# And now for something completely different.



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Here's one of my tanks that's certain to get my hi-tech buddy's panties in a twist. It's a 45 gallon tall with Swords, a couple different Anubias and some Ludwigia Repens. The floaters are Duckweed and Frogbit.










I did some pruning before taking that picture. It came to a little over 1/2 pound. That much comes out about every two months.










Originally it was set up as hi-tech but I haven't the lifestyle for such regular time commitments. As evidence, this tank hasn't had a water change in about a year. The only thing that goes into it is light, fish food and makeup water. The light is on a timer, the flake is dispersed by an automatic feeder and the water... well... I have to do something, right? The fish don't mind; some are at least three years old.

After abandoning hi-tech, instead of taking it down to swap in some soil, this tank still has a gravel substrate. The lack of soil nutrition has been hard on the swords. I tried inserting frozen mud cubes but that only worked for a little while. A few months back I thought the swords were gonners but it looks like mulm is helping them stage a comeback. The other plants don't mind the neglect. See picture above. 

Thanks for watching!
Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Well since I was one of the ones who wanted to see this...

In my mind this is what good low tech should look like, and what it's capable of. This is a nice tank, it's low maintenance, and it works. I have a tank in about the same conditions (though smaller; 10 gal) with good growth and minimal algae, but the water changes are more frequent for the sake of fry. Dosing happens maybe once or twice a week since the water changes are frequent, and it takes me less time than feeding does.

Still, it's not showing the range of difficult plant species that many of us have come to appreciate, and thus far have not been able to keep very well without CO2. Show me some HC and P. helferi under those conditions; that'll twist my panties. 

I'll bet some of that algae, especially the BBA would disappear with some CO2; it wouldn't have to be that high either. You'd probably have healthier growth down low given that the plants don't have to put in all the effort of manufacturing everything that goes along with it.

Perhaps we have different views on what high tech is. I don't see high tech necessitating high light, but rather high tech as a requirement of good high light growth. High tech with low light will net some amazing results; it's been shown over and over again.

-Philosophos


----------



## bratyboy2 (Feb 5, 2008)

very nice and that coming from a person that loves el natural tanks.hell i got high tech plants in mine so boo yah peeps! lol nice work bud


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Well since I was one of the ones who wanted to see this...
> 
> In my mind this is what good low tech should look like, and what it's capable of. This is a nice tank, it's low maintenance, and it works.


Thanks! 



> I have a tank in about the same conditions (though smaller; 10 gal) with good growth and minimal algae, but the water changes are more frequent for the sake of fry. Dosing happens maybe once or twice a week since the water changes are frequent, and it takes me less time than feeding does.


I haven't had any problems with fry except when the parents eat them. 



> Still, it's not showing the range of difficult plant species that many of us have come to appreciate, and thus far have not been able to keep very well without CO2. Show me some HC and P. helferi under those conditions; that'll twist my panties.


OK, I'll do that. But I didn't know you needed to pump CO2 to get those plants to grow?



> I'll bet some of that algae, especially the BBA would disappear with some CO2; it wouldn't have to be that high either. You'd probably have healthier growth down low given that the plants don't have to put in all the effort of manufacturing everything that goes along with it.


Actually, the worst algae this tank has ever seen was during CO2 injection. That was a couple years ago and you can still see some of the scarring on the older leaves.

I agree that some extra CO2 would help exhaust some of the nutrients floating about the tank, and hasten the coming of nutrient depletion, but I doubt it will encourage plants to "slough" off an epidermis. Wasn't that your hypothesis? I like mine better. Every leaf I've ever seen only grew to a certain point and then stopped. Plus, I've looked at dozens of leaf/alga interfaces under the microscope and there has never been any indication outer cells are separating from the leaf. If sloughing were commonplace, then older leaves would look as young as young leaves, and I've never seen that either.

Besides, when all you add to a tank is makeup water, light and fish food, it's ridiculously easy to control algae. Makeup water isn't easily restricted but the other two can be manipulated without harm to the ecosystem. See some algae, reduce the feeder outlay by one click. If that doesn't work, remove one of the two light bulbs.



> Perhaps we have different views on what high tech is. I don't see high tech necessitating high light, but rather high tech as a requirement of good high light growth. High tech with low light will net some amazing results; it's been shown over and over again.
> 
> -Philosophos


CO2 infusion, dosing and 2+ watts per gallon are usually the criteria I use for identifying "hi-tech".

Thanks again for the nice comments, and you, too, Bratyboy!

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> I haven't had any problems with fry except when the parents eat them.


In my case it's apisto fry; they're a little on the sensitive side. Growth definitely slows when the water isn't kept relatively clean.



> OK, I'll do that. But I didn't know you needed to pump CO2 to get those plants to grow?


Well it's that or you can simulate the shallow few inches of a flowing river in your tank, full with high flow and churning water. Holger Windelov found it under those conditions in Cuba. This is a hard condition to recreate; CO2 is far easier. Perhaps there is a simpler way to keep these plants under healthy conditions. I would love to see it, I think it would open the hobby up to entirely new possibilities and that we'd see growth because of reduced costs and difficulty. Unfortunately I haven't seen that yet. I think as we slowly "get their" we find new, more difficult species and goals to set up within the hobby. If this weren't so, I'm fairly sure we would've stopped back at the first guy to successfully keep a weed they found in a pond.



> Actually, the worst algae this tank has ever seen was during CO2 injection. That was a couple years ago and you can still see some of the scarring on the older leaves.


It doesn't appear to be the same case for everyone, certainly not the more famous tanks in the hobby. The question is more whether you want to learn how to use it well, rather than whether it works. It's a matter of personal goals and values.



> I agree that some extra CO2 would help exhaust some of the nutrients floating about the tank, and hasten the coming of nutrient depletion,


Once or twice a week dosing on a tank like that would probably solve the problem. It takes me less effort than feeding. At the same time you'd have healthier plants without risking any fish gassing when the light demands are so low.



> but I doubt it will encourage plants to "slough" off an epidermis. Wasn't that your hypothesis?


Yes, I've consistently noticed leaf loss when CO2 distribution to the bottom of a stand of plants is poor. After increasing CO2 levels, the leaves are definitely not as perfect as higher up, but they're greatly improved. I've done it repeatedly with different species.



> I like mine better. Every leaf I've ever seen only grew to a certain point and then stopped. Plus, I've looked at dozens of leaf/alga interfaces under the microscope and there has never been any indication outer cells are separating from the leaf. If sloughing were commonplace, then older leaves would look as young as young leaves, and I've never seen that either.


I don't see your concept as mutually exclusive to what I'm saying really. I definitely agree that plants will shed off their old growth first, or it will deteriorate sooner. At the same time, adding CO2 seems to slow the process in every observation I've made. Why would this be so if CO2 increases a plants speed of growth? It's one I'd invite everyone to try who's curious.



