# [Wet Thumb Forum]-Old way vs. new way of fertilizing?



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

Hi,

I've recently returned to the aquatic plant hobby from a two year stint with reef tanks. I am surprised with all the changes and advancements in the hobby. I think the hobby has grown/advanced more in the last two years than in the last 10. It is truly great to see.

However, I wanted to clarify one point that I've been struggling with. There seems to be a misconception out there about old school of thought fertilizing and new school. As I don't believe the plant requirements have changed while I was away, I humbly believe the new school of fertilizing is merely an extension of the old school.

It has always been the case that good plant growth will limit algal growth. How you get good plant growth is by providing the plants with the environment they need. This includes meeting the plant's requirement for nitrogen and phosphorus. Comments indicating that old school fertilizing tried to zero-out phosphorus in the aquarium are misleading as many of us had to add phosphorus to our heavily planted tanks in order to avoid deficiencies.

Old school relied on Leibig's law of minimums and attempted to limit algae growth by limiting a key nutritional element- phosphorus. This does not mean to eliminate phosphorus. It means to provide what the plants need (and no more) so that they outcompete algae.

New school seems to require massive water changes in some or all cases. I assume (though I'm not sure) that this is done to maintain certain nutrient levels in the aquarium. Well, this has been done by Amano for many years. I don't like it for two reasons.

First, I'm too lazy to commit to 50% water changes on a weekly basis. It's just not going to happen over the long-term. This may result in excess nutrients accumulating in the aquarium.

Secondly, such large water changes severly impact the aquarium's stability as there will be changes in pH, temperature, alkalinity, etc.

A difference between old and new appears to be that new school seems to believe that long-term excessive levels of Fe, NO3 or PO4 does not lead to algae growth. I believe Tom's done some test. I'd like to know if that's been replicated by others. Or, is it that elevated Fe, NO3 and PO4 are OK if you perform a massive water change on a weekly basis?

To conclude, I believe new school of fertilizing seems to be an extension of old school. There are some clear differences, but the message is the same. That message being that healthy, growing plants will outcompete algae thereby limiting algae growth.

Regards,

Art


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

Hi,

I've recently returned to the aquatic plant hobby from a two year stint with reef tanks. I am surprised with all the changes and advancements in the hobby. I think the hobby has grown/advanced more in the last two years than in the last 10. It is truly great to see.

However, I wanted to clarify one point that I've been struggling with. There seems to be a misconception out there about old school of thought fertilizing and new school. As I don't believe the plant requirements have changed while I was away, I humbly believe the new school of fertilizing is merely an extension of the old school.

It has always been the case that good plant growth will limit algal growth. How you get good plant growth is by providing the plants with the environment they need. This includes meeting the plant's requirement for nitrogen and phosphorus. Comments indicating that old school fertilizing tried to zero-out phosphorus in the aquarium are misleading as many of us had to add phosphorus to our heavily planted tanks in order to avoid deficiencies.

Old school relied on Leibig's law of minimums and attempted to limit algae growth by limiting a key nutritional element- phosphorus. This does not mean to eliminate phosphorus. It means to provide what the plants need (and no more) so that they outcompete algae.

New school seems to require massive water changes in some or all cases. I assume (though I'm not sure) that this is done to maintain certain nutrient levels in the aquarium. Well, this has been done by Amano for many years. I don't like it for two reasons.

First, I'm too lazy to commit to 50% water changes on a weekly basis. It's just not going to happen over the long-term. This may result in excess nutrients accumulating in the aquarium.

Secondly, such large water changes severly impact the aquarium's stability as there will be changes in pH, temperature, alkalinity, etc.

A difference between old and new appears to be that new school seems to believe that long-term excessive levels of Fe, NO3 or PO4 does not lead to algae growth. I believe Tom's done some test. I'd like to know if that's been replicated by others. Or, is it that elevated Fe, NO3 and PO4 are OK if you perform a massive water change on a weekly basis?

To conclude, I believe new school of fertilizing seems to be an extension of old school. There are some clear differences, but the message is the same. That message being that healthy, growing plants will outcompete algae thereby limiting algae growth.

Regards,

Art


----------



## Hispid (Feb 3, 2005)

I like the new school because it's simple and it works. I only have to work out how much to dose for my size of tank once really and then just have enough discipline to do a large water change per week. I can vouch for the results I have better plant growth and less algae when I stick to this routine.

You said in part 


> quote:
> 
> A difference between old and new appears to be that new school seems to believe that long-term excessive levels of Fe, NO3 or PO4 does not lead to algae growth. I believe Tom's done some test. I'd like to know if that's been replicated by others. Or, is it that elevated Fe, NO3 and PO4 are OK if you perform a massive water change on a weekly basis?


This seems to be underwritten by a misunderstanding. The water changes AFAIK are to prevent a build up of any ferts that aren't being used fast enough and would otherwise build up under a regular dosing regime without water changes AND to export problematic stuff like dissolved organic carbon, parasites, algal spores etc.

Elevated levels of PO4 NO3 and Fe seem to reduce my total amout of algae when compared with when my tank is limited in any of these nutrients. That is good enough for me.

I do however agree that there is little overall difference in reasoning between the old and new methods. The real difference is that the new method is pretty idiot proof which believe me I need







I too find large water changes a PITA however the results are enough to keep me doing it.

Cheers Tony


----------



## flounder (Dec 17, 2003)

I remember several years ago when I did very little in the way of fertilization for my plant tanks. Fish waste and micros+K was the extent. Small water changes every other week. I made sure to keep the fish load very low, but still… Then I got a new lighting system which more than doubled my watts -> which meant I had to run CO2 by the 10lb bottle -> which meant I had fertilize macros and micros by the kg. Now my plants grow like rabid kudzu. Which is great, but… I have to prune twice a week, change 50% once a week, and if I leave town for 2 days, my plants develop a deficiency of some type. This is mostly tongue-in-cheek because I enjoy the maintenance and work involved. I remember when salt tanks were almost impossible. Now my display plant tank (8h+/wk) is far more work than my SPS tank (<2h/wk). …and my favorite by far. When guests come over, they glance at my reef tank, and then go over and stare at my plant tank til I drag them away. Back to the subject. I agree with Art that things have changed. I’m not sure how I feel about the term “advanced” since if you like the old way, these changes don’t help. I guess the good thing is that with the improvement, there are more options and choices. If you’re a fan of the “old” ways, then don’t change. I’m a sucker for technology, and I’ve been a slave to my plant growth ever since (happily though).


----------



## tsunami06 (Feb 6, 2003)

There are also several factors which lead to
the creation of a "new school."

A) more widespread use of pressurized CO2
systems

B) capability to pack more light into a tank
with the widespread use of power compacts

I remember barely ever needing to fertilize my
tank when I ran it with only 2 w/g. I could
grow Rotala wallichii, Alternanthera reineckii,
and stargrass just fine with DIY CO2. I had
very little algae. However, with the use of
pressurized CO2 and large amounts of compact
flourescent lighting, the use of the "old school" would not work for the following reasons:

A) You can't really limit a nutrient very well
without having it drop down to zero within
24 hours. Things happen VERY fast. With lower
amounts of light, uptake rates were slower and
safely limiting a nutrient would have been
more feasible. 

B) With higher amounts of light and CO2, certain
nutrients become more critical. IME, high iron
and micronutrients levels are critical for high light tanks. I know if I don't dose enough 
iron, a lot of my plants (wallichii, diandra)
suffer when under 4 w/g. I dose much less iron
at 2 w/g and get spectacular results with the
same plants. Plants seem to really need the
higher concentration of nutrients at higher
light levels (which they are actually consuming,
believe me... there is not much surplus.

C) Trace amounts of nitrate and PO4 just don't
cut it in high light tanks. Plants will
pull it down to zero within a day. I can be
adding trace amounts of nitrate daily and still
see nitrate deficiencies in many plants (simply
not enough to go around if I don't dose enough).

The "new school" has allowed people to grow
many plants which used to be considered very
difficult many years ago such as Rotala macrandra. Also, this nutrient micromanaging
has allowed hobbyists to home in on the needs
on many particular plants. Micranthemum umbrosum
turning transparent? Need more nitrate. 
Nesaea pedicellata turning white? More iron.
Rotala macrandra and Rotala wallichii not
doing well? Boost PO4 and lower NO3. Etc.

Carlos

-------------------------
"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced." -- Van Gogh


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Art_Giacosa:
> There seems to be a misconception out there about old school of thought fertilizing and new school. As I don't believe the plant requirements have changed while I was away, I humbly believe the new school of fertilizing is merely an extension of the old school.


Art, it seems to me like what you are calling the "old school" is a version of Sears and Conlin, and what you're calling the "new school" is Tom Barr's method. Sears and Conlin's paper is dated 1996, but I seem to recall that the method was in use a year or so earlier. I think Tom and the guys in SFBAAPS worked out the "new method" 'round about 2000. There's only 5 years or so between these two.

