# A reflection - putting it all into one scape



## JoshP12 (20 Aug 2022)

Hi all,

I wanted to compile a reflection of all my "phases of the tank I have/tank" and start a new journal putting everything I have learned into action in a brand new scape in the same tank.

Some history from day 1 and what I learned:

1) Tried to be a pro with a dry start:





Dry starts melt ...



Plants didn't grow ... so I called seachem ... turns out they need NPK:

Plants need NPK:




It didn't look like I imagined ... turns out CO2 is a thing:




Begged for a bigger tank:





Thought I was fancy with the negative space ... just before this, I learned that plants need light ... was afraid to use it and ran the lights at 10% - nothing grew.

Now we're talking ... Flow must be a thing ...




I guess I am supposed to dose EI oh and sand is for the weak ...




Too cheap to buy other plants:





Alright I'll try out something harder .... macrandra mini butterfly you were the death of me ... HC blast you ... Aromatica  oh you are so pretty ... Damn ... CO2 is very hard.





Everything grows but this stupid macrandra ...





hmmm ... It's all growing but the water is cloudy.  ... learned about bacterial role ... boom bust cycles with planned water change/UV killing/association with particular algae ... still have no clue how to do CO2 ... fish were stressed for more of the latter life.




macrandra mini ... you suck





That's it ... I am doing this right!





So it grew ... but still cloudyish ... Upped to 4x lights





Alritey ... finally feel like I got the hang of this ... had tested lean/rich dosing and had slightly played with CO2.

Let's plant ...







It was this version that I destroyed with CO2, spawned the algaes, changed plant forms and learned loads. Final play with GH influencing plant forms ... it does ... but it's relative to the rest of the params.

These are easier:




This was last optimal:


 <--but I didn't have to dissolve calcium ...and probably had to water change a bit more often ... but it was auto water change and auto doser ... and I had to pay more attention to stunts/deformities ... but I didn't have to dissolve calcium or pull out GH booster ... and left the thing automatic.

Then I stopped changing water, stopped dosing, removed CO2, and watched ...




Learned about natures ebb and flow ... fed loads of food and watched which plants took over the top, which ones died ... of course the more demanding species died first ... Erio etc.

~ 8 months later the entire tank had bred ... though I watched certain species respond to changes -- example was having spraybar spray directly into water to mimic rainfall and maximum O2 ... for most of the tank ... no labyrnth fish breed --- then I increase water level and suddenly sparkling gourami babies ... bubble nest + agitation?





Crypts and Buce survived ... LOL

And now for the next chapter.

*Lights: *4x AI prime (1 is brand new and higher PAR and better coloration, 1 struggles to put out cool white light ... will have to think about plant placement under these beams)
*Tank: *65 gallons 18 inch deep, 36 inch wide, 24 inch tall ... ABSOLUTE WORST DIMENSIONS ... so I will be building a black "sump inside the tank" out of plexiglass with a weir on top and run one side of the canister in it to hide temp/co2/etc and then have one output on the front right hand side of the tank with black plexi covering the front of the tank. The idea is to take part of the width out of perception. In that same way, I will stack up soil at least 10 inches to again lift my entire frame of reference to mimic something as close to optimal dimensions that I can for scaping.

ADA:




Probably mimic the 75P.

I will also have to adjust where I put lights ... so probably put the weak one dead centre where I have that stupid bar across the top of my tank and then sprinkle the other three properly.

*Water change: *There will be a hidden pump permanently in the tank so I can run 80% water out and then I'll run the tap directly in with a tap on the side of the tank ... I am far too lazy to be lugging pumps or buckets. Frequency will be as needed - probably 1/day for the first month and then ween off as needed.

*Water params: *Water is roughly 9Ca/2Mg coming out of tap and also 1.5ish KH ... probably just dose it up 5Mg call it a day.

*Ferts: *Daily micro CSM+B super concentration solution at .015 ppm Fe daily as proxy for rest dosed at lights on. NP will be roughyl 1 ppm nitrate and .5 phosphate and ~ 16 potassium at all times ... dosed at water change and then topped up to percentage of water changed. If weekly water change, then will dose 10% of the pre-mixed solution daily and then pull water out probably 90% ish, then dose back to targets ... rinse and repeat.




*CO2: *Timed with lights and run through canister filter.

*Lights:* 10 minute ramp up, 10 minute ramp down, 8-10 hour photoperiod.

*Soil:* All my old soil, I will remove, dope up with NPK miracle gro, bag up in Nylon painting bags and create a strong base to support a preliminary layer of black earth from local garden shop and then top the entire thing with 1-2 inches of aquasoil. The soil from my tank is a mixture of Tropica aquasoil and fluorite, crushed dragonstone, some random pebbles and some rocks.

It currently sits filled with soil while I get the bags delivered, and plan how to cut and place the plexiglass.

Thanks for letting me post!

Josh


----------



## John q (20 Aug 2022)

I have a feeling this journal is going to be entertaining and educational. Love it mate 👌


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Aug 2022)

John q said:


> I have a feeling this journal is going to be entertaining and educational. Love it mate 👌


Hope so! 

Also hope it makes me get a move on the tank. 

Bought the black earth and nylon today.


----------



## JoshP12 (21 Aug 2022)

It made me move …

Soil: Decided to try the Fluval ... support the local shop instead of the big chain. I'm basically using it as a soil cap instead of gravel. The black earth is weed free and I am guessing no additives - I mean it shouldn't have any ... not overly concerned though when I plant I may omit it if I decide. Depends.




The real soil ....
As I started to dig out the tank I realized how much soil I actually had in there.




If anyone is curious:


< --- old layer had just about everything including the kitchen sink in it ... tend to have this ritual now that I use my oldfilter media and plunk it in my new soil ... surface area for some critters perhaps ... old activated carbon, I even chucked in some dragonstone for iron









What I learned about soil - you only get 1 chance to make it right ... so do it right.







 .... Fold rinse repeat until you can see lots and lots of pellets in there. We only get one shot and 10 inches deep, rest assured I am not getting root tabs in there --

1) I use cheap chinese knock off tweezers and they bend
2) I am lazy

It is easy to do another week of water changes but it is not easy to get more ferts into your soil. Leaving it moist ... loasds of microbiology in there ... it might die from the NP burst but I only want the strongest bacterias in my tank --- or they will just contribute to the NP and feed my future, stronger generation.

One issue with using this soil is the crypts ... like a dandelion, one or two will pop up ... but anyways, the roots can become worm food and hopefully be nice food for my plants until it comes from the depths and pokes out of my HC carpet, wrecking my scape. 

Well ... off to dig out some more.


----------



## dw1305 (22 Aug 2022)

Hi all, 


JoshP12 said:


> .... Fold rinse repeat until you can see lots and lots of pellets in there. We only get one shot and 10 inches deep, rest assured I am not getting root tabs in there --


I'm going to say "_too many_", but we will see what happens.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (28 Aug 2022)

And we begin ...

Way to much soil (I dreaded removing it all -- it took several days):




I dreaded cleaning the tubes (It's been at leasat 6 months if not more since I touched them):


  <-- my little hack toothbrush in a tube -- in a tube!




No schematic but it will be assembled today so I will show the full photos later:




This is the back right hand corner weir where my intake, temp, etc will all be hidden -- behind the plexiglass in the front will be a little box where the pump will be hidden to do auto water change and also the output to push water into the tank.



\


I went with ADA 75-P Dimensions. 

 So that means I need ~ 6 inches of substrate before I begin the actual substrate scaping portion.

Reefer buddy came over and helped me do the work on the plexiglass (we cut with a jigsaw) -- he also brought me some activated carbon! Huzzuh! Into the substrate it goes (great surface area and high CEC to get those nutrients locked ... when the roots find them they will be so happy! Bacterias etc

Collected knock off diffusers over the year or two:


<--- I'll use old faithful ... give it a bleach call it a day.

I seem to care a whole lot less than I use to about "good equipment" ... not sure why.

Looking at these bottles gives me the heeby jeebies ... remembering all the disaster and mixing and ferts that it took to come to a very simple realization ... dose ferts, be consistent, enjoy your tank.





Will be mixing 2x solutions ... 100mL will be my dosage ... dosed with water change (if no water change, then 10mL daily).

The old days ... first tank - 5Gallon, second was 10 Gallon:




They are alive!









<-- funny story ... wife said I could only have 10 gallon tank but my lights weren't growing plants so I bought that strip lighting and attached it to the lid of those el-cheapo tanks ... plants grew a bit better LOL.


Boxwoods will be happy ...




Media was clear:




It moulded ... lol


<--- wasn't concerned ... I could bleach it etc but I just am not worried. I used to bleach tubes and all that but it's just unneccesary ... the last photos I took of the tank ... I used a canister filter that I hadn't even cleaned from the previous tank ... it just doesn't matter --> what matters is your day to day maintenance in the tank and the love you give it and the consistency.

Now, flow clogging is real .... don't get the wrong impression.

And the bleaching begins:


<-- purigen is probably 1 year hasn't been touched ...getting the full on bleach treatment ... I'll remove it today and refill so I don't deterioate the purigen itself but let's make it nice.

The diffuser get's a special treatment ... 50/50 water/bleach ... just because -- but again if you pay attention it's not going to matter.

That's all for now!


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Sep 2022)

What a week? Time seems to be moving fast and furious ...

Oh that purigen and diffuser ... I forgot them for a week in bleach - lol.







I always keep 1 bottle of seachem prime on hand to just drop the liquid on top of the diffuser - works like a charm. I use seachem safe (the powder) for everything else. I just lob it in to the purigen with fresh water and then it clears right up. Will check this AM how the purigen looks and rinse and repeat.

--- pre prime (1 week of bleach):




Filter: I was thinking oh I can buy new foam and get a nice tight fit ... ol' faithful ... same sponges from old tanks too ... might be a bit cheap lol.


 




So here is the tank:







 <--- will adjust lights soon.


<-- gas exchange twice ... (fill test)








OOOO -- what took me so long ... cannister o-ring was busted, had a major leak due to pressure change in the weir chamber on power on and off ... pulled out, vaseline, cleaned, all good -- have back ups coming in mail.

Likely useless:








<-- smelled like real manure ...it worked.

Getting old  (need a stand to save my back and 2 water bottles):





Gradual slope into a triangle shape (that I likely won't follow).






Boxwoods are responding well to fish tank juice: 




Tossed some rocks in (went down this AM, plugged water change pump in (siphon) unplugged, came back it was drained, wiggled the rocks around will re fill later -- so convenient).






You know I really do want to have all those wild sticks all over like those scapes but when I look at them I go wow, then I go what about the maintenance and uproot and replant and when my daughter runs into me and I crack the stick and then I bleed - lol.

Anyways, friend said I can't just toss in dirt this time - I need to have some hardscape.

Thanks for reading !

EDIT: NOOOO!!! I forgot to put the activated carbon on top of my old soil and underneathe the brand new soil. Will go and do that slowly before adding more.


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Sep 2022)

Done.















You know ... it's all about the plants and I think proper plant selection and maintenance can make any hardscape placement beautiful - but what do I know about hardscape -- hah!

Sometimes you just need to go with it and move on with life!

Going to fill and "dark start" simply for me to watch the water move without lights on and let those activated carbons soak up all the local nutrients.

Purigen still in the gargage ... probably go and seachem safe it for another few days and then maybe add it to the top of canister (just don't want to have to add it, then let it "help" the startup, then have to bleach it AGAIN ... just do another water change (in the works is figuring out how to water my garden automatically with the water to have zero waste) instead and then use fresh purigen later.

*On plant selection:*
I think I am just going to go to the local store and pick up whatever they have (they source from local people and I sold many of my plants there often to stock them) not going to worry about having HC peaking out of monte carlo to create depth (unless they have it).  I can get those tropica cups and place the big time order and all that to get "healthy" plants on startup and this is really important to be honest ...  especially to make sure they can resist ammonia burn from off gas from soil and even to have nutrient store to grow properly and adapt etc etc ---- it really is, but -- no big deal.

I don't think I am there yet from an artistic perspective to put energy into all that planning - hopefully one day. 


*The fun stuff:*
Ok so what do we do about ferts!!!

Part of me is thinking we go Golden Ratio - because we can do whatever we want. You can go extremes too and then just compensate with more water change and exhaust soil faster ... but I want my soil to last as long as possible.

My Ca is 9.4 --- water report but I mean I am just guessing water gallon anyways (it isn't 65 anymore), so the remineralize will be inaccurate. Close enough.




Ca: K --> 1.66
Mg: K --> .61
... it's too perfect.

How much N and P? I can probably get away with dosing very little for a very long time throw co2 in the driving seat and just take it easy ... but if I overfeed, I may run into an issue if my co2 is off.  I do not want to run EI levels of N and P in here ... it's too much work. Part of me feels like running 6/3 for N and P.  But it's also quite vigorous --- Maybe 2/1 seems a bit better and just ride that out. Need lots of P on startup for root formation (daily waters with re-dose should keep up with it + substrate has it).

Ok here is the thing, if I go 2/1 and my rotalas (which I plan to have) go red instantly, then I don't know how far away I am from excess state. If I go 6/3 that's pretty good, but I need more co2 for that for sure which is fine.

