# Interesting blog



## dw1305 (3 Jul 2017)

Hi all, 
There is a planted tank enthusiast who has recently started posting on <"Apistogramma forums">. 

He has <"a blog">, where he discusses problems with plants like _Ludwigia sedoides,_ that I think might be of interest to many members here. 

I had a quick "google", and his day job is as a scientist working for the University of Alberta.  

cheers Darrel


----------



## geoffbark (3 Jul 2017)

Interesting read, will follow!

Note.. click on archives to continue reading his blog.


----------



## zozo (3 Jul 2017)

> *Bright light & no fertilizer; it works in nature, can it work in an aquarium?*



Absolutely my alley..  That's indeed going to be very interesting having somebody with an scientific background bending over this.

Thanks for sharing..


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (7 Jul 2017)

Very interesting read. "use farts not ferts"  I think I may use that as my signature. I thought I'd read a while back that experimenting with ammonia didn't have a great outcome although they were probably using a mixed system of biological filtration on top of EI dosing. Interesting to see that adding just enough ammonia even purely using fish waste negated the need for nitrogen which we've all became accustomed to and ammonia is a better food for plants if you like because the plants don't need to waste energy converting the nitrate back to ammonia.

So then who's going first  I can see a few members pulling out a spare tank they have sitting around and testing this out. Not sure how this would sit with potassium? there doesn't seem to be any mention of it other than traces.


----------



## zozo (7 Jul 2017)

Long time ago till the 1980's or something it was pretty common practice not to fertilize an aquarium.. The whole point was not doing water changes and the ammonia etc will build up on its own. Back then Sagittaria was the most common i beleive actualy the only carpet plant around. The first 2 to 6 months you won't see much happening put than plants start rocking the boat and the whole tank from corrner to corner carpeted with Sag. 6 months after that delicate fish start getting sick and dying. If the hardy ones started to die we called it old tank syndrom and started over.. 

My experience, bright light in a non co2 aquarium can work, experimenting myself at the time with a daylight lit tank under a roof window.. No fertilizer wont work, simply because of the water changes needed to keep the tank healthy long enough.. The stocking can never poop up against the water changes needed.

One shouldn't play with the health of the fish to find out where this break point is.. So for the sake and respect of them you need to do regular WC's.

That's my take on the concept... But still very interseted in his long term conclusions.

And actualy the bacteria fart indeed while makeing ferts, that the methane the tank/filter produces.. So Ferts and Farts go hand in hand..


----------



## Daveslaney (7 Jul 2017)

Interesting blog.
I started using urea to replace some of the no3 in my EI dosing based on Nuno M recipe in his crystal mountain journal.  The plant seem to respond real well to the different source of nitragen. But you have to keep the quantity of urea in the mix low and dose at or close to lights on so the plants get chance to utalise it before it gets processed by the filter.
Using to much also seems to make BBA rampant in my experiance.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (7 Jul 2017)

zozo said:


> Long time ago till the 1980's or something it was pretty common practice not to fertilize an aquarium.. The whole point was not doing water changes and the ammonia etc will build up on its own. Back then Sagittaria was the most common i beleive actualy the only carpet plant around. The first 2 to 6 months you won't see much happening put than plants start rocking the boat and the whole tank from corrner to corner carpeted with Sag. 6 months after that delicate fish start getting sick and dying. If the hardy ones started to die we called it old tank syndrom and started over..
> 
> My experience, bright light in a non co2 aquarium can work, experimenting myself at the time with a daylight lit tank under a roof window.. No fertilizer wont work, simply because of the water changes needed to keep the tank healthy long enough.. The stocking can never poop up against the water changes needed.
> 
> ...


The way I read it I don't think he was advocating no water changes but a reduction. My understanding was small amounts of ammonia was a better food for plants than large amounts of nitrogen because plants don't use energy feeding on ammonia so the tank was ran nitrogen free, nearly.

