# "Bible" of Keeping Aquatic Plants



## mow said (7 Jan 2018)

Just wanted to share an old video


----------



## foxfish (7 Jan 2018)

Cool I can remember all that equipment in fact I probably still have some of it.
I guess that vid was made around 25 or more years ago.


----------



## mow said (7 Jan 2018)

I didn't even know they had drop checkers back then.


----------



## ceg4048 (7 Jan 2018)

It's a pity that this particular company parlayed their expertise into outrageously priced products.

Also, as it has been demonstrated, the following items have been proven false:

"Golden Rule" #1 is fools gold. Absurdly priced heating cables are a mirage and no effect whatsoever on substrate health. They are, however, useful in heating the tank.

"Golden Rule" #3 is a mirage. Fishes move from one body of water to another, each body of water is chemically different. Adding CO2 to a tank causes variations in pH on an hourly basis, therefore it is not feasibleto maintain both a stable pH and stable CO2 at the same time. As organic waste builds up in the tank throughout the week TDS and concentrations of other chemical change rapidly. It is a much more reasonable goal to aim for cleanliness of the tank than to aim for stability of parameters. There is no requirement or point in attempting to maintain neutral pH.

The statement made at the end of "Golden Rule" #4 regarding nutrient dosing higher than slight being poisonous is without merit. The dosing drops marketed by this company and sold to unsuspecting hobbyists at a unit price of over €800 directly led to the development of PMDD (Poor Man's Dosing Drops) by Paul Sears and Kevin Conlin, who, having access to a mass spectrometer discovered that the company's dosing drops was nothing more than KNO3, K2SO4 and trace elements. T.Barr (plantbrain) later modified the recipe to what we know now as Estimative Index.

"Golden Rule" #10 regarding regular testing and control has led many hobbyists down the wrong path. Of course, temperature monitoring is a good idea, and pH monitoring for the purpose of determining CO2 content is a good idea. Testing for PO4, Iron and so forth is wasteful, deceptive and unnecessary.

The other Golden Rules are valid and we continue to stress these today.

Cheers,


----------



## mow said (7 Jan 2018)

£800 for KNO3, K2SO4 and trace elements that is a robbery, thank god we have smart people that continue to put time and make our hobby affordable.


----------



## a1Matt (8 Jan 2018)

I came in to post the same vid, it must be doing the rounds on youtube recommendations. 

Seeing the varieties of plants that were about in the 90s, and the layout styles, was a nice memory lane and a clear reminder how long I've been into this malarkey for. 

Always good to see some crypt habitats too.


----------



## Edvet (8 Jan 2018)

I still have that book even


----------



## a1Matt (8 Jan 2018)

mow said said:


> I didn't even know they had drop checkers back then.



They didn't have the 4dkh reference solution though. That came later, IIRC it was a barr reports forum member who came up with that idea.


----------



## alto (8 Jan 2018)

ceg4048 said:


> "Golden Rule" #3 is a mirage. Fishes move from one body of water to another, each body of water is chemically different.


This statement is almost as misleading as some of those from that book published in 1978 
There are many fish species which live in stable natural waters, Rift Lakes being the obvious, but not the only



ceg4048 said:


> Golden Rule" #1 is fools gold. Absurdly priced heating cables are a mirage and no effect whatsoever on substrate health.


Do you have any peer reviewed scientific published articles to this statement?

I've read plenty of anecdote to both sides

Dupla maintained large planted aquariums over at least 10 years without any substrate maintenance, they were doing something right 
As I recall George & Karla Booth did the same
Unfortunately the web presence of both Dupla & the Booths is long gone, but you can still find discussions & some mirroring on the Krib

Dupla made rather significant contributions to the planted aquarium hobby


----------



## foxfish (8 Jan 2018)

I was a Dennerle man myself, I set up my first Co2 planted tank in 1988.
I loved the glossy brochures that had be ordered by mail, the complex substrates , heating cables, mercury vapour lights, no surface movement, low flow rates, complicated fertilisers systems, rain water 10% a week water changes & .............. fantastic healthy, algae free plants!
Things are different now but, my tanks of the day were really successful, I used a 1kg cylinder (still got it) on my 50g tank. I seem to remember it lasted about one month but the lights were not very bright & high above the tank.
My claim to fame was a feature in Aquarist magazine when the editor travelled to my house & took a load of photos that made the centre pages of the mag.
Of course the tank was nothing like the spectacular ones we see today & used mainly swords & stems.


----------



## ceg4048 (9 Jan 2018)

alto said:


> This statement is almost as misleading as some of those from that book published in 1978
> There are many fish species which live in stable natural waters, Rift Lakes being the obvious, but not the only


Yes, this is true and the fish have no control of whether they encounter stable pH. Likewise, there are many fish species which do not live in stable pH waters. Amazonia fish, which comprise the bulk of the ornamental fish hobboy are an obvious example of that. So where are we with this? Just because a fish or a plant is found in an area with a particular characteristic it does not automatically follow that those characteristics are a prerequisite for survival and it does not automatically mean the characteristics are even a requirement. It is often the case that hobbyists have been taught to put the cart before their horse. Rift Lake fish live in a more stable pH water as a direct result of the waters alkalinity. Since it is not possible to have a natural body of water that has high alkalinity with a low or widely varying pH it is automatically assumed that the pH is important, when it really isn't.

