Miracle Grow As A Soil Substrate

[ian]

Water extends into the substrate, there is also water movement in the substrate. This is why we use things like TNC plugs and TPN+ caps, it gives an inert substrate an active leach. As said nitrates don't just hang around in substrates, nitrate is a water soluble element. Hence why we get nitrates in water. Even really high CEC leaches back into the water.

again, it tends to go on lighting levels as above to what happens. Again there is a lot more to a tank than just a substrate.

 

[Primous]

Again there is a lot more to a tank than just a substrate.

Who suggested that there wasn't?

 

[ian]

Tom Barr's research is by no means universally accepted. In fact, he's pretty much the founder and spear head of his theories and approach. As for needing to see my research I think it'd be best you read a Diane walstead's books and then expand from there. Containing nutrients and feeding the plants via the roots instead of the water column is pretty much at the heart of this approach it isn't something that's new? But again, I suggest you read up.

I'm sensing a little hostility here lol.

Plants are NOT just root feeders, the heavy root feeder thing is a myth, a plant will get it's nutrients how it wants. It will use it's leaves, but again it will store in it roots. I'm not trying to prove you wrong Primous, i just want to see your research on the matter??

BTW i have a signed copy of Walstad's book

As for Tom's (these are researched so not exactly theory), facts, they are so widly used around the world now, you can't really dispute them. EI is THE single most used method of aquarium fertilisation.

 

[StandbySetting]

@ianho Tom Barr has put out some great theories and conducted some semi scientific tests and while his work and advise isn't to be dismissed, there are many others who's approach to this hobby is founded on a completely different school of thought. And as a result, I don't really see the need to go over what you supposedly picked apart because 98% of what you disagree with I could back up.(the remaining 2% broken down as follows: 1% being soil seemingly keeping plants red because I'd have no way to prove that. The other 1% would be your jokes in the anubias tie thread.) As for the "old school thought" I'm 24, but I tend to gravitate towards theories that have been founded on fact and backed up by experience in most aspects of actual life, not just this hobby.

You can't just dismiss something without presenting a valid form of evidence, we need sources man.

I think that at times, if not often, this particular point gets overlooked. Though with that said I think I should make a small amendment to my nitrate statement. There are nitrates in my tank but they are contained in the soil. Not the water column which is exactly what I was aiming for. In another thread I said...

This simply isn't possible, nitrate diffuses into the water as it is polar so dissolves in water, it's one of the most basic principles of diffusion, unless there is some form of magic active transport occurring which keeps it all trapped in the substrate.

I had such dense maze of jungle val roots above the substrate that in searching for the two tetras (still haven't found them lol) I decided to pull the vals out. As expected, with all the dirt being pulled up, my nitrates jumped from 0ppm to about 5ppm in an hour.

What are you testing with? Accurately calibrated digital equipment? If not then I wouldn't say those test results are valid at all, I'd estimate that the tolerances on those test kits are at least + 20mg/L

My aim was to remove everything from the water column and in the same breath pour every liquid product I owned down the drain because imbalanced fert dosing can also lead to algae. Obviously there are other methods. I could have gone with some branded substrate that's overpriced that becomes useless after 6 months - a year and would require more seachem...

Imbalance in fertilisers? I used to dose EI, the whole basis of the EI method is so that nutrients are non-limiting, therefore there are more fertilisers than necessary (which would come under the definition of imbalance right?) yet my tank remained algae-free.

The majority of soil aquariums I follow (unless I'm being lied to) dose nothing.

That's because the lighting on these tanks is low, lighting is the determining factor for the rate of nutrient uptake, increase the lighting and you increase the uptake which means more nutrients have to be added.

Everyone else (from regular gravel users to Takashi Amano's grossly overpriced substrates) has to rely on ferts.

As above really, nutrient rich substrates are generally used on high-tech tanks where the nutrient uptake is high.

 

[Primous]

@StandbySetting I couldn't quote for some reason but here goes...

I use a nutrafin test kit. I've used api and sailfert over the years but personally consider nutrafin to be the most accurate. pre dirt I'd test my nitrates weekly and get a result of between 5-10ppm but since changing the substrate have stuck with the same testing kit. The nitrates, in my longest period without a change (4 weeks,) were not traceable and I haven't had algae since. I don't have calibrated digital equipment? and respectfully don't think they are needed.

This is a great outcome but as was mentioned earlier aquariums differ. I wasn't so lucky and an imbalance in my aquarium would always result in algae.

I myself am using high t5's and the tanks I follow range in lighting from low to Metal-halide lamps.

 

[StandbySetting]

@StandbySetting I couldn't quote for some reason but here goes...

I use a nutrafin test kit. I've used api and sailfert over the years but personally consider nutrafin to be the most accurate. pre dirt I'd test my nitrates weekly and get a result of between 5-10ppm but since changing the substrate have stuck with the same testing kit. The nitrates, in my longest period without a change (4 weeks,) were not traceable and I haven't had algae since. I don't have calibrated digital equipment? and respectfully don't think they are needed.

This is a great outcome but as was mentioned earlier aquariums differ. I wasn't so lucky and an imbalance in my aquarium would always result in algae.

I myself am using high t5's and the tanks I follow range in lighting from low to Metal-halide lamps.

What about precision? And did you use a control to see which is the most accurate?

 

[Primous]

I used all three around the same time I was going through the cycling process. I was using liquid ammonia and would just pour in several drop and measure the result. With ammonia, the nutrafin kit would always pick up the lowest levels of ammonia while the api and sailfert would need a stronger concentration. Not exactly scientific but it was good enough for me.

*Edit*

I'm not saying the other kits are not good lol I know there is a long debate across forums about which liquid test kit is most accurate. Just that nutrafin is the one I trust most.

 

[StandbySetting]

Well that forms no valid basis towards accuracy whatsoever, I tested the 3 you mentioned using reference solutions and found that the Saliferts were the most accurate, these were 3 different batches as well so in total 9 complete test kits were tested.

 

[ian]

I will just add this to the debate...As i have said previously, i have nothing against soil substrates, they work. It's the understaning behind the substrates which is a little outdated.

This is more like the up to date stuff i'm talking about...read about the 'Fertilization and nutrients'

http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=18943

a great little article.

 

[Primous]

I will just add this to the debate...As i have said previously, i have nothing against soil substrates, they work. It's the understaning behind the substrates which is a little outdated.

This is more like the up to date stuff i'm talking about...read about the 'Fertilization and nutrients'

http/www.ukaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=18943

a great little article.

The approach is different to mine but there are some basic things they touch upon that I figured I'd quote

I have never had an unmanageable problem with algae in any of my densely planted soil substrate tanks. Such setups are often inherently well balanced systems that require less energy to maintain in healthy equilibrium, so there is far less that can go wrong. And the fact that the plants are able to uptake most of their nutrients through their roots means there is no need to add them to the water column. Which means less available for potential algal uptake, should the balance be upset in any way. In this respect soil substrate planted tanks have much more in common with natural ecosystems than their higher energy counterparts.

In most soil blogs/books/research, although the approach may differ, the above is in my experience the one thing that remains the same.

 

[ian]

I never said plants didn't use there roots, i stated theres no such thing as a heavy root feeder. Plants are very opportunistic, they will get nutrients any way they can. Some of the planted boffs go as far to say that it takes less energy for a plant to take through the leaves. The poster alsogoes on to talk about leaching into the water column.

In what way is this article different to your approach??

Do you agree with the ferts part of the substrate?? This is the part i'm trying to get across to you.

 

[Primous]

I never said plants didn't use there roots, i stated theres no such thing as a heavy root feeder. Plants are very opportunistic, they will get nutrients any way they can. Some of the planted boffs go as far to say that it takes less energy for a plant to take through the leaves.

And others say are convinced that plants feed best from their roots.

The poster alsogoes on to talk about leaching into the water column.

In what way is this article different to your approach??

Do you agree with the ferts part of the substrate?? This is the part i'm trying to get across to you.

Leeching into the water column. Perhaps it does but I am and have been willing to bet the equilibrium of my own tank that with soil nutrients in the water column are reduced to a level that subdues algae growth.

 

[lljdma06]

Hi Primous, I'm not a scientist. I have no special theories, but I do have a lot of experience. I've been putting plants in tanks before some of you even were born (23 years) and I think I can say a few things in this thread that'll maybe clear things up. Or confuse you even more. Or at the very least, you'll kinda see where Ian's coming from. My apologies to the OP in this thread.

See, I used to think that some plants, predominantly crypts and swords were root feeders. Because that's what I read and that's what I was told. I used to religiously put root tabs for my crypts and my swords and I grew them well. When I grew stemplants, I then assumed that these were water column feeders, so I dosed via the water column, and I grew those well too. And then this tank came along...

This is Endor.

The substrate was sand, just plain sand. The dominant plant species are cryptocorynes, aponogetons, and Echinodorus,the "root-feeders" as you said in the thread. I've read through this whole thread and I have one question. If these are indeed root-feeding plants and I only dosed TPN+ only through the water column in this tank, how did the plants eat? No algae either.

