What exactly causes BBA?

[sciencefiction]

I do believe if one want's to grow more demanding plant's,that low tech may not be their cup of tea. and it goes back to what I said previously above,,"choose a method and learn it well"

I grew a glosso carpet in my low tech, compact and none of it leggy as I've seen in some CO2 injected tanks You are underestimating what you can do in a low tech.

 

[Jose]

Well sciencefiction, CO2 doesnt really work that way because different plants need different ammounts of co2. Its not just enough for it to be present, because all plants didnt evolve in the same way and many are used to getting the co2 from atmosphere.

You can search for: co2 defficiency ukaps on google. There should be a bit of info on this.

 

[Marcel G]

Ardjuna your argument about PAR is incomplete IMO. Because you are not taking co2 into account. The compensation point is not X. It is X for a Y level of co2. So for cuba it might be 40 PAR at 30 ppm of co2 but it might be 80 at 5/10ppm.

I don't believe the photosynthetic activity (I mean the point where the plant starts to have some net growth) depends on external nutrient concentration, but I may be wrong.

 

[sciencefiction]

Well sciencefiction, CO2 doesnt really work that way because different plants need different ammounts of co2. Its not just enough for it to be present, because all plants didnt evolve in the same way and many are used to getting the co2 from atmosphere.

As far as I know plants that evolved using atmospheric CO2, would consume higher CO2 and even they adjust to lower CO2 levels when submerged. In the same sense light intensity is important and some plants would prefer higher, some plants don't tolerate lower. Some plants use more NO3 and some less, some plants use more PO4, some less. But as long as it's there when they need an uptake, they don't care. I may be wrong. But I'll be glad to read the scientific paper and experiments where what you are saying has been proved, or even explored to an extent.

 

[sciencefiction]

@Jose. The argument you are trying to prove is that an X amount of any sort/species of plants need at least 30ppm of CO2 to grow reasonably. What ardjuna is trying to say is that is unproven. It's been taken for granted and applied to in high light co2 injected tanks, that's about it for now.
The deficiencies you are speaking about, have never been scientifically proven. There's no paper yet out there I have found. I'll be delighted to read. it. We form opinions based on personal experience and the information we read but our opinions and conclusions may be wrong or incomplete or even misleading.

Clive, Tom Barr and Ardjuna have a vast experience with plants and knowledge on the subject. They have presented their conclusions for out benefit. We shouldn't turn this into a war who's right and who's wrong. All of them could be right to an extent and all of them wrong to an extent. We are only humans. And we should seek the real truth, not lose another couple of decades following the one belief only.

 

[Jose]

As far as I know plants that evolved using atmospheric CO2, would consume higher CO2 and even they adjust to lower CO2 levels when submerged. In the same sense light intensity is important and some plants would prefer higher, some plants don't tolerate lower. Some plants use more NO3 and some less, some plants use more PO4, some less. But as long as it's there when they need an uptake, they don't care. I may be wrong. But I'll be glad to read the scientific paper and experiments where what you are saying has been proved, or even explored to an extent.

Please people Stop asking for scientific papers and experiments on this. There are none. This is hypocritical. Ask yourself this question. How much of what I yhink I know and apply in my tank is scientifically proven? Maybe 3%? Most of what we know comes from observation, from Tom Barr, from Aquascapers a couple of Plant companies and nany many hobbiests. But yet people want scientific proof. Well if you want proof then you can stop adding nutrients to your tank because they cause algae, and you can just keep a couple of plants that have been tested. You can also put your tank on a window so that its more natural (like the experiments) etc.

 

[roadmaster]

I grew a glosso carpet in my low tech, compact and none of it leggy as I've seen in some CO2 injected tanks You are underestimating what you can do in a low tech.

I certainly hope so.
Currently I have red ludwigia that is copper colored on top of leaves and red on underside.
It is all along the back glass and to the surface.
Problem I have is that I began the tank two years ago as low tech and all of the other plant's don't like too much light Crypt balansae,maybe thirty anubia,vals,needle leaf java fern, which have since grown from the wood pieces to near the top of 80 Us gallon tank.
As soon as I lower the four 54 watt T5 bulbs from ten inches above the water's surface to eightor nine, to get the top side of the ludwigia leaves to turn red,,the alage attacks the light hating anubias,crypt's java ferns.
Am going to move all of the plant's out save the ludwigia and try some more demanding plant's in the future so we shall see what happens.
In any event,,I will most assuredly reduce the light intensity for the first few week's and slowly try to increase it as plant mass increases or doesn't.

 

[sciencefiction]

Well if you want proof then you can stop adding nutrients to your tank because they cause algae

By the way, this is no comparison. There are papers on what sort of nutrients plants need and the importance of phosphate for example, etc.....There are papers on the deficiencies it causes in plants and how they look like. My point is CO2 now. You seem to know a lot about the importance of 30ppm of CO2 to be specific. You seem to know about what CO2 deficiencies look like Where did you read about it from besides on forums? I'd be glad even to hear your own conclusions on what to look at my plants to identify a CO2 deficiency(which in your words means the CO2 is less than the optimal amount of 30ppm) and not necessarily deficient.
The only clear sign of CO2 deficiency that I know about is decalcification on leaves.

