# A beautiful picture.



## niko

And a question.










What do you think my question is?

--Nikolay


----------



## bigstick120

The boat looks Photochopped to me.


----------



## Z90a

That is some nice water. I wonder what fish live in it


----------



## Glaucus

What filter media was used? Wha. Only thing notable about the picture is the plants growing in mosaic. The overall controlling factors of plant distribution are flow and substrate. Some streams tend to have variable substrates. Plants growing inside the mosaic with a beneficial substrate remains stable whereas plants growing outside the patches with poor anchorage possibilities, get swept away.


----------



## Michael

Niko, I know what you are thinking, but if I tell it will spoil the fun.


----------



## Bert H

I think I know the question as well. Our springs here have often made me wonder. But I always thought it would be comparing apples to oranges, or at least oranges to grapefruits, due to the size differentials. Not to mention the un-natural numbers of species we often grow( or try to grow) together. But perhaps not?...


----------



## niko

Aha! We have too many different plants in a glass box. This glass box is not a real lake or a river. So to keep the plants alive we need to... get away from what Nature does. Sounds reasonable, I agree. What does not sound reasonable is *why do we try to go against Nature*. Avoiding common sense too. We try to emulate Nature without emulating Nature. Stuffing incompatible species in the same tank and doing excessive things to keep everything going. Once again - here I attack our ways of thinking. Or rather - NOT thinking.

My question is:

How much fertilizers we think the clear water on the picture has?

I bet very, VERY low. Nothing close to the high concentrations most of us strive to maintain.

Our tanks are not a river. Our tanks are different. Tom Barr has told us that according to all his scientific knowledge we must have high concentrations of chemicals. Because it makes plants grow.

Really?

I wonder what Amano thinks of dumping spoons of ferts in his tanks. What he thinks of EI. Or PPS. Hope someone asks him about these questions some day and records that on video too. Ask him what he thinks of giving those two a try in his big tank too.

As I harp on about the same thing all over again (Rich substrate + Clean water + Good filtration) I really see how easy it is to see that dumping dry chemicals in a glass box with a few gallons of water makes little sense. Take a second look at the above picture. THAT is clean water. There is all there is to it.

Nice picture, isn't it. Now if you'd excuse me for a second. I have to go dump a few teaspoons of chemicals in my 55. If you are not busy doing the same to your tank take alook at this video. The words you are looking for are "serene" and "pristine". They do not apply to our tanks.





And another video. You must have seen it already. Michael does not know anything about this hobby's virtuous ways and considerations. His little tank emulates Nature. The water contains no added fertilizers. It is... yes, "pristine":





--Nikolay


----------



## DaTrueDave

niko said:


> My question is:
> 
> How much fertilizers we think the clear water on the picture has?
> 
> I bet very, VERY low. Nothing close to the high concentrations most of us strive to maintain.


While I'm sure the levels are lower than what we dump in using the EI method, you must admit that the levels have got to be higher than your average aquarium that is not being fertilized. Plus the sheer size of natural bodies of water tends to maintain those levels. Think of all the organics decomposing underneath those trees!

You use the word "pristine", and the definition that comes to my mind is "untouched". So, yes, natural habitats are often "pristine", but they are also very complicated. Nature isn't a closed system. Stuff flows in and out of these habitats in a way that we simply cannot recreate. But in our closed systems, we'll be responsible for replenishing the nutrients that our plants use. Mother nature sure isn't going to do it for us...

So, do some of us over-fertilize in the name of unnaturally fast growth? I'm sure some do. That doesn't mean that it's more natural to NOT fertilize.


----------



## D9Vin

I think the point niko is (constantly) trying to make isn't don't fertilize, but that fertilization doesn't come from the water column (as it does with most planted aquariums) in nature. A nutrient rich, biologically active substrate is what he is trying to push, I believe. I really don't think there are too many natural bodies of water with the nutrient levels of my high tech ei tank in my living room, the ones that do are most likely polluted.


----------



## niko

What I'm desperately trying to do is to make people think.

If you think that Tom Barr invented EI you are wrong. It was a practice that existed before he was even born. How's that for a homegrown novel idea and a small, garden variety, celebrity status?

What ADA did was to logically develop a system that works with all the parts together. Nothing is way off balance. And yes - the system is not exactly simple, but it has been designed in such a way that you don't need to really know anything about the processes behind the scenes.

