EI dosing, non CO2 methods, test kits, you name it.

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom,

They are great and very very little effort and work once set up!
No testing, no water changes, hardly any pruning, just feed fish and look at the nice tank.

I think that this is the point, I can hardly imagine to notice any effort in growth rate, without adding CO2 ...

I´m so used to see a growth rate at it´s maximum, that I wouldn´t be satisfied with the rate in a none CO2 tank.

But...I do not want to have too much work with prunning, that´s why I also use Anubias in CO2 added tanks, when they grow fast, it is still slow .

Your "hard-water" tanks look very healthy and good, can you say anything about them I mean the maintenance? That fine plant in back of the last, is it Lagarosiphon madagascariensis?
I just got this species from U.S., because it isn´t sold here in Germany .

Kindly regards,
Mark.

---

Übersetzung:
Hi Tom,

They are great and very very little effort and work once set up!
No testing, no water changes, hardly any pruning, just feed fish and look at the nice tank.

Ich denke das ist der Punkt. Ich kann mir kaum vorstellen keinen wahrnehmbaren Wuchs mehr feststellen zu können, ohne CO2 hinzuzufügen …

ich bin so an schnellen Wuchs gewöhnt, so dass mich die Wuchsgeschwindigkeit in einem Becken ohne CO2 nicht mehr zufriedenstellen würde.

Jedoch bin ich auch nicht der größte Fan vom ewigen gärtnern im Aquarium und setze aus diesem Grund auch Anubias in CO2 angereicherte Becken ein. Wenn diese dann schnell wachsen ist es immer noch langsam .

Deine Becken mit „hartem Wasser“ sehen alle sehr gesund und hübsch aus. Kannst du irgend etwas zum Pflegeaufwand sagen? Die schöne Pflanze im Hintergrund des letzten Bilder ist das eine Lagarosiphon madagascariensis?
Ich habe meine aus den US bezogen, da sie hier in Deutschland nicht verkauft wird.

 

[Tom Barr]

Well, some folks get tired of fast growth, so they have that option, if you have a nano tank, then it really makes sense: here's an example of a Killifish tank that I've had for about 2 years and never did a water change:

No CO2, what you see is what you get in this pic:

If I added CO2, the amount of trimming for 2cm of growth per 1-2 days would be too much labor.

I am showing you all exceptions and reasons to use other methods depending on the goal or trade off.

Yes, that is L madagasgarensis. It's very fast growing weed in the tanks I've kepted it in.
Many had issues with it for some reason. I found it to be very weedy under high light, so lower light is better for that plant.

Most plants actually.

It's weird, we in the USA think you folks are light years ahead of us and in some ways that was true 10 years ago. We assumed that all these great plants etc came to you first.
I think the last 2-5 years many places are catching up and getting more on an even playing field.

We had the best Crypt source back in the 1980's and 1990's here in the USA, now it's hard to fine much. Most of the new places are coming out of Singapore.

I actively collect and seek out plants everywhere I go.

That's a new thread though

Regards,
Tom Barr

---

Übersetzung [freundlicherweise von Kora erstellt - ein großes Danke an dieser Stelle]

Nun, manche Leute wird das schnelle Wachstum zu viel und da haben sie halt die Wahl. Falls man ein Nanobecken hat ist das sogar richtig sinnvoll: hier ein Beispiel für ein Killibecken, dass ich um die zwei Jahre lang geführt habe -- und bei dem ich in der Zeit nicht einmal das Wasser gewechselt hatte.

Ohne CO2 - was man auf dem Bild sieht ist alles was es dazu zu sagen gibt.

Würde ich CO2 dazugeben - der 2 cm Zuwachs alle 1-2 Tage würde in zu viel Arbeit ausarten.

Ich zeige euch hier all diese anderen Wege um euch anzuspornen, es mit anderen Methoden zu versuchen - abhängig von dem Ziel, das ihr habt, oder welche Kompromisse ihr einzugehen gewillt seid.

Ja, das ist L. madagasgarensis. In allen Becken in denen ich sie gehalten habe, wuchs sie sehr schnell. Viele andere hatten allerdings irgendwelche Probleme mit ihr. Ich selbst fand, dass sie unter Starklicht zum Verkrauten neigt, deswegen ist weniger Licht hier besser.

Das gilt übrigens für die meisten Pflanzen.

Es ist schon komisch, aber wir hier in den Staaten denken immer, dass ihr uns Lichtjahre voraus seid - und auf eine Weise war das bis vor zehn Jahren auch wahr.
Wir nahmen an, dass all die tollen Pflanzen erst zu euch kamen. Ich denke, in den letzten fünf Jahren hat der Rest der Welt nicht nur aufgeholt sondern ist sogar mit euch gleich gezogen.