It is more instructive to consider Amazonian fish which DO move from one body of water to another in search of food and as a result of the seasonal change in rainfall which often dumps large quantities of organic acids into the water. The low alkalinity of the water results in wild swings in pH without any damage to the fish.

What pH lovers always seem to ignore is the fact that the fish are much more concerned with the characteristics of the substance that enters the water which may have an effect on the pH. Their response is to the substance, not to the pH. If the substance is toxic it will harm the fish, if the substance is not toxic it will not harm the fish regardless of the pH change that results. There is also the case where substances change their toxicity depending on the pH of the water. NH3/NH4 is a typical example. Again, the damage is a result of NH3, not as a result of pH.

It amazes me that not only Dupla, but members of this forum and who use CO2 fail to recognize the obvious inconsistency with trying to maintain stable pH concurrently with stable CO2. It should be obvious that at normal alkalinities, there is no way of achieving this. Using a pH controller, for example maintains stable pH but at the cost of unstable CO2.
It also amazes me that after decades of using CO2 and observing the unstable pH that is inherent in it use, that anyone should question whether stable pH is a relevant goal.

So my question is, do you use CO2 and have you observed short term or long term damage to your fish resulting from unstable pH? Hobbyists kill or injure their fish due to CO2 overdose quite frequently, but I see no evidence of damage due to unstable pH.



alto said:


> Do you have any peer reviewed scientific published articles to this statement?


Well, again, here is another disappointing state of affairs. I'm being asked to provide peer reviewed scientific published articles but Dupla gets a free pass based on their anecdotal experience? Where is Dupla's peer reviewed data?

So if Dupla can keep their substrate from becoming anaerobic long term using heating cables and if the rest of us non-believers are also able to keep our sediment anaerobic free long term, what does that say about heating cables? Doesn't it imply that heating cables don't make any difference? If you've read anecdotal data on both sides then this disproves Dupla's contention that the cables are a requirement. If the cables were necessary, wouldn't it follow that those who do not use the cables would experience a higher incidence of anaerobic sediments? Clearly this has not been the case.

For peer reviewed data you might try Plant Physiology's 1994 study of Oxygen production and transfer to roots: http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/plantphysiol/105/3/847.full.pdf
This was also followed up with additional research published in Plant, Cell & Environment, by Professor Ole Pedersen (of Tropica) in the 2004 article http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/plantphysiol/105/3/847.full.pdf

Dupla's claim is that the currents produced by the cables are necessary in order to bring Oxygen to the roots. Clearly this claim is false, because we know that aquatic plants transfer Oxygen and in fact they create their own little world around the immediate vicinity of the roots where toxic substances are oxidized and aerobic bacteria colonize the area. These articles are just a small sample.



alto said:


> Dupla made rather significant contributions to the planted aquarium hobby


Yes, of course they have, but does this mean that they are infallible?
We can also consider that they have actually hampered the development of the hobby by charging outrageous prices for their products and by not offering more realistic education.
Please note that I have not bashed Dupla. I have merely stated the facts as we know them now and have pointed out the errors in the video. Tomorrow, we will know something else.
Have I ever purchased their products? No, because I could not afford it at the time and neither could many other hobbyists.
The inability to move forward with a hobby due to lack of funding constitutes a hampering of the hobby. Ask any any researcher and their peers.

Cheers,


----------



## Tim Harrison (9 Jan 2018)

foxfish said:


> My claim to fame was a feature in Aquarist magazine


Those were the days, I think we discussed the mag before when I first joined the forum 6 yrs ago now.
The Aquarist helped me cut my aquascaping teeth, way back, at the tender age of about 10; that was my bible - well that and a book by a Dutch aquarist.

There was a regular contributor, an Indian Dr (I can't remember his name) who always dealt with the plant problems.
I remember learning loads from him and eventually heeded his advice and took the plunge with soil. That was well over 40 years ago now.

I had an incredibly stable and low maintenance 50g tank without algae. Similar to foxfish mainly swords, vallis, etc, very densely planted.
No CO2, peat substrate, a couple of T12 bulbs, large HOB, minimal water changes, loads of mulm.
I used to turn the filter off at night, but I also ran undergravel filters with air stones attached to a monster Whisper air pump with a flow dial...remember those? So I had very good O2 saturation.

I never used Dupla products, I don't think they existed when I first started. But I vaguely remember experimenting with my dads tomato fertiliser, but didn't keep it up since I had a sneaking suspicion it wasn't totally suitable, and I didn't want to poison my fish.


----------



## foxfish (9 Jan 2018)

Yeah Aquarist was edited by David Sands (now Dr David Sands) who went on to be a television personality based around animal behaviour.
That is quite funny really because he also came to Guernsey to feature the Koi farm where I worked as the manager, he stayed at my house & got bitten by my pet rat who was the tamest rat in the world!


----------



## Parablennius (9 Jan 2018)

Is this the same David Sands that was into BIG catfish and had an aquarium shop out near Southport? Used to go there but it was many years ago.