And the only reason any of this actually matters (since as this grows, the N uptake will increase) is so that if I trim big, I don't have stressed fish (they won't be stressed at 6 N when the whole tank is growing -- but if I trim back everything (which may happen since it may get overgrown since life is crazy), then it will. And it will be the co2 demand from the N that inadvertently will stress them since you have less plants taking it up but also your original set point for CO2 when tank growing vigorously was determined by N and full tank -- if N is 2 instead of 6, you have less on that upper bound after trim will have more free co2 in water but will still be less than if 6 in full tank. This is all rediculous though because you can just turn down the co2 ... but the whole theme of this thread is to think as little as possible for the duration of the tank and do as little work as possible. 

 And I could just have different bottles and adjust as time happens, but then I need to ... have different bottles and pay more attention.

I'm juggling between 1/.5 N/P and 6/3 ... let's go the middle road ... 2/1 it is.

For water estimate: visual is 16x18x30 inches and then that little compartment 6x 18 x 24 so roughyl 37 gal + 10 gal + some in the soil? Let's call it 50 for the calculation.

There they are:




Will get out the scale soon enough ... .

Once those are made, doser set up, shopping for plants, daily waters, sharpen the scissors, and watch nature unfold.


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Sep 2022)

Ok there!


----------



## John q (5 Sep 2022)

I said at the start of this journal I suspected it would be entertaining and educational, can I add slightly bonkers to that list. Keep it coming Josh 👍


----------



## _Maq_ (5 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> "dark start" simply for me to watch the water move without lights on


Even better if you make it truly 'dark', throw a blanket over it - algae can't set up without light.


JoshP12 said:


> let those activated carbons soak up all the local nutrients


Activated carbon does not leak neither adsorb nutrients but adsorbs dissolved organic compounds.


JoshP12 said:


> Purigen still in the gargage ... probably go and seachem safe it for another few days and then maybe add it to the top of canister (just don't want to have to add it, then let it "help" the startup, then have to bleach it AGAIN


You can regenerate Purigen in hydrogen peroxide 1%. Tested.


JoshP12 said:


> to make sure they can resist ammonia burn from off gas from soil


If you cycle long enough, bacteria should nitrify all ammonium that happens to leak into the water column.


JoshP12 said:


> Ca: K --> 1.66
> Mg: K --> .61
> ... it's too perfect.


It's not, in my opinion. Too much potassium. But we'll hardly ever learn because your soil is full of these.


JoshP12 said:


> Need lots of P on startup for root formation


For root formation, beside carbon, calcium and potassium are needed most.


JoshP12 said:


> I'm juggling between 1/.5 N/P and 6/3 ... let's go the middle road ... 2/1 it is.


The proper ratio of N & P is known and seldom disputed. It's N : P = 16 : 1 in molar terms, or NO3 : PO4 = 10 : 1 by weight. Yet again, it's just numbers, since we don't know the N and P content of your soil.


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Sep 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> Even better if you make it truly 'dark', throw a blanket over it - algae can't set up without light.


I don’t fear algae. 


_Maq_ said:


> Activated carbon does not leak neither adsorb nutrients but adsorbs dissolved organic compounds.


And when a root finds it, it will be able to soak it all up. 


_Maq_ said:


> You can regenerate Purigen in hydrogen peroxide 1%. Tested.
> 
> If you cycle long enough, bacteria should nitrify all ammonium that happens to leak into the water column.


I’ve done full dark start before - I’m just doing it until I plant which is essentially useless but I need to make sure the filter doesn’t leak. 


_Maq_ said:


> It's not, in my opinion. Too much potassium. But we'll hardly ever learn because your soil is full of these.


That’s why we make good soil - so we can do whatever we want in water column and enjoy beautiful plants. I can say my tank is golden ratio everywhere 😂. 


_Maq_ said:


> For root formation, beside carbon, calcium and potassium are needed most.


And phosphate! 


_Maq_ said:


> The proper ratio of N & P is known and seldom disputed. It's N : P = 16 : 1 in molar terms, or NO3 : PO4 = 10 : 1 by weight. Yet again, it's just numbers, since we don't know the N and P content of your soil.


I skipped all attention to proper communication on this sorry.


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Sep 2022)

John q said:


> I said at the start of this journal I suspected it would be entertaining and educational, can I add slightly bonkers to that list. Keep it coming Josh 👍


Just having fun . Should rename it chronicles of a crazy man. 

I will say I’m absolutely thrilled that the weir works this well. And I can jam in power heads hidden to help with flow.

Hopefully if something goes wrong and we can’t fix it, we can backtrack a solution.


----------



## GreggZ (5 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Just having fun . Should rename it chronicles of a crazy man.
> 
> I will say I’m absolutely thrilled that the weir works this well. And I can jam in power heads hidden to help with flow.
> 
> Hopefully if something goes wrong and we can’t fix it, we can backtrack a solution.


Great journal! I am really looking forward to seeing where this goes.



_Maq_ said:


> The proper ratio of N & P is known and seldom disputed. It's N : P = 16 : 1 in molar terms, or NO3 : PO4 = 10 : 1 by weight. Yet again, it's just numbers, since we don't know the N and P content of your soil.


I've been around a while and don't understand how you can state those ratios are seldom disputed? Most of the best tanks I follow and the best plant growers I know in the hobby have NO3O4 somewhere closer to 3:1 or even 2:1. And K is almost always higher than both. IME magic ratios just don't exist. Too much depends on the particular tank and the particular plants in that tank.


----------



## JoshP12 (6 Sep 2022)

Dosing solutions made ... I hate that scale. I purposefully added the wrong amount of magnesium just to smite it. Instead of 76grams I added 77grams. That'll show it.

Potassium sorbate --> 1.4g you say, I challenge you 1.8g -- if I get bacteria build up in 2 months, I am going to 2g. The potassium from it won't skew my daily potassium ... hehe.

Now I did realize a big whoops ... my RO unit remineralizes so my water for my dosing solution has probably Ca and Mg ... NOOOOOOO Golden ratio is off lol ... I tried.

I should add that my CSM is a 2L solution with ~5g of CSM added -- it puts me at a 20mL dose per day (with CSM, larger batch solution with higher concentrate is better ... actually was conversrations with @GreggZ  where that clicked for me). Vitamin C in, with the sorbate first, then the CSM. Unfortunately, I forgot to mix the bottle before adding in the CSM  ... just hoping my pH was below 7 ... but again my substrate will cover my 2 month solution or what have you and top off anything (won't have rhizosphere quite yet - need bacterias to assemble - so really just banking on the available stuff if there is any ... probably not in the aquasoil but in my ferts I added to the soil).

That's about it? I think it's just plants now.

It will be lights ~ 8 hours full intensity. CO2 with lights. Temp -- probably 24-25 celcius 75-77 fahrenheit ... I could go lower or higher (if I choose some fish that demand it), but not entirely sure I care to chill them out just to slow down the system and potentially get tighter plant forms and less algae ... when I can probably achieve it without dropping the temp -- we will see. Temp does help keep the column clean and growing ... 

I did make a remark on another thread that I will go by feel and not use a DC or probe or drops or anything (feeling a bit scared here) so I may as well do it. I do have 1 visual so it is a bit of a cheat -- but I can see the diffuser ... so I can always guage how much co2 is going into the tank by what I see going into the canister. Bubble counter is dry and I don't plan to fill it.

Tank is super cloudy, you can almost see the ammonia -- had I planted, probably need to run 2x water a day to feel comfortable.


----------



## JoshP12 (6 Sep 2022)

PSA: was Fiddling with the power heads this eve … arm felt tingly. The ammonia is real - be safe if you try this at home lol. @Darrel 😂.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (6 Sep 2022)

GreggZ said:


> Great journal! I am really looking forward to seeing where this goes.



Indeed 😎 

Nice to see someone pushing the envelope a bit @JoshP12 . Will be interested to see your results. Just play it safe buddy and keep those arms out of the tank for a bit 😆


----------



## JoshP12 (6 Sep 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> I beg your pardon, but wasn't it YOU who had started about nutrients and their ratios? And if you're trying to avoid discussion, why do you start a journal in the public? Make your own journal on your harddisk and nobody would bother. What do you think? Ain't it a perfect solution for you?


Yes. I said I’ve grown plants in all extremes and I’m picking golden ratio because it’s fun. 

And I’ll post later today about why I’ve made the choices I’ve made. And it has to do with a balance between fish keeper, life, and the results I want.


----------



## dw1305 (6 Sep 2022)

Hi all,


JoshP12 said:


> Fiddling with the power heads this eve … arm felt tingly.


I'd guess the "tingly feeling" is some form of charge leakage (@zozo ?).


JoshP12 said:


> The ammonia is real - be safe if you try this at home lol. @Darrel ........ No one reading this thinks you can see ammonia lol.


I'm not going to say <"_I told you so_">, mainly because I've been on the <"naughty step"> on another forum, but you might be able to smell it? Old style sewage farms (and intensive Pig / Poultry units) can really <"make your eyes water">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (6 Sep 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'd guess the "tingly feeling" is some form of charge leakage (@zozo ?).
> 
> ...


Charges are all good - I was being a bit silly.

Frankly I’m rather pleased with the nutrients in the soil and would prefer this over something much leaner.

I’ll give it a big whiff this AM and let you know!


----------



## JoshP12 (6 Sep 2022)

Smell is “fine”. Not odorless like a crystal clear water column but also not like my pantanal smelled. 

Best I can say is that it’s not ready for fish, plants would be fine. 

Surface grime clear, water clearing as well. You saw the sponges but there is also a cotton batting in there just for this initial phase to help with debris.


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Sep 2022)

I knew it would take longer than anticipated to get the scape up and running (I mentioned I'd post this two days ago - and I still haven't replaced the water for the purigen in the garage with more seachem safe).

And this is part of the reason for my choices.

The tank can consume you - especially if your goals are elegant plant forms and healthy fish in harmony.

So the driver for many of my decisions is how can I minimize the amount of time I have to spend thinking about and doing things for the tank. This is the beauty of ADA -- pay lots of money and get a cookie cutter no thinking system (follow it to a T don't go off script and enjoy the hobby). But I am also thrifty.

1) My soil in the tank is from my original tank ever (that 5 gallon dry start had fluorite and it is in this tank) -- I keep re-using it with the same process of miracle gro/osmocote ... and I always add in either garden soil (which I just didn't this time ... I anticipated having enough soil and in retrospect I should have dumped the garden soil on the bottom just because and then I would have a more dramatic slope and/or soil layer -- but it is ok ... next time. I buy the aquasoil on top because it is a cleaner finish rather than capping it with blasting sand or something else that is black. The functionality of that aquasoil cap is worth the price for it + I'll re use it next time.

2) Dry salts - no brainer ... thanks Tom Barr.

3) Water change - the most effective tool and the largest PITA. Had to automate it with the pump straight to a drain (though I'd like to rig this into the outdoor garden) + autorefill with a valve right beside the tank (will prime before and after or just after). In the previous iterations of the tank I had rigged auto water change but it was ugly ... so I built the compartment to hide everything.

4) The compartment doubled up as a weir since I don't have the real estate to set up a wet/dry (though I rigged a diy one in the back room before) ... AND with young kids it isn't worth having it around (since one is just starting to crawl). The weir allows me to hide everything + doubles as a skimmer and surface agitation x2 ... it's a no brainer. The change in dimensions also allow for easier aquascaping.

5) 10 inches of soil = higher PAR at substrate from light + saves my back since my tank dimensions suck. I recall watching a video where victor at Green Aqua made a joke about needing a chair to trim the tank and I used to be like I don't care how much work I just want pretty plants ... soon I realize the balance is neccesary. Issue here ... water capacity, fish territorial space ... it's limiting to lose that much real estate in the tank but well worth it IMO.

6) Auto Doser = luxury ... I could just put it in pump bottles and one pump a day but at least I can do nothing except look at the tank during the day now.

7) Temp Controller:


 Must have --I bought used eheim 200watt for10$ since the people said the temp dial on them doesn't work ... plug them into the inkbird and they turn on and off and I never boil the water. Can have 2 heaters at seperate ends -- uniform (though I don't need to worry about this now).

8) Lights ... I am working on getting them set up 3 of them are the old AI prime ... 1 is brand new. The 3 will be over one side of the tank (stupid bar down the top) and the other will be on the side with the weir. The reason I will be ok with the seemingly unbalanced PAR is because 1 the old AI have less PAR for one but also one flickers sometimes and the other one has faulty cool white fixtures.

9) Purigen/Carbon ... because I have the auto water change rigged, I am less inclined to use carbon and purigen at start up (in part because the carbon is a one time deal and the purigen requires time and though and energy to recharge ... it will have to be recharged after start up ... no choice or it won't be effective after start up). If we are going for seamless, seamless purigen/carbon, daily waters, maintenance team, hahaha ... but I am one person so automate life and keep it simple.


I suppose I'll finish with outlining the goals for my tank:
1) Minimize cost
2) Minimize time
3) Minimize real estate used
4) Beautiful plants and scape
... 5) do something different

To do 1-3 and achieve 4, I had to build that compartment and black side ... for 5, I had already done the spraybar thing so this flow pattern was a natural progression; ferts wise, I am just having fun since I've pushed a lot of those boundaries in other tank iterations. CO2 ... I am going blind aside from the diffuser bubbles and making sure I nail it (again pushed it and played quite a bit). Temp I am just setting it for fish and forgetting (again played a lot with temp fluctuations). Lights ... same (played a lot with them). Design - I've done the wood ... going to use rocks.