In den 80ern und 90ern hatten wir hier in den Staaten die besten Quellen für Cryptocorynen, aber jetzt findet man nur noch schwer welche. Die meisten kommen jetzt aus Singapur.

Ich selbst suche und sammle aktiv Pflanzen, wo immer ich auch hin komme.

Das ist aber etwas für einen neuen Thread!

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom,

I am showing you all exceptions and reasons to use other methods depending on the goal or trade off.

That´s very nice, I´m interested in all possible ways, but I prefer fast growing tanks, because I´m always a little bit afraid, wehen I can´t see efforts in growth rate...that´s my handicape.

Yes, that is L madagasgarensis. It's very fast growing weed in the tanks I've kepted it in.
Many had issues with it for some reason. I found it to be very weedy under high light, so lower light is better for that plant.

Most plants actually.

How much líght did you use on the tanks that you say to be hard-water-tanks?

It's weird, we in the USA think you folks are light years ahead of us and in some ways that was true 10 years ago. We assumed that all these great plants etc came to you first.
I think the last 2-5 years many places are catching up and getting more on an even playing field.

Yes, that´s what was, what is is quite fifferent from that, so I got many hints from http://www.aquatic-gardeners.org and have tried many of the hints, that were told to be "low-budget", for example I´ve tried a substrate with garden-earth, vermiculite and clay with goog effort for a longer time.

We had the best Crypt source back in the 1980's and 1990's here in the USA, now it's hard to fine much. Most of the new places are coming out of Singapore.

I think there´s a trendy part, which plants are in or out, at the moment we have a lot of species of moss and fern in the focus of interest. Crypt´s are quite out, but it depends also on the different hobbyists, a friend of mine is only interested in plants that grow without any special maintenance. He´s got a lot of crypt´s and other "good-willing" plants, he´s adding no CO2 and he´s got nice tanks. I am different in this, I´m always searching for new ideas and as I don´t have enough space (or money), older tanks or layouts have to leave .

Sometimes sad but true!

I actively collect and seek out plants everywhere I go.

I´ve also collected mosses in nature around here and could keep different species (which I don´t know apart from Fontinalis) in tanks for a long time period.

Greetz,
Mark.

 

[Tom Barr]

Learning patience is about the best thing that you can do in this hobby
Fast or slow growth.

I used everything from 1.5 w/gal to 5.5 w/gal on the hard water tanks.
You need to watch CO2 more(not a bad idea anyway) and add more traces, something with DTPA rather than EDTA or gluconate. DTPA has a much better character at the harder KH's. The iron stays bound and available for plant uptake longer.

So adding more trace elements is a common theme for harder water tanks for such reasons.

Haha, yes, low budget approaches are popular here as well. I've used all sorts of things that work as well as $$$ brand name things. The ADA aqua soil works no better than the delta wetland soil I also use. I did a growth study that removed all water column fertilizers and compared 6 sediments.

Dupla came about here in 1986. I got into their line about 1989. We were quite mythed at the high prices!

So some of us went about developing Poor Man's Dupla Drop. PMDD's.
So that really helped the hobby as we where determined to figure out how to grow plants well.
Turned out the heating cables did nothing. CO2 did though!!!!
Dupla daily drops cost a lot then.

But PMDD helped pave the way for macro nutrient dosing to the world.
KNO3, MgSO4, K2SO4 etc..........all due to Dupla indirectly and us in the USA and Canada being "Cheap"

I just took PMDD and modified it a little and added KH2PO4.
Then suggested no test kits for large water change.
That's all EI is.

Since you have many interest, try a small non CO2 tank out.
They do not cost much, easy to deal with etc. Why not do both methods?

I often suggest that folks try and master each method.

Regards,
Tom Barr

---

Übersetzung - von Kora erstellt - Vielen dank dafür!

Zu lernen Geduld zu üben ist so ungefähr das Beste was man in diesem Hobby tun kann.

Langsamer oder schneller Wuchs--

Ãœber den Hartwasserbecken habe ich alles zwischen 0,4 W/l und 1,4 W/l an Beleuchtung verwendet.

Du mußt mehr auf das CO2 achten (sowieso keine schlechte Idee) und mehr Spurenelemente dazu geben. Und zwar solche Produkte, die mit DTPA und nicht nur EDTA oder Gluconat chelatiert wurden. Bei hoher KH ist DTPA die richtige Hausnummer, denn das Eisen bleibt länger gebunden und so den Pflanzen verfügbar.

