Am I Killing Bacteria

[ian]

Did you read the link?? And give me some names of fellow aquascapers and planted tank keepers who are remotely near anything scientific that you can quote me? I see you can't ! Lol


*face palms*

Ps can you also elaborate on my further On anymore of my questions in the above post?? And you read ukaps?? One of the biggest advocates for using n and p in a planted tank! Let me borrow you blinkers please.

 

[ian]

i don't normally link other forums but we don't have the info here

read these please and they're not all by Tom Barr and the cart

http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16077

http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14594

http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=915

http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13

 

[Primous]

Great!

Though I'm still confused as to what your beef is with Americans? lol

 

[ian]

most of it comes from this thread and the ridiculous statement you made...TPT used to be a yahoo group run by Americans.

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/382029-miracle-grow-as-a-soil-substrate/page__p__3204718__hl__primous__fromsearch__1#entry3204718


another quote of yours

I made the switch after reading Tom Barr and Diane Walstead work and also because when you break it down scientifically, the "complete" substrates are essentially sand/gravel laced with additives which run out after a short space of time (6-12 months according to the guys over at theplantedtank and walstead) and therefore needs to be replaced or supplemented.

don't listen to Tom! lol

I do try and keep this forum up to date on the planted side of things, so i try and keep advise also up to date and we don't have many failures on here as also we don't on UKAPS. I'm only trying to educate people into the new way of thinking. Don't take this the wrong way Prime but you are also still a relative newb when it come to planted tanks. Up to 6 months ago i was advising you about a non aquatic plant in your tank.

 

[Primous]

Don't take this the wrong way Prime but you are also still a relative newb when it come to planted tanks. Up to 6 months ago i was advising you about a non aquatic plant in your tank.

And there in lies the truest definition as to why you take offense to someone else giving out advice. In your head you seem to think that only advice sanctioned by you is valid right, wrong! I couldn't give an anubias as to how long you've been in the hobby especially when you start throwing slights and insults when I don't agree with your approach. What your basically saying is "look at this newbie" and getting all hot and bothered about some guy you don't know. Who in actual real life, you would never think to offend. "I was giving him advice not too long ago." I thought that was what we were here for lol If a difference in opinion makes you react this way then my dude you need a life because it's really not that serious. And that's soaked in truth not an insult. Go spend some time with your daughter instead of getting worked up about how someone elses approach differs.

A difference in opinion isn't really worth these key strokes lol. And for the record I said I "read" tom barr, I'm not regurgitating his views like they are aquatic law.

Have a great afternoon!

 

[ian]

My son is in bed...

I also see no insults in any of the above.

Again as said, i'm trying to educate. I believed what you did some time back and then saw the light, the advice you give is archaic. You will see the light one day.

 

[stu40]

I'm still a relative newcomer to this, so bear with me
So can we agree that Planted tanks need N ?
Some tanks (high energy) need more than can be provided by fish food/fish waste so dose N?
Some tanks don't need to dose extra N because they get all they require from soil, fish food/fish waste?

However one of the original points, not the OP ironically

, was that excessive N causes algae.Is that the sticking point?
What i do know is that dosing N has not caused an algae outbreak in my 60L tank, and that when i had a problem in my 180L i upped the N and by and large the algae has now gone.
I do not know enough about a Walstad approach tank, because so far i haven't gone down that road.However i may well try a 'dirt' tank as my next project in a learning curve
'Primous' indulge me, have you had a tank where you've dosed the water column, and this is not meant to be patronising,but i'm just trying to gauge where you're coming from

 

[Primous]

My history with dirt is relatively new so I'll try and keep it brief...

Previously I battled several algae types for longer than I care to mention. And in researching ways to get rid of each specific "nitrate" was always a component (ingredient) either in helping to birth the algae or sustaining it (low or high.) So after buying products and trying quick fixes I stumbled across the soil approach and what sold me on this approach was the fact that nutrients (including the nitrate nemesis) are removed from the water column and the fact that if done right I would no longer needed to add ANYTHING.

Fast forward a year+ of using soil and not adding any liquid ferts. I've kept my nitrates at 0ppm consistently and not had to deal with algae since. So in short, once I removed excess nitrate my algae issues ceased. Which was my main aim. Until that point I had a regular liquid fert routine using a mix of seachem and some other bottles I don't remember lol

Using dirt as made my plant grow relentlessly and while there is some measure of nitrate there isn't enough to cause any algae as it remains at 0ppm.

Visually: My amazon sword which I had had for a years before I went the dirt route...

Two months after dirt the same plant has consistently given single leaves which dwarf the size of the entire plant, pre dirt.

Hence why I advocate what I advocate. Though remember I'm a newbie so take from my advice what you will and discard the rest.

Don't know why the same pic is posted twice, only posted one link?

 

[ian]

I'll just add that organic soil has enough N in it to sustain plants to a high degree. Check out amanos books, he uses amazonia, which in essence is dried soil/clay from paddy fields. Read the back of any John inness as well. The n will leach out of soil into the water column/root level at a rate needed by the plants. Walstad also described this 20 years ago, it's not a break through or a new method by any stretch of the imagination.

You can also visit any specialist plant forum and get the same info, they will also tell you not to believe nitrate test kits.