I would go back a little farther for a definition of the old method. It used to be said that you really didn't need to fertilize an aquarium because fish food and fish waste would provide what the plants need. Plants back then were usually grown in clean sand or gravel. Diana Wastad's method modifies that by using a relatively rich substrate to provide the plants with a complete nutrient source. The first method I know of for fertilizing aquatic plants originated (I think) in Europe and provided plants with potassium and chelated iron; regular water changes were encouraged but not regarded as part of the fertilizing method. *That* is what I think of as the old method of fertilizing.

Horst and Kipper published "The Optimum Aquarium" in 1986 and their method eventually became the "new" method. Horst and Kipper added minor and trace elements to the iron and potassium that were used previously. They also divided the fertilizer regime into substrate components and water column components. They further divided the water column components into two different products with different dosing schedules. Lots of people were interested in the Dupla method, but not very many bought into the whole thing. Those who didn't invest in the whole thing focused their attention on laterite in the substrate and on daily drops.

I think of Sears and Conlin's method as an extension and consolidation of the Dupla fertilizers. In fact, when I first came across "pmdd" on Usenet the acronym stood for "poor man's dupla drops." It only later became "poor man's dosing drops." In it's final form, Sears and Conlin's method added nitrate to the suite of nutrients added and provided a method for optimizing the dose. They argued that by Liebig's rule, omitting phosphate from the mix would control the growth of algae.

I argued from the beginning -- and still argue and will probably continue to argue as long as anyone remains unconvinced -- that you can't use *any* essential nutrient to limit growth of algae or anything else in an aquarium. In the long run the limiting nutrient will be completely depleted and plants will become pathologically deficient. Reported successes using phosphate as a limiting nutrient were always misinterpreted anectodes or short-term successes.

People didn't stick with the original method very long before the shortcomings became evident. Paul Sears admitted on APD some time ago that he found it necessary to dose his tanks with phosphate to maintain good plant growth and health. Tom Barr and SFBAAPS came out with their new method only 4 years after Sears and Conlin's paper and it caught hold quickly.

The "new" methods recognizes that we have to provide our plants with *all* of the nutrients they need to grow on. I don't think it makes much difference how those nutrients are provided. To my thinking, Diana Walstad's unfertilized soil substrates and Tom Barr's high fertilizer doses are effectively equivalent; they are just two different methods of providing plants with everything they need. Diana's method is appropriate for low maintenance tanks and Tom's method is appropriate for high maintenance tanks.



> quote:
> 
> Old school relied on Leibig's law of minimums and attempted to limit algae growth by limiting a key nutritional element- phosphorus. This does not mean to eliminate phosphorus. It means to provide what the plants need (and no more) so that they outcompete algae.


I'm not sure that condition was ever obtained and maintained for any length of time. First, you can't provide any level of phosphorus so that phosphorus will be available to the plants but not to algae; there is nothing that plants do that can prevent algae from using phosphorus if it is present. Second, the nutrient levels (including phosphorus) in successful planted aquariums are typically so high that there is never a question about competition. When the level of *any* nutrient drops to the point where competition might be significant then the plants start showing evidence of deficiency. Third and in the particular case of phosphorus, not only are algae fully supplied by phosphate concentrations that are too low to measure with a hobby-level test kit, but algae can use organic phosphorus that can't be measured by phosphate kits and can't (as near as I've been able to find out) be used by plants; algae have phosphatase and I don't think plants do.

I'm not sure how the concept of nutrient competition filtered into the aquarium hobby. I think we'll be better off when it finally dies away. It was a bad, unsupported concept to start with and nothing has ever happened to change that.



> quote:
> 
> New school seems to require massive water changes in some or all cases. I assume (though I'm not sure) that this is done to maintain certain nutrient levels in the aquarium. Well, this has been done by Amano for many years. I don't like it for two reasons.
> 
> First, I'm too lazy to commit to 50% water changes on a weekly basis. It's just not going to happen over the long-term. This may result in excess nutrients accumulating in the aquarium.


Tom's method uses large water changes as a means to control the build up of excess nutrients. In fact,his whole method is a method of excess. To follow it you add excessive nutrient levels and control them with excessive water changes. I guess some people find that appealing.

I dispute two of the guidelines in Tom's method.

The potassium level that Tom prescribes is far too high. It's far higher than it needs to be and it's high enough to cause problems. It is an oft-repeated misconception that there is no down-side to overdosing potassium. That is not true. One of the most long-standing pieces of data in the science of chemical fertilization is that the levels of potassium, magnesium and calcium have to be balanced against each other. If potassium is overdosed it will block the uptake of calcium and magnesium.

The iron level that Tom prescribes is also far too high. Iron is a trace element. Plants need it in trace quantities. The idea of maintaining 0.5 mg/l or 0.7 mg/l of chelated iron in an aquarium is misguided. It looks especially misguided when you dig into the chemistry of iron chelates and iron tests. Different iron chelates behave differently and iron test kits don't necessarily test the iron that's there. The only way you can determine whether your fertilizing with enough iron is to look at the plants. There are no other guidelines that make sense.



> quote:
> 
> Secondly, such large water changes severly impact the aquarium's stability as there will be changes in pH, temperature, alkalinity, etc.
> 
> A difference between old and new appears to be that new school seems to believe that long-term excessive levels of Fe, NO3 or PO4 does not lead to algae growth. I believe Tom's done some test. I'd like to know if that's been replicated by others. Or, is it that elevated Fe, NO3 and PO4 are OK if you perform a massive water change on a weekly basis?


I don't know that large water changes are that much of a problem. Personally I use 15% water changes. I use smaller water changes because there are other ways that I would prefer to invest my time and energy. Also, I just can't see throwing out so many of the nutrients that I so carefully add.

I prefer to moderate the dosing levels and use no more than the plants need. That approach conserves the amount of fertilizer I use, it conserves the amount of time I have to worry about it and it conserves the amount of work needed to offset problems.

I am aware of no well-established down side to keeping levels of Fe, NO3 or PO4 that exceed plant demands. I know that lots of us do it and have nice,healthy tanks. I've read many anectdotes from people claiming that a high level of some nutrient caused problem X. I've yet to come across any of those that made very much sense at all. The ones that *really* got to me were the ones where people used Sears and Conlin, forced phosphate to 0, lost all the algae then got hair algae when iron went above 0.1. I never understood -- never will understand -- how that hair algae is supposed to grow without phosphate, no matter how much iron is there. Do you suppose that the algae is using iron *instead* of phosphate?

Nutrients have been assigned a role in algae control that is not in step with reality. We have always seen far more problems associated with low nutrient levels than with high levels. That is some old baggage that aquarium keepers will be much better off without.



> quote:
> 
> To conclude, I believe new school of fertilizing seems to be an extension of old school. There are some clear differences, but the message is the same. That message being that healthy, growing plants will outcompete algae thereby limiting algae growth.


I agree that new methods are an outgrowth of old. Each step in the progression fills in a gap that the previous step left. But I disagree about the message. I think it's fairly clear that nutrient competition plays little or no role in controlling algae.

The history of aquarium fertilization is pretty short and it may not be that useful to divide that short history into different epochs. It also isn't at all clear to me that people have been lead by the landmark articles or that the methods people use on a day-to-day basis are all that similar to the methods described in the those articles. Instead, those landmark articles may reflect the methods that people are using at the time. The articles may just follow up on and effectively codify practices that where previously used and discussed by others.

Roger Miller

------------
_"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein_


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

Thanks for the comments all!

I do remember the coming of the Dupla system and my excitement reading The Optimum Aquarium! Great times! It was a new, defined system based on actual studies in the field. Plus, a bunch of cool electronic gadgets.

I also remember the coming of PMDD and its impact. This system broke the fertilizing regime into macro and micro nutrients and dosing separately. Unfortunately, its focus was on battling algae by trying to "limit" phosphorus. I think many people have gone on to think that one must zero-out phosphorus in an aquarium in order to avoid algae. This is their interpretation of Leibig's Law.

I'm not specifically talking of these two methods. I'm talking about what we all did before Tom's method. How did the Dutch and Germans maintain such beautiful aquariums on a long-term basis if they didn't flush the system with nutrients and then do a massive water change? Heck, how did some of us do it?

I remember having interesting discussions with Karen about telling newbies about the need to add phosphorus or nitrate back on Compuserv's FISHNET. The point is, and has always been, to provide the plants with the nutrients they need to grow (whether that is slowly or rapidly or somewhere in between). The problem is how do you provide the plants with the adequate amount of nutrients needed (avoiding deficiency and toxicity) taking into account the different uptake rates of plants and of diffierent nutrients without also providing the same to algae.

The question I have is if I flush the system with nutrients, what is it that causes only the plants to grow and not algae. Why doesn't Tom have a tank with equally growing plants and algae? Why is algae growth being "limited"?

Dosing large amounts of fertilizer into the aquarium eventually results in the accumulation of certain elements in toxic proportions. This seems to be avioded in the new system by massive water changes. Gees, why don't you just dose what the plants need and, therefore, massive water changes aren't needed.

Don't get me wrong, I think the continual progression of thought in this area is critical and "Tom's" method is a step in that direction. I just wonder how many hobbyists will remain if the hobby requires 50% water changes on a weekly basis?