Aus diesen Gründen ergibt sich da immer wieder das Leitthema: hohe KH --> hohe SE.


Lach, ja, Geiz ist geil ist auch hier populär. Ich habe alle möglichen Sachen verwendet, die genauso gut funktionieren wie teure Markenware. "ADA aqua soil" funktioniert nicht besser als die von mir auch verwendetete [preiswerte] "delta wetland soil". Ich habe auch eine Wachstumsstudie durchgeführt, wo ich sechs verschiedene Substrate verglichen habe.


Dupla kam um 1986 herum nach Amerika und ich benutzte ihre Produktlinie ab 1989.

Aber die hohen Preise schlugen uns ganz schön auf den Magen!

Deswegen haben einige von uns dann die "Poor Man's Dupla Drops" [Des Armen Mannes Duplatropfen], PMDD, entwickelt. Wir waren entschlossen. selbst herauszufinden, was Pflanzen zum wachsen bringt -- was dem ganzen Hobby sehr voran half.

Wie sich herausstellte, waren es nicht der [von Dupla propagandierte] Bodenfluter, der gar nichts brachte. Aber CO2 schon!

Die Duplatropfen kosteten damals wirklich sehr viel.


PMDD war dagegen der erste Schritt der Welt die Makronährstoffdüngung nahe zu bringen.

KNO3, MgS04, K2S04 etc. - indirekt verdanken wir das alles Duplas hohen Preisen und der Pfennigfuchserei der Amerikaner und Kanandier.

Ich habe dann PMDD etwas modifiziert und KH2PO4 dazu genommen. Und dann geraten das Wassertesten zu Gunsten großer Wasserwechsel aufzugeben. Das ist E.I.

Da Dich das so interessiert, versuch doch einfach mal eine C02-loses Becken.
Sowas kostet nicht viel und ist leicht zu pflegen.
Warum soll man nicht beide Methoden nebeneinander verwenden?

Ich rate den Leuten oft, sie sollen beide Methoden ausprobieren und meistern lernen.

Grüße,
Tom

 

[addy]

tobi... übersetzmal ! sonst blick ich die hälfte nicht

 

[Kora]

Hello Tom,

Dupla came about here in 1986. I got into their line about 1989. We were quite mythed at the high prices!
So some of us went about developing Poor Man's Dupla Drop. PMDD's.
So that really helped the hobby as we where determined to figure out how to grow plants well.
Turned out the heating cables did nothing. CO2 did though!!!!
Dupla daily drops cost a lot then

Now that is real interessting if anecdoditical news to me.
I realize I didn't so far understand what you meant with "Poor Man's Dupla Drops" I never made the connection
to Dupla's Daily Iron Drops. :/
I never realized they were anything special or that they were especially expensive (here). Or that anybody thought
them special. Or Dupla for that. The wouldn't have gone insolvent if they did, me thinks.
Anyway my favourite fish shop keeper was and is very into selling them to the unwary. ^^

But I would say 98% of the planted tanks here are low light (and with high fish load) therefore the problems are
quite different to your situation in the States, where anybody seems to think they must have stadion lightning when
going from fish only to planted.
Energy is cheap with you too, isn't it? Leads to thoughtless wasting of the same -- will never happen here. Also a
reason these fashionable Amano style tanks will always be a hobby for a very few geeky people. And these geeks
tent to keep to themselves and not share (alright some, few, are here in this forum now).

Well, there were 40 German entries to ADA this year. Not bad, isn't it.

Kora

 

[Tom Barr]

Hallo Kora,

Yes, electric, gasoline, lighting, all cheap here.
We complain still though

Many of us have long tried to promote lower lighting. Such aquariums do better and have more resiliency. They are much easier for new people and experts alike.

But the USA is a place that many think "more is better".
"More light= you are more of an expert, you have the best, you have the top of the line S class Mercedes etc"

PMDD was developed with lower light though, 1.5-2 w/gal using normal Fluorescent light. Later, more people started using higher light.

I used very high light using Metal halides and power compact lighting to explore the upper limits of uptake and CO2 demands.

I've long known and seem the relation between light => drives CO2 demand/uptake=> increased nutrient uptake. However, many have not.

I used high light for a specific purpose(testing).....not long term management.
However, many had high light and I was able to help them as well.

My goal personally is to know the boundaries for CO2, for nutrients and for lighting for all plants and how fish can fit into the ecosystem and have a good level to optimalize their health as well.

CO2 is not good for fish at higher than ambient levels no more than NO3 is at say 30ppm.
Actually NO3, is far less toxic than CO2, yet few question adding CO2 as a means to increase growth rates.

