Dustymac

Here's one of my tanks that's certain to get my hi-tech buddy's panties in a twist. It's a 45 gallon tall with Swords, a couple different Anubias and some Ludwigia Repens. The floaters are Duckweed and Frogbit.



I did some pruning before taking that picture. It came to a little over 1/2 pound. That much comes out about every two months.



Originally it was set up as hi-tech but I haven't the lifestyle for such regular time commitments. As evidence, this tank hasn't had a water change in about a year. The only thing that goes into it is light, fish food and makeup water. The light is on a timer, the flake is dispersed by an automatic feeder and the water... well... I have to do something, right? The fish don't mind; some are at least three years old.

After abandoning hi-tech, instead of taking it down to swap in some soil, this tank still has a gravel substrate. The lack of soil nutrition has been hard on the swords. I tried inserting frozen mud cubes but that only worked for a little while. A few months back I thought the swords were gonners but it looks like mulm is helping them stage a comeback. The other plants don't mind the neglect. See picture above.

Thanks for watching!
Jim

Philosophos

Well since I was one of the ones who wanted to see this...

In my mind this is what good low tech should look like, and what it's capable of. This is a nice tank, it's low maintenance, and it works. I have a tank in about the same conditions (though smaller; 10 gal) with good growth and minimal algae, but the water changes are more frequent for the sake of fry. Dosing happens maybe once or twice a week since the water changes are frequent, and it takes me less time than feeding does.

Still, it's not showing the range of difficult plant species that many of us have come to appreciate, and thus far have not been able to keep very well without CO2. Show me some HC and P. helferi under those conditions; that'll twist my panties.

I'll bet some of that algae, especially the BBA would disappear with some CO2; it wouldn't have to be that high either. You'd probably have healthier growth down low given that the plants don't have to put in all the effort of manufacturing everything that goes along with it.

Perhaps we have different views on what high tech is. I don't see high tech necessitating high light, but rather high tech as a requirement of good high light growth. High tech with low light will net some amazing results; it's been shown over and over again.

-Philosophos

Dustymac

Thanks!

I haven't had any problems with fry except when the parents eat them.

OK, I'll do that. But I didn't know you needed to pump CO2 to get those plants to grow?

Actually, the worst algae this tank has ever seen was during CO2 injection. That was a couple years ago and you can still see some of the scarring on the older leaves.

I agree that some extra CO2 would help exhaust some of the nutrients floating about the tank, and hasten the coming of nutrient depletion, but I doubt it will encourage plants to "slough" off an epidermis. Wasn't that your hypothesis? I like mine better. Every leaf I've ever seen only grew to a certain point and then stopped. Plus, I've looked at dozens of leaf/alga interfaces under the microscope and there has never been any indication outer cells are separating from the leaf. If sloughing were commonplace, then older leaves would look as young as young leaves, and I've never seen that either.

Besides, when all you add to a tank is makeup water, light and fish food, it's ridiculously easy to control algae. Makeup water isn't easily restricted but the other two can be manipulated without harm to the ecosystem. See some algae, reduce the feeder outlay by one click. If that doesn't work, remove one of the two light bulbs.

CO2 infusion, dosing and 2+ watts per gallon are usually the criteria I use for identifying "hi-tech".

Thanks again for the nice comments, and you, too, Bratyboy!

Jim

Philosophos

In my case it's apisto fry; they're a little on the sensitive side. Growth definitely slows when the water isn't kept relatively clean.

Well it's that or you can simulate the shallow few inches of a flowing river in your tank, full with high flow and churning water. Holger Windelov found it under those conditions in Cuba. This is a hard condition to recreate; CO2 is far easier. Perhaps there is a simpler way to keep these plants under healthy conditions. I would love to see it, I think it would open the hobby up to entirely new possibilities and that we'd see growth because of reduced costs and difficulty. Unfortunately I haven't seen that yet. I think as we slowly "get their" we find new, more difficult species and goals to set up within the hobby. If this weren't so, I'm fairly sure we would've stopped back at the first guy to successfully keep a weed they found in a pond.

