# Everyone is right ...



## JoshP12 (21 Jul 2021)

Assumption 1: Leidbig’s law of the minimum
Assumption 2: Everything interacts

Plants:

have roots and shoots (includes leaves)
require nutrients (All ferts, CO2) and light to grow
Assumption 1 dictates the growth
Define nutrient required for growth over an interval of time (1 second, 1 minute, etc)  as the specific demand of nutrients, in specific relative amounts (ex: 5N, 2P, .1Mn etc) for the jobs that it needs to do
The plant must be able to acquire these nutrients during that interval of time, in advance of what is being built in the plant
Acquisition of nutrients occurs from roots and shoots
In the substrate + in the water column
During acquisition, assumption 2 applies (in both mediums)


Nutrients can be moved through tissue from past acquisition (back to how (a) works)





Hence, Assumption 1 is contingent on the acquisition of nutrients which obeys assumption 2.

On the acquisition of nutrients:

By assumption 2, there must exist a dynamic interconnected web of dependencies (between every single nutrient and factor at play) that dictate how the plant will experience the acquisition of nutrients.
In the water column
Flow of water will deliver nutrients to plant root/shoot system
Relative concentrations will affect how other nutrients are acquired at plant interface
Provided that nutrient values are within particular bounds (by 1) above), the acquisition of nutrients will not be inhibited.
However, the interplay between the roots (in substrate) and the mobility of nutrients in plants will allow the plant to “top” itself up if something is unable to be acquired exclusively through the water column



In the substrate
Nutrients are acquired via the rhizosphere (symbiosis between bacteria and plant)
By assumption 2, an appropriate relative range of nutrient concentrations for absorption exists
Appropriately-acidic substrate increases the efficacy of nutrient acquisition





If you reset the water column to empirically confirmed values (ADA, EI, PPS, PMDD, GH 5-7, etc), via regular, consistent water changes (start with daily, then ease off to find the relative, dynamic range for your system) then everything should be able to acquire nutrients appropriately, provided you have Flow, CO2, and light optimized. The LONGER you can stay within the boundaries dictated uniquely for your tank via assumption 2, the longer you can postpone water changes. The more nutrient dense and appropriately acidic substrate, the more forgiving plants are to poor water column management (which is unique to each species of plant about its particular ability to acquire nutrients): dosing management (all at once, daily, every other day etc, AND relative concentrations of what gets poured in).

All that is left is to grow.

On growth:

Assumption 1 dictates growth
It assumes the nutrient is in the plant
Absorption in soil is moderated by plant demand from shoots - the root can choose (otherwise soil with any trace of ammonia would burn everything in it and it doesn’t).
Absorption in water column is partially moderated by the plant:






We can force feed plants Nitrate and Phosphate and the plant cannot get rid of them (hence different plant forms under different dosing regimes)
This approach, however, will increase the demand from the substrate
This is fine, but as the substrate becomes depleted, we fall to Assumption 1 and obtain unhealthy plants (a state in which plants grow when the appropriate nutrients required are unable to be acquired by the plant)
Hence the reports of EI users running into problems after 6 months with aquasoil if care has not been put into the empirically confirmed appropriate sacred ranges in the column/substrate/maintenance for plant growth








There are lots more “hences” but the conclusion is that *everyone is right.*


----------



## plantnoobdude (22 Jul 2021)

very interesting and I think you're right. liebigs law of the minimum only shows the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the complex topic (which i don't understand very well) which is plant nutrition. can't believe this thread hasn't blown up with all the great writing you've done. @JoshP12


----------



## JoshP12 (23 Jul 2021)

plantnoobdude said:


> very interesting and I think you're right. liebigs law of the minimum only shows the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the complex topic (which i don't understand very well) which is plant nutrition. can't believe this thread hasn't blown up with all the great writing you've done. @JoshP12


Thanks .

Under this framework, I believe, we can explain many people's observations and validate their experience. In particular, the existence of prominent camps:
EI, ADA, toxicity, nutrient interactions, lean, rich, high light, low light, anti-Plantex ... EDTA accumulation, etc, etc etc. 

Every single experience is valid and the reason is:

*On the acquisition of nutrients:*

*By assumption 2, there must exist a dynamic interconnected web of dependencies (between every single nutrient and factor at play) that dictate how the plant will experience the acquisition of nutrients.*
Even the accumulation of EDTA - whether it falls into the substrate or stays in the column - is is a proponent in this interconnected web. Now, we circumvent many issues with water changes but ... a water change is just a tool in our toolkit and should be used at the discretion of the hobbyist (that fits into their lifestyle etc): suppose you aren’t dosing nutrients and you use inert substrate … infinite water changes (devoid of nutrients etc) are not going to save your plants.

Frankly, every single thing that we can do - in this hobby - is simply a tool and has a time and place ---- understanding this framework, first validates all experiences (at least the ones that I have come across) and second allows us to move forward, by picking the right tool.

There is a third assumption that we actually need: The goal (which is unique to each hobbyist and must be clearly defined). Set the goal and call it "balance". Once you have achieved your goal, your tank is balanced, unique to you.

If you are not happy, i.e. your goal is not met, then begin problem solving.

Josh


----------



## Zeus. (23 Jul 2021)

Interesting overview of a very complex topic, much of which has yet to be proven, I can see you have given it some thought.


JoshP12 said:


> the conclusion is that *everyone is right.*



Sorry,  I fail to see  how you came to the conclusion!


----------



## JoshP12 (23 Jul 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Interesting overview of a very complex topic, much of which has yet to be proven, I can see you have given it some thought.
> 
> 
> Sorry,  I fail to see  how you came to the conclusion!


Hey Zeus!!!

Well, I suppose that I would need to know what ideology "you" (really any ideology that has a "camp" - not neccesarily you) think is "wrong", then from there use my framework to demonstrate how it occured and how to fix it!

It would require lots of rigor though and several assumptions, but I don't mind running through the exercise!

Bring it on ! ... Let's test the integrity of this framework.

Josh


----------



## MichaelJ (23 Jul 2021)

@JoshP12  Very interesting. I can't tell if you and everyone is right...though... What I do know however, is if understanding all this would be a prerequisite for a successful aquarium I most definitely wouldn't engage myself with this hobby 



JoshP12 said:


> If you reset the water column to empirically confirmed values (ADA, EI, PPS, PMDD, GH 5-7, etc), via regular, consistent water changes (start with daily, then ease off to find the relative, dynamic range for your system)


...Fish poop, plants decay and release waste by various means, pathogens grow, uneaten food rot etc... you do water changes to get rid of all that from the water column... you replenish nutrients to make up for what the plants consumed and the collateral damage you caused by doing the water change, and add extra just to make sure plants never starve (EI).... I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. The tank will "tell" you if you are not doing enough water changes and maintenance or expect too much from your plants with inappropriate high light levels (vs. available CO2) or inadequate filtration/flow.

Don't get me wrong though, I certainly appreciate the fact that some people are thinking and researching deeper into this hobby than happy campers such as myself, that just want to see happy fish and enjoy nicely thriving aquactic plants... your the people we rely on when we screw up and need help, so keep up the good work! 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Driftless (24 Jul 2021)

Interesting, but too linear for me.


----------



## MichaelJ (24 Jul 2021)

Driftless said:


> Interesting, but too linear for me.


What does that actually mean in this context? ... Just curious


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Jul 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> @JoshP12  Very interesting. I can't tell if you and everyone is right...though...


I like that. You have made me realize that I have been unintentionally Machievellian:
Assumption 1 = EI backbone
Assumption 2 = Anti-EI backbone

... as a result, we all have to be right.



MichaelJ said:


> What I do know however, is if understanding all this would be a prerequisite for a successful aquarium I most definitely wouldn't engage myself with this hobby


I would say most people want to replicate the same method and have success time and time again - nothing wrong with that ... aquarium is beautiful.


MichaelJ said:


> ...Fish poop, plants decay and release waste by various means, pathogens grow, uneaten food rot etc... you do water changes to get rid of all that from the water column... you replenish nutrients to make up for what the plants consumed and the collateral damage you caused by doing the water change, and add extra just to make sure plants never starve (EI).... I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. The tank will "tell" you if you are not doing enough water changes and maintenance or expect too much from your plants with inappropriate high light levels (vs. available CO2) or inadequate filtration/flow.


But what if we could control how much maintenance we have to do ... instead of the other way around. < This tank >had 30ppm NO3 and 10 ppm PO4 dosed weekly along with loads of iron from Plantex: great growth, healthy fish, lots of trimming, a nice state of inertia. TDS didn't change -- but I decided that I didn't want to change water every week (make time for other things) ... and I noticed on day 8/9, crinkling was induced on some plant species. To correct this, implement 2x water change weekly ... as time passed, 2x weekly was required (burnt through nutrients in substrate) ... it's too much. So I reduced dosage ... voilla: less water change was required BUT still crinkling if I postponed ... When I stopped daily dosing and dosing all at once at water change ... it lasted longer ... stability, consistency ...

Run EI without water change and the system breaks. Add no GH booster and in 1Ca/.1Mg soft water, EI breaks. It obeys Leidbigs ... it must be assumption 2.

EI is just another word for: the tool of water column fertilizer and water changes acting in symbiosis with each other; the numbers are "relatively arbitrary".



MichaelJ said:


> Don't get me wrong though, I certainly appreciate the fact that some people are thinking and researching deeper into this hobby than happy campers such as myself, that just want to see happy fish and enjoy nicely thriving aquactic plants... your the people we rely on when we screw up and need help, so keep up the good work!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


.

If you turn to Barr's booster 3:3:1 ... by gram ... you end up with a close enough approximate to sacred 3:2:1 PPM ratios by the magic 120 TDS in RO ... or the magic GH 5 .. 7 ... nothing is different.

The booster increases the probability that plant acquisition of nutrients will fall into the sweet spot of the dependency web. Compound with water changes to prevent the accumulation of STUFF (nutrients, organics etc) and voilla -- magic trick: Empircally confirmed approximate values ... on the shoulder's of giants we stand.

Further, we cannot say that the buildup of organics causes issues but the accumulation of nutrients do not: this is Coulomb's law. And we need not accept Coulomb's law (charged species interact) ... but  ... lol.

All of this CANNOT JUST APPLY TO water column ... must also apply to substrate ...

Josh

**also depends on species ... not all species crinkled ... some didn't care ... but the ones that didn't care crinkled LATER as the more sensitive species were screaming at me.


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Jul 2021)

Driftless said:


> Interesting, but too linear for me.





MichaelJ said:


> What does that actually mean in this context? ... Just curious



I am also curious .


----------



## Driftless (24 Jul 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> I am also curious .


Oh, nothing really, I just meant that I am one of those who overthink things.


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Jul 2021)

Driftless said:


> Oh, nothing really, I just meant that I am one of those who overthink things.


Or perhaps we are the ones who overthought your comment .


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Jul 2021)

Hi all,

Fundamentally all "successfully running" tanks obey Assumption 1 ... and at its crux being the acquisition of nutrients, neccesarily assumption 2.

In some ways, it seems that we have:





EVERY single "fix" that I have ever read/followed/applied has been a change in HOW nutrients are acquired AND/OR reducing the nutrient demand (this includes reducing light) --> neccesarily reducing the acquisition requirement ... alleviating the POTENTIAL negative effects of water chemistry/flow ...

Woah ... this is how it works.

Obviously we can associate a weighted probability to each influencer as to how LIKELY it will help the issues we have (the mantra that you HAVE to change water/Flow importance/GH5-7 etc ... BUT many people disprove lots of "sacred things" and seem to be "anomalies").

COOL!

Gonna get back to changing some water.

Josh

EDIT: Should also add that each nutrient will have a unique weight of its influence on nutrient demand ... and neccesarily growth rates. 

Hence why the growth rate difference between ADA and EI is truly minimal. The reason is that Potassium can drive nutrient just not as much as N or P. CO2 can also drive nutrient demand ... just like anything else ... especially if N and P are in substrate for the roots to choose.


----------



## jaypeecee (24 Jul 2021)

Hi @JoshP12 

I remember when you first signed up to UKAPS and the speed at which you accumulated information. You are indeed a deep thinker. Your logical mind - no doubt the result of a physics/mathematics background - is very evident from your reasoning above.

BTW, did you get your water changed? 

JPC


----------



## Sharkey Sylk (24 Jul 2021)

Boring


----------



## PARAGUAY (25 Jul 2021)

Very good thread Josh .


