# Dry Start Method & Shrimp Tanks



## dwalstad

Hello Everyone,

My book's website now has a 9 page article _Small Planted Tanks for Pet Shrimp_. It can be downloaded (for free) from the website. I wrote it to further promote my book and help beginning hobbyists.

The article describes my shrimp bowls as well as the more recent DSM setups (Tom Barr's method). I am very pleased with the DSM tanks. They contain carpet plants, plants that I never thought I would be able to grow.

Website for _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_
http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00388.htm


----------



## mudboots

Great article! I am trying this with a 3 gallon pico at my office; though I did not wait quite as long before filling it up with water. No critters yet, except that there's a tadpole and a few snails to keep the system alive until I aquire my tenants later on. My floaters were an Azolla sp., but I am moving those to the NPT at home and will be using a Salvinia sp. (little bit bigger root system).


----------



## dwalstad

mudboots said:


> I am trying this with a 3 gallon pico at my office; though I did not wait quite as long before filling it up with water. QUOTE]
> 
> I waited 10 weeks, because I didn't want to fool with any tank problems over Christmas holidays. Otherwise, I probably would have added water a couple weeks earlier.


----------



## Philosophos

I wouldn't mind seeing the results of some DSM NPT's. I've found low light setups are always a pain to get carpeting plants rooting on; it's harder to provide good spread.

You could probably get an NPT growing in faster with some very high lighting, back it off for a while to regular levels, then fill.


----------



## mudboots

Philosophos said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing the results of some DSM NPT's. I've found low light setups are always a pain to get carpeting plants rooting on; it's harder to provide good spread.
> 
> You could probably get an NPT growing in faster with some very high lighting, back it off for a while to regular levels, then fill.


While I wouldn't consider my DSM NPT to have carpet plants (foreground is Crypt. x willisii...awesome roots underground, but not yet very dense on top), the many, many, MANY mistakes I made in the tank at the house has allowed for a very nice carpet in what is now "lower" light. I say "lower" because I have realized that I have no idea how much PAR those stinking T5-HO's are pushing to the substrate anymore, just that everything got better when I cut off half of them (now have 1.24 or 1.25 wpg on a 125 gallon tank) and stopped all water movement.

Maybe this weekend I'll post a pic or three if I get back with reasonable time to spare. Not that it's DSM, but it might be a good example since it went from relatively high lighting for sufficient growth of the carpet plants' root system to relatively lower lighting, perhaps simulating what it might be like doing DSM...


----------



## mudboots

dwalstad said:


> mudboots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying this with a 3 gallon pico at my office; though I did not wait quite as long before filling it up with water. QUOTE]
> 
> I waited 10 weeks, because I didn't want to fool with any tank problems over Christmas holidays. Otherwise, I probably would have added water a couple weeks earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah! Makes good sense. My problem in NOT waiting 10 weeks was that I'm like a little kid staring at Christmas presents under the tree several weeks before Christmas and simply can't wait any longer. Ahhhhhh!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Philosophos

Going from high to low light won't exactly simulate DSM. Not having nutrients in a column for easy uptake through the leaves usually means mind-blowing roots to compensate (at least that's my guess as to why). I'd say emersed HC has double or triple standard length of healthy submersed growth.


----------



## dwalstad

mudboots said:


> dwalstad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hah! Makes good sense. My problem in NOT waiting 10 weeks was that I'm like a little kid staring at Christmas presents under the tree several weeks before Christmas and simply can't wait any longer. Ahhhhhh!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Such energy and enthusiasm! I envy you. In contrast, I was dreading adding water to the tanks.
> 
> Philosophos, I'm not sure why you would want to decrease lighting levels during the emergent phase. Emergent plants can use all the light you can give them (my book, p. 146). Once plants are submerged, you can decrease light levels. However, I didn't. I just added floating plants and they automatically decreased light intensity.
Click to expand...


----------



## Philosophos

Hi Diana,

I like to drop the lighting down before hand because I've found some plants melt or take on undesirable growth patterns with severe light/CO2 alterations when submerged. I've found glosso to be the best example with its alternate, vertical growth form and teardrop leaf structure. This issue doesn't seem to exist when emersed; leaves may change size, growth may slow, but there's no melting or frantic upward growth. I figure it's better to shorten the light cycle before filling, let them adjust to it, then deal with the stress of filling.