It doesn't appear to be the same case for everyone, certainly not the more famous tanks in the hobby. The question is more whether you want to learn how to use it well, rather than whether it works. It's a matter of personal goals and values.

Once or twice a week dosing on a tank like that would probably solve the problem. It takes me less effort than feeding. At the same time you'd have healthier plants without risking any fish gassing when the light demands are so low.

Yes, I've consistently noticed leaf loss when CO2 distribution to the bottom of a stand of plants is poor. After increasing CO2 levels, the leaves are definitely not as perfect as higher up, but they're greatly improved. I've done it repeatedly with different species.

I don't see your concept as mutually exclusive to what I'm saying really. I definitely agree that plants will shed off their old growth first, or it will deteriorate sooner. At the same time, adding CO2 seems to slow the process in every observation I've made. Why would this be so if CO2 increases a plants speed of growth? It's one I'd invite everyone to try who's curious.

Yup, low light systems provide very good algae control for very little effort. On the other hand, my 2.5wpg high tech doesn't have algae issues either. A magfloat every month or two and a little trimming of old growth on the weekends is it. In return, I get a quickly responsive tank to experiment with, I also have extra growth that has helped me fund my hobby.

I'm honestly not sure where the line sits in the hobby anymore. I have a used beta tank with ADA aquasoil in it, 10wpg, and no CO2. It grows algae, but it's so small that it's not hard to clean. I'm not sure what to call that. The same goes for 1.5wpg CO2 injected, auto-dosed, auto-feeder systems with digital thermometers and alarms meant for lazy geeks.

What I've stopped being big on is purist methods, or exclusivity. I don't see cheap, low maintenance tanks winning competitions and I find they have their limits in my own attempts. I can't say that the level of dedication required to a tank of this sort has a place in most hobbyists lives either. Cutting edge tanks are about controlling growth and taking the time to carefully orchestrate details; I think they contradict the very concept of low maintenance in their essence.

I don't think any one style will dominate so long as hobbyists have different goals, and different definitions of success. Perhaps one day there will be one system that grows every species of plant in the correct growth conditions and the same tank. Perhaps we will have post modern tanks scaped out of nuisance algae declaring that planted tanks have found the limits of their expression. For now, What I do like to look at is whether a method or system seems rational, and achieves what it sets out to accomplish.

-Philosophos

Dustymac

I'm still confused about what you're trying to convey. I thought you said in the other thread the reason CO2 injection limits algae is due to the actual leaf sloughing off outer cells.

Now, in this thread, it looks like you're saying it prevents whole leaf loss? For all our discussion on the subject, I still don't understand exactly what you mean and mostly: how CO2 limits algae? Nor have you addressed my theory that CO2 appears to limit algae by hastening growth and the depletion of essential nutrients from the water column.

I know I sound like a broken record, but this forum is called "El Natural" and although you might see a blurring of the lines between hi-tech and low-tech, I think I speak for most of us in saying that injecting CO2 is hi-tech. While you're perfectly within your rights to advocate anything you want, I'm reasonably sure you want this cleared up as much as I, and spreading myth without understanding is not your intention.

Jim

Philosophos

There's been a complete miscommunication as to the subject, and I didn't quite get some of what you meant. I'm understanding you now for the most part, so I'll start again.

It's not that compressed CO2 limits algae in and of its self, or that it's necessary to have algae under control. I do find that it makes certain goals easier to accomplish though; high light for faster growth when desired, more light to add extra fixtures for better spread, and so on. All of this is relying on the concept of non-limiting nutrients, and light as a limiting factor for plant growth. Leibigs law and such; basic stuff.