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (25 Jul 2021)

Sharkey Sylk said:


> Boring



Bit rude. This isn’t Reevoo buddy 😂 




JoshP12 said:


> EVERY single "fix" that I have ever read/followed/applied has been a change in HOW nutrients are acquired AND/OR reducing the nutrient demand (this includes reducing light) --> neccesarily reducing the acquisition requirement ... alleviating the POTENTIAL negative effects of water chemistry/flow ...



There is a fixation on new plant growth that sort of acts as the outcome in most folk’s models @JoshP12 

In addition, there is the overall ability to maintain existing growth in equilibrium with the needs of new growth. This appears in stems with health from root to tip. The opposite being the tip of the stem being healthy, associated with decaying lower growth. 

Suppose what I’m postulating is the plant is an actor and has behaviours. We are just the keepers of the water parameter inputs. These ‘fixes’ are attributed to what we do when there’s a whole other layer of complexity in the biology of the plants reorganising to survive. All are intertwined.

Keep going Josh interesting read 😉


----------



## Zeus. (25 Jul 2021)

Been giving it some thought and still struggling with the conclusion -Everyone is right.

By everyone do you mean-
1. Every person that has a tank ( this is what I have the issue with)
2. Everyone with a healthy tank
3. Every dosing regime combined with WCs, substrates and livestock feeding


----------



## Wookii (25 Jul 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Fundamentally all "successfully running" tanks obey Assumption 1 ... and at its crux being the acquisition of nutrients, neccesarily assumption 2.
> 
> ...



Interesting thought process @JoshP12 but I don’t think your second rule is necessarily relevant, as I don’t believe nutrients drive or affect growth unless they become limiting (your rule 1) - they are a passive servicer of growth. Nor do I necessarily think that relative quantities of nutrients are important in any practical sense, as long as no one nutrient becomes limiting.

CO2 I just class as another nutrient; it’s just much more difficult in its application, and requires more consistency to prevent it becoming limiting, but ultimately problems only occur when it becomes limiting from a given steady state injection rate (either tank wide due to injection rate or plant consumption or locally by distribution). The steady state point is what sets CO2 apart from other nutrients, and you can argue that different levels of steady state CO2 level can arguably drive growth.

However really the main driver in a tank is light - everything else services the growth of the plants for the given light level - the less the light, the slower the growth, and the lower the nutrients uptake requirement of the plants, and vice-versa. So light determines growth, which determines the nutrient requirement, which will decide whether any brick wall nutrient limits are hit.

All very over simplified I know, but it shows why standard advice, particularly for beginners, works so well. Don’t set lighting too high, dose EI, so all nutrients are in excess, inject and thoroughly distribute CO2 to 30ppm, so CO2 is in excess.




Sharkey Sylk said:


> Boring



Only boring people get bored! 😉


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Jul 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> I remember when you first signed up to UKAPS and the speed at which you accumulated information. You are indeed a deep thinker. Your logical mind - no doubt the result of a physics/mathematics background - is very evident from your reasoning above.
> 
> ...



. Thanks John.

I did ... I actually implemented auto water change as well --- so I could literally just change water (not manually remove anything) and spend my energy observing how the plants behave and interact with algaes etc. Try to induce an algae and watch the war of the worlds!



PARAGUAY said:


> Very good thread Josh .


 thanks.



Sharkey Sylk said:


> Boring


Communist manifesto is boring for proliteriats too ... absolutely rivetting for a capitalist though .



Geoffrey Rea said:


> There is a fixation on new plant growth that sort of acts as the outcome in most folk’s models @JoshP12
> 
> In addition, there is the overall ability to maintain existing growth in equilibrium with the needs of new growth. This appears in stems with health from root to tip. The opposite being the tip of the stem being healthy, associated with decaying lower growth.
> 
> ...


The plant is living an can make adaptions! - agree 100%. This is also why I feel it is unfair to withhold light ... when we do not withhold nutrients: under the visage that a plant can moderate its own nutrient uptake/intake, it can surely do the same for light -- and so we need not withhold it.

That intertwine is the web perhaps.




Zeus. said:


> Been giving it some thought and still struggling with the conclusion -Everyone is right.
> 
> By everyone do you mean-
> 1. Every person that has a tank ( this is what I have the issue with)
> ...



Sorry for my lack of clarity Zeus. In reality, I think there are two camps in this hobby: 1) EI 2) Anti-EI ... anyone in between is probably just following ADA scheme or Dennis Wong scheme, and making beautiful scapes and not thinking too much about it. So I suppose my everyone is simply that EI and anti-EI are both operating under the same framework and the articulation - connection between the two - simply hasn't been procured yet.



Wookii said:


> Interesting thought process @JoshP12 but I don’t think your second rule is necessarily relevant, as I don’t believe nutrients drive or affect growth unless they become limiting (your rule 1) - they are a passive servicer of growth. Nor do I necessarily think that relative quantities of nutrients are important in any practical sense, as long as no one nutrient becomes limiting.


I actually began to wonder if the second was simply a result myself. But the crux is that nutrient acquisition. Some examples of peoples experience that I can't explain using Leidbigs are:
1) EI users have excellent growth for the first 6 months to 1 year with fresh aquasoil, then suddenly growth gets wacky (substrate must have been topping up something and if everything is in column, then acquisition must be an issue).
2) EI without water change begins to break (demonstrated by crinkling/deformed growth on plants) ... if we attribute to "organic overload", then the question is simply why ... and at its core we are letting "organics interact with life" ... but that is not fair to inorganics --- everything is charged species and by definition must interact.
3) Leidbig's operates IN the plant - assuming the plant has the nutrient (no doubt) -- but how did it get it?
4) Anti Plantex-CSM+B camp: some people struggle with this but not sulphate salts ... turn to USA: Burr, Gregg, Daniel Decau ... etc --- people rolling their own micros -- why? These are good aquariasts.
5) EDTA chelate accumulation camp: some people switch out CSM and alleviate issues

These are the things that befuddled me and led me to keep assumption 2.


Wookii said:


> CO2 I just class as another nutrient; it’s just much more difficult in its application, and requires more consistency to prevent it becoming limiting, but ultimately problems only occur when it becomes limiting from a given steady state injection rate (either tank wide due to injection rate or plant consumption or locally by distribution). The steady state point is what sets CO2 apart from other nutrients, and you can argue that different levels of steady state CO2 level can arguably drive growth.


Totally. But there are also camps of CO2 implementations: stable with lights vs turn on with lights.

Under Liedbig, both work. The demand of CO2 is relative to the time -- there is a time when the plant sucks up all the CO2 it can (fill up point) and stores it in a sack: these sacks also allow CO2 to be gulped massively when exposed to air and used for the day. The demand of CO2 in the first "ramp up" period of the plant is simply less than during full blown photosynthesis ... so we need not deliver it. The demand of CO2 is relative to the plant -- and so yes: stable from lights on is correct, but so is turning CO2 with lights. Seemingly contradictory implementations though not at all -- at their core, just leidbig. The second assumption comes into play when we discuss KH and CO2 -- they are related and why is on the acquisition of CO2 from the column. Further, CO2 can be grabbed to "top up demand" from the substrate, so we need assumption 2.

Despite all this narrative, I am still trying to remove assumption 2. Can't seem to rationalize it all yet.


Wookii said:


> However really the main driver in a tank is light - everything else services the growth of the plants for the given light level - the less the light, the slower the growth, and the lower the nutrients uptake requirement of the plants, and vice-versa. So light determines growth, which determines the nutrient requirement, which will decide whether any brick wall nutrient limits are hit.


But the plant can moderate it's own intake of light, in the same way it can moderate what nutrients it takes from substrate ... or ADA plants should look like mutants due to N in substrate.

If we degenerate chlorophyll, we simply allow less light to trigger photosynthesis ... let the plant choose how much light it needs.

I think we can argue that the main driver of any tank is the limiting nutrient (including light, co2, ferts, temp) . Temperature dictates metabolism ... neccesarily the demand for everything else. But the plant can moderate itself - to a certain extent - to the limiting nutrient.

Lard on N/P with high light, get massive, fast growth, then stop dosing N and watch the plant color up and change - take the photo. The light hasn't changed, no algae has bloomed, so the plant adapted itself to lower N and P - it used up its stores ... eventually if you don't intervene bring on the algae, bring on the cyano, bring on the crash. Intervene, and bring the tank back to sexy, then pull the plug take the photo call it a day.

The only way that this cycle makes any sense (and Green aqua does it all the time - you can see it when their rotalas suddenly turn bright red and have this deterioation point of old leaf growth) is if the plant can moderate light intake.


Wookii said:


> All very over simplified I know, but it shows why standard advice, particularly for beginners, works so well. Don’t set lighting too high, dose EI, so all nutrients are in excess, inject and thoroughly distribute CO2 to 30ppm, so CO2 is in excess.


Totally. As long as we don't perpetuate a fear of light, temperature, etc or discredit the validity of other methods which are equally “good”.

Thanks for pushing my thinking!!!

Josh

edit: I think we also turn to aquarist like Edward (pps pro founder), zapins, hoppy … lots of good work being done from them. And to explain their experience is a necessity.


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Jul 2021)

On oxygen and light:

Under this framework, specifically the interconnected web, we need to consider the root of life - oxygen. As a nutrient, it also falls into leidbigs and with wanting it in slight excess (or in this case it's importance more excess) as we do for all nutrients, we need to consider it. We don't dose it - perhaps we should. There are two ways to introduce it into the system: mechanically or chemically.

Mechanical is capped by the use of wet/dry filtration and this give good oxgygen, but without wet/dry, we are left with surface agitation.

Chemically, we are left with plants who oxygenate both the water and the substrate. They do better though, they super saturate. In this hobby, there was a movement towards reducing light and the goal of this was to make plant growth more manageable: This goal was at the expense of oxygen generation, the foundation of the rest of the life in our tanks: in particular, our microbial assemblage which is equally important to a healthy system.

The only way thing we have control over chemically is how much light we pump into the system. More light = more oxygen, provided it doesn't drive the demand on nutrient acquisition out of the ability of your plants to acquire them either via chemically or mechanically. -- but if the plant can moderate how much light it uses ... does it matter? ... and the answer is yes - by assumption 2 - light is a ripple in electromagnetic field and it will interact with anything which has non-zero electromagnetic components (everything in our tank - including the nutrients such as Calcium ... since it has an electron) ... so we can have too much and it also falls into the web -- but what is that? Is it fair to light to say you can have as much as you want of it but nitrogen is the boogey man? Or you can have lots of nitrogen but light is the boogey man? Light plays into this as well ... but it is a game of economics and perhaps reducing it from a maximum that I do not know is not worth the benefit. Perhaps not, however, if your flow is poorly distributed.

In many ways, I wonder if the tool of water column fertilization with frequent water changes (EI) is better implemented with high light, though I will not make this claim.

As a result, this discussion is leading us to optimizing the aquarium for maximum probability of success. If oxygen is as important as we think it is, then withholding light from your tank may be as much of a mortal sin as running CO2 all night and not during the day (which I have done).

I am not so sure that I am ready to draft a list of optimal parameters just yet -- but soon.

Josh


----------



## lurcher (25 Jul 2021)

Thanks for the migraine Josh.


----------



## Zeus. (25 Jul 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Sorry for my lack of clarity Zeus. In reality, I think there are two camps in this hobby: 1) EI 2) Anti-EI ... anyone in between is probably just following ADA scheme or Dennis Wong scheme, and making beautiful scapes and not thinking too much about it. So I suppose my everyone is simply that EI and anti-EI are both operating under the same framework and the articulation - connection between the two - simply hasn't been procured yet



Well that changes everything and I can agree with the conclusion as many fert regimes work well for lots of folk .
 I see it as plants are not fussy about brand of nutrition or where it comes from, from WC or substrate as long as its there, some plants will do better when its in the WC and other are fine with it in the WC, I see light being the main drive factor which determines how much ferts and CO2 the plant needs, as long as the regime  (+/- CO2) has enough for the light/photons all is good. 
I am a fan of EI dosing and advise it for folks who are starting in the hobby as its cheap (£0.005 per 1.0ppm N per 100litres - plus that covers the rest of the fert as well) and easy to follow. However I don't dose EI ferts any more and non of my tanks have any substrate active or inert ATM as part of a little casual experiment since moving house, plus I use urea as source of Nitrogen dosing small amounts about 100 times a week via auto doser.
ADA fert regime is low in N and PO4 but the substrate is loaded with it and they charge you a fortune per 1.0ppm N (£0.36 per 1.0ppm N per 100l - and all you get is N) which is an ammonium based fert as well.
Finding the sweat spot with ferts is tricky to find whats the minimum you can get away with, @dw1305 'Duckweed Index' and TDS monitoring is a great way to do the minimum ferts and WC's IMO, plus very eco friendly.


----------



## JoshP12 (26 Jul 2021)

lurcher said:


> Thanks for the migraine Josh.


Hehe sorry! Thanks for trudging through it!


----------



## MichaelJ (26 Jul 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> But what if we could control how much maintenance we have to do ... instead of the other way around. < This tank >had 30ppm NO3 and 10 ppm PO4 dosed weekly along with loads of iron from Plantex: great growth, healthy fish, lots of trimming, a nice state of inertia. TDS didn't change -- but I decided that I didn't want to change water every week (make time for other things) ... and I noticed on day 8/9, crinkling was induced on some plant species. To correct this, implement 2x water change weekly ... as time passed, 2x weekly was required (burnt through nutrients in substrate) ... it's too much. So I reduced dosage ... voilla: less water change was required BUT still crinkling if I postponed ... When I stopped daily dosing and dosing all at once at water change ... it lasted longer ... stability, consistency ...


@JoshP12  The the idea of being able to know and control how much maintenance we have to do and how much dosing we have to do etc, and still being able to run a successful tank is an interesting goal for sure. We may find some temporary optimum for maintenance (wc/cleaning/dosing) with the current stocking level (and fish sizes), plant mass, decay and waste buildup, growth of beneficial/unwanted bacteria, flow/circulation, available CO2 vs. plant mass etc. etc.  these are all dynamic variables and movings targets... But how can we ever know without basically acting after-the-fact - i.e. when we start seeing signs of algae, plant malnutrition etc.? I am not aware of any means by which we can reliably gauge any of this, except for probing our tanks with our eyes - and when you start to see the trouble, we know it's already been troublesome for a while. In addition to my eyes, I do use my TDS meter as a sort of gauge for my maintenance sufficiency... if it goes up week over week I take it as an indication that something is amiss, but how about when it's stable ? is that really a sign that all is good...? not everything good or bad shows up as TDS (I assume), or perhaps something wanted (showing up as TDS) was replaced with something unwanted (also showing up as TDS) in roughly equal quantities and I get a reading that is deceptable stable... how would I ever know.  

What so far has been working in my case for both my tanks is that one big (40-50%) weekly WC combined with dosing and a dosing again (often smaller) mid week - I have never seen any drawbacks from running my tanks at elevated macro levels (NPK) either btw. The limiting factor for my tanks is by far available CO2 as I am not injecting. So I have to be really careful about trimming down plant mass on a regular basis in combination with keeping my light levels (intensity and not hours...) on the very low side and temperature on the low side as well in order to encourage low plant metabolism. I also make sure I have good flow throughout the tanks. It works! I have slow, but steady growth and zero algae to speak of. I really don't know what else there is to ask for?  Well, if one WC every month or every other week would suffice I would prefer that, but if there is no way of knowing other than trial and error, I'd rather just stick to my current routine and avoid the tightrope.    

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (26 Jul 2021)

Wookii said:


> All very over simplified I know, but it shows why standard advice, particularly for beginners, works so well. Don’t set lighting too high...


Hi @Wookii 

I do wish we could easily quantify lighting intensity in a way that beginners and others could replicate. It would be much better than relying on the human eye. Half-decent PAR sensors (particularly the submersible variety) are around the £300 mark the last time I looked. I do know that Seneye with their latest offering, the _Spectra_, are hoping to make these available for rental from aquatics outlets. As the name suggests, it also enables the spectrum to be viewed.

The electronics of PAR sensors and associated circuitry is not difficult. But making a unit that is robust and waterproof adds a good deal of extra work. Personally, I'd prefer to opt for one of the Apogee offerings.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (26 Jul 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Mechanical is capped by the use of wet/dry filtration and this give good oxgygen, but without wet/dry, we are left with surface agitation.


Hi @JoshP12 

When using a surface skimmer, I have good reason to think this is an effective oxidizer/aerator. I don't own a DO meter but measurement of ORP would tend to indicate oxygen levels of 8 - 10 ppm. This is O2 saturation level and I doubt that wet/dry could improve on this. Or, perhaps I'm wrong. Hang on a minute - didn't you once have a datalogging DO meter?

For the benefit of anyone reading this and not being familiar with the abbreviations, DO = dissolved oxygen and ORP = Oxidation/Reduction Potential.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (26 Jul 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> The the idea of being able to know and control how much maintenance we have to do and how much dosing we have to do etc, and still being able to run a successful tank is an interesting goal for sure. We may find some temporary optimum for maintenance (wc/cleaning/dosing) with the current stocking level (and fish sizes), plant mass, decay and waste buildup, growth of beneficial/unwanted bacteria, flow/circulation, available CO2 vs. plant mass etc. etc. these are all dynamic variables and movings targets... But how can we ever know without basically acting after-the-fact - i.e. when we start seeing signs of algae, plant malnutrition etc.? I am not aware of any means by which we can reliably gauge any of this, except for probing our tanks with our eyes - and when you start to see the trouble, we know it's already been troublesome for a while.


Hi @MichaelJ 

I am of the view that measurement of some key parameters may give us the warning signs that we need. As an example, I have an experiment running at the moment, which has enabled me to bring cyanobacteria* under control. 

* specifically, Oscillatoria

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (26 Jul 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> I am of the view that measurement of some key parameters may give us the warning signs that we need. As an example, I have an experiment running at the moment, which has enabled me to bring cyanobacteria* under control.


Hi @jaypeecee I agree. I always do a TDS measurements prior to WC, and of the WC water to make sure I got the remineralization and macro dosing that I mix in right. I also do a somewhat redundant measurement of the tank again a few hours after adding the WC water. That all make sense to me - and take 5 seconds.  If the tanks health (livestock and plants) appear good I do not test on a regular basis - I have no reason to and I don't really have the means to give me reliable and consistent results worth monitoring on a regular basis anyway that would give me the warning signs, other than say an unanticipated rise in TDS, which I already monitor.   But yes, I do occasionally (getting to be rarely truth be told) use my API test kits to get those ballpark indications that they provide.

Yes, I remember an older thread where you discussed cyano outbreaks. Have you come to any conclusions yet?   

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (26 Jul 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Yes, I remember an older thread where you discussed cyano outbreaks. Have you come to any conclusions yet?


Hi @MichaelJ

Definitive conclusions - no, but I'm getting closer. And I will be very happy to share my findings if and when I cross that line.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (27 Jul 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> Definitive conclusions - no, but I'm getting closer. And I will be very happy to share my findings if and when I cross that line.
> 
> JPC


@jaypeecee  your such a tease   ... anyway can't wait to hear more when/if you cross that line...


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Jul 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> When using a surface skimmer, I have good reason to think this is an effective oxidizer/aerator. I don't own a DO meter but measurement of ORP would tend to indicate oxygen levels of 8 - 10 ppm. This is O2 saturation level and I doubt that wet/dry could improve on this. Or, perhaps I'm wrong. Hang on a minute - didn't you once have a datalogging DO meter?
> 
> ...


I think we would need to look at the rate of relative change - I did notice with the DO metre that the tank pearled at the same saturation daily and then at that point it super saturated.

Purely mechanical won’t give us that super saturation that plants can I don’t think.

I think the wet/dry will yield a larger rate of gaseous exchange, constantly topping up the O2. Perhaps it will play a factor in this.

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Jul 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> @JoshP12  The the idea of being able to know and control how much maintenance we have to do and how much dosing we have to do etc, and still being able to run a successful tank is an interesting goal for sure. We may find some temporary optimum for maintenance (wc/cleaning/dosing) with the current stocking level (and fish sizes), plant mass, decay and waste buildup, growth of beneficial/unwanted bacteria, flow/circulation, available CO2 vs. plant mass etc. etc.  these are all dynamic variables and movings targets... But how can we ever know without basically acting after-the-fact - i.e. when we start seeing signs of algae, plant malnutrition etc.? I am not aware of any means by which we can reliably gauge any of this, except for probing our tanks with our eyes - and when you start to see the trouble, we know it's already been troublesome for a while. In addition to my eyes, I do use my TDS meter as a sort of gauge for my maintenance sufficiency... if it goes up week over week I take it as an indication that something is amiss, but how about when it's stable ? is that really a sign that all is good...? not everything good or bad shows up as TDS (I assume), or perhaps something wanted (showing up as TDS) was replaced with something unwanted (also showing up as TDS) in roughly equal quantities and I get a reading that is deceptable stable... how would I ever know.
> 
> What so far has been working in my case for both my tanks is that one big (40-50%) weekly WC combined with dosing and a dosing again (often smaller) mid week - I have never seen any drawbacks from running my tanks at elevated macro levels (NPK) either btw. The limiting factor for my tanks is by far available CO2 as I am not injecting. So I have to be really careful about trimming down plant mass on a regular basis in combination with keeping my light levels (intensity and not hours...) on the very low side and temperature on the low side as well in order to encourage low plant metabolism. I also make sure I have good flow throughout the tanks. It works! I have slow, but steady growth and zero algae to speak of. I really don't know what else there is to ask for?  Well, if one WC every month or every other week would suffice I would prefer that, but if there is no way of knowing other than trial and error, I'd rather just stick to my current routine and avoid the tightrope.
> 
> ...



I suppose exactly that. It’s unique to each fish keeper.

But there should exist a set of guidelines that yield the highest probability of success independent of the fish keeper.

on ferts
Some struggle with excess
Some struggle with lean.
Some struggle with moderate.

Must be a common variable amongst the some.

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Aug 2021)

Hi all,

I purposefully have not mentioned the A word.

ALGAE … ahhh!!!!!

To say a single thing causes algae is futile.

Our tank is history: the maturation process includes civil wars, revolutions, famines
Etc, and how far back you are in history, the more diversity of algaes you have.

A tank which facilitates unyielded nutrient acquisition is a developed country and has issues, but with less magnitude.

To say <insert favourite thing> causes/reduces algae is equivalent to saying that free education will solve poverty. Well, it “helps” (what if the education isn’t implemented properly … or perhaps it perpetuates systemic ideologies that oppress minorities etc)… but it won’t fix it and if we say these things, we perpetuate misconceptions and deter people from understanding the relationships of the system.

But this framework provides a way of thinking: ok what lever am I going to pull to bring this tank back to a happy inertial frame, a balance.

Will keep posting.

Josh


----------



## sparkyweasel (3 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> ok what lever am I going to pull to bring this tank back to a happy inertial frame, a balance.


Don't forget that levers are very good for UNbalancing things.


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Aug 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> Don't forget that levers are very good for UNbalancing things.


I suppose time, patience, itself is a lever as well  hehehe.


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Aug 2021)

A good question is why does time work?

time allows the plant to reconfigure, optimizing it’s ability to acquire nutrients.

time allows for microorganisms to grow/manifest, many of those in symbiosis with plants (I.e. rhizosphere) which could, for example, neutralize ammonia (reduce the amount forcibly entering and burning the plant … necessarily increasing its ability to survive) or facilitate nutrient acquisition.

To me, the model works. What we need is a set of guidelines that yield the highest probability of success under a series of goals for the fishkeeper, ultimately catering to the needs of a new comer into the hobby.

I would appreciate if anyone can provide a counter example for us to work through.


----------



## dw1305 (4 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


JoshP12 said:


> A good question is why does time work?............time allows for microorganisms to grow/manifest, many of those in symbiosis with plants (I.e. rhizosphere)


My guess is that <"is a lot of it">.

There is quite a lot of scientific research in this area from "constructed wetlands" in the treatment of waste water. This is from <"D.D. Silveira, P. Belli Filho, L.S. Philippi, M.E. Cantão, A. Foulquier, S. Bayle, T.P. Delforno & P. Molle (2020) In-depth assessment of microbial communities in the full-scale vertical flow treatment wetlands fed with raw domestic wastewater, Environmental Technology">.



> ........... _The samples were collected under different conditions, such as operational time (presence/absence of sludge layer on the surface of the filters), season (winter and summer), sampling depth (0, 15 and 30 cm) and operation cycle (rest and feed periods). A structural disparity was noted in the upper layers, whereas higher similarity at 30 cm was observed highlighting the effect of organic matter on bacterial diversity._..........



I think it is probably analogous to the situation in the filter, where the microbial assemblage becomes <"fine-tuned"> to the prevailing conditions.

A useful "filter" reference for this is:  Barthelme, R _et al _(2017) <"Freshwater Recirculating Aquaculture System Operations Drive Biofilter Bacterial Community Shifts around a Stable Nitrifying Consortium of Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaea and Comammox Nitrospira" Front. Microbiol., *30*>.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Aug 2021)

Thanks Darrel @dw1305.

That microbial assemblage needs oxygen to grow and it is by far more important than anything, I must agree - including our own gut.

This further supports, in my eyes, the necessity to not withhold light.

I reckon that the highest probability of success will include high light to foster sufficient oxygen levels for these mini heroes.


----------



## Wookii (4 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Thanks Darrel @dw1305.
> 
> That microbial assemblage needs oxygen to grow and it is by far more important than anything, I must agree - including our own gut.
> 
> ...



I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly. Excessive light is up there in the top three - alongside inadequate CO2 application and insufficient fertilizer dosing - as predominant causes of planted aquarium issues for beginners.

Plants don't need high light to grow well, nor do they - in a densely planted aquarium - require high light to saturate the water column with DO. By far the most influential factor on photosynthesis rate in my experience is sufficient CO2 levels - adjust CO2 injection rate up and down, and you see significant variance in O2 production. Of course this requires and assumes 'sufficient' light - and we may well be falling foul of using purely subjective terms like 'high', 'low' and 'sufficient' without any objective value to determine them (my 'sufficient' could you your 'high' for all I know). As John (@jaypeecee) says we lack an easily accessible method to determine values.

However 'sufficient' light is a lot lower than I think many people start their tanks out on, with modern high power LED lights. As I mentioned in my last post, light is the main driver for plant growth. Driving the lights too high, especially very early on, will only lead to plant deficiencies and algae, and runs the tank on more of a knife edge for failures to occur. Having the lights at more reasonable levels reduces CO2 and nutrient demand, and gives the aquarist more time to react and correct inadequate CO2 implementation, or nutrient deficiencies, particularly early on in the aquariums development.



JoshP12 said:


> I suppose exactly that. It’s unique to each fish keeper.
> 
> But there should exist a set of guidelines that yield the highest probability of success independent of the fish keeper.
> 
> ...



To be honest I've never seen someone applying excess nutrients struggling as a result of those excess nutrients, only ever as a result of insufficient nutrients or insufficient CO2, or excess light (which ultimately results in there being insufficient nutrients or CO2), and perhaps fourthly inadequate maintenance.

There are existing guidelines that have been used for decades now. The two main ones in opposite camps are the ADA system and EI system, and both have been proven time and again to be equally successful. Both offer a clear prescriptive route to success, however the former really requires the aquarist to buy into a complete ecosystem of products to stand the best chances of success, but in essence both are a largely a bit like painting by numbers.

Where people come unstuck, and run into problems within those systems, is when they don't keep the paint within the lines - they mess with their dosing, or run their lights too high, or don't optimise their CO2 properly or keep it consistent, or don't perform enough water changes at the right time etc etc - they treat these things as 'levers' as you described them, when they shouldn't be considered as such within these systems, they should be considered constants. If all beginners just followed the prescriptive guidelines of, say EI, to the letter, with sufficient (not excess) light levels, and stuck steadfastly to the guidelines, there'd be far fewer posts in the Plant Help and Algae forums.

Two caveats I should mention here is a) I'm talking strictly 'high tech' CO2 injected tanks, low techs are a different animal (thought several of the same factors still apply), and b) I'm talking beginners/inexperienced planted tank owners. In respect of the latter, there are numerous highly experienced aquarists on this forum, that successfully run their tanks with very high light, and highly customised and flexible nutrient dosing, and are hugely experienced at tweaking things based on plant observations and application of that experience (take a look at @Geoffrey Rea's various journal threads to see what I mean), but it takes an awful lot of time served to get to that point (I don't consider myself anywhere near that level).

For more inexperienced aquarists (myself included), EI (and likely other complete prescriptive systems) provide a framework that actively seeks to remove variables, to remove those 'levers', and enables myself and others to achieve healthy, largely algae free aquariums.



JoshP12 said:


> I suppose time, patience, itself is a lever as well  hehehe.



Well, I'd consider it a constant in terms of an aquarium, though Einstein would agree with you otherwise lol . . . joking aside, you always see it with a brand new tank, it often has a rocky start bouncing between issues here and there, and then suddenly just seems to slip into a groove after about 3-4 months - plants start growing well, algae disappears, and everything starts trucking along. It's probably no coincidence that 3-4 months is often the point where the aquarist settles into the game too - they stop tweaking the CO2, get into a consistent routine with the dosing, get used to the chore of regular water changes, and just generally stop messing with things. The tank hits a level of consistency and balance, most likely as a result of the maturation of the biological assemblage that @dw1305 mentions, but also helped by the consistency the new aquarist achieves by that point also.

In my own experience though, you can significantly reduce that settling period using a mature filter and more importantly, a mature substrate, so that microbial assemblage is definitely key.


----------



## dw1305 (4 Aug 2021)

Hi all, 


Wookii said:


> Plants don't need high light to grow well, nor do they - in a densely planted aquarium - require high light to saturate the water column with DO.


I use a slightly different approach to light intensity.  I use whatever lamp I have to hand and <"use it on a 12 hour day">.  I always have a floating plant as my initial layer, how complete their coverage is depends upon the incident light intensity.

As light intensity increases the volume of plants (and their density) increases, until we reach a state where all available PAR is utilised.  It means that the bottoms of all my tanks are <"dark and gloomy places">, and most of them don't have any <"swimming space">. 

I realise that this approach <"isn't going to work for every-one"> (Iwagumi is a non starter).

cheers Darrel


----------



## Wookii (4 Aug 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I use a slightly different approach to light intensity.  I use whatever lamp I have to hand and <"use it on a 12 hour day">.  I always have a floating plant as my initial layer, how complete their coverage is depends upon the incident light intensity.
> 
> ...


  But what lights would you typically have to hand Darrel?


----------



## dw1305 (4 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


Wookii said:


> But what lights would you typically have to hand Darrel?


A mixture Of T5, T8 and LEDs now, all the older ones are <"grow lights">. Originally I used <"400W Son-T grow lights">, which were incredibly bright (and hot etc.)

cheers Darrel


----------



## Wookii (4 Aug 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> A mixture Of T5, T8 and LEDs now, all the older ones are "grow lights". Originally I used <"400W Son-T grow lights">, which were incredibly bright (and hot etc.)
> 
> cheers Darrel


Lol fair enough - I couldn't imagine putting one of those 400 Watt lights (60,000 lumens apparently) above any tank of mine for 12 hours a day without it being a complete disaster 😂  Your green fingers are something of legend Darrel.


----------



## dw1305 (4 Aug 2021)

Hi all, 


Wookii said:


> above any tank of mine for 12 hours a day without it being a complete disaster


When we did the waste water work some of the tanks (plastic containers) were just filled with green algae (filamentous and phytoplankton), when you scooped it out there wasn't really any water, just a huge gelatinous mass of algae. The tanks with higher plants eventually cleared, but there was still a lot of filamentous algae attached to the _Phragmites_ etc stems.

The nature of some of the waste water made it pretty inhospitable to invertebrates, so snails and _Asellus _weren't an option. There was also the heat issue in the summer, with water temperature of ~40oC.


Wookii said:


> Your green fingers are something of legend


No, I really don't have green fingers. If you can get enough plants in active growth you can clean up nearly anything. There is a lot of scientific research in the tropics on using _Eichornia crassipes_ (a <"turned up to eleven plant">) with <"abattoir wastes">, <"raw sewage"> etc.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Aug 2021)

Wookii said:


> I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly.


Want to join me in a pro/con list of using high light vs low light (been meaning to sit down and draft one myself)? To qualify the terms let's go ahead and say high light > 75 PAR and low light is 25 PAR (measurement from substrate and let's forget spectrum for now). The classically quotely all you need is 50 PAR so lets call that medium?

The rest of your post is excellent and I need to leave in a few minutes so will read through and comment unhastily soon .



Josh


----------



## Wookii (4 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Want to join me in a pro/con list of using high light vs low light (been meaning to sit down and draft one myself)? To qualify the terms let's go ahead and say high light > 75 PAR and low light is 25 PAR (measurement from substrate and let's forget spectrum for now). The classically quotely all you need is 50 PAR so lets call that medium?



PAR values are of course, the only real accurate way to measure the output of an aquarium light on a planted tank, however comparing theoretical values like these are of little help unless we can actually relate that to what we typically achieve from commonly used light fittings in a practical application.

You highlight (no pun intended) a difference in perception of what is high light straight off the bat though. Darrel's example aside, I would consider high light being well over 100 PAR. Taking modern lights often used on high-tech tanks (after a quick search around): A Vivid II at 100% is 270 PAR at 50cm, ADA Solar RGB is over 200 PAR at 40cm, a WRGB II is 120 PAR at 55cm, a Twinstar SA is 165 PAR at 46cm  . . . (one caveat being I have no idea if these value are taken on a comparable basis, e.g. in air or water etc etc, but they give a general idea). There are more real world measurements here: 2Hr Aquarist

In practical terms then, I would say if a new aquarist with one of those lights at 100% on, say, a newly set-up 60p, without floating plants - that would be high light/excess light. To achieve the classic 50 PAR target you mention, they're going to have to dim those lights considerably. This is the practical message I was reaching for when I said:



Wookii said:


> I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly. Excessive light is up there in the top three - alongside inadequate CO2 application and insufficient fertilizer dosing - as predominant causes of planted aquarium issues for beginners.



I run the Vivid II on around 50%-60% around 40cm above a 40cm deep tank, maybe about 12cm substrate at the rear, so around 68cm to substrate, and from experience that is more than sufficient to grow the high light plants I have tried on a mature tank with minimal algae, but then its still probably around 90-100 PAR (extrapolated, inverse square law and all that - and if the Chihiros PAR values are to be believed). Now I have recently removed all the high light loving stems, and let floating plants cover the surface - I've no idea how much the light has reduced as a result, but it's likely significant, and that is more than sufficient for the low light plants I have remaining (crypts, echinodorus, anubias, buce etc).


----------



## MichaelJ (4 Aug 2021)

Wookii said:


> I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly. Excessive light is up there in the top three - alongside inadequate CO2 application and insufficient fertilizer dosing - as predominant causes of planted aquarium issues for beginners.


Speaking from personal experience I could not agree more. I've had planted tanks on-and-off over the years - some success some disasters without ever knowing why. (it was back in the 80-90ties before forums like this were available  ). Eventually I gave up plants (mostly) and for years only had big Cichlids (which would dig them up or tear them apart anyway ). When I rebooted the hobby a little over a year ago I really took the low light (intensity) and fertilization seriously and its been working out beautifully... especially after simplifying my water prep and realizing that even low stocked heavily planted tanks needs regular and big WC's 

Anyway, sorry for interjecting... I have nothing to say about PAR - except that its too bad PAR meters are so expensive, and not available to most hobbyists. I guess we just have to rely on our eyes and see how the plants are doing 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Aug 2021)

Wookii said:


> PAR values are of course, the only real accurate way to measure the output of an aquarium light on a planted tank, however comparing theoretical values like these are of little help unless we can actually relate that to what we typically achieve from commonly used light fittings in a practical application.
> 
> You highlight (no pun intended) a difference in perception of what is high light straight off the bat though. Darrel's example aside, I would consider high light being well over 100 PAR. Taking modern lights often used on high-tech tanks (after a quick search around): A Vivid II at 100% is 270 PAR at 50cm, ADA Solar RGB is over 200 PAR at 40cm, a WRGB II is 120 PAR at 55cm, a Twinstar SA is 165 PAR at 46cm  . . . (one caveat being I have no idea if these value are taken on a comparable basis, e.g. in air or water etc etc, but they give a general idea). There are more real world measurements here: 2Hr Aquarist



Wanted to keep the thread going in real time but can't sit quite yet to respond to all yet. 

The pro/con list is the pith. 

Here can be the categories: 
1) Buy a light 
2) Run it at 100% 
3) dim it to 50%

Pro/Con list!