 

[elmo666]

have been reading this one with interest and as an observer it appears that in essence all replies are valid and based on experience. I think the problem, if there is one, lies in the fact that no two tanks ever behave in the same and as such experiences differ also. Now, I would like to ask a related question pls. I had a fully planted discus tank with tropica plant substrate, co2 etc and it flourished. Am a tuor, had plenty of disposeable income then. I developed two types of epilepsy 2 years ago which is uncontrolled and cannot work, money is a little tight now to say the least. I have not had the enjoyment from my unplanted oscar set-up I had with the dfiscus and I know a return is imminent. Can I run a planted tank ok with the hang on yeast cannister and plastic diffuser as can't afford a Dennerle system again.

 

[Primous]

I'm glad there was an attempt to suggest that as a newbie, I should not give advice. It gives a great insight and explanation as to why the thread took the route it did. Even though if you look through the posts there is actually very little difference about nitrate. For instance...

while there is some measure of nitrate there isn't enough to cause any algae as it remains at 0ppm.

The n will leach out of soil into the water column/root level at a rate needed by the plants.

Which is in essence the same thing. Worded differently but pretty much the exact same point. There is only enough nitrate for the plants. The sticking point would be that from my reading nutrients are bound in the soil and fed through the roots as and when the plant needs it. Plants feeding best through their roots as opposed to leafs/the water column is pretty much one of the founding theories behind the soil approach. If you read the back of miracle grow organic, the soil I used, it contains 0 N. Others think that plants feed best through their leafs and nitrate will be in the water etc But obviously I'm just a newbie...

To be clear, my tank is not a walstead set up. Besides dirt it differs in every way. I don't use Takishi amamno anything. In my opinion that is a lot of overpriced nonsense and I call it that because my organic soil cost me £10 to fill to the same depth using Takishi or any other branded soil would cost me anywhere from £100 - £200+ depending on the retailer. And since I'm on the subject of "brands" and such I should take a second to explain why I pulled together my setup using various methods as opposed to one persons theory.

This is a Tom Barr tank

Undoubtedly a very gorgeous tank. It's 120 gallons but if you look closely It'll self explain a common rule plant enthusiast use. Which is "Plant heavy & stock light!" lol Although the way this thread has gone, and even though it's practiced here, I'm pretty sure that common rule will be disputed. On every plant centered forum I'm a member of this is pretty much the way to go. And whenever I list my stocking and my liters (180) the response is always that I am overstocked and overstocked by a long way. There is nothing wrong with the plant heavy stock light rule. It allows for greater control in several ways. But me personally, I'm a fish first person so my approach had to be different. My stocking has slimmed recently since I removed 6 cory cats and lost two rummynose + one lemon tetra. But my point is I can't follow the general planted rule because most of the planted "experts" wouldn't keep my stocking (now and especially at its previous level) in a tank triple the size let alone a 180l Yet, with the approach I took I went 2 months, 8 weeks without a water change and still got 0ppm nitrate (something I previously mentioned a few times on this forum.) Using nutrafin and api test kits. Que the validity of my results now being a false negative. Pre dirt, with the same stocking and exact same test kits, my weekly nitrate count would be between 5-10ppm.

So in short I had to weave together my own approach and roll with what works for me.

 

[stu40]

@ Primous, thankyou for the post

 

[ian]

A planted tank cannot run (especially if running C02) at a 0 level. It's just not possible...I'm gonna take it right back to basics now.

The higher the light, the more need for C02, the more need for those C02 building blocks, the more need for N and P (Miracle grow contain a fair amount of PO4)and as Jack stated back in the thread that nitrogen is used in protein synthesis and phosphorous is required for photosynthesis. Without this planted tanks just would survive. I see in you vid that you started tinkering with C02. Soils do leach into the water column, this is a given, it's like saying that sugar doesn't leach into your tea. The nutrients will be taken equally by leaf or root, plants remain very opportunistic.

As for Toms tank (seeing as though you brought it up), you need to read a little deeper on what he's doing with that tank. Have a look at the lighting over the tank and the amount of C02 going into the tank. Also have a look at the amount of n03 going in the tank (you would probably faint), have a look at the amount of algae.

One rule planted tank keepers tend to use is 'don't believe the of the shelf n03 test kits', they just don't work properly.

Here's Clive from UKAPS giving a better explanation than i can give regarding n03 test kits. Worth a read if you can be bothered http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16092

I'll be willing to bet the farm that the 10ppm value is even way off. That is why you need to stop testing, because test kits turn you into a hamster. You'll be running on that little wheel for the rest of your life.

Lets be reasonable. Suppose the 10ppm was actually a correct value after the water change.
Suppose you added X grams of KNO3 to your tank afterwards.

Nitrate is 60% by weight of KNO3. Therefore to your 240l tank you would have added 0.6X grams of NO3, or (0.6X)*1000 milligrams of NO3 to the water column.

A 240l tank contains roughly 240 kg of water.

Therefore the concentration of NO3 can only possibly be (0.6X)*1000 milligrams/240kg + 10ppm.

So, say you added a teaspoon of KNO3 which weighs about 6 grams. The final concentration would be:
10ppm+ [0.6*6*1000 / 240]ppm = 10 ppm+ 15ppm = 25ppm

they just don't work...Also i would like to know you weekly water change regime and the amount of N03 in you water supply, preferably from the water boards website rather that you test kit. I do understand on what you're trying to get at, but i do think you're missing a fair few elements in an aquatic planted tank, that makes the difference. Do you also still believe N03 or to much N03 cause alage?