General plant keeping question
I had a moderately planted 29g tank (with small Tetras, Apistos & 2 Discus)
for many years up until about 10 years ago, when we moved and I switched the tank to Africans. Here's the question: I used to maintain my tank with various Echinodorus, Anubias and Cryptocoryne species, along with some bunch plants such as Cabomba, Milfoil, etc. While I never had a lush growth, the plants looked healthy and were never stringy and bad looking. In other words, the tank looked good if not show quality. The thing is that other than a once in a while addition of liquid fertilizer, the plants never got a lot of light (one 20 watt 6700K tube for the tank), never had a CO2 injected and were never planted in anything any more exotic that small gravel. Is it possible that in chasing all the science available, we are failing to allow our tanks to achieve the equillibrium that they are capable of? It seems to me that a better course of action would be to start off a planted tank as naturally as possible, and then simply augment what is needed. The current trend seems to be to start with the assumption that plants can't survive in a tank without significant chemical intervention. I suggest that they can, and that the available science should simply be used to augment rather than to create the necessary tank conditions. Any thoughts? Bruce |
General plant keeping question
Bruce-
It's been my experience that plants need equilibrium and good light to thrive more than they need chemicals. I've had large and small planted tanks over the years, and those are the two consistent factors that keep my plants healthy. I start out slow with a few plants and a few fish, then add some of each while maintaining a stable pH (according to what my fish like). Keeping the amount of rotting organic matter under control is important as well, because too much will send the pH plummeting and the plants will stagnate and die. An undergravel filter is nice because it sucks warm water down through the substrate, but is not necessary for plant growth. I try to avoid chemicals as a base rule (except for dechlorinator) and look for natural solutions, e.g.: algae eaters, catfish, etc. This leads to most of my tanks becoming community setups instead of having any particular theme, so you have to decide if that's alright with you. I agree with your suggestion that plants can flourish without a chemical cocktail. However I should point out that several chemical factors can increase plant growth and lushness, and if used wisely can create a "show-quality" aquarium that you can be happy with. Good luck, Hobo "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message .net... I had a moderately planted 29g tank (with small Tetras, Apistos & 2 Discus) for many years up until about 10 years ago, when we moved and I switched the tank to Africans. Here's the question: I used to maintain my tank with various Echinodorus, Anubias and Cryptocoryne species, along with some bunch plants such as Cabomba, Milfoil, etc. While I never had a lush growth, the plants looked healthy and were never stringy and bad looking. In other words, the tank looked good if not show quality. The thing is that other than a once in a while addition of liquid fertilizer, the plants never got a lot of light (one 20 watt 6700K tube for the tank), never had a CO2 injected and were never planted in anything any more exotic that small gravel. Is it possible that in chasing all the science available, we are failing to allow our tanks to achieve the equillibrium that they are capable of? It seems to me that a better course of action would be to start off a planted tank as naturally as possible, and then simply augment what is needed. The current trend seems to be to start with the assumption that plants can't survive in a tank without significant chemical intervention. I suggest that they can, and that the available science should simply be used to augment rather than to create the necessary tank conditions. Any thoughts? Bruce |
General plant keeping question
Nice one. My experience has been almost the same, starting from scratch,
with few plants, plain washed gravel, no flourite, no nothing below the gravel. One or two small filters, a good spectrum and best fertilizer available for a once in a while drop or two. Although my discus and other fish seem to do most of the fertilizing. But I believe like you better start as natural as possible. My first planted tank was a few years ago (15). I had a small 20 gal tank, few neons, one angel and algae eater. One 18 watt T-12 bulb, iron fertilizer from Tetra, and nothing else. The plants were really beautiful. I dont remember what I had for plants, maybe amazons, few vals. But it was as natural as can be, I had no root heaters, CO2 tanks, reactors, or any contraptions. It was simple. Start simple, and maybe later you can complicate things a bit. "Hobo" wrote in message nk.net... Bruce- It's been my experience that plants need equilibrium and good light to thrive more than they need chemicals. I've had large and small planted tanks over the years, and those are the two consistent factors that keep my plants healthy. I start out slow with a few plants and a few fish, then add some of each while maintaining a stable pH (according to what my fish like). Keeping the amount of rotting organic matter under control is important as well, because too much will send the pH plummeting and the plants will stagnate and die. An undergravel filter is nice because it sucks warm water down through the substrate, but is not necessary for plant growth. I try to avoid chemicals as a base rule (except for dechlorinator) and look for natural solutions, e.g.: algae eaters, catfish, etc. This leads to most of my tanks becoming community setups instead of having any particular theme, so you have to decide if that's alright with you. I agree with your suggestion that plants can flourish without a chemical cocktail. However I should point out that several chemical factors can increase plant growth and lushness, and if used wisely can create a "show-quality" aquarium that you can be happy with. Good luck, Hobo "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message .net... I had a moderately planted 29g tank (with small Tetras, Apistos & 2 Discus) for many years up until about 10 years ago, when we moved and I switched the tank to Africans. Here's the question: I used to maintain my tank with various Echinodorus, Anubias and Cryptocoryne species, along with some bunch plants such as Cabomba, Milfoil, etc. While I never had a lush growth, the plants looked healthy and were never stringy and bad looking. In other words, the tank looked good if not show quality. The thing is that other than a once in a while addition of liquid fertilizer, the plants never got a lot of light (one 20 watt 6700K tube for the tank), never had a CO2 injected and were never planted in anything any more exotic that small gravel. Is it possible that in chasing all the science available, we are failing to allow our tanks to achieve the equillibrium that they are capable of? It seems to me that a better course of action would be to start off a planted tank as naturally as possible, and then simply augment what is needed. The current trend seems to be to start with the assumption that plants can't survive in a tank without significant chemical intervention. I suggest that they can, and that the available science should simply be used to augment rather than to create the necessary tank conditions. Any thoughts? Bruce |