Josh


----------



## sparkyweasel (4 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> I suppose time, patience, itself is a lever as well  hehehe.


Perhaps patience is your firm place to stand:

Give me a lever and a firm place to stand and I will move the whole world.  
Archimedes.


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Aug 2021)

sparkyweasel said:


> Perhaps patience is your firm place to stand:
> 
> Give me a lever and a firm place to stand and I will move the whole world.
> Archimedes.


With all due respect, I don't need to be told where my place to stand is. 

And since you have quoted Archimedes, I am sure you will appreciate the following:

The rest of this thread can be left as an exercise to the reader. 

Q.E.D 

Cheers,
Josh


----------



## John q (4 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Wanted to keep the thread going in real time but can't sit quite yet to respond to all yet.
> 
> The pro/con list is the pith.
> 
> ...


1) the light Is blahblahblahblah.
2) The light is to powerful for your needs.
3) The light is to weak.

I've a lot of time for your thesis, but to answer a question with a question, fails miserably imo.

My question to you is ... what's the benefits of putting 200 par on an aquatic plant.


----------



## erwin123 (5 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Want to join me in a pro/con list of using high light vs low light (been meaning to sit down and draft one myself)? To qualify the terms let's go ahead and say high light > 75 PAR and low light is 25 PAR (measurement from substrate and let's forget spectrum for now). The classically quotely all you need is 50 PAR so lets call that medium?
> 
> The rest of your post is excellent and I need to leave in a few minutes so will read through and comment unhastily soon .
> 
> ...





John q said:


> 1) the light Is blahblahblahblah.
> 2) The light is to powerful for your needs.
> 3) The light is to weak.
> 
> ...



Very few fixtures can deliver 200 umol par (just call it par for short i guess) at substrate level in the usual sized tanks (eg: 40cm depth+). One presumes that most 'beginners' won't be purchasing such lights but instead will be using the normal twinstar or chihiros models in a single configuration.

The more intriguing question is JoshP's question... is there any reason to have 75 par and is there any benefit over 50 par or even 25 par? - as these are likely levels that are accessible to the typical beginner (myself including... still learning)  with a 'normal' twinstar/chihiros light.


----------



## jaypeecee (5 Aug 2021)

Wookii said:


> I think promoting or pursuing 'high light' as an objective, and certainly recommending to beginners, is a complete folly. Excessive light is up there in the top three - alongside inadequate CO2 application and insufficient fertilizer dosing - as predominant causes of planted aquarium issues for beginners.


Hi Gareth (@Wookii) and Josh (@JoshP12)

I also think it very pertinent to take a look at the expert advice of @Christel. She favours emulating nature with a long photoperiod and a lower lighting intensity. Please take a look at her posts and people can see for themselves what she suggests/recommends.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (5 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> I have nothing to say about PAR - except that its too bad PAR meters are so expensive, and not available to most hobbyists.


Hi @MichaelJ 

I wish I was a lot younger. I would seriously consider launching a budget PAR sensor.

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (6 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> I wish I was a lot younger. I would seriously consider launching a budget PAR sensor.
> 
> JPC


Hi @jaypeecee ,I do not know too much about the specifics that makes PAR meters so expensive, but for starters, I suppose the photodiode used in a PAR meter need to be very high precision in terms of sensitivity, response uniformity and linearity combined with the spectral selectivity of the optical filter for the range of interest (400-700 nm). The packaging and acquisition part and necessary electronics to drive that seems pretty straight forward though.  Of course, the question is what level of precision we actually need as hobbyists to go about measuring PAR in an aquarium?  

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (7 Aug 2021)

erwin123 said:


> The more intriguing question is JoshP's question... is there any reason to have 75 par and is there any benefit over 50 par or even 25 par? - as these are likely levels that are accessible to the typical beginner (myself including... still learning)  with a 'normal' twinstar/chihiros light.





John q said:


> My question to you is ... what's the benefits of putting 200 par on an aquatic plant.


1) Plant dependent ... but ignore that for now
2) More oxygen (provided ferts are present)
3) Plant can adapt for too much light (it is very hard to destroy plant tissue with our technology) ... change pigment composition, use more nutrients from roots, etc
4) Easier to dial in CO2 and not kill fish
5) Higher rate of nutrient consumption including ammonia etc ... keeps the column clean

The benefits are system and user oriented. Discussing specific values of PAR is irrelevant: buy a light run it full blast - finished. Further, using our experiences in an attempt to affirm our bias perpetuate myths - we need to go the other way: validating our experiences with a framework is what is needed. The more experiences we can explain/validate, the  "potentially nicer" the framework.

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (7 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Gareth (@Wookii) and Josh (@JoshP12)
> 
> I also think it very pertinent to take a look at the expert advice of @Christel. She favours emulating nature with a long photoperiod and a lower lighting intensity. Please take a look at her posts and people can see for themselves what she suggests/recommends.
> 
> JPC


In her book, she has the preferences for every plant.

Her book is gold.

Her substrate/soil analysis … light/photoperiod tracking … water analysis …. Etc etc


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Aug 2021)

Clause: You can manipulate and adapt any of these factors and obtain success as long as you accommodate the rest of the factors to suit your manipulation.

*The criteria that yields highest probability for system-wide (fish, plants, etc etc) success: *


CategoryWhat to doJustificationLIGHT Photoperiod6-14 hour photoperiodIt really depends on plant choice (and intensity though photoperiod will not replace intensity) as it dictates food.

I find 12 hours works well.LIGHT Intensity100% at lights on until lights off

If ramping is a possibility: at most give a 30 minute ramp up and 30 minute ramp down.Lights directly influence CO2 demand/consumption.

Too much ramp and we have too much change on CO2 demand.
This change means the injection rate is harder to set.
Harder on fish.



High light intensity means it is easier to dial in CO2 -- a 1/4 wheel turn can be MORE easily consumed at higher light rather than low light ... easier on fish. Plants will also cleanse the column.CO2 TimingWith lightsThe plant does not care what is in the column (20 ppm, 30 ppm, 70 ppm), they care about the gas trapped in their tissue.

Yes, these are related.

The plant takes time to begin photosynthesizing at “prime rate” (this can be noted with rapid increase in pH after about 3-5 hours from lights on.

What the plant cares about is the rate of refreshing the nutrients (hence the demand for optimal flow mentioned later) --

If you start before lights, you have no customers for CO2 - though you are filling the tissues with gas due to pH drop - but that filling of tissues un necessarily puts fish exposed.

Further, too high an injection rate and your fish won’t be able to keep up. Too low and the plants run out of CO2 … low O2 etc etc

With lights means you customers IMMEDIATELY so you can pump MORE (faster refresh rate) CO2 without adjusting injection rate.CO2 Injection rate/how to dial it inYou need to plummet pH down within at most 30 - 45 minutes.The plant will empty it’s CO2 tissue within that time frame - so get the pH where it needs to be (this can be done by “eye/feel” by simply setting injection rate and watching the system, then turning it up a little and watching, then turning it up some more if the fish look affected in ANY way, then look at flow/reduce the injection rate etc etc etc).

We can alleviate the time constraint by manipulating factors such as ferts:
This will allow 1 hour, 2 hour time to drop etc … 24/7 injection … etc.SubstrateAcidic/iron/nutrient rich/root tabsNeed a reserve as an optionFlowGet it right (and hardscape influences it)Not too fast or the plant can’t acquire nutrients/CO2

Not too slow or it won’t replenish it fast enough

Needs to be uniform, high turnover, low velocity.

Empiricism: watch the water moveFERTS: GH + KIf you can, aim for sacred
Ca:K:Mg -- 3:2:1

30/20/10 +/- all of these by guess/error

Dose up to these levels at water change

If you can’t, have at least 20 K and 10 Mg but high extremes of Ca will affect plant forms of SOME but not all plants.The idea here is to keep nutrient interactions, Coulomb’s law, at bay.

Hence doing this ALL at water changeFERTS: NO3/PO4At water change, dose to a target (maybe 6NO3, 3PO4 ... or full EI or whatever try Low N and high P ... ).

Then daily smaller amounts: Ex: .5NO3, .3PO4

Use K as the cation (KNO3), then you shouldn't need to worry about topping up K.The idea is that substrate has nutrient reserve, let the water have nutrient reserve as well.

Daily small amounts to top up and stay and keep nutrient interaction stable.

If you rely exclusively on feeding fish for N and P, you run a very tight rope, get very sexy growth, and can easily spawn cyano etc.FERTS: Micro + FeDaily minimal ~ .01 as iron proxy

If GH/KH is higher, you may need more.If you use CSM, you need to mix very concentrated solutions so that your ratios hold well.

You can circumvent this by dosing more, but remember you are going to get nutrient accumulation and as such you need to change water more often. That’s fine. But we can explain why in this framework.

You can rely on alternate days and uptake through the leaves, certainly, but daily will keep everything just right.

Pick the right chelate based on your KH.

Low KH, EDTA.
Moderate KH, DTPA.
High KH, MAYBE EDDHA … but DTPA probably work.


Gluconate works too.FERTS: KHLow KH will change pH faster than higher KH. Be aware that a 1/4 needle wheel turn may gas fish at low KH but not at higher - so if your equiptment is "not so good" then it is just harder.Le Chatelier's principleSurface agitationGo watch a lake on a moderately windy day. That’s what it should look like.You need surface agitation and it needs to be a nice ripple:

the more agitation,
the higher the injection rate,
The higher the rate of topping up CO2
The happier the plant



FiltrationWet/dry yields highest gas exchange (optimal surface agitation).

Canister with 10x flowMinimum media, no floss, a foam or two, purigen.TemperatureBuy Christel’s book:

Look up your plants
Find a temp that works for them

Buy a fish book:

Look up your fish
Find a temp that works for them


If the two don’t work, re-evaluate.

You should be able to find one that works ~ probably 25celcius.

These are my thoughts based on the framework that I proposed. Under the framework, this should yield the optimal system. But, I mean, other stuff works ... the framework explains why.

As always, challenge it so we can all grow.

Cheers,
Josh


----------



## erwin123 (8 Aug 2021)

> Too much ramp and we have too much change on CO2 demand





> If ramping is a possibility: at most give a 30 minute ramp up and 30 minute ramp down.





> The plant takes time to begin photosynthesizing at “prime rate” (this can be noted with rapid increase in pH after about 3-5 hours from lights on.



Thanks for the analysis.

Given that in nature there is 'sunrise', it seems natural that the plant takes time to react to lights on and doesn't begin photosynthesising at the 'prime rate' immediately?

Wouldn't this then suggest that ramping lighting is good? If you go 100% light at the start, only the algae benefits if the plant takes time to "react" to 'sunrise'? For example, some plants are 'closed' in the dark and take time to open/spread out their leaves on lights on? 30minutes sounds good, rather than something grudgingly done?



> Minimum media, no floss, a foam or two, purigen.


Because purigen is so 'fine', putting some floss before purigen prevents purigen from being blocked up too soon? If you only have coarse sponge, purigen and no floss, the purigen essentially starts acting like a fine filter floss?


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Aug 2021)

erwin123 said:


> Thanks for the analysis.
> 
> Given that in nature there is 'sunrise', it seems natural that the plant takes time to react to lights on and doesn't begin photosynthesising at the 'prime rate' immediately?
> 
> Wouldn't this then suggest that ramping lighting is good? If you go 100% light at the start, only the algae benefits if the plant takes time to "react" to 'sunrise'? For example, some plants are 'closed' in the dark and take time to open/spread out their leaves on lights on? 30minutes sounds good, rather than something grudgingly done?


Ramp is perfectly fine. But 4 hours and finding the perfect injection rate is much trickier since the co2 demand changes - the high injection needed later especially if compounded with high fertilizer Will stress fish early.

Overall it will be easier to dial it in with at most 30 minute ramp, yep. Since your injection rate should plummet by then and the plants should be going by then. They still photosynthesize the moment light hits and pearling should start soon thereafter but the prime rate I meant was a massive suck up of co2.



erwin123 said:


> Because purigen is so 'fine', putting some floss before purigen prevents purigen from being blocked up too soon? If you only have coarse sponge, purigen and no floss, the purigen essentially starts acting like a fine filter floss?


Yep, good idea. Debated not adding filtration in but just did. Don’t need purigen either just put it since it will minimize organic stress.

Thanks!!

