# PFK Tank



## zig (11 Oct 2007)

This layout won the 2007 PFK aquascaping competition for the over 60cm category

The spec
150l tank approx 40 US gallons
Size 75 x 45 x 45cm
Eheim 2215
Lighting 2x55W PCs 
Substrate-Gravel
DIY external CO2 reactor
5kg CO2 fire extinguisher
Dosing method PPS PRO

The tank was started on the 13th May 2007 and it was grown out specifically for the competition. These are just the different growout stages from start to finish.

Take your pick and make it happen






Basic hardscape





Bolbitis





Tieing up the driftwood





About a week in





Maybe 4-5 weeks in





Finished about mid August so 3 months total growout time

Final shot


----------



## James Flexton (11 Oct 2007)

thats a cracking tank mate very well done, a worthy winner. thanks for sharing this, what are you going to do with all those plants from the prize? i'm looking forward to many more wonderful scapes. the skys the limit hey!


----------



## Dave Spencer (12 Oct 2007)

Great looking tank, Zig! George has good taste, and he gave your Iwagumi fair break as well.

Congratulations old chum.

Dave.


----------



## zig (13 Oct 2007)

Thanks very much guys I appreciate the comments. I was surprised/delighted to win for sure, I'm sure lots of others put a lot of effort into entering and trying to win as well so it is quite an honour really, thats how it felt for me anyhow.

What would I do with Â£250 worth of plants  I really hope they do not send me Â£250 worth of plants I wouldn't know what to do with them tbh, I will let you know.

This tank is still going strong, its in good shape, I even put some fish in it  Just a shoal of White cloud mountain minnows which are really destined for another tank eventually. nice little fish.

Thanks again, I will let you know how I get on with prizes and stuff you never know there might be a large plant sale in the near future, haha can't see Graeme fitting Â£250 quids worth in the nano


----------



## Steve Smith (15 Oct 2007)

Lovely tank mate and a worthy winner


----------



## Themuleous (15 Oct 2007)

Excellent evolution journal Peter  something there for everyone.  Always good to see how a tank develops.  Well done on the win too 

How you finding PPS PRO?

Sam


----------



## zig (17 Oct 2007)

Themuleous said:
			
		

> Excellent evolution journal Peter  something there for everyone.  Always good to see how a tank develops.  Well done on the win too
> 
> How you finding PPS PRO?
> 
> Sam



Thanks Sam, yeah always good to look back , you forget how far a scape has come even in a short period of a few months.

PPS PRO suits me fine Sam, less water changes and less pruning, for a scape like this its perfect especially when its finished, I'd say I could keep this scape going for a very long time with minimal maintainence using PPS PRO method dosing. I doubt I could keep it going long term using EI method and nearly 3WPG, maintainence would become a pain in the ass tbh. But horses for courses I guess as regards dosing methods. Everyone should try PPS just to see the difference with EI, bit of an eye opener and a good education in planted tank methods IMHO. It will definitely suit some scapes better than others though, but this is the learning curve I guess.


----------



## oldwhitewood (17 Oct 2007)

It's a very accomplished layout certainly and I think it is the best and deserves to win. However correct me if I'm wrong but are there any fish in it?


----------



## GreenNeedle (18 Oct 2007)

Nice tank Zig


----------



## zig (18 Oct 2007)

oldwhitewood said:
			
		

> It's a very accomplished layout certainly and I think it is the best and deserves to win. However correct me if I'm wrong but are there any fish in it?



Neill there was no shoal of fish in the tank when the pictures were taken, the tank contained shrimp and Otocinclus affinis but none are visable in the photograph. It was basically down to bad timing on my behalf, when the scape was nearly ready I went looking for suitable fish but none that I liked were available, it was mid August, holiday time, and the shops were not expecting major fish deliveries for another couple of weeks, so I had to make a decision in order to make the deadline for the competition (post from Ireland etc) so I shot it with none in the end.

The judge picked up on it and mentioned it in PFK magazine   

I have since stocked it with a dozen White cloud mountain minnows, a nice little fish, but yes definitely it would have looked so much better with fish in it for the photos.