> Besides, when all you add to a tank is makeup water, light and fish food, it's ridiculously easy to control algae. Makeup water isn't easily restricted but the other two can be manipulated without harm to the ecosystem. See some algae, reduce the feeder outlay by one click. If that doesn't work, remove one of the two light bulbs.


Yup, low light systems provide very good algae control for very little effort. On the other hand, my 2.5wpg high tech doesn't have algae issues either. A magfloat every month or two and a little trimming of old growth on the weekends is it. In return, I get a quickly responsive tank to experiment with, I also have extra growth that has helped me fund my hobby.



> CO2 infusion, dosing and 2+ watts per gallon are usually the criteria I use for identifying "hi-tech".


I'm honestly not sure where the line sits in the hobby anymore. I have a used beta tank with ADA aquasoil in it, 10wpg, and no CO2. It grows algae, but it's so small that it's not hard to clean. I'm not sure what to call that. The same goes for 1.5wpg CO2 injected, auto-dosed, auto-feeder systems with digital thermometers and alarms meant for lazy geeks.

What I've stopped being big on is purist methods, or exclusivity. I don't see cheap, low maintenance tanks winning competitions and I find they have their limits in my own attempts. I can't say that the level of dedication required to a tank of this sort has a place in most hobbyists lives either. Cutting edge tanks are about controlling growth and taking the time to carefully orchestrate details; I think they contradict the very concept of low maintenance in their essence.

I don't think any one style will dominate so long as hobbyists have different goals, and different definitions of success. Perhaps one day there will be one system that grows every species of plant in the correct growth conditions and the same tank. Perhaps we will have post modern tanks scaped out of nuisance algae declaring that planted tanks have found the limits of their expression. For now, What I do like to look at is whether a method or system seems rational, and achieves what it sets out to accomplish.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Yes, I've consistently noticed leaf loss when CO2 distribution to the bottom of a stand of plants is poor. After increasing CO2 levels, the leaves are definitely not as perfect as higher up, but they're greatly improved. I've done it repeatedly with different species.


I'm still confused about what you're trying to convey. I thought you said in the other thread the reason CO2 injection limits algae is due to the actual leaf sloughing off outer cells.



> If I were bothered for conjecture, I would say that perhaps aquatic plants retain a bit of a cuticle under water and that sheds, or perhaps part of the upper epidermis sloughs off slowly. Both would provide metabolism-based reasons for plants to resist algae. As it is, I lake the equipment to test any of these ideas.


Now, in this thread, it looks like you're saying it prevents whole leaf loss? For all our discussion on the subject, I still don't understand exactly what you mean and mostly: how CO2 limits algae? Nor have you addressed my theory that CO2 _appears_ to limit algae by hastening growth and the depletion of essential nutrients from the water column.

I know I sound like a broken record, but this forum is called "El Natural" and although you might see a blurring of the lines between hi-tech and low-tech, I think I speak for most of us in saying that injecting CO2 is hi-tech. While you're perfectly within your rights to advocate anything you want, I'm reasonably sure you want this cleared up as much as I, and spreading myth without understanding is not your intention.

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> I'm still confused about what you're trying to convey. I thought you said in the other thread the reason CO2 injection limits algae is due to the actual leaf sloughing off outer cells.
> 
> Now, in this thread, it looks like you're saying it prevents whole leaf loss? For all our discussion on the subject, I still don't understand exactly what you mean and mostly: how CO2 limits algae? Nor have you addressed my theory that CO2 _appears_ to limit algae by hastening growth and the depletion of essential nutrients from the water column.


There's been a complete miscommunication as to the subject, and I didn't quite get some of what you meant. I'm understanding you now for the most part, so I'll start again.

It's not that compressed CO2 limits algae in and of its self, or that it's necessary to have algae under control. I do find that it makes certain goals easier to accomplish though; high light for faster growth when desired, more light to add extra fixtures for better spread, and so on. All of this is relying on the concept of non-limiting nutrients, and light as a limiting factor for plant growth. Leibigs law and such; basic stuff.

Now, you're talking about column limitation. I'm wondering where you got the idea that limiting column nutrients causes algae in the first place. This is not a theory that I've seen any good support for within the hobby outside of ADA tanks using the method without saying why. At the same time, I haven't seen it work effectively either. I'd comment on the science behind the concept, but ADA hasn't presented any.

On the other hand, myself and many others have no algae problems with 20+ppm NO3 and K+, 1-5ppm PO4, .5ppm Fe, tons of calcium and magnesium, and so on. The existence of these tanks with such high nutrient levels and a lack of algae problems shows that nutrients in the column isn't a problem. I have dosed low tech tanks at full EI levels without inducing excess algae growth. Tom Barr has done it using better methods than most of us will ever be capable of using.

Now, despite this, I'm not saying good sediment doesn't help. I advocate good substrate very heavily for the obvious reasons. I just don't limit the column.

So with this point clarified, I will say that nonlimiting nutrients in soil an substrate don't induce algae, but they do increase plant growth, especially when carbon is satisfied. If light levels are low, the necessity for compressed CO2 disappears. At the same time, many of us can't reach our goals under these conditions. I don't believe in plants that demand "high light" as we understand it in the hobby; I've only seen evidence for high CO2 demanding plants, and their natural habitat usually reveals something about the reason for this requirement. I do believe in high light growth forms, and getting good spread for the health of the plant, which usually means more light.

As for CO2 directly combating algae, I don't see it happening. I don't think it's some magical algaecide. I don't think there is a confirmed reason as to why nonlimiting nutrient conditions prevent algae, but the occurrence of it has been thoroughly tested in labs and in homes well enough to show that it happens. Adding CO2 happens to aid in maintaining these levels; nothing more. Naturally this does not mean that nonlimiting nutrients creates good plant growth 100% of the time, or that creating good plant growth necessarily combats algae effectively every time. NH4 is a great example of a chemical that will give nonlimiting nitrogen while growing algae quite nicely.

I'm not saying plants slough off the entire outer part of their leaf, or the entire leaf to prevent algae either. I'm saying that slow natural shedding of cells on the leaf as it grows happens faster under better growth, and is directly related to nonlimiting carbon levels, which is best accomplished through CO2. This is a maybe, not a firm answer.

I see localized allelopathy as another possibility; this would be at the leaf, not throughout the entire column (see Allelopathy - Chemical Warfare Between Aquatic Plants by Dr. Ole Pedersen for the refutation there). The concept would be that excretion locally within the barrier level of the leaf, and the space between the leaf and the algae, would provide toxic levels in a small area strong enough to prevent algae. Again, this is something theorized by myself and in some reading I've done, but is not strenuously tested. I would not pass this off as the answer.

Another possibility is the control of algae spore germination signaling, making algae control very independent of actual plant health but with possibly correlating conditions. This is a concept that I'm less familiar with, though the current favorite of Tom Barr from what I understand. It's one I'm keeping an eye out for.

I don't think any of these concepts are mutually exclusive either. Any number of them may or may not be true.



