Focus on Plants

[svolk]

I want to purchase a new tank, but I want a tank that will provide a lot of light for plants, plants being the focus of the tank. I don't know if this would require a tank with more than one light fixture, or a standard hood would do the trick. I want to get ~ a 30 gallon tank. Any brands, or special lights that come highly recommended?

[Damon]

Ahh yes! another plant enthusiast! You won't be sorry.

Lets look at a standard 30 gallon tank (good choice) its 36 inches long
Now depending on what type of plants you will want (lets keep it basic but not simple) You will want about 2.5-3wpg (watts per gallon).

Power compact lighting will be just fine in this situation (standard flourescent will be lacking and more expensive on anything less than 4 feet long)

JBJ (my personal favorite) makes a cpl of fixtures for you as does Coralife (not bad either) and Current USA (unknown to me).
These links are from Big Al's and Aquatic Store's site. Expect to pay a bit more if purchasing locally as the difference is usually associated with shipping.

http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/...d1=1843;pcid2=

http://www.bigalsonline.com/catalog/...2=;breadcrumb=

http://www.aquatic-store.com/en-us/dept_435.html

(I am biased toward aquatic store. Marcus is very helpful and may price match JBJ vs coralife. Great guy)

Now on to substrate..................
A good substrate will save you many, many headaches. SOme are more pricey than others but here's a list.

Eco-Complete (my fave but expensive
Flourite (Another good one I use)
Laterite (used beneath sand and works well)
ADA Aquasoil, Powersand (Probably the best products but are shipped from Japan which takes time right now. ~3 months and is the most expensive for this reason).
Plain pool sand or play sand (cheapest but lacking nutrients like iron)
Aquarium gravel (not recommended at all)
Soil (good but very hard to work with)

You will want a depth of approx 3 inches of whatever you use. Cost is up to you.

Rockwork, driftwood (every good aquascape has some of this)

With this setup you can grow just about anything you will want.
CO2 is something to be got tinto after the tank is setup. Post back when you are ready. There are many options here.

[MyraVan]

Simpte's message was good, but you have to keep in mind that Simpte is a big fan of the high-tech approach, and is suggesting things with that in mind. The key to realizing this is when he says "With this setup you can grow just about anything you will want." This is absolutely true, and this in my opinion, is the aim of the high-tech enthusiasts.

I think you need to ask yourself some important questions. First, do you want to be able to grow everything? And second, do you want to spend alot of money and/or time setting upthis tank? Another question is, do you want an instant showtank, or are you willing to wait a few months while the tank grows and matures, before the tank takes on its final form?

If you want to grow everything, have a lot of money to spare, and want results quickly, then the high-tech approach is for you.

If you're happy growing a good range of plants, but not all plants (in particular, not growing the more difficult plants, or the ones with very high light demands), or if you don't want to spend a big packet of money, and if you're willing to be patient with your tank, the low-tech approach might be better for you. Since Simpte has already given you the lowdown on the high-tech approach, I'll outline the low-tech approach.

First, we want a cheap but good substrate. Sand can work, although I haven't tried it. Sand with a layer of laterite or soil under it would probably work better than plain sand, although again I haven't tried it. What I have tried is soil (plain soil dug up from the grown, or bought from a garden center) covered with plain small gravel (bought from a garden center), 1" or so of each. Simpte says soil + gravel is difficult to work with. Well, I haven't found it to be so. Whenever I pull up plants ofrput new ones in, some soil gets into the water, so I have cloudy water for a couple of hours. Then it settles down. I don't feel this makes it difficult! One other disadvantage is that if you get soil with too much organic matter in it, it decomposes, creating humic acids, which are entirely harmless (in fact some people pay money for this stuff in the form of blackwater extracts), but stain your water yellow. This lasts for a few months until most of the organic stuff decays. This is what I mean about patience!

Second, we want good lighting. Unfortunately, lighting for a low-tech approach is only a bit less expensive than for the high-tech approach. You still need 1.5 - 2.5 WPG. The suppliers Simpte mentioned will be good choices (I live in the UK, so likely the ones I'd recommend are irrelevant to you).

Third, CO2: don't bother about it. Make sure your filter doesn't stir up the water too much, to preserve as much CO2 as you can. The CO2 will come from your fish and (like the humic acids) from the decomposition of the organic matter in the substrate.

Fourth: plant choice. The best approach here is to plant a whole bunch of stuff and see what works. This is another aspect of needing to be patient with the low-tech approach!

BTW the low-tech approach I've outlined here pretty much follows Diana Walstad's book Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, so you should buy and read this book if you think that you'd like to give the low-tech approach a try.

