# Using aeration to replenish CO2 from the air?



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

Hi guys, 

I've searched this forum regarding the subject and there seems to be no consensus on it, so I'd like to raise the question again  

Here's the context. I've set up NPT tank 5 weeks ago, and it seems to be doing well so far. For the last few days, I've been measuring pH twice a day (drop tests), once before the lights go on and another time at the end of the day. The measurements show that in the morning pH is 7-7.5; at the end it is 8-8.5. I assume it happens because the CO2 gets removed from the water by the plants. The control (a bowl filled with the aquarium water) shows pH of 7.5 consistently through the day (I assume that's the pH value for the water being in equilibrium with the air on CO2). 

So my question is: would switching on the aeration somewhere in the middle of the day be beneficial for the plants as it would bring more CO2 from the air into the water? Or is it useless? Currently, I don't have any aeration in the tank, however there's a small internal filter to provide water movement without any surface agitation.


----------



## zolteeC (Dec 26, 2017)

tin-dandelion said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I've searched this forum regarding the subject and there seems to be no consensus on it, so I'd like to raise the question again
> 
> ...


Here is my line of thinking, which may or may not be correct.

Healthy NPTs contain quite a bit of organic matter (i.e in soil). Organic matter contains C. This C can be converted to CO2 as bacteria or who knows what chew on it. As your plants consume CO2 during the photosynthesis, more O2 is released to the water column. More available O2 may help some organisms to consume the organic matter faster and release CO2... so this is kind of a cyclical process to some extent.

Keep in mind, that the air-water equilibrium CO2 level is very low (for plants). Page 179 (Ecology of the Planted Aquarium) shows a chart where you see that *CO2 levels are typically higher in a healthy NPT than the equilibrium * would suggest. Therefore CO2 is "generated" in the tank. Excess water agitation may drive CO2 out of the water.

Under "normal" conditions, O2 level in a healthy NPT is reasonable for fish etc even without any aeration. If your tank were depleted in O2, then likely fish behavior would not be normal (gasping etc). Freshly submerged soil may have a higher O2 "demand", but this issue I have not seen in my tanks.

If your plants are growing OK and fish are happy, I'd not change a thing. To me the pH fluctuation you described seems to be absolutely OK.


----------



## Tsin21 (Oct 12, 2017)

Here's a a study about absorbtion & desorption of CO2 which might be related to your question: link


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

zolteeC said:


> Keep in mind, that the air-water equilibrium CO2 level is very low (for plants). Page 179 (Ecology of the Planted Aquarium) shows a chart where you see that *CO2 levels are typically higher in a healthy NPT than the equilibrium * would suggest. Therefore CO2 is "generated" in the tank. Excess water agitation may drive CO2 out of the water.


I agree that constant aeration takes the CO2 from the soil decomposition out of the tank.

But, my hypothesis is that by the end of the day the amount of CO2 in the water is none due to photosynthesis, so we are out of the equilibrium, but in the wrong direction; no mater how low the air/water equilibrium level of CO2 is, it's still non-zero CO2, which can bring us benefits in that situation.

I ran the following test: I took the water sample from the tank in the morning and I let it stay for a day in an open bottle. In the evening I measured pH in both the tank: 8.0-8.5; and the bottle: 7.5. I assume that the water in the bottle is in equilibrium with the air; the pH level suggests that the level of CO2 in the bottle is higher than in the tank. So in theory, aeration at this point would bring CO2 from the air into the tank! Am I right or am I missing something?

I don't have aeration equipment at hand, so I'm gathering opinions before I go and spend more money on presumably useless gear.


----------



## mysiak (Jan 17, 2018)

In my experience, I had better growth and occasional plants pearling with constant aeration. I came to the same conclusion - even if I "drive out CO2" in the morning, I am adding it in the afternoon and probably more importantly, keeping the same CO2 level thorough the day. I stopped doing it due to noise of air pump/venturi diffuser and splashing on my lights. With good surface agitation I have a bit slower growth and no pearling, but it means only less trimming and no need for macro fertilization. 

You might consider playing with your photo period schedule as well. With automatic dimmer you can keep light intensity below photosyntesis threshold most of the time and do the full blast for a few hours only (basically until your plants deplete CO2) and then go below the trigger level again. But for this you need to have a compatible LED light and external controller. Another option would be the "siesta" schedule, seems to be working fine as well.