> I know I sound like a broken record, but this forum is called "El Natural" and although you might see a blurring of the lines between hi-tech and low-tech, I think I speak for most of us in saying that injecting CO2 is hi-tech. While you're perfectly within your rights to advocate anything you want, I'm reasonably sure you want this cleared up as much as I, and spreading myth without understanding is not your intention.


I think the consensus is that CO2 means high tech, but I don't believe in argumentum ad popularums. I use the term as a reference, but I've seen exceptions to any set of rules that I can outline. If anything I see it contributing more to petty group dinamics than to detailed critique of methodology with any sort of attempt at neutrality. What I find in their vocabulary is a self perceived technophilia/technophobia being arbitrarily set, often at the point of injected CO2. This is something that I'm sure we can all chuckle about when "high tech" decides to give natural sediment a try and "low tech" decides to take a sample to the lab. For that matter, in life on the whole, is paintball high or low tech? Do we limit our tank stocking budget to the cost of a CO2 regulator?

-Philosophos


----------



## f1ea (Jul 7, 2009)

Great tank Jim. I like that it doesnt 'try' to look like a high tech tank.
Very healthy plant growth and even better how low maintenance it is... great Ludwigia and Swords; swords have only done well for me on natural tanks, everywhere else they struggle.

Nice discussion too!


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

f1ea said:


> Great tank Jim. I like that it doesnt 'try' to look like a high tech tank.
> Very healthy plant growth and even better how low maintenance it is... great Ludwigia and Swords; swords have only done well for me on natural tanks, everywhere else they struggle.
> 
> Nice discussion too!


Thanks! I struggled for years to grow plants in my fish tanks. It wasn't until getting Diana's book that I started to understand what I was doing wrong.

Jim


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Phil,

Localized allelopathy seems fantastic to me. It would require the plant cell to detect the attachment of the alga on the outer cell wall and then bore a hole into the the anchoring algae cell to inject the toxin. I've never heard of any cell, plant or animal which has this capability. 

Then, for the toxin to poison the rest of the algae filament, it would require an active transport mechanism from the anchoring algae cell to the rest of the cells down the line. Since algae filaments are only one cell thick, this is equally fantastic. Even if we assume there is some sort of diffusion between algae cells, permeation would be slow and hair/beard algae would appear to have white roots as it starts to fade. I've never seen this. 

As to the slouphing off of young plant cells, I can't find anything on the net or in any of my literature to suggest plants have this capability. From what I know and what I can research, plant leaves grow to a certain size and then stop. No further cell division takes place. 

Finally, spore creation would be exascerbated by CO2 injection since algae feed on CO2. If someone wanted to reduce spore production, the last thing you would do is add something to the water to help the algae grow. If you didn't add CO2, you might be able reduce spore concentration through heavy water changing. Given how short are some algae reproductive cycles, I suspect no one changes their water that often. 

You still haven't addressed my theory that CO2 injection hastens the depletion of a limiting essential nutrient which gives appearance that it's hurting the algae.

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> It would require the plant cell to detect the attachment of the alga on the outer cell wall and then bore a hole into the the anchoring algae cell to inject the toxin


Why would it require this? Other chemical toxins don't.



Dustymac said:


> I've never heard of any cell, plant or animal which has this capability


Viruses do it all the time. You'll find ID proponents trying to use it as irreducible complexity while simultaneously ignoring flagellum. That's besides the point, though.



Dustymac said:


> Then, for the toxin to poison the rest of the algae filament, it would require an active transport mechanism from the anchoring algae cell to the rest of the cells down the line.


Why? Wouldn't detachment be enough to remove the algae from the plant?



Dustymac said:


> Even if we assume there is some sort of diffusion between algae cells, permeation would be slow and hair/beard algae would appear to have white roots as it starts to fade. I've never seen this.


I'd assume you'd need a microscope to observe the death of a couple of cells. I'm not speaking of long strands of algae here; I don't see plants recovering from that. This is about establishment on what would be a microscopic level.



Dustymac said:


> As to the slouphing off of young plant cells, I can't find anything on the net or in any of my literature to suggest plants have this capability. From what I know and what I can research, plant leaves grow to a certain size and then stop. No further cell division takes place.


What I'm referring to here is the fine cuticle that exists on submerged macrophytes; not the upper epidermis. Submerged plants have a reduced cuticle, but it is definitely still there.



Dustymac said:


> Finally, spore creation would be exascerbated by CO2 injection since algae feed on CO2. If someone wanted to reduce spore production, the last thing you would do is add something to the water to help the algae grow. If you didn't add CO2, you might be able reduce spore concentration through heavy water changing. Given how short are some algae reproductive cycles, I suspect no one changes their water that often.


Algae require far less CO2 than SAM's. If algae growth is not favorable when SAM's are under optimal conditions, especially ones that push for surface space to reduce light underneath. It may be possible that many species of algae has evolved when CO2 levels are low and NH4 levels high simply because it is a point that frequently correlates with macrophyte decline.



> You still haven't addressed my theory that CO2 injection hastens the depletion of a limiting essential nutrient which gives appearance that it's hurting the algae.


The fact that EI dosed tanks test out at nonlimiting levels of nutrients constantly without inducing algae is very strong evidence for this. I pointed it out in my last post. Algae is not rampant in many tanks where Sears-Conlin dosing exists with PO4 added back in, and non-limiting CO2.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Why would it require this? Other chemical toxins don't.


If you rule out secretion into the tank water, how else is the toxin supposed to poison the algae cell? Teleportation? 



> Viruses do it all the time. You'll find ID proponents trying to use it as irreducible complexity while simultaneously ignoring flagellum. That's besides the point, though.


Richard Dawkins aside, you realize the difference in scale between plant cells and virii? Or are you suggesting plant cells foster their own algae-attacking viruses which overcome algae defenses? Evidence please.



> Why? Wouldn't detachment be enough to remove the algae from the plant?


That's not the way algae dies. Hair/thread algaes discolor when they spill their chloroplasts but maintain structural integrity, going through a pale phase before breaking up. Besides, I've seen millions of algae hairs but can't remember one instance of noticing them floating un-tethered about the tank.



> I'd assume you'd need a microscope to observe the death of a couple of cells. I'm not speaking of long strands of algae here; I don't see plants recovering from that. This is about establishment on what would be a microscopic level.


I have a microscope and have viewed algae countless times. It's really quite interesting. When over a bright field and in a well slide, the algae cells start out growing at a rapid rate, no doubt in reponse to the intense light. Then in a short time reproduction stops - some essential nutrient has been depleted, likely CO2 but impossible to tell for sure - and one by one the cells start to die. I think of the cells as exploding but that's not quite correct. Anyway, the contents of the cells spill out into the water where bacteria are waiting. Eventually the algae filaments are reduced to mush interspersed with bubbles of gas trapped under the cover glass which I presume to be CO2 given off by the bacteria. It's not pretty. 



> What I'm referring to here is the fine cuticle that exists on submerged macrophytes; not the upper epidermis. Submerged plants have a reduced cuticle, but it is definitely still there.