No filtration so the filter can't Rob the ammonia before the plants have access to it but still plenty of circulation Via a pump. 

What do you think or have I picked that up wrong?


Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (7 Jul 2017)

Floating plants also playing a big part in purifying the water. 

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## zozo (7 Jul 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> The way I read it I don't think he was advocating no water changes but a reduction. My understanding was small amounts of ammonia was a better food for plants than large amounts of nitrogen because plants don't use energy feeding on ammonia so the tank was ran nitrogen free, nearly.
> 
> No filtration so the filter can't Rob the ammonia before the plants have access to it but still plenty of circulation Via a pump.
> 
> ...



Dunno if you picked anthing up wrong, it's quite a blog already, didn't read every letter of it yet. And i'm probably not sceintific enough edducated to say he's wrong or contradict any of what he says.. But what i did read, i think he already answered his own question before the started. And that is, we can't fully replicate nature with a closed system as an aquarium. Every natural body has a natural water supply and a drain which never is static. No matter where it comes from it always is depended on it's source which likely is rain etc. and ferts from it's source up the road and what it supplies by itself.

Personaly i have no means to experiment with reduction of water changes.. I rather be safe than sorry when it comes to that and add some ferts if the plants tell me they need it...


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (8 Jul 2017)

He seemed to be experimenting how plants would grow with no nitrates and low co2 but using high lighting. As you say streams are fed nutrients from decomposition etc but the plants he was trying were coming from a body of water where there was little co2 and nitrogen but the plants still thrived and tried to replicate this in a tank.
It does look a risky game. It went on to say that running an abundance of ferts puts a tank in eutrophic mode which algae thrive on whereas using no nitrogen with two thirds coverage of floating plants to suck it out and little biological filtration to rob ammonia that a balance could be found running on just the ammonia which is easier consumed by the plants and keeping the PH low with a little co2 and oak leaves to prevent ammonia toxicity.

Will be interesting to see where it heads, to start with had the usual algae problems but haven't we all. Seems to be clearing up though. 

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tim Harrison (8 Jul 2017)

Yeah, very interesting blog...I've always wondered how it's possible to create an artificial system without injected CO2, and still get similar plant growth to that seen in natural/semi-natural ecosystems. I've noted over the years that Darrel has achieved something similar with his high light, low-energy tanks, which I guess depend on high plant biomass and lean dosing methods.

I've done something similar, with a nutrient rich substrate, and I got fairly rapid growth, but not necessarily as compact as I would have liked. It's worth considering as well that high light can also reduce a plants CO2 compensation point, so that may help.

In my experience, I don't think it's particularly sustainable and the author keeps referring to a potential crash of the system so I'm guessing neither does he, but so far so good. I noticed that after about  3 months different species of algae started to get a hold and I started to loose the battle, but that's without the intervention of SAE and my plant biomass could have been higher which would have made the system much more robust and able to fend off algea...rapid uptake of available nutrients, shading, allelochemicals etc.

I also reckon that tannins, humic substances and DOCs released from soil based substrates and oak leaves are probably great algae inhibitors too and contributors to available CO2. So what he's advocating is entirely possible.

It also set me thinking about the whole oligotrophic vs eutrophic debate as well, and how it often tries to compare nutrient enrichment via organic compounds with that caused by inorganic fertilisers. I've never been convinced it's a very helpful comparison, especially where algae vs plant growth is concerned. One is likely to cause algae the other not so much.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (8 Jul 2017)

Would be cool to invite this guy to the forum and let him know we are interested in how this goes so we can all follow his work.


