# 1960 Soil Substrate



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Ever since first stumbling upon Diana's book, *Ecology of the Planted Aquarium*, I've had this nagging suspicion I had read somewhere long ago about soil substrates in fish tanks. The feeling wasn't very solid and I didn't spend much time satisfying the itch. However, today there was a little more time than usual so I went back through my books and found it in the very first one.

The title is "A Guide To Tropical Fish" by N. H. and S. K. Mager, published by Washington Square Press in 1960. It's chapter 12, headed "Gravel and Ornaments". First the authors tell us about gravel, how coarse is better except where fish can't scavenge food trapped within. Then about Magnesium and Calcium and how the wrong gravel can lead to hard water.

About halfway through the chapter, we find these tidbits:

_"Some aquarists create a bottom layer of soil beneath the gravel to provide nourishment for plants. This is excellent for the plants but presents other problems for fish. Any stirring brings the soil into the water and makes it cloudy. Moreover, the organic matter in the soil may contaminate the aquarium. Ordinarily fish wastes should be sufficient to feed plants."_

Wow! Just imagine, fifty years ago we were that close to this great quantum leap in knowledge allowing us to easily grow plants in aquariums. If it weren't for a little angst over cloudy water....

There's more. In the very next paragraph we find advice on dosing:

_"The same caution applies to fertilizing plants. If stimulation appears necessary, a liquid fertilizer injected with a pipette into the gravel or sand should do the trick. Special vitamin tablets added to the water will do much to improve the color and growth of plants."_

Amusingly, the authors finish the chapter with a discussion of incorporating sunken treasure chests, mermaids, divers and pirate ships into the aquarium's aeration system. I kid you not!

Thanks Diana for delivering us from the dark ages! 

Jim


----------



## bratyboy2 (Feb 5, 2008)

yah especially to everyone from getting us away from those tacky ornaments


----------



## aquatic_clay (Aug 17, 2009)

That's really funny!!!! It's truly amazing how far this hobby has come along in the past 50 years! This may be strange but... Everytime I hear something like this I imagine what it would be like if we could go back in time and show people then what we know now.


----------



## brenmuk (Oct 7, 2008)

Someone on UKAPS found a link from 1923 that is very much like an NPT



a1Matt said:


> Here is an article promoting a method that looks very similar to the 'el naturel'\npt\Walstad' methodology to me.
> 
> Original date of said article.... 1923! :shock:
> 
> http://www.oldandsold.com/articles06/house-plants-18.shtml


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Interesting thread, I'm not sure how I missed it.

NPT is the original planted tank. The work of Robert Warington back in the 1850's involved mud and sand substrate, the issue of whether to water change, CO2-plant-fish relationships, etc. He was very emphatic on the point of recreating a balanced natural system, one involving as little interference as possible. This method of an organic substrate capped with something else or even left on its own has existed since then in one form or another.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

Well, sure, it's natural to assume the very first aquarists used soil for a substrate. After all, there was no such science as hydroponics back then, and all their experience should have led them to try mud since that was what they found on river and lake bottoms. It would have been weird if Warington and Gosse had jumped in initially with dry ferts and CO2.

What would be most educational is finding the exact moment where we diverged from el Natural and decided soil substrates weren't advantageous. Or perhaps there was some sort of schism where the pro-gravel group battled with the soil sect, and the gravelers won out until Diana Walstad came along?

And the misinformation continues almost to this day (websites notwithstanding). In my most recent book, the author, who might be visiting this site and will remain nameless, says disturbing a soil substrate will foul the tank so completely, it requires stripping the tank down and starting over. This book was published in 2004.

Sigh....


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

I've got zero hard info, but I'm guessing rock/gravel bottom has existed almost as long as we've kept fish that dig. A mud bottom being disturbed may not destroy a tank, but the view sure is nasty. In that case, I'm guessing gravel substrate could go back quite a ways as well.

Where the change happened... well it never seems to have happened outside of North America from what I can see. Compared to Europe and East Asia there's little interest in planted tanks here. I've got a long rant on the lack of refinement and blatant anti-intellectualism on this continent that's choking its self to death, but I'll save that for another time.


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

Philosophos said:


> I've got zero hard info, but I'm guessing rock/gravel bottom has existed almost as long as we've kept fish that dig. A mud bottom being disturbed may not destroy a tank, but the view sure is nasty. In that case, I'm guessing gravel substrate could go back quite a ways as well.
> 
> Where the change happened... well it never seems to have happened outside of North America from what I can see. Compared to Europe and East Asia there's little interest in planted tanks here. I've got a long rant on the lack of refinement and blatant anti-intellectualism on this continent that's choking its self to death, but I'll save that for another time.