In the US we do know a lot about what happens behind the scenes. But we stick to dumping chemicals in the water. That inevitably leads to problems. It hinders the progress of the hobby. THAT is what aggravates me. Do you think that these guys know more than us in the US about the intricate processes in a planted tank?
http://www.cau-aqua.net/index.php?lang=en

Your suspicion, as well as mine, is that they actually may know less. Especially if Tom runs into the playfield with his micromols per liter, lumens over seconds per angstrom, and what not other real scientific data. But there is not a single US website that can show a group of aquascapers with tanks like those above. Sad.

To try to get people to use more common sense I resort to showing pretty pictures and asking questions that have obvious answers.

And here's an ugly picture:
http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2569439400102609000VWqAhl

It was taken from this thread:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/local-biotopes/81342-collect-barclaya-viet-nam.html

Look at the mud in which these plants live. Surely in a planted tank we need to do something to manage the stuff that oozes out of it. What about completely ignoring the mud and instead start dumping chemicals in the water? ...Really?

And to answer this question:


DaTrueDave said:


> While I'm sure the levels are lower than what we dump in using the EI method, you must admit that the levels have got to be higher than your average aquarium that is not being fertilized.


*No.* They do not need to be higher than an unfertilized aquarium. Even for exotic, "hard to grow", stem plants.

Examples:

1. This has publicized tests of 0 (zero) all nutrients:





As do all these. Zero concentrations of... everything in the water. Printed in every AquaJournal starting from issue #1:





2. Getting closer to home. A tank right here in DFW. Ask Michael (he posts here on APC) how he fertilizes this:





--Nikolay


----------



## DaTrueDave

niko said:


> *No.* They do not need to be higher than an unfertilized aquarium. Even for exotic, "hard to grow", stem plants.


But they are. Go out and test the water in your local stream, pond, river or lake. You'll find nutrients in the water.

Ever been to Schlitterbahn? Remarked about how clear the water is from the beautiful Comal River? Thought about harvesting some of the gorgeous aquatic plants growing ten feet below your inner tube as you drift along on the crystal clear water? Wondered how the plants grow so well in rocks and sand, with no real rich soil? Hmmm... http://www.gbra.org/crp/sites/comal.aspx#12653

Ah, yes, the beautiful pictures of the Comal River:









































Water in nature has nutrients in it. It's not natural for water to be "pure".

Do we need to intentionally over-dose? Of course not. Do we need to dose the water column at all? Not necessarily. Like every other form of life, our plants will survive and grow in less than ideal conditions. They can certainly survive in unnaturally clean water, but to claim that water with chemicals (aka: nutrients) in it is "polluted" and unnatural as compared to pure water is downright dishonest.


----------



## niko

Yes, I admit, I tried to deceive everybody. 

The water in a planted tank needs to contain nutrients. Look at ADA - they do add liquid fertilizers every single day. So what's the difference between and ADA tank and a tank in which we dump dry chemicals?

DaTrueDave,

The above question stops all discussions. Because noone on these forums can really answer in more than general terms.

As I said - my goal is to induce people to think. And I'm sorry to say - it cannot be done with all the details in depth. Here's a good example. The link you provided proves that ADA is right and speaks against loading the water with ferts. But most folk will enterpret the data as "I need ferts floating in my water.":

If you open one of the Ecxel sheets in the link you provided you will see exact match of concentrations of P and N in any ADA tank and in one of these rivers. Does that put a different spin on fertilizing? I can promise you - most folk just conclude that "Oh I do need ferts to float in my water!". In the posts above I gave at least 2 good arguments why that mentality is wrong.

The correct view on the link you proded is "It really depends how the fertilizers floating in the water are being used." This is where ADA has answers, products, and techniques. While we have a hope that "The plants will grow great and algae will die" as Tom has told us it all happens.


--Nikolay


----------



## DaTrueDave

I've lurked here off an on for years, and I guess I just get sick of people who claim that one way is the best. You made a wild assumption based on a photo and then claim it's a fact because that's how some people are successful with their planted aquaria.

I believe that there are many ways that people can successfully keep a planted tank, and to dismiss any particular method as being wrong is intellectually foolish.


----------



## fishyjoe24

but are the nutrients, naturally there, or have they been dump in to the rivers by humans... 

I've had tanks, where I have low light and low light plants that didn't need ferts. then I've had low light tanks, with low light plants that needed ferts, I've also had high light tanks that didn't need ferts, and i've also had high ones that need ferts... 

why is that? because some of them wheren't rich in nutrients in the soil, and didn't have good flow.

know what happens once people have good flow, clean water, and good light plants will grow.

what I see is people right off the bat, dumb nutrients in to the water and then they don't keep up with maintence, to all the nutrients and soil just mix together and make mud....