----------



## mudboots

Hence the problems with Crypt species IME. Maybe it's just my water or the way I do things so *inconsistently*, but I have come to expect leaf drop going from emmersed to submersed setups with my Crypts (or staring at them wrong for that matter). But I am very pleased with the roots on the Crypt and Stauro species, which make up pretty much the whole DSM Picotope aside from needleleaf java and Fissidens. The Stauro have not had leaf drop, and I can see the roots peeking through the glass in some places, while I can look under the aquarium and see a beautiful root system under the Crypts. And since I've filled it up, even having mixed slow release micros (for the emmersed phase of the Stauro sps) and having relatively high light (18 watts over a 3 gallon, but set high and angled) I have no algae (maybe the baby snails have something to do with that, but there are only a few and they are really tiny).

BTW - Diana, it's all that energy and enthusiasm that got me into so much trouble with my 125 NPT. #-o That said, it's all of those mistakes I made that taught me first hand just exactly what all of you pros had been talking about all along. And now that it's starting to look nice (since I've messed it up about as much as I possible can by now) I can finally smile without hearing sarcasm when Melinda says "it's really neat that it's all natural".


----------



## dwalstad

Philosophos said:


> Hi Diana,
> 
> I like to drop the lighting down before hand because I've found some plants melt or take on undesirable growth patterns with severe light/CO2 alterations when submerged. I've found glosso to be the best example with its alternate, vertical growth form and teardrop leaf structure. This issue doesn't seem to exist when emersed; leaves may change size, growth may slow, but there's no melting or frantic upward growth. I figure it's better to shorten the light cycle before filling, let them adjust to it, then deal with the stress of filling.


Thanks for your explanation. Since my Glosso died out 3 days after purchase, you're way ahead of me here!


----------



## Philosophos

Glosso is trickier than people give it credit. I've found HC easier to keep by far, it just has some inconvenient CO2 demands once the water gets in.

What happened to it?


----------



## dwalstad

Philosophos said:


> Glosso is trickier than people give it credit. I've found HC easier to keep by far, it just has some inconvenient CO2 demands once the water gets in.
> 
> What happened to it?


The purchased Glosso arrived (via mail) in okay shape. I planted the largest portion emergent-- in the two Dry Start Method Tanks. Neither tank was filled with water for 10 weeks-- as I wrote. The Glosso turned brown and died within 3 days. I submerged another portion from the same shipment in another tank filled with water. It didn't last much longer.

I wasn't all that surprised that the submerged Glosso died in ordinary NPTs. However, I was surprised that emergent plants in DSM tanks quickly turned brown and died.

In the Discussion section of my article "Small Planted Tanks for Pet Shrimp" I speculate that a plant hormone may have caused Glosso's death and leaf browning. I welcome comments on what I wrote in the article.


----------



## Philosophos

I gotten browning and melting after exposure to cold with my emersed glosso. I definitely agree that there's some sort of chemical that it releases though. I've had it melt simply from transport and the chain reaction killed already healthy, established glosso nearby. Whatever it is, the concentrations don't seem to be able to hold very well once submersed.

One bit I've noticed is that it seems to die from the bottom up, and if you leave it long enough sometimes it will re-establish from surviving lateral buds. Perhaps it's meant to be for the purpose of autofragmentation as a stress reaction?

I'll take a look over your article later tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## alang

Philosophos said:


> Glosso is trickier than people give it credit. I've found HC easier to keep by far, it just has some inconvenient CO2 demands once the water gets in.


It appears from the pics in the article that the HC Diana grew emergent was doing fine without additional CO2 after the tank was flooded. I was encouraged with that since I want to have carpet plants in my new tank, but this comment has me worried for the longer term prospects of HC in a NPT.

I wonder if its just a matter of balancing the amount of HC so the CO2 generated in the tank can support it?


----------



## Philosophos

Seeing HC work in a DSM NPT is encouraging; to me it signals a very big advance in the hobby. I've found my HC growing phenomenally better with DSM, but I haven't tried it without CO2 post-fill. The roots are vastly longer, there's no melt on introduction, and it seems to change growth patters within a matter of days.