William K, Innes, in his "Exotic Aquarium Fishes', published in the 1930's and 40's, recommended against using soil substrates because " . . . it was apt to become foul" and because the fish would supply the nutrients that the plants required. He also noted that commercial plant growers used soil substrates because there were no fish involved. He also was wary of adding nutrients.

That was in the days of the "balanced aquarium" concept, which has reappeared thanks to Diana and others who support it.

As far as " . . . the lack of refinement and blatant anti-intellectualism on this continent that's choking its self to death . . ." I have to disagree. Compared to much of the rest of the world, we have a very free exchange of ideas. Thanks to "Political Correctness", academics don't venture into certain areas, like the effect of genetics on intelligence, and other areas involving climate change, but, hey, they have their careers to worry about.

Bill


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

aquabillpers said:


> William K, Innes, in his "Exotic Aquarium Fishes', published in the 1930's and 40's, recommended against using soil substrates because " . . . it was apt to become foul" and because the fish would supply the nutrients that the plants required. He also noted that commercial plant growers used soil substrates because there were no fish involved. He also was wary of adding nutrients.
> 
> That was in the days of the "balanced aquarium" concept, which has reappeared thanks to Diana and others who support it.


I'm not sure the concept of an integral aquarium ever lost popularity. Herbert Axelrod pushed it all the way along throughout his career and in his books. TFH magazine and his publications covered the concept through those years as an extension of his efforts. IMO you don't get a much bigger endorsement than that.



aquabillpers said:


> As far as " . . . the lack of refinement and blatant anti-intellectualism on this continent that's choking its self to death . . ." I have to disagree. Compared to much of the rest of the world, we have a very free exchange of ideas. Thanks to "Political Correctness", academics don't venture into certain areas, like the effect of genetics on intelligence, and other areas involving climate change, but, hey, they have their careers to worry about.


I could get into this one a whole ton, but I'm guessing the threadjacking wouldn't be appreciated, and the mods wouldn't be happy either. Most of what I have to say on these issues, when I say it, results in banning, thread locking and post deletion in places with fewer rules. Hence being something for another time and place.


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

Using soil in aquariums is nothing new. The problem with these older guidelines is that they aren't based on the scientific information we now have. 

It is easy to get a "foul tank" using soil. Examples of where hobbyists can easily go wrong: (1) soil is heavily fertilized; (2) starting out with a few weak plants species; (3) water is too soft; and (4) lighting is inadequate or too intense. Then, there's all the things that hobbyists do to sabotage their plants (e.g., over-aeration, plant-killing medications, etc) which then create problems that can easily be blamed on the soil.

I can see where at some point earlier fishkeepers just threw up their hands and said "Forget it!". 

So its not merely a question of getting good results (other methods occasionally and often serendipitously work quite well). 

What I hope will make a permanent and lasting "sea change" is getting good results based on a genuine understanding of aquatic chemistry and ecology. Otherwise, the idea of using soil can be easily dismissed-- as it has been over and over again-- since 1960, 1850 and probably earlier.


----------



## Dustymac (Apr 26, 2008)

*1980 Gravel Substrate*

I have another "expert" passage found in one of my books published in the '80s.

_Perhaps the most important concession to a planted aquarium is the use of an undergravel filter. It will draw the necessary nutrients to the gravel, and thereby, to the plant roots._

I always thought undergravel filters were detrimental to plants because they prevented nutrient accumulation around the roots. Any thoughts?

Jim


----------



## aquabillpers (Apr 13, 2006)

*Re: 1980 Gravel Substrate*



Dustymac said:


> I have another "expert" passage found in one of my books published in the '80s.
> 
> _Perhaps the most important concession to a planted aquarium is the use of an undergravel filter. It will draw the necessary nutrients to the gravel, and thereby, to the plant roots._
> 
> ...


The nutrients work their way down through the substrate to the roots without the help of an undergravel filter. Anyone who had ever taken down a tank with a gravel-only substrate and washed the gravel, knows how much mulm and other material gets into it.

I would also think that a UGF would pull the soil particles and nutrients down into it and hence into the water column. Nothing good would come from that.

Bill


----------



## dwalstad (Apr 14, 2006)

*Re: 1980 Gravel Substrate*



Dustymac said:


> I always thought undergravel filters were detrimental to plants because they prevented nutrient accumulation around the roots. Any thoughts?
> 
> Jim


The problem is that UGFs that are properly functioning make the substrate environment too aerobic. Iron in particular needs to be in the reduced form (not oxygenated) for plant uptake. Same scenario for a few other micronutrients (manganese, copper and zinc).