----------



## mistergreen (Mar 3, 2007)

The CO2 will replenish when the lights go out.
Aeration will actually reduce the CO2 in your NPT tank. It'll make the CO2 levels to about the levels of air about 0.6ppmw while your NPT levels are naturally more than that.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

If you already use a timer to turn the lights on and off, the easiest, cheapest, and probably most effective way to get more natural CO2 available to the plants is to shut off the lights for an hour or more in the middle of the photoperiod. That stops the plants from using CO2 during that time, so the CO2 from the substrate can build up the concentration in the water. I believe that is what Ms. Walstad recommends.


----------



## tiger15 (Apr 9, 2017)

I experienced the same pH fluctuation in my npt shrimp bowl that changes from 7.2 to 8.5 at the end of sunlight period. I have no artificial light, just 4 hour window sunlight.

https://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/140873-nano-npt-bowl-5.html#post989265

The high pH is caused by photosynthesis that strips off co2 to very low level. Co2 recovery is quick once light is out, not by air exchange on the surface since my bowl has no circulation and lot of floaters, but by respiration. There are lot of micros in a npt, along with plants and shrimp inhabitants, that utilize elevated o2 for respiration activities. This large pH fluctuation is also observed in natural lake system.

I'm afraid that aeration may drive off excess o2 generated by photosynthesis, and co2 generated by respiration when light is out for use the next photo period. I believe aeration is good for plantless fish tanks, but with npt, it is not mandatory because plants play the o2 co2 exchange role.


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

hoppycalif said:


> If you already use a timer to turn the lights on and off, the easiest, cheapest, and probably most effective way to get more natural CO2 available to the plants is to shut off the lights for an hour or more in the middle of the photoperiod. That stops the plants from using CO2 during that time, so the CO2 from the substrate can build up the concentration in the water. I believe that is what Ms. Walstad recommends.


I'm already using the siesta regime 5-4-5. I haven't checked the pH levels throughout the day, I'll run this test during the weekend, it should give me a better picture of the CO2 dynamics.


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

mysiak said:


> In my experience, I had better growth and occasional plants pearling with constant aeration. I came to the same conclusion - even if I "drive out CO2" in the morning, I am adding it in the afternoon and probably more importantly, keeping the same CO2 level thorough the day. I stopped doing it due to noise of air pump/venturi diffuser and splashing on my lights. With good surface agitation I have a bit slower growth and no pearling, but it means only less trimming and no need for macro fertilization.
> 
> You might consider playing with your photo period schedule as well. With automatic dimmer you can keep light intensity below photosyntesis threshold most of the time and do the full blast for a few hours only (basically until your plants deplete CO2) and then go below the trigger level again. But for this you need to have a compatible LED light and external controller. Another option would be the "siesta" schedule, seems to be working fine as well.


That's very interesting what you're saying about your experience with plant growth and aeration. I'm not sure about running the air pump constantly - I'd like to preserve the precious CO2 building up during the night - but running it on timer at some point during the day when all the CO2 has been consumed by the plants.

I'm already using the siesta regime 5-4-5. Also, there's a natural "blast" when the sun hits the tank early in the morning (exactly at the time of max CO2 levels, I believe).


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

tiger15 said:


> I experienced the same pH fluctuation in my npt shrimp bowl that changes from 7.2 to 8.5 at the end of sunlight period. I have no artificial light, just 4 hour window sunlight.
> 
> https://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/140873-nano-npt-bowl-5.html#post989265
> 
> ...


That's a very interesting observation regarding the amount of O2. But, I wonder, is there such thing as "excess O2", meaning that O2 is above the equilibrium point? My speculation is that it can't be so, here's why.

Suppose we fill our tank with water at the beginning. The water, we assume, is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, with regards to CO2 and O2. Also, let's assume there's no gas exchange between the water and the air (that's what we're striving for, minimizing aeration and surface ripple). From now on, we're in the cycle: O2 goes down, CO2 goes up; CO2 goes down, O2 goes up. But, O2 level will never be higher than what we had initially in the water, simply because there's no source of addtional O2 other than the air! So, if that's correct, aeration will never degass O2 from the air, on the contrary it can bring more O2, because O2 is used in other processes as well (e.g. nitrification).

