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

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
news
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

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
news
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

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
news
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

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