----------



## niko

I'm done here. I made my point for anybody that wants to hear it.

There is no end to stupidity indeed. I should have used shorter sentences and not more than 3 paragraphs.

--Nikolay


----------



## DaTrueDave

Real mature. 

What exactly was your point? Buy ADA liquid fertilizers, not the cheap dry chemicals that they're made from?


----------



## Silvering

DaTrueDave said:


> Real mature.
> 
> What exactly was your point? Buy ADA liquid fertilizers, not the cheap dry chemicals that they're made from?


Actually, the appropriate response to troll behavior _is_ to stop feeding it. Before you join any more internet discussions, please Google the phrase "invincible ignorance fallacy" and refrain from using it in the future when your actual arguments run out.

In any case, the thread has been quite interesting and contained a lot of thought-provoking information. A couple questions for those of you who know a bit about the ADA system - on an established tank (whenever that occurs according to their regimen) what ferts are they dosing every day, and how often/much do they change the water? IIRC the EI (and PPS?) methods include weekly 50% water changes in perpetuity; I'd like to know what's different on that side of things between ADA and EI/PPS. NPTs don't always get regular water changes I know, but coming from the fishy side and preferring to stock heavily, I doubt I'll ever set up a tank that can handle six-month top-off-only periods.


----------



## ukamikazu

Silvering said:


> Actually, the appropriate response to troll behavior _is_ to stop feeding it. Before you join any more internet discussions, please Google the phrase "invincible ignorance fallacy" and refrain from using it in the future when your actual arguments run out.
> 
> In any case, the thread has been quite interesting and contained a lot of thought-provoking information. A couple questions for those of you who know a bit about the ADA system - on an established tank (whenever that occurs according to their regimen) what ferts are they dosing every day, and how often/much do they change the water? IIRC the EI (and PPS?) methods include weekly 50% water changes in perpetuity; I'd like to know what's different on that side of things between ADA and EI/PPS. NPTs don't always get regular water changes I know, but coming from the fishy side and preferring to stock heavily, I doubt I'll ever set up a tank that can handle six-month top-off-only periods.


I've been following along quietly waiting for an appropriate in. Regarding PPS/Pro, how every many water changes you wish to none at all is how it is designed. With EI, you have a superabundance of everything (pollution) requiring 50% water changes or the tank will become an algae farm and with PPS, you give the plants just enough to get through each photoperiod (famine).

While I use PPS, I really feel for Niko because you either teeter totter on either apocalyptic eutrophication or devastating famine in your glass box full of water & weeds when it comes to available fertilization regimes. I feel this is madness and must stop.

ADA who I am not a zealot for but nor am I their enemy 99% of the time, has gotten something right. If what Niko was trying to say was far too subtle then I'll be a brute and say it outright. It is what chemicals you can dump not in the tank, but in the substrate. Creating a sink, caching nutrient even carbon is the end goal of ADA and they figured out an easy way that 99.999% of the people who are interested in it can be successful with little effort. Amano-san is no botanist, true, but the man can grow algae free plants like nobody's business with little more than the basics of agriculture and aquaculture and the long, ancient traditions of Japanese gardening. Adding ferts is just the just the routine replenishment of the substrate via the water column. It's not perfect, but it's what most normal humans can handle. Amano-san is truly a wizard.

Remember, those of us who post with the goal of creating meaningful content are not normal people. We are the 1-5% that want to understand, that build our own materials, that try and propagate strange, undescribed species. We are scientists, natural philosophers and technicians. We want to know what is correct, true and most importantly humane and efficient. We are the weird ones. We are not ADA's target market.

The beautiful Colorado Basin is pretty verdant in general. Niko's gorgeous picture is another example. Yes, there are some nutrients in the water, very little when you think about it but what is in the mud and gravel is far more than you can dream of unless you start an ADA or MTS tanks. This is where we should be keeping our nutrients. One of mine and Niko's goals is to engineer a perfect substrate or near comprehensive at least that allows us to abandon all water column dosing and God willing, substrate fertilization. A rich sink beyond mere MTS that can grow plants for at least 10+ years before needing some kind of recharge and it may well be in sight.