This is hypocritical.

How is it hypocritical. You are presenting your point as if its the ultimate truth and if you were right I'd be growing stones, not plants in my tanks as I am certain I've never had a CO2 concentration of 30ppm, and I'd be overrun by algae and all of the plants would have stunted tips.

 

[Marcel G]

As far as I know plants that evolved using atmospheric CO2, would consume higher CO2 and even they adjust to lower CO2 levels when submerged. In the same sense light intensity is important and some plants would prefer higher, some plants don't tolerate lower. Some plants use more NO3 and some less, some plants use more PO4, some less. But as long as it's there when they need an uptake, they don't care. I may be wrong. But I'll be glad to read the scientific paper and experiments where what you are saying has been proved, or even explored to an extent.

It's not that straightforward as you may think. As far as the nutrient uptake is concerned it all depends on the external concentration of nutrients (in water or in substrate). Recently I had a discussion about it with one man and it seems hard to explain it well. If you will have (say) 30 ppm of NO3 + 3 ppm of PO4 in the water, your plants may produce 2 grams of fresh weigh per week on the area of 4x4". But if you will have 10 ppm of NO3 + 1 ppm of PO4 (permanent concentration in water, not just the amount in one dose!) in the water, your plants may produce just 1 gram of FW per week. So I would say that plants uptake nutrients from the environment proportionally. This means that the more nutrients you have in the water (or substrate) the faster your plants will grow. So if you find out that your plants consume just 10 ppm of NO3 and 1 ppm of PO4 per week under EI regime, and you would supply them with this amount of nutrients the other week, they would probably uptake just part of it. You can picture it as if you have a soup before you, but you were not allowed to eat it using a spoon but rather a straw. The more soup you'll have in front of you the bigger straw you'll be given, and the more soup you will be able to uptake.

 

[Jose]

Ive never once said 30 ppm is the ideal co2 ppm. Why? Because this depends on the light demand that you have and the plant in question. I have a tank that runs perfectly at around 15-20 ppms of co2, with low light.

The problem here is that people (some not all of course) take it as if I invented this theory. No its not mine obviously you dont need to trust me. If ceg said what im saying he wouldnt have so many people debating arguing this theories. People would just take them. So the problem here is the messenger once again not the message. You need a trustworthy source and I know Im not one.

 

[sciencefiction]

As soon as I lower the four 54 watt T5 bulbs from ten inches above the water's surface to eightor nine, to get the top side of the ludwigia leaves to turn red,,the alage attacks the light hating anubias,crypt's java ferns.

I planted all anubias and microsorums on one side of the tank, the anubias under the wood with the roots only(not the rhizome) in the substrate. I learned the hard way they can't be near light so the wood provided further shade. Then I reduced the surface movement on that side and put floating plants to block the light more,the floaters would gather there because of the lack of surface agitation. Then all the light loving plants and fast growers were on the other side with the surface agitation keeping clear skies, the plants getting the light intensity they need. The plant layout certainly matters in a low tech a lot as you need different intensity for different plants.

 

[sciencefiction]

It's not that straightforward as you may think. As far as the nutrient uptake is concerned it all depends on the external concentration of nutrients (in water or in substrate). Recently I had a discussion about it with one man and it seems hard to explain it well. If you will have (say) 30 ppm of NO3 + 3 ppm of PO4 in the water, your plants may produce 2 grams of fresh weigh per week on the area of 4x4". But if you will have 10 ppm of NO3 + 1 ppm of PO4 (permanent concentration in water, not just the amount in one dose!) in the water, your plants may produce just 1 gram of FW per week. So I would say that plants uptake nutrients from the environment proportionally. This means that the more nutrients you have in the water (or substrate) the faster your plants will grow. So if you find out that your plants consume just 10 ppm of NO3 and 1 ppm of PO4 per week under EI regime, and you would supply them with this amount of nutrients the other week, they would probably uptake just part of it. You can picture it as if you have a soup before you, but you were not allowed to eat it using a spoon but rather a straw. The more soup you'll have in front of you the bigger straw you'll be given, and the more soup you will be able to uptake.

Thanks. Yes, I understand that. The point is that they'll grow and not be deficient as long as the amount is there...Or is that not true. I understand the growth rate would be affected, which is only logical.

 

[Jose]

Deficiency doesnt mean there isnt that nutrient in the water, it means the plant is not getting enough of it as to keep up with the growth. So its limitting growth even though there is this nutrient available.

 

[Mark Green]

Please, can you give me the link where did you find that? It seems the paragraph was translated by Google so I would like to read it in the context.

The page is. http://www.prirodni-akvarium.cz/en/praxeZalozeni1

Under setting up a aquarium, number 5..... Lighting..

What about clicking on the small picture of my tank in the top left corner of the site?