At this point, I almost persuaded myself that aeration *can be* beneficial for NPT, if used at the end of the daytime. I desperately need somebody to tell me where I'm wrong, 'cause I'm lazy and I don't want to install any additional gear into my nano tank!  I also hate the noise of the airpump next to my bed.


----------



## mysiak (Jan 17, 2018)

What's your target? If you want to maximize the growth of submersed plants, scheduled aeration can help. But if you are happy with current growth, fish do not gasp at the surface and you have minimum of algae, I would not bother. Fine tuning of lightning schedule (time and/or intensity) can do similar effect and is usually totally silent 

Also I would "worry" that once you maximize the amount of CO2 in the water, your limiting growth factor will be macro (and maybe even micro) nutrients and you'll need to start dosing them.. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## tiger15 (Apr 9, 2017)

tin-dandelion said:


> That's a very interesting observation regarding the amount of O2. But, I wonder, is there such thing as "excess O2", meaning that O2 is above the equilibrium point? My speculation is that it can't be so, here's why.


With plants, you can have over saturation of o2 due to photosynthesis. I think pearling can only occur when water is already saturated with o2. Pearling is formed by micro o2 bubbles not dissolve in water so in a way over saturation. In the absence of photosynthesis, aeration can achieve no more saturation of o2 or co2 equilibrium gas laws allow. Aeration will drive away co2 or o2 in the direction of lower concentration.


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

mysiak said:


> What's your target? If you want to maximize the growth of submersed plants, scheduled aeration can help. But if you are happy with current growth, fish do not gasp at the surface and you have minimum of algae, I would not bother. Fine tuning of lightning schedule (time and/or intensity) can do similar effect and is usually totally silent
> 
> Also I would "worry" that once you maximize the amount of CO2 in the water, your limiting growth factor will be macro (and maybe even micro) nutrients and you'll need to start dosing them.. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


I guess my target would be getting the maximum from the system without the addition of the pressurized CO2. If it only requires a cheap air pump, then why not? It just bogs me a bit that at some point CO2 in the tank goes to zero, but the lights are still on and they burn in vain. Concerning the plant growth, it's my first NPT tank, and I'm still getting used to the plants growing so slowly - I guess I'd like to bump it up just a little bit


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

tiger15 said:


> With plants, you can have over saturation of o2 due to photosynthesis. I think pearling can only occur when water is already saturated with o2. Pearling is formed by micro o2 bubbles not dissolve in water so in a way over saturation. In the absence of photosynthesis, aeration can achieve no more saturation of o2 or co2 equilibrium gas laws allow. Aeration will drive away co2 or o2 in the direction of lower concentration.


But, where does this excess O2 come from, if we're in a closed system? Photosynthesis only releases the O2 that previously was in the system and was bound in CO2 in respiration/oxidation process.

I don't have a lot of experience, but I've seen pearling in my tanks only when I pumped in CO2 from the pressurized system.


----------



## mistergreen (Mar 3, 2007)

Bacteria in the dirt respire CO2 as they eat organics. You'd see CO2 bubbles escape the substrate once in a while.

If the bubbles stink, it's H2S instead of CO2.


----------



## zolteeC (Dec 26, 2017)

tin-dandelion said:


> But, where does this excess O2 come from, if we're in a closed system? Photosynthesis only releases the O2 that previously was in the system and was bound in CO2 in respiration/oxidation process.


O2 also enters from the air, so it is not a closed system.










Details here:

https://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/dissolved-oxygen/

As the chart shows there is quite a bit of temperature dependency. When (fresh)water is fully saturated with O2 then it is holding ~8 mg/L at 24C. 
Now compare this to CO2 air-water equilibrium which is only ~~0.5 mg/L at 24C.

Since your fish are not gasping, that indicates that there is likely reasonable O2 level for their survival (>2 mg/l, but this depends on the species. For example trout DO need is quite high).

I have an outdoor NPT tank which gets direct sunlight. Plants are pearling every day. I guess the conditions are right for organisms to produce enough CO2 (warm temperature, fresh soil, etc). This tank is not old, in fact winter pretty much kills it every year and I have to replant at spring.