This scape is still going, I am going to make some changes to it and hopefully will photograph it again, the minnows are really destined for another tank so I will keep an eye on the fish lists, the local shops post lists on the web over here. Even cardinals could look well in there the scape is so green but I will probably get something different.

Cheers neill


----------



## beeky (18 Oct 2007)

Could someone point me to a thread explaining PPS Pro? Everyone seems to talk about EI and although I've heard of PPS, I'm not sure what it is. Less water changes and slower growth seems good to me! Does it work as well with all plants or do you have less choice?


----------



## zig (18 Oct 2007)

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> zig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi Andy

The main problem I found is bba algae when you cross over from EI type dosing, Excel will solve that. The only other algae problems I had were GSA mainly on the glass, this was dosing with the recommended amount of PO4 in the mix. I have since added an extra 2 grams of PO4 to each 1 litre mix and this has solved that problem, I don't  get GSA any longer.

In the last 2 weeks before the competition deadline I increased the dosgage in the tank, I basically went back to EI dosing for 2 weeks to speed up growth, and it worked, growth levels took off as expected, but after that I wanted to slow things down again and start dosing PPS . I did a large water change to reset fert levels and I got a breakout of green dust algae also all my crypts melted   so for the month of September things looked bad but it was just dust algae on the glass mainly, I just let it run its course and the tank is back on track now, no algea, and just dosing PPS daily

For trace I use TPN and CSM+B, TPN maybe twice a week and CSM the rest of the time but tbh I don't see any difference not with the plants I am using here anyway.

Cheers Andy


----------



## zig (18 Oct 2007)

beeky said:
			
		

> Could someone point me to a thread explaining PPS Pro? Everyone seems to talk about EI and although I've heard of PPS, I'm not sure what it is. Less water changes and slower growth seems good to me! Does it work as well with all plants or do you have less choice?



Read all about it here, there are several stickies about PPS PRO method at the top of the page.



http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/pps-analysis-feedback/


----------



## JamesC (18 Oct 2007)

It can and does work very well at times. Not quite sure why it's called PPS-Pro because it's just PMDD with some PO4 added to it. It is nothing new and has been around for many years. I tried it a few months ago and very soon realised it's shortcomings. The amounts were calculated by how much the plants take up which in theory sounds good but in practice can have problems depending on what your tap water is like. Green Spot Algae is the main problem which everyone seems to get and usually adding more PO4 cures the problem. Not quite sure why they don't change the formulation to take this into account. Another area that can cause problems is if you have low potassium in your tap water. PPS-Pro doesn't seem able to supply enough. This has been a problem with some Germans I know who have low potassium levels in their tap water.

It's great to try different dosing methods but don't expect them to suddenly make your tank work. Estimative Index is the best place to start as it's fairly simple and works for most setups. From there you can move on to try different dosing stratergies and noting their effects. Every tank is different so just because one person has success with a particular method doesn't mean you will.

After having problems with PPS-Pro I decided to look at the old PMDD formula and tweak it a bit with some PO4. This I found for me works a lot better than PPS-Pro. Possibly because my water is reconstituted RO water which has little potassium in it and PMDD doses more potassium. I've detailed my dosing on my webpage for anyone that's interested, but remember this is what works for me and may not suit you - http://www.theplantedtank.co.uk/PMDD.htm. With a bit of tweaking most dosing regimes can be made to work for most tanks.

James


----------



## ceg4048 (18 Oct 2007)

beeky,
            This is another one of my pet peeves. Although the hobby has advanced tremendously over the past decade the fundamentals of plant husbandry continues to get buried under a deluge of market/branding rhetoric. From what I can see, some hobbyist with a specific tank configuration found the minimum concentration of nutrient addition for that tank which would make his plants grow well. The hobbyist then releases the data assuming that these levels are appropriate for every tank. I can predict that somewhere in this procession someone will find levels in his/her tank that results in some red plants being more red and will coin a new dosing scheme "PPS Pro III Special Rubra"

What puzzles me is that it's not clear what the major premise of the scheme actually is. The premise appears to be either that 1. excess nutrients cause algae or that 2. growth is controlled only by nutrients alone. Both premises are erroneous. The first is easily discarded as there is sufficient empirical evidence to the contrary. The second also has been proven inaccurate but is much less understood. 