Likewise this is my current planted tank... It uses ADA Amazonia. A nice soil substrate. The irony, with the soil substrate, while there were crypts in this tank, the predominant plant form were anubias and mosses. Again, how did these mosses feed without something being in the water column. Where did they get the food?

Guys, the growth is comparable. Anybody can see this.

IMO, and this is just my opinion, based on years of observation and just frankly, keeping a lot of tanks for a long time. IMO, the nutrients in the substrate leach into the water column. I'm not saying that the roots don't store food, IMO, they perhaps do to some extent. This explains why a crypt can melt, lose all it's leaves and stems and regrow right as rain. It's gotta get the food to do this from somewhere. And if you don't have any leaves to absorb anything, IMO, you gotta get it from somewhere. Methinks, the roots serve as anchorage, and a storage source, but the nutrients are absorbed predominantly through the leaves.

To the original poster. Be sure that when you pick a soil, which you can use, that it's organic. You just don't want any extra crap in it that doesn't belong there. IMO, the soil contains organic components that leech into the water column. If you plant densely and most people that use soil tend to this anyway, there is plenty of plant mass to absorb the decomposition of the organic matter present in the soil. In many cases, it's excess ammonia that triggers algae, not excess nitrates. Once you have algae, nitrates don't help, but they're not the trigger. From my observation, problems with algae boils down to unstable CO2, ammonia issues, and just general lousy husbandry.

Good luck with your planted tank.

L

 

[mishmash]

Thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread. I have found it utterly invaluable and very interesting. Some of you clearly have HEAPS of experience and have done far more research than I can ever hope to have time to catch up on. But one thing is for sure... I intend to strive to continue learning as much as possible. lljdma06 has highlighted the all important point that experience counts for a lot, and also I have seen that some people's experiences are different to others, often with the same levels of success but probably for very different reasons.

I have decided to go with the Colombo florabase substrate at this point in time. To that end I now have 20L of a mix of brown and black florabase waiting to go in the tank. I ended up with the mix because thats all that was available. The LFS only had a 10L bag of brown and 2 x 5L of black, Actually I am not bothered by this. I may choose to top it with the black and have the brown underneath, OR I may use both and have two tone effect maybe to highlight a scaping feature (possibly to draw the eye into the tank more). Not sure yet.

I just hope the 20L is enough. It ought to give me .....

20L / (80x45 / 1000) = 5.5cm depth if I go for level (which I will not !!!) or maybe a slope from 3cm at the front to maybe 7 at the back ? Who knows, I will find this out when I put it in. At that point I will post the results in My First Planted Journal and ask your opinions on there.

Meantime, if people wish to continue the discussions that have been taking place, great. I will carry on monitoring my thread with interest. And thanks again

 

[Primous]

Hi lljdma06. Endor is a really lush tank, congrats! May I ask the name of the bright green crypt species and if the red species is "Legroi."

To be clear at no point have I said that plants don't or cant take nutrients through their leaves/water column. I myself had the entire collection of seachem ferts and my plants did grow with that dosing regime. So again, plants feeding from the water column has never been in dispute, at least not with me.

The idea behind a dirt substrate is that plants feed better from their roots. Some will undoubtedly debate which is better for uptake of nutrients and imo always lean towards what they themselves do but the science behind the root theory isn't really a debate for me. Proven since man first started keeping plants in a pot. Backed up aquatically by the very companies that bring these expensive (in comparison to organic soil) plant substrates to market if you read the packaging on their sites/literature. Before going with soil I was leaning towards these myself and used one. Through reading up on them that I eventually got linked to Walstead's methodology bought her books via ebay for next to nothing and got started from there. Keeping nutrients in the soil as opposed to the water column was for me the key component. In fact I think you said it best...

I only dosed TPN+ only through the water column in this tank, how did the plants eat?

I could pose the same question and just reverse the variables. ie I haven't dosed anything, how are my plants feeding? 3 months after introducing the soil I had more plant growth than I had in my previous three years. There are members of Walstead's forum (including the lady herself) as well as tpt who dirted years back and have added a single chemical bar dechlor and imo have some of the lushest tanks I have ever seen. Their stocking levels varying from a small school of neons to dense and the plants growth rate remains consistent regardless.

I think it does come down to things we can't really control and even now don't investigate when it comes to algae. For you, tpn was pretty much all you needed to get the kind of tank you wanted and like I said to earlier, congrats. I really like the look of it. Others use a branded fert laced substrate which they need to replace or start hitting with ferts and if it works for them....

For me, I had to go a different route to get the tank I wanted and what's most crucial for me is that, I got the planted tank I wanted.