Josh


----------



## jaypeecee (8 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> If you can, aim for sacred
> Ca:K:Mg -- 3:2:1


Hi @JoshP12 

Do you or anyone else know where this Golden Ratio comes from? I've recently been taking a close look at a Table (VII-2) that appears in _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ by Diana Walstad. In there, she lists two columns - one having the Critical Concentrations of each element for Elodea occidentalis and a second column giving the average measured nutrient concentrations of three of Ms. Walstad's own aquatic plants. The data presented in these two columns results in a Ca:K:Mg ratio of 3:8:1 and 1.4:7:1, respectively. I invite everyone to check and confirm these figures if you own Ms. Walstad's book. I will also re-check my figures.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (8 Aug 2021)

Hi @JoshP12 

I guess one explanation may simply be that there is a difference between the critical and optimum concentrations. But what's the explanation for Diana Walstad's plants?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (8 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> The benefits are system and user oriented. Discussing specific values of PAR is irrelevant: buy a light run it full blast - finished.


Yikes! 

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (8 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> I do not know too much about the specifics that makes PAR meters so expensive...


Hi @MichaelJ 

I suspect the reason for PAR sensors being expensive is because they tend to be aimed at professional markets - environmental monitoring and horticulture/agriculture come to mind. They are not aimed at hobbyists in general. As far as the electronics are concerned, careful layout is important so as not to be prone to interference. Then, there's the optics. And, sealing against water ingress although there is the option of using a fibre optic link from the tank to an external transimpedance amplifier.

JPC


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> Do you or anyone else know where this Golden Ratio comes from? I've recently been taking a close look at a Table (VII-2) that appears in _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ by Diana Walstad. In there, she lists two columns - one having the Critical Concentrations of each element for Elodea occidentalis and a second column giving the average measured nutrient concentrations of three of Ms. Walstad's own aquatic plants. The data presented in these two columns results in a Ca:K:Mg ratio of 3:8:1 and 1.4:7:1, respectively. I invite everyone to check and confirm these figures if you own Ms. Walstad's book. I will also re-check my figures.
> 
> JPC


First, I have no idea (and asked the same question myself), but I can guess. 

I checked out the table, it looks like it comes from by-weight analysis and this means that under those growing conditions (with access to column and root under her particular water chemistry) these plants were driven to this particular ratio. I am not so sure we can extrapolate that this fundamental ratio will extend to all conditions. For example, consider someone running a ketogenic diet: if I remember correctly, one thing that the body does to respond is to create more mitochondria in the brain to utilize the sugar that is available in the bloodstream while many of the other cells adapt to utilizing ketones. This means the demand on N/P/K/micros in our body is going to also change, I reckon. 

What I can say is this: Ca at 30 probably gives enough of a stabilizing buffer so that when we haphazardly dose our ferts and provide our pseudo-decent substrates with inferior microbiological diversity, the plant doesn't get "doped too bad" ... then Mg and K seem to work well at these ratios ... being golden, I am not surprised. Ca:K at 1.61 and K:Mg .61 ... will yield pure gorgeousness of some of the most demanding (unable to adapt to a wide array of conditions) plants. 

Natural waters don't need this because the roots and substrate are working together and the roots get everything they need for that environment under the particular water column chemistry ... OR the plant simply dies and we don't see it in those conditions ... so it can't adapt and natural selection prevails. 

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Yikes!
> 
> JPC


hehehehe. We aren't going to roast them with lasers so the plant will be fine!!!! (I run 4x AI Prime at 100% for 12 hours at 24 inch depth). I wouldn't think twice about making it 8 (aside from how to rig the system).


----------



## jaypeecee (8 Aug 2021)

Hi @JoshP12 

Hope to get back to you tomorrow. It's late here in Old Blighty!

JPC


----------



## JoshP12 (9 Aug 2021)

Upon reflection, there is one issue with too much surface agitation … diffusion of light.

Wet/dry with return with minimal agitation trumps all.

If you have good hardware for co2, then perhaps ease that agitation and don’t run 2 lights, just one(or still use 2!!! But get more for them!!) - hah — it really is balance since surface agitation let’s higher injection rate but low surface agitation with high light will yield a similar buffer.

obviously, shallow tank circumvents this.

It really is design thinking.

The nice thing is that the framework explains why these things influence the system … interestingly as we stray away from salts and into hardware we realize that optimizing hardware means optimizing the two most important resources: light and co2.

those resources allow the column to stay clean, as a resulting alleviating the issues posed by an “unbalanced” water column, chemically speaking.

neat.


----------



## jaypeecee (11 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Do you or anyone else know where this Golden Ratio comes from? I've recently been taking a close look at a Table (VII-2) that appears in _Ecology of the Planted Aquarium_ by Diana Walstad. In there, she lists two columns - one having the Critical Concentrations of each element for Elodea occidentalis and a second column giving the average measured nutrient concentrations of three of Ms. Walstad's own aquatic plants. The data presented in these two columns results in a Ca:K:Mg ratio of 3:8:1 and 1.4:7:1, respectively. I invite everyone to check and confirm these figures if you own Ms. Walstad's book. I will also re-check my figures.


Hi Everyone,

Does anyone else have any information/advice/thoughts about the optimum [Ca]:[K]:[Mg] ratio?

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (11 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Does anyone else have any information/advice/thoughts about the optimum [Ca]:[K]:[Mg] ratio?
> 
> JPC


Hi @jaypeecee  The ratios you quote from Ecology of the Planted aquarium VII-2 page 105 looks correct to me as well  (I get 2.8:8:1 and 1.4:6.8:1)....
I do not know the significance of this plant analysis (not water analysis) and how that would translate into how we condition our tank water with respect to Ca K and Mg dosing - but would like to know more as well.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## jaypeecee (11 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> The ratios you quote from Ecology of the Planted aquarium VII-2 page 105 looks correct to me as well (I get 2.8:8:1 and 1.4:6.8:1)....
> I do not know the significance of this plant analysis (not water analysis) and how that would translate into how we condition our tank water with respect to Ca K and Mg dosing - but would like to know as well.


Hi @MichaelJ 

I'll link @Zeus. at this point. He has done a lot of work investigating plant nutrients and optimum ratios. Perhaps he can shed some light (pun intended) on this. And it would be interesting to see how well the optimum plant nutrient ratio aligns with the needs of our livestock.

JPC


----------



## plantnoobdude (11 Aug 2021)

I just use Ca:Mg in 3:1 ratio at water change. levels drop through out week and replenished at water change. never had any issues with it so far. not much consideration to K levels, just dosing 20ppm K per week.


----------



## MichaelJ (12 Aug 2021)

plantnoobdude said:


> I just use Ca:Mg in 3:1 ratio at water change. levels drop through out week and replenished at water change. never had any issues with it so far. not much consideration to K levels, just dosing 20ppm K per week.


I am doing Ca:Mg at about 3:1 as well and plants and livestock are fine with that. There was a recent comment by @ceg4048 about the insignificance of ratios. In an aquatic environment I suppose it only really matters that the nutrients are there and readily available for the plants - kind of makes sense compared to the more static environment of terrestrial soil - but that is probably not the reason why it is so. I would like to know more about this though.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Zeus. (12 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> He has done a lot of work investigating plant nutrients and optimum ratios


Well I have done quite a bit on the IFC Calculator esp with the 'beta' ReminCalculator I have put together. You need to use a Ca:Mg ratio and the default ratio is 3:1. Plus been able to 'crack' more commercial remineralisers also supplying the Ca:Mg:K ratio where I can. It was a bit of a leap of faith when I choose to drop ppm and go for dGH and dKH and slip in ratios, it was a eureka moment when it all worked





As to a 'magic ratio' between any of the elements our plants need I am agnostic about, one of my theory's is that ratios is like looking at clouds in the sky and seeing human faces- you will find some but they are meaningless. before I moved the tap water I got had about 140 ppm Ca and 5ppm Mg so do we correct the ratio to 3:1, then do we extend it to cover the Ca:Mg:K ratio, then what about the N: P:K ratio, trying to balance a Ca:Mg:K: P:N is 🤯

PlantBrain -T Barr, went on about ratios quite a bit a noticed from his historical post, then all goes quite about ratios which makes me think he also became agnostic about them when he had water with low Ca relative to the Mg and his plants still did fine.

Liebig's law seems to fit well IMO, the presence of ratios is 'faces in clouds'


----------



## JoshP12 (12 Aug 2021)

Hi all,

two things I should add:
1) I just want to clarify that I never said ratios are important. I claimed nutrients interact via Coulomb’s law. EDIT: not only nutrients … plants polarize their leaves to enable co2 acquisition … everything interacts 
2) my suggestion to obey the 3:2:1 ratio with GH around 5 was to yield the highest probability of success.

obviously you can grow plants out of these parameters - I do. So does nature.

BUT again it doesn’t matter what our experience is unless we can validate it —— WHY?!?! The plant tops it up from substrate.  This framework explains why ratios are not as important when viewed as an entire system.

i reckon that plants grow in inert substrate require more attention to water parameters and/or more water changes.

edit: and we need to be clear that there exists many ratios in the system: substrate, water column, in the plant, at each moment in time of the dynamic plant system (I.e. metabolic demand changes). They are living so they change and their demands and needs change. During the alternation of generations, I reckon the demand on nutrients changes as ours does as we age. As plant shades etc. Redistribution of nutrients. Where the mobile nutrient went - that’s a ratio of what can be given what can’t where did it get it from —- it adapts. But this is irrelevant if it cannot acquire what it actually needs from the column/substrate - so we provide optimal conditions to facilitate nutrient delivery.

Josh


----------



## MichaelJ (12 Aug 2021)

I think this comment by @X3NiTH provides a helpful insight to the Ca:Mg ratio discussion.


----------



## JoshP12 (12 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> I think this comment by @X3NiTH provides a helpful insight to the Ca:Mg ratio discussion.


Totally. It illustrates what plant tissue requires - we need not provide anything out of what is needed. It is almost the meta of Leidbig, a lens into a potential true "ceiling".

But we are allowed ... and if we do, the plant may be able to move that where it is needed. For example, suppose that PO4 is needed in the leaf and it is absent of the column ... but it is present at the root ... well let's go ahead and transport it. Conversely, suppose that PO4 is needed for root developement but your substrate is inert ... load the column with PO4 and have the leaves move it down: do this on start up and voilla rapid root growth ... hurrying your establishment. Remember, you force feed phosphate via the plant leaf pathways I linked in my first post. Force feed phosphate ... through the column ... drive demand of all nutrients ... BOOM super fast establishment -- provided everything is provided.

EDIT: Try this with Potassium and what happens? Nothing. Why are ADA plants smaller than EI plants (despite feeding EI levels of K --- yet their growth rates are nearly identical: substrate tops off the rest)? Because the plant can moderate potassium - but potassium is essential in activating photosynthesis ... specifically in enzymatic activity. We cannot withold it - that's why even in low GH, most people dose at least 15 K ... but some don't ... and those that don't it is ok! Because the plant tops itself off from substrate OR we simply reduce the demand by ensuring that potassium is not the limiting nutrient ... make it nitrogen -- and this isn't coincidence -- Amino acids are the structural building blocks of all protein ... despite Phosphate driving ATP ... we need proteins first to build the organelles. As such, limit N and voilla you can keep K above the Leidbig ceiling. But you can MORE easily induce deficiency in this way -- forget to feed your fish and you can induce algae if your substrate runs out -- why? Because if you overfeed you drive demand via N availability. Simple. So you are on a tight rope between feeding and not feeding. But can potassium affect nutrient acquisition? Certainly, it is a positively charged species and as such repels other postive stuff and attracts negative stuff (organics)... the more stuff the more tug o war ... but perhaps the plant can accomodate ... of course it can ... by polarizing leaf, using pathways, growing a certain way ... blah blah blah ... take all these things and this is why twisting is associated with "potassium deficiency" ... unless it is topped up from substrate .... aha this is the crux of why "some people say excess works or it doesn't" -- Think I went on a rant. Sorry about that! But let's keep going ... Given a plant species, there will be a unique value (relative to ALL parameters in question) such that the effects of Coulomb is "masked" and can be misinterpreted as "just leidbig driving everything". Try it. Pull a nutrient from your dosing and watch the tank crash ... each plant crashes at different rates. -- The easiest is to just stop turning on CO2 for two days, you can immediately see which ones demand more CO2 than the others (whether that is free CO2 in the column OR the pH that facilitates CO2 acquisition) ... THIS will be different based on your KH. BUT this won't be true if you use low light ... it will take you two weeks to notice anything -- compound this with low temperatuer and it may take even longer (WHY - it requires longer to use up the stores from your previous feeding) ---- NOTE: My "days" 2 days and 2 weeks are approximates and completely meaningless. Last one: So why advocate for higher values of light, because the system as a whole benefits more ... but this is ALSO dependent on our goals as a fishkeeper; so at times, low light is suitable and other times high light is.