Perhaps getting it established is more the issue than having enough CO2 long-term. Adding tons of CO2 would definitely help the stuff to root/grow better in a traditional planting method, and getting good distribution to the bottom of a tank at those levels would require compressed CO2. When people use compressed CO2, they tend to push their light levels higher which would also contribute to it. Even then, HC is a pain to plant and establish in a filled tank compared to most species.

It may be that increased CO2 triggers rooting as well. I've noticed that plants on the high CO2 demand list are usually found in rivers, they're smaller, and they tend to grow near the water line. Getting caught along the side of the river bank, especially during low flow rates, would be a natural time for them to successfully establish roots.

Maybe it's some of both; the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive either.

Then again maybe it's neither and I've missed the point completely.

Either way, I think observing what happens over the next few months to year will say a lot. I'm wondering if the generally mulmy bottoms of an NPT are the sort of thing HC will do well with. There may need to be some adaptations as NPT tends to recreate more of a lake than a stream.

The plus side with all of this is that HC is very easy to grow emersed. Emersed growth trays are also incredibly cheap and easy to maintain. You can grow a big mat of HC from plugs inside a few months with minimal care. I think HC is something that everyone should try out if it's making it through DSM and no CO2.

Either way, nice work Diana. I'll be very happy if HC can be separated from compressed CO2.


----------



## dwalstad

Thanks for your comments.

I measured CO2 uptake in my DSM tanks versus the 1-gal bowls. Attached is the figure with measurements.

CO2 uptake was very little for the DSM tanks (red lines) in comparison to the shrimp bowls (green lines). The main difference between these tanks is the plant species. The shrimp bowls have robust submerged growers (_Sagittaria subulata_, etc) and the DSM tanks have only carpet plants. I predict that if carpet plants were in the bowls competing with _S. subulata_, they probably wouldn't survive.

I believe that HC and other carpet plants just aren't very competitive with other plants for taking up CO2. They don't seem to need that much CO2, as they seem to be doing fine with just 7-8 mg/l (see graph).

When you give them a good start (DSM) and then keep them by themselves as I have done, they do very well (they're currently thriving in both DSM tanks).


----------



## Philosophos

I posted about your findings over on Tom's site, and he said the exact same thing about CO2 competition. I didn't realize that it was such a sensitive thing in non-CO2 systems.

While I haven't done HC without CO2, I've found an air stone helps when CO2 appears to be limiting in a non-CO2 system. I'm guessing the ppm's may be lower, but the supply more constant; perhaps this would be acceptable enough for HC to coexist with more demanding plants? I'd hate to see NPT go through an iwagumi fad like high tech did.


----------



## dwalstad

Philosophos said:


> I posted about your findings over on Tom's site, and he said the exact same thing about CO2 competition. I didn't realize that it was such a sensitive thing in non-CO2 systems.
> 
> While I haven't done HC without CO2, I've found an air stone helps when CO2 appears to be limiting in a non-CO2 system. I'm guessing the ppm's may be lower, but the supply more constant; perhaps this would be acceptable enough for HC to coexist with more demanding plants? I'd hate to see NPT go through an iwagumi fad like high tech did.


My opinion is that without CO2 injection, HC would have a very hard time co-existing with more robust plants.

An air-stone might help by facillitating leaf CO2 uptake. However, more robust plants nearby would just remove the increased CO2 (and grow faster), so the HC would be no better off.

BTW, the latest TAG (_The Aquatic Gardener_) (Jan-Mar 2010) has my article on measuring CO2 in my tanks.


----------



## Philosophos

I was kind of hoping that rapidly adding more air would replenish it at a far higher rate than plants could uptake. When working with compressed CO2, there's no real need for a mid day break; the plants don't take up more than 3-4% of what's offered by the most generous estimations. I was thinking at 1LPH per liter of column with air being 380mg/L CO2, there'd be plenty of turnover.

My own little experiment (with a drop checker; try not to laugh too loud) didn't seem to show fluctuations with an air stone either. It definitely didn't get as high of a level of CO2 as what builds up after a couple weeks of low surface disturbance, but it didn't do the mid-day dips that you've outlined on graphs related to the entire siesta method. When I turned off the aeration, the drop checker indicated a profile closer to what you've given for NPT's.

I really need to join up with AGA. The journal alone has been tempting me for far too long.

I'm also going to have to try some low tech DSM/HC tanks and try to push their limitations.