Now, you're talking about column limitation. I'm wondering where you got the idea that limiting column nutrients causes algae in the first place. This is not a theory that I've seen any good support for within the hobby outside of ADA tanks using the method without saying why. At the same time, I haven't seen it work effectively either. I'd comment on the science behind the concept, but ADA hasn't presented any.

On the other hand, myself and many others have no algae problems with 20+ppm NO3 and K+, 1-5ppm PO4, .5ppm Fe, tons of calcium and magnesium, and so on. The existence of these tanks with such high nutrient levels and a lack of algae problems shows that nutrients in the column isn't a problem. I have dosed low tech tanks at full EI levels without inducing excess algae growth. Tom Barr has done it using better methods than most of us will ever be capable of using.

Now, despite this, I'm not saying good sediment doesn't help. I advocate good substrate very heavily for the obvious reasons. I just don't limit the column.

So with this point clarified, I will say that nonlimiting nutrients in soil an substrate don't induce algae, but they do increase plant growth, especially when carbon is satisfied. If light levels are low, the necessity for compressed CO2 disappears. At the same time, many of us can't reach our goals under these conditions. I don't believe in plants that demand "high light" as we understand it in the hobby; I've only seen evidence for high CO2 demanding plants, and their natural habitat usually reveals something about the reason for this requirement. I do believe in high light growth forms, and getting good spread for the health of the plant, which usually means more light.

As for CO2 directly combating algae, I don't see it happening. I don't think it's some magical algaecide. I don't think there is a confirmed reason as to why nonlimiting nutrient conditions prevent algae, but the occurrence of it has been thoroughly tested in labs and in homes well enough to show that it happens. Adding CO2 happens to aid in maintaining these levels; nothing more. Naturally this does not mean that nonlimiting nutrients creates good plant growth 100% of the time, or that creating good plant growth necessarily combats algae effectively every time. NH4 is a great example of a chemical that will give nonlimiting nitrogen while growing algae quite nicely.

I'm not saying plants slough off the entire outer part of their leaf, or the entire leaf to prevent algae either. I'm saying that slow natural shedding of cells on the leaf as it grows happens faster under better growth, and is directly related to nonlimiting carbon levels, which is best accomplished through CO2. This is a maybe, not a firm answer.

I see localized allelopathy as another possibility; this would be at the leaf, not throughout the entire column (see Allelopathy - Chemical Warfare Between Aquatic Plants by Dr. Ole Pedersen for the refutation there). The concept would be that excretion locally within the barrier level of the leaf, and the space between the leaf and the algae, would provide toxic levels in a small area strong enough to prevent algae. Again, this is something theorized by myself and in some reading I've done, but is not strenuously tested. I would not pass this off as the answer.

Another possibility is the control of algae spore germination signaling, making algae control very independent of actual plant health but with possibly correlating conditions. This is a concept that I'm less familiar with, though the current favorite of Tom Barr from what I understand. It's one I'm keeping an eye out for.

I don't think any of these concepts are mutually exclusive either. Any number of them may or may not be true.

I think the consensus is that CO2 means high tech, but I don't believe in argumentum ad popularums. I use the term as a reference, but I've seen exceptions to any set of rules that I can outline. If anything I see it contributing more to petty group dinamics than to detailed critique of methodology with any sort of attempt at neutrality. What I find in their vocabulary is a self perceived technophilia/technophobia being arbitrarily set, often at the point of injected CO2. This is something that I'm sure we can all chuckle about when "high tech" decides to give natural sediment a try and "low tech" decides to take a sample to the lab. For that matter, in life on the whole, is paintball high or low tech? Do we limit our tank stocking budget to the cost of a CO2 regulator?

-Philosophos

bratyboy2

very nice and that coming from a person that loves el natural tanks.hell i got high tech plants in mine so boo yah peeps! lol nice work bud

DVS

But with EI, and PPS all nutrients macro and minor are being dosed regularly to excess. And properly managed EI and PPS tanks are successful with inert substrates such as sand.