But many strongly argue against the NO3 but not the CO2!
Odd. Does not make much sense to me!

CO2 is also independent of O2, yet the levels of each play a huge role for fish health.
Many aquarist have trouble with higher CO2, gasping fish etc.
But if they also consider O2 and increase their surface movement, they lose some CO2, but they add more O2. Much like a tank without plants at all, that has no surface turn over, the fish will gasp, this is due to low O2 and little to do with CO2!

Adding CO2 with low O2 compounds the problem.
CO2 gas is cheap and adding a bit more rather than trying minimize the loss from surface turbulance is much wiser, we can easily add a little bit more CO2 gas to account for any loss. Better than than to stress the fish being so worried about losing a little CO2.

I've also added O2 gas (pure) to larger planted tanks with high fish loads to reduce any stress due to CO2, even at lower levels. This is namely a backup system and I maintain about 8-9 ppm of O2 at 28C.

Hello Tom,
Now that is real interessting if anecdoditical news to me.
I realize I didn't so far understand what you meant with "Poor Man's Dupla Drops" I never made the connection
to Dupla's Daily Iron Drops. :/
I never realized they were anything special or that they were especially expensive (here). Or that anybody thought
them special. Or Dupla for that. The wouldn't have gone insolvent if they did, me thinks.
Anyway my favourite fish shop keeper was and is very into selling them to the unwary. ^^

Haha!
Yes, I AGREE!!
We changed the name due to legal issues with the Dupla Name.
"Poor Man's Dupla Drops" was the real name and later was modified to "Poor Man's Daily Drops".

Dupla spent a lot of $$$ marketing their product line.
"The Optimum Aquarium" was popular back then as well.

But I would say 98% of the planted tanks here are low light (and with high fish load) therefore the problems are
quite different to your situation in the States, where anybody seems to think they must have stadion lightning when
going from fish only to planted.

Certainly!
I agree.
This was the case in the USA about 12 years ago. Many have gone to very low fish loads and ADA styles. But ADA tanks are low light tanks!

I like fish too much to give them up for some dumb contest!
I like my fish!
I like a large community that fits well with a nice aqua scape.

But, my goal and their's are quite different in some respects, but not every tank I have has that goal either :twisted:

So I have different goals within my own home ands set ups and clients.
Some are very low fish loads, some are very high.

Some clients have lots of discus and altums, meter long Fire eels as big as man's arm.

But I think more fish only hobbyists will come to plants if they see they have less trade offs to give up and a higher success rate.

Which is the case from what you have said in Germany, that's good.
We still have junky plastic toys being added to many fish tanks here in the USA. Ack!

Energy is cheap with you too, isn't it?

0.09-0.13 dollars a kilowatt/hr, so yes. Cheap.
I use solar power on my home as do a few others, one hobbyists makes 800$ a month selling eletricity back to the power company, but we live in California where we have lots of sunshine. He will get about 15 years to pay for the solar installation/ equipment. So it's a good investment.
Several large companies are selling Solar panels these days in the USa home improvement stores.

But oil, gal, coal are still the main suppliers.
Nuclear and solar, wind etc are going to make a larger share as the cost of oil and gas goes up.
But this is a long long time coming and too late as far as many are concerned in the USA, but the political system is owned here by Big Oil
Most of the people don't like it either, but vote based on marketing and perception, not facts.
At the state level, we can beat most of these issues, but at the national level, it's very tough.

Leads to thoughtless wasting of the same -- will never happen here. Also a
reason these fashionable Amano style tanks will always be a hobby for a very few geeky people. And these geeks
tent to keep to themselves and not share (alright some, few, are here in this forum now).

Very true.
I applaud you folks for not going down this road and looking at the environmental issues!
So............why not go non CO2 methods then?
No water changes, no toxic test kit reagents, less cost, less light, and easier care also?

I always enjoy the conflict with aquarist that suggest "less is better" but are not willing to give up the CO2 gas! haha.

Less light, less CO2 and less nutrients.
You can balance these very effectively with non CO2, it fits into the overall scheme logically.

The arguments for non CO2 are very strong.

Well, there were 40 German entries to ADA this year. Not bad, isn't it.

Kora

I'm not too keen on contest. My tanks are done for myself and for clients.
I hate judging also.
So I never do it.

I also believe strongly in democracy, so a vote by the entire hobby is better than a few judges.
ADA and Dupla share many similarities in Marketing, but Amano is better at marketing, photography and scaping.