Yes, but I can't find any evidence your slouphing takes place. As I mentioned before, if sloughing or shedding was ocurring, old leaves would look like young leaves. Is it too much to ask for a reference?



> Algae require far less CO2 than SAM's. If algae growth is not favorable when SAM's are under optimal conditions, especially ones that push for surface space to reduce light underneath. It may be possible that many species of algae has evolved when CO2 levels are low and NH4 levels high simply because it is a point that frequently correlates with macrophyte decline.


Yea, but you are not inhibiting algae by adding CO2; you're encouraging it to grow right alongside the plants. This leads back to my theory that adding CO2 increases the whole metabolic rate of both plants and algae until a critical nutrient for algae growth is depleted. As long as that nutrient can be found in the substrate and not the water column, the algae will perish and the plants will thrive.



> The fact that EI dosed tanks test out at nonlimiting levels of nutrients constantly without inducing algae is very strong evidence for this. I pointed it out in my last post. Algae is not rampant in many tanks where Sears-Conlin dosing exists with PO4 added back in, and non-limiting CO2.


-Philosophos[/QUOTE]

I don't know what Sears-Conlin is but I'm guessing it covers Copper, Manganese, Boron, Zinc and other elements crucial to algae growth?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> If you rule out secretion into the tank water, how else is the toxin supposed to poison the algae cell? Teleportation?


All it needs to do is poison the cells in proximity with it, not all the way up the chain.



Dustymac said:


> Richard Dawkins aside, you realize the difference in scale between plant cells and virii? Or are you suggesting plant cells foster their own algae-attacking viruses which overcome algae defenses? Evidence please.


Notice the part where I said, "but that's besides the point." I figured you'd want to know an exception if it existed.

The concept was actually outlined most popularly in "Darwin's Black Box" which predates Dawkins' celebrity status.



> That's not the way algae dies. Hair/thread algaes discolor when they spill their chloroplasts but maintain structural integrity, going through a pale phase before breaking up. Besides, I've seen millions of algae hairs but can't remember one instance of noticing them floating un-tethered about the tank.


Again, we're talking about working on a microscopic level; it would prevent attachment, not allow long strands to grow. We're talking about a point at which the toxicity would have to be high enough to prevent reproduction. You'll find most places that make mention of this concept quite specifically state that this is a difficult hypothesis to test, and precisely why it is not considered fact.



> I have a microscope and have viewed algae countless times. It's really quite interesting. When over a bright field and in a well slide, the algae cells start out growing at a rapid rate, no doubt in reponse to the intense light. Then in a short time reproduction stops - some essential nutrient has been depleted, likely CO2 but impossible to tell for sure - and one by one the cells start to die. I think of the cells as exploding but that's not quite correct. Anyway, the contents of the cells spill out into the water where bacteria are waiting. Eventually the algae filaments are reduced to mush interspersed with bubbles of gas trapped under the cover glass which I presume to be CO2 given off by the bacteria. It's not pretty.


Have you viewed algae failing to attach its self to a living leaf? This is something that would happen and need to be observed in situ. 


Dustymac said:


> Yes, but I can't find any evidence your slouphing takes place. As I mentioned before, if sloughing or shedding was ocurring, old leaves would look like young leaves. Is it too much to ask for a reference?


The cuticle on plants is produced by the upper epidermis; it's a waxy deposit and the result of cellular metabolism. The loss and regrowth of it would not make a plant look new. They even contain allelopathic compounds within them at times. Pick up any book on plant biology, or if all else fails look to wikipedia if you want to learn about the cuticle of a plant. Since I have a feeling you'll want a specific source, this is one that everyone can just click the button and look at, though many others exist: Handbook of Plant Science,V1 pg 70

It specifically talks about waxy cuticles being secreted by tubules in the epidermis



Dustymac said:


> Yea, but you are not inhibiting algae by adding CO2; you're encouraging it to grow right alongside the plants. This leads back to my theory that adding CO2 increases the whole metabolic rate of both plants and algae until a critical nutrient for algae growth is depleted. As long as that nutrient can be found in the substrate and not the water column, the algae will perish and the plants will thrive.


But that's exactly it; a very large number of hobbyists dose to nonlimiting nutrient levels including both macros and micros. You can even run an NH4 free Hoagland solution and maintain those levels without inducing algae simply through excessive nutrients. Your concept is one that was very strenuously examined by Tom Barr in a specific effort to show that nutrient limitation is not necessary to eliminate algae as any real issue in a planted tank.

You'll also find that your theory doesn't match up with the adaptive nature of algae, either. Algae is not just a handful of species; for any set of nutrient, light and CO2 conditions you can lay out that macrophytes can survive, there is an algae to adapt to it. Even the cleanest tanks are never algae free, but less competitive forms of algae can be kept in check. If you reduce one element, you change the point of equilibrium and the algae species or growth pattern shifts. A number of species of algae will even manufacture different pigments within themselves to better match the wavelength of light that they are receiving. Audouinella would be a prime example of this carotenoid/chlorophyll shift.



> I don't know what Sears-Conlin is but I'm guessing it covers Copper, Manganese, Boron, Zinc and other elements crucial to algae growth?


The paper by Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin is one of the best known in the hobby. It's refuted in terms of it's concept of algae control through phosphate limitation, but it's the base work that has been built upon for a lot of the dosing methods found in the hobby.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Let's see, you can't explain how localized allelopathy is supposed to work, you can't point me to one reference supporting your slouphing theory, you can't specifically address my theory other than to say it doesn't match, you have a new guess where something prevents algae attachment, presumably by magic, and for everything else you say science isn't up to the task.

Let me guess; this is your idea of fun!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I just explained how it worked, and gave you places to read up on it. There's an entire book titled "Biology of the Plant Cuticle" that outlines allelopathic coumpounds in cuticles, the formation and renewal of cuticles by the outer epidermis, and plenty more. I showed another possible way that it could occur through prevent attachment (for more specific reading you'll want to educate your self on the lotus effect) and I offered places for you to look. If you don't want to acknowledge any of it though, and you feel as if this isn't going anywhere, that's fine. We don't have to continue this.

I always engage in this hobby for fun, whether posting or working on tanks. If I were to ever stop enjoying it, I wouldn't be here.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Here's the link to the book Phil is talking about.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513268X.html

It costs $280 but you can get it at Amazon for $210. Phil, do you even have this book? If so, which chapter describes sloughing? How about algae? And for the fifth time, how does the toxin get into the algae cell without entering the tank water?


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I don't have the book, but the google book preview is pretty generous. I decided this entire thing was getting a bit silly, so I decided to quote a couple sources for you:

From Biology of the plant cuticle, Volume 23:
pg 11 2.1.1:

"Only the epidermal cells of aerial organs are know to be capable of synthesising the constituents of the cuticle..."

