# Substrate advice



## kjf91004 (Sep 21, 2006)

OK, I am a major newbie here. I currently have a 38g planted that is not very beautiful or artful. I am researching upgrading all of my equipment, and I want to do it right the first time. Seeing all of your wonderful tanks has really inspired me. I think I have pretty much settled on using ADA aquasoil, because I have read from multiple locations that it will yield good results.

I tend to lurk ar multiple forums and learn as much as I can. However, some of the advice given at AC is not what I would have thought. Can you confirm for me whether it is on track or not. I would have asked there, but sometimes they are quick to jump on a person, and I really only want to get to the bottom of this... so I will ask the experts.

Here's the link: Aquaria Central

The comments that I question are that "most plants get nutrients from water and don'tneed an active substrate to thrive" and "some people said they have had better growth with sand. i have had sand and i am back to gravel. it really doesnt matter. you dont have to spend a lot of money on something like eco complete."

Is my instinct right that this is not necessarily the right advice? I guess I understand that all substrates can work, and that the most costly isn't always the best, but ...?

Thank You!


----------



## deepdiver (May 30, 2006)

The statement that all plants get most of their nutrition from the water column is way off. For the most part, stem plants will get their nutrients from the water column, but not rooted plants. IME, a fertilized substrate is much more important than fertilizing the water column.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

This topic is one that could have a good amount of debate on the forums but I don't think anyone has really done a good test using two tanks with the same plants and only different substrates. Most of the info is subjective and based on personal experience from one tank to another. 

I previously used a mix of Eco Complete and sand and had good results. I am currently testing a sand only substrate and so far results are just about equal to the Eco Complete substrate. Crypts may be a little bit slower to grow but the stem plants are doing well. This is propbably a bit subjective on my part though. The tank is a high light (~3wpg), CO2 injected tank. In both tanks I fertilize(d) the water column heavily.

One thing a lot of folks forget to mention when debating substrates is both their lighting levels and their water column fertilization method(s). Both of these will be a major factor in how well the tank does. A person with a lower light, non-CO2 injected tank may find a "plant specific" substrate is all they need for good plant growth along with fish food and waste. Another person with higher light levels and CO2 may find that the substrate alone can not keep up with the plant needs. 

CO2 and Light levels are two things that will be very helpful in evaluating people's responses to your questions so make sure you know those stats about the person's tank(s) before making a decision based on their responses 

That being said, I don't think a plant specific substrate is needed to grow healty plants as long as you fertilize the water column adequately. It may be of help to those just beginnining the hobby and it may give quicker plant growth. I can accept a bit slower plant growth when using an inert substrate in order to save some money


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Roots serve three functions, at least, for aquatic plants. One is the obvious one - to feed them from the substrate. Another is just to serve as plant anchors, especially in fast moving water. And, still another is to serve as a food reservoir, storing nutrients for a "rainy day". So, a heavily root plant doesn't necessarily depend on those roots for gaining nutrients. In fact, as I understand it, almost all aquatic plants can feed from either the substrate or the water column, or both at the same time.

People are successful with their aquarium using both the water column dosing method or the substrate dosing method ( fertile substrate.) So, I'm not sure it even matters which is "best" or if either one is "best". I suppose it depends somewhat on what plants are being grown, how much light is used, what water column ferts are used, and who knows what else.


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

I feel that plants feed from both the substrate & water column at the same time. Many plants may feed mostly from the wc, but root feeding & the substrate both play a vital role in overall plant health. My best results have been in ADA Aquasoil & soil w/sand top. Flourite has been ok, but I feel plants can do better, and imo have, in nutrient rich, soil-based substrates. I can grow any plant better with a Jobe's plant spike, but as we all know, that's not advised. I suspect if wc dosing was the be all, end all, we wouldn't have ever "cheated" with a substrate based plant tab.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I don't think it really matters much how you get the nutrients to the plants, in terms of getting good growth (roots vs. WC dosing), but you will certainly see differences in how much maintenance/aesthetics between substrate fed and water-column fed approaches. 

Most commercial substrates are not very nutrient rich (w/ the exception of ADA, florabase & other soil-based substrates). So I agree w/ that post you quoted that the substrate type doesn't really matter between sand and gravel/eco-complete/fluorite/etc... 

The only difference is with soil-based substrates, the other ones that are mineral-based really won't be that different from an inert substrate.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

As has been said here, there are several ways to get plants the nutrients they need and all work equally well. I can attest to the fact that it is possible to grow great Crypts and other 'root feeders' through water column fertilization alone. I almost have enough _C. parva_ by now to do a whole foreground with then. I will add though, that I fertilize rather heavily.


----------