But like Dupla, some things work well, and some really have no significant impact on growing plants. I am very emperical. I test things. I test the product line and see what works in isolation and what does not.

such geeky ADA types rarely do such things, the same was true with the Dupla Crowd some 20 years prior and I blasted them as I do the ADA crowd as well for the products which are very spectulatory.

This does not win me friends in the ADA crowd but I do like some of the products and certainly the aesthetics. Penac!? Do not get me started! Ack!!

Here's a tank with 1.5 w/gal of lighting (108 w/70 gallon tank), and is in line with the general thoughts of many here:

So they can complain, but until they can match me and are able to do non CO2 and marine systems at a high level and master all methods, not just one, they are not going to debate me very well.

Both Dupla and ADA people have claimed you have to use their entire system, which of course is rubbish. you can use their ADA aqua soil and dose the general ferts and get the same if not better results. It's easier to use their ferts etc, but you know less and you pay more, that's the trade off.

You also accept any myths that they tell you in order for you to buy their product line.
Dupla was wrong and so has ADA been about algae and a number of other things.

As someone in the science community, I tend to go after such claims with vigor
I like the hobby and do not like to see such myths being promoted.


Regards,
Tom Barr

---

Ãœbersetzung:

Hallo Kora,

Strom, Benzin und Licht sind hier sehr günstig.
Trotzdem beschweren wir uns noch über die Preise .

Viele von uns haben probiert weniger Licht bei den Aquarianern hier zu etablieren. Solche Becken sind wartungsärmer und stabiler. Sie sind somit nicht nur für Anfänger sehr viel leichter zu betreiben, sondern auch für Experten.

Jedoch denken in den USA viele nach dem Motto „mehr ist besser“.
Mehr Licht = du bist eher einer der Profis, du hast das Beste, du hast die dickste Mercedes S-Klasse usw.
PMDD wurde für weniger Licht entwickelt. Es geht dabei um Wattstärken um 0,3-0,5 Watt pro Liter mit normalen Leuchtstoffröhren. Später haben aber immer mehr Personen auf Starklicht umgeschwenkt.
Ich habe selber Becken mit sehr viel Licht betrieben. Ich habe hierfür Metallhalogenlampen und T5 Beleuchtung genutzt, um die oberen Aufnahmegrenzen des CO2 Bedarfs zu ermitteln.
Mir war schon lange die Beziehung zwischen - Licht => erhöhter CO2 Bedarf und Aufnahme => erhöhter Nährstoffbedarf – bewusst. Viele haben diese Verkettung oft übersehen.
Ich habe Starklicht primär aus einem Grund genutzt und zwar um zu testen. Bei diesen Becken ging es nicht um die Langzeitpflege eines Beckens.

Mein persönliches Ziel ist es die Grenzen für CO2, die Nährstoffe und den Lichtbedarf für alle Pflanzen herauszubekommen und wie Fische in dieses Ökosystem hineinpassen und ihr Wohlbefinden/ihre Gesundheit dabei gesteigert werden können.


Ein erhöhter CO2 Gehalt ist für Fische ebenso nicht gut, wie ein NO3 Gehalt über ca. 30 mg/l. NO3 ist sogar sehr viel weniger toxisch als CO2, dennoch bemängelt keiner die CO2 Zugabe zur Wuchssteigerung.
Viele wettern jedoch gegen NO3 aber nicht gegen CO2!
Dies ist sehr merkwürdig und macht für mich keinen Sinn.

CO2 ist ebenfalls unabhängig von O2, jedoch spielen die Werte beider Stoffe eine große Rolle für die Fischgesundheit. Viele Aquarianer haben große Probleme mit höheren CO2 Werten, nach Luft schnappenden Fischen usw.
Wenn sie nun aber O2 in ihre Betrachtung mit einbeziehen und z.B. die Oberflächenbewegung erhöhen, verlieren sie zwar ein wenig CO2 aber bringen ebenfalls mehr Sauerstoff in das System ein. Es ist ähnlich wie mit einem Becken ohne Pflanzen, bei dem keine Oberflächenbewegung sichergestellt ist, in dem die Fische auch nach Luft schnappen. Dies ist jedoch wegen eines Sauerstoffmangels und hat nichts mit dem CO2 zutun!
Die Zugabe von CO2 mit geringen Sauerstoffwerten ist hierbei das Problem. CO2 ist günstig und die erhöhte Zugabe ist sehr viel besser als einen Verlust durch eine zu hohe Oberflächenbewegung zu verhindern. Durch ein wenig mehr CO2 kann der CO2 Verlust durch die Oberflächenbewegung locker kompensiert werden. Dies ist sehr viel sinnvoller, als seine Fische durch zu wenig Sauerstoff zu beeinträchtigen, nur um ein bischen CO2 zu sparen.
Ich habe ebenfalls in größeren Pflanzenbecken puren Sauerstoff (O2 Gas) eingebracht, um den Fischstress durch die CO2 Zufuhr zu verringern, selbst bei geringer CO2 Zufuhr. Dies soll lediglich als Sicherheit dienen und einen Sauerstoffgehalt von 8-9 mg/l bei 28°C konstant gewährleisten.