I am rather happy with how it looks though it isn't a crystal clean overflow with a proper wet/dry and it isn't a lilly pipe (which are a pain to clean ... and all that in-line stuff is expensive and mess with flow rates etc). 


Ciao


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Sep 2022)

Well ... turns out I'll need to order plants online and get them shipped. Logged into the site and was like a kid in a candy shop (in particular, I got excited when I saw helferi, rotala green, ludwigia arcuata).

Then I realized that I actually need to plan where I place these plants ....

Aside from needing to clean the glass, I am quite happy with the rock placement (I just like it):




I feel like the eye really leads to that 1/3 on the right, the little rock to the left balances the other 3. I find it interesting. I feel like there are a few "layers" -- full disclosure I don't know what I am talking about lol.

Kind of like these "areas"







From the top:




Whatever goes here is extremely important and I have no clue what to put (any input?)




Thoughts on the photo below: 

1) Eyes can see the yellow to the left and the front 
2) Red = carpet ... I do not want ALL HC ... maybe we go Montecarlo front, with HC in back to give some contrast 
3) The blue are rosettes? Helferi? Repens? 
4) The black either a stem or a grass? <-- if we do grass, then the feel of the scape will change 
5) The maroon stems for sure as I want it to grow the tallest to form that triangle
6) Keep the lone rock without any rosettes - it will balance the scape maybe?
7) Maybe the purple question mark is an amalgam of the two plants ... maybe a combination of rotala orange juice, rotala h'ra, and rotala green? That's a bit tacky though ... unless we meld all the way but then I think its too much space dedicated to that species amalgam





Maybe we MC into HC into Helferi into Blyxa into rotala from front to back as a fade? One thing to note is that with all the mental capacity dedicated to thinking about maintenace, co2, ferts, lights, temps, etc is all gone ... I can dedicate whatever is left to pruning and keeping the scape nice .. though I do know it will look like nothing I have planned HAHA.

I'm trying -- Please help me .

Josh

EDIT: for anyone who does see something ... I also want to contrast, coloration, shape (leaf vs. needle), size


----------



## Wookii (8 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Whatever goes here is extremely important and I have no clue what to put (any input?)



 A nice red lotus!


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> A nice red lotus!


Thank you! I hadn’t even thought of a lotus.

And especially because of the beam on my light - will shine right on it and give that red. 
It would really pop and let me use some green plants around it - showcasing a contrast of maybe needles with Pogostemon erectus and then maybe Rotala green. On the left. It would also let some green rosettes take the spotlight in the front.

How would it look beside dragonstone?


----------



## Wookii (8 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> How would it look beside dragonstone?



Not sure you’re going to see much of the dragon stone once the plants have their say!


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (8 Sep 2022)

You could try tilting your rock upwards slightly @JoshP12

Like this:





Extra shadow, depth and interest. Also more height available post planting. Simply pick your viewing angle and position the most interesting face of each rock towards the viewing point. Can then tweak the angles until they sit right with each other.


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Sep 2022)

Geoffrey Rea said:


> You could try tilting your rock upwards slightly @JoshP12
> 
> Like this:
> 
> ...


Much simpler and prettier.

I’ll give it a whirl!


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Sep 2022)

@Geoffrey Rea strikes again.





I will hopefully hit the store today and you have likely made me spend more $$ … may need more rocks 😂.

Chances are, let’s keep it simple, I’ll get a some HC or MC (I’ve never actually MC just HC) and s repens, helferi, and some Rotala s at the store today whatever they have, plant away, and begin the process. If I don’t get that stuff, I’ll refill and continue letting my filter … do it’s thing. I SHOULD add the purigen once I plant and also get rid of the cotton batting in the filter (for flow/distribution) and the purigen sheerly to help with any burn the plants might experience (for principal of water change, I may simply not add the purigen to be as “nothing needed for startup” as possible) … I did want to add old ratty plants to show the turn around (I did this before but didn’t document it) so we just go with healthy - tried and true - and move on.

Side note: that is the water level for water change always for reference. AND massive benefit to reusing my soil … I already have a beautiful MTS colony (which survived being in containers for up to a week with the ferts added) aerating my soil and beginning the process.

Cheers,
Josh

Also, turns out my canister filter is leaking just a bit — after power off (different side this time. It is in a larger bucket so I’m not overly concerned and new O rings on the way.


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Sep 2022)

Bought all the rocks the shop had. Daughter helped me place! That’s my excuse that it doesn’t look like Amano was here!









Will order plants … probably come Tuesday.

EDIT: Monte Carlo (didn't have HC in stock), Helferi, Rotala H'Ra, Rotala Green, Rotala Macrandra, Ludiwigia arcuata -- keeping it simple.


----------



## PARAGUAY (11 Sep 2022)

Getting pretty epic this Josh feel an addiction to looking in😃


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Sep 2022)

PARAGUAY said:


> Getting pretty epic this Josh feel an addiction to looking in😃


Haven't been this excited for the tank myself - I think ever.

I feel I constantly pushed and experimented and pushed and watched -- now I am just following the method and hoping the plants grow LOL. I recall in a video from Green Aqua -- can't find it now but Jurijs said: Step 1 - learn to grow plants ... then he goes on with more steps about how to aquascape --- lol.

Small update:

*Design:*

Sorry kiddo ... I know you wanted that big rock straight but Amano scolded me in my sleep. Or maybe it was @Geoffrey Rea .














*The environment: *
Water very cloudy, smell is not correct - there will be an issue if water changes don't happen ... likely melt on plants in 2 ways: ammonia burn + adaptation.

*Logistical issues:*
Also, good thing it is fall ... had a realization that this water change method will put water straight in ... when winter comes I am either going to kill everything, need to reduce water change frequency to days which aren't as cold, or pick the right fish ... will worry about temp shortly.

*Lights: *
I mentioned one is faulty ... picture always better:




It is very hard to see but the cool white channels only work sometimes.

It is why it is far left and not placed over the rotalas and stems.



The red one is next generation of the light and is brand new (one of the other two flickers but hasn't lately so I don't know which) -- it is over macrandra.

I will need to be cognizant of beam spread as well and angles (drop the lights down after planting).

Spectrum does matter - I manipulated them in the past to increase and overdrive red and warm white to increase photosynthetic rates - it does work. And the reason I can say with confidence is because there was a relative impact to the day before and subsequent trials on: Drop Checker color (it was greener) AND "stable pH" ... the drop happened but the blip upward was experienced more with more red and and yellow/orange which is in conjunction with McGree curve:




The impact has less impact on growth rates than CO2/ferts etc ... but it is real.

I will be using default settings 100% for all channels because it is the most appealing to the eye and with enough PAR the plants should look like soldiers. Well and I guess I don’t have a choice … my one light might explode if I try to overdrive those channels 😂.

Will post later when I give more thought to temp ... have a day or two before I plant anyways.

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Sep 2022)

Here’s where my head is at on temperature.* (turns out it led me down the track of fleshing out the entire system but hey!) 

What I could do: *
If you set it anywhere from 68f-88f and leave it and forget it and proceed as usual, then everything will be “fine”.

*But we want optimization:*
Each temp will offer benefits over the others. The primary constraint is fish choice, however: if we choose a ram, the thing has to be hotter. If you choose a minnow, it can be colder. But really, most fish will adapt, within reason.

*Fish - check. *

Higher temps offer increased metabolic rates and increased energy in the system for life - that means algae and bacteria. The tank will grow the proper bacterial assemblage faster at higher temps ... but to sustain that growth rate, we require oxygen (which will be reduced due to high temp and gas laws).

Lower temps slow down metabolic rates and increase gas concentration. This means bacteria has a higher likelihood of not being oxygen limited and plants have a higher likelihood of not being CO2 limited. Compound slower metabolism with more CO2, this means we as the fish keeper will have an easier time providing the proper nutrients and as such probably have better plant forms with less attention to flow/distribution of CO2 and ferts. And less energy for the algaes.

*Higher temp: *
1) Faster bacterial assemblage
2) Less ammonia in water column (cleaner environment) -- since more metabolism means growing faster (provided we don't block via Leidbig).
3) If things aren't "correct" inadequencies will be exploited faster ... algae will spawn quicker if we don't get it right
4) It will be harder to get things correct (highest likelihood of messing up is CO2 bottlenecking Leidbig and metabolism increase CO2 demand)
and then more stuff

*Lower temp (basically all the opposites but let's illustrate a few): *
1) Easier plant forms + meeting co2 demand
2) More time to respond to ammonia spikes
and then more stuff

So, those things stick out to me -- but CO2 needs to be perfect ~10 - 30 minutes into lights on -- it needs to be "getting there" at lights on. The best way we could get this is lower temps. But when do we have the most oxygen? (the largest downfall of high temps) -- when plants are growing their fastest ... 4 hours into photoperiod and on wards ... we want max temp at the point when these plants experience their final soak up of CO2 ... and the “stabilize at a smaller photosynthetic rate”.

... so maybe we mimic nature?

I think I will set my temp (for now) around 23celcius at lights on and overnight and then up to 26celcius for about 4 hours into photoperiod. Recall reading somewhere that the difference between min and max is about 2 - 4 celcius ish depending on season. Thinking best growth will be in the "wet season"? Not sure how reliable this is: Water temperature in Amazon river (near Manaus) today | Brazil  but 3 degree swing sounds nice like a nice middle ground to start.

*Photoperiod: * let's go 10 hours to get viewing before my kiddo goes for nap (on weekends ~ 12:30PM) ... so 11:30 AM with a 30 minute ramp (last time I was in the Caribbean the sun got aggressive almost instantly so let's mimic that) ... 12 PM should be on full blown (by the point CO2 should saturate the water which I am comfortable with as my agitation is bang on so I should get a high enough injection rate to do it).

Ok -- so:

Lights on: 11:30 AM  (temp 23)
Ramp up: 11:59 aM  (temp starts to ramp up)
Lights at 100: 12:00PM (temp ramping)
Temp stabilize (totally guessing): 3:00 PM (hold steady)
Potential "final suck up of CO2": 4:00PM (pearling should be crazy! Paired with max temp!)
Temp begin to drop back to 23: 6:00 PM (gives us 2 hours of good cleaning of ammonia in column)
Ramp down of lights: 9:00 PM
Lights off: 9:30 PM

This is clearer:




(whoops AM on that picture for 11:30).

So ... that looks like nature ... I hope. AND I have never done this for startup (only in a mature system).

Josh


----------



## JoshP12 (14 Sep 2022)

Will get some better shots later but I wanted to say this:

Flooded the tank - definitely feel rusty … been 7-10 months since I did anything with the tank aside from observe … afraid I forgot how to grow them! Lol 

Time will tell.

Day 1: planted, flooded, watched, turned up co2.

Noticed that after submerge, pearling increased so co2 probably at least decent. Will leave it

Water change. Ferts in back to targets.

Will update tomorrow!


----------



## Wookii (14 Sep 2022)

I know you advocate high light on tanks, but I'll be interested to see how it goes with four AI light cannons at full power! 

I know you've started with a mature substrate which will help a lot, but if I were a betting man, I'd wager a high potential for a veritable algae riot in due course,


----------



## _Maq_ (14 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> 3 degree swing sounds nice like a nice middle ground to start.


I wonder. Water has high thermal capacity. If your heater is strong enough, you can probably increase the temperature by 3 degrees in 3 hours. But then, it'll take whole day to get back to 23 degrees.
I'm using no heaters, only my pumps increase temperature 0.5 to 1 degree above room temperature. Otherwise my tanks follow room temperature - with a delay lasting several days!
Just a guess. Try and we shall see.


----------



## JoshP12 (15 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> I know you advocate high light on tanks, but I'll be interested to see how it goes with four AI light cannons at full power!


Better practice what I preach! I'll be as honest and transparent with my observations as I can be.


Wookii said:


> I know you've started with a mature substrate which will help a lot, but if I were a betting man, I'd wager a high potential for a veritable algae riot in due course,


With water change at fingertips, I think I'll be able to get ahead of them. Though with this much energy in the system, thinking I need to on the ball - any weakness will exploit quick. On the maturity piece … it might be old but it also has half a bottle of miracle gro in it 😂.

I'll be honest, I nearly pulled the trigger on testing pH today and/or installing a drop checker  but I resisted. I find myself much more attentive to each plant and the system than I was when I had those tests.

Yesterday (yes those are all the jellies from being tossed around -- I hate removing them and find it tedious so when I get tired of it I get a little lazy ... not great but meh):



Today




and later in the day



I'm noticing massive changes in water clarity.

Example:




These Monte carlo leaves seems to be budding out of the "gross green micro green one that was in the cup". So I am noticing growth ... that is good (using nutrient stores) -- I am definitely giving them a few minutes to have access to air during water change when it is at the lowest point (but the MC and helferi is still submerged so not getting much of anything).

It would be a no brainer to crank co2 even higher just because but I feel that it is good enough at the moment -- and I want to get close enough to what it should be without being so overboard that I need to spend weeks pulling the co2 down until livestock can go in.

*Pearling is the interesting beast:*

After flooding:


* 

Do not see that at all today. *

I am noticing most O2 is coming from substrate ... which means something with roots is happening - I think - that is nice.

First pearl I saw came around 25 minutes into lights on today (30 minute ramp) and it came from substrate ... I only saw small bubbles on arcuata at the back -- pearling is a big indicator of things going well since my only visual is the plant itself, the water clarity, the smell, the root system, and then I have pearling which is reliable since I have massive light so the tank should be pearling.