----------



## Daveslaney (8 Jul 2017)

I think in such a system with little or no GH and KH and a PH running below 6 a bio filtration would become redundant anyways? So plant only filtration is the only real option. So this is how the plants would get the nutrients from the water produced by the fauna.
Micros would come from the substrate I guess.
The floaters are not co2 or light limited so they are a safety net as such for a system like this so will draw the nutrients from the water if the submerged plants fail. If you injected co2 into the system to increase the submerged plants growth rate the sumerged plants fert demand would outway that being supplied so extra dosing would be required and this is not the objective.
But as its a closed system with little or no water changes I think the organic waste produced by the plants will lead to algae problems. The only way to dilute this to a managable level and prevent algae in a closed system is with water changes?
This is just my take on it. Very interested to see how it plays out though.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (8 Jul 2017)

It did point out somewhere how much water changes could be reduced using floaters compared to WC's in a Discus tank. From memory it was 1000x more nitrate removal from the floaters which was compared to very large daily changes to achieve the same reduction using WC method.


----------



## Tim Harrison (8 Jul 2017)

I think once you've invested enough energy in a system to stabilise it, it can become very robust and self perpetuating, kinda like Mr Latimer’s sealed bottle http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...garden-thriving-40-years-fresh-air-water.html.

I've had several high-energy tanks that have gone for months without water changes and gone form strength to strength with pretty much zero algae, they usually have a massive plant biomass by then tho'. Obviously I wouldn't necessarily advocate such laziness...experimentation as a rule

Way way back in the day, when we didn't know better, my low-energy soil substrate tanks went for many months without water changes (just top ups) or fertz; plants and critters thrived, and again no algae to speak of despite a very nice build up of mulm.

But the common route to success is massive plant biomass, with floating plants or floating/emergent leaves.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (8 Jul 2017)

Maybe just me but I find that water changes aren't as important as filter and pipe cleaning although they do go hand in glove I suppose. Algae in my tank seem to get more of a foot hold when either are dirty and over due a clean whereas when they are both recently cleaned I can go a lot longer without a change if needs be. Pipes and filters are two biggest offenders when it comes to pumping crap into the tank. More than fish and plant waste I would say.


----------



## Daveslaney (8 Jul 2017)

With no bio filtration nitrate production would be reduced also? As this is the end product of the filtration process.
Totally agree about the filter cleaning. Used to leave mine ages before cleaning so as not to disturb the bio media.Do mine monthly now. If you think about it pumping water through dirty media at say 10 times a hour has got to increase the organics in the water column.
Your plants can handle your bio filtration anyways.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (8 Jul 2017)

Daveslaney said:


> With no bio filtration nitrate production would be reduced also? As this is the end product of the filtration process.



Yeah Dave, seemed to be the idea. The guy was using minimal bio filtration and just enough to push some water about and mechanically polish the water for clarity so it didn't rob the water and convert to nitrogen which he appeared to be trying to avoid.
I really should increase filter changes, WC's aren't that big a pain in a 100 ltr tank but filters are a bit of a ball ache especially when you have glassware. I sort of put them off as long as possible as every time I clean the filter I have this feeling of doom in case anything breaks  I have spare lilly pipes and I suppose a spare filter wouldn't go a miss. I only change the filter when I know I have plenty of time on my hands which is few and far between in case anything goes wrong.  I tend to change them at the weekend so if anything should go wrong you're snookered unless you go and get your pants pulled down by the LFS. Once was doing a filter change on a Sunday night and one of the taps broke  Had to tie it on with wire and wait for a delivery the following week with constant checks for leaks, not nice. Some of the externals for sale in the LFS are a kings ransom.  I think the most annoying thing is spares, they tend to cost more than a new unit. I was looking the other day for spares for my Aqua one Aquis 1250 and a spare impeller, sponges and taps actually cost more than I could get a new filter online, they're a bit like printers that way. 

Note to self, treat myself to a new filter and keep this one I've had for years as a spare 

I know when I break down my filter even after a month the crap in there is unbelievable, crap in the tank gets broke down further by our friends the shrimp which break it up into smaller pieces or eat it which the biological process and plants soon take care of but the larger lumps and leaves etc get sucked into the canister and just sit in the bottom of it decomposing away which then just gets pumped straight back into the tank. +1 On filter management as a way of controlling algae. I just wish I practised what I preach. I reckon filters have a maximum they can cope with and after about 2/3 weeks they are at their limit.


