rough time dealing with a sudden shortage. Those same plants growing in a lean NO3 environment would probably weather a shortage with less of a catastrophic meltdown. Slow and steady probably wins the race.

When in doubt, it probably pays to look at nature. The most common situation is a lean water column, a rich substrate, and a few hours of intense lighting.

Ramdom rumblings..... but this 46g tank has gotten me to thinking....


----------



## bpimm (Jun 12, 2006)

Got Dirt?

Try El natural.

I haven't touched my 80 Gal in 3 months other than pruning.

80 Gal
Soil substrate
Pressure CO2 at 10-15 PPM
Continuous water change
no ferts
2.5 WPG screw in CF lighting


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Yeah, well dirt isn't exactly standardized either. Sometimes it works great and sometimes it doesn't - just like everything else. There's lots of ways to get to Rome. Personally, I just don't like the "look" of most El Naturale tanks. They're fine, but the growth in most of them is pretty sparse. When it comes to low maintainence though, they probably can't be beat.


----------



## bpimm (Jun 12, 2006)

Add a little CO2 and the growth takes off. I have ran my CO2 up to high levels and had quite fast thick growth. I agree that the true El natural tanks can be a little slow and sparse, I have a couple with out CO2, but the soil seems to provide what the plants need for fast growth at least in the short term, I'll see how it works in the long run.

I would love to see one of the good aquascapers see what they could do with a soil tank. I tend to be more of a farmer and my tanks show it.


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

guaiac_boy said:


> I'll offer my thoughts later, but first I want to hear yours.


Want to completely eradicate algae? Stop doing water changes.
Water changes are helpful in emergencies when nutrient levels get too high due to overdosing or overstocking. Old processed water is cleaner then your tap and as a bonus it kills algae. Why is it cleaner? Because plants take everything out of it. 

The secret is not in rich substrate because the same happens with inert substrates as well. 

Plants are healthier if not pushed into very high grow rates. How to do it? Higher mineral levels don't accelerate growth as much, light and CO2 in combination does. Very high light with low CO2 (5 - 10 ppm) drives plants already extremely fast. Option is to use less CO2. Under average light high CO2 levels do not drive plants as fast, easier control.

Aeration is important for many reasons, here are two. 
Atmospheric N dissolves in water (Nitrogen Fixation) when water N levels get low. When water N levels go high, N is aerated out to atmosphere (Denitrification). This may become important at lower dosing levels. 

Another important fact is the maximum amount of dissolved gasses. There is a limit how much gas (N2, NO2, N2O, O2, CO2, etc) water can take under atmospheric pressure. Fish and plants can not function well in saturated water. Why? Because they can not exchange gasses. Simple water to air movement is all we need.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

Edward may be on to something here. Before I tore down my 75g tank, I stopped doing water changes (didn't have a way to store large amounts of RO water). Plants looked pretty darn good, and grew really well. I continued to dose ferts for a while, and I had some minor algae issues. Then I just quit, only dosing TMG. The algae started going away and plants still grew!

I've recently set up a 100g planted tank with ADA substrate /w Powersand. I used a little tap water, and the rest (about 90%) RO. I've yet to dose N, dosed P twice, and I continue to dose K, but have reduced the amount by half. I've yet to do a water change, nor do I plan on doing one. I had a tiny bit of fuzz algae show up, but now that the plants are settling in, it's going away as well. Plant growth is increasing, and I'm quite impressed with the results! I only dose 0.5 tsp of K2SO4 twice a week and 20 mL or so of TMG eod if I can remember. Tonina's (belem & manaus) are taking off, L. "Cuba" is getting big, my sword is looking great with fanatastic bronze leaves, P. stellata (both varieties) are booming, and everything else is really beginning to settle in. I'm only using 2x80w T5HO lights, 10 hours per day.

I really like this "lazy" way of doing planted tanks. Great plants, no algae, little light, littler (  ) ferts...what is there not to like? It certainly makes pruning much more manageable and enjoyable.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Growing great looking plants under moderate lighting with moderate CO2 and relatively low levels of nutrients is hardly a new idea. In fact, ultra high-light, "high-tech", uber CO2 tanks with huge doses of ferts (à la EI) is a relatively new way of doing things. Certainly many old-timers are quietly laughing about those of us that are "discovering" a "better" way. Adding NO3 to a planted tank was a pretty wild idea 5 or 10 years ago.

There is no question that ADA substrates make it easier to grow plants without relying so much on water column fertilization. My issue with the ADA stuff is that sooner or later the nutrients in the substrate will burn out and you'll be back to something that is essentially inert. For 90% of people this probably isn't an issue, since they monkey with their setups every few months.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

From what I've learned through my own experiences, more emphasis should be placed on the substrate, and less on the water column. The old timers centered their efforts on it as well, when water column dosing was not a common practice. Certainly, water column ferts are useful, and quite necessary in high-tech tanks. I've done the "El Natural tanks," as well as the super high light tanks. Frankly, I've found that the higher the light, the less a role the substrate plays in plant health. The old timers taught me a tank needs to be "established" in order to witness the full glory of a planted tank. In all of my lower light planted tanks, this has been true, regardless of substrate--but there is one exception--my newly set-up tank with ADA & Powersand.

Why is this? Probably the nutrients in the stuff. Do I really care that it has nutrients? No. Do I care that it may run out someday? No. I bought it to try it out, and I like it for reasons other than nutrient composition, but I am thinking that the nutrient composition may help bridge the gap from start-up time to "established" time--a crutch if you will. I've grown many plants in plain gravel, but the start-up time typically has problems, such as the "algae phase." Bottome line, and I'll be very adamant about this: as soon as the plants grow sufficient roots, and the longer a plant remains in the substrate, the better it's growth & health is, and this is far more evident in lower lit tanks. It killed me to have to uproot plants in a low tech tank, because there was almost always die-off, and it took forever for the plants to re-establish, no matter how many water changes I did, or how many ferts I dosed. Certainly certain substrates are better than others imo, but not due to the reasons you think.

I've been reading forums for a long time, too long I think. I find it rather amusing that after all the effort spent on figuring out how to grow a perfect plant, we still haven't found a perfect equation. I knew people would try to do this and would fail, and so far we have. It's nice to know some general basics, but is it really necessary to have every single answer in exacting detail? Relax and enjoy the tank!

This tank is only 15 days old, after it's first prune:


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Avalon said:


> It's nice to know some general basics, but is it really necessary to have every single answer in exacting detail? Relax and enjoy the tank!


This is perhaps the most useful idea I've seen here in a long time.


----------