Hello Tom,
Now that is real interessting if anecdoditical news to me.
I realize I didn't so far understand what you meant with "Poor Man's Dupla Drops" I never made the connection
to Dupla's Daily Iron Drops. :/
I never realized they were anything special or that they were especially expensive (here). Or that anybody thought
them special. Or Dupla for that. The wouldn't have gone insolvent if they did, me thinks.
Anyway my favourite fish shop keeper was and is very into selling them to the unwary. ^^

Haha!
Ja, da stimme ich absolute zu!

Wir haben den Namen aus rechtlichen Gründen bezüglich Dupla geändert. „Poor Man’s Dupla Drops“ war der ursprüngliche Name und wurde später in "Poor Man's Daily Drops" abgeändert.

Dupla hat damals sehr viel Geld in das Marketing ihrer Produktlinie gesteckt. „The Optimum Aquarium“ war damals auch sehr beliebt.

But I would say 98% of the planted tanks here are low light (and with high fish load) therefore the problems are
quite different to your situation in the States, where anybody seems to think they must have stadion lightning when
going from fish only to planted.

Aber sicher!
Stimme ich absolut überein.

Dies war auch in den USA vor ca. 12 Jahren der Fall. Vielen sind jedoch zu Becken mit weniger Fischen nach ADA Stil umgeschwenkt. Hier muss man aber bedenken, dass ADA Becken eher Aquarien mit weniger Licht sind!
Ich mag meine Fische zu sehr, um auf sie für irgendwelche Wettbewerbe zu verzichten.
Ich mag meine Fische sehr!
Ich mag große Schwärme, die gut zu meiner Aquariengestaltung passen.

Meine Ziele sind hierbei sehr unterschiedlich zu deren, aber auch nicht alle meine Becken haben dieses Ziel.
So gesehen habe ich sehr unterschiedliche Ziele in meinen eigenen Becken und denen meiner Kunden. Einige haben einen sehr hohen Fischbesatz und einige einen sehr geringen.
Einige Kunden haben sehr viele Diskus, Altums oder meterlange Feueraale, die so groß wie ein Männerarm sind.
Ich glaube jedoch, dass fischbezogene Aquarianer nur zu Wasserpflanzen finden, wenn sie dafür weniger Kompromisse eingehen müssen und auch dabei erfolgreich sind.
Dies scheint nach deinen Aussagen in Deutschland der Fall zu sein. Das ist gut.
Wir hier in den USA haben noch immer in vielen Fischbecken Plastikspielzeug und anderen Dekomüll. Ack!

Energy is cheap with you too, isn't it?

0.09-0.13 Dollar pro Kilowattstunde, so gesehen ist es recht günstig.
Ich selbst nutze Solarenergie für mein Haus, ein paar andere Leute machen dies auch. Ein Aquarianer verkauft sogar seinen selbst erzeugten Strom für ca. 800$ pro Monat zurück an die Stromgesellschaft. Jedoch leben wir hier auch in Kalifornien mit sehr viel Sonnenschein. Er muss ca. 15 Jahre den Strom verkaufen, um für die Kosten der Solaranlage aufzukommen. So gesehen ist es eine gute Investition. Viele große Firmen verkaufen mittlerweile Solarzellen in Baumärkten hier in den USA.

Aber Öl, Gas und Kohle sind noch immer die Hauptquellen für Energie.
Nuklear, Solar und Windenergie werden mit den steigenden Gas- und Ölpreisen immer mehr an Bedeutung gewinnen. Aber dies ist schon seit langem Absehbar und scheint sogar wie von vielen befürchtet zu spät in den USA für einen Umschwung zu sein, das politische System hier ist jedoch vom Öl besessen.
Viele der Leute hier sind damit ebenfalls nicht einverstanden, wählen aber eher anhand des Marketings der Parteien oder ihren Auffassungen anstatt sich an Fakten zu orientieren.
Auf der Länderebene können wir diese Probleme meist lösen, auf Bundesebene ist dies jedoch sehr viel schwieriger.