----------



## dw1305 (9 Jul 2017)

Hi all,





AverageWhiteBloke said:


> It did point out somewhere how much water changes could be reduced using floaters compared to WC's in a Discus tank. From memory it was 1000x more nitrate removal from the floaters which was compared to very large daily changes to achieve the same reduction using WC method.


There is <"scientific research"> on using _Eichornia_ and _Pistia_ to clean up waste water from tanneries, aquaculture, sewage etc., which shows that they are very effective and removing total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) etc.





Daveslaney said:


> With no bio filtration nitrate production would be reduced also? As this is the end product of the filtration process.


This is really the heart of why plants are so important, if you look at a lot of the adverse comment about plant filtration it is based upon the idea that it is *either plants or microbes*, but nothing could be further from the truth. 

This is why I always specify that it is <"plant/microbe filtration">, they aren't mutually exclusive, they are synergistic. A planted tank has more capacity for biological filtration, because the plants are producing surfaces (particularly in the substrate) which are attractive to biofilms, where microbial nitrification occurs. That is also why I want people to get away from the idea that ammonia controls "cycling", it doesn't, it is oxygen, oxygen is the prime metric in bio-filtration.

When you have plants you have a system with high oxygen levels (plants are massively net oxygen producers) and you have more potential biological filtration. 





Daveslaney said:


> Totally agree about the filter cleaning. Used to leave mine ages before cleaning so as not to disturb the bio media.Do mine monthly now. If you think about it pumping water through dirty media at say 10 times a hour has got to increase the organics in the water column. Your plants can handle your bio filtration anyways.


I clean my filter when the hoses are dirty as well.

cheers Darrel


----------



## alan'67 (9 Jul 2017)

Sorry If I have missed the point, or just a bit dim but are you saying Darrel that oxygen is more important than ammonia to the biological bacteria in a canister filter?.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (9 Jul 2017)

Ammonia and nitrite will always be available at some level at some point as a food source for bacteria. Without oxygen the process will break down.

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## alan'67 (9 Jul 2017)

Thanks for the info AWB, if however you had a high plant mass to fish load would your plants 'mop up' the ammonia before the filter bacteria?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (9 Jul 2017)

I'm probably not best qualified to say but yes, I would say that's pretty much it. The guy is trying to grow plants in a low nitrogen, low co2 environment with high lighting. EI is a eutrophic way of growing plants based on an abundance of nutrients which is an environment algae quite like as well so soon as you get a hint of dirtier water the algae boom.
The guy looks like he is eliminating nitrogen with floaters and high plant mass and not having a biological filter running which is very effective at producing nitrate through ammonia, probably quicker than the plants get hold of it. Having a small amount of ammonia seems to be better for the plants as they don't use as much energy consuming it.
On first set up even if you don't want certain plants in your scape it probably wouldn't do any harm to load up with floaters and fast growing stems that are sacrificial and clip them out later so the bio mass and surface area is at its optimum as soon as possible preventing issued with new tanks even with a filter. 
Probably why some people get early stage bother. Because they have demanding plants based on they have the high light to grow them but because they are slow getting off their feet you can run into issues early on especially with high lighting and immature filter. 

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305 (9 Jul 2017)

Hi all,





alan'67 said:


> bit dim but are you saying Darrel that oxygen is more important than ammonia to the biological bacteria in a canister filter?


No you aren't dim, that is it, oxygen is more important than ammonia. 

Aquarists are fixated on ammonia and "cycling", but scientists measure how polluted water is by estimating its <"biochemical oxygen demand"> (BOD). Ammonia is prime component of BOD, because you need to go add three atoms of oxygen for every molecule of ammonia that undergoes nitrification. You've gone from NH3/NH4+ to NO3- before the oxygen demand is fulfilled. 