General plant keeping question
This thread reflects my attitude. Survival of the fittest. My light,
my ph, my temperature, my fish, the plants have to work with those conditions. I believe lighting is a controlling factor. I have 5 tanks ranging from 75 gallons to 10 gallons. After going through various plantings things are pretty stable. I wish the plant folks would sort their offerings by lighting conditions as well as fresh and salt. It is hard to get the widest selections when each choice needs to be researched. I have found two sites which offer a batch of "low light" plants, but they both include plants which want more than 2 wpg. I would rather they limit their selections to under 2 wpg. On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:13:40 -0500, "Carlos" wrote: Nice one. My experience has been almost the same, starting from scratch, with few plants, plain washed gravel, no flourite, no nothing below the gravel. One or two small filters, a good spectrum and best fertilizer available for a once in a while drop or two. Although my discus and other fish seem to do most of the fertilizing. But I believe like you better start as natural as possible. My first planted tank was a few years ago (15). I had a small 20 gal tank, few neons, one angel and algae eater. One 18 watt T-12 bulb, iron fertilizer from Tetra, and nothing else. The plants were really beautiful. I dont remember what I had for plants, maybe amazons, few vals. But it was as natural as can be, I had no root heaters, CO2 tanks, reactors, or any contraptions. It was simple. Start simple, and maybe later you can complicate things a bit. "Hobo" wrote in message ink.net... Bruce- It's been my experience that plants need equilibrium and good light to thrive more than they need chemicals. I've had large and small planted tanks over the years, and those are the two consistent factors that keep my plants healthy. I start out slow with a few plants and a few fish, then add some of each while maintaining a stable pH (according to what my fish like). Keeping the amount of rotting organic matter under control is important as well, because too much will send the pH plummeting and the plants will stagnate and die. An undergravel filter is nice because it sucks warm water down through the substrate, but is not necessary for plant growth. I try to avoid chemicals as a base rule (except for dechlorinator) and look for natural solutions, e.g.: algae eaters, catfish, etc. This leads to most of my tanks becoming community setups instead of having any particular theme, so you have to decide if that's alright with you. I agree with your suggestion that plants can flourish without a chemical cocktail. However I should point out that several chemical factors can increase plant growth and lushness, and if used wisely can create a "show-quality" aquarium that you can be happy with. Good luck, Hobo "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message .net... I had a moderately planted 29g tank (with small Tetras, Apistos & 2 Discus) for many years up until about 10 years ago, when we moved and I switched the tank to Africans. Here's the question: I used to maintain my tank with various Echinodorus, Anubias and Cryptocoryne species, along with some bunch plants such as Cabomba, Milfoil, etc. While I never had a lush growth, the plants looked healthy and were never stringy and bad looking. In other words, the tank looked good if not show quality. The thing is that other than a once in a while addition of liquid fertilizer, the plants never got a lot of light (one 20 watt 6700K tube for the tank), never had a CO2 injected and were never planted in anything any more exotic that small gravel. Is it possible that in chasing all the science available, we are failing to allow our tanks to achieve the equillibrium that they are capable of? It seems to me that a better course of action would be to start off a planted tank as naturally as possible, and then simply augment what is needed. The current trend seems to be to start with the assumption that plants can't survive in a tank without significant chemical intervention. I suggest that they can, and that the available science should simply be used to augment rather than to create the necessary tank conditions. Any thoughts? Bruce |
General plant keeping question
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:35:17 UTC, Dick wrote:
This thread reflects my attitude. Survival of the fittest. My light, my ph, my temperature, my fish, the plants have to work with those conditions. This is good sense. My own approach is different: I'm gonna have lush plant growth, and I'm gonna have brightly colored rainbowfish swimming there; and since I stopped resisting getting better lights, a flash of bright red plants is also in the specs. Lights, chemicals, and CO2 as necessary; and it works fine for me. But I admit that the Darwinian approach is more reasonable. I believe lighting is a controlling factor. I have 5 tanks ranging from 75 gallons to 10 gallons. After going through various plantings things are pretty stable. I wish the plant folks would sort their offerings by lighting conditions as well as fresh and salt. It is hard to get the widest selections when each choice needs to be researched. I have found two sites which offer a batch of "low light" plants, but they both include plants which want more than 2 wpg. I would rather they limit their selections to under 2 wpg. I second that, though at present 2 wpg is (by design) the dim end of my tank. Suppliers could do a lot better at helping to match plants to tank conditions. -- Dan Drake http://www.dandrake.com |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter