# New 90 Gal Low Tech NPT Fish tank Setup



## Varma (May 19, 2005)

I am planning to setup 90 GAL NPT which is going to replace my current 55 Gal Tank. I am new to this setup. So Please help me and bare with me and correct me if I am doing/saying something stupid.


Tank Size : 90 Gal : Dimentions: 48 1/2 x 18 1/2 x 25 3/8
Substrate/Gravel: Eco-Complete planted aquarium substrate 
Filter : fluval 450 Canister Filter 
Light : 188 Watts (2 watts/gallon)
Hagen Glo T5 HO Lighting 48" Double System - 108 Watts + 2x40 Watts T8 Floracent Light.
Sunlight: No Direct Sunlight
Heater : 400W submersible heater
Water : Tap Water (Hardness : 80 -120)

I am new to NPT. Please help me in seting up Low Tech - Low Mintenance tank. The initial phase questions i have are below. 

The substrate that I am using is Eco-Complete Planted Aquarium Substrate. I have 2 kinds for substrates from Eco Complete. Very Soft and pea sized. I was wondering whether I can put the soft substrate at the bottom of the tank and then cover with peasized substrate. If I do this Can I eliminate potting soil? If so what are the pros and cons?

Please help me in figuring out the what kind of media would help this kind of setup for initial phases and stabilized phase.?

I am planning to switch the below fishes I already own to this setup once ready. Please help me whether I am overstocking it?
Angels - 6
Swords - 10
Apistogramas - 6
Peacock Gudgeons - 6
Tetras - 12
Shrimp - 12
Nirate Snails - 4

I am plannnig to keep the temparature at 72. So help me choose the plants that will thrive with my setup. I love more kind of lush green,red,voilet color plants. I would love to see good aquascape pics of 90 gal tanks so that I can get some idea about what plants I can choose.

Thanks In advance.


----------



## dstrong (Feb 13, 2011)

Welcome Varma, personally for plants some of my favorites have been:

Cryptocoryne Walkeri 'Lutea' 
Hygrophila Corymbosa 'Kompakt'
Giant Hygrophila (I've heard it called Nomaphila Stricta and Hygrophila Corymbosa, not sure which is correct)

I'm nowhere near an expert and there are many plants that I have not kept. Those are just a couple I've had luck with that I like appearance wise. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the names. 

I can't wait to see it set up!


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

With the 108 watts of T5-HO riding shotgun with your 80 watts of T8 I'd consider going with a higher temp to encourage faster plant growth, but I am by no means a light v temp data bank. It just seems that you will have plenty of light for photosynthesis, and 72 seems on the cool side for that much energy availability.

I am not familiar with your substrate, but part of the purpose of organics in the substrate is to have some slow decomp to provide CO2 until there's enough organic build up over time to compensate. You'll want to check into what is available as far as organics and maybe some amount of nutrient.

On stocking, if you are starting off very, very, very heavily planted, then stocking rates are not an issue IME. I've had better growth with "overstocked" tanks than with average or understocked tanks, and I've not had problems with fish health when heavily planted.

I had a 125 NPT that was broken down when I moved; you might check the old thread out and see if you might learn from some of my early mistakes on what NOT to do. The thread, I think, is called "Mudboots' 125 NPT". It'll be in the journals threads.

There are some really nice large tanks set up NPT, but I don't recall the thread names at this time.


----------



## potatoes (Jun 25, 2010)

I have not used your substrate, sorry. I think i have heard of large ammonia spikes when the tank is first set up, so you should really watch your parameters before adding fish. I would also start off slow with smaller hardy fish until the plants get established. One thing you may already know is that it is helpful to limit surface agitation so you can conserve the co2 in the water. More surface agitation = more gas exchange = less co2 from my understanding. I just thought you may want to keep that in mind when setting up your filter (I have not used canister filters so idk how they work surface agitation wise. just a thought)


----------



## dstrong (Feb 13, 2011)

Potatoes I agree with you about the CO2 dissipation, but if you are not running CO2 in your tank and you don't have very many fish in relation to plants I would go with higher surface agitation or possibly even an airstone as it will help dissipate excess oxygen from the plants and replenish CO2 as it drops below the percentage in the air. That is my understanding anyways.


----------



## penfold (Dec 7, 2010)

Water at atmospheric equilibrium only contains around 0.5ppm CO2, so increasing aeration will always drive your CO2 concentration towards 0.5ppm. We should be aiming for a level much higher than this. I would only increase aeration if I saw signs of low O2 levels, like fish gasping at the surface.


----------



## dstrong (Feb 13, 2011)

penfold said:


> Water at atmospheric equilibrium only contains around 0.5ppm CO2, so increasing aeration will always drive your CO2 concentration towards 0.5ppm. We should be aiming for a level much higher than this. I would only increase aeration if I saw signs of low O2 levels, like fish gasping at the surface.