Some good growth on tanks.... 1 - 2 and 4 all have nutrition based Soils (which means you can be less frequent on fertilization. You have high light which am sure is pushing growth as the main factor. And your dosing near to Ei levels of fertilisation, po4 dosing less as the only thingthat sticks out. I would say most people on ukaps do this also... And get the same results....
And with high co2 with 20-30mg /l.........

Any examples of good growth on your concept

 

[Rahms]

Well Rahms I think the conversation has opened at least one new front. Its Ardjunas theory that you dont need more than 15 ppm of co2 with high light. If EI doesnt work or has drawbacks, lets look for them and proof them.

Yeah, ardjuna mentioned low CO2 in his tanks 10 pages back, and since then the posts have gone in the circle I alluded to.

Rahms said: ↑
This discussion is trapped in a circle: EI works ---> EI explains all--> but EI doesn't explain anything ---> but EI works, so it must explain--> but the science makes no sense --> but it works and so on UNTIL TIME ENDS or, people give up replying.

You seem to look at it from a wrong direction. Either we want to know how different things work in our tank (we pursue the truth), or we want to follow some method despite of whether it correctly explains things or not. My goal is not to show T.Barr is wrong in everything he says or does. My goal is to find out the truth (or at least to get as close to it as I can). I don't care if it's T.Barr or Clive or anybody else who will find out how different things work, but if someone seems to be using wrong (misleading) arguments, then I will try to point it out so that we can possibly correct our view and get closer to the correct picture of our tanks. If you want to blame me for not having such a beautiful and big tank as T.Barr, just go ahead (I just can't have a tank bigger then 60L at home because I have to use RO as we have 50-80 ppm NO3 in our tap water). If you think EI is the all-in-one universal most perfect and infalliable method in the world, it's your thing. And if you want some proofs of me, then in the first place prove that it's not possible to grow plants under high light, hight phosphates and low CO2! Until you do it, don't say I'm wrong. As I already said, either you are interested in finding the truth, or you just want to show all the world that your method is perfect.

You're saying the same thing as me, so I'm not sure how I'm looking at it wrong! lol. I'm literally trying to point out that this "discussion" is basically an endless loop of you saying "30ppm CO2 isn't needed, EI isn't unlimited nutrients" and others (mainly Jose) replying "30ppm works, EI works" despite the fact that the two aren't mutually exclusive and hence can both be true. They're two parallel arguments, which is why everyone is right. asdfg

 

[sciencefiction]

Deficiency doesnt mean there isnt that nutrient in the water, it means the plant is not getting enough of it as to keep up with the growth. So its limitting growth even though there is this nutrient available.

Well, yes, the plant can't get to it because for example the specific nutrient is in a form the plant can't actually use. But that's different. We know plants need nutrients in certain form in order to use them, otherwise why inject CO2 and not use a substitute. What do you mean by "the plant is not getting enough of it as to keep up with the growth" ?

a lack or shortage.
"deficiencies in material resources"
synonyms:insufficiency, lack, shortage, want, dearth, inadequacy, deficit, shortfall;More
scarcity, scarceness, scantiness, paucity, absence, undersupply, sparseness, deprivation, meagreness, shortness;
rareexiguity, exiguousness
"she has a vitamin deficiency in her diet"
antonyms:surplus

• a failing or shortcoming.
  "for all its deficiencies it remains his most powerful play"
  synonyms:defect, fault, flaw, imperfection, weakness, weak spot/point, inadequacy, shortcoming, limitation, failing
  "the team's big deficiency was in the front five"
  antonyms:strength
• the amount by which something, especially revenue, falls short; a deficit.
  "a budget deficiency of $96 billion"

 

[Marcel G]

Strictly speaking (in agronomy), the plant is defficient whenever it doesn't grow at 100% (at the maximum growth rate).
In this sense, even EI may lead to plants experiencing deficiencies = limiting growth (at least in some cases).

Rozpětí deficience = deficiency range
Rozpětí dostatku = sufficiency range
Rozpětí toxicity = toxicity range
Rychlost růstu a zdraví rostlin = growth rate and plant health
Množství dostupné živiny = amount of nutrient available

 

[Jose]

Yes, But not strictly speaking a deficiency is when plants stop growing, or grow very slow, or show problems in the tissue etc. So if a plant is growing at maybe 70-90% then its mainly non limitted. If its growing around 30-70% it might be slightly limitted. If its growing at 0-30% this can be considered limitting. This is just an example to show that things are not just black or white. Numbers are not meant to be exact of course.

 

[oviparous]

I don't believe the photosynthetic activity (I mean the point where the plant starts to have some net growth) depends on external nutrient concentration, but I may be wrong.

You can lower the LCP by adding more CO2. This method can be used for growing vegetables in greenhouses during winter.
You can also lower the LCP by gradually lowering the light.

 

[Jose]

You can lower the LCP by adding more CO2. This method can be used for growing vegetables in greenhouses during winter.

You mean by adding more nutrients? or do you mean by adding co2?Can you elaborate a bit?