In any system if the oxygen supply exceeds the oxygen demand ammonia won't build up to dangerous levels, and it doesn't matter how you get rid of the ammonia. Nitrite (NO2-) is also toxic, but less toxic than NH3, and nitrate is ~safe. You can only remove the NO3 from a system in three ways.

By take up by plants.
By water changes.
By anaerobic out-gassing as N2 gas (denitrification).
Assuming you change some water in a planted tank, with a substrate, you will have all three processes occurring. The advantage of floating plant is that they aren't CO2 limited, meaning that they can show a quick growth response to higher levels of fixed nitrogen. Denitrification will occur in the substrate.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Daveslaney (9 Jul 2017)

Your whole tank will be covered with bacteria, So the plants also provide a larger surface area for the bacteria to colonise. The bacteria can utalise alotbof different food sources not just ammonia.They are constantly multiplying and to old biofilm will die and be replaced by new. The new biofilm is more efective than the old at reducing toxins and waste. The is how a moving bed filter works, The old biofilm is constantly being rubbed off by the fluidised action and is replaced by new. Think the new guys even eat the old if thier is no other food source available. As this bacterial process uses oxygen this will be the limiting factor in your tank.
This is the reason a wet dry shower type filter is more effective than a submerged filter as it has a greater surface to air ratio so is not oxigen limited. 
Your plants will also absorb co2 and release oxigen into the tank water through photosynthesis so mean your bacterial colonys can be larger. Once the water hits oxygen saturation point the plants will pearl.
If there is little or no oxygen things turn anaerobic and favoir another form of bacteria and nasty things are released into the water column by these guys.
So ammonia reduction will prob be a joint effort between the plants and bacteria. As your tank and substrate mature the more biofilm there will be.
This post is running long and making  my head hurt.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (9 Jul 2017)

"This post is running long and making my head hurt."

 It's a good one though 

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (9 Jul 2017)

Is this where the Twinstar and derivatives comes from maybe.  Increasing o2 significantly as well as mild sterilising with out having to increase surface agitation so you can keep both your o2 and co2.

Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Daveslaney (9 Jul 2017)

AverageWhiteBloke said:


> Is this where the Twinstar and derivatives comes from maybe.  Increasing o2 significantly as well as mild sterilising with out having to increase surface agitation so you can keep both your o2 and co2.
> 
> Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk


This is the million dollar question as no one seems sure.
My guess would be it works in much tne same way as ozone at a lower level. It will destroy the water born algae cells. But it cannot know the algea cells from other water born cells so will destroy the good guys too.
You can still get oxygen saturation levels in the water regardless of the co2 level  allthough you will have to use more injected co2 to maintain the co2 level. 
This is why the plants still pearl in high co2 water?
I would think in a planted tank the ORP would be higher too due to the high oxygen levels in the water?


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (9 Jul 2017)

Daveslaney said:


> This is the million dollar question as no one seems sure



Seems to be the general census of opinion. Initially it seems to put out hydrogen peroxide which reacts with the first thing it comes in contact with the converts to o2. I don't suppose adding extra o2 without degassing the co2 is such a bad thing. Maybe why some noted scapers had good results with new tanks. Newly establishing bacteria putting a demand on o2, I guess the first few weeks with brand new surfaces to colonise would mean rapid multiplication and high demand on o2 maybe?


----------



## Bart Hazes (15 Jul 2017)

I'd like to start with thanking all of you for reading my blog and having such a thoughtful discussion about it. If you write a blog you always wonder if anyone will actually read it so seeing this thread is rewarding. I'll be addressing some of the questions and suggestions but the topic is closely related to the "Maxing CO2 in low tech" and "EI ferts on a low-tech tank" threads so I'm reading those first.


----------



## AverageWhiteBloke (15 Jul 2017)

Thanks for popping in Bart, your blog makes really interesting reading. I'm also a fan of dwarf cichlids so plenty of information to digest. There's the full spectrum in this forum from world class aquascapers to low tech under water gardeners. Nice journal section to document your experiments so we can follow progress as it happens and obviously your blog.