"...The outer surface of the cuticle is coated wit epicuticular waxes (EW) which confer... (long list of functions) ...and discourage attachment of microorganisms (chapters 11 and 12)"


From: A COMPARISON OF PERIPHYTIC ALGAL BIOMASS AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ON SCIRPUS VALIDUS AND ON A MORPHOLOGICALLY SIMILAR ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATUM

L. Gordon Goldsborough, Michael Hickman 

"We hypothesize that the hydrophobic cuticle on actively growing Scirpus culms retards the development of precursors for attachment by periphytic algae. Upon senescence of the culm and loss of epidermal integrity, colonization of culm surfaces by periphytic algae may occur in a manner similar to that on artificial substrata."

So there's already other people looking at plant cuticles as a method for repelling algae, and they involve allelopathy within the cuticle in at least one case. This would eliminate the need for algae to enter the column if the point of contact is already toxic. Besides this, the barrier effect on plant leaves could retain higher concentrations of allelopathic compounds in the water surrounding the leaves of plants than that of the level suspended within the rest of the column.

The cuticle is a metabolite of the upper epidermis, and the compounds it produces include waxes and some interesting polymers. The lotus effect would be a good subject for you to read on, as well as the function of laminae in preventing the attachment of microorganisms. The epicuticular wax is frequently referred to in terms of blooms, and the rejuvination of it can range from none to growth to regular metabolism. In all cases that I am aware of, the cuticle undergoes degradation from a number of different sources within the environment of the plant.

I've got all of this, and I'm willing to say science hasn't examined it closely enough. The studies need to be broad and on the topic of macrophytes. This admission is as a point of scientific honesty. Still, it is somewhere that hasn't been researched heavily, and I haven't seen efforts put in to refuting the concept as of yet. I think it's a great place to look because there are a number of elements favoring the idea.

Now lets talk about your theory. Where are you getting any of it from? Why doesn't it seem to apply when tested by myself and many others under high concentrations of vital nutrients and nonlimiting CO2? I'm kind of surprised you aren't acknowledging that you've heard of these tests. Given your theory behind algae limitation through nutrient depletion, wouldn't it make sense to have already addressed the large body of evidence contradicting your idea? It's sort of sitting around in every major forum and behind every major updated method of keeping plants in the average home aquarium. I'd invite you to ask any well known figure in the hobby whether or not non-limiting column nutrients induces algae when CO2 is non-limiting for the level of PAR/PUR. I know for a fact that you should be able to get ahold of both Diana Walstad and Tom Barr on this issue, and I'm pretty confident about the answers you'll get.

-Philosophos


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> "...The outer surface of the cuticle is coated wit epicuticular waxes (EW) which confer... (long list of functions) ...and discourage attachment of microorganisms (chapters 11 and 12)"
> 
> So there's already other people looking at plant cuticles as a method for repelling algae, and they involve allelopathy within the cuticle in at least one case. This would eliminate the need for algae to enter the column if the point of contact is already toxic. Besides this, the barrier effect on plant leaves could retain higher concentrations of allelopathic compounds in the water surrounding the leaves of plants than that of the level suspended within the rest of the column.-Philosophos


Interesting posts.

I noticed that in my 55 gal with minor algae problems that the _Cryptocoryne cordata_ never has any algae on its big leaves. I can actually see balls of mulm and debris on the leaves, but never any algae. Meanwhile, other plants (e.g., _Hemianthus micranthumoides_ or baby tears) are covered with mat algae.

I suspect that the micro-environment surrounding the _C. cordata_ leaves contains concentrated allelelochemmicals that inhibits algae. Either that or a waxy cuticle inhibits alga atttachment.

Cuticles and micro-environments where inhibitory chemicals can build up to concentrations sufficient to kill algae may protect plants in ways that we have yet to fully understand.

There's much to learn!


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

> I noticed that in my 55 gal with minor algae problems that the Cryptocoryne cordata never has any algae on its big leaves. I can actually see balls of mulm and debris on the leaves, but never any algae. Meanwhile, other plants (e.g., Hemianthus micranthumoides or baby tears) are covered with mat algae.


I've found crypts resilient under adversity as well, with the exception of BBA in CO2 limiting circumstances, or GSA in low PO4 environments. They do seem to have something more rigid about them, though I don't have the equipment sitting around me right now to examine the cuticle closely.

Sometimes it seems micranthemoides can be the death of its self quite often. Every time I've kept it, I've found it entangles its self and does a wonderful job catching any decaying plant matter or food, which probably does a nice job of elevating the NH4 levels in the area. It seems to require more attention in terms of keeping it sorted out and clean than many plants typically considered to be more difficult.

I'm really starting to get curios about a lot of things that happen at the surface of the leaf; it's far less of a closed system than the rest of the plant. I really need to get a full copy of Biology of the Plant cuticle, and I may bother my local library to lend from another source.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Good. It looks like we're making progress. Sloughing has followed spore reproduction into unfavorability. Plus, it looks like allelochemicals are making it into the water which is the only sensible place for attacking algae. You've come far! 

There's still one problem with the proximity hypothesis; it can only logically work in stagnant water. Since allelopathic toxins are very soluble, they are immediately diluted once exiting the plant leaf if there is any significant current to the water. So, according to your theory, the only way these toxins can hurt algae is if there is no water current and they can maintain their concentration for at least a short while, otherwise we're back to the traditional allelopathy mechanism which you don't favor. 

But stagnant water can't possibly allow for CO2 dispersal. You need some kind of current to dissolve the CO2 and spread it throughout the tank. Right?

Time is short so I'll address the rest of your response later. 

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Spore germination signaling is definitely still a possibility; it's something with less information on it that I haven't read in-depth quite so much. It's Tom Barr's favored hypothesis right now that I believe he plans on testing it.

If you've been paying attention to what I've said, the cuticle is a waxy compound that often contains allelopathic chemicals; no need to suspend into the water. Even if it does end up in the water, there's something called the barrier zone on leaves that creates a dead water zone, and it takes some decent current to defeat it meaning that the allelochemicals wouldn't be distributed into the rest of the column at the same rate.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> Spore germination signaling is definitely still a possibility; it's something with less information on it that I haven't read in-depth quite so much. It's Tom Barr's favored hypothesis right now that I believe he plans on testing it.


I can't wait! 



> If you've been paying attention to what I've said, the cuticle is a waxy compound that often contains allelopathic chemicals; no need to suspend into the water.


Oh yeah, I saw the book neither of us read. Wasn't it about terrestrial plants? And weren't the microorganisms they referred to in Chapters 11 and 12 aerial bacteria and fungi? Unlike bacteria and fungi, algae don't interact with the plant leaf. They aren't trying to invade the plant or use it as a food source. Algae simply want something to anchor to and grow.



> Even if it does end up in the water, there's something called the barrier zone on leaves that creates a dead water zone, and it takes some decent current to defeat it meaning that the allelochemicals wouldn't be distributed into the rest of the column at the same rate.
> 
> -Philosophos


And how exactly does this work? Leaf surfaces can be pretty bumpy, creating lots of turbulence. Are you saying the chemicals are prevented from diffusing? Now, if some allelochemicals weren't easily water soluble and/or a tad viscous, perhaps that would explain why some plant species seem immune to some algae. Their allelochemicals could ooze to the leaf surface and lay there, inhibiting spore adhesion. Hmmmm...

