# how much clay, potash and dolomite, and a few other question about mts.



## wagz (Aug 6, 2012)

I was hoping you could answer a few questions for me. 
I bought dirt from a nursery (46L storage contain full) and it really does appear to be all soil, but also some Grey clay. All the bag stuff (even cheap) was about 70% non-soil. Anyway, soaked and dried about 15 times as I am waiting for dolomite. Found a commerical supplier who is sending me a free sample of powdered. So I figured on my 75 Gallon which is 48"x18" x approx 2" soil makes for about a cubic ft. of soil needed. I ordered C-red clay from anxer as c-red has more iron than redart clay. I got 2lbs. and received today. I thought 2 lbs. would be a larger bag. its fairly small. I don't think I'll have 5-10% clay. Should I get more, or is this enough. Also. How do you gauge how much potash and d0lomite to add to bottom?

Also, I've read about people adding horticultural Charcoal between soil and cap to further absorb and then release nutrients. Also have read of some people adding peat granules to prevent anoxic problems and buffer ph etc.

and was wondering if any ferts or root tabs should be added since my tank will be empty and started from the bottom up.

Lastly, lighting. already getting bba with 2x20w 6500k bulbs on about 12 hrs, but now have reduced that to 6 with daily water changes and it is helping with the problem, (as well as spot treating with peroxide)

I have a 2x54 t5HO watt light ready to go when new tank set up is done. Will I have problems without a CO2 system? really trying to avoid that expense right now and diy isn't practical on a 75g.

Sorry so long winded, I'm new to this and spend most time googling everything.
Thanks for any help.


----------



## JeffyFunk (Apr 6, 2006)

Some comments...

The amount of clay will be fine; I would use what u have. You should add enough KCl and dolomatic lime to barely cover the bottom... There is no precise amount there. 

Amano has a product that is based on charcoal. I have no comment on it and suggest you check up on the ADA Products for more info.

The REDOX Potential is more determined by the substrate depth rather than adding other things like peat. To me, the addition of organic matter to MTS is stupid - the whole point of mineralization is to remove organic matter.

Root tabs are not necessary until much later in the lifetime of the substrate. 

Unless you hang your T5HO lights at least a foot above your tank, you will need CO2 - they are just that powerful. 

Finally, speaking from experience, there are no shortcuts in planted aquariums - u either set it up correctly from the beginning or else; You can't cheat mother nature...


----------



## xxUnRaTeDxxRkOxx (Jan 21, 2012)

So here's my input on your conundrum here, I've set up many MTS (mineralized topsoil) tanks using the Dolomite Calcium Carbonate + Magnesium, and Muriate of Potash. Have had good success with with each of the setups, but I now use Azomite powder instead to mineralize the topsoil of my tanks.

Azomite is a more profound way to supply the topsoil with a richer base of nutrients, and now I only use muriate of potash as a potassium supplement via dosing. The same goes for the dolomite calcium carbonate + magnesium, I now only use them in my weekly dosing regime.

Azomite is a highly mineralized ore from an ancient volcanic eruption that was ejected out of the side of a mountain in Utah. In a typical chemical assay, Azomite contains more than 70 trace minerals which include many rare earth elements (lanthanides).

Most conventional fertilizers contain mainly Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K), which are called macronutrients. Plants require macronutrients in large amounts. NPK are only three of the essential nutrients required by plants; unfortunately, when choosing a fertility program, growers often neglect all of the trace minerals and only use NPK. For plants to complete their life cycle and produce at full potential, a wide range of minerals is necessary; Azomite supplies that essential wide range, from A to Z. Azomite is not created in a laboratory and its nontoxic composition does not harm the environment.

Azomite analysis in link below....

http://www.azomite.com/index.php?op...66:certificate-of-analysis&catid=38&Itemid=11


----------



## DogFish2.0 (Oct 7, 2011)

JeffyFunk said:


> ...To me, the addition of organic matter to MTS is stupid... the whole point of mineralization is to remove organic matter.
> .... You can't cheat mother nature...


I disagree, I agree 50%, I agree completely.

>Plants do not grow in in substrate devoid or organics in nature. Plant roots are adapted to live in decaying organic layden substrate. Pull a water Lilly from a pond, one wiff of the dirt will prove my point that stench is Anaerobic bacteria working on the decomposing organics.