Leads to thoughtless wasting of the same -- will never happen here. Also a
reason these fashionable Amano style tanks will always be a hobby for a very few geeky people. And these geeks
tent to keep to themselves and not share (alright some, few, are here in this forum now).

Sehr richtig.
Ich beglückwünsche euch dafür, dass ihr nicht mit auf den Zug aufspringt und die Umweltaspekte nicht aus dem Auge verliert.
Aber… warum dann nicht Becken komplett ohne CO2?
Keine Wasserwechsel, keine giftigen Wassertestreagenzien, weniger Kosten, weniger Licht und einfachere Wartung.
Ich genieße förmlich die Auseinandersetzungen mit Aquarianern, die “weniger ist besserâ€

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom,

sorry, I didn´t want to stop writing with you, for I´m thankfull to our lines...but as I´m a person who earns money by working ...I wasn`t able to spent time here.

What plants are in the ADA tank you´ve posted behind the Needle Leave (the large groups) and in the foreground bottom?

As I read your lines I get near to the point to try without CO2, but still I am not patient enough and really don´t know if I could manage a tank with no noticeable plant growth .

Kindly regards,
Mark.

 

[Tobias Coring]

tobi... übersetzmal ! sonst blick ich die hälfte nicht

Du bist lustig . Ich sitze an so fröhlichen 5 Seitentexten Antworten von Tom auch mal gut 1-2 Stunden pro Übersetzung. Englisch ist nicht meine Muttersprache , noch bin ich besonders gut darin . Demnach kann es schonmal etwas dauern bis die Übersetzungen eintrudeln. Kann natürlich verstehen, dass ihr weiterlesen möchtet... aber meine Zeit ist im Moment leider etwas begrenzt in Bezug auf das Forum.

Ein paar Texte sind aber aktualisiert worden....

 

[Tom Barr]

Hi Tom,

sorry, I didn´t want to stop writing with you, for I´m thankfull to our lines...but as I´m a person who earns money by working ...I wasn`t able to spent time here.

What plants are in the ADA tank you´ve posted behind the Needle Leave (the large groups) and in the foreground bottom?

As I read your lines I get near to the point to try without CO2, but still I am not patient enough and really don´t know if I could manage a tank with no noticeable plant growth .

Kindly regards,
Mark.

Yes, we need jobs!
To pay for the hobby!

Haha, that's E parvula, dwarf hairgrass.

Note, you can use a large toothed comb to keep it clean and also "mow it" just lie regular lawn grass.

With non CO2 methods, you can have more time for work and less for pruning. :idea:
But many like pruning!

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Tom Barr]

I have a large 350 gallon or about 1300 liter plant tank with many fish I'll post sometime in about 1-2 weeks, it was not tended or taken care of for awhile and they have started caring for it better.
The care taker was fired from the job so they have a new person to add the fish food and dose the ferts 2x a week when I am not there and knows what to do mif the CO2 runs out.

The tank has been getting EI for about 3 years.
I've had trouble with using some plants as the larger fish destroy anything in some areas of the tank no matter what I do, so I've got a decent layout given those trade offs/constraints.

The layout is more Dutch in style with some rocks and wood.
I hope to have some decent photos for you by then.

This Friday I'm be in Los Angeles to redo work some process controls for a large 1600 gallon tank ((6000 liters!) and the tank is suppose to be doing quite well. I set the tank up and did the scaping, this tank is loaded with many fish also.

This is a photo about 2 months after set up, the tank is 1.3 meters tall/deep. There are about 50 altum angels!

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Tom,

Haha, that's E parvula, dwarf hairgrass.

and the one that is cut to two half bowls in the background?

Some years ago I tried to get it going with making aquariums, I mean caring for them, but I live in the wrong area, the people here have not enough money to spent it on their tanks, and they do´nt have enough interest in them.

So now I earn money with other things .

But I don´t have enough time for my tanks , that´s live.

Kindly regards,
Mark.

 

[Kora]

Tom,

I'm lost for words.

The gods were very generous with you when applying talent and green thumbs.

The salt water planted tank is very beautiful, too. Stunningly so. I've never seen
anything like that before.

Chapeau!

That said, you asked why not going cheap as cheap can be, and simple, with
really low light, no CO2, rich substrate, no water changes, a few token fish.
And never worry again.
Well.
That again is not as easy as it might seem to *you*, my friend.

And to give the honest answer: such a tank, well, for me it would be boring. Absolutely
mind-numbing boring. Nothing is happening. Plant doing an imitation of being plastic,
fish only showing up when getting fed. No algae to fight either. In the end
no love for it, no hate for it, just boredom. A screen saver might be more exiting...
But that's just me. I get bored easily.