There is something wrong when keeping SPS is less taxing than a freshwater, planted tank.

Regards,

Art


----------



## DJ (Nov 26, 2003)

How the Dutch did it?

Clay and iron in the bottom layer of the soil, Iron chelates added in the water column and PMDD (conveniently supplied in the form of room plant fertilisers). Furthermore soft water (50% RO), CO2 and 2W/gallon. 20% water change/week.

And nowadays? Still the same, but we now also add (K)nitrates if NO3 drops below 10 mg/l.

DJ


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Art_Giacosa:
> How did the Dutch and Germans maintain such beautiful aquariums on a long-term basis if they didn't flush the system with nutrients and then do a massive water change? Heck, how did some of us do it?


I think it goes back to what Karen Randall has been saying for a few years now. There is a successful balance between light, CO2 and nutrients. You can grow plants very well over a wide range of conditions, but those conditions must be balanced.

Years ago we grew plants without a lot of light. As a result plants grew slowly and we needed little CO2 and a lot of our tanks didn't need more nutrients than the fish supplied. Even if we did need to add something, we only needed to add a few key nutrients. We didn't have to add a full spectrum fertilizer.

More recent methods account for people using far more efficient lighting than we used to have available, using more compact lighting than we had available and packing more equipment over the same size tanks. That lets us grow a wider variety of plants and it improved the look of plants that we were able to grow under lower light. But brighter light forces higher growth rates and requires more CO2 and more comprehensive fertilizer regimes.

Bright lighting is an option. Certainly we don't have to use it. The fact that many people do use it reflects yet another change in the hobby. I see it at the AGA conventions, where the old guard are juxtaposed with the younger set. Permit me this digression...

A lot of the older plant keepers (say, people my age) started growing plants because it provided a better environment for their fish, to add a little decoration to their fish tank or out of a scientific interest in the plants. They weren't willing to invest very much time or money into equipment for plants because the plants weren't really what their tanks were about. Even if they went on to grow plants just for the sake of having the plants many of them never got over the idea that it should be simple and inexpensive and shouldn't take much time.

Many younger plant keepers are in the hobby because of aquascaped aquariums. The plants are the reason for their tanks and they want their tanks to have that brightness and color. They expect that it will take an investment of time and money to get what they want. They are willing to pay more and willing to spend more time on care and maintenance.

Along with the differences in goals and expectations come differences in lighting, fertilizing and maintenance. And yes, I think there are differences in the results as well.



> quote:
> 
> The problem is how do you provide the plants with the adequate amount of nutrients needed (avoiding deficiency and toxicity) taking into account the different uptake rates of plants and of diffierent nutrients without also providing the same to algae.


That is the problem. Fortunately we have a range of answers to the same question, with different approaches appropriate for different people.



> quote:
> 
> The question I have is if I flush the system with nutrients, what is it that causes only the plants to grow and not algae. Why doesn't Tom have a tank with equally growing plants and algae? Why is algae growth being "limited"?


Good question, and I don't know the answer. The reasons are complicated and probably more than one mechanism is required. One thing I can be sure of is that nutrient competition is not one of the mechanisms. In my own tanks I dose almost exclusively to the water column and I carefully avoid nutrient competition, yet I have no algae problems. That doesn't mean that I have no algae, only that I have no problems.

Here is part of what I think is going on. There are thousands of species of freshwater algae. They are mostly specialists that occur in one narrow range of conditions and can't survive outside of those conditions. It is very difficult to transplant algae from nature to aquariums because we don't provide exactly the conditions that the algae needs to survive.

When a new tank is set up the conditions in the aquarium tend to bounce around and that provides conditions that are temporarily suitable for a variety of algae, some of which flourish to nuisance levels. Once the aquarium is stable and conditions stop changing so much the number of algae drops off because there are only a few species that can flourish under those stable conditions.

Most of us use one or more algae eaters in our tanks. The ones we use have been selected over years of trial and error to eat the algaes that create nuisances in our aquariums. Most of the algaes that are able to flourish under the conditions we provide are consumed by the algae eaters.

Some of us can keep plants without algae eaters and still avoid algae problems, so there is more involved. I think if we had a bigger background in the microflora and fauna in an aquarium we would find that microscopic grazers and phages played a role in keeping algae under control. Those populations aren't usually present in a new tank. It takes some time to get them established.

Even that is probably not enough of an explanation and there are probably other mechanisms. I don't really know what they are. Diana Walstad proposed allelopathy as an algae control. Tom Barr suggested that excessive O2 levels might suppress algae. These and more mechanisms may be important.



> quote:
> 
> Dosing large amounts of fertilizer into the aquarium eventually results in the accumulation of certain elements in toxic proportions. This seems to be avioded in the new system by massive water changes. Gees, why don't you just dose what the plants need and, therefore, massive water changes aren't needed.


I'm with you 100% on this, Art. Answering excess with excess doesn't make sense to me, either.



> quote:
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think the continual progression of thought in this area is critical and "Tom's" method is a step in that direction. I just wonder how many hobbyists will remain if the hobby requires 50% water changes on a weekly basis?


Quite a few readers on this forum came into the hobby since Tom proposed his method. It's the only way they've ever had success and I expect they may keep it up. Well, at least until more moderate guidelines are available or until experience teaches them otherwise.

Roger Miller

------------
_"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein_


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> I prefer to moderate the dosing levels and use no more than the plants need. That approach conserves the amount of fertilizer I use, it conserves the amount of time I have to worry about it and it conserves the amount of work needed to offset problems.


Well the biggest problem for most people is how do you determin what the plants need? The average hobbyist relies on either a set formula or the directions on a commercial product. PMDD or Toms method attempt to set a formula that someone can follow. I still have not been able to figure it out. To be quite honest, I never see obvious signs of nutrient difficiencies that I can attribute to a specific difficiency. My plants either grow or stop growing. Thats it. I have never seen signs of iron dificiencey, and I do not dose any iron at all. I have never seen any signs of potassium difficiencey that I can recognize. So how do I know what the magic amount is to add to the aquarium?

I can remember when I first got into plants around 1997, 98, everyone was into PMDD. That was considered THE approach to keep plants healthy and algae free. Several people would tell me back then, "I have little or no algae in my tank" Now I hear Tom always saying the same thing, "I have little or no algae in my tanks" I frankly do not believe it. Everybody has algae to deal with to some extent, no matter what you do.

I think the shift in recent years has been away from slow, methodical approaches to fast growing more immediate satisfaction. People have become more interested in artistically laid out plant tanks than simply watching their plants grow.

The old dutch tanks were very slow growing, taking several years to mature. People now do not want to wait two or three years for a foreground to fill in, and more advanced hobbyists are now interested in more exotic plant species that seem to require higher levels of nutrients or more elevated light levels. An old dutch aquascape was methodically planned at the outset for the next several years, and would not be drastically changed for the life of the tank. That mode of thinking is not as common now as it was in the past.

We know that plants need macros and minor nutrients, carbon and light. We know as a tank matures it reaches some kind of equalibrium that makes it easier overall to control algae. I think the methodoligy of how you reach that point will continue to change, be debated, and evolve as different people share their experience. Whatever is "in" today, will be out tommorrow, and all the while many people will come up with their own personal regime any way.

Robert
King admin
www.aquabotanic.com


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Well the biggest problem for most people is how do you determin what the plants need? The average hobbyist relies on either a set formula or the directions on a commercial product. PMDD or Toms method attempt to set a formula that someone can follow. I still have not been able to figure it out. To be quite honest, I never see obvious signs of nutrient difficiencies that I can attribute to a specific difficiency. My plants either grow or stop growing. Thats it. I have never seen signs of iron dificiencey, and I do not dose any iron at all. I have never seen any signs of potassium difficiencey that I can recognize. So how do I know what the magic amount is to add to the aquarium?


I think easily available and cheaper test kits are a must for this hobby to continue to grow. In the beginning, it is the only way for someone to determine what's going on with the tank and plants, IMHO. It provides clues to problems. You see and confirm potassium deficiencies enough, you learn to recognize it without having to test. You begin to know your plants and how they react. This is a basic principle in the marine side of the hobby. No newbie would dare to start a reef tank without the appropriate investment in good test kits. Heck, no expert would continue with a reef tank without testing for calcium and alk every once in a while.

There is no cookie cutter approach. What a person's plants will need will depend entirely on that aquarium's system (e.g., lights, size, substrate, fish load, plant species, etc.) Getting to know the tank's requirements via the use of test kits is what I've always done and recommend to others.



> quote:
> 
> I think the shift in recent years has been away from slow, methodical approaches to fast growing more immediate satisfaction. People have become more interested in artistically laid out plant tanks than simply watching their plants grow.


I agree, but that's a good thing for the US. I remember talking with Doug Valverde around 91 about the need to quick positive feedback in order to get American's into planted tanks. In fact, this is how planted aquariums became wildly popular in Japan. It wasn't until the Aqua Journal with its aquascapes was released that interest in planted aquariums soared.