>> The point of Mineralizing is not just to Mineralize, it's also to give us a baseline to work with. Knowing the existing Organic are neutralized one can add an appropriate amt. of organics in a controlled manner.

>>> Yes, you are very correct you can't fool mother nature. The closer we duplicate her work the better our Plants, Fish & Inverts do.


----------



## DogFish2.0 (Oct 7, 2011)

xxUnRaTeDxxRkOxx said:


> ...Azomite is a more profound way to supply the topsoil with a richer base of nutrients....
> 
> Azomite is a highly mineralized ore from an ancient volcanic eruption that was ejected out of the side of a mountain in Utah. In a typical chemical assay, Azomite contains more than 70 trace minerals which include many rare earth elements (lanthanides).
> 
> ....


You know I share your enthusiasm. But, I think it's a be pre-mature to put a lot of value on Azomite. I think we need more than our tanks involved. So, far as a water collum supplement I'm not seeing any more than I do with Flourish. Granted I'm being very conservative so far.

However, being very"Green" in my hobby I remain optimistic.


----------



## DogFish2.0 (Oct 7, 2011)

Why we needs some Organics with our MTS mix:

"The iron has to be dissolved in order to be available to most plants. It won't dissolve unless its chemically reduced to Fe++ (ferrous ion). That requires the absence of oxygen caused by anaerobic bacteria acting upon organic material (i.e. peat). Specialized anaerobic bacteria are also responsible for the reduction of the iron. The humic acids of peat also prevent the Fe++ from being oxidized and precipitating (going out of solution) by attaching to the dissolved iron ion (a process called chelation)."

http://home.infinet.net/teban/substrat.htm

I recommend that webpage as resource.


----------



## JeffyFunk (Apr 6, 2006)

DogFish2.0 said:


> I disagree, I agree 50%, I agree completely.
> 
> >Plants do not grow in in substrate devoid o[f] organics in nature. Plant roots are adapted to live in decaying organic layden substrate. Pull a water Lilly from a pond, one wiff of the dirt will prove my point that stench is Anaerobic bacteria working on the decomposing organics.
> 
> ...


You know, i agree with your statements because I think we're talking about the same things, but the language I used in making that point hard to see. Let me see if I can clarify my statement...

From what i understand, the process of mineralization is basically bacterially driven; As the MTS dries, bacteria break down "organics". Bacteria, however, are not able to digest all organic molecules, only some of the "simpler" organic molecules like sugars, lipids, proteins; They are not able to digest the more "complex" organic molecules like cellulose and lignin (cellulose & lignin are actually able to be digested, but not very quickly and only by certain bacteria since specialized enzymes are required). After the simpler "organics" are broken down, the "complex" organic molecules left behind are collectively referred to as "humus" or "mulm" or "detritus".

These "organics" are present in MTS and that I failed to acknowledge - my apologies. Instead, my post was referring to "organics" as being the "simpler" (or simple) organics that are easily broken down by bacteria in the mineralization process. The addition of material that contains these simple organics is what i considered stupid. (Going back to the original post, I'm not sure if charcoal or peat have a large percentage of these simple organics or not - I think it's best to just not add any more organics to the MTS in general since mulm will accumulate over time from normal fish activity in an aquarium.)

Why would the addition of simple organic molecules be considered bad? Because these are the substances that are easily digested by organisms and cause bacterial and algae blooms, an infrequent problem with setting up a newly planted aquarium. By using the MTS, one is able to remove the simple organic molecules that cause these problems in the first place.


----------



## Michael (Jul 20, 2010)

We've discussed this issue at "Suitable soils for the Walstad method" in the El Natural forum. I think the distinction between fresh or partially decomposed organics versus humus is very important. Many people set up soil substrate tanks using commercial products that are 100% partially decomposed organics and then must suffer through the resulting ammonia spikes and algae blooms.


----------



## DogFish2.0 (Oct 7, 2011)

Gentlemen - What is considered bad in theory, is not always bad in practical application. I would offer that higher organic levels in the substrate are only problematic is appropriate measures are not taken to active a balance in the system. I have a tank running now that I believe supports that point.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=154884

I feel too much emphasis is put on the "parts" of an aquarium and not enough is directed toward the Aquarium as a whole.


----------