So there you have it. Decide on high or low tech, and then ask for more advice from me or Simpte, as appropriate!

[Damon]

Good post, Myra! Although no tank when setup is initially a show tank
And the low tech approach limits you to about 1/5 or less the selection of plants than the "high tech" approach. But you are right about the cost approach. Cannister filters are the way to go either way. A fluval 204 would work great or an eheim 2203/2213 is excellent but a bit more than the fluval. Be sure to plant heavy in any case.

[MyraVan]

Hmmmmmm. Low-tech = 1/5 of the plants you can grow using high-tech? That sounds awfully low, lower than I would have thought. Not that I have taken any scientific study about this, but my gut feeling is that you're not being completely fair to the low-tech approach. Remember, there are different kinds of low-tech setups. I think someone trying to grow plants in sand (or worse, plain gravel) with 1.5 wpg will have much less luck than someone trying to grow plants in soil + gravel with 2.5 wpg. I think that there wouldn't be a huge number of plants that the latter person wouldn't be able to grow. But, as I said, I don't have any real figures to dispute Simpte's claim.

[DavidDoyle]

I have always suggested two things to new plant people. The first is to start at the easy end and work your way up. I have lovely looking tanks with 1 wpg and lovely tanks at 2 wpg and at 3 wpg with co2 added.

At the most basic end substrate may or may not matter since many of the plants you can use do not need it. Other plants will be fine in almost any substrate once it gets a mulm buildup. On the high tech end substrate matters greatly. (My most common substrate is Estes Bits of Walnut tank gravel and laterite. I also have a tank with fluorite and one with a competing product. All work well.)

As you work your way up the light ladder, fertilizers become the next consideration. The more light you have, the greater the need to suppliment plant nutrients and to do so regularly. Some plants will need fertilizer in the substrate while others can take most of what they want through their leaves from liquid ferts.

Normally there is suffiecient co2 present that you dont need to suppliment it until you cross over the 2 wpg light range. When you approach/cross this point you can start thinking about using Flourish Excel, a form of liquid carbon which plants can use- it is worth about 1/3 of what adding co2 gas would be.
Once into the high light tanks- over 2.5 wpg, co2 becomes a must. Healthy plants come from having the proper balance of light, nutrients and co2. In any tank if one is lacking or in excess the most likely beneficiary will be algae.

The upshot of all this is to spend a lot of time researching plants and planted tanks. Spend time on plant dbase sites such as: http://www.tropica.dk/database.htm or the dbase section of http://www.aquabotanic.com . What you are doing there is finding out what plants you like, how big they grow, what their needs are. This will help you decide what plants can work for any chosen light levels.

Other relevant considereations are costs and effort. The more light you have, the more ferts and possibly co2 you need to have, and the greater the cost to set up and maintain the plants will be. Those lovely Amano tanks everybody raves about look that way becuase they are constantly tended- ie fertilized and pruned and water changed.

This brings me to my second suggestion. Your plant plan should be in keeping with your budget and the amount of time you are willing to devote to plant care/needs. A lovely low light tank requires minimal fertilizing and plant care while a high tech tank can require daily dosing and twice a week water changes and constant pruning. Miss some of the work and you can rapidly have an algae covered hungle.

Planted tanks are no different than anything else in life, you start at the bottom and work your way up. Beginning fish keepers learn by starting with easy fish not discus on r/o water. Beginners to plants should do the same- learn to keep plants thriving at 1 and 2 wpg before you worry about doing it at 3 wpg.

[Damon]

Does anyone have a pic of a low tech tank? I would love to see how they compare. Not trying to show off because my tanks look nothing like amanos tanks. But I would love to see how one scapes it.

As for the high ligh vs low light plants, I assure you low tech tanks are very limited in selection of plants vs high light tanks. I myself don't have a high light tank (2.5 wpg is the max) and I kick myself now because the plants I want like Ammannia senegalensis, riccia, blyxa, glosso, tonia, and pogostemon all require more than I can provide. Its also hard to get the "reds" in a low tech tank.

[MyraVan]

Here is a pic of one of my low-tech tanks.

It has a fair bit of green thread algae now, partly because I'm tending to overfeed the fish due to there being lots of babies in the tank (visible in the picture) and partly because there isn't anything in the tank that eats that algae! When I take the minnows (white cloud mountain) and babies out and replace them with male guppies, it will look alot better!

You can see from this that I have no artistic talent. It isn't aquascaped at all, other than having taller plants towards the back and smaller ones towards the front. But (other than the algae) it looks good to me, at least better than a tank without plants would!