Assume 2 tanks are setup with similar lighting, similar bioload, similar filtration and similar CO2. Assume the first is dosed PPS and the second EI. It cannot automatically be assumed that the EI dosed tank will have higher growth. First and foremost the light intensity will determine this. Say the light on both tanks is subdued to 1.5 WPG and both tanks are CO2 injected to 30 ppm. It's likely that both tanks are light limited. At 1.5 wpg and unlimited CO2, plants in both tanks will only uptake some rate "X ppm per day" of CO2. "X" will most likely be less than 30. If the tanks are similar as stated above both tanks will consume the same amount of CO2. Assume this number is 10 ppm per day. If we were to raise the CO2 injection rate in the EI tank to 40 ppm per day that tank would still only uptake 10 ppm because it's uptake, like the PPS tank is throttled by the low light. Addition of more CO2 (beyond required uptake level) has absolutely no effect on a tank that is light limited. Now the nutrients; Because the 1.5 wpg throttles the CO2 uptake to 10ppm, the nutrient uptake is likewise throttled. Assume that at this level uptake demand of NO3 is 2 ppm per day. It is 2 ppm per day in both tanks regardless of what the actual NO3 concentration is in each tank. The light level ultimately determines the uptake demand of CO2 which in turn determines the uptake demand of the nutrients. The PPS philosophy says essentially "At this level you should only dose 2 ppm per day" whereas EI says "go for max dosing 2 is good but 4 is better". Say the EI tank were dosed at 4 ppm per day. It would make absolutely no difference to the growth rate in this case. High concentration by itself does not imply high uptake.

Herein lies the fundamental difference between these two schemes; The next day we can increase the light, say to 3 wpg. The PPS tank would now need an adjustment to it's dosing scheme. Higher light would drive higher CO2 uptake which then would drive a higher nutrient uptake. While the PPS tank has to tested and fiddled with the EI tank has no adjustment necessary. It is already being dosed at max uptake levels so it's adjustment is automatic.

Apart from the drudgery of testing, PPS has no automatic way of adjusting to increases in bioload either. If in 2 months your plants grow by 50% then there will be an increase in their uptake. It may not be exactly 50% but it will be significant so you'd have to make an adjustment there. Then, what happens after you prune? Biomass decreases and so does uptake - yet another adjustment. Again, with EI you are dosing the max so no adjustments are necessary. If there is lower demand there is lower uptake, if there is higher demand there is higher uptake. It just doesn't matter if your concentrations are higher than necessary. If you want to slow growth you now know where the throttle is - it's called the light switch. 

Zig, you were undeniably successful in planning and growing that tank out and I know that it's very easy to say that growth was controlled with PPS but fundamentally, growth was controlled by light and by CO2, which can be accomplished regardless of dosing scheme. If, in either scheme, you made a mistake and didn't provide sufficient CO2 for the lighting level it would be reflected in the appearance of BBA. During that time growth is curtailed as a direct result of Carbon starvation. If you make a mistake in your nutrient application you'll observe some other form of algae and during that time growth will be curtailed by nitrate or phosphate starvation.

In any case I think that was a smashing effort and congratulations on the win. I just want to be clear that I'm not denouncing PPS in any way but I do want to ensure that we understand _why _something works. This is the best way of advancing the hobby. If someone chooses a particular dosing scheme then it should be done on the basis of knowledge and not on popular trend or fashion of the day. Whether one fails or succeeds with a scheme, it's necessary to understand the mechanism of the failure or the success.

Cheers,


----------



## zig (18 Oct 2007)

..


----------



## GreenNeedle (18 Oct 2007)




----------



## ceg4048 (18 Oct 2007)

Hi Andy,
              Sorry, no, I wasn't accusing you of promoting PPS over EI, I was just responding to beeky's post about PPS and PPS Pro and all that. I seemed to have really upset zig who seems completely flummoxed.  Maybe it's because the thread has been hijacked? Sorry zig. It wasn't my intent to depress you. 

BBA and rotting plants are textbook symptoms of poor CO2.