If you are truly interested in mine and Niko's work and what we and a small number of other naturalists stand for, please direct your browsers first to http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...oliciting-input-new-way-make-mineralized.html then finally to here, http://www.aquaticplantenthusiasts.com/substrate/4256-new-recipe-procedure-mineralized-topsoil.html where the same conversation is happening at an accelerated rate to the point that substitutions and procedures are beginning to evolve.

I want to apologize for what would appear to be taking advantage of a tense moment for a little shameless self promotion and I said I wasn't going to make a splash until January but this moment of all moments looked like a door that was going to close too fast.


----------



## Michael

Niko's devotion to the Socratic method can be irritating to people who simply want to be told what to do. It irritates me sometimes, and I mostly agree with him, LOL!

The point is that there is a need for critical thinking in the hobby. My own bete noire is lighting, and ever since our club purchased a PAR meter I have been on a rant about expensive, poorly designed, and ineffective aquarium lighting. Especially when you can get better results with $30 of stuff from the hardware store than you can with a fixture that costs $150. And that is not an opinion, it is a measurable fact.

I probably irritate some people too.


----------



## ukamikazu

Michael said:


> Niko's devotion to the Socratic method can be irritating to people who simply want to be told what to do. It irritates me sometimes, and I mostly agree with him, LOL!
> 
> .....
> 
> I probably irritate some people too.


I think the adage is that you're a pearl. You ask, "Do you know how pearls are formed?" and if you're lucky the person being irritating answers no and you answer back with, "THROUGH CONSTANT IRRITATION!" usually through gritted teeth :rofl:.


----------



## Silvering

Thanks for the links, ukamikazu! I'm actually subscribed to the APC one, and finding that you've made up an Amazon list for the ingredients is great, you should go post that link on here too.  Basically, finding all the ingredients to cook up my own substrate is the daunting thing - I hate having to drive all over town, and I have no storage space at all for extra stuff. I'd love it if somebody just put together a package of everything but the humus (I'm pretty sure I can find that at Lowe's! :lol: ) and sold it in the appropriate ratios per however much humus.  While I do like "big picture" things I'm afraid I'm constantly kicking myself for not taking chemistry in college so that I would intuitively grasp what everyone goes on about fert concentrations in such technical detail. It's been too long since high school chemistry class. 

As for the Socratic method, I suppose I can't really figure out why people find it so irritating, my young and tender years were formed by endless Socratic teaching from my Dad. (Homeschooler) I quickly learned to exhaust all reference materials in my possession before going to him saying "I don't understand this", because it invariably led to a two-hour-long+ lecture on the topic in question. But I did understand it after that. Niko lets everybody off so lightly! :rofl:


----------



## digital_gods

I agree with Michael about off the shelf lamps form HD or Lowes is a very cost effective solution. I have been running spiral compacts on my small tanks up to 29 gallon. I gut the hood and add hardware from $5 flush mount ceiling lamp to convert it to incandescent fixture. This link shows spectral analysis and par ratings of the off the shelf spiral compacts from HD. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/8/aafeature


----------



## Tex Gal

Niko has said time and again that you can grow plants by several methods. His point is that many of these other methods are unstable unless we (hobbyists) step in with interventions to re-stabilize them on a regular basis. Why this is a topic for disagreement is beyond me. Any that use the systems described as unstable DO require interventions. We have to add ferts, change water, adjust photoperiods, etc. If we don't do this on the prescribed schedule we get a mess. We also know that we are going against nature by trying to grow so many different species from different locations in the same aquarium. We discuss these interventions in terms of high maintenance, high tech, high light, etc. 

Many, after time passes go to more stable tanks with fewer species, usually slow growing and less demanding plant species. All they are doing is matching the needs of the plants with what their substrate can supply. They end up with a balanced tank if they have their light period and filtration flow correct.

Many of us, including myself, can learn if we open our minds. How can we get some of the results with the more difficult, higher demanding plants using a more stable environment? We want an easy to use, tell me what to do approach. If we need to change a major way of doing things and get a similar result, isn't it at least worth considering - if not trying?


----------



## fishyjoe24

because some people want the more more more bigger bigger bigger, and want it to all be finished over night.

That's how i was, I had the 20g, then went to a 29, then a 55, then a 75, then a 120. only to find I didn't have the money to up keep with them, or the money to buy the right equipment and selling stuff off or trading it for something different.

so that lead me to getting low light plants, just to have less maintence, then I would sit there and say is it going to grow.....

now i must be crazy, because I want to grow glosso, wallichi, and incida. but i have a 10 pound c02 setup, and a 4 bulb t5 h.o. so i think I'm set.