Or it could be simply a matter of texture and have nothing to do with toxins on the leaf. Some plant leaves could be craggier, snagging the floating spore long enough for the algae glue to be secreted and harden on the plant surface. And other surfaces could be so smooth the algae spores just slide right off. Hmmmmm....

I still like my nutrient depletion theory better and unlike yours, mine is ridiculously easy to test. The procedure is simple: set up two identical NPTs - same substrate, same plants, same lighting, same circulation,˙ same fauna, etc - and hope they both host a mostly simultaneous algae outbreak. Add CO2 to one of the tanks and see what happens. If the algae disappears faster in the CO2 infused tank than in the non-CO2 tank, my theory is correct. It's the only conclusion. If both tanks clear up at the same time, then adding CO2 to inhibit algae is pointless. The only way adding CO2 would be recommended is if the non-CO2 tank didn't clear up and maintained a significant algae presence long after the CO2 tank has cleared.

But do we really need to test my theory? Aren't it's conclusions born out with every new NPT which experiences an algae phase and survives without pumping CO2? And it can't be cuticle allelopathy when algae disappears from rocks, substrate and glass where no cuticle can be found. The only explanations for such algal disappearances are either a tank-wide buildup of allelochemicals, which you deny, or the depletion of an essential nutrient (my theory), which you also deny. How do you explain why algae stops growing on non-plant surfaces?

Jim


----------



## DVS (Nov 20, 2005)

Dustymac said:


> But do we really need to test my theory? Aren't it's conclusions born out with every new NPT which experiences an algae phase and survives without pumping CO2? And it can't be cuticle allelopathy when algae disappears from rocks, substrate and glass where no cuticle can be found. The only explanations for such algal disappearances are either a tank-wide buildup of allelochemicals, which you deny, or the depletion of an essential nutrient (my theory), which you also deny. How do you explain why algae stops growing on non-plant surfaces?
> 
> Jim


How do you explain why EI, PPS tanks are so successful? If you can resurrect the nutrient limitation hypothesis from the dead, kudos.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Oh yeah, I saw the book neither of us read.


Actually I've read large chunks of it; it's been very educational.



> Wasn't it about terrestrial plants?


Yes, but the same applies to aquatics despite the reduced cuticle



> and weren't the microorganisms they referred to in Chapters 11 and 12 aerial bacteria and fungi? Unlike bacteria and fungi, algae don't interact with the plant leaf. They aren't trying to invade the plant or use it as a food source. Algae simply want something to anchor to and grow.


Yes, and this brings it right into contact with the cuticle which brings everything I've been talking to into effect from the barrier zone to allelopathy.



> And how exactly does this work? Leaf surfaces can be pretty bumpy, creating lots of turbulence. Are you saying the chemicals are prevented from diffusing? Now, if some allelochemicals weren't easily water soluble and/or a tad viscous, perhaps that would explain why some plant species seem immune to some algae. Their allelochemicals could ooze to the leaf surface and lay there, inhibiting spore adhesion. Hmmmm...


Suspension into a solution may be slowed, but it's the distribution that's reduced as well. As I've said before, many species of plant secrete allelochemicals as a constituent of the cuticle its self.



> Or it could be simply a matter of texture and have nothing to do with toxins on the leaf. Some plant leaves could be craggier, snagging the floating spore long enough for the algae glue to be secreted and harden on the plant surface. And other surfaces could be so smooth the algae spores just slide right off. Hmmmmm....


On the scale we're talking about, I'm not sure it'd matter given the cuticle.



> I still like my nutrient depletion theory better and unlike yours, mine is ridiculously easy to test.


Are you saying it's more likely because it's easier to test?



> The procedure is simple: set up two identical NPTs - same substrate, same plants, same lighting, same circulation,˙ same fauna, etc - and hope they both host a mostly simultaneous algae outbreak.


Why an NPT? Why not control the variables by dosing the column with one species of plant at a time? Why not introduce cultures of algae rather than just hoping for the best?



> Add CO2 to one of the tanks and see what happens. If the algae disappears faster in the CO2 infused tank than in the non-CO2 tank, my theory is correct. It's the only conclusion.


It's definitely not the only conclusion... I'm not sure how you could think that it would be. What about indirect influences through indirect means related to better plant growth because of limiting CO2 levels? Algae have a far lower requirement for carbon to create the equivalent biomass. What about spore germination signaling? Is the level of CO2 limiting without CO2 given the level of light and other nutrients?



> If both tanks clear up at the same time, then adding CO2 to inhibit algae is pointless.


Well yes, then you'd have a balanced tank; one with low light. Unfortunately, getting necessary spread to do everything you want within a planted tank may require more than low lighting levels throughout its entirety.



> The only way adding CO2 would be recommended is if the non-CO2 tank didn't clear up and maintained a significant algae presence long after the CO2 tank has cleared.


What about plants with higher CO2 demands? What about the aesthetic of higher light levels, and the CO2 demands they create? What about increased plant growth due to lowered demands for chemicals related to the carbon uptake and fixation process?



> But do we really need to test my theory? Aren't it's conclusions born out with every new NPT which experiences an algae phase and survives without pumping CO2?


You're now creating a straw man out of my statements. I distinctly said earlier that adding CO2 is not necessary for a healthy tank. What I did say is that the light levels correlating with it may not allow for good distribution, and that plants with higher CO2 demands will not be successful features of this tank.



> And it can't be cuticle allelopathy when algae disappears from rocks, substrate and glass where no cuticle can be found.


I'd love to see where algae suddenly disappears from substrates without running through its life cycle, under stable conditions. We already know that increasing PO4 will slow the growth of GSA greatly, and this is exactly the opposite of your nutrient depletion theory. Also once again, this is something that spore germination signaling may contribute to.



> The only explanations for such algal disappearances are either a tank-wide buildup of allelochemicals, which you deny, or the depletion of an essential nutrient (my theory), which you also deny. How do you explain why algae stops growing on non-plant surfaces?


But that's just it; there are no well studied cases in which allelochemicals have been proven to build up to high enough levels within the aquarium to prevent algae that I am aware of. It's one thing to introduce these chemicals artificially, but where does the release occur? How would it occur if I pull 50% water changes weekly? What about 50% every other day? I've done this, and every point inbetween letting a tank sit for months, so has a vast portion of the hobby. Some how algae doesn't just happen immediately anywhere along the line.

Algae can be limited simply by creating non-advantageous conditions for it, and this does not necessarily mean nutrient limitation. If anything, nutrient limitation has been beaten into the ground repeatedly throughout the hobby as a method of algae limitation. How is it that so many of us have thrown gobs of micro and macronutrients at our tanks without ever seeing algae? How is it that Tom Barr has worked through trying to induce algae through nonlimiting nutrient levels and never done it? Why is it that every test on a macrophyte involving a modified Hogueland solution doesn't run rampant with algae immediately from nonlimiting nutrients being maintained for sometimes months at a time? There is a vast body of evidence contradicting your theory that you aren't addressing.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

DVS said:


> How do you explain why EI, PPS tanks are so successful? If you can resurrect the nutrient limitation hypothesis from the dead, kudos.