I will say that I had to check my ego and intercede a little later in the day ... I didn't see the pearling that I "wanted" so I dropped that water, let the plants breathe, filled it fresh (~ 2-3 hours into photoperiod once plants were "in full photosynthesis mode") ferts in back to targets (micros were done at AM with lights on) all of this automated. It is worth noting that when I turned off filters, pearling increased (this is a very good sign) and the pearling with filtration on was happening in the back left corner where there would presumably have the weakest flow ...

So, my next step this eve is to take a credit card and just clean up that glass (have some dirt on it from planting still) -- drain, fill, ferts back to targets, micros in am.

Rinse and repeat.

But @Wookii I think a lot of people are thinking the same with the high light so thanks for bringing it up.



_Maq_ said:


> I wonder. Water has high thermal capacity. If your heater is strong enough, you can probably increase the temperature by 3 degrees in 3 hours. But then, it'll take whole day to get back to 23 degrees.
> I'm using no heaters, only my pumps increase temperature 0.5 to 1 degree above room temperature. Otherwise my tanks follow room temperature - with a delay lasting several days!
> Just a guess. Try and we shall see.


You're bang on @_Maq_  --> yesterday, I looked at my temp and was rataher un impressed with how fast it was climbing ... I used 2x heaters for most of the life of the tank except I chose to go only 1 heater this time and doesn't have enough juice ... I may throw my second heater in to really get that temp up.

In terms of dropping down, we keep the house pretty cool and most mornings it is at 22/23 when I wake up, so I am not as concerned about the descent.


*A consolidation of what I'm using to guage what is going on: 
1) Water clarity 
2) Smell 
3) Plant growth/change/adaptation
4) Pearling 
5) Substrate changes --> specifically roots.
6) Surface scum 

It is worth noting that Auto top off has filled ~ 2gallon passed three days … agitation is real (comparable to when I had wet/dry going). *


Edit: of course, I’m doing the water change and forget about the credit card thing, then I quickly go get a paper towel and try to dab it up, then I stick my arm in the overflow compartment to dust off the intake and all the water from the overflow, overflows into the tank cascading all my soil and plants down. You gotta be kidding me lol. This is why I sit and watch lol - safer.


----------



## Wookii (15 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> With water change at fingertips,



Yep, I think they are going to be key. What is your regime for that?



JoshP12 said:


> On the maturity piece … it might be old but it also has half a bottle of miracle gro in it 😂.



Yeah, I intentionally didn't mention that 😂 - Water changes will be even more crucial because of that leaching I suspect. I know you are running this tank on an 'eyeball' basis, and don't want to test anything, but I'd be interested to now what kind of ammonia levels you are seeing in the water column. I know from adding a small number of fert balls (mine were from opened Tropica root tabs) compared to what you added, even below a couple of inches of soil, gave me significant ammonia leaching issues.

My point on the substrate maturity though, was more that, in my limited experience, I find far fewer issues at start up if I'm using a good chunk of bacterially/microbially mature substrate, than if the substrate is brand new. Even using a mature filter, and lacing brand new substrates with mulm laden water from an existing filter canister seems to be no real substitute for a inch or so of good old stuff.

With that old stuff in there, it will hopefully give your system a big kick start to maturity, and help you deal more quickly with any new tank syndrome symptoms (and with the side effects of the photon cannons 😂)



JoshP12 said:


> But @Wookii I think a lot of people are thinking the same with the high light so thanks for bringing it up.



Yeah, not intending to come across as  negative on that by the way, I fully hope it all comes together and works out well. It's just that its completely contrary to what I would do at start up (I'd have one Prime running at about 40%!!) so it will be very interesting to watch things develop and see how you address any issues.


----------



## JoshP12 (15 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> Yep, I think they are going to be key. What is your regime for that?


The pump is hidden in the black compartment with a black “wall” going up above the substrate: Filter/ato/power heads off, plug in pump, intiate suction, unplug it — walk away. It drains water to the same level each time direct into drain in back room (thinking about how to rig it into garden).  Leave for a couple minutes - everything gets exposure to air except from carpet. T’d off water line and have a direct fill into tank (into that black compartment): water level is low, seachem safe in dosed to full tank, water line on, fill to top, filter and power Heads and ato on.

Co2 been on whole time - into filter intake (just escapes while filter off).

Ferts NPK/Mg back to targets (I don’t remineralize  Ca). Micro with lights on. 



Wookii said:


> Yeah, I intentionally didn't mention that 😂 - Water changes will be even more crucial because of that leaching I suspect. I know you are running this tank on an 'eyeball' basis, and don't want to test anything, but I'd be interested to now what kind of ammonia levels you are seeing in the water column. I know from adding a small number of fert balls (mine were from opened Tropica root tabs) compared to what you added, even below a couple of inches of soil, gave me significant ammonia leaching issues.


Maybe Ill dust off the old test kit .


Wookii said:


> My point on the substrate maturity though, was more that, in my limited experience, I find far fewer issues at start up if I'm using a good chunk of bacterially/microbially mature substrate, than if the substrate is brand new. Even using a mature filter, and lacing brand new substrates with mulm laden water from an existing filter canister seems to be no real substitute for a inch or so of good old stuff.
> 
> With that old stuff in there, it will hopefully give your system a big kick start to maturity, and help you deal more quickly with any new tank syndrome symptoms (and with the side effects of the photon cannons 😂)


+ those Malaysian trumpet snails that were all alive - that’s huge too. I did it for thrifty reasons however.


Wookii said:


> Yeah, not intending to come across as  negative on that by the way, I fully hope it all comes together and works out well. It's just that its completely contrary to what I would do at start up (I'd have one Prime running at about 40%!!) so it will be very interesting to watch things develop and see how you address any issues.


Check this out. 2 years ago — that was around 40%, stable pH, all those things. It was just before the Rotala rotundifolia jungle in the picture in post 1.


----------



## JoshP12 (15 Sep 2022)

@Wookii 

This was time stamped June 19. That post June 24.


----------



## JoshP12 (15 Sep 2022)

I do test tds just to make sure my doser went off. 

Testing in around 130 after ferts. 

Came home it’s up to 160. Water change. 

Either doser went off -doubt it. 

Or - more likely - this soil is more potent than Amazonia lol. 

The system probably needs 2/day but I can’t do that so we wait. 

No photos atm but plants showing new growth - looks good - old leaves beginning to show minor signs of ammonia burn and a little droop. 

Not concerned yet.


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Sep 2022)

here is the photo of Minor ammonia burn/adaptation (blast you white leaf things!!😡):





Definitely isn’t nutrient deficiency 😂😂😂.

Rounding day 4, every day in this direction is a win in my books.

Will water change at some point when I can not picky - and ferts back into targets.


----------



## Framed Nature (16 Sep 2022)

Absolutely see some of myself in these posts lol. Not sure why the hate for Macrandra :[ it's such a beautiful plant! Looks totally different in high light and co2!

Definitely feel the pain with MC


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Sep 2022)

Framed Nature said:


> Absolutely see some of myself in these posts lol. Not sure why the hate for Macrandra :[ it's such a beautiful plant! Looks totally different in high light and co2!
> 
> Definitely feel the pain with MC


I love both of them! 

But Macrandra mini butterfly taught me more than any other species.


----------



## _Maq_ (16 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Minor ammonia burn


So this is what it looks like... Good to know.


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Sep 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> So this is what it looks like... Good to know.


Could actually be redistribution of mobile nutrients too … leaning towards this more so - probably for roots?

Since they aren’t deteriorating …. Just becoming white … could be chlorophyll deconstruction and redistribution?


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Sep 2022)

TDS 155 instead of 160 … assuming no error, could actually mean moving in right direction. Reality: probably the same and just error.

Water change done.










Right direction!


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Sep 2022)

Truth be told: I’m getting slightly impatient 😂.

if I was able to be around the tank for about a week I’d be running lights 20 hours and 2x water changes a day just to fill in the scape faster and speed up this process.

But keeping my promise to myself - things staying status quou.

Balance.

Ps: found the purigen yesterday … forgot it in the garage. Moved it to the basement just sitting in dechlorinated water … will add it when I open the canister at some point within the month. Same time I’ll remove the cotton batting.


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Sep 2022)

For the past few days, these little guys have been in their shell exclusively.





TDS 145 … now it is ~ 3 hours earlier than yesterdays check but … maybe we are moving in the right direction.

Water change will be 2-3 hours into photoperiod with a 1-2 minute break at low water level for the plants to get higher PAR (since refraction gone) and more O2 and CO2.

Fresh water in. Ferts back to targets. Co2 just leaving it on the whole time.

Thinking I’ll post a video of the flow/distribution and diffuser to give an idea of what is getting injected and also how the water is moving through the tank.

Also, every plant sprouted leaves within a day (bright green) then zero growth and all old leaves turning pale but not disintegrating. Becoming more sure that roots are growing and nutrients are being redistributed from those gel cup leaves (since they are useless under water) and being used to grow those roots. 

Send two leaves out adapted to the environment — best guess based on being submerged - if they live, build those roots and make a home! 

Ciao


----------



## John q (17 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Thinking I’ll post a video of the flow/distribution and diffuser to give an idea of what is getting injected


If you could, suspect it would be informative 👍


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Sep 2022)

John q said:


> If you could, suspect it would be informative 👍



Hopefully this works! Please let me know: 

As you can see in the video ... I still have not used the credit card to clean the front LOL. And, my filter intake needs to be cleaned (despite overflowing the tank last time) - but I think that's as real as it gets.

Will have to do the water change soon.

Some shots:




Arcuata ... adapting.



MC ... the jelly ... sigh ...

I think it's incredible and almost certain now after taking these photos that it is mobile nutrients (sent out the leaves to test the environment, environment is good, make some roots) --> 



You can see the new growth rotala green:





Hra, macrandra, green




*On Flow/Co2: *
I am banking on the fact that when these plants grow in, my co2 is going to be pretty close to safe for fish -- 99% sure we are in excess atm lol ...

On flow, there is a nice cool swoop in every area of the tank except the front right where those cannons are going from ... the fish can just stay away from there (at least that is my hope that once things grow in, it will all be fine).

Oh, last thing -- with 2x heaters, we are hitting 26 celcius at 2PM ~ 2.5 hours after lights on - perfect. And in the AM it is back to low.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Sep 2022)

Neat observation:





Diurnal behaviour - opening and closing of tips.

Really is not much more to be asking for out of these plants - they’re doing everything as expected. 

I don’t think any parameters or functionalities have been missed. 

Update on smell - the ammonia smell is fading.

I know it may sound silly but I had this thought of “maybe I didn’t add enough root tabs” 😂. 

I was expecting much more chaos than what I’m seeing - knock on wood. It is only rounding week one (day 5/6) but still.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Sep 2022)

Water change 1.5 hours in. Ferts back to targets. Will do 1 more water change evening since won’t be able to do one tomorrow around this time.

Algae spore doubling time is something like 18 hours … 😉. Can’t remember where I read it so if someone has other intel please advise.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Sep 2022)

cannot recommend this water change system enough - or at least making water change as easy as possible.

Able to run while cooking, etc. (use a camera to watch/hear during refill if on a different floor). Couldn’t run it last night, whipped it off this morning.

The largest pita is dosing seachem safe in powdered form.

Really considering either making Prime or just buying a large bottle of prime and hooking it up to doser.

Anyone made Prime with safe and probably potassium sorbate and ascorbic acid?


----------



## John q (19 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Anyone made Prime with safe and probably potassium sorbate and ascorbic acid?


Yes I've been mixing safe into a solution, I mix 2 grams with 100ml of water and dose 15mls into the tank (240L) at water change. 
No idea if it's required but I keep it in the fridge and use it within 4 weeks, I don't add any preservatives and haven't seen any noticeable difference in critter behaviour when doing said water change. 
Obviously this is something you'd have to try for yourself Josh, last thing I want is you knacking your fish on my findings.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Sep 2022)

Yes I've been mixing safe into a solution, I mix 2 grams with 100ml of water and dose 15mls into the tank (240L) at water change.


John q said:


> No idea if it's required but I keep it in the fridge and use it within 4 weeks, I don't add any preservatives and haven't seen any noticeable difference in critter behaviour when doing said water change.
> Obviously this is something you'd have to try for yourself Josh, last thing I want is you knacking your fish on my findings.


Appreciate it.

Pretty sure safe is just sodium thiosulfate

Will potassium sorbate and vitamin C cause any issues? Will think on it.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Sep 2022)

Anyone who knows me will hardly be surprised by what I’ve just done.

Photoperiod up to 20h. Idea is I want those plants 2 hours in before I do the AM water change (schedule for this week will allow the multitask - strike while the iron is hot). 

Let’s fill these plants in.

I’m 90% sure if we continue what I’m doing we will have zero issues and probably not see diatoms either … . 

Why do it if you know it will succeed? 😝


----------



## _Maq_ (19 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Photoperiod up to 20h.


An experiment? Count me in!


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Sep 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> An experiment? Count me in!


I’m actually debating running 24h (I’ve done 20 in a mature system before), but intuition says that dark period gives them a chance to clean up any “issues” : if we just drive growth and never “sleep”, then we are more likely to make a mistake.

But that’s just an intuition. Dark reaction happens all the time as does growing. 

Any insights?