----------



## Bart Hazes (27 Jul 2017)

From reading comments it seems two blogs are mixed up. One blog has to do with using plants as the (sole) filter in the tank and the other with using high light intensity without using (EI) fertilizers or CO2. I'll start with the planted filter and we can get back to the bright-light topic later if there is interest.

Most plants prefer to take up ammonia rather than nitrate and it takes some energy to reduce nitrate back to ammonia inside the plant tissue. However, I am not really concerned with providing plants with ammonia instead of nitrate. In many cases plants are not energy but CO2 limited so wasting a bit of energy is not an issue. Using ammonia is just a small bonus. In tanks with bacterial filter and dense plant growth I also do not know who will win the fight over ammonia. Does most of the ammonia go straight to plants, leaving the filter with at best a very small population of nitrifying bacteria, or will bacteria convert most of the ammonia to nitrate forcing plants to convert nitrate back to ammonia? In the latter case it may actually be beneficial to discard the filter (or just keep it for mechanical and/or chemical filtration plus circulation). Not so much because plants must waste a bit of energy to use nitrate but because converting ammonia to nitrate is a drain on dissolved oxygen. Darren has written extensively about this and I have started to appreciate this aspect more after finishing the blog (see below).

My main motivation was that I keep and breed wild-caught South American dwarf cichlids and they prefer clean water, i.e. low nitrogen and organic waste concentrations. By giving plants everything they need except nitrogen, the only nitrogen they get is what is produced by fish and decomposition of organic materials. That means their growth rate is limited by how much nitrogen they can access and as long as nitrogen demand exceeds supply no ammonia or its oxidation products should accumulate. By using a substantial, up to 100%, cover of floating plants (that are not CO2 limited and get the highest amount of light) I find I can support fish bio-loads that probably exceed what is recommended for conventionally filtered tanks. Interestingly, I've had most problems with algae after 2-week holiday trips when feeding went from twice daily to once every two days. This reduction of food, and thus nitrogen supply, possibly stunted plant growth giving algae a chance.

People have asked me if they could just remove their filter and trust the plants would be adequate. If you have a well-planted tank with good plant growth and ideally also floating plants the answer is probably yes. But with aquariums I am always in favour of gradual change so processes in the tank have time to adjust. So I would recommend to just reduce the amount of bacterial filter substrate bit by bit during your monthly filter cleaning until nothing is left. If you like the circulation provided by the pump you can keep it going or you can replace it by a small internal circulation pump that takes only a few watts.

Although circulation is generally considered a good thing, I have actually started to use increasingly less flow and several of my tanks have no circulation or airstone at all. This is not because I think less flow is better for plants or general tank health, but because my dwarf cichlids come from the margins of small forest streams and "puddles" where there is limited or no current. I am now searching for very low-flow pumps, just enough to distribute heat from the heater and facilitate oxygen exchange at the water surface. Originally I thought I needed substantial agitation to break up the formation of an oily surface film but now that I have high coverage of floating plants those films no longer form either.
I just had a discussion on an apistogramma facebook group about  the wisdom of not having circulation due to its stimulation of oxygenation. My main answer was that my fish show no behavioural signs of needing more oxygen and I have had 10 spawns in the past two months. So apparently it is not a problem. One contributing factor may be that in my tanks there is no oxygen drain by the bacterial filter and I use plain sand, without dirt, in most of my tanks so there is also no decomposing organic matter in the dirt layer. Most of my tanks are also shallow, just 30 cm tall, which gives a higher surface:volume ration. Another factor may be that apistos are relatively tolerant to lower dissolved oxygen levels. I will soon get some pinocchio whiptails that are supposed to require higher oxygenation levels and if observation indicates they need more oxygen I will increase circulation for that tank.


----------