Any tank, hi-tech or low can exist without algae problems if an essential limiting nutrient has been exhausted. In "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium", Diana Walstad makes a strong argument that limiting nutrient is commonly Iron. Since algae get all their nutrition from the water, and successful planted tanks are setup with an Iron-rich substrate, it's easy to see how keeping Iron from the water column is all you need do to have an algae-free tank. The plants get their Iron from the substrate and the algae is out of luck.

You can add all the other nutrients you want and it won't encourage algae growth if just one essential nutrient is missing from the water; the algae cannot grow. Voilà! 

Jim


----------



## DVS (Nov 20, 2005)

But with EI, and PPS all nutrients macro and minor are being dosed regularly to excess. And properly managed EI and PPS tanks are successful with inert substrates such as sand.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Phil,
I'm back on my iPhone for the next few days so most of your response will have to wait. But you're right about the experiment; it can be improved. How about we start with one tank? We plant both sides so they're mirrors of the other. A couple Swords, a few sprigs of Ludwigia Repens, some Vals. They can even be weighed before planting so neither side has an advantage. Since it's one tank with the same light source, same substrate and same water; there's no chance of having more than one independent variable. Then, after the algae gets a solid foothold, a divider is inserted to break the tank into two identical ecosystems. One side gets CO2 and the other doesn't. 

Of course, it has to be an NPT as the whole point of this discussion is to demonstrate how unnecessary CO2 injection is for a well-balanced, naturally planted tank. Just so everyone knows, CO2 injection is absolutely necessary for a hi-tech tank to increase the metabolic rate where plants can utilize all that extra light and nutrition. Without CO2, the hi-tech tank is an algae accident waiting to happen. 

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> Phil,
> I'm back on my iPhone for the next few days so most of your response will have to wait. But you're right about the experiment; it can be improved. How about we start with one tank? We plant both sides so they're mirrors of the other. A couple Swords, a few sprigs of Ludwigia Repens, some Vals. They can even be weighed before planting so neither side has an advantage. Since it's one tank with the same light source, same substrate and same water; there's no chance of having more than one independent variable. Then, after the algae gets a solid foothold, a divider is inserted to break the tank into two identical ecosystems. One side gets CO2 and the other doesn't.
> 
> Of course, it has to be an NPT as the whole point of this discussion is to demonstrate how unnecessary CO2 injection is for a well-balanced, naturally planted tank. Just so everyone knows, CO2 injection is absolutely necessary for a hi-tech tank to increase the metabolic rate where plants can utilize all that extra light and nutrition. Without CO2, the hi-tech tank is an algae accident waiting to happen.
> ...


I'll keep thing short so you don't have to come back to a series of nasty text walls. We can get more in-depth with things later.

I'm definitely not saying CO2 is a requirement of all healthy tanks, and I'm sure I never said that it was. I run more tanks without CO2 than with right now, and I'm getting healthy growth with the appropriate species. What I am finding is that you can't keep any species you want under low tech conditions; NPT or otherwise. You can't keep certain fish as well; NPT discus isn't such a great idea. From an aesthetic standpoint, you can't go high light with low CO2 and expect the same results either; some of us want lots of plant growth, or a certain aesthetic to our tanks.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Phil,
Thanks for the kind tolerance. It's the dang quote brackets; they're three layers deep on the keyboard and you can't scroll in text boxes....sigh. 

My problem is I've been doing this for a long time. Back when I was a kid, I used to breed Angels for the lfs. Whenever making a delivery I used to drool over the owner's Blue Discus. When asked about trying them, the owner always told me, "You don't want to do Discus, Discus are hard." That was nearly forty years ago. 

I have books on aquarium keeping that go back fifty years. Each and every one of them is replete with false information. I call these tidbits of errata "myths". My favorite one surrounds water changing. With the exception of Diana's book, they all recommend changing 20% of your tank water every week. It's like the hobby's sacred ritual and the water bucket is it's Holy Grail. For want of someone with half a brain taking two minutes to really think about it, literally millions of gallons of water have been wasted.

To illustrate what I mean, let's suppose we have an aquarium which produces a given amount of unwanted waste every week. For kicks, let's quantify this waste by calling it 100 pollution units. This can be anything: excess ammonia, hydroxyl ions or flagelating algae spores. We just want it out of our tank. When the weekend comes we change 20% of the water leaving us with 80 PUs (pollution units) behind. This would be good except after another week of PU production, when we go to change the water again, there's 180 PUs in the tank and a 20% water change only reduces it to 144. After the third water change we're left with 195.2 PUs, the fourth leaves us with 236, etc. Eventually the water averages 450 PUs, 150 PUs if you change half the water every week, but no one does that. 

Fortunately we have filtration - bioballs and activated charcoal - and hopefully they take up the slack. We also learn in "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium how plants and dissolved organic carbon clean tank water. It's not too hard to imagine these filter/cleaners working 20% better, obviating the need for water changing altogether.

So, when someone says Discus don't do well in an NPT, is it true? Forty years of imprinting tells me it is but my gut says it might be another myth. Even if it is true, given the nascent nature of NPTs and the amazing buffer formed by the soil/plant relationship, I can't help but think with a little tweaking NPTs could be a great home for the more exotic plant and fish species. 

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

20% weekly water changes actually aren't too bad if the fish you're keeping aren't too picky, and the quantities aren't so bad. It becomes about a 50% WC every 3 weeks as an equivalent, so waste can never be higher than twice what 3 weeks will provide.

Estimative Index is based off 50% weekly water changes in its foundations, though that level is meant to be flexible. I keep one tank at 50% weekly, and two others at "when it happens" which means once every month or so. This both keeps organic waste and fertilizer quantities in certain ranges. A unique algorithm can be created for any tank to deal with waste and fertilizer levels in the column.

Now if you want to talk waste, the average US citizen goes through something like 80-100 gallons of water per day. Even on original EI water changing, that's 160-200 gallons worth of high light, high tech tank. A good portion of that waste in my case goes to watering the lawn, the garden, my emersed growth tray, and plants around the house. I also step water down; high tech waste water is just fine for low tech tanks to use for a while.

In terms of time and effort, I can maintain my tanks in perhaps 2-4 hours outside of dosing/feeding time. How much time do we cumulatively spend just typing about tanks in a week? 

Juvenile discus require abnormally heavy feeding; the waste builds up far faster than in other tanks. I'd discount juveniles purely because of their unique sensitivity and the bioload that they create.

Now as for adults, that depends:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/el-natural/66146-mineralized-soil-discus.html#post502226

I tend to agree with Diana's line of thought here; some discus have hypersensitivities to dissolved organic compounds because of their breeding. Any number of organic soils will provide these dissolved organic compounds, and certain fish will stress in them. Try O. mykiss out in a cold water NPT if you want to push the bounds of keeping sensitive fish.