I am not sure if it's worth chasing excess plant growth with NPT. If that's the goal, then you are probably better off to use pressurized CO2.
NPTs are more like a great way to keep fish and plants in the long run in a stable environment with relatively low maintenance. Nevertheless, NPTs are really not that slow, my new tanks are usually "grown in" in (2-)3-4 months. Not too bad.

Also, I guess if you try to "push" an NPT to higher growth rate, then you may just risk unexpected crashes or it just wont last for a very long time.


----------



## Gerald (Mar 24, 2008)

Some (most?) rooted plants can also uptake CO2 through their roots, so even when there's virtually no measurable CO2 left in the water, bacteria in the substrate may still be providing it to the plants' roots. That all depends on how much organic gunk is decaying down under the sand/gravel. If there's not many animals in the tank to eat and poop, then yes the CO2 in the substrate might be in short supply. 

Fish food and poop are adding organic carbon into the substrate, bacteria convert that to CO2, and photosynthesis creates O2 out of CO2 and H20. So yes, theres IS another source of O2 besides air diffusion. But any super-saturation of O2 would be only very slightly above the air-equilibrium concentration; certainly not enough to harm any aquatic life. An aquarium is not deep enough to cause serious super-saturation. Great thread!


----------



## kafkabeetle (Oct 11, 2011)

I feel like there are different philosophies for fishkeeping and you're using a high tech attitude to judge a low tech tank. If that's what you want there's no harm in just converting it to high tech. But additional aeration or no, you're not going to get CO2-injecting-high-light-heavy-fertilizer growth levels out of an el natural tank. That's not how it works and it's not what it's for. I say if you like it silent, leave things as they are and take up meditation or something haha

You said in another thread that you wanted lower maintenance...one day when you're really busy and this tank isn't so much in the forefront of your mind, I think you'll be glad you went with a slow and steady approach that doesn't require so much of your attention to function properly.


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

Thanks guys for the great discussion, lots of things to reason about. 

I agree that I'm probably trying to micro-optimize the things that ain't broken and instead I should just relax, enjoy and let the nature do its job. I guess I'm coming close to answering the question I asked in another thread "What to expect from NPT": 

1) Don't mess up with things that aren't broken;
2) Have patience;
3) Enjoy the process. 

And yes, keeping the hands off the tank is probably the biggest challenge so far


----------



## zolteeC (Dec 26, 2017)

tin-dandelion said:


> And yes, keeping the hands off the tank is probably the biggest challenge so far


If all goes OK with your tank, then this will stay pretty much the same. Usually no need to mess around too much.
Maybe NPTs are not the best choice for you? 
Have you considered setting up a high tech tank and maintain it using the Estimative Index approach with daily carbo dosing? This can achieve higher growth rate than an average NPT. Messing around all the time and making your own liquid ferts also has it's beauty.


----------



## tin-dandelion (Jul 13, 2018)

zolteeC said:


> If all goes OK with your tank, then this will stay pretty much the same. Usually no need to mess around too much.
> Maybe NPTs are not the best choice for you?
> Have you considered setting up a high tech tank and maintain it using the Estimative Index approach with daily carbo dosing? This can achieve higher growth rate than an average NPT. Messing around all the time and making your own liquid ferts also has it's beauty.


Oh no, I like the idea of NPT. I actually view it as an opportunity for _myself_ to grow as a person: not rushing, letting go of control, sticking to the process for longer time without losing the motivation. This is important. It has been shown that nowadays we are so much driven by instant gratification that it harms our abilities to stick to the long-term things in life, like saving money, building careers and relationships, etc. But, it has also been shown that this skill, commonly known as grit, can be learned and strengthened, when it's practiced consciously on a regular basis.

So, I view NPT as a great learning opportunity to strengthen my grit. However, I reserve the right to start pumping in CO2 and go full-on EI in the future 

Sorry for the digression, guys.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Oct 11, 2011)

That's a good thing to work on though I can be difficult. I really appreciate the long term stability of NPTs. I used to dose Excell and nutrients in the past before I read Ecology of the Planted Aquarium and I would always be worrying if I forgot something or what I was going to do if I went out of town...would the person taking care of the tank misunderstand my instructions? Or would it be better to leave it unattended and deal with the aftermath of a routine change? And I lost a lot of fish to newbie reasons that I feel better (more consistent) plant growth might have buffered. Growth was erratic because my life was erratic (I was in college). Plants would take off for a while, while I kept up a good routine but then they'd crash either because they needed pruning and were choking each other out before I had time to prune...or because I skipped dosing, etc etc

Now I feel fairly confident everything could run without me for any odd week where I needed to be away and I'd come home with nothing more than hungrier than normal fish and shrimp. That's a good feeling.