----------



## digital_gods

Looking back at the photo of the crystal clear water, I'm pretty sure that is in a area where lime stone is present. I've been learning about water chemistry to further my understanding. When lime stone dissolves in water, it raises the pH and kH. The high alkalinity precipitate out the calcium and magnesium lowering the tds. The percipated minerals settle out clarify the water leaving the water with a low gH. This same process happens with the ground water in our area and how minerals become available to form formations in caves.


----------



## fishyjoe24

live stone raise ph and makes the water hard, the calcium plays are a part too, just look at the scum from line stone in are showers... CLR.


----------



## DaTrueDave

Tex Gal said:


> Niko has said time and again that you can grow plants by several methods. His point is that many of these other methods are unstable unless we (hobbyists) step in with interventions to re-stabilize them on a regular basis. Why this is a topic for disagreement is beyond me.


Well, then I owe Niko an apology. I only recently started following this forum again, and it seemed to me from his recent posts that he has been saying that everyone is doing it wrong unless you're doing it like Amano. Which, as you may have noticed from my posts here, rubs me the wrong way.

One of the amazing things about life as we know it is its versatility and perseverance. One of the difficulties in trying to keep such small biospheres like we do is keeping it balanced and preventing the chemicals that we introduce from swinging various parameters too wildly in one direction or the other. But, make no mistake, we *must* introduce chemicals at some point or another if we expect to maintain growth. It seems like Niko is a proponent of setting up an aquarium with an initially rich substrate and keeping "pristine" water. That's certainly one way to do it. But, again, water with no nutrients in it is not a natural thing. I think that proposing such a thing is just as crazy as advocating for regularly filling the water column with all the nutrients your plants could possibly need. They are two extremes of the need for us to provide nutrients to our plants. In the middles we see many other options in many different directions.

Me? I've just set up my 55 gallon after ten years away from this hobby. I'm not even sure what techniques I'll be using. Last time I had it set up, I was using T12 lighting and yeast CO2 and was thankful that my SAEs were so efficient at mowing the algae that I was growing. I think pressurized CO2 and efficient lighting is going to be a game changer for me, so I'll have a lot of playing around to do. So many people are having success with vastly different, even opposing techniques, so I guess I'll pick one to start out with and then tinker until I find out what works for my aquarium with my tap water and my plants and fish.


----------



## niko

*Water column fertilization:*
I'm not against water column fertilization. But it needs to be done in a different way. Read this:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...uestion-all-algae-ada-tanks-2.html#post612780

*Me pushing Amano on everybody else*
The idea that dumping chemicals in the water will make the plants grow and that will take care of everything is very naive. Want it or not all of us will agree that the aquarium is a system of different parts that interact.

What I see is that it is impossible to find a better way to run a planted tank than ADA's. No matter how you try you end up finding things that they already do. Tom Barr has done that too - his EI has adopted nothing else but ADA's AquaSoil as an even better way to run a planted tank. There is no way around Amano.

And also - we in the US really, really need to change our mindset about the way we setup and run planted tanks.

*Reason to start this thread*
Change of mindset. 
You need to start from somewhere. Explaining details bores most people. They get lost in details.
What I did with the first post in this topic is to give a striking impression of something different. Something very different from what many of us have in their house - a box with polluted water.

The thread received a good amount of attention so far. The guy that didn't even know what he didn't know actually helped the cause of this thread. So my idea of a "beautiful picture" meant to start a discussion worked pretty good.

--Nikolay


----------



## digital_gods

Preserversnce of life is amazing. Even in the most hostel of environments, you will find life. As we explore continue to understand the importance of available nutrients for our plants, let us not under estimate the importance of anaerobic conditions a.k.a. anaerobic respiration. In the harsh environment of no oxygen under the soil we find life consisting of busy bacteria reducing all the complex compounds in basic compounds that are usable to plants and the aquatic life. This my friends is the tried and true method by mother nature. I've heard the subject brought up about anaerobic conditions rotting roots. If the plant is healthy, it has a little trick to protecting its roots. The plant simply releases oxygen from its roots to create a protection barrier. 

I hope I hadn't put anyone to sleep but just wanted to shed some light on the subject.


----------



## niko

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...uestion-all-algae-ada-tanks-2.html#post613057

--Nikolay


----------



## Raihana

Wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Thank you.

Just moved here and met a member at the swap meet last Sunday, she had already talked me into joining but this sealed it! Looking forward to getting to know you all.


----------