> quote:
> 
> We know that plants need macros and minor nutrients, carbon and light. We know as a tank matures it reaches some kind of equalibrium that makes it easier overall to control algae. I think the methodoligy of how you reach that point will continue to change, be debated, and evolve as different people share their experience. Whatever is "in" today, will be out tommorrow, and all the while many people will come up with their own personal regime any way.


Agreed.

Regards,

Art


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> A lot of the older plant keepers (say, people my age) started growing plants because it provided a better environment for their fish, to add a little decoration to their fish tank or out of a scientific interest in the plants. They weren't willing to invest very much time or money into equipment for plants because the plants weren't really what their tanks were about. Even if they went on to grow plants just for the sake of having the plants many of them never got over the idea that it should be simple and inexpensive and shouldn't take much time.
> 
> ...


Ha! I won't ask your age Roger, but you've been around for a while.







I have as well and I'll tell you, one of my biggest frustrations in the past was the unwillingness of the "establishment" to invest in the tanks.



> quote:
> 
> The problem is how do you provide the plants with the adequate amount of nutrients needed (avoiding deficiency and toxicity) taking into account the different uptake rates of plants and of diffierent nutrients without also providing the same to algae.





> quote:
> 
> That is the problem. Fortunately we have a range of answers to the same question, with different approaches appropriate for different people.


I view it a little bit different. There are a range of appoaches that in one way or another achieve the same thing. I'll explain further below.



> quote:
> 
> The question I have is if I flush the system with nutrients, what is it that causes only the plants to grow and not algae. Why doesn't Tom have a tank with equally growing plants and algae? Why is algae growth being "limited"?





> quote:
> 
> Good question, and I don't know the answer. The reasons are complicated and probably more than one mechanism is required. One thing I can be sure of is that nutrient competition is not one of the mechanisms. In my own tanks I dose almost exclusively to the water column and I carefully avoid nutrient competition, yet I have no algae problems. That doesn't mean that I have no algae, only that I have no problems.


I agree that there must be a compicated set of mechanisms at work. However, I am not so sure nutrient competition is not one of them. I hate to hypothesize but because the current "new" method seems to take a black box approach, I need to throw my two cents and see if I can create an experiment later.

I believe that by meeting a macrophytes nutritional needs, the plant responds with optimal growth for its current environment. As most hobbyists today understand the principle of heavily planted aquariums since the beginning, you end up with a tank of healthy plants that are growing quickly.

In the scenerio, it is logical to think that algae that is present in the same environment would make use of the excess nutrients and begin to flourish as well. This doesn't seem to happen to a great extent, certainly not to the extent of the macrophytes. I believe the answer must be that the plants are outcompeting the algae for an essential nutrient as a result of their fast growth. I do not believe it is to any great extent a result of allelopathy or other microfauna that flourishes in high nutrient or established environments.



> quote:
> 
> When a new tank is set up the conditions in the aquarium tend to bounce around and that provides conditions that are temporarily suitable for a variety of algae, some of which flourish to nuisance levels. Once the aquarium is stable and conditions stop changing so much the number of algae drops off because there are only a few species that can flourish under those stable conditions.


I would think this would be the case as well if you do 50% water changes on a weekly basis. I guess unless the parameters of the new water are identical to what you just took out but for the different amounts of nutrients.



> quote:
> 
> Even that is probably not enough of an explanation and there are probably other mechanisms. I don't really know what they are. Diana Walstad proposed allelopathy as an algae control. Tom Barr suggested that excessive O2 levels might suppress algae. These and more mechanisms may be important.


I agree to some extent with Diana in that I've seen that with Ceratophyllum demersum. That's why I use it as my plant filter. I'm not so sure about excessive o2 levels but would like to see some experimental support on that.



> quote:
> 
> Quite a few readers on this forum came into the hobby since Tom proposed his method. It's the only way they've ever had success and I expect they may keep it up. Well, at least until more moderate guidelines are available or until experience teaches them otherwise.


Agreed. I wish they'd stop lurking and chime in with their thoughts. We are all trying to grow this hobby (excuse the pun) and we need to know what the newbies think in order to continue to attract new addicts.

Regards,

Art

Regards,

Art


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> I think easily available and cheaper test kits are a must for this hobby to continue to grow. In the beginning, it is the only way for someone to determine what's going on with the tank and plants, IMHO. It provides clues to problems. You see and confirm potassium deficiencies enough, you learn to recognize it without having to test. You begin to know your plants and how they react. This is a basic principle in the marine side of the hobby. No newbie would dare to start a reef tank without the appropriate investment in good test kits. Heck, no expert would continue with a reef tank without testing for calcium and alk every once in a while.


I hate test kits. There are plenty of cheap ones, not many accurate ones. The only trace you can test for is iron, and as Roger has pointed out, they do not accurately test all available iron. You cant test for magnesium, and the only potassium test I am aware of is from Fishvet and I have no idea how accurate it is.

Robert
King admin
www.aquabotanic.com


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

Robert,

How can you say that?









You know, on the marine side, Salifert has come out with an affordable line of good test kits. Unfortunately, on the freshwater side, there are many bad test kits.

I believe that LaMotte and Hach have very good test kits that test for a variety of the things we need including potassium. Yes, they are expensive, but I think it is worth the investment. What we should be doing is convincing the Salifert people to come out with a freshwater line.

Of course, you can be completely insane and purchase a colorimeter like me...

Regards,

Art


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

LOL! I don't know nothing about Marine!! You got out too soon, Barr is now introducing the salt water world to marine plants and algae.

Hatch and Lamotte are good, so everyone says, I have never used them, but they are not cheap. I was even considering selling them, but they are so, so expensive! You said we needed more cheap test kits, which we have lots of already.

I am also a little color blind, I have problems seeing sutle shades of color. I have a shirt I wore for five years thinking it was jet black before someone told me it was a dark green. I still cant see it.

And I thought PMDD was poor mans DAILY drops!

What I am interested in knowing is how differently commercial growers approach fertilization that the hobbyist. You were a small scale grower, but maybe you can shed some light on this. How does a grower like Florida Aquatic Nurseries approach fertilization? Is there more emphasis on Macros? How much different is hydroponics?

Robert
King admin
www.aquabotanic.com


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Robert H:
> You said we needed more cheap test kits, which we have lots of already.


I said cheap but good. The cheap ones we have are not very good.



> quote:
> 
> I am also a little color blind, I have problems seeing sutle shades of color. I have a shirt I wore for five years thinking it was jet black before someone told me it was a dark green. I still cant see it.


A colorimater would come in handy for you as it does the color sensing and gives you a digital read out.



> quote:
> 
> And I thought PMDD was poor mans DAILY drops!


Nope. It began as a reference to Dupla's drops.



> quote:
> 
> What I am interested in knowing is how differently commercial growers approach fertilization that the hobbyist. You were a small scale grower, but maybe you can shed some light on this. How does a grower like Florida Aquatic Nurseries approach fertilization? Is there more emphasis on Macros? How much different is hydroponics?


I'd be happy to tell you about my experiences. Each grower has their own methods based on their growing technique. For example, FAN is very different than Tropica as Claus informed me when we were taking a tour of FAN's facilities. My method was different than either because of my small scale.

For large commercial growers, the focus is on several things- quick growth and disease/pest management. The disease/pest management doesn't carry over to the aquarium. Quick growth certainly does.

You will find that most commercial growers employ a hydroponic method. FAN uses an open, flow through method whereas Tropica recylces its water like a traditional hydroponic setup. FAN uses Florida well water and supplements needed nutrients. Tropica has huge RO capabilities and the water is heated by excess energy from a nearby electrical plant. Both monitor nutrient levels in the water and supplement as needed.

I used a similar method but on a much smaller scale. I used R/O water. I relied on hydroponic fertilizers. The plants were grown in rockwool baskets that were inserted into foam rafts. These rafts floated in larger containers that water flowed through and back into a main reservoir (sp?). Depending on the species AND the growth stage of the species, I would add the appropriate amount of nutrients to the water on a weekly basis. At the end of the week, I would test the water and supplement what was taken up. Every two weeks I would do a 50% water change and begin again. I would flush the rockwool with RO water if I began to see signs of toxicity.

For me, growing plants commercially taught me many, many lessons. As Amano always says, "Before anything else, you must learn to grow healthy plants."

Regards,

Art


----------



## imported_George (Mar 28, 2003)

> quote:


Agreed. I wish they'd stop lurking and chime in with their thoughts. We are all trying to grow this hobby (excuse the pun) and we need to know what the newbies think in order to continue to attract new addicts.

Newbie....I guess I qualify in certain respects. I purchased my first pair of "mated" Black Angels in college from a LFS for $5 and the Supremes had their first TOP TEN record...45 rpm even. However, it has only been within the last six months that I have become "anal retentive" about plants/algae and the nutriental requirements that go along with a high light, CO2 injected, etc. heavily planted aquarium.