[Damon]

It looks great! (Picture taking needs work though *wink*) Thread algae is easy to take care of even without algae eaters. Caused by excess micro nutrients (mostly iron). Won't cost you much either. Just do small (10-15%) waterchanges 3 times a week and reduce feedings. I am curious as to what plants are in there. It does need some pruning as I can see a few starved leaves.

[TheOldSalt]

Now THIS is a thread to be made sticky as soon as possible.

My own tanks are of a fairly low-tech style.
In some tanks I use undergravel filters and ordinary lighting around 1 wpg, and they grow some of the most undemanding of plants like Banana, Java Fern, Java Moss, duckweed, and aponogeton. In another I use only outside filters and smaller substrate with standard lighting, and that tank is a jungle of low-demand plants like those above, but they grow MUCH better. Finally I have a 12 gallon jbj nanocube with 2 wpg, Eco-Complete substrate, and a veritable rainforest of plants ranging from low to medium care species like Rotala, Anubias, Spatterdock, Aponogeton, Banana, Cabomba, Baby's Tears, Echinodorus, Hygrophila, and even a Marimo Cladophora ball.

Overall, these tanks are okay, but not really spectacular. I would go a little higher-tech if I had to do it all over again.

[Damon]

I think you're on the same lines as myself. I don't believe you HAVE to put 3wpg over a tank. But a solid 2-2.5 wpg doesn't cost much more and laterite isn't expensive. My feelings are if you want a planted tank, spend the few wxtra dollars to make it easy on yourself. Many people wake up and decide "hey I want to add plants to my tank" and get discouraged when the plants fail. Even with low demand plants, they will do much better in a tank that was designed for higher level plants. For instance java fer grows slow. I get 2-3 new plantlets every 14 days in a 2.5 wpg DIY co2 eco-complete tank. I sell them and between my plant clippings, and baby cherry shrimp, the tank pays for itself and upgrades to others.

[MyraVan]

Originally Posted by Simpte

My feelings are if you want a planted tank, spend the few wxtra dollars to make it easy on yourself. Many people wake up and decide "hey I want to add plants to my tank" and get discouraged when the plants fail.

I certainly agree that if you want plants to succeed you're best off designing the tank for plants from the start, with a good substrate, and then add a decent amount of light (in almost all cases, a sinlge strip-light ain't gonna do it). But the point I'm trying to make is that growing plants doesn't have to be expensive. Well, you have to pay a fair bit for the lighting, no getting away from it, but your substrate can be dirt cheap (literally) and you don't have to have CO2.

Yes, you have to have CO2 and LOTS of light to grow things like Cabomba, and red plants, and riccia, but if you just want a tank full of nice green plants, it can be done fairly inexpensively. There's no need to be put off from growing plants by not having the money for an Eco-complete substrate and very high lighting, and you don't need to pay hundreds of dollars for a CO2 system (or mess with the 2-liter soda bottle trick).

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. I think that David Doyle has summarized the various approaches better than either Simpte or I have, as I have such a low-tech bias and Simpte has such a high-tech bias. David has made it clear that as you increase the "tech" (add more light, add more CO2, add more ferts) you'll be able to grow more and more plants, and you need to choose which plants you want to grow in order to decide which route to take. Also I agree with his suggestion to start on the lower tech end and then add more if/when you want it. I think that's the message to take home from this thread.

As for my little 5 gallon work tank... The plants are:
on the left, micro sag, anubias nana, twisted vallis
in the middle, one rock and some echinodorus quadrisomething
on the right, two types of small crypts and some marsilea crenata in front

I must admit that I'm surprised and pleased that you like it! It's about as far from those show tanks as a rowboat is from an ocean liner... It's much more of "natural mess" than "thing of beauty". As for the thread algae, I do quite a bit of waterchanging (~30% per week, all in one go), and I end up overfeeding because of the fry. I really am trying to get a handle on just how much to feed to keep it all in balance, but it's taking time. Also, I don't want to get rid of all the algae, as I've noticed that the bigger babies tend to pick at it. Perhaps they're eating little critters they see in it rather than the algae itself, but for whatever reason, I don't want it all gone.

[Damon]

You underestimate yourself. Nature itself is a thing of beauty. Chaotic and unaligned. When it comes to aquascaping, its hard (at least for me) to keep balance without conforming. Amano does it better than anyone. One day I'll get it though. AS for my tanks (wish I still had my camera as my avatar was the initial setup and the wisteria is no longer in the tank), they are very chaotic; having no balance in the whatsoever.