Are ferts needed with Flourite/Eco-Complete

[geofied]

Seriously Rex, if I send you the book, will you read it?

Saying the Walstad method is akin to Scientology and is totally different is like saying organic farming is experimental. Nature has been cleaning up our messes far longer than you have been sprinkling powdered chemicals in your tanks. I admit, the natural method takes a leap of faith to work properly, but when it does, the rewards are manifold. Many folks gravitate to the high-tech methods because they think the au naturale method is more work and risky, when in reality, the opposite it true. Once you achieve a certain level of balance in your aquarium ecosystem, you are less susceptible to crashes from equipment and otherwise.

Yes this method works for me. And I'm here to tell you that if a lazy fool like me can get it to work, just about anybody can utilize this approach with success.

 

[Mgamer20o0]

rivers move and lakes have rivers feeding them. i really dont think what is done in nature is the same as what we do in our tanks.

 

[Rex Grigg]

I have read the book.

And organic farming is not experimental. Not very productive and cost efficient but it's not experimental.

Did you know that if every farmer was forced to go totally organic that about 25% of the world population would die of starvation in the first two years?

And why is it that only rich white privileged folks are the ones pushing "organic"? Is it because they can afford it and they don't care about the people in the third world?

Penn and Teller did a great show about this.

Many more people have failed with "natural" tanks than had success. And what is natural about fish in a glass box restricted to 100X less cubic volume than the wild?

 

[geofied]

I have read the book.

You seem to disagree with a lot of the scientific data that is in the book, so I wasn't sure.

And organic farming is not experimental. Not very productive and cost efficient but it's not experimental.

Err, yeah, I was equating your statement about Walstad's methods being "fringe" and scientology-esque to someone stating that organic farming was experimental. Just because it isn't the de-facto standard doesn't mean it isn't a better, safer, more natural way of doing things. I hate Tom Cruise by the way, so please don't equate Walstad to Scientology.

Did you know that if every farmer was forced to go totally organic that about 25% of the world population would die of
starvation in the first two years?

Really? Guess it depends on which day you read the news... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10031729

And why is it that only rich white privileged folks are the ones pushing "organic"? Is it because they can afford it and they don't care about the people in the third world?

Penn and Teller did a great show about this.

We're getting off topic here, but for the sake of discussion, most goods/services are initially adopted and pushed by the wealthy. But if it catches on, supply/demand etc. forces prices down so that every ghetto superstar and third world inhabitant can afford plasma tv's, cell phones, Nike's, and eventually organic food. The Walmarts of the world have taken a major chunk out of elitism in world, and are poised to do the same with organic foods too, for better or worse mind you. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004422.html

That'll be some more fodder for Penn and Teller soon enough. And for the record, I like Penn and Teller.

Many more people have failed with "natural" tanks than had success.

Prove it. Let's do a poll. I have yet to see a post by someone, other than myself, who has even tried a "natural" tank using the Walstad method for better or worse. And what is your definition of failure? Algae? Non-supersonic growth? What of all those that have failed with high-tech tanks? Maybe they were just folks that belonged on your "Stupid People" page (I've noticed I'm not on there yet, but I'm checking daily:look: ). I think there are lots of folks that would be willing to try natural methods if not for all the people on forums like this telling them it can't be done.

And what is natural about fish in a glass box restricted to 100X less cubic volume than the wild?

I'm not arguing that aquariums are inherently natural or not, just that I'm trying to re-create a slice of nature in a little glass box. If you don't appreciate the natural side of things (which I know you really do) why not forego all live plants and replace them with silk or plastic ones if you think technology can do so much better? I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone here loves the natural aspect of our hobby, so why not give it a chance, or at least allow that it can be done. This is not a one size fits all hobby.

 

[Rex Grigg]

I'm active on four forums. Have been for quite some time. I also receive 30-40 emails a day asking for advice.

A lot of people have had problems with Walstad style tanks. Most of the failures have to do with rampant algae growth. I would guess a lot of this is due to NOT understanding the method.

Tom Barr also disagrees with a lot of the "scientific data" in the book. And he has proven some of it false.

I have no problems with people doing a soil based "natural" tank. However I think it's a method best left to people with experience in planted aquariums and not beginners.

And did you actually read the article you linked to on the organic farming?

Crop yields initially can drop as much as 50 percent when industrialized, conventional agriculture using chemical fertilizers and pesticides is converted to organic. While such decreases often even out over time, the figures have kept the organic movement largely on the sidelines of discussions about feeding the hungry.

Note the word "often"? Is that 50% of the time? More or less? Also I suspect anything coming out the UN. Any place that is full of Holocaust deniers and places Libya as the head of a Human Rights Commission has some serious internal problems. Also the reporting agency, NPR, is an extremely political organization.

Researchers in Denmark found, however, that food security for sub-Saharan Africa would not be seriously harmed if 50 percent of agricultural land in the food exporting regions of Europe and North America were converted to organic by 2020.

Since the food security for sub-Saharan Africa is already screwed beyond belief (much of it due to political reasons) I doubt it would harm it. But why did they limit the study to one area of the world that has had problems? Also note that Rhodesia, now called Zimbabwe was once the bread basket of Africa. Now people are starving to death there. What happened? Local control. Take the farms from the whites and give them to political cronies.