This has been an interesting albeit diverse thread. One of the somewhat unique facets of this "thing" we call a hobby is the fact that it can accommodate the full spectrum of the varied "goals and expectations"(Roger) of each individual...witness basic forum questions to the philosophical discussion on "What would be considered an American Aquascape?" However, the one common thread between most of us is the constant, ongoing challenge to minimize the presence of algae or at least its obvious appearance in our respective aquarium(s)...aquascaped or not. I am as guilty as anyone in trying to micro-manage the water chemistry, fertilizer regime, etc. in trying to attain this goal. One moment I think I'm there then the next I'm not.

To add to the confusion, I agree with all of you... Art, Roger, and Robert. The magic formula must include more than just competition; yet competetion must play a role; and, yes, some test kits are important and do the good ones really have to be that expensive...I have a couple and I think not. The scientific community apparently has not figured it out...biological dynamics of the closed (aquatic/aquarium) system... and the serious hobbyist will recommend the method that works best for him/her.

The only thing that I am relatively certain of is the fact that *it*(algae)is a *survivor* and was one of the first cellular organisms to evolve on planet Earth...it has always found a niche. Sometimes I think it is just lurking...like a virus or bacteria...just waiting for that moment of weakness. "Weakness" could simply be a change in some known or unkown parameter...a change that favors the growth of algae. That test kit has not been introduced to the market yet.

As you can tell....I haven't the foggiest idea what the answer might be. I just keep coming back to this thing we call a "hobby."

George


----------



## Hispid (Feb 3, 2005)

I think one of the main differences is (as someone else said) different goals. I'm interested in growing lots of different plants and trying out new things all the time. Tom's method allows me to stick a plant into my tank and watch it grow and see what it does. 

I've been growing aquatic plants for what? ten years now, mostly successfuly but before I was pretty much limited to hygros, crypts, swords, vals and little else. I was frustrated that if I got a rare plant or collected something like an Ottelia alismoides from the wild it would just struggle along for months and eventually dissappear. Now I can put a plant in and watch it grow. Sure it is inefficient to treat excess with excess, sure it is a black box how the algae is controled. These are not problems I am interested in, all I want to do is grow plants and Tom's method allows me to do that without testing and worrying about water chemistry etc. etc.

On the subject of the black box of algae control I don't know about competion but as far as epiphytic algae goes I think that the plants have been fighting algae much longer than we have. If the plant is healthy it can, probably by a variety of simple and complex means, resist algae. If it is lacking a nutrient then it is too busy trying to do the basic metabolic stuff to fight off algae or for that matter produce chemicals to fight off herbivores. That is why snails or even SAEs can become plant eaters. Deterrents for herbivores are expensive to produce and I would assume deterrents for ephiphytic algae are simlarly expensive. 

Lastly, I would be happier about trying to tailor my ferts to match the plant's individual needs if I could see what they use and what they leave. With a fish I can see how much they eat. Even so I don't feed them a strict diet and if I see defiency symptoms feed them a bit more of say, protien or roughage. I just give them the spectrum of what they might need and change the water to compensate for build up of waste and uneaten food. Same with the plants.

Cheers Tony


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> The only thing that I am relatively certain of is the fact that __it__(algae)is a _survivor_ and was one of the first cellular organisms to evolve on planet Earth...it has always found a niche. Sometimes I think it is just lurking...like a virus or bacteria...just waiting for that moment of weakness. "Weakness" could simply be a change in some known or unkown parameter...a change that favors the growth of algae. That test kit has not been introduced to the market yet.


George,

Thanks for chimming in. I agree with you. Algae spores are almost everywhere on earth. They are certainly in our aquariums waiting for the "weakness" as you say. IMHO, this weakness is the interruption in the uptake of nutrients/growth of the plants. I've experienced it many, many times.

It is for this reason that I think having a slow growth tank is something better left to experienced aquatic gardeners. A beginner wants fast growing plants that can fend away algae. I think that is why Tom's method works well for beginners. Heck, just throw all these nutrients into the water column (thereby making sure plants have all the nutrients they need) and at the end of the week, change 50% of the water and dilute the excess.

Regards,

Art


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> I'm interested in growing lots of different plants and trying out new things all the time. Tom's method allows me to stick a plant into my tank and watch it grow and see what it does.


Tony, I'm happy that Tom's method allows you the ability to grow more species. I would respectfully submit to you that Tom's method is not the only method to achieve the same result.



> quote:
> 
> Sure it is inefficient to treat excess with excess, sure it is a black box how the algae is controled. These are not problems I am interested in, all I want to do is grow plants and Tom's method allows me to do that without testing and worrying about water chemistry etc. etc.


Well said. I think the bulk of hobbyists feel the same way. There are a few of us that are very interested in the scientific aspects of growing aquatic plants. The question of why Tom's method works is fascinating to me and deserves further consideration.



> quote:
> 
> Lastly, I would be happier about trying to tailor my ferts to match the plant's individual needs if I could see what they use and what they leave. With a fish I can see how much they eat. Even so I don't feed them a strict diet and if I see defiency symptoms feed them a bit more of say, protien or roughage. I just give them the spectrum of what they might need and change the water to compensate for build up of waste and uneaten food. Same with the plants.


Tony, I understand this to go against your previous comments regarding Tom's method.

I believe that because of the myriad differences in the exact nutritional needs of each tank, Tom has taken a generalized approach. If you think about it, this is the same approach all companies that put out a combined fertilizer (e.g., Tropica's Master Grow) take and works well for the beginner.

You start with the knowledge of the essential elements plants need. There is sufficient information out there that can tell you that all plants need roughly X amount of specific macro and micro nutrients. There continues to be study and debate on some very micro nutrients. Nevertheless, such generalities may be made.

Tom takes this information and provides the tank, based on size and whether or not high-tech, with all of these nutrients in at least the required amounts (typically an excess). He doesn't care what plants you have as he believes that the plant will take up whatever it needs. Unfortunately, this method is time consuming and my fear is that it will eventually drive away a beginner that has not taken the next step- to better understand the nutritional needs of his/her plants.

The method I employ relies on test kits to provide you with feedback as to what plants are taking up and what they are not. This constant feedback and observation of the plants ultimately results in a fertilizer regimen that does not function as a black box but is matched, albeit roughly, to the nutritional needs of the plants and your aquarium's life support system (i.e., lighting, CO2, etc.). IMHO, it is more akin to your feeding the fish analogy.

It's funny, on the marine side, it is extremely common for hobbyists to closely monitor usage of critical elements and then develop an automated dosing mechanism to provide that amount. They achieve a stable level of the element that takes into account the amount of uptake by the tank. We need to do more of that in planted aquariums.

Regards,

Art


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Well, Tom says lots of things, and not even always consistent! If you read the current conversation on APD he is taking into account individual tank needs while dispersing his advice. I am sure he would say that he is not always speaking in generalized terms, depending on what he is being asked. I think he tried to come up with something general that he finds more usefull than PMDD. It just amazes me sometimes how much people hang on every word he says! I am certainly no expert at it and go about my regime very unscientificaly, but I do what I feel comfortable with. I feel putting more emphasis on substrate fertilization with moderate water column ferts and moderate water changes makes more sense. It is easier for me to handle without having to work with a lot of test kits. Like I said, I hate test kits!

And I am certainly not the only one. I know Chuck Gadd doesn't use test kits. I know Jeff Senske doesn't own any test kits. Jeff uses a substrate somewhat like Eco Complete, (I cant remember the name of it) It is a rich substrate with all the trace minerals. He keeps a somewhat low to moderate C02 level, and moderate to high light levels. I don't remember what he adds to the water, but I do not think its much. He sets up and maintains both large and small plant tanks in public offices in greater qty than Tom or anyone else! And he has a public gallery of planted aquariums. And he has great growth, vitality and color without major algae problems. Believe me, when you have several public tanks that you service the last thing you want is algae problems. So how does he do it?

I don't know that we have to prove that any one way is the ultimate way. People new to the hobby get discouraged by both too much information and too little information. Tom has set up some guidlines that can be followed. Read his " Estimated Index"
http://www.aquatic-plants.org/fert/est_index/est_index1.html

Its nice to have target ranges. He's the only one putting it out there. Is there something else to work with?

Robert
King admin
www.aquabotanic.com


----------



## imported_George (Mar 28, 2003)

> quote:


I hate test kits. There are plenty of cheap ones, not many accurate ones. The only trace you can test for is iron, and as Roger has pointed out, they do not accurately test all available iron. You cant test for magnesium, and the only potassium test I am aware of is from Fishvet and I have no idea how accurate it is.



> quote:


The method I employ relies on test kits to provide you with feedback as to what plants are taking up and what they are not.

The use of test kits and their accuracy or inaccuracy has been a subject of numerous questions and personal opinions in the forum. I happen to believe, also, that test kits should be an important part of managing a high-
tech or low-tech aquarium system. However, test kits are a pet=peeve of mine. The very nature of the "comparative" color scales that are used in most tests leads me to a *qualitative*(element/compound is present or absent) and not a very accurate(*quantitative*)interpretation...in my opinion. For example and I do not mean to pick-on any one brand...I like many of their products...but *I find* the sliding color scales used by SeaChem for phosphate, etc., impossible to accurately interpret. SeaChem even includes a calibrated reference sample for comparison...I originally thought this would be a "no-brainer","great idea", and "idiot proof". Not for me...I can not even match the reference sample to the stated mg/L(ppm)on the scale. Impossible for me to determine if the phosphate level is 0.2 or 0.7 ppm...and I'm suppose to maintain a certain N ratio...get serious. No, as far as I know I'm not color blind. The easiest test kit for me to interpret and that requires a color comparison for results is the LaMotte Nitrate-N. Their use of a "Comparator" veruses a sliding color scale works best for me. However, I do not see anything in their kit that explains the price.

In a perfect world, if all tests could utilize a titration method...count the drops before a specific color change occurs...to determine concentrations it would be fine with me. However, I have only run across a few test kits that use this technique, i.e. Gh, Kh, calcium(LaMotte), and CO2(LaMotte). The accuracy of these tests is another subject and I do not have the expertise to pass judgement on any of the tests. If we can not assume that most tests will yield, at least, a somewhat accurate result, what's the point!!!

Robert H., I have used the "fishvet" potassium test kit...I was desperate to get some idea what the K level was in my tap water. I can not judge to its accuracy...8 ppm vs. 12 ppm, etc. but it certainly appears to indicate the presence or absence of K and perhaps a relative ppm determination. I can give more details if you wish.

Art, you have a colorimeter....I'm jealous.

George


----------



## Hispid (Feb 3, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> Tony, I'm happy that Tom's method allows you the ability to grow more species. I would respectfully submit to you that Tom's method is not the only method to achieve the same result.


Sure, but it is the one that has most consistantly worked for me. You wouldn't believe the amount of wild collected plant matter and rare store bought plants that have passed through my tanks on their way to plant heaven over the years.



> quote:
> 
> There are a few of us that are very interested in the scientific aspects of growing aquatic plants. The question of why Tom's method works is fascinating to me and deserves further consideration.


I totally agree. I'm afraid I gave the impression I am anti-science. Not true I'm anti-work and anti-spend. I know myself too well to believe that I would open a test kit even if I cracked open my wallet to buy it. Life is simply too short to be bothered with testing the water if the plants are growing fine. That said I avidly read all the posts about ferts and how the plants utilize them etc.



> quote:
> 
> Unfortunately, this method is time consuming and my fear is that it will eventually drive away a beginner that has not taken the next step- to better understand the nutritional needs of his/her plants.


This is what I don't understand about your arguement. How is one waterchange per week with the addition of a few other chemicals along with your chlorine neutalizer time consuming? How is it more time consuming than fiddling about with 5 or so test kits of dubious quality and abstruse utility.

I guess since I pay relatively little for the ferts I don't really mind if I'm providing 0.15 ppm more PO4 than the plants might actually need per week just as I don't mind if that extra pinch of flakes gets eaten by the snails instead of the fish. If I were running a commercial operation or I were really interested in monitoring uptake rates out of curiosity then I might consider changing methods as it does have built in inefficiancies.

I know that if I were to go over to marine I would have the same sloppy attitude and be looking for the easiest no testing way to get away with it. Probably I would simply do once a week massive water changes with the sea water from down the road









Cheers Tony


----------



## tsunami06 (Feb 6, 2003)

A few comments:



> quote:
> 
> Impossible for me to determine if the phosphate level is 0.2 or 0.7 ppm...and I'm suppose to maintain a certain N ratio...get serious.


You keep a particular N ratio? Try playing
with it.







You will see that with 2 ppm
PO4 and 5 ppm NO3 that everything will get
shorter internodes and red plants will be
redder. In the next month, switch it to 0.5
ppm PO4 and 10 ppm NO3 and all your red plants
will turn considerably greener and internodes
will lengthen.

IMO, you do not need Lamotte test kits to be
successful in this hobby. You do not need to know that you have 0.25 ppm of PO4 in your
tank or exactly 5 ppm NO3. Why? In most of
our high light setups, that value will
change in a couple hours or less. However,
Seachem, AP test kits, etc _are_ good enough
for knowing that you have PO4 between 0.5-1ppm
and NO3 between 5-10 ppm. I have Lamotte test
kits... and they do not help me grow better 
plants. I actually use the cheaper test kits
much more because they are faster to use and
get the same results. Plants are not so
tempermental, not even the most demanding ones
currently out there.

My system revolves around using these cheap
test kits for macros (N and P). Moderate
amounts of K and high amounts of Fe+micros.

And for even more unique systems...

Luis Navarro, one of the AGA contest winners
for last year and this year's competition,
does not dose any nitrate or phosphate into
his tanks. Zip. He uses a rich substrate
composed of Fertiplant and Eco-complete/Florabase. He doses only K and Fe+
micros (through Dupla drops and Flourish line
products, I believe). He uses over 4 w/g of
power compact lighting. His plants are above
and beyond the most gorgeous I have ever 
received.

Also, Rony Suzuki and Enrico Monteiro, two Brazilian contestants in this year's AGA contest, only add Fe, micros, and K+ into
the water column in very tiny amounts. Their
substrate is composed of humus topped with
gravel. And these are not low light, low
tech setups. These setups have CO2, high light,
and gorgeous fast growing plants (Eusteralis
stellata, Heteranthera zosterifolia, Rotala
wallichii, etc).

Just goes to show that there isn't a best way
to do things in this hobby... not by a long
shot.

Carlos

-------------------------
"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced." -- Van Gogh

[This message was edited by tsunami06 on Sat December 20 2003 at 04:45 PM.]


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

This thread is quite an interesting thread and glad that I found it (about 30 minutes ago!







)

Well, I am one of those newbies







~ April of this year, I started my first aquarium since I was in elemetary school. About a month into it, I added a few plants cause I thought the fake ones looked...fake







...well, not having the "stuff" I needed to gorw plants, I started my downward spiral into this hobby









I read lots of these forums and got on the right track (thanks to many of the people that are posting in THIS thread). Well, now I have 2 tanks, both planted with ~3.8WPG, CO2, and homemade ferts. I never really did the ppmd routine since my tap had HIGH phosphates. I only tested PO4 and NO3 ever so many weeks and rather just watched my plants. I always did 40-50% water changes and dose reasonable micro and macros at the waterchange and throughout the week.

Whatever I'm doing seems to be working. My 29g only has some spot algae and a little bit of black crusty algae on some gravel. My 10g which has been around since sept only has a couple staghorn strands that show up from time to time, and something on my driftwood that I can't Identify (looks like if BBA and staghorn mated and their kid looked like spot algae







)

Do I do it for the fish, or for the "garden"? I do it for both. I don't have the fancy fish many of you have, but I do enjoy the ones I do have and I try to give them a "fun" home in a garden. Fish you watch and take care of. There really isn't a whole lot of things that change over time with them. With my planted tanks however, I get to construct and reconstruct a dynamic world.

I am fairly proud of what I have been able to accomplish, and I think I have been doing it with reasonable success. I guess my approach is closest to Tom Barrs, but I think I am more lazy with mine. I am a grad student in chemistry and can, if I want, titrate my tank to find out all these numbers much more accurately. ..but I refuse to. These tanks have wide stability curves IME, and I don't want to turn this hobbie into a chore.


----------



## imported_George (Mar 28, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> You keep a particular N ratio?


Carlos,

Not really. I try to *appproximate* a 10:1 ratio but I do not fret too much about it. However, I believe some threads have been devoted to a discussion of what this ratio should be....10:1, 16:1,etc. I mentioned maintaining a certain N ratio to illustrate that if I could not accurately interpret whether my PO4 concentration was 0.2 ppm or 0.7 ppm, and *if* I did feel strongly that this ratio was important...back to expectations again, how could I, with any confidence, determine when the target value/ratio was reached?...ackward sentence, I know. It was meant to be more of a criticism or short-coming, in my opinion, of test kits than a part of my nutrient regime. Sorry if there was some confusion.



> quote:
> 
> However, Seachem, AP test kits, etc _are_ good enough
> for knowing that you have PO4 between 0.5-1ppm
> and NO3 between 5-10 ppm.


These ranges work for me. Although, some may have heartburn with a possible range of N ratios of 10-20:1.

I think its time to go do something that both my fish and plants will appreciate.....the weekly 30% water change. By the way, there is very little question, in my mind, that the greatest challenge in this hobby is successfully propagating plants. Maintaining a healthy fish population has been easy in comparison.

George


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> This is what I don't understand about your arguement. How is one waterchange per week with the addition of a few other chemicals along with your chlorine neutalizer time consuming? How is it more time consuming than fiddling about with 5 or so test kits of dubious quality and abstruse utility.


I guess it depends on how many tanks you have and how big they are! It would be an all day job for me.

On APD, Giancarlo, (who is a member here, where are you?) tried to defend his way of subtrate fertilization and Tom basicaly called him a newbie. Whatever...there are different ways to meet the same end. I don't want this to seem like I am bashing Tom, cause I am not. He has a very scientific frame of thought and experience that I could never even come close to, and I relie on much of what he has put out there as anyone else does, but I choose not to follow it verbatim.