----------



## _Maq_ (19 Sep 2022)

I have similar thoughts on dark period, but it too is just a feeling. I vote for 20 hours.


----------



## dw1305 (19 Sep 2022)

Hi all, 


JoshP12 said:


> I’m actually debating running 24h


I've done that (accidentally) and <"it didn't go well">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q (19 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Pretty sure safe is just sodium thiosulfate


Maybe one day seachem will give up its secrets. It could possibly be Sodium dithionite,  either way my chemistry knowledge isn't grade A so would probably need to figure out how both substances react with ascorbic acid.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Sep 2022)

John q said:


> Maybe one day seachem will give up its secrets. It could possibly be Sodium dithionite,  either way my chemistry knowledge isn't grade A so would probably need to figure out how both substances react with ascorbic acid.


I hope not : Sodium dithionite - Wikipedia

Lol. That stuff scores a 3.

Thiosulfate: Sodium thiosulfate - Wikipedia

Gives us a 1.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Sep 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I've done that (accidentally) and <"it didn't go well">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Any inkling as to why Darrel? 

I mean if it’s as simple as Not enough ferts, you could just add EI 😂. 

But in all seriousness, how important is that dark time (insert clause on species dependent) - more importantly why?


----------



## dw1305 (19 Sep 2022)

Hi all, 


JoshP12 said:


> Any inkling as to why Darrel?


Not really, I know some plants don't do well  under 24 hours light, but I don't know why. You need to regulate day length to control flowering in Pointsettia, Chrysanthemums etc. but I'm not sure about vegetative growth. Most commercial glasshouse crops <"are grown under 16 hours light">, so I assume that is the most cost effective regime for most plants.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Sep 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Not really, I know some plants don't do well  under 24 hours light, but I don't know why. You need to regulate day length to control flowering in Pointsettia, Chrysanthemums etc. but I'm not sure about vegetative growth. Most commercial glasshouse crops <"are grown under 16 hours light">, so I assume that is the most cost effective regime for most plants.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Thanks Darrel -- all I have is intuition here: they get tired of being pushed and then make mistakes (it's not in evolution to have had 24h day -- and then as I writing this, I Google it .. looks like we do have some places Abisko in Sweden.

Any plants we can investigate there?


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (19 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I hope not : Sodium dithionite - Wikipedia
> 
> Lol. That stuff scores a 3.
> 
> ...



Given thiosulfate reduces hypochlorite, becoming oxidised to sulphate:

4 NaClO + Na2S2O3 + 2 NaOH → 4 NaCl + 2 Na2SO4 + H2O

It would seem fair to assume this has to be in Seachem Safe and Seachem Prime.

Combined with a bisulfite based ammonia conditioner e.g. sodium formaldehyde bisulfite and alcohol as an ammonia removal agent, you have ammonia reduction. That’s been around for years.

Not sure what else they would put in there.

There is a patent in the US that combines modified chabazite into commercial dechlorinator for fresh and seawater for further efficiency.


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Sep 2022)

1 week post water change:













Every old leaf has basically turned white (except arcuata and Macrandra) — starting to wonder if they got bleached by the cannons 😂. Could be mobile nutrient piece as well … but why not Macrandra and arcuata? Perhaps they can handle it better naturally though hra and Rotala green should have handled it just fine ….

In any case, depending on how long I leave the tank between water changes, remineralization/dosing lands anywhere from 110-130 TDS. 

I see no algae. No diatoms. I see new growth on all plants - arcuata growing the fastest, then Rotala green/hra tied, next would be Monte Carlo (who still hasn’t thrown more new leaves than the initial burst), then Macrandra/helferi tied for last place.

20h photo seems to provide no issues thus far though - could be unrelated - growth rates on hra and green have sped up. 

Starting to get some red tips on hra 😂 … curious what my PAR is.


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Sep 2022)

And as I walk away …

The shaded helferi is green …




Think it is safe to say, this is “high light” 😂.


----------



## Wookii (20 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> curious what my PAR is



I think the AI Prime is around 100 PAR per unit at 24 inches (610mm) - how high are your lights from the substrate? Obviously where your lights overlap the PAR will be summed. I know you said a couple of them have some issues and so might not be quite running at 100% (?).


----------



## dw1305 (20 Sep 2022)

Hi all,


JoshP12 said:


> Every old leaf has basically turned white (except arcuata and Macrandra) — starting to wonder if they got bleached by the cannons


It could be Clive's <"Klingon Photo Torpedo">, but it might also be <"ammonia burn">, or a combination of both. I've not bought any _in vitro_ plants for the tank, but if I did I'd be very reluctant to put them into a <"high light / high nutrient environment">.

Looking back <"to 2010"> I can see that I actually foresaw some of the potential problems with tissue cultured plants.

<"How to improve resiliency of in-vitro plants?">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Sep 2022)

By every account, I seem to have done everything wrong:
1) 20h photoperiod as of now
2) half a bottle of miracle gro - the soil smelled like manure (I grew up beside a farm so I’m rather familiar with this smell)
3) the soil was left for at least a week in a high ammonia environment, so any bacterial assemblage probably died
4) 4x lights pushing some of the highest PAR on the market over 2.5 feet of tank.
5) 10 inches of substrate radically increasing PAR at substrate
6) didn’t bother removing 3/4 of the jelly off in vitro plants
7) bought in vitro on discount 
8) my potassium is “off balance”
9) my temp fluctuates during photoperiod
10) my co2 isn’t stable before lights on or during
11) I water change mid photoperiod and pay no attention to co2 stability during this time

Yet I see no issues? Anyone see something that I’m missing? Any predictions?

I hope no one says ya but you don’t have fish (I am waiting on this as any responsible fish keeper should at this point of any tank).


----------



## Wookii (20 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Yet I see no issues? Anyone see something that I’m missing? Any predictions?



You've created an environment where even algae and diatoms can't survive? 😂 (joking!)

It takes time I guess, its still early days - you see loads of tanks in the algae section that seem to be fine for several weeks, and then 'boom' - loads of issues erupt. If you don't get some sort of algae explosion at some point I'll be very surprised, but who knows.



JoshP12 said:


> I am waiting on this as any responsible fish keeper should at this point of any tank



Yes, please don't put any animals anywhere near this tank until a) you know you have no ammonia in the water column, and b) you know what your CO2 levels are. It's one thing to run blind as a plant only experiment, but anther to stake animal health on it.


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> I think the AI Prime is around 100 PAR per unit at 24 inches (610mm) - how high are your lights from the substrate? Obviously where your lights overlap the PAR will be summed. I know you said a couple of them have some issues and so might not be quite running at 100% (?).






That one is faulty but seems to be ok right now (just the cool white channel).

Flickering haven’t observed since I mentioned it on the other.




16inches to lowest point on substrate. Probably 12-14 at highest point.


----------



## Wookii (20 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> View attachment 194712
> 
> That one is faulty but seems to be ok right now (just the cool white channel).
> 
> ...



Well fag packet calculation, because of inverse square law, at the highest substrate point, that's roughly half the distance (of the 100 PAR measurement), which quadruples the light intensity. So your 100 PAR AI prime goes up to 400 PAR, times 2 is 800 PAR, and doesn't account for any light from the other two on the other side of the tank. They could jointly be contributing another 400 PAR or more perhaps (still in fag packet calcs territory), so 1200 PAR+?


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> Well fag packet calculation, because of inverse square law, at the highest substrate point, that's roughly half the distance (of the 100 PAR measurement), which quadruples the light intensity. So your 100 PAR AI prime goes up to 400 PAR, times 2 is 800 PAR, and doesn't account for any light from the other two on the other side of the tank. They could jointly be contributing another 400 PAR or more perhaps (still in fag packet calcs territory), so 1200 PAR+?


I gotta find a meter 😂.


----------



## John q (20 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> By every account, I seem to have done everything wrong:


Well if this tank doesn't go pear shaped you'll have certainly rewritten the rule book. 😁


----------



## dw1305 (20 Sep 2022)

Hi all, 


Wookii said:


> You've created an environment where even algae and diatoms can't survive?


That isn't quite as absurd as you might imagine. In the mid-west of the USA they used satellite images of ponds and assessed their greeness as an indication of the level of agricultural nutrient pollution (eutrophication). 

Some ponds, in areas of high pollution, were entirely clear, and when they went to do some ground truthing, they found that this wasn't because they had low levels of pollution, but because they were so hypertrophic that not even algae could grow in them. 

<"Exploring the potential value of satellite remote sensing to monitor chlorophyll-a for US lakes and reservoirs - Environmental Monitoring and Assessment">

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> You've created an environment where even algae and diatoms can't survive? 😂 (joking!)


You've made me have a good laugh!


dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> That isn't quite as absurd as you might imagine. In the mid-west of the USA they used satellite images of ponds and assessed their greeness as an indication of the level of agricultural nutrient pollution (eutrophication).
> 
> Some ponds, in areas of high pollution, were entirely clear, and when they went to do some ground truthing, they found that this wasn't because they had low levels of pollution, but because they were so hypertrophic that not even algae could grow in them.


The part I find counter intuitive is that my plants absolutely beautiful and thriving.

So is it perhaps that they are so darn healthy that nothing else can compete?

I will concede and run tests if we think it is appropriate. What do we want tested? I use the Hagen master kit.


John q said:


> Well if this tank doesn't go pear shaped you'll have certainly rewritten the rule book. 😁


Let's hope. The thing is, I used my framework of thinking (I'll try to compile some major posts that illustrate it) to build this system. Every day that the plants grow and the tank matures, we are closer to it not failing.


----------



## JoshP12 (21 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> (I'll try to compile some major posts that illustrate it)



The marriage between Rich and Lean: Everyone is right

Ahh, young Josh: Phosphate is the king of the planted tank <-- each nutrient carries a different weight that influences of metabolism

Classic: Lean dosing pros and cons <-- on the way to a conceptual framework

I’ll get more - I think if this all works out, then I’ll properly draft everything.

In any case:




Almost ran out of co2 (was using an old tank whatever was left from last time)—  and had to change the tank …then rubber seal went missing (was stuck on old co2 tank) so lost another 1/4 tank of co2 from the new one. Added Teflon tape but was irrelevant once I realized rubber seal was gone. All set now.


----------



## JoshP12 (22 Sep 2022)

Monte Carlo starting to creep.

Rotala green beginning to pearl.

Hra turning red.

Arcuata getting smaller and lots of side shoots.

Helferi has green starting to poke out of insides - rest bleached.

Macrandra has these bright red tips and stem and stagnant.

Having a hunch my plants will be very petite.


----------



## JoshP12 (23 Sep 2022)

Things are just chugging along.

Getting tired of 2x/daily water change and tds isn’t creeping up as fast anymore so moving to 1x daily.

I’ll keep lights 20h (best move would be to slow down the system and drop it back to 10h). 

Best - at 20h photo - would be to keep the 2x for another week just with the photoperiod and my substrate but can’t burn yourself out over the tank. 

We know dropping to 10h will make things move properly. We know 2x with the 20h is proper.

So we try 1x with the 20 knowing tds creeping slower … probably just fine.

Cheers


----------



## Wookii (23 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Getting tired of 2x/daily water change



Didn't realise you were changing twice daily - what percentage? I'd wager that's 'saving your bacon' currently!


----------



## JoshP12 (23 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> Didn't realise you were changing twice daily - what percentage? I'd wager that's 'saving your bacon' currently!


Pump on, then it cuts when it gets to the barrier. 

Timeline:
0) pre-planting ~ 1 week ran "dark start"
1) 1st few days: 10h, water change 1/day
2) next few up to yesterday: 20h,  water change 2/day 
3) Now 20h, water change 1/day 

The choices I made weren't just willy nilly. In the infancy of a tank, you can't just crank the photoperiod to 20h without changing water more often ... more waste, and more ferts required. Alternatively, you can do a dose mid day just to keep things nice, but the waste accumulation starts to skew things especially when things are so volatile in the first weeks.

You need to up the frequency at some point if you start cranking metabolism - name of the game.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (23 Sep 2022)

Perhaps less nervous as others about your schedule @JoshP12 .

The merit of 20 hours of light is up to the tank owner. Unsure what the outcome will be but it’s interesting to try these things. See what level of photo inhibition you experience from 12 hours onwards. A lot of Co2 required for long photoperiod length, but so what? 🤷🏻‍♂️ 



JoshP12 said:


> The choices I made weren't just willy nilly. In the infancy of a tank, you can't just crank the photoperiod to 20h without changing water more often ... more waste, and more ferts required.



This is no different than any high tech startup frankly. If you want to negate issues with rich substrate, you shift water early on. Pumping the substrate full of nutrients at the beginning has the additional water changes upfront as an added task, but gives locational choice of N in the longer run. Just may be a while longer before adding fish, but, yeah… woopty doo…

Also not concerned about the relatively high PAR input. Grow plants outside in the summer… you can’t turn down the sun.

Wet/dry filtering was a whole new world when first taken for a spin on that AS600 journal. Two ONF flat one light units with maximum overlapping, set to 100% from the get go, on a 60cm tank, at less than one foot depth… It was expected to be a disaster by most. You would expect carnage, but had very little to worry about due to continually high dissolved o2 levels. It’s a competition and as long as everything else is in check, plants win. How you get that o2 into the water is up to the owner.

If anything, wanted to experiment with even higher PAR, which is exactly what you are doing so should be interesting. 