But what happens when hobbyist attempt to grow plants under .3 Ca and .1 Mg in the column with inert substrate.

Or 300 Ca and 100 Mg ... with inert substrate.

Both cases, it isn't going to work _well. _

Why? Because there is an assumption that what you put in the water actually makes it into the plant. And this assumption is the crux of the argument between common ideologies of the hobby. This is why we cannot quote Leidbig in the absence of Coulomb and we cannot quote Coulomb in the absence of Leidbig. And if we think on this, we will realize something (and I will come out and say it):
1) EI = Leidbig
2) Anti-EI = Coulomb

We've missed it. Coulomb facilitates acquisition. Leidbig dictates acquisition.

Moreover, if you throw an active substrate into the mix, then perhaps the plant can top up any short comings and grow ... for the first few months and then the tank crashes. This is a regularly reported phenomena by people in the hobby and often they throw out substrate and start again ... but why then can people grow in inert (here's the crux ... they do 3x weekly water change and load up to perfect targets by percent each time   ... this will obviously work and it can be illustrated by this framework --- suppose on the other hand that you have far too many species in that same tank ... then it will fail - UNLESS you pick plants appropriately to grow together).



Josh

EDIT: Need to add that substrate masks our inadequacies to providing optimal water conditions catered to each species and it's unique ability to acquire nutrients. It masks the effects of Coulomn, since it provides a bank of nutrients for the plant to access at all times --- but we can't assume it's free -- if the nutrients aren't within a range of acquisition for roots, then it won't work. Now OF COURSE the plant can adapt how it acquires nutrients from its roots and THIS will very likely influence the microbiology that grow around the root facilitating nutrient motion into plant tissue -- it's absolutely remarkable -- this is equivalent to different plant forms under different water column conditions that facilitate nutrient acquisition and CO2 acquisition at leaf (and generally shoot tissue) interface.


----------



## jaypeecee (13 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Liebig's law seems to fit well IMO, the presence of ratios is 'faces in clouds'


Hi @Zeus. 

Many thanks for your feedback. I would add more to this reply but my aging PC is having a 'go-slow funny half hour'!

JPC


----------



## MichaelJ (14 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> my aging PC is having a 'go-slow funny half hour'!


Hi @jaypeecee ... is that what it is called ?   My relatively new iMac is doing that regularly... so it's not just an old PC thing 


jaypeecee said:


> Hi @MichaelJ
> 
> I suspect the reason for PAR sensors being expensive is because they tend to be aimed at professional markets - environmental monitoring and horticulture/agriculture come to mind. They are not aimed at hobbyists in general.


Very true. Low volume usually equals high price...

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Zeus. (14 Aug 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> I would add more to this reply but my aging PC is having a 'go-slow funny half hour'!



Sounds like it may be a classic 'PEBCAK' error to me 😆
​


----------



## jaypeecee (14 Aug 2021)

Zeus. said:


> Sounds like it may be a classic 'PEBCAK' error to me 😆


Hi @Zeus. 

C-h-e-e-k-y! I appear to be having a problem with UKAPS at the moment. But, my VPN connection may be the culprit. If I can't solve it, I'll contact the Admins.

JPC


----------



## JoshP12 (28 Aug 2021)

A good question: Why is Tropica nutrition so awesome? Why do copy cats without Urea not perform as well? Why does Urea overdosing not work if Urea provides CO2 and Nitrogen via enzyme Urease -- I mean CO2 without worrying about gases!?!

Stuff we need:
1: Nitrogen drives growth (you can increase your own metabolism by increase your protein - nitrogen - intake ... and I reckon not ONLY due the thermic effect).
2: Fix a species. For each "amount" of N, there will be a unique amount sugar - neccesarily CO2 - that is required to metabolize it. It has to use it, due to gavage water column feeding of NO3 (see the first post photo).
3: An example of a species that needs more CO2 for each N is ... hopefully no surprise to anyone: Rotala Macrandra.

This is why people say these "sensitive" species do better under low NO3 in the column AND require more CO2 (I mean we can't control NO3 liberated into the column, come on).

More CO2, localized at the leaf (via good flow), WILL solve every issue. But to gavage feed NO3 and then dope the tank with high levels of CO2 is cruel to the livestock. Not all livestock, ofcourse, but the ones that are not used to such a low pH and so much free CO2.

Ok, now that we see this balance of N and CO2, why is a common advice to get proper plant forms on MORE sensitive species to reduce N? Well, because to get the CO2 you need to match your Nitrogen forced feed on those particular species will cause immense amounts of discomfort to livestock. Look at the photos of "beautiful tanks", you can tell how people dose by looking at the fish ... or the absence of fish entirely.

Reducing light will work ... but we established above how important it is NOT to restrict light.

If you restrict N (and P) too far, the tank isn't stable ... overfeeding of fish will cause unhealthy plants, algae etc (and a good exercise would be to understand that statement from what I wrote in the post). Sound familiar? Old school ideology.

So, dosing some N and P is good. Too much NO3 and we go back to the above, driving CO2 demand.

Ok Why is Tropica so great? They dose Urea too ... CO2 pack-a-punch. So, classic, get rid of all NO3 and dose only Urea ... genius. BUT it won't work. Why? Same thing.

If we think about evolution - the plant would have ALWAYS been in an environment where Nitrate and ammonia are present. And the transportation of these nutrients during low tide, high tide, etc etc etc is different since you need to use active transport over the root etc.

So, the "smartest" plant would assign jobs to both Urea and NO3. Welcome Tropica: No3 and Urea over the week. Genius. This is why Tropica tanks look so beautiful. It is also why ADA looks so beautiful --

How can we circumvent this with only NO3? Stock heavy and feed lots. I hope this sounds familiar to many readers.

To understand the latter, we need to connect that Nitrate requires CO2 to convert it to Ammonia ... so if you give no ammonia, you need EVEN MORE CO2 to compensate (and if you have no nitrate and just ammonia); of course the plant can do it ... or it wouldn't have survived.

We could even analze the lines of fertilizers ... the ones for "form and colour" are always leaner in N (and P) ... and if you look at cases where people switch from richer lines of the exact same fertilizer to leaner varietals (so they have issues with a richer of the same brand), it is always to alleviate stunting, formation, compactness, etc etc ... all common CO2-related/nutrient-related issues (and I put both because they are all the exact same thing).

*The best advice (unless you want a wild ride): *Buy a pre-made fertilzer (or mimic it properly) and dose it as per the instructions.


Oh, one more thing, in photos if we look carefully at the fish species and contrast it to the plant form and plant selection and observe the "state" of them ... they are always well-matched for pH/CO2 OR one of the living things are suffering.

Also ... every method can work and provide a healthy tank.

Cheers,
Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Aug 2021)

Well, I think that covers most issues I’ve read about/come across/had and explains the fixes and why each system works. That urea piece was missing from everything before.


If anyone thinks anything is incorrect/out of place, I’d appreciate some feedback.


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> A good question: Why is Tropica nutrition so awesome? Why do copy cats without Urea not perform as well?


Hi @JoshP12  Not sure I ever saw urea listed as an ingredient on Tropical Premium or Specialized? - it might be in there of course. If urea is such a potent/beneficial compound why isn't it used more in off-the-shelf aquatic plant fertilizers? 
I've used Tropica for years (recently and in the past).  Good product, but expensive in the long run and somewhat harder to find here in the US. I completely switched over to DIY dry dosing NPK and a a liquid agriculture micro blend a while ago. seems to be doing just as well as Tropica did in my two heavily planted low-tech tanks. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12  Not sure I ever saw urea listed as an ingredient on Tropical Premium or Specialized? - it might be in there of course. If urea is such a potent/beneficial compound why isn't it used more in off-the-shelf aquatic plant fertilizers?
> I've used Tropica for years (recently and in the past).  Good product, but expensive in the long run and somewhat harder to find here in the US. I completely switched over to DIY dry dosing NPK and a a liquid agriculture micro blend a while ago. seems to be doing just as well as Tropica did in my two heavily planted low-tech tanks.
> 
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights.
> ...


Hey Michael!
It is used in seachem, ADA, and Tropica.

Will only notice under more demanding species and with its use probably can get by with less co2 injection. In low tech, could keep “more demanding” species potentially than you could without. Or more stability etc. It could even be an observation of shorter internodes vs longer so favoured plant forms.

Kind of like adding glut.



Josh


----------



## MichaelJ (29 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Hey Michael!
> It is used in seachem, ADA, and Tropica.
> 
> Will only notice under more demanding species and with its use probably can get by with less co2 injection. In low tech, could keep “more demanding” species potentially than you could without. Or more stability etc. It could even be an observation of shorter internodes vs longer so favoured plant forms.
> ...


Hi @JoshP12   OK, interesting. I might look into dosing urea separately. 
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12   OK, interesting. I might look into dosing urea separately.
> Cheers,
> Michael



keen to know how it works out.


----------



## MichaelJ (30 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> keen to know how it works out.


Hi @JoshP12 Can you recommend a product? and possibly dosing regime for a 151L (40 US gallon) tank? I see mentions of 0.5 ppm weekly.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12 Can you recommend a product? and possibly dosing regime for a 151L (40 US gallon) tank? I see mentions of 0.5 ppm weekly.
> Cheers,
> Michael



Personally, I won’t keep urea in my house due to MSDS (for the same reason I won’t keep glut or use excel in my tank).

If I went the urea route, I’d simply buy into a brand and pay for the fertilizer.

To get around buying ferts, I would err on stocking heavier and feeding more while dosing low Nitrate into the column.

In fact, this is exactly what I am adjusting my current regime to .

Josh


----------



## MichaelJ (30 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Personally, I won’t keep urea in my house due to MSDS (for the same reason I won’t keep glut or use excel in my tank).


well, didn't realize it would be a safety hazard  ... well, maybe I'll skip this one  And I am not really inclined to go back and pay money for commercial aquatic fertilizers.


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> well, didn't realize it would be a safety hazard  ... well, maybe I'll skip this one


I don't want to bias you from making personal decisions. Many people use gluteraldehyde and also Urea-formaldehyde in their homes.

I will share that for me, it is the carcinogenic factor. Now, I use slow-release tabs with UF in it -- but I don't mix anything with it.

One can argue that eating PAH on BBQ food or even smelling burnt gasoline from a truck that passes by is equally likely and one should be more concerned with other things etc.

It truly is a personal decision. Further, the reason Seachem can sell the concentration they do is because at suggested doses, it remains below a provable exposure threshold -- this is not a slight, it is to illustrate that risk-benefit analysis can be done in this decision as well.

.

Josh


----------



## MichaelJ (30 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> I will share that for me, it is the carcinogenic factor. Now, I use slow-release tabs with UF in it -- but I don't mix anything with it.


Hi @JoshP12 Which tabs are you using?


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12 Which tabs are you using?


Miracle Gro slo release in gel caps (all natural - I’ve used both animal and vegan - from health foods store or online).

Roll ‘em up, plunk ‘em in!

They are potent.


----------



## MichaelJ (30 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Miracle Gro slo release in gel caps (all natural - I’ve used both animal and vegan - from health foods store or online).
> 
> Roll ‘em up, plunk ‘em in!
> 
> They are potent.


@JoshP12  Thanks... yep, I've seen other people here mention Miracle Gro... I should be able to find it on amazon. I'll have to see how it will factor in with my current Macro and Micro dosing.
Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> @JoshP12  Thanks... yep, I've seen other people here mention Miracle Gro... I should be able to find it on amazon. I'll have to see how it will factor in with my current Macro and Micro dosing.
> Cheers,
> Michael



Its like an additional investment. Just put them in the substrate and they act as a reserve to top off water column (via obeying leidbig). So if you don’t dose the column, the roots can access nutrients from substrate. It is a very effective tool as the plant can virtually choose what it wants from the substrate, instead of being fed through the column. So if your availability (whether demand or acquisition) is off for one of your species, it can probably just top itself off from its roots. The ultimate is basically doing both -- feed the column "the basics" minimally, then let each of your _poorly_ picked species (since we pick for selfish reasons often lol), struggle to adapt and give them a buffet in substrate.