----------



## tiger15 (Apr 9, 2017)

The stability of npt tank is not indefinite. Dirt is the reservoir for nutrients and carbon source, which will eventually be exhausted. Rarely fish food and tap water can replace all nutrients, specially potassium and carbon. So you will need to replace the dirt or start dosing at some point. Aeration is not necessary if you have high plant mass and low bioload, as plants can recycle o2 and co2. With high bioload relative to plant mass, there may not be sufficient o2 production to carry on over night and the fish will suffer, and aeration is a necessary life support.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Oct 11, 2011)

tiger15 said:


> The stability of npt tank is not indefinite.


May I ask who suggested the stability of ANY system could exist indefinitely? Lol


----------



## DutchMuch (Apr 12, 2017)

kafkabeetle said:


> May I ask who suggested the stability of ANY system could exist indefinitely? Lol


lol


----------



## Gerald (Mar 24, 2008)

Why can't fish food provide all the carbon and nutrients, assuming there's enough fish and inverts in the tank? What nutrients do plants need that aren't present in sufficient quantities in fish food ?

Tin-Dan - I like your digression in post #22. I also like to understand the biological and physical mechanisms going on in my tanks, regardless of whether or not there's a problem that needs fixing.


----------



## mistergreen (Mar 3, 2007)

Fish poop/food can indeed sustain plants. I can show you my bog filter garden in my pond. We're talking about pounds and pounds of plants, not some dinky ounces in aquariums.


----------



## tiger15 (Apr 9, 2017)

mistergreen said:


> Fish poop/food can indeed sustain plants. I can show you my bog filter garden in my pond. We're talking about pounds and pounds of plants, not some dinky ounces in aquariums.


Pond condition is different from glass box aquarium. Many pond plants have emerged growth that can take co2 directly from the atmosphere. With massive plant growth in ponds, there is continuous replenishment of humus from fallen leaves and dead plants that furnish carbon and other nutrients. NPT tanks use dirt substrate that contains humus that will give a quick start, but eventually will. be exhausted. Fish food is rich in nitrogen and phosphate, but not much carbon, and likely deficient in potassium and other micro nutrients, unless you are the lucky few to have tap waiter rich in other missing nutrients. Another consideration is that plant food may be rich in iron, but not chelated iron plants can uptake.

Indefinite sustainability means long term, not something you have to replace in one or few years, or the need to dose like high tech tank.


----------



## DutchMuch (Apr 12, 2017)

tiger15 said:


> Pond condition is different from glass box aquarium.


correct, pond conditions is usually better w/ avrg amounts of bio load, and substrate (substrate being inert in my case). In my 3500g pond I have a few huge goldfish and a built in bog w/ waterfall. I have grown "aquarium" plants (or in my case higher end plants used in aquascaping) in it for over a year now. I have never seen my ludwigia arcuata turn so red in my life, I cant even achieve that red in my own tanks its rediculasly beautiful.
*To flat answer the whole conversation though:
every aquascape eventually will need a type of dosing. The time range for this however will range Greatly. *


----------



## kafkabeetle (Oct 11, 2011)

Well I haven't dosed my main tank since it was started 3 years ago and it's still going strong. There are emergent plants...that's not only a pond thing and is something Diana suggests using in her book for exactly the reason you are stating. If I someday need to dose to keep it going I will but that's not really a valid criticism of the method...it would still be less work overall and more stable without interference than dosing constantly from start to finish. 

Honestly I don't think I'm understanding the point you're trying to make.


----------



## mistergreen (Mar 3, 2007)

tiger15 said:


> Pond condition is different from glass box aquarium.


I mean purely from a nutrient perspective.

If you also mean Carbon, then feed carbon too, vegetable matter. Some fish are omnivores. No fish is really herbivores completely. This ecosystem is like a compost. You have to feed Nitrogens and Carbons.