Wookii said:


> I'd wager that's 'saving your bacon' currently!



The water changes are compensation for the lack of plant mass. Not sure what an ideal water change schedule will be for Josh @Wookii but given it’s automated water changes, it should be easy to accommodate. Even if it landed as every 5 days for the first year with current plant choices, so be it. Available nutrition from the substrate is always diminishing.

Wouldn’t expect anyone starting out to try and replicate this as it sits right on the edge of anyones outcomes. Sure you’ll have plenty of feedback to grapple with at this high pace though, good for new learning. Just watch your tank like a hawk as often as you can. Looking forward to more updates 😉


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Sep 2022)

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Perhaps less nervous as others about your schedule @JoshP12 .


Huzzah!


Geoffrey Rea said:


> The merit of 20 hours of light is up to the tank owner. Unsure what the outcome will be but it’s interesting to try these things. See what level of photo inhibition you experience from 12 hours onwards. A lot of Co2 required for long photoperiod length, but so what? 🤷🏻‍♂️


I think the sweet is 8-12 ... probably 10. Other sides of this is diminishing returns. 6h probably the  minimum. 20h probably the maximum. I think 20-24h is really going to get bad, but we won't notice it until a month or two of stress. 


Geoffrey Rea said:


> This is no different than any high tech startup frankly. If you want to negate issues with rich substrate, you shift water early on. Pumping the substrate full of nutrients at the beginning has the additional water changes upfront as an added task, but gives locational choice of N in the longer run. Just may be a while longer before adding fish, but, yeah… woopty doo…


To me, it seems like homemade amazonia? Maybe a bit more potent?


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Also not concerned about the relatively high PAR input. Grow plants outside in the summer… you can’t turn down the sun.


Well ... your comment led me to p. 529 /530 of Christel Kasselmaan's book (if anyone doesn't have it, I strongly encourage you to contact her and buy it). Biotope 66 -- 1620 PAR at 1PM noon: the habitat of Rotala Macrandra (well one of). Then I saw these (these are top down shots):




Those bright red leaves are the macrandra.










Arcuatas sending loads of side shoots and the one is turning red. 
 


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Wet/dry filtering was a whole new world when first taken for a spin on that AS600 journal. Two ONF flat one light units with maximum overlapping, set to 100% from the get go, on a 60cm tank, at less than one foot depth… It was expected to be a disaster by most. You would expect carnage, but had very little to worry about due to continually high dissolved o2 levels. It’s a competition and as long as everything else is in check, plants win. How you get that o2 into the water is up to the owner.


Was inspired when I first saw that thread and it was the one that led me down the road of higher light initially.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> If anything, wanted to experiment with even higher PAR, which is exactly what you are doing so should be interesting.
> 
> The water changes are compensation for the lack of plant mass. Not sure what an ideal water change schedule will be for Josh @Wookii but given it’s automated water changes, it should be easy to accommodate. Even if it landed as every 5 days for the first year with current plant choices, so be it. Available nutrition from the substrate is always diminishing.


Immediately noticed today that the water was murkier and tds slightly higher than usual at the evening water change. The 2x a day were safer but the 1x a day will be enough. I'm thinking we will be able to ween to weekly or once every 4ish day within a few weeks once plant mass rolls in. 


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Wouldn’t expect anyone starting out to try and replicate this as it sits right on the edge of anyones outcomes. Sure you’ll have plenty of feedback to grapple with at this high pace though, good for new learning. Just watch your tank like a hawk as often as you can. Looking forward to more updates 😉


Irony is I haven't even looked at the hardscape since planting. 

As far as observations go, the side shoots that I am seeing, I only ever saw when dosing EI levels of N/P in the column. In other words, abundance of nutrients isn't the only trigger for side shoots (the arcuate has 2 at each node on most stems now which I also haven't seen in such a "young" plant before). 

Macrandra is redder and tighter than ever at such a "young" age. Also much redder than I have seen this early. 

Helferi plugging along. 

Monte carlo seems to be creeping. 

Hra and rotala green seem happy? 


Let's see what tomorrow brings.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (24 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Macrandra is redder and tighter than ever at such a "young" age. Also much redder than I have seen this early.



1000 PAR plus will do it. It’s cool to see the environmental adaptations packed so tightly. Amazonia type 1 and Solar RGB’s central (200 PAR) and you would see the same over 3 inches of growth on macrandra.

Initial plant growth has had their life line cut, white as snow. Up to you but would trim those bits off if it’s feasible, although can see against the scale of the soil it might be too tiny to get scissors on.

Easier to do early on before new growth smothers it. Could just wait for it to decay and get jettisoned off… but if it gets tangled up you’ll have decaying organics right next to fresh growth, not ideal. Quick blast with a turkey baster at the one month mark? Knock it all off. Probably overkill as you’re doing the water changes.



JoshP12 said:


> Well ... your comment led me to p. 529 /530 of Christel Kasselmaan's book (if anyone doesn't have it, I strongly encourage you to contact her and buy it). Biotope 66 -- 1620 PAR at 1PM noon: the habitat of Rotala Macrandra (well one of).



Have seen carpets of Cryptocoryne in the jungle in the Philippines getting blasted at noon. What holds as reasonably true in a tank doesn’t necessarily stand in the wild. Photo inhibition at midday is necessary, the same is being found with corals.

Makes your tank interesting to see what species can adapt to an environment where maximal levels are available for the majority of the day. If there’s a stem plant that is easily photographed, daily pictures from the same spot would be cool.

That PAR is only getting higher the closer it gets to the light source. However, everything under the shield of new growth will benefit from the shading. Seems forgotten that plants change their environment. You can’t turn off the sun.


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Sep 2022)

Geoffrey Rea said:


> 1000 PAR plus will do it. It’s cool to see the environmental adaptations packed so tightly. Amazonia type 1 and Solar RGB’s central (200 PAR) and you would see the same over 3 inches of growth on macrandra.


I am actually wondering if they won’t grow in the top 1/3 … or if they will look absolutely stunning.  Or flower …


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Initial plant growth has had their life line cut, white as snow. Up to you but would trim those bits off if it’s feasible, although can see against the scale of the soil it might be too tiny to get scissors on.


Scissors are giants compared to them, fingers also. If I had a team who would do it for me, it would be worth it - provided they didn’t disturb the substrate or roots.

Myself: I’ll start, my hand will slip or scissors will, the plant will get up rooted and we are 1 step forward 10 steps back (re anchoring stress etc). I’d probably get frustrated.

Knowing myself is in part why I automated water change. Provided I play the proactive game, I can just relax, enjoy the tank, and finger-thumb prune as needed to get plant forms and shapes I want.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Easier to do early on before new growth smothers it. Could just wait for it to decay and get jettisoned off… but if it gets tangled up you’ll have decaying organics right next to fresh growth, not ideal. Quick blast with a turkey baster at the one month mark? Knock it all off. Probably overkill as you’re doing the water changes.


It’s all correct I’d say from a waste-management perspective. If my daughter was a bit older, I’d go through it with her to be honest but right now it’s just me “doing” and can probably get away without sinking the time into it.

In ~ 1-2 months like you say, I think I’ll have enough growth, just waft my hand and get all those ghostly leaves airborne into the pump.



Geoffrey Rea said:


> Have seen carpets of Cryptocoryne in the jungle in the Philippines getting blasted at noon. What holds as reasonably true in a tank doesn’t necessarily stand in the wild. Photo inhibition at midday is necessary, the same is being found with corals.


You know now I am wondering if photoinhibition does occur then in theory I don’t need co2 at some point during photo period … uh oh don’t make me turn it off 😂.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Makes your tank interesting to see what species can adapt to an environment where maximal levels are available for the majority of the day. If there’s a stem plant that is easily photographed, daily pictures from the same spot would be cool.


Been trying will catalogue best I can.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> That PAR is only getting higher the closer it gets to the light source. However, everything under the shield of new growth will benefit from the shading. Seems forgotten that plants change their environment. You can’t turn off the sun.


Wonder what will be in the top 1/3 like I said - what’s your intuition Geoff? Death or beauty?

On individual shots: it’s very hard to get them because of the water, hardscape in my way lol, and my camera, and also user skills of course. But I am questioning: why aren’t they getting taller, then when we look, there are way more side shoots than I’d ever expect … and maybe others can say they have seen it this early but I haven’t.







It’s nearly at every single node. The only way I’ve done this is under high light (close to surface) and with EI. High light (close to surface) with low N/P didn’t work as well as EI did. Now, the substrate at the time was not this potent and flow was not this good … so perhaps nutrient (light, fert, co2) abundance and availability (summed over soil and column without issues of acquisition) is the key.

Side shoots = density
Early side shoots = staying petite/elegant
Red coloration = pretty

If this works … or when … grin.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (24 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I am actually wondering if they won’t grow in the top 1/3 … or if they will look absolutely stunning. Or flower …



Well, you saw the UG tank. It eventually flowered underwater wholesale. The specifics of that tank are important; it’s a carnivorous plant, consistency, no stock, 24 hour co2, extremely simple water column.

Know we’re generalising, which is really nothing more than speculation, but the consistency of environment led to all growth being poured into flowers once the carpet balanced to its available food source. It hit a limit in availability, it was a consistent limit. The primary growth then became stalks, with flowers racing to the surface and the carpet became static.

Stimulate the carpet again by trimming, couple of weeks to recover the leaves, then stops growing leaves and starts flowering again. Stimulus and response.

Flowering can be the final death throes of a plant, but you can ‘cycle’ that process so it never gets there. Most would first contact this personally growing Murdannia keisak, it’s an annual and fast growing. Once it flowers above the surface it dies back. You have to continually trim to prevent the outcome.



JoshP12 said:


> Wonder what will be in the top 1/3 like I said - what’s your intuition Geoff? Death or beauty?



If we knew it wouldn’t be worth doing right? Looking for species to species differences that are specific to your setup. Macrandra is an excellent indicator plant so should offer forewarning due to its sensitivity to minor changes and ability to adapt.

A lot hinges on whether you want to add stock, or forgo adding them for half a year so you can play.  No stock, you can pump co2 in as needed if you start spotting inconsistent/deformed growth the closer you get to the light sources. Mature root system at this point may negate this somewhat.

Would the top third enjoy co2 mist or is it mostly dissolved by the time it comes out of the outflow?

A PAR meter would be a great asset if you can borrow one. Saves the speculation. The intersection of all four light units overlapping in the top third should be pretty dramatic.

Get the impression folks expect fast growth under these conditions, when I would predict the opposite. You’ll get very tight growth between nodes with small leaves that take a long time to grow vertically. Would have doubled the initial planting on this basis but would be reticent to add plants that haven’t gone through the initial adaptions now. Eye on the ball, no mistakes, no unnecessary changes or introductions and we’ll see.

PS _Death or beauty..?  _would be a really cool journal name 😎


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Sep 2022)

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Well, you saw the UG tank. It eventually flowered underwater wholesale. The specifics of that tank are important; it’s a carnivorous plant, consistency, no stock, 24 hour co2, extremely simple water column.
> 
> Know we’re generalising, which is really nothing more than speculation, but the consistency of environment led to all growth being poured into flowers once the carpet balanced to its available food source. It hit a limit in availability, it was a consistent limit. The primary growth then became stalks, with flowers racing to the surface and the carpet became static.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this - I did notice this with Anubias, buce, and also when the stellatus and aromatica broke the surface. And Rotala (many species) actually.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> If we knew it wouldn’t be worth doing right? Looking for species to species differences that are specific to your setup. Macrandra is an excellent indicator plant so should offer forewarning due to its sensitivity to minor changes and ability to adapt.


Soooo … the gigs up. I knew that if I didn’t include at least Macrandra in this, the plant species would be to “easy” and a real critique of the entire process, so I had to splash a toughy in there.

It will basically live in anything but it will be ugly. Tough to make it thrive … I’ll dig some photos of macrandras I took at some point in the previous scapes. You can even see I’m honest shots, single stems generally stunted.

It’s easy to trim 1 out of 8 stems away before a photo … I really respect barr (and yourself for the honest journals you post … the biscuits for one!) for that - he’s shared photos before where 1 out of 10 stems is stunted … it’s partially the name of the game especially if the bushes are dense. It’s easy to get a 1 off perfect … a bush on the other hand will always (at least in my experience) have a stunt here or there. Unless you time the shot perfectly …


Geoffrey Rea said:


> A lot hinges on whether you want to add stock, or forgo adding them for half a year so you can play.  No stock, you can pump co2 in as needed if you start spotting inconsistent/deformed growth the closer you get to the light sources. Mature root system at this point may negate this somewhat.


I think this speaks a bit to my above comments.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Would the top third enjoy co2 mist or is it mostly dissolved by the time it comes out of the outflow?


Mist. Most places get some mist as is.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> A PAR meter would be a great asset if you can borrow one. Saves the speculation. The intersection of all four light units overlapping in the top third should be pretty dramatic.


No one has one locally - I’d have to buy. I might.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Get the impression folks expect fast growth under these conditions, when I would predict the opposite. You’ll get very tight growth between nodes with small leaves that take a long time to grow vertically. Would have doubled the initial planting on this basis but would be reticent to add plants that haven’t gone through the initial adaptions now. Eye on the ball, no mistakes, no unnecessary changes or introductions and we’ll see.


That is exactly what we are seeing!