----------



## Jark

I really want to try this method. It reminds me of the grassy patches near the edges of small mountain ponds that flood after rain or snowfall. I used to spend hours staring at minnows and insect larva in the short grass.


----------



## Jane in Upton

This sounds like a neat thing to try, and I was very impressed by Ms. Walstad's article!

So, if one wants to use the DSM to get an HC carpet going, are there any plants that would have lower demands for CO2, and "play nice" with the HC? While an HC carpet sounds nice, I like some shape and vertical variation in my tanks, and wonder if some hairgrass or other plants would be a nice vertical foil for the HC.

Does anyone have any ideas on plants that would not overwhelm the HC in terms of CO2 uptake?

I'm thinking along the lines of giant Hairgrass, Valisneria 'nana', or the Echinodorus angustifolia 'Vesuvius', with some stones and the HC carpet to make a simple NPT aquascape. Obviously plants that "require" CO2 fertilization would be out, as they would compete too strongly with the carpet plant.

Your thoughts? 

Thanks,
Jane


----------



## dwalstad

The other rooted plant species that are growing well (but not too well) in the DSM are:

_Marsilea quadrifolia
Eleocharis acicularis
Hemianthus micranthemoides _(Baby Tears, a bigger version of HC)

I think that HC and these plants take up so little CO2 (from the CO2 pool available) that you could add other slow-growers. Just make sure to keep the plants in check.

On that note, I'm not sure how to prune these plants. I've been just pulling them out. The _Eleocharis acicularis_ (dwarf hairgrass) is threatening to take over one tank. As I discussed in my book (p. 45), this genera actively secretes allelochemicals into the substrate to inhibit other plants. I don't trust it.


----------



## f1ea

I am growing Eleocharis Acicularis in a NPT + DIY co2. 
its growing... not super fast, but it is beggining to spread. It's got rather competitive plants though, and it has a large area to cover so it might be a while... I'm not sure what's its biggest demand: is it light, CO2 or NO3?

The best help to control the carpets is to use some kind of separation in the substrate where you want it, just make a stream with no soil and use only the topping substrate (ie sand) along the divide line. I have a piece of driftwood making the divide... but right now i'm more hoping to see it spreading than worried about it taking over 

I'm planning a 15 gal NPT to start this weekend on DSM, i'll start it with E. Acicularis and H. Verticillata...


----------



## Philosophos

While I've found most anubias aren't very great for DSM (they seem to survive just fine, but grow even slower) they definitely wouldn't compete much. The round leaf shape tends to compliment HC and the color contrasts.

For a long time people were under the impression that HC is a high light plant (proven false now), and anubias doesn't tend to get along so well under high light. As such, HC and anubias typically haven't been thought of as an easy pair to put together.

What I'm wondering is why HC would suffer from low CO2 if it's a low CO2 demand plant. Wouldn't it be more resilient than most other plants to a lack of CO2? Looking at its natural habitat, the stuff spends a lot of time emersed or near the surface of rivers. you'd think this would mean a high CO2 environment, and perhaps inefficient CO2 metabolism given that other nutrients would be constantly limiting by comparison.


----------



## Jane in Upton

dwalstad said:


> The other rooted plant species that are growing well (but not too well) in the DSM are:
> 
> _Marsilea quadrifolia
> Eleocharis acicularis
> Hemianthus micranthemoides _(Baby Tears, a bigger version of HC)
> 
> I think that HC and these plants take up so little CO2 (from the CO2 pool available) that you could add other slow-growers. Just make sure to keep the plants in check.
> 
> On that note, I'm not sure how to prune these plants. I've been just pulling them out. The _Eleocharis acicularis_ (dwarf hairgrass) is threatening to take over one tank. As I discussed in my book (p. 45), this genera actively secretes allelochemicals into the substrate to inhibit other plants. I don't trust it.


Thanks for the suggestions. Ah yes, hairgrass and its chemical warfare! Its been a long time since I've grown hairgrass - thanks for that reminder!

Baby Tears H. micranthemoides, might make an interesting look - high and low.

And Dan, I really like the anubias suggestion. That and/or Java Ferns would be a nice contrast, indeed.