I said if you are* NOT* running CO2 and have a *small* amount of fish in relation to plants you should increase aeration. With no outside source of CO2 and not enough fish to produce CO2 faster than the plants can use it, it seems irresponsible to not increase aeration. Why would you be looking for signs of low oxygen in a heavily planted tank with few fish in the first place? Honestly I think some people just like to hear themselves talk..


----------



## penfold (Dec 7, 2010)

Increasing aeration will always drive your CO2 concentration towards atmospheric equilibrium (0.5ppm), regardless of tank setup. But no one should be aiming for a concentration that low. You don't need pressurized CO2 or lots of fish in order to maintain a CO2 concentration above atmospheric equilibrium. Feed more and/or reduce light levels if your CO2 concentration is really that low. We can all do better than 0.5ppm.


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

mudboots said:


> I had a 125 NPT that was broken down when I moved; you might check the old thread out and see if you might learn from some of my early mistakes on what NOT to do. The thread, I think, is called "Mudboots' 125 NPT". It'll be in the journals threads.
> 
> There are some really nice large tanks set up NPT, but I don't recall the thread names at this time.


if you need more advice on what not to do, read my journal.

Davemonkey, also has a very nice, large soil tank. look for his journal.


----------



## Dielectric (Oct 7, 2008)

i also agree with mudboots. my over stocked NPT's are alot more healthier than the average/understocked.

i would not aerate at all. i do not in any tanks.

and contrary to belief, the ones with no water movement at all outside of convection currents generally do the best for me.


----------



## dstrong (Feb 13, 2011)

penfold said:


> Increasing aeration will always drive your CO2 concentration towards atmospheric equilibrium (0.5ppm), regardless of tank setup. But no one should be aiming for a concentration that low. You don't need pressurized CO2 or lots of fish in order to maintain a CO2 concentration above atmospheric equilibrium. Feed more and/or reduce light levels if your CO2 concentration is really that low. We can all do better than 0.5ppm.


When has anyone ever implied that anyone should be aiming at low Co2 levels? Also, perhaps you could muse me as to where this higher concentration of Co2 comes from?


----------



## penfold (Dec 7, 2010)

dstrong said:


> When has anyone ever implied that anyone should be aiming at low Co2 levels?


Like I said, by increasing aeration, you're driving CO2 concentration towards atmospheric equilibrium (0.5ppm). That means that at concentrations above 0.5ppm, you're driving CO2 down. Increasing aeration for the specific purpose of CO2 maintenance is like saying "0.5ppm is the best I'm going to do, so I might as well aim for it." By feeding more and minimizing aeration, one could aim for a much higher concentration.



dstrong said:


> Also, perhaps you could muse me as to where this higher concentration of Co2 comes from?


In addition to fish waste, it can come from decomposing food. When feeding the tank, uneaten food will be metabolized by bacteria which produce CO2. Even if you don't have many fish, you can feed more in order to generate more CO2 and other nutrients for plant growth. I don't know if you've seen Diana Walstad's book, but she describes this in detail.


----------



## Varma (May 19, 2005)

Thanks to all replies guys.

But I think the topic is getting diverted from what I am planned to achive here.


OK. Guys. After reading some different methods, I am impressed with some methods. I will try to put all of these together and plant to start this 90 Gallon setup. I will try to document as I progress. (kind of journal).


----------



## Tuiflies (Jan 21, 2010)

I think you have lots of light. Personally I wouldn't use the T8's. 108W's of T5HO light will be almost equivilant to 2 wpg. Although, I've never set up a tank that tall. Maybe start without the T8's and if the plants seem to need more light, add it in after.

I would only have floss in the canister (using it primarily for circulation).

I've never used Eco-complete but I can't see a problem with mixing the very soft in with some soil to get the best of both worlds. Just make sure you have this tank very heavily planted initially.


----------



## fjf888 (Dec 4, 2007)

Varma said:


> Thanks to all replies guys.
> 
> But I think the topic is getting diverted from what I am planned to achive here.
> 
> OK. Guys. After reading some different methods, I am impressed with some methods. I will try to put all of these together and plant to start this 90 Gallon setup. I will try to document as I progress. (kind of journal).


I don't think your tank will work with Eco-Complete (at least not initially). Here's why.

1. Eco-complete is largely inert. It claims to have an abundance of nutrients, but they are not available to plants as the nutrients in soil are available. If you want to go with a product I would go with ADA aquasoil or Azoo plant substrate.

2. You have no initial source of CO2 (Carbon). With the amount of light you are planning to use, you need to have a source carbon, the soil provides this release of carbon as a byproduct of decomposition. Eco will not do this.

If I had to use eco complete, this is what I would do. A thin layer of peat (just enough to cover the bottom) at the bottom topped with eco-complete, or without peat I would dose flourish excel or a carbon additive (sort of gets away from the NPT concept). I would also dose weekly NPK and traces. As eco as nothing bioavailable to plants. What eco has is a good CEC, which means that it does a great job absorbing nutrients in the water column, but you need to put them there to get them absorbed. Eco is a good substrate in the right situation, but its not suited for NPT/Walstad methods.

Hope this helps

Fred


----------