Had the same intuition on plant mass but balance of being thrifty - what can I get away with. I know it’s slightly silly as we could do 1 stem … but also need to balance results and speed.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> PS _Death or beauty..?  _would be a really cool journal name 😎


Oooo let’s change it! Can we?


----------



## PARAGUAY (24 Sep 2022)

Haven't a clue what's goin on here Josh but love the story🙂 Think Death or Beauty might be tempting fate but don't think you would be to bothered😂


----------



## JoshP12 (24 Sep 2022)

PARAGUAY said:


> Haven't a clue what's goin on here Josh but love the story🙂 Think Death or Beauty might be tempting fate but don't think you would be to bothered😂


Oh you know … just trying to grow plants .

Thanks for coming on the ride with us!

In retrospect, maybe I’m trying to kill plants 😅😂.

Death or beauty is an excellent name!

But sheesh now it’s playing on my morale conscience.

Edit: upon reflection, my ultimate goal is to create the healthiest environment for plants and fish and fish keeper — and that’s the guide. 

We’re ok! 😊


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Sep 2022)

And real life takes over … auto doser went off (I mean it’s not a big deal but not ideal) 3 hours before water changed so doubled up my dose (again no biggy) … and I almost forgot to water change this evening - and co2 tank dropping faster than I’d like … debating turning co2 down. 

I’ll let this tank run (since I degassed some of it by accident) and replace it and then gauge consumption after that.


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Sep 2022)

really not seeing any benefit to plant growth rates with the 20h.

All I see is my utility bill and co2 bill 😂.

Going to go back to 10h keep things back to status quo from day 1.

Going to look to turning co2 down over the next week. In a “perfect” world (can argue the following will be a wasteful to environment etc), where someone else filled my co2 tanks and delivered them, I’d just leave the thing running, but going to start dialing it in.


----------



## John q (25 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Truth be told: I’m getting slightly impatient 😂.





JoshP12 said:


> Photoperiod up to 20h.





JoshP12 said:


> really not seeing any benefit to plant growth rates with the 20h.


Its been less than a week at 20hrs  what were you expecting?


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Sep 2022)

John q said:


> Its been less than a week at 20hrs  what were you expecting?


Lol.

 More than what I got given the pain in the neck it has caused me.

10h is just care free.


----------



## John q (25 Sep 2022)

Haha, Every day is school day mate 😁


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Sep 2022)

John q said:


> Haha, Every day is school day mate 😁


That’s why I think I love this glass box.

Side note - was looking through some photos … neat comparison:

Sept 17:




Today:





Like @Geoffrey Rea suggested with compact growth. 

Monte Carlo taking its time but stems are trekking.


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Sep 2022)

Water change done. Co2 turned down (can’t  be changing tanks every week that’s rediculous). 

Ferts back. 10h photo. Temp swings. Daily waters. 

Probably just let the tank go for the next week or so and update then.

Cheers,


----------



## Wookii (26 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> (can’t be changing tanks every week that’s rediculous).



What size tank have you got through in a week Josh? 

I'm still impressed that you haven't got any GDA on the rocks etc - any thoughts on why? Could it be related to the super low pH that would presumably result from so much CO2?

Also, I may have missed it earlier on, but what are your current fert dosing targets?

On the plant pictures you've posted above, what plant is that - Macrandra Red? What do you think is causing the leaf curling?


----------



## JoshP12 (26 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> What size tank have you got through in a week Josh?


10lbs  minus probably a “bunch” when I had the rubber stopper missing for a bit while tank was open (no clue how much that equates to).


Wookii said:


> I'm still impressed that you haven't got any GDA on the rocks etc - any thoughts on why? Could it be related to the super low pH that would presumably result from so much CO2?


In what I’ve read/experienced low pH exacerbates GDA … but I’ll have to think about it. I don’t have a solid answer.


Wookii said:


> Also, I may have missed it earlier on, but what are your current fert dosing targets?








Wookii said:


> On the plant pictures you've posted above, what plant is that - Macrandra Red? What do you think is causing the leaf curling?


Supposed to be ludwigia arcuata. It’s the only plant doing it (rest are like soldiers) —- I don’t think it’s the narrow leaf variety (wasn’t labelled) … some of ludwigia do this (Sengalegensis) but I was wondering that myself. 

I means it’s a lot of light, so I wonder if it’s just trying to adapt to it still. I’ll check christels book on what arcuata is used to in the wild. The Rotala species all love it.


----------



## Wookii (26 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


>



I assume that's ppm? Is that a weekly total?


----------



## JoshP12 (26 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> I assume that's ppm? Is that a weekly total?


Yep and its the full dosage I add in at water change. So it’s daily dose at the moment paired with water change.

The process is normally: change water, dose that target, then 10% - 20% (depending on observations)  of that total dose (it’s one solution) daily until I water change again … where I would do full dosage.


----------



## JoshP12 (26 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Probably just let the tank go for the next week or so and update then.


I can’t do it. I tried.

Benefits of going blind on co2: you use lots 😂. Joking - I think what’s important is to test but not take it too seriously. Truth is having reduced my co2, I think I’m bang on but I don’t want to risk being not bang on simply for an ego boost of going blind. Maybe if the tank was grown in and not at such a volatile stage.

So, realized we had some water bottles with around 285 ppm KH: 285/4=71.5 how perfect ~ 4kh.

I hate the scale and I hate measuring dry salts - in part why I used the same drop checker solution for a year.

Serial dilution with distilled water - let’s gooo!

3x: (from left to right in photo) 8dkh, 5-6dkh (kind of - just 1:3 dilution keep it simple), 4dkh






Let’s see where this co2 is at.


----------



## JoshP12 (26 Sep 2022)

Water cloudier than ever + more surface scum … less co2, higher pH … better bacterial activity?

Neat.


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Sep 2022)

Drop checkers are not degassing quick at all.

The 8dkh was the greenest of all and still yellow … I’m probably in the 70s if not more.

During water change, it turned green but the rest stayed bright yellow.

During the pm offgas, the 8dkh is the only one with any hints of blue. The rest of are lime greeney-yellow.

The co2 before was astronomical as I probably cut the injection rate it by a third.

Previous experience shows this much co2 has been injected but of course with larger plant mass but off gassed much much much faster.

I think this uncovers a new intuition —- the power of flow. I always knew the influence on nutrient delivery but I had failed to see the influence on saturation … with the wet/dry mimic (though not entirely the same and I suppose just a weir), I was expecting a vigorous offgas and we don’t see that.

I may actually be able to run lower levels of co2 - despite my initial intent of how much can I get in … perhaps I can get stronger plant forms with less co2 due to this better saturation/flow.

Take from Rich: water change, water parameter stability, and co2 application

Take from lean: lean column parameters and rich substrate

Optimal?

I suppose all we’re finding here is an ADA system with a Lilly pipe ………


----------



## Wookii (27 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> The co2 before was astronomical as I probably cut the injection rate it by a third.



I'm not surprised if you managed to chew through a 4.5Kg bottle in a week. That'd last me 6 months on a 100 litre tank typically, with a 12 hour photo period - those sorts of levels would be impossible to reasonably off-gas over night, especially with a 10 hour photo period, without using something like multiple air stones. My drop checkers rarely get further than dark green from off-gassing, even with fairly vigorous surface agitation.



JoshP12 said:


> I’m probably in the 70s if not more.



Well into the multiple hundreds I'd wager (assuming you're talking PPM).


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> I'm not surprised if you managed to chew through a 4.5Kg bottle in a week. That'd last me 6 months on a 100 litre tank typically, with a 12 hour photo period - those sorts of levels would be impossible to reasonably off-gas over night, especially with a 10 hour photo period, without using something like multiple air stones. My drop checkers rarely get further than dark green from off-gassing, even with fairly vigorous surface agitation.


The weir is pretty intense. It isn't agitation anymore, literally a waterfall. I was actually expecting it to offgas. I will keep an eye and slowly drop co2 to see. And yes ... it has lasted me much longer than 1 week before - haha!


Wookii said:


> Well into the multiple hundreds I'd wager (assuming you're talking PPM).


Ya ppm ... these plants are definitely not CO2 deficient!


----------



## John q (27 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> ppm ... these plants are definitely not CO2 deficient!





Lacking in something, they look like sh*t. 👍


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Sep 2022)

John q said:


> View attachment 194937
> Lacking in something, they look like sh*t. 👍



So check this:




Only change is less co2 + now higher pH.

When I first started fiddling with co2 (not now in other tanks),  I noticed as the pH was allowed to rise during photoperiod, the plants “loosened themselves up” … going to keep pulling off the gas and see if they straighten out.

Had a hunch ages ago that there is optimal pH despite free co2 in water — perhaps has to do with Rubisco functioning at higher pH but have no clue.


----------



## John q (27 Sep 2022)

Maybe it's a co2, o2 balance?  I Honestly don't know, I sound like @_Maq_  🤐


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Sep 2022)

John q said:


> Maybe it's a co2, o2 balance?  I Honestly don't know, I sound like @_Maq_  🤐


These things have roots now so no bacteria necessarily to help the roots but there is loads of light, loads of co2, loads of ferts, max o2 via weir - I mean isn’t pH a proxy and a decently bad and good one at that lol. Just as bad as tds.

Lots of stuff behaves more efficiently closer to 7 ph … I’ll pull off the gas tonight and see if they calm down and uncurl over the next few days.

I’ll get some shots of the Rotalas too - the whole tank looks calmer, and the cloudy water suggested a bacterial bloom potentially … . Perhaps the extreme of co2 is in fact not so great … some have cured GDA with reducing co2 as well — and GDA is a if I recall part bacteria thing (so not exclusively a plant but perhaps protist in nature but don’t quote me - just memory). 

Co2/O2 balance … not sure how to get more O2 in the system. So co2 is skewing it?


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Sep 2022)

Just took a look - water change … tank pearling way more. Coincidence? 





Wish I could go back to start up and run lower co2 with the 20h photo and infancy …. Issue with any test we do in this hobby.

Anyways … let’s see what lower co2 brings tomorrow.


----------



## Wookii (28 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Wish I could go back to start up and run lower co2 with the 20h photo and infancy …. Issue with any test we do in this hobby.



This continues to be an interesting journey, so don't feel perturbed, but it has proved one thing - it's not really possible to 'eye ball' CO2 delivery without some sort of measurement device.

Are you getting more typical drop checker colouration now with your lower CO2 levels?


----------



## Wookii (28 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Co2/O2 balance … not sure how to get more O2 in the system. So co2 is skewing it?



I suspect it's simply a case of too much CO2. It's fairly reasonable to hypothesise that extreme levels of CO2, and very low pH levels could be harmful to plants, in much the same way as they are other living organisms (it would have been ideal to know what your pH was and is now). 

Certainly in the wild you see a reduction in plant number in lower pH environments, such as black water system - and whilst some of that is likely due to the water turbidity and reduced light, some is likely also due to the much lower pH.


----------



## JoshP12 (28 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> This continues to be an interesting journey,





Wookii said:


> so don't feel perturbed, but it has proved one thing - it's not really possible to 'eye ball' CO2 delivery without some sort of measurement device.


I don’t know if that’s true! If I was more experienced, I would have known to pull off the gas sooner - I saw that curling instantly, but didn’t think to do that.

The measurement device was meant to be the plants but I need more experience to do it.


Wookii said:


> Are you getting more typical drop checker colouration now with your lower CO2 levels?


Yessir. Dropped it right down last night before water change and it was around 70 (green 8dkh), dropped it again so I’m banking on 40 ish when I check in today.

Aiming for that 30-40 range for the startup - I think it’s reasonable.



Wookii said:


> I suspect it's simply a case of too much CO2. It's fairly reasonable to hypothesise that extreme levels of CO2, and very low pH levels could be harmful to plants, in much the same way as they are other living organisms (it would have been ideal to know what your pH was and is now).


There is a minimum that it will go even with injecting more co2 (I think it’s 4.5 or something) but in any case, I only have bromothymol blue at home so I could only test down to 6ph anyways. Think it is safe to safe I was at 4-5. Now, it is probably 5.5-6 … but I’ll test it once my drop checker reads “properly”.


Wookii said:


> Certainly in the wild you see a reduction in plant number in lower pH environments, such as black water system - and whilst some of that is likely due to the water turbidity and reduced light, some is likely also due to the much lower pH.


Some of that pH drop is from tannins etc though mine was nearly purely co2 … unless my soil contributed from organics - but it was mostly co2.


I also think the fact that the plants are growing is pretty key. Think it’s very clear light doesn’t cause algae. But I think a better question is whether or not higher light levels are optimal over lower light levels.

And I think that can be fleshed out.


----------



## Wookii (28 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Think it’s very clear light doesn’t cause algae.



I think that's a conclusion too far at this point - lets give it a couple of weeks at the more sensible CO2 levels


----------



## JoshP12 (28 Sep 2022)

Blegh, undershot co2 for the day. Benefit of having the high light and temp is super fast feedback.








Tried to take a photo but the reason I know I undershot co2 was immediately from a single clump of Monte Carlo - has those greyish tendrils (part-plant thing). … induced and cleared it up on HC in the past with co2. It’s not flow, it is pure concentration — drop checker is perfect for a mature, full grown tank stocked with fish - but not for startup (too much volatility with ammonia release etc).