The observation within the entire hobby of discus keeping indicates that water with less organic waste leads to healthier fish, but the very introduction of the substrate is contrary to this concept. So often people start out with discus and throw a pair into a typical tank, or even a planted tank, and have trouble with them from toxicity. I've seen it happen repeatedly, and I've seen increased water changes fix the problem.

Now as for spawning and hatching out eggs (my goal with most species that I keep) I would say that an NPT isn't going to provide the conditions required for many species of fish to spawn. It's rapid water changes that specifically trigger many species of fish best, and in the case of south american fish it's often clean, acidic water that aids in hatching. I can do this in my EI tanks, but the low techs don't tend to induce spawns very well.

I honestly think it's up to NPT keepers to show an exception or good antithesis at this point; the topic has been tested, and it doesn't seem to work very well in practice. If there were evidence to the contrary, it would definitely have to be examined.

I do have one question; why doesn't NPT win any major aquascaping awards? I have yet to see it happen once, and I think it's as fair a criticism as asking anyone into high light and CO2 why they have to put so much work into their tanks.

-Philosophos


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> I do have one question; why doesn't NPT win any major aquascaping awards? I have yet to see it happen once, and I think it's as fair a criticism as asking anyone into high light and CO2 why they have to put so much work into their tanks.-Philosophos


That's because I and many others are not interested in aquascaping tanks or winning awards.

I'm thrilled with having several tanks that are easy to keep, have reasonable plant growth, and happy fish.

There's room for everyone. Let's not fight about this.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I'm not looking to fight about it. I just see the objectives and capabilities of NPT or other low tech as being different than high light/compressed CO2 systems. I wouldn't use one to accomplish what the other does better, which is why I keep both. My issue is more when anyone who seems attached to either one says that their preferred method is all the hobby needs, which is what Dustymac has been advocating.

-Philosophos


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Philosophos said:


> My issue is more when anyone who seems attached to either one says that their preferred method is all the hobby needs, which is what Dustymac has been advocating.


Not exactly. What I advocate is the preferred method *HERE*. After all, this is the El Natural forum, a fact I have pointed out before, where folks can get away from the madness of Park Avenue and have a friendly discussion about dirt over donuts. You seem to think we need to hear everything there is about expensive, hi-tech mechanisms designed to imitate what we find quite satisfactorily using a little mud, light and fish food.

Sigh...


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Actually over in the thread that spawned this one you said:



Dustymac said:


> Generally speaking, yes, I think hi-tech is on it's way out. None of the dire scenarios you portray has any validity that I can see. Eventually El Natural will realize widespread adoption and hi-tech will become obscure.


Link: http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/...169-unable-add-fish-my-tank-4.html#post503617

And you said it clearly in response to my question in the same thread:


Philosophos said:


> Do you think that this is the end method then? That some sort of solution has been found to keeping all macrophytes? Or are you just saying that there is room for both?


And yet still, I see no award winning NPT's, and I see no low maintenance IAPLC top 50's or AGA competition winners outside of perhaps biotope entrants. There are different goals for different people, and different tools for different functions.

-Philosophos


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

I think why you don't see any award-winning NPT set-ups is because people with those set-ups have different goals. They want low maintenance homes for plants and fish. They don't realy care about how it rates against another scape as long as it pleases them and they don't care how fast the plants grow or about keeping rare specimens.

The people who have an interest in the contests or in keeping plants/fish with strict requirements are the ones who are willing to shell out the extra money or effort (or both) to maintain the high-tech tanks.

Either way, low-tech and high-tech systems both have a place in the hobby. Neither method is the rule nor the exception. Just two separate approaches to aquatic plant keeping that are both valid.


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

davemonkey said:


> Either way, low-tech and high-tech systems both have a place in the hobby. Neither method is the rule nor the exception. Just two separate approaches to aquatic plant keeping that are both valid.


Nicely put. Thank you.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Dustymac said:


> Generally speaking, yes, I think hi-tech is on it's way out. None of the dire scenarios you portray has any validity that I can see. Eventually El Natural will realize widespread adoption and hi-tech will become obscure.


I stll believe this, but let's not confuse obscurity with extinction. I think as long as there are aquarists with lots of money to spend and plenty of time to kill, there will be some afficianados.

The widespread adoption of NPT methodology won't be easy considering the vested interests. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers will be loath to promote the NPT. How will they make their money? Selling bags of dirt? Just look at the three biggest displays in the aquarium section at our local Petsmart. Tanks, fake plants and filter refills. With NPTs, two of the three would be obsolete. And just think; you can assemble two or three complete NPTs for the cost of one $228 Apogee PAR meter. 

In the end, I see word-of-mouth as being a major factor in the propagation of NPTs. My 12 year old niece has had big problems with her fish-only tank and we're scheduled to redo it as an NPT after Thanksgiving. She loves my aquariums more than my two daughters, sad to say. One of my clients is also interested. He's never had an aquarium and is intrigued by stories and pictures of mine. And so it grows.

As to never having won any contests, that's exceedingly unfair. It's like chiding an eight year old for never having won an Olympic gold medal. NPTs are in their infancy. Give it some time. Before the advent of the hi-tech methodology, there was no foundation for the successful establishment of a planted aquarium. Now there are two. One is costly, complicated and time consuming. The other is easy, inexpensive and low maintenance. Logic and reason tell us which foundation will win general appeal.

Jim


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Dustymac said:


> I stll believe this, but let's not confuse obscurity with extinction.


You seemed to answered in the affirmative to my asking if NPT's were the end method. This was a question so strongly worded that most people would give a clear, direct answer to it. Why would you answer broadly in the affirmative to a list of questions involving one that you don't agree with?



Dustymac said:


> I think as long as there are aquarists with lots of money to spend and plenty of time to kill, there will be some afficianados.


I think so long as there's a list of plants that won't grow and fish that won't do well enough to spawn viable young in NPT's, there will be people looking to other methods.



> The widespread adoption of NPT methodology won't be easy considering the vested interests. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers will be loath to promote the NPT. How will they make their money? Selling bags of dirt? Just look at the three biggest displays in the aquarium section at our local Petsmart. Tanks, fake plants and filter refills. With NPTs, two of the three would be obsolete
> 
> 
> > Stores haven't even caught on as to HOW to keep planted tanks for the most part. They really just don't know what's going on. With any planted tank, those two points would be obsolete; I haven't bought a fake plant since after my first year in the hobby. The only filter media that I replace is fine filtration on high tech tanks that I buy in bulk, and I do that only because I like a clean looking column. I may pay $10 a year at most for this.
> ...


----------



## bettalover2 (Nov 21, 2009)

Good Job on the npt.


----------



## bettalover2 (Nov 21, 2009)

BEAUTIFUL tank!! I only hope to be able to achieve something like this one day....Boy, do I have a lot to learn.


----------