I think the point with HC was not that it was a low-CO2 DEMAND plant, but that it is inefficient in its CO2 Metabolism, as you suggested. This would explain how its thought to "Need" CO2 supplementation, when in direct competition with other plants that are far better at CO2 Uptake and Metabolism; it doesn't get enough because the fast uptake plants strip it out of the water. Therefore, it only grows well alongside other CO2-needing plants when there is heavy supplementation, and plenty of CO2 for all.

By removing the competition, it is able to meet its needs for CO2 and grow well. This is completely in line with the observation that HC is often emersed or near the edge of rivers - areas where there is plenty of CO2 available, and competition is not a factor.

In a low CO2 environment, with its poor uptake abilities, it suffers because of the inability to get enough; CO2 becomes the limiting growth factor.

-Jane


----------



## f1ea

Philosophos said:


> For a long time people were under the impression that HC is a high light plant (proven false now), and anubias doesn't tend to get along so well under high light. As such, HC and anubias typically haven't been thought of as an easy pair to put together.
> 
> What I'm wondering is why HC would suffer from low CO2 if it's a low CO2 demand plant. Wouldn't it be more resilient than most other plants to a lack of CO2? Looking at its natural habitat, the stuff spends a lot of time emersed or near the surface of rivers. you'd think this would mean a high CO2 environment, and perhaps inefficient CO2 metabolism given that other nutrients would be constantly limiting by comparison.


Seems Diana is growing the HC under low light, therefore it doesnt gulp too much CO2 (and neither do the rest of the plants in the tank). I read the article (quick skim) and could not find a straight figure on wattage. But from what i read, it was not much.

Interesting that HC seems to no really need that much light... I am not sure, but maybe because the tanks are getting some sunlight HC is able to grow with such low wattage after being flooded. 1-3 hrs of sun goes a long way as far as lighting goes. However, since she got to grow the HC emersed, once flooded you dont need HC to grow anymore, just survive. This must be the key to having HC in lower light.

Something similar happens with Hydrocotyle verticillata, emersed it is very easy and very fast to grow even under low light... once it goes submerged, everything changes.


----------



## Jane in Upton

f1ea said:


> Interesting that HC seems to no really need that much light... I am not sure, but maybe because the tanks are getting some sunlight HC is able to grow with such low wattage after being flooded. 1-3 hrs of sun goes a long way as far as lighting goes. However, since she got to grow the HC emersed, once flooded you dont need HC to grow anymore, just survive. This must be the key to having HC in lower light.


Actually, the HC ws not just surviving, but actively growing. From the article, refer to:

"Fig 7. DSM Tanks after Submergence. Here are the two 2-gal tanks 3 weeks after submergence. Carpet plants are growing very well submerged. They have made such a thick mat, I can pour water into the tank without disturbing the soil layer."

Also, the lighting is discussed in the article as well:

"Light- 10.5" Clamp Light with a 14 watt screw-in CFL (GE's "Bright White"). The clamp light rests directly on the glass lids of both tanks.

Daylength- During the emergent phase, I kept lights on continuously for 14 hr per day.14 After submergence, I put tanks on the "Siesta Regimen" that I use for the bowls."

The siesta regimen is thought to interrupt any potential algae growth in a two-fold manner, by allowing CO2 to build up again (for the plants to utilize) and also to prevent the unused light energy from making iron more bio-available for algae.


----------



## f1ea

> Actually, the HC ws not just surviving, but actively growing. From the article, refer to:
> 
> "Fig 7. DSM Tanks after Submergence. Here are the two 2-gal tanks 3 weeks after submergence. Carpet plants are growing very well submerged. They have made such a thick mat, I can pour water into the tank without disturbing the soil layer."


Wow. They are actually growing... Now we're talking. Thanks for noting! 
I saw from the images HC growing (surprisingly) even faster than E. Acicularis... that explains my EA carpet growing kinda slowish (also i have a 60cm/24" deep tank).



> "Light- 10.5" Clamp Light with a 14 watt screw-in CFL (GE's "Bright White"). The clamp light rests directly on the glass lids of both tanks.


so its 14W... i figured it was around that range. Still it is quite low as a total Wattage (14 WPG though hehe).