I put one tab every 6 inche square about I'd say, then just when I remember I replace it. Done both inert and high CEC substrate. Except on startup - LOAD that sucker up with nutrients on startup basically make ADA powersand/soil. Daily water change + high light + good temp + high CO2 + no livestock.

Josh


----------



## MichaelJ (30 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Its like an additional investment. Just put them in the substrate and they act as a reserve to top off water column (via obeying leidbig). So if you don’t dose the column, the roots can access nutrients from substrate. It is a very effective tool as the plant can virtually choose what it wants from the substrate, instead of being fed through the column. So if your availability (whether demand or acquisition) is off for one of your species, it can probably just top itself off from its roots. The ultimate is basically doing both -- feed the column "the basics" minimally, then let each of your _poorly_ picked species (since we pick for selfish reasons often lol), struggle to adapt and give them a buffet in substrate.


Hi @JoshP12  Thanks for the additional info. I will try it out. I am not really too worried about any downsides with over-fertilization - as long as it wont jeopardize the livestock of course.


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Aug 2021)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12  Thanks for the additional info. I will try it out. I am not really too worried about any downsides with over-fertilization - as long as it wont jeopardize the livestock of course.


My pleasure.

Livestock isn't going to care too much for nitrate and phosphate levels unless you don't change water for months. I think I linked some studies in some thread somewhere -- it was like 100ppm of N (which means more Nitrate) . Certainly, if you lard in micros to crazy levels, those metals could very potentially get your fish, but not in the concentrations EI prescribes.

Intuitively, I think I understand what you mean about over-fertilizing; though, I am not sure this concept exists. If you fertilize more, you just need more of everything else, including CO2: and with species that have lower demand of CO2 for each mol of "the largest influencing nutrient for that species", your fish will be fine; if the species demands more CO2 per mol of "the largest influencing nutrient for that species (very likely nitrogen)", then you may need more CO2 to gain ideal plant forms and plant health and that could jeopardize your fish. Or, you turn down the light and hope that plant can still get enough food ... but then a plant which prefers red, turns greenish (AR and Macrandra are examples) -- also long internodes to get that atmospheric gas.

To illustrate I dosed 30NO3 and 10PO4 a week for months and saw no issue with any species OTHER than "advanced" ones by Tropica categories. And even not all of those - some are green and come from nutrient-rich waters so they are used to creating mechanisms to accomodate high metabolic demand OR they simply adapted to having lower metabolic demand (like we would if we ate calorie-restricted meals for an extended period of time). The easy and most medium are simply fine - lots don't come from high CO2 waters or experience lots of "air exposure" time or have 2000PAR of sunlight (and have adapted to having LOADS of energy).

Josh

EDIT: I should add that my fish were not distressed from CO2 and I did not wait until they gasp and then turn it down just a bit. I could easily circumvent the issue I ssaw from the advanced ones by putting my livestock in distress and adding more CO2. It will work.


----------



## MichaelJ (31 Aug 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> My pleasure.
> 
> Livestock isn't going to care too much for nitrate and phosphate levels unless you don't change water for months. I think I linked some studies in some thread somewhere -- it was like 100ppm of N (which means more Nitrate) . Certainly, if you lard in micros to crazy levels, those metals could very potentially get your fish, but not in the concentrations EI prescribes.


Right. I already routinely have 20-40ppm of NO3 and 20ppm of PO4 and probably around 80ppm of K.



JoshP12 said:


> Intuitively, I think I understand what you mean about over-fertilizing; though, I am not sure this concept exists.


Agreed...I was mostly thinking along the lines of hitting limits for the livestock, which are arguable very high for all the Macros at least.


Cheers,
Michael


----------



## dw1305 (31 Aug 2021)

Hi all, 


MichaelJ said:


> If urea is such a potent/beneficial compound why isn't it used more in off-the-shelf aquatic plant fertilizers?


I assume it is because of the potential issues with ammonia (NH3). 


JoshP12 said:


> Miracle Gro slo release in gel caps


I'm still using the liquid formulation of  <"Miracle-Gro"> and I know that @Zeus. and @jaypeecee have experimented with urea dosing. 


MichaelJ said:


> mention Miracle Gro... I should be able to find it on amazon


It is an American product so I would expect that you can find it  stateside.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Dec 2021)

Well ... got my Christmas Gift. The framework is only a piece of the puzzle.

My current set up has emersed growth and the prediction for plant forms under CO2/light "unlimited" conditions was "flawed"






Super long internodes, lots of side shoots, ... it's growing like an EI plant under lean N/P. But there are roots ... and there is soil ... and there is decay (nutrient source) and LOADS of CO2 and light.

Forgot that this thing is alive.

*The new framework: 

Living thing model: 
Assumption: the plant wants to survive

The plant uses 
1) the nutrient acquisition model, and 
2) genetic pre-disposition *

To make choices that support the assumption! Seems obvious (the extended internodes above are succession planning).

We can further see this if you let a dutch tank grow out with lots of species (in my previous case was about 35+ species in the tank), the length of internodes, "how straight it grows vs. horizontal to send shoots and outcompete surrounding plants", leaf size, leaf color, etc etc. Don't have photos but recall noticing plant forms change as "surrounding plants grew in" <-- we can say oh it's obvious flow patterns and co2 availability and light -->

*but it's naive: chicken egg? Neither -- when you attribute flow/co2/light, you accredit yourself. When you use the living thing model, you accredit the plant.*

The irony is when you give the plant the credit it deserves, we can now explain why rotalas go horizontal under "high light conditions" --> you all know what I am talking about (succession planning! Like clockwork, the plant sends side shoots within a "time period" of doing that!!!!!!!)


*a parrallel: *The nutrient acquisition model is what society gives you. The genetic predisposition is what your parents give you. Between the two of those, you are "geared" to make choices in life ... if you do something that you "shouldn't" have been able to do (rags to riches example - just one example and extreme), then you are an emodiment of evolution.

So, I haven't had coffee with a plant, but I think it is safe to say that:
1) The plant - with the nutrient acquisition model - surveys what nutrients it can readily access from it's "home" and
2) The plant - with its genetic predisosition - is given a series of tools that it can use to cope with conditions that stray to far from an "optimal" (defined as the "perfect set of conditions for the plant to grow" <-- though I think this concept is flawed as the by the nature of time, motion, and inertia, the plant will only thrive in a dynamic system -- the only reason these plants are here today is because they thrive under stress ... the weak were outcompeted).
3) It takes the information from 1), and assesses the current situation with the tools of 2), and voilla makes a choice!

Under N/P limited conditions, we get compact growth with minimal side shoots -- I reckon under HIGH HIGH HIGH CO2 with rich substrate, the plant would probably get large internodes and loads of side shoots -- because the plant is creating a solar hub where it can gain an energy capital ... until it has enough to make an investment.

Sorry to say ... everyone + a few more people are right.


Josh

Ps and example of genetic predisposition could be the unique amount of energy required per unit of Nitrogen in the system … or a unique “EI” per species … for example Anubis can only grow so fast so it may look unaffected under 50pppm nitrate vs say Macrandra under the same conditions.


----------



## jaypeecee (24 Dec 2021)

Hi @JoshP12 

Good to see you back online!

Now, I have to be honest and say that I am not familiar with either the "Living thing model" or the "Nutrient Acquisition Model". But, I recognize a beautiful, healthy plant when I see one!

Happy Christmas!

JPC


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Dec 2021)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @JoshP12
> 
> Good to see you back online!
> 
> ...



I made them up! Lol

Nutrient acquisition model is in this thread from the get go. Living thing model is the new and improved!

Merry Christmas John . Great to see you too.


----------



## erwin123 (25 Dec 2021)

JoshP12 said:


> Well ... got my Christmas Gift. The framework is only a piece of the puzzle.
> 
> My current set up has emersed growth and the prediction for plant forms under CO2/light "unlimited" conditions was "flawed"







Heres my emersed growth -the Polygnum 'Sao Paolo' is sprouting a huge amount of sideshoots and has outcompeted Ludwigia "Super Red" by being taller and shading the Ludwigia
Thats nature for you, plants want to colonise as much surface area as possible?


----------



## Hufsa (12 Jan 2022)

Forgive me if I have missed something during this thread, but I wanted to ask how do rhizome plants (or basically any plant with only water around the roots and not substrate), fit into this @JoshP12
Ive been keeping an eye on the development of the theories lately but to be honest some of it makes my head spin a little bit so may have missed things.
It seems stemplant focused, which is fine of course, it just leaves me with questions about the rhizome plants.

My other question is, would you say that inert substrates are not viable for using this method?
Are none of our aquarium plants growing in relatively inert sand/gravel in the wild?

If possible, could you put it in as simple terms as you can?
Im not trying to be impolite, just curious and genuinely want to understand 😊


----------



## JoshP12 (12 Jan 2022)

Hufsa said:


> Forgive me if I have missed something during this thread,


Hi Hufsa!! No worries at all. Brain just dumps it all out so surely it can be clarified.


Hufsa said:


> but I wanted to ask how do rhizome plants (or basically any plant with only water around the roots and not substrate), fit into this


Would utilize water column ferts exclusively.

If the roots get access to any form of substrate, then they can start pulling. I've placed epiphytes in different locations and had some with roots in and some out and over a long period of time, you can see the differences. Generally, these epiphytes are the least sensitive as have probably adapted to having to do this more often. But they also grip pretty intensely (ripping anubias off wood isn't so simple compared to a stem) -- so once they establish they seem to "figure it out and deal".


Hufsa said:


> @JoshP12
> Ive been keeping an eye on the development of the theories lately but to be honest some of it makes my head spin a little bit so may have missed things.


Me too.


Hufsa said:


> It seems stemplant focused, which is fine of course, it just leaves me with questions about the rhizome plants.


I think the best way to put it is plants get nutrients from substrate and the column. The "state" (ratios balance etc etc) of the medium (substrate or column) in conjunction with the plants ability to moderate intake (and the symbiosis with bacterial conditions) will determine if the plant can obtain the nutrients required for growth in proper proportions.

First part is Coulomb
Second part is evolution
Third part is Leidbig

** If only water column, then all the same applies but only to water column (so if a plant genetically struggles with the column due to the nature of it, then your conditions need to be so bang on that they compensate for the inability for the plant to moderate intake) -- in other words, the substrate and water column give you two roads for success - together we have the highest chance of meeting with success -- with only one road (the column), you need to cater the conditions perfectly for that plant (like someone who is picky for dinner, you need to cook for them exactly what they like or they starve (just pretend) .. and now suppose they can't eat solids, you need to make even more accomodations to their food acquisition to suit their needs <--- THIS is like saying low Nitrate in column prevents forced metabolism (unique to the plant -- harder plants need higher sugar demands), neccesarily higher CO2 demand -- so we blend their food to make life easier.).


Hufsa said:


> My other question is, would you say that inert substrates are not viable for using this method?


It is viable contingent on **. In inert, more water changes and dose targets to the column. If I was doing an inert aquascape, I'd make perfect water at perfect targets that I want (this is going to be determined by experiment/experience ... tried and true GH 5 etc),

If you change 80% water, then put 80% of your targets back. And micro daily.

In some ways, it may be easier if you know your plants and how they respond to water column fertilization. You just fill it up to perfect water, do a water change - top up the targets - go from there.


Hufsa said:


> Are none of our aquarium plants growing in relatively inert sand/gravel in the wild?


Hmmm ... don't know. But their roots probably have access to some form of nutrients. In any case, if it isn't in the substrate, it's in the water. And any decomposition in substrate will feed the roots via bacteria etc.


Hufsa said:


> If possible, could you put it in as simple terms as you can?
> Im not trying to be impolite, just curious and genuinely want to understand 😊


No offense taken . Will clarify anything.


***think it's important to say that the concept of root feeders vs column feeders was "debunked" but the concept was never fleshed out. An example is instructions. I can read. I can listen. I can do both things and can learn the instructions in both ways. I might be better equipped (just pretend) to listen than read but that doesn't mean that if I had to read, I won't make due - I'll get the instructions, but you could have made my life easier (and saved time, maybe prevented a melt down (see what I did there - plants melting  )) by reading them to me.

EDIT: I also could be wrong  ... but I can't find a counterexample or an observation or a statement that can't be justified with this thinking. If we find one, then we can re-evaluate the framework to fit it in.


----------