My bog filter plants really took off when I made my own goldfish food. I added more vegetables, and seaweed; packed full of micros and K.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Oct 11, 2011)

I'm also getting the sense that you haven't read Ecology og the Planted Aquarium...see the attached photo taken from my copy. Nearly everything gets recycled in my aquariums because I do not gravel vac and only trim dead plants when they are unsightly.


----------



## DutchMuch (Apr 12, 2017)

kafkabeetle said:


> Well I haven't dosed my main tank since it was started 3 years ago and it's still going strong. There are emergent plants...that's not only a pond thing and is something Diana suggests using in her book for exactly the reason you are stating. If I someday need to dose to keep it going I will but that's not really a valid criticism of the method...it would still be less work overall and more stable without interference than dosing constantly from start to finish.
> 
> Honestly I don't think I'm understanding the point you're trying to make.


sorry I didnt know if you were addressing me or not or partly or wot LOL so my mistake if I reply incorrectly or out of context :fear:
3 years isnt to long especially with the NPT method of things. I just meant that in the LONG run eventually dosing (something weather its plant MATTER [leaves for ex] or more dirt, just examples here, or even actual dosing of nutrients from liquid or dry form) will have to be done, only time can tell when tbh. I couldn't give you any "guidelines" on how long it would take cause NPT's themselves are hard to predict just because of the name Lol. 
In a NPT I def. wouldn't recommend dosing start -> finish or else youd be hella messed up.


----------



## DutchMuch (Apr 12, 2017)

mistergreen said:


> My bog filter plants really took off when I made my own goldfish food. I added more vegetables, and seaweed; packed full of micros and K.


Woah that sounds cool, I smell another thread giving us the secret recipe


----------



## kafkabeetle (Oct 11, 2011)

QUOTE=DutchMuch;989459]


kafkabeetle said:


> Well I haven't dosed my main tank since it was started 3 years ago and it's still going strong. There are emergent plants...that's not only a pond thing and is something Diana suggests using in her book for exactly the reason you are stating. If I someday need to dose to keep it going I will but that's not really a valid criticism of the method...it would still be less work overall and more stable without interference than dosing constantly from start to finish.
> 
> Honestly I don't think I'm understanding the point you're trying to make.


sorry I didnt know if you were addressing me or not or partly or wot LOL so my mistake if I reply incorrectly or out of context








3 years isnt to long especially with the NPT method of things. I just meant that in the LONG run eventually dosing (something weather its plant MATTER [leaves for ex] or more dirt, just examples here, or even actual dosing of nutrients from liquid or dry form) will have to be done, only time can tell when tbh. I couldn't give you any "guidelines" on how long it would take cause NPT's themselves are hard to predict just because of the name Lol. 
In a NPT I def. wouldn't recommend dosing start -> finish or else youd be hella messed up.[/QUOTE]

I was addressing tiger making all kinds of pronouncements about what must be true for all NPTs.

But to reply to you, sounds like you would count fish food as dosing in the loose definition you're using, in which case most people dose start to finish. In Ecology of the Planted Aquarium she specifically states that fish food is replacing those nutrients the soil does not and those which are used up over time. Also that over cleaning is part of what causes deficinecies. There are many charts in her nutrients chapter showing exactly what specific plants require and exactly what certain samples of food contain. We're talking about "food" here like it's one thing and somehow incapable of supplying all nutrients regardless of what you feed and I find that asinine. The sweeping statements are honestly killing me.


----------



## mistergreen (Mar 3, 2007)

DutchMuch said:


> Woah that sounds cool, I smell another thread giving us the secret recipe


It's not much of a secret  
I follow Repashy's recipe although I don't see an issue with wheat when you add whole wheat.


----------



## DutchMuch (Apr 12, 2017)

> I was addressing tiger making all kinds of pronouncements about what must be true for all NPTs.


oh kk :3 ty for clarification



> But to reply to you, sounds like you would count fish food as dosing in the loose definition you're using, in which case most people dose start to finish. In Ecology of the Planted Aquarium she specifically states that fish food is replacing those nutrients the soil does not and those which are used up over time. Also that over cleaning is part of what causes deficinecies. There are many charts in her nutrients chapter showing exactly what specific plants require and exactly what certain samples of food contain. We're talking about "food" here like it's one thing and somehow incapable of supplying all nutrients regardless of what you feed and I find that asinine. The sweeping statements are honestly killing me.


