# Where to start...?



## tiller25 (Mar 27, 2011)

Hello all! I am thinking about starting a planted tank again. I have to admit that I am a little nervous because despite doing tons of research, I have tried it 2x with no long term success. It is important for me to say thank you for members on here that helped me set-up my last planted tank some time ago.

Here is my plan for the new tank. It will be a 40g breeder which I would like to show case a school of threadfin rainbowfish (Iriatherina werneri). After doing research on the rainbows they like slow moving water (they live in slow moving creeks and swamps), like staple water conditions and require a densely planted aquarium with slightly acidic water. 

My main hang-up is whether to go high-tech or low-tech. Personally I like the thought of a low-tech tank and I have been looking at the walstad method very closely. It seems like that method would actually work very with the requirements for the fish (i.e. lower light, slow water and heavy plant load). What would be the disadvantages of doing this method as apposed to another? Again, I ask this in terms of success, I want a successful tank so does one method (high or low tech) seem to have a higher success rate? I understand this is one of the biggest questions to ask in the hobby so I expect some healthy debate here. Also if someone has experience with these fish I am looking forward to hearing about it!


----------



## totziens (Jun 28, 2008)

If you want a neat and easy way without any hassle, using ADA Amazonia is the way to go. I have failed miserably when I was using ADA Malaya - algae issue. I have no experience with other aqua soil. There is a higher rate of success.

As for Diana's method, you need to be prepared to play with mud. It's a messy and dirty process. If you are the type of person that like to plant, remove and re-plant over and over, you will have a big problem with this method because the soil will escape to the water causing algae issue. This method is more experimental. Based on my personal experience, some plants grow better than others depending on the soil you use and available in your area. Some plants may die off in the process - you should not expect 100% survival of all plants in this experimental approach. If wrong type of soil is used, you may also end up with dead fishes.


----------



## tiller25 (Mar 27, 2011)

thanks for the response. There seems to be a lot of debate over the soil, which I guess is where a lot of my confusion is. Although everyone seems to agree (from what I read) that ada amazonia is awesome stuff. Can that be used with good success in a low tech system?


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

I will respectfully disagree with totziens. The Walstad method is far from experimental--it has been around longer than ADA, and is a well-established technique for successful planted aquaria.

Tiller, you must define success for yourself. If you want an easy tank with healthy fish, healthy plants, and moderate plant growth rate, then the Walstad method is for you. If you like to do a lot of trimming and other maintenance, want very fast growth rate, and want to grow challenging species of plants, then high-tech is the way to go.

The ADA system combines elements of Walstad and high-tech. Like Walstad, it uses a nutrient-rich sustrate that also has excellent cation exchange capacity (CEC) to keep nutrients in the substrate and out of the water. This limits algae. I have never tried ADA substrate as a substitute for soil in a Walstad tank, but I think it would work given the similar properties of both.

By the way, I love your choice of fish!


----------



## tiller25 (Mar 27, 2011)

thanks for a great response Michael. I know success is a subjective term, I was using it in a means of say "i want my tank to maintain good health for a prolonged period of time. The walstad method has a great deal of respect on my end....I guess I am trying to find a good substrate as well as a good light source.

I feel that in my past attempts I had too much light for the tank and I did not supplement with CO2.

Michael, I spent lots of time reading your thread about soils for the aquarium. Before hand I thought that the MG organic potting soil was a good cheap way to go, but it seems a lot of people think it contains to many organics and is "hot". Would the ada aquasoil, although more expensive, be a "safer" route to go? Also for a 40g breeder (dims are 36x18x17" tall) what would recommend for lighting in a walstad set-up?

thank you.


----------



## K Randall (Nov 23, 2004)

Dr. Ole Pedersen of the University of Copenhagen has done studies that prove that increasing CO2 in a tank improves plant growth, more than increasing light, all else being equal. The added benefit is that increasing CO2 won't cause algae problems, while increased light, if not carefully balanced with nutrient and CO2 availability will.


----------



## tiller25 (Mar 27, 2011)

Cool. thanks for the helpful info!


----------



## totziens (Jun 28, 2008)

What I meant by experimental is every area/region has their own version of soil. What is available in your area may not be available in my area. How do we know whether the soil works? Basically, you need to buy the soil and test the soil until you have found something that is suitable. You may not need such experimental activity if you know someone in your area who has done Diana Walstad method successfully based on your definition - all you need to do is buy back the same soil which is already proven to be working to save all the hassle. For a first timer you has never done Diana's method, there is always a risk if it's not done correctly. You need to do sufficient research before proceeding. Sometimes, even the type of fish that can be kept is also based on some trial and error. I found out the hard way that the soil purchased in my area could keep pencilfish very well but not a single oto or bottom dweller will survive. Could be pH issue.

As for aqua soil of any brand sold in LFS, they save you the hassle. So, you pay to avoid any hassle.

Diana's method is more challenging and fun for people who enjoy some trial and error without any fear of failure. The ready made aqua soil is for people who is afraid of too much hassle and wants a guaranteed result (nothing is guaranteed anyway). It does not mean Diana's method always fail or aqua soil is always successful. It's up to individual's ability and preference.


----------



## phoenixkiller (May 17, 2012)

I personally would like a quick opinion here.

I would definitely start low tech with some easy stem plants, and the like. High tech is more for the experienced, as I myself am not really going high tech until I know what I'm doing lol. 

Substrate? For a 40 breeder, if you've got a bit of cash to spend, I hear Eco-Complete isn't that bad. I'm ordering 60 lbs of it myself for my new 50 gallon. If you mess with your plants, like, at all, I would not go with dirt of any kind. It's cheap, but cheap comes at a price. 