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

ceg4048 said:


> pH monitoring for the purpose of determining CO2 content is a good idea.





ceg4048 said:


> Using a pH controller, for example maintains stable pH but at the cost of unstable CO2.



 These 2 statements/facts if they are rather confuse me. Could be me, but isn't there some contradiction in it?

How can monitoring pH by any other means than a pH controller be more precise for me to determine CO2 stability? In the end the reading of the pH provides me with a number adchieved with the same electronic measuring technique. How can one be more relyable than the other regarding CO2 stabiliity?

I hapen to have 4 different brands of electronic pH probes.. Of which 1 is a controller.. I calibrate them with the same fluid, but still all 4 give me a slight different reading. Kinda makes me feel like chasing a wild goose anyway..


----------



## Tim Harrison (9 Jan 2018)

Not sure, but I think Clive is referring to measuring the pH drop to determine CO2 concentration.


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

Tim Harrison said:


> pH drop to determine CO2 content.



Is'n that the whole point, since the pH drop determines the CO2 content.

Just for the fun of it i've been monitoring Ph for both cases High tech and low tech. And if i look at the low tech, it has a pretty stable same pH for the whole week from water change to water change. It doesn't realy fluctuate significantly if it does it's a 0.1 or so.

If this is constantly stable than why should a constant 0.5 drop Ph with adding co2 be unstable using the same measuring device as a controler?


----------



## Edvet (9 Jan 2018)

pH measuring: determing the effect of CO2 dosing
pH controler: making pH stable thus making CO2 unstable


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

Edvet said:


> pH controler: making pH stable thus making CO2 unstable


What the heck do you guys do to reference the other to determine this. I'm missing a step and a number here. Than you should check pH and check CO2 contents by other means to determine it. Than looking at pH only says nothing about CO2.

The controler makes nothing, it just measures..

Than what do you do to make it stable?.. Looking at a drop checker color? That would completely nock me of my feet if that is more accurate to determine stability.. WHich in the end also only is a pH reference


----------



## Edvet (9 Jan 2018)

No but the difference in value is the key. The one point drop ( at 4-6 kH) gives the required CO2 value ( more or less). 
Keeping pH at 6.8 ( for instance) will give varying CO2 levels because while it is used or produced there will be more or less CO2 added, and we want the drop max at light on.  This can work in low light where the CO2 demand isn't that critical but in high light it will produce to much varying CO2 levels.


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

Edvet said:


> No but the difference in value is the key. The one point drop ( at 4-6 kH) gives the required CO2 value ( more or less).
> Keeping pH at 6.8 ( for instance) will give varying CO2 levels because while it is used or produced there will be more or less CO2 added, and we want the drop max at light on.  This can work in low light where the CO2 demand isn't that critical but in high light it will produce to much varying CO2 levels.



I understand this, that's not the point.. The point is how can not using a controler be more stable.. How is this determined.. Counting bubbes for a minute and assume it is accurately the same for the rest of the 600 minute cycle?

Assume i don't use a controller but just constantly monitor pH, than the pH should constantly fluctuate with a stable CO2..


----------



## Edvet (9 Jan 2018)

Yes and that doesn't matter, pH changes through CO2 are "weak acid"reactions, fish don't mind. Plants reaction to changing CO2 are devastating, it costs them dearly and they get damaged in the proces.


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

Anyway If bubble counting is it and the little dropchecker color/ph content  is the holy grale of CO2 stability than upgrade the darn thing like this, poblem solved and control away even more accurate..


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

Edvet said:


> Yes and that doesn't matter, pH changes through CO2 are "weak acid"reactions, fish don't mind. Plants reaction to changing CO2 are devastating, it costs them dearly and they get damaged in the proces.



My point is how can Ph Measuring for stable CO2 content be any good is pH fluctuates with a stable CO2? It can't without darn complex formulas and a pocket calculator and some other measuring devices. One only can be averagely more stable than the other.. Averagely more stable still is unstable..


----------



## Edvet (9 Jan 2018)

Dropchecker changes are very slow.
But there is no need to rigid control, there is need for stable CO2 levels for the first 4/5 hours of lightperiod, after that the levels can decline, because the plants slow down.If you want to control you need two controlers, one for each period, only the setting of the second period doesn't realy matter.only the first (before and at start lightperiod) does, and using a timer works just as if not more efficient.


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

Yes but adding 10 bpm during the whole day, doesn't change the plant uptake in the light cycle.. Thus starting with 10 bpm and stopping with 10 bpm over this cycle still results in a unstable CO2 content during this process.. Either way aint stable.. Te uptake is dynamic the admistering is rigid..


----------



## Edvet (9 Jan 2018)

Let's pm this in dutch, easier


----------



## zozo (9 Jan 2018)

zozo said:


> Anyway If bubble counting is it and the little dropchecker color/ph content  is the holy grale of CO2 stability than upgrade the darn thing like this, poblem solved and control away even more accurate..
> 
> View attachment 112491



Sorry in the heap of the moment didn't think of the checkers reaction time  this would be crap for controlling. But would give a more accurate reading than only a color.


----------