Robert
King admin
www.aquabotanic.com

[This message was edited by Robert H on Sat December 20 2003 at 04:48 PM.]

[This message was edited by Robert H on Sun December 21 2003 at 02:37 AM.]


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Robert H:
> 
> ...


Well, lets define a 50% water change. I mean having to make up 30 gallons of RO/DI water, adjusting it so that temp, pH, GH/KH, and nutrient levels are all the same as the tank. Then drain the main tank and replace with new water. Add the inevitable accompanying disturbance to the tank. I have a family to tend to so I don't have the time to spend preparing for all that.

Instead, I use my test kits to gain an understanding of my tank and its inhabitants. Over the next several months as the plants settle in, I begin to understand the uptake rate of NO3, PO4, K, Fe/trace, Mg, etc. I can tell if I need more CO2 or less. Once I have a fairly good handle on things, I don't test as often. Probably once a month or two if nothing is wrong.

Based on the above and if everything is going smoothly, I'll do a 25% water change about every two to three weeks.

On the topic of how plants take up nutrients, it is my understanding that it depends on the species. Certain species preferentially take up certain nutrients via the root system as opposed to the stem/leaves. If the nutrient is not available in sufficient quantities in the substrate, the plant would use its stem/leaves to take it up. We know these plants as root feeders. Other species take up nutrients mostly through their stems/leaves.

In fact, the substrate functions as a nutrient storehouse where myriad processes are taking place (e.g., nitrogen and carbon cycles). Studies have shown that the substrate solution is quite different than the water column as far as nutrient concentrations. Plant roots have developed special mechanisms for unlocking stored nutrients from the substrate and, hence, cation-exchange capacity is important.

I believe everyone should consider the importance of the substrate as something more than the stuff that holds the plants in place.

Regards,

Art

I corrected the spelling of Giancarlo's name!

[This message was edited by Robert H on Sun December 21 2003 at 02:41 AM.]


----------



## imported_George (Mar 28, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> I believe everyone should consider the importance of the substrate as something more than the stuff that holds the plants in place.


I don't think too many would disagree with your comment, Art. Over the last couple of months, I have come to the conclusion that if I had to do it over again, I would have researched and planned for a different or improved substrate from what I currently have...50% 1-3mm gravel/50% Flourite. Good night.

George


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Art_Giacosa:
> 
> I believe everyone should consider the importance of the substrate as something more than the stuff that holds the plants in place.


Ok, I will... Done.

I wouldn't want to rekindle the sort of substrate wars that used to rage on APD. I think there is a simple solution to the whole issue. That is simply to say, yes, some substrates do grow plants better than others. That isn't the only concideration. There is a range of substrate options and we can choose the substrate that is most appropriate for our goals and methods.

Someone who wants to grow plants without worrying about the details can use a soil substrate. Someone who's interest is mostly in growing, collecting and/or trading plants may get their best results from an enriched substrate. Someone who can set their tank up and be comfortable with only moderate disturbances has many substrate options. Someone who is primarily interested in aquascaping and is likely to disturb and rearrange a tank frequently needs to use a substrate that won't foul the tank if it's disturbed and that cleans up quickly after it is disturbed. And of course, some people keep fish that influence their substrate choices one way oe another.

I expect the newer fertilizing methods lead people away from depending on substrates because there is no substrate that provides the one right answer. The methods are intended to work with a clean, infertile substrate. That is a practical choice because a clean, infertile substrate produces the most consistent results with the fewest irreversible problems.

I think an infertile substrate is a reasonable starting point. As an aquarist becomes more experienced they should consider different substrates that are suited to what they want to do and how they want to do it.

Roger Miller

------------
_"The indispensible first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want" -- Ben Stein_


----------



## Hispid (Feb 3, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> I guess it depends on how many tanks you have and how big they are! It would be an all day job for me.


Aye there's the rub. While I've been growing plants for a while I certainly a newbie when it comes to "high-tech" (whatever that might mean) and to forums and APD. Owing to a need for domestic harmony I'm limited to one reasonably small tank and a few "ponds" which recieve no attention. However I think that this is the position many newbies are in. They're trying ther hand at plants with a single medium sized tank and want to see consistent results. I thiink the two main schools here, let's call them the Barr and the Walstaad methods give that in an easy to follow formulae.

If you have a commercial or similarly large scale operation I can see how 50% weekly water changes with higher than absolutely necessary dosage regime would be a PITA. From a newbie POV they're a god send as they give you a solid starting point from which you can develop and hone your skills. Other methods are somewhat arcane for a newbie and really rely on a knowledge and skill base that only comes with time and informed experimentation.

BTW great topic Art, it's nice to see a robust discussion that everyone can participate in.

Cheers Tony


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Roger Miller:
> I wouldn't want to rekindle the sort of substrate wars that used to rage on APD.


Oh come on, Roger..please.







Maybe I should start another thread about the color of R/O water in a white bucket?











> quote:
> 
> I think there is a simple solution to the whole issue. That is simply to say, yes, some substrates do grow plants better than others. That isn't the only concideration. There is a range of substrate options and we can choose the substrate that is most appropriate for our goals and methods.


Agreed whole heartedly.



> quote:
> 
> I expect the newer fertilizing methods lead people away from depending on substrates because there is no substrate that provides the one right answer. The methods are intended to work with a clean, infertile substrate. That is a practical choice because a clean, infertile substrate produces the most consistent results with the fewest irreversible problems.
> 
> I think an infertile substrate is a reasonable starting point. As an aquarist becomes more experienced they should consider different substrates that are suited to what they want to do and how they want to do it.


I agree again. For many years, Karen would chastize us about telling newbies about fertilizer substrates. Heck, she still does it. Her suggestion was gravel and laterite. I guess now Flourite is the infertile substrate of choice?

In my opinion, it is possible to have a moderately fertilize substrate that will function as a nutrient storehouse and not cause the problems associated with high nutrient, soil substrates (e.g., manure, earthworm castings, soil, etc.). This is the common substrate in places like Japan and Italy. It is characterized with high porosity and high CEC.

Regards,

Art


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by Hispid:
> Owing to a need for domestic harmony I'm limited to one reasonably small tank and a few "ponds" which recieve no attention. However I think that this is the position many newbies are in. They're trying ther hand at plants with a single medium sized tank and want to see consistent results. I thiink the two main schools here, let's call them the Barr and the Walstaad methods give that in an easy to follow formulae.


Ah! Tony, many of us deal with WAF (wife acceptance factor) although more politically correct would be SAF (spouse acceptance factor).

I think your comment on an easy to follow formula is key to the growth of the hobby. I applaud Tom and Diana for putting forth their methods for that reason. However, I find it CRITICAL for the advancement of successful newbies to true aquatic gardeners that a continuous debate about growing methods be fostered.

We all know how important it is for a person who is setting up their first planted aquarium to have early successes. Early battles with algae, necrosis, etc. are the main reason newbies give up. With an easy to follow formula, these newbies have a good chance to succeed and ward off algae. So more power to them...

Regards,

Art


----------



## tsunami06 (Feb 6, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Well, lets define a 50% water change. I mean having to make up 30 gallons of RO/DI water, adjusting it so that temp, pH, GH/KH, and nutrient levels are all the same as the tank. Then drain the main tank and replace with new water.


Just as a (local) aside... why do you use RO/DI
water for water changes for a planted tank
in Miami? Why do you adjust the pH (a function
that CO2 should be doing? Unless you are, of
course, growing the "hard as hell" to grow
Crypts that melt leaves if you so much as
sneeze on them...

I use tap water for my water changes. I just
dechlorinate the water I add to the tank. After
I am done, I just add the fertilizers necessary
for the tank. Miami tap water is excellent
for growing plants (KH4, GH5 in my area). You can grow anything with it... _anything_.

Back to the discussion... I too applaud Diana
and Tom's efforts to put forth an easy to
follow formula out there. However, I feel
that there is much to be learned in this hobby
and that as newbies advance, they should begin
to experiment. Their experiments may lead to methods which may not work for others due to different tap waters, fish populations, plant species, etc... (too many different factors
to really put forth a general, all around
"best" formula) that may not work for others.

The fact that I can't grow Nesaea pedicellata
while a friend of mine only a few miles north
of me can grow it like a weed leads me to 
believe that there is much more to growing 
plants than just water column micro-managing
and a substrate that just holds plants in place.
Heck, I can grow Hottonia amazingly well and
he can't... still can't find an explanation for
any of this since our nutrient levels are
the same.









Carlos

-------------------------
"If you hear a voice within you say 'you cannot paint,' then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced." -- Van Gogh


----------



## skunky (Jun 22, 2003)

A little less than 2 years ago I rescued 1 Harlequin Rasbora from a day centre, homed in a filthy 70 litre tank with a heater, a filter that didn't work and no food. 10 days after getting this little guy home, he was swimming around in 260 litres and 5 more Harlequins.

A year later I had a 300 litre Discus set up too! I found the hobby addictive. In 18 months I had spent around £3,000 (over $5,000) I had 4 tanks, a complete R/O DI unit with barrel, heaters, hoses, test kits, electronic testing equipment, filters everywhere, substrate vacuums, PC light systems, CO2 systems etc etc!