If you're just planning on doing easy stuff for a while, then you could just do everyday gravel or inert sand. Those are usually cheap, and the easier plants do not require a rich substrate (Personal experience). 

Every thought of some tetras? Cardinals I want, but since I'll have breeding shrimp in the new tank, fish are really a no-no for me. Otos, cories, Bristlenose plecos, the list is endless. Yes the rainbowfish are more delicate than most, or so I hear. 

I hope I helped!


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

tiller25 said:


> Michael, I spent lots of time reading your thread about soils for the aquarium. Before hand I thought that the MG organic potting soil was a good cheap way to go, but it seems a lot of people think it contains to many organics and is "hot". Would the ada aquasoil, although more expensive, be a "safer" route to go? Also for a 40g breeder (dims are 36x18x17" tall) what would recommend for lighting in a walstad set-up?


Tiller, you are welcome, and I am glad you saw the soil thread--it will give you a good background.

Interestlingly, ADA Aquasoil and MGOC straight-from-the-bag have exactly the same disadvantage: they both produce ammonia/nitrite spikes in new tanks. The ADA system deals with this by having a excellent filtration, and special filter media that they recommend for new tanks, and frequent water changes. But even with these, it is often not safe to put fish in an ADA tank for 2 to 4 weeks. This is about the same amount of time it takes the ammonia spike from MGOC to subside.

BTW, ADA products really are an integrated system, and should be judged as such.

As you read in the soils thread, you can shorten the "cycle" time for a MGOC substrate by processing the soil before you use it. This can be the rinse and drain method, or the longer and messier but more thorough mineralization method. You might also consider the Scott's "Premium Topsoil" product. From what I can tell, Scott's has less nutrients/fertilizers, therefore is not as "hot" and should produce less ammonia and for a shorter time.

To answer your question directly, I think MGOC and ADA Aquasoil are equally safe if used properly.

Now, lighting, the other great confusion factor! I have a 40 gallon breeder with a Coralife fixture that holds 2 T5 normal output tubes. It hangs about 4" above the tank, and gives me enough light to grow low and medium light species well. That said, I do not recommend Coralife products. The T5 NO fixtures are poorly made, with terrible reflectors, and the Coralife tubes are expensive and have very short lives. But let's use it as a comparison.

A good T5 NO fixture, with a high quality reflector and two tubes, would give you plenty of light. But those are hard to find. A T5 high output fixture with just one tube would also work well. A really inexpensive alternative would be two or three desk lamps or clamp lights with spiral compact fluorescents (CFL) in them. The CFLs are available in any hardware store, look for "daylight" CFLs with with a color temperature of about 6500K. This set up is very flexible--if you need to adjust the amount of light, just raise or lower the fixtures, or use different wattage CFLs in them. I plan to replace the Coralife fixture over my 40 breeder with these.

Just one more thing, I add and remove plants from my soil tanks all the time. The mess is minimal, and goes away with good filtration in a day or two. The trick is to go slowly and do a little at a time. I have also seen a dedicated ADA Aquasoil user do a complete redesign on his tank. He removed plants and hardscape one day, and the water turned to complete mud with no visibility. He ran his canister filters for two days to clear the water, then put in new hardscape and replanted. I would expect to do the same if I did a major revision to one of my soil tanks.


----------



## totziens (Jun 28, 2008)

I actually added fish into my tank with ADA soil on the same day. I won't encourage anyone else to do so. I did it because the possibility of losing the fish left in the pail was higher risk based on bad experience in the past - possibly due to stress or lack of oxygen (too many fishes). I usually go through this when I tear down existing tank, so I always have existing fishes to care for. So it's a norm for me to have spare used filter media to speed up the cycling process too. I have zero casualties but I only keep hardy species such as ember tetra, cherry barb, pencilfish, etc.

I actually could not understand why some people using ADA Amazonia would have cloudy tank for days or even weeks when they used good/suitable filter. Even with Diana's method using garden soil covered with sand, I have never experienced cloudiness lasting beyond 24 hours. Maybe I have been very careful about avoiding disintegrating the soil during planting.


----------



## tiller25 (Mar 27, 2011)

Michael, great info. It is funny you should mention the scotts soil, as I was eyeing that up the other day. The one thing holding me back from that is I read I would have to add pottery clay and muriate of potash to the mix which I am having a hard time finding in my area(actually I cannot). So with that said I am leaning towards the MCOP due to its ease of purchase/cost and I will go threw the mineralizing process. 

As for lighting I have decided to go with the cfls. I think its a cool cheap method and will work out well for what I want. I plan on making a suspension system for the reflectors above the tank which I could adjust the height as needed.

Thanks again for the responses! I will keep you up to date with the progress.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

Is there a Tractor Supply store in your area? Get a bag of Safe-T-Sorb and mix it with the soil, about 50%. It isn't an exact substitute for pottery clay, but it does have some of the same properties and helps to reduce excess nutrients from the Miracle Grow or Scott's.

Muriate of potash is used primarily for a potassium (K) source. Look in any large grocery store for "salt replacer" sold for people on low sodium diets. It is potassium chloride, and can be used in exactly the same way as muriate of potash.


----------



## fletch616 (Sep 14, 2011)

Go with High tech! CO2..potting soil and high lights! I started low tech and then went this way with it..the best plants yet ever! And no need for fertz!


----------



## tiller25 (Mar 27, 2011)

Michael thanks again!

sorry for the long response.


----------