There was still a little bit of a challenge with algae once submerged. Maybe strange to Diana... but I guess most of us deal with that initiation algae anyways :fish:

So there goes yet another myth: HC is not in itself that demanding with CO2/light


----------



## Philosophos

If anything this shows that HC is demanding of CO2 because it's not efficient in its uptake; other plants that are more efficient can out-compete it unless compressed CO2 is provided. The fact that it doesn't need high light has been established for some time now, but for some reason the myth never seems to die.


----------



## Jane in Upton

f1ea said:


> so its 14W... i figured it was around that range. Still it is quite low as a total Wattage (14 WPG though hehe).
> 
> There was still a little bit of a challenge with algae once submerged. Maybe strange to Diana... but I guess most of us deal with that initiation algae anyways


*Sigh*, Yeah, the "watts per gallon" estimation is not very effective any more, since the type of bulb - Compact Flourescent, linear T5, linear High Output T5, and the metal halides completely turn the old "standard" flourescent calculation totally on its head! Add in to that the variable of a reflector's efficiency, and it really becomes difficult to decipher!

And figuring the strength of a Spiral CF is tough. I use one of those clamp-on reflectors with a spiral CF over a bowl as well. Its actually a pretty good reflector, both in shape and reflectivity. But the bulb's spirals cause a LOT of restrike. Personally, I have a kind of convoluted way of figuring it out for my own uses, since I run three 'Walstad-style' 10g's with 14 w spiral CF's in the dual incandescent "economy" hoods. Now you've got me wondering just HOW MUCH light is in these clamp-on reflector setups....???

I kind of picture the light within a cube, with emission going towards the 6 walls. The least effective is the one where the built-in ballast is, so that's effectively a Zero. Now, the downward facing plane, opposite the base, is directly pointed at the water. But its the least perpendicular to the lamp's walls, and only the "top" part of the lamp is really facing the water surface, and half of that is facing the ballast base. So, 1/6th of 14 is 2.3, but its a small part of the lamp surface, and half is facing the ballast, so I'd chalk that output surface up to perhaps just under a watt. Now, half of the surface of the spiraled lamp walls are facing each other, so I'd cut the possible wattage in half right there. Of the remaining potential 7 watts, since its striking the reflector at a less than optimal angle, MAYBE 1/3rd of it is actually getting down into the water. So, count that as 2.3 watts. So yeah.... the most we could expect from it would be the rough equivalent of 2.3 w + almost 1 w to yield ~ 3.3 watts equivalent over a 2 gallon tank, or about 1.65.... so just over 1.5 w/gallon in the "old" calculation of brightness. LOL at myself... I guess that's a VERY long winded way of saying YEP, its still quite low light.

And as for algae...... we've ALL had algae. The first few weeks of a new NPT setup can be rough, but after the break-in period, its FAR preferable (in my opinion) than becoming the fertilizer-serving-wench for my tanks, LOL!

-Jane


----------



## f1ea

Jane in Upton said:


> *Sigh*, Yeah, the "watts per gallon" estimation is not very effective any more, since the type of bulb - Compact Flourescent, linear T5, linear High Output T5, and the metal halides completely turn the old "standard" flourescent calculation totally on its head! Add in to that the variable of a reflector's efficiency, and it really becomes difficult to decipher!


Yup, its kind of a riddle... I personally do nothing with the WPG rule. If only is just a way of briefly mentioning a figure. Furthermore... a bit of sunshine goes a LONG way. With 1-3 hrs of some sun, you have light that penetrates well, gives light requiring plants a good burst and sends everyone into pearling mode. Including algae!



> And figuring the strength of a Spiral CF is tough. I use one of those clamp-on reflectors with a spiral CF over a bowl as well. Its actually a pretty good reflector, both in shape and reflectivity. But the bulb's spirals cause a LOT of restrike. Personally, I have a kind of convoluted way of figuring it out for my own uses, since I run three 'Walstad-style' 10g's with 14 w spiral CF's in the dual incandescent "economy" hoods. Now you've got me wondering just HOW MUCH light is in these clamp-on reflector setups....???


There's another important bit: reflectors... 
Still, I dont go crazy with any light figure. Just notice the plants: if they are growing faster than you'd like: cut a little. If you are getting under-average growth and/or your nitrates accumulate a bit... add some light or rather "improve" your light. If the tank is over 20" I think the best/simplest thing is T5. The WPG serves maybe as a starting point, because with all the possibilities we have, we need something to start from.