I thought my Bird watching had taken a lot of my spare time up, since keeping fish in planted tanks, most of that 'previous' spare time I had has gone!

I have lots of hobbies from fish keeping, mountain biking, birding, weight training and photography. But never have I seen a hobby with so many conflicting opinions and ideas, it's mind blowing!

As a 'newbie' I just read and read and still as a 'newbie' I'm still reading but admittedly wearing a little thin. The hobby is changing all the time. I guess this is a good thing, aiming to point folk in the right direction but at the same time extremely confusing for not just newbies, but for more experienced hobbiest too, who thought they'd got it all worked out.

I can't but think it all appears one big race to see who finds the perfect method of keeping plants in the aquarium first. IMO it just doesn't exist! One thing I have learnt is that no two systems can be treated the same and will certainly not yield identicle results.

I feel, after a couple of years of being in this aquatic hobby that I haven't done to bad. I have brown and fuzz algae in both tanks, not masses of it, but it's there. I only got into plants for the benefits they pass onto my fish and they appear healthy and content. I'm not about to declare war on one of the oldest living organisms on the planet, I'm happy for them to share the system with the fish......in moderation.

I guess I'm a better fish keeper that aquatic gardener. After all, fish were the reason I got into the hobby! 

I guess the sight of a planted tank full of a multitude of colours and exotica, will elude me a little longer!

Stuart.


----------



## imported_George (Mar 28, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> We all know how important it is for a person who is setting up their first planted aquarium to have early successes. Early battles with algae, necrosis, etc. are the main reason newbies give up. With an easy to follow formula, these newbies have a good chance to succeed and ward off algae. So more power to them...


Art,

I debated whether to post this reply or not...I'm still debating. All it will do is make someone or many mad...probably for the wrong reason. If Roger views this as an inappropriate reply for this subject (thread) and moves it...that's fine. If he views it just as inappropriate, in general, and removes it...that's o.k. also.

Over the last two days by reading this thread and the exchange of thoughts and ideas, I think I can tell where you are coming from. This would include advancing the hobby through a more rigorous scientific approach and bringing more "newbies" into the hobby for the long term by eliminating/minimizing certain problems/frustrations. I have just a few thoughts about the latter.

This hobby has always had a high "turn-over" rate. Just visit a few garage sales or *ebay*. It's no different than all the other hobbies and interests that we have all explored as kids and adults...some just feel natural but most do not. We just move on to something else. That's how it is suppose to work...for most anyway. I can't tell you why I started my first aquarium at age 11 or 12 and why it just excited the hell-out-of-me and still does. I also tried model rockets, fishing, stamp and coin collecting, baseball cards, etc. but those soon left me. However, I must admitt I still get a "rush" when I see a model rocket go off. Anway.....

I think I know what you are trying to convey in the above quote. However, my first impression was "make it easy and they will come". If making something easy is the motivation or cause for someone to continue in this hobby or any endeavor, in my opinion, the hobby doesn't need them. It will never advance any further than it already has. There would be no *PASSION*!! The passion is almost glaring from the moderators and many, many contributors, including youself, in just this one forum. I admitt, some of the difficulties that I have encountered, and there are several, can be frustrating and discouraging but I just take another look at something like James Hoftiezer "winning aquascape", just one example, and the frustration fades away. My goals or expectations are not to win a competition but to develop a planted aquarium that when I set back and look at it I can say to myself, "You know, that looks pretty damn good." That aquarium will never be posted on any forum-site requesting someone to critique it...that's not what it's all about. It was *just* because of the difficulties and frustrations that I searched for a site like the Wet Thumb. I have taken away so much more than just the solution to the first problem I wrote about six months ago. I know that I now have a much better understanding of the dynamics of the aquarium and the consequences of our actions on the aquarium than I did before. Lord only knows what I would have without some of those problems/frustrations that caused me to seek someone's advice. IT JUST AIN'T EASY.

I am all-in-favor of the advancement/devlopment of the biology, organic and inorganic chemistry, substrates, hardware, etc., etc. associated with the hobby. But we learn so much more through solving a problem than if the problem never existed....someone will have a field day with that comment...I see it coming. Just dealing with the problem of algae takes you into every crook 'n' granny (action/reaction) of the aquarium and for those who succeed and stay, those who should stay, the final result will be so much the better, as well as the hobby. Am I playing on that woren out saying, "We're better off having gone through the experience"...I think so. However, I'm still not buying into my mother's favorite saying "This is going to hurt me more than it's hurts you".

I guess I won't post this.

By the way, it does look pretty damn good...at the moment.

From southeast Louisiana: "Ya'll have a good holiday(s)!

George

[This message was edited by George on Sun December 21 2003 at 05:13 PM.]


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by tsunami06:
> 
> ...


Well, as a grower. you can't leave your crop to tap water. You must know everything thats in your water (or what is not) and then reconstitute. I was growing the delicate crypts, but that's another thread.

I don't want to risk my investment to the water company. There is just too many things flowing in that water.



> quote:
> 
> I use tap water for my water changes. I just
> dechlorinate the water I add to the tank. After
> ...


What's the pH? How do you get it to the tanks pH?

Regards,

Art


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by skunky:
> I can't but think it all appears one big race to see who finds the perfect method of keeping plants in the aquarium first. IMO it just doesn't exist! One thing I have learnt is that no two systems can be treated the same and will certainly not yield identicle results.


Excellent Stuart! You are officially no longer a newbie.

There are some that are in pursuit of that perfect method and any other method is out of the question. However, there are some that try to understand plants and realize that there are many ways to fulfill a plants requirements. If you go out into nature and find the perfect locations where aquatic plants are thriving, you will see that the environments are all different. However, the basic plant nutritional needs are always the same.

I first got into this hobby in 1978. Believe me when I tell you that I am in awe of the changes since then. Roger summarizes some of the method changes since then. It is my hope that hobbyists continue to focus on trying to understand the plants. How they choose to meet the plants' nutritional requirements is secondary to this. As such, I hope the pursuit of that perfect method continues as it undoutedly will yield many new methods we have not thought of yet.

Regards,

Art


----------



## imported_Art_Giacosa (Nov 29, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by George:
> I debated whether to post this reply or not...I'm still debating. All it will do is make someone or many mad...probably for the wrong reason.


What? This is an open forum of discussion with all points of view respected. I hope no one gets mad about what somebody else believes.



> quote:
> 
> I think I know what you are trying to convey in the above quote. However, my first impression was "make it easy and they will come". If making something easy is the motivation or cause for someone to continue in this hobby or any endeavor, in my opinion, the hobby doesn't need them. It will never advance any further than it already has. There would be no _PASSION_!! The passion is almost glaring from the moderators and many, many contributors, including youself, in just this one forum. I admitt, some of the difficulties that I have encountered, and there are several, can be frustrating and discouraging but I just take another look at something like James Hoftiezer "winning aquascape", just one example, and the frustration fades away. My goals or expectations are not to win a competition but to develop a planted aquarium that when I set back and look at it I can say to myself, "You know, that looks pretty damn good." That aquarium will never be posted on any forum-site requesting someone to critique it...that's not what it's all about. It was _just_ because of the difficulties and frustrations that I searched for a site like the Wet Thumb. I have taken away so much more than just the solution to the first problem I wrote about six months ago. I know that I now have a much better understanding of the dynamics of the aquarium and the consequences of our actions on the aquarium than I did before. Lord only knows what I would have without some of those problems/frustrations that caused me to seek someone's advice. IT JUST AIN'T EASY.


George, THANK YOU for posting your thoughts. Excellent!

You've captured what many of us feel but find it hard to express. A passion for this hobby is why I stick around and try to help in what little way I can.

I agree with you. There are those that will never get biten by the bug and develop the passion you so evidently have. I, for one, am not involved with the hobby to help them. Instead, I want to help a person who's been hooked by an early success and is thinking to himself, "You know, that looks pretty damn good." That person is the future.

However, I don't want early frustrations to chase away a person who could have been biten by the bug if only those plants had grown just a little. In the US, we have VERY little disposable time. What little we choose to give to a new hobby needs to yield early success. It is only with this early success that we take the time to learn more and, eventually, get hooked.

This is why I think methods like Tom's or Diana's that can yield early success with little risk of failure are important. However, I wish more people would understand that they are just that. One method among many for the experienced aquatic gardener.

Regards,

Art


----------



## Hispid (Feb 3, 2005)

> quote:
> 
> This is why I think methods like Tom's or Diana's that can yield early success with little risk of failure are important. However, I wish more people would understand that they are just that. One method among many for the experienced aquatic gardener.


I never meant to imply Tom's method was the only one that worked but to my knowledge it IS the only one you can print off the net on two pages and follow it to the letter and have success.

There are plenty of interesting and exciting challenges in this hobby I just don't want simply growing a certain plant or battling algae to be one of them. Speaking for myself Tom's method eliminates algae and poor growth as issues and lets me concentrate on the fun stuff like growing rare and native plants.

Cheers Tony


----------