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

UGF has the listed problems of course. 

RUGF with a heavily dosed column has gotten some good results in VaughnH (hoppy's) tanks using regular dosing. I would imagine CO2 distribution on compressed or DIY systems done this way would be pretty amazing. In systems like this, CO2 is more of a challenge than nutrients.


----------



## tames (Apr 18, 2008)

I think a lot of the "change" was market driven. At some point nitrifying bacteria was discovered to reduce ammonia in aquariums. Clever marketing people say - now you could have a "fish tank". Just make it look neat-o with plastic plants. Neon ones look really cool under that weak fluorescent light. After all fish don't care about light, just turn it on when you want to look at them. So you have the beginner 10 gallon setup complete with an undergravel filter, heater and air pump. Cheap and fun! So easy you could buy the setup and some fish at the "dime store". Now let's buy some fish! OK a couple years go by and now you want a bigger tank. The premise of the "fish tank" has now been set. Just get a bigger tank, bigger heater, and hey look at the cool new hang-on-the-back filter.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

A RUGF using a low power/low flow pump to provide gentle circulation to the roots works. One thing a lot of people forget is that plants' roots are aerobic and require oxygen to respire just like the rest of the plant. Providing a source of oxygenated water in the root zone will save the plant a lot of energy pumping O2 to the roots. This was also the premise behind substrate heating cables. 

Cheers,
Phil


----------



## nfrank (Jan 29, 2005)

*Re: 1980 Gravel Substrate*



Dustymac said:


> I have another "expert" passage found in one of my books published in the '80s.
> 
> _Perhaps the most important concession to a planted aquarium is the use of an undergravel filter. It will draw the necessary nutrients to the gravel, and thereby, to the plant roots._
> 
> ...


In the UK, a different style of UG filters were popular; perhaps prior to 1980-90. They were promoted and perhaps even marketed by Tom Horeman. Tom is the co-author of the TFH book, AQUARIUM PLANTS by Rataj and Horeman and is the one that Echinodorus horemanii is named after. In the early 90's, I met him at his shop a few blocks from Victoria station in London.

All of Tom's store tanks with luscious plants had UG filters. Instead of a plate, his design was a network of tubes, with slow bubbleup flow, that permitted the needed aerobic and anerobic zones in the substrate.... to permit the reduction and utilization of some minerals, as Diana mentions. The concept has some similarity to heating cables. Neither actually are needed as long as the roots are pumping O2 into the substrate. However, for tanks without every inch of realestate covered by plants, these gentle flow systems may be helpful.


----------



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

The 80s were the dark ages as far as this Hobby is concerned. It was about then, we learned, that the Germans were finding that putting 800 or 1000 watts on a tank was OK. Compared to the 15 or 18 watts we were using and compared to what, even on an overcast day, reached the surface the pitiful light we were using was a joke and the results were astounding even though the quality of the lights were poor and still not much. UGFs were and are a very good filter for fish but for plants they are a pain. As long as a tank is untouched a UGF is fine but when you try a teardown in a few years the roots become a part of the plates. If you use pipes it is a bit better, not much, but everything grows. Reverse flows were a latter day development that added a new wrinkle to the UGF.

When plants became a factor newer systems took over and technology changed things. As a Hobby we are stiil in our infancy and things are changing rapidly, just as everything else is, and a few years from now lots of folk will be looking back and shaking their heads at how primitive we were.

Filtration, as has been said, is market driven (just as everything else) but LEDS are probably the next "innovation" to dramatically affect the Hobby but who knows what the future will bring?


----------



## Z1234 (Oct 25, 2016)

Shirley Hibberd: The Book of The Aquarium, 1875 

"Further experiments were made by Mr. Robert Warington, who reported upon them to the Chemical Society, in March, 1850. Two small gold fish were placed in a glass receiver of about twelve gallons capacity, covered with muslin to exclude the dust. The vessel was half filled with spring-water, with a bottom of sand and mud, and some loose fragments of limestone and sandstone, so arranged as to form shelter and shade. A small specimen of Vallisneria spiralis was, at the same time, planted in the mud and kept in place by a stone. Everything went on well for a time, till it was found that the natural decay of the older leaves of the plant began to produce turbidity in the water, and a confervoid growth accumulated on the sides of the vessel, and on the surface of the water; to meet this emergency, Mr. Warington introduced a few pond snails, which greedily fed on the decaying vegetable matter and slimy mucus growth, so as quickly to restore the whole to a healthy state. Here was a complete circle of compensating processes."


----------