> I kind of picture the light within a cube, with emission going towards the 6 walls. The least effective is the one where the built-in ballast is, so that's effectively a Zero. Now, the downward facing plane, opposite the base, is directly pointed at the water. But its the least perpendicular to the lamp's walls, and only the "top" part of the lamp is really facing the water surface, and half of that is facing the ballast base. So, 1/6th of 14 is 2.3, but its a small part of the lamp surface, and half is facing the ballast, so I'd chalk that output surface up to perhaps just under a watt. Now, half of the surface of the spiraled lamp walls are facing each other, so I'd cut the possible wattage in half right there. Of the remaining potential 7 watts, since its striking the reflector at a less than optimal angle, MAYBE 1/3rd of it is actually getting down into the water. So, count that as 2.3 watts. So yeah.... the most we could expect from it would be the rough equivalent of 2.3 w + almost 1 w to yield ~ 3.3 watts equivalent over a 2 gallon tank, or about 1.65.... so just over 1.5 w/gallon in the "old" calculation of brightness. LOL at myself... I guess that's a VERY long winded way of saying YEP, its still quite low light.


I think in common little tanks anything (T8 or CFL) under at least 20W total, is low light; medium at best. And still someone will come with an example of a micro tank, with 2" water depth with a CFL bulb and a state of the art refelctor, getting high light readings and growing the pickiest of plants......



> And as for algae...... we've ALL had algae. The first few weeks of a new NPT setup can be rough, but after the break-in period, its FAR preferable (in my opinion) than becoming the fertilizer-serving-wench for my tanks, LOL!


Exactly! I see no point in having a tank that needs a daily schedule to Fert, Feed, Adjust CO2, Water change, Trim.... everyday. Whoever likes it, fine. I just don't. I could put the extra effort in the first several weeks... and add some excel or some fert when i feed the fish in the morning....... But there's no way i'm having a tank that needs me everyday to survive. I'll enjoy that when i'm 70


----------



## f1ea

Oh... on a side note: just started my DSM NPT \\/

I was going to wait for the weekend, but had some extra time... its a 15 Gal (24" x 12" x 12") with 34W T8. I will start some kind of journal, to share and get some help/counseling if (ahem... WHEN) needed.

Right now I have planted some Echinodorus Tenellus, Hydrocotyle verticillata and Eleocharis acicularis. 

I don't have a big supply to start with, but i might come accross a few more (quantity) withing the next weeks. However, once I decide to fill with water i can pretty much crowd it on one day (from 200 Gal clippings). 

cheers... and hooray for this thread!


----------



## ashenwelt

dwalstad said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> My book's website now has a 9 page article _Small Planted Tanks for Pet Shrimp_. It can be downloaded (for free) from the website. I wrote it to further promote my book and help beginning hobbyists.
> 
> The article describes my shrimp bowls as well as the more recent DSM setups (Tom Barr's method). I am very pleased with the DSM tanks. They contain carpet plants, plants that I never thought I would be able to grow.
> 
> Website for _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_
> http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00388.htm


I absolutely apologize for making committing the cardinal sin of resurrecting a dead or old as heck thread. My apologies.

The thing is... I want to try making one of these shrimp bowls, as is a buddy of mine. He is convinced from the article published that there was just one shrimp. I think it was a small colony. But in the end... all we care about is:

How many shrimp are recommend in a one gallon shrimp tank based on your method? Also, what kind of snails (and do you consider snails necessary)?

Thanks


----------



## Teacher104

dwalstad said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> My book's website now has a 9 page article _Small Planted Tanks for Pet Shrimp_. It can be downloaded (for free) from the website. I wrote it to further promote my book and help beginning hobbyists.
> 
> The article describes my shrimp bowls as well as the more recent DSM setups (Tom Barr's method). I am very pleased with the DSM tanks. They contain carpet plants, plants that I never thought I would be able to grow.
> 
> Website for _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_
> http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00388.htm


Thank you. I will look into your guide. It is an awesome concept, the Natural! I just found you guys after researching for a while how to create an almost self-sustaining aquarium, that would bring so much to my students but would survive the Summers when I leave for 2 months with minimal care by another teacher in another classroom. And to think that it exists! I got so excited reading the posts here that I bought a 10 gallon glass aquarium. This is all I can think about!


----------