Poor CO2 means either, or any combination of the following:
1)  CO2 concentration too low for the level of light.
2) Fluctuating CO2 concentration.
3) Poorly distributed CO2 due to inadequate circulation. A green drop checker only means that the CO2 is adequate at the location that the drop checker is attached. 

CO2 is poor at exactly the locations where a BBA tufts first appear. CO2 is also poor at exactly the location where a plant displays rotted stems or leaves. Some species, and even some specimens within the same species are more tolerant of carbon starvation than others.

A couple of ideas. Drive your drop checker into the yellow without gassing your fish. Look at reworking your distribution method; spraybars, angled outlets, higher pump capacity or even possibly auxiliary powerheads if not too obtrusive. Had you reduced your injection rate when you lowered the light?

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle (18 Oct 2007)

p...........


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Oct 2007)

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> I think I can rule the CO2 out as the drop checker is front right and limeade colour (close to yellow and over 30ppm)



OK Andy, whatever you say. I never rule out anything except for the fact that one tuft of BBA is more accurate that any drop checker known to man....

Cheers,


----------



## Matt Holbrook-Bull (19 Oct 2007)

having said that.. I have loads of BBA and i know my co2/flow is fine.. I think the known causes of BBA are as yet, inconclusive.


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Oct 2007)

Hi Matt,
             I've seen this movie before (he he he). In The Matrix Morpheus says to Neo; I can only lead you to the door. _You_ must walk through. 

Think about this for a second; why does dosing Excel make so much of a difference? If the plants were assimilating 30 ppm CO2 prior to it's application they would be CO2 unlimited and addition of Excel would not result in much improvement. If you can see a dramatic improvement upon the addition of Excel that must mean that your CO2 injection was inadequate, mustn't it?

Barr estimates that 90% of algae problems are CO2 related. This 90% is comprised mostly of people who "just know their CO2 is good".

Matt, I'll plead with you to just try turning that needle valve some more. Slowly push it to max your fish can endure and leave it there for a few weeks. Then observe and report. I'll wager a beer that you'll start to kick that BBA in the bum.

Cheers,


----------



## Matt Holbrook-Bull (19 Oct 2007)

ive done that many times trying to sort it out, on this and other tanks.. right up until the drop checker is very nearly yellow.

are we sure that its not one of Excel's active ingredients killing the BBA? after all, thats its other use.


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Oct 2007)

Yes, remember it contains that chemical in the same family as formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde? That kills the algae that is there, but the part of the glutaraldehyde what makes the plants grow better is the carbon part (C5H8O2). I'm guessing that somehow the carbon is stripped by the plants and the remainder is just H and O, so essentially water. What I'm getting at is that if the plants were already getting enough carbon from the injected gas they would not pull as much carbon from Excel. Apart from the biocidal properties the carbon feeds the plants. Don't you normally see that the plants perk up after a few days when you use Excel? Well it's the carbon that they strip which then enables them to uptake more NPK and traces. If they were already saturated with max levels of carbon from the gas you're adding they would not strip the Excel of it's carbon as much and you would not notice that much of an improvement in the plants' appearance.

The amount of  improvement in the appearance of your plants when you add Excel is therefore directly related (and probably proportional) to the degree of carbon starvation being experience by the plant when Excel is not present.

Cheers,


----------



## Matt Holbrook-Bull (19 Oct 2007)

understand what your saying Clive, but I really can guarantee that my co2 is high.. but yet it still survives.  

I find it hard to believe that having adequate co2 in the tank would KILL it, as all plant life utilises co2 to survive, so why would BBA be any different? CO2 cannot be damaging to plant-life while held in solution.

Normally, low co2 causes algae of varying types because the biomass is struggling to grow, therefore providing the algae with everything it needs with no competition.  My biomass is growing like nuts! Yet the BBA still competes with it.

It has to be something else. We must be missing something.


----------



## GreenNeedle (19 Oct 2007)

Sorry Zig I won't ruin your thread anymore,  I will follow it on TFF instead if its there.

Andy


----------



## Matt Holbrook-Bull (19 Oct 2007)

play nice in the sandbox coley.. Clive was quite right to quote Tom, and hes entitled to his opinions as well.. thats why were here, to have Discussions.. not arguments.