I wouldn't count fish food necessarily as a dosing method, even though it technically IS, but in this case I wouldn't since you have fish and your using it specifically for the fish, and it has excess benefits. Idk tbh that would have to go deeper into scientific stuff to get a proper definition on weather that'd be considered dosing or not.

To clear my point out so maybe its easier to understand, what I mean was if I (just for an example) did a NPT outside- or inside, whatever, and had fish, didnt feed the fish or even without fish and I still fed or didnt feed, eventually everything would die from one cause or another or just due to OTS.

Closed environments are just like that for the most part, then you have terrariums which can in fact live reliably by themselves for a VERY long time.

But thats a dif. topic lmao

_*" In Ecology of the Planted Aquarium she specifically states that fish food is replacing those nutrients the soil does not and those which are used up over time."

*_Specifically nitrogen in the form of ammonia (to much of which can be toxic to fish and other inhabitants) alone with phosphorus and potassium. Which isnt ALL the necessary nutrients plants intake, eventually leading to deficiencies. Soil however will last (depending on what you use) for around a year or two, depending on the amounts, type, mix, etc. So that varies very much.
_
*"Also that over cleaning is part of what causes deficinecies."*_
Depends on what type of cleaning, only cleaning I do in any of my tanks is scrubbing algae off the glass which I do about once a month or month 1/2. Which in this case, would not cause a deficiency.

_*" somehow incapable of supplying all nutrients regardless of what you feed and I find that asinine."
*_if this were true then everyone wouldn't be spending $ on fertilizers, and instead would only be buying fish food brands.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Just to get my 2 cents worth in this: There are several ways to maintain a planted aquarium, but Diana Walstad's is unique, in that she advocates letting nature take care of much of what we try to take care of with higher light aquariums. It is also unique in that she carefully backs up her recommendations with science, including her own experimenting. This doesn't mean her method is the best possible method, nor does it mean all of her recommendations will work with high light aquariums. If you like growing plants that just won't grow unless you provide high light, extra carbon dioxide and unlimited dosages of all of the necessary nutrients, you won't be able to do that with her method.

I have always believed that you have to adopt the complete list of recommendations to be successful with a Walstad type aquarium. And, you have to adopt all of the recommendations of someone like Tom Barr if you want to duplicate his successes with high light tanks. They just aren't mix and match systems. What they are, are two methods that are well proven to work very well when you adopt the whole system.

Some people, like me, enjoy experimenting for their own enjoyment, and reporting on anything they have learned by doing so. I see nothing wrong with that either (or I wouldn't do it.)


----------



## kafkabeetle (Oct 11, 2011)

DutchMuch said:


> > I was addressing tiger making all kinds of pronouncements about what must be true for all NPTs.
> 
> 
> oh kk :3 ty for clarification
> ...


You're out of your depth on this. Hoppy explained it well. It's not just nitrogen, there are charts and pages and pages of references in her book. I honestly think anyone who hasn't read her book has no business commenting on the matter. She backs it all up very well and I reference her book often. I recommend that to anyone new btw, rather than taking advice primarily from forums because of precisely what is happening in this thread. People talking about different things making pronouncements without understanding each other's goals. I crashed several aquariums by taking advice on forums when I was new...meddling too much, doing what people following different methods told me was right because they spoke with confidence, making blanket statements that we're not true for the method I was following. *This behavior does harm*


----------



## DutchMuch (Apr 12, 2017)

was just giving my opinion along with facts, nothing to get heated over. To the hobby 4 the hobby, reason forums are here.
If you could quote specific statements I made and correct me, maybe I would have a better understanding on what your argument is.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Mar 5, 2015)

I've read the "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium" several times.
A good book but does not fit into my scope of nosebleed CO2, abundant fert dosing, and PAR levels over 100+ @ the soil capped substrate. [smilie=b:

It would be very unfair for me to voice my opinion here since it's not my "type" of planted tank.

It may work for some but I cannot fathom how considering what can "feed" algae in the tanks that I maintain.

Vaughn's reply was good indeed. Thanks @hoppycalif !


----------