While total food production would fall, the amount per crop would be much smaller than previously assumed, and the resulting rise in world food prices could be mitigated by improvements in the land and other benefits, the study found.

Ok. They admit that food production will fall. And they admit that world food prices will rise. Most of the poor in the world spend everything they earn on food. So rising food prices won't affect them. And I'm sure that some poor family starving in Africa will be overjoyed to learn that the land in Denmark is improved due to organic farming methods. And what are these other benefits?

And I can't wait for the organic food exports from Africa. With the contamination problems on food from Mexico, China and even the heart of California it should keep the doctors busy.

Fact: Organic farming reduces yields and that raises the cost of food.
Fact: The poor spend a much higher percentage of their money on food. And by poor I don't mean poor in the US with a house, car, TV, air conditioning and a pack a day cigarette habit. I mean the truly poor in the world.
Fact: Less food and higher prices mean more people starving to death.

 

[kjf91004]

Jeez people... I can think of a better location for a "organic and natural" versus "normal" type of arguement. Let's just try to get along.

Just planning for my next tank, and to be honest the only thing I haven't really wrapped my head around is the fertilizers.

However, I thought that plant-specific substrates like Eco-Complete and Flourite contained slow release micro and macro nutrients. Do these take the place of dry ferts or no?

There are two different ways plants uptake nutrients. Both as root feeders and in the water column. A good substrate will (hopefully) take care of some of the root issues, but you need to dose something in order to take care of the water column uptake.

In low light situations, things may grow slowly enough to not see any deficiencies or algae for a long time. But speaking from personal experience, when you do see them, they will be awful to try and get back into balance. In this kind of situation, a broad spectrum type of fertilizer may work just fine.

With higher light and faster growth, things can go wrong much more quickly, you need to dose more nutrients in order to keep up with plant uptake.

With any type of fertilizer, whether it is an all in one, or seprate dosing, or even in a "Natural" type of setting you need to account for Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, and various micro nutrients. With out these things plants will not succeed. (I understand the Nitrogen cycle as associated with fish waste, but where does the P, K, and Micros come from in a "Natural' setting?)

Traditional farmers, and even organic farmers have to account for these nutrients or they will not have a productive crop. The difference is HOW they account for it. Traditional farmers use one type of fertilizers, and organic farmers won't use supplements that have had antibiotics or pesticides used on it. They all fertilize, they just do it differently.

 

[WinnipegDragon]

Just for the record, for the time being I dosing with Flourish Trace and a broad-spectrum N-P-K fert in my 5g. Seems to be doing well so far.

I didn't mean to make this thread into a pissing war about methods either. From a newbs perspective, Tom Barr's method makes a lot of sense, and seems relatively easy to implement. That's why I will be using it once the big tank comes home this fall.

 

[geofied]

Jeez people... I can think of a better location for a "organic and natural" versus "normal" type of arguement. Let's just try to get along.

I agree, I wasn't trying to make parallels, per se, just trying to get the method I'm using for my favorite tank out of the fringe. And for the record, I like Rex, I think he's a very helpful person and can be quite funny. I just don't always agree with him.

There are two different ways plants uptake nutrients. Both as root feeders and in the water column. A good substrate will (hopefully) take care of some of the root issues, but you need to dose something in order to take care of the water column uptake.

OK, I don't know what you mean by something, but if you are referring to fertilizers, I disagree, and my plants do too. The only thing I dose in my heavily planted tank is extra fish food (and CO2). Not to mention I have a full cover of duckweed that pulls nutrients out of the water 24/7. See below, does it look like there is a nutrient deficiency?



Not as good exposure, but more recent pic.

 

[jrice77]

Dose now. Prevent algae.

Dose later. Try and get rid of algae.

If your lighting is low the need for nutrients is lower than if the lighting is high. Plants can go without food and vitamins for a while. Then growth stalls and algae shows up.

Not changing the water in a well lit CO2 injected tank is a huge mistake. Would you want to live in a bathroom with your entire family with a toilet that doesn't flush?

OK. This is where I am confused. I am assuming that you are implying that lack of fertilization can lead to excessive algae. I'm asking because I recently had a hair algae outbreak that I am bringing under control with blackout, but am trying to understand the cause of.

My plants seemed to be quite healthy by appearence, and I was only dosing micros, although because of miscommunication with my son, I believe too much was being put in. I also believe that keeping the heat too high (80 vice 74) contributed.

One would think that too much ferts would contribute to algae outbreak, and I have confirmed this through other sources. So, maybe you can elaborate somewhat to help with my confusion.

Thanks.

 

[phanmc]

We know that too much macros do not cause algae. Tom Barr (plantbrain) has done tests where he overdosed on phosphates, which was commonly believed to be the leading cause of algae, with no signs of increased algae growth.

If excess nutrients were the leading cause of algae, the EI method simply would not work so well for so many people because overdosing nutrients is exactly what we're doing.

So what causes algae? I've seen algae growth of every type when there is a lack of CO2 and nitrates. I've seen that increasing CO2 almost always addresses many kinds of algae and maintaining a nitrate level above 10ppm has cured blue-green algae and slows down green spot algae.

Why would a lack of something lead to algae growth? Because it reduces the growth of the plants. And when plant growth is reduced, it allows the algae to grow in it's place.