----------



## ceg4048 (19 Oct 2007)

Hi Andy,
                There are many things about plant husbandry that are counterintuitive. I suppose that's why there are so many disagreements. Sometimes the truth appears incongruous. Remember when most people on the planet believed that nutrients cause algae? It seemed obvious and when it was suggested that the opposite is true it was very difficult for me and most people to accept because I just knew nutrients caused algae. I could see it in the tank, so I understand your conviction totally, believe me. The thing is that I also understand that it's easy to gas your fish and to still have a carbon deficiency. I've been there and done it. I reviewed what I posted and I noted the various ways that CO2 can be poor. The fact is that the distribution of CO2 in a tank is not homogeneous so that as a result of flow patterns there is an uneven distribution. One could easily have a high concentration area right next to low concentration area. We have no real way to determine the concentration profile. Additionally, as the plants grow the distribution profile changes further complicating the issue. It's really a jigsaw puzzle trying to balance injection rates and flow patterns.

I'm always questioning the things that I think I know. I have similar problems in that some plants rot in some locations and are fine in other locations. It could be that the ones that rot were just weak. I'm dosing adequate nutrients so the only thing left on the checklist is light and CO2.

On the issue of the Excel, check the post again. What I said was that the plants are using the carbon portion of the glutaraldehyde which the algae have no access to. The algae are negatively affected by the entire molecule since they are not able to process and reduce it. Glutaraldehyde as far as I can tell is basically a disinfectant. From what I gather it's used in hospitals to sterilize operating instruments. At certain levels it becomes toxic even to higher plants but at low levels it can be processed and used by the higher plants.

You are correct in that I don't know the entire content and formula of Excel. Only Seachem knows that so we are forced to make assumptions which may not be accurate. I feel fairly confident though that iron does not have any algaecide properties.

In any case, as I tried to point out CO2 is more than about mere ppm but is about what ppm is reaching and being assimilated by the individual plant. Since it is the most ethereal of all the nutrients it requires much more effort and applied science than any other aspect of plant husbandry and should not be so easily dismissed.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle (19 Oct 2007)

This isn't a disagreement. you are insisting you are right when you know nothing about the other tanks in question and you call into question the ability of the tank owners to assess their own tanks.

I for one may not be highly experienced in planted tanks but Zig is and I would take his word over yours anytime.

I will get banned for this post but so what.

I'm sick of reading your full page essays copied out of books and other websites.

You dont discuss or debate. you insist you are right hence responding to me with 'whatever you say Andy'.  I consider this an arrogant as well as dismissive gesture from someone who bores everybody to tears with his page long plagurisms.

You say 'I'm always questioning the things that I think I know'????

I bet you always come out with the right answer, after asking someone else what it is.

Opinionated is often an overused word but it definately applies to you.

I respect Tomn Barr and I would go as far as to say I admire his passion for what he does.  He definately knows his stuff and I have taken much advice from his posts and virtually always benefited from them.  I have taken advice from others posts as well but I fall asleep less than half way through yours.

Anyway bye bye UKaps.  I think that needed to be said before I left.

Good Luck to the people I admire and respect like JamesC, GF, GE, Them, Zig, Dave, Jimboo and others that I have forgotten and I will see you on TFF where people like CEG are diluted by the many many decent open minded users.

By the way people the apparently 'inappropriate' image link in my signature that was removed earlier was a picture of Leilani, Not naked, not even topless so god knows why someone took offense to this.

Just goes to show how damn serious some people are as administrators.

Andy


----------



## George Farmer (19 Oct 2007)

One of my favourite aquascapes of all time, Peter.  A well-deserved winner indeed...

I will be using the wood framework you have used as the basis of my next layout I think. 

Congrats again and I hoped you've framed the letter I sent!  It took me ages to sort that!


----------



## Matt Holbrook-Bull (19 Oct 2007)

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> I will get banned for this post but so what.
> 
> Andy



bye bye.. well, he was correct on one thing...


----------



## CJ Castle (20 Oct 2007)

Nice tank, Zig... A worthy win...


----------



## zig (21 Oct 2007)

Thanks CJ Castle  nice of you to say that

George I just haven't found the right frame yet still looking


----------