Kora

______________

Und auf Deutsch, damit Tobi nicht arbeiten muß:

Tom,
mir fehlen die Worte.
Die Götter müssen Dich sehr großzügig bedacht haben, als es um die Verteilung
von Talenten und Grünem Daumen ging.

Auch das bepflanzte Meerwasserbecken ist wunderschön. Soetwas habe ich wirklich
noch nie gesehen.

Betreff warum macht man es sich nicht einfach und billig mit richtig wenig Licht,
ohne CO2, fettem Substrat, Altwasser und wenigen Fischen?

So leicht wie sich das für Dich anhört, ist das leider auch wieder nicht.

Und um ehrlich zu sein: ich fände so ein Becken langweilig. Stinklangweilig. Nichts
passiert, nicht mal Algen, man hat nichts zum Lieben, nichts zum hassen. Da ist
ein Bildschirmschoner aufregender...

 

[addy]

ach tobi nicht so gereizt reagieren :keule:

 

[Tom Barr]

Tom,
you asked why not going cheap as cheap can be, and simple, with
really low light, no CO2, rich substrate, no water changes, a few token fish.
And never worry again.
Well.
That again is not as easy as it might seem to *you*, my friend.

And to give the honest answer: such a tank, well, for me it would be boring. Absolutely
mind-numbing boring. Nothing is happening. Plant doing an imitation of being plastic,
fish only showing up when getting fed. No algae to fight either. In the end
no love for it, no hate for it, just boredom. A screen saver might be more exiting...
But that's just me. I get bored easily.

Kora

I agree, I likely would have never gotten into the planted tank hobby as much without CO2.
I've had plants for decades before, but never at a high dense level really before about the late 1980's.

But every tank had plants.
We have a nice little "seedy" fish shop here that is much like the planted tanks I had. No CO2, but every little tank in the mess store has plants and some are well done a very cute.

I like non CO2 methods for nano tanks, here's a non CO2 planted tank for Killifish and cherry shrimps:

If you can find the pictures of the NBAT contest going back into the 1940-1950's, all those nice tanks where non CO2.

The earliest reference I've found for CO2 in the planted tank hobby(not research etc), has been 1962 and DIY yeast fermentation!!!

45 years ago!

Yes, while we rationalize our morals, we also place trade offs on our own morals.
No one is going to be without any ecological impact.
The wiser method is to minimize that impact, but still provide the ecosystem services you desire but doing the least harm.

So we want fast plant growth.
We add CO2.

We want more/too many fish also.
So we do water changes.

My question to anyone that truly believe that "less is more", why are they not going after the hobbyists that keep a lot of fish, without plants?
Or The companies that overstock fish in their displays and promote high light, high cost items?

The impact from adding a bit more nutrients to make our lives easier is all EI really is.
It has no huge impact relative to the other things we brush off and do not care much about.

I do my research on aquatic weeds for the University and the state of Califiornia.
I listen to Farming interest, Environmental interest, Public interest, State and local government interest, and many other agencies and groups, often there are several within each of these main groups!

What really it comes down to is risk.
Is there a high risk of bad environmental impacts from EI?
No, of course not.
Is there a high risk of algae?
No.
Is there a higher risk of algae with higher lighting?
Yes!
Does high lighting cost more?
Yes!
EI cost more?
No!
Test kits add toxic chemicals to our landfills and water ways also.


You can go round and round with this debate and really at the end of the day not get far.
The risk is very low.

As far as trade offs go, less is better as far as lighting, testing, cleaning filters, controlled growth rates for aquatic horticulture.

Everyone has different goals, respecting those goals and seeing issues with logic in our own arguments can help us ultimately.

We are all willing to have a luxury item like aquariums obviously.
So if we are really as moral as we sometimes like to claim, we'd reject the society we live in and not keep any fish etc.

But we do not do that
The hedonist that we are

I work in Ecosystem restoration(Kill weeds and help revegetate sites afterwards with native plants).

My goal is to take back the lands that have been destroyed.
That way I can do more to help the earth than any impact I left.

I approach aquariums the same way. I bred fish, I show examples of both high and low light systems and discuss the trade offs, my goal often is to have hobbyists reduce their lighting to achieve their own goals.

So folks have less issues, simpler and can understand their environment and mini ecosystem better.

What is interesting to me is that the aquatic systems can be amplified by 10-30X and perhaps more as far as growth and production rates.

Learning how to control and modulate such growth over a wide range of habitat is fun and interesting. Then there are the fish which I love with equal passion.

I lived in Florida and collected all my own fish(except for a few small plecos):

Regards,
Tom Barr