----------



## Wookii (29 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> drop checker is perfect for a mature, full grown tank stocked with fish - but not for startup



Are you running three drop checkers there with different dKH solutions? The colours look fine to me, assuming the middle one is the 4dKH - the positioning might be a problem though, they'd be better down in the rear left hand corner as they are likely getting a lot of direct bubbles. Whereabouts are the filter inlets in the tank?


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> I think that's a conclusion too far at this point - lets give it a couple of weeks at the more sensible CO2 levels


I already know it’s true! But we will wait.



Wookii said:


> Are you running three drop checkers there with different dKH solutions? The colours look fine to me, assuming the middle one is the 4dKH - the positioning might be a problem though, they'd be better down in the rear left hand corner as they are likely getting a lot of direct bubbles. Whereabouts are the filter inlets in the tank?


4,6,8

Color is fine if tank was established - for now regardless of any test, the co2 was undershot by just a little as little as 5ppm (making that up but just gave a number to illustrate). 95% of the plants are fine. Could be a flow pitfall in front left as well. But micro turn up and watch today.


----------



## Wookii (29 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> 4,6,8



So the 4dKH solution is darker than the 6dKH?



JoshP12 said:


> Could be a flow pitfall in front left as well.



You are at a slight disadvantage with flow given the only outlet is the weir at the surface, so CO2 rich water enters and exits at the surface, rather than a canister filter inlet which typically draws water down to the substrate level.

If your filter outlet is front right, its really no a great position for the drop checkers and they are presumably getting hit bit a direct stream of CO2 bubbles. I'd be putting them in the rear right or front right corners near the substrate.


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> So the 4dKH solution is darker than the 6dKH?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You’re bang on - is hard to explain but with 3x power heads and the outlet, we have this draw towards the front (half goes over the weir and half re circulated).

I’m not nearly as concerned as you are about it lol. Not a slight - I’m looking at the tank and have corporate knowledge of it and you are at a disadvantage trying to make sense of my sometimes incomprehensible, disjoint jot notes. 

The drop checker did its job - I’m in the ball park I need to be. Rest is watching the plants imo.


----------



## Wookii (29 Sep 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> You’re bang on - is hard to explain but with 3x power heads and the outlet, we have this draw towards the front (half goes over the weir and half re circulated).
> 
> I’m not nearly as concerned as you are about it lol. Not a slight - I’m looking at the tank and have corporate knowledge of it and you are at a disadvantage trying to make sense of my sometimes incomprehensible, disjoint jot notes.
> 
> The drop checker did its job - I’m in the ball park I need to be. Rest is watching the plants imo.



Ah right, I didn't see you mention three powerheads. and can't see them in the images - was just trying to ensure you got accurate results from your drop checkers of your minimum CO2 levels, rather than being skewed by CO2 bubbles flowing directly into them.


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Sep 2022)

Wookii said:


> Ah right, I didn't see you mention three powerheads. and can't see them in the images - was just trying to ensure you got accurate results from your drop checkers of your minimum CO2 levels, rather than being skewed by CO2 bubbles flowing directly into them.


Appreciate it. I’ll get some better shots this evening to show flow pattern.


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

@Wookii got the shot (was during water change - filter output is directly on top of the top power head (can’t see it because of water level) and it’s a cheap sun sun 2x Venturi split outlet … wanted to use it instead of something much better just to stay thrifty - had it already as it came with the canister).





And some updates:

Beginning to uncurl:








Co2 ~ max 70, and probably somewhere in the 50 to be honest. Will leave it and it will probably settle to the perfect level when tank grows in.

My doser continues to go off sometimes before I changed the water (lol user error - preset time from night before) … it really isn’t a huge deal, with young substrate it can handle some error on my end.

Macrandras are just looking stunning to me - I am very happy with the coloration and leaf shape so close to substrate … let’s see what some congestion does to them.

Pearling increasing every day.





Can’t quite see the tendrils I mentioned in the photo - and they are receding since I increased co2. But I wanted to give a shot of the MC (this plant for all cups was the most neglected, had the most jelly, and taken the longest to take). But we see some green and pearling in certain locations of the tank.





And then literally right beside it:


----------



## John q (1 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Beginning to uncurl:


I commented when it wasn't looking to good, so only fair I say something now. Looking much better 👍
Any thoughts why you were getting the curling.


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

John q said:


> I commented when it wasn't looking to good, so only fair I say something now. Looking much better 👍
> Any thoughts why you were getting the curling.


Haha thanks!

Only thing I did was turn down co2 … to reasonable levels and water is a reasonable pH now. I’ll do a pH profile today . Drop checker colours are there and I did a dilution from some water in a water bottle claiming to have 200 something ppm of carbonates - so … all that to say it’s all guess work but I’ll get it done today. 

Not sure that a low pH from tannins etc and not co2 would cause the same effect but I’ve experienced it with several plant varieties that easing off the gas just a little loosens ‘em up.

Whole tank looks better actually. And growth rates increased! But again it’s kind of a red herring since roots, bacteria, etc … not the same tank as it was at 20h photo.

A really neat observation on the co2 is that this same injection rate did not yield so much co2 in the water when I ran a different structure to the tank (spray bar and filter vs weir and power heads).

I mean you have to take my word on that (or ignore it) but that’s based on my memory from previous versions of the tank and injection rate.


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

Check this too @John q

@ 3:47




Auto doser goes off 7:40 while I am out …. 50 mL full dose.

8:58




Potassium does regulate photosynthetic enzymes … possible it was getting tired, had the K now, perked up …

The problem is every time I do that, I’m burning my substrate for a bit more food for the plant … and that means I’m losing time on having to worry about what I dose in the water column to prevent getting ugly plants. @Freshflora this is what I meant in my post on your journal mate. 

Then I’ll have to smell manure substrate again and do daily waters for a month lol.


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

Might sound crazy, given what I did on start up with the soil, but once Monte Carlo begins to grow, I need to be putting root tabs in that soil (better get making them) because once it covers the soil, I won’t be able to. Then the clock starts.

I didn’t plan properly for the Rotala side (there isn’t enough soil on top of the paint bags filled with soil to put root tabs in) — so I’ll need to top the rotalas in a few months, add an inch of fresh soil, re plant, do dailies for a week or so and then go from there.


Starting to dream about livestock.


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

Been diligently spraying the lights with electronic dust off and noticed much less flickering and the channels on one of the lights are all lit up usually.

Tilted them a bit more angled into the water so as not to loose any light from beam spread over the corner of the tank.

Think that’s it.

Definitely crystal shrimp going in - just not sure which.


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

First, everything is going to work and you are compensating in some way to make it work (and the compensation is how long you have until you have to pay more attention or overall aquarium health).

*Here is my current thinking to yield highest probability of success.

Substrate: *as rich as you can get! Garden soil - doped with slow release pellets - capped with aqua soil (to help with anchoring/planting and so when you uproot it’s “clean”).  Make sure iron and micros are in there.

*Lights:* buy one with good spectrum + intensity — 100% from the get go 10h.

*Temp:* set it and forget it (swings if you want) - 23-26 celcius is good.

*Filtration: *classic recommendation 10x over, some sponges, minimal “media” … just a flow maker.

*Flow/distribution:* there isn’t an optimal pattern - depends on dimensions of tank. Low velocity, high turnover is the key.

*Surface agitation/gas exchange: *you need it. Doesn’t matter how you do it but it needs to be done.

*Surface: *should be clean to promote gas exchange… skimmer or weir probably a good idea.

*Water change:* daily at start up for a month until cycled, then ease off to every 2 days, then 3, … until desired frequency for tank + utilize: daily and ween when you root tab, or issues occurs etc

I think that’s everything right? Haha joking the most controversial to follow.

*Ferts and co2 and water: *

You need to start somewhere: tap water will dictate.

*Macronutrients: *
Nitrate, kh, GH, phosphate tend to be loosely linked in tap water. Kh and GH much more tightly linked. GH tends to be majority Ca.

So, we use Ca to begin the process.

Get Ca to mg at ~ 3:1. 150 Ca, get Mg to 50. Stick K in the middle for the ~ 3:2:1 Ca:Mg:K … 100 should do the trick.

Now, if your tap is 150 Ca, I mean good luck: your KH is high (making plant selection trickier and CO2 application more challenging) and this kind of GH really narrows fish selection ... --- probably better off going rain water + remineralizing with tap and salts or RO and remineralizing.

In any case, use Ca to dictate NO3 at ~ 5:1. So in this example, 30NO3 ... or EI. With 30 Ca, we go 6 NO3 .... with 15 Ca, we go 3 NO3 ... and I hope you start to see a trend here. Use NO3 to dictate PO4 at 2:1 .... so 30NO3, 15 PO4 and so on.

The trend is this: ADA dosing extremely lean NO3 ... tap water in Japan? Everyone in UK uses EI ... tap water in UK? EI works for half of the US ... tap water in the US ... Dennis Wong APT takes over the US and Canada ... tap water is closer to soft/moderate hard. And when his ferts don't work, the suggestion is to try the leaner version lol.

The Dutch never use their tap water lol ... they remineralize RO. Like I mentioned before Ca 30 under this schema is pretty safe for a reminalizeration target. Then you can pull of NO3 (and PO4) if you want to make the plant more petite.

All of the macros front loaded at water change. Can do partial dosage daily or periodically afterwards, if needed.

That covers Macro nutrients.

*Micronutrients: *any mix will do, concentrated solution if it's meant to be dosed in large batches, or roll your own at desired ratios. Iron proxy ~ .015 ppm daily. Go ahead and play with chelates EDDHA, DTPA, Gluconate, EDTA ... again a reason that a lot of US "prefer" DTPA ... and the other "a lot of US" prefer EDTA --- hardness of tap water. Us Canadians, we are just confused. Can always just dose more of EDTA ... be aware of compensating for performance with other things. Dosed daily ~ around lights on.

*KH and CO2: *If you have KH < 5-6 ish, you can probably get away with CO2 with lights given you have ample agitation. Probably safer to go 30 min before lights on just so no one gives you flack on your advice to them. Anything more, you need ramp up to about 2-3hours, if you go any more than this, you need to look at system efficiency. If you have lights at 100, your system will be efficient enough so you won't need more than 2-3 hours. Also, if you lights force a small ramp (such as mine and you put 30 minutes), then you definitely won't need any more time. And higher KH affects CO2 acquisition for the plant so you begin to narrow plant choices to more harder water varieties - especially if you want livestock.

The plants dance the prettiest when the pH is higher in the tail end of the photoperiod, but I think this is more of a finesse rather than a "grow pretty plants".

Soft water: co2 with lights - simply unneccesary to go before, especially under this schema.

*Magic ppm for CO2:  *pH no lower than 5.5ish seems to be sound advice: and you don’t need to get there until about 30 min-45min into the photoperiod, depending … might be 46 minutes lol … it needs to be “on its way to peak” at lights on and soft water users are always on the way to peak due to low KH and carbonate equilibrium with co2.

Look at soft water users drop checkers ... most of them land around 6 pH. Hard water users simply don't have to worry about going this far ... you'll gas the tank before you get to that point. Free CO2 in the water column as a requirement is unique to the plant - standard drop checker advice is good I'd say for peak drop (noting all the issues with drop checkers and also with pH measurements). Using pH + Drop Checker within this schema - bingo.



I think thats it .

Any feedback on it?


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

In terms of pH profile ... had to leave today so wasn't around at lights on but end of day I'll share the pH probe tracking report. In the interim, pH hits around 5.7/8 within at most 45 minutes (since that's when I got home to check). Can't be much further down -- it's an estimate as bromothymol blue only goes to 6 (and probe doesn't read properly - error).

I wanted to also share some shots from previous iterations of the tank (I am not sure if I have shared all of them on the forum, but - more for me - this journal documents most of the process for me so I will add them).



*








































*


Should've trimmed that one away before the shot - darn lol:

























I am very excited to have the new tank rolling ... looking at the swamp depressed me I think BAHAHAH.

Cheers,
Josh


----------



## Hufsa (1 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Any feedback on it?


You know I have a lot of respect for you @JoshP12 so I say this with the utmost affection, but some of your earlier postings had a bit of a "mad man raving at the streetcorner" kind of vibe to them 
And I think maybe people would have just glossed over them if you didnt then also BAM hit us with the photos of your plants.
With the combo its like "hot dang, alright, Im listening to what youre saying and I would like to hear more" 😁

So usually im with you most of the time (as long as I can understand what youre saying), and while im stubbornly following my own path as usual, theres no denying you got the plant growth to back up the words with.
This thread is a wonderfully wild ride and I think we're all here for it 🤠😎

Yeehaw!


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Oct 2022)

Hufsa said:


> You know I have a lot of respect for you @JoshP12 so I say this with the utmost affection, but some of your earlier postings had a bit of a "mad man raving at the streetcorner" kind of vibe to them


. This hobby brings the crazy out of all of us!


Hufsa said:


> And I think maybe people would have just glossed over them if you didnt then also BAM hit us with the photos of your plants.
> With the combo its like "hot dang, alright, Im listening to what youre saying and I would like to hear more" 😁


The power of photos!


Hufsa said:


> So usually im with you most of the time (as long as I can understand what youre saying), and while im stubbornly following my own path as usual, theres no denying you got the plant growth to back up the words with.
> This thread is a wonderfully wild ride and I think we're all here for it 🤠😎
> 
> Yeehaw!


😊 glad I’m not alone lol.

Appreciate you sharing this.


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Oct 2022)

@Hufsa  to add to my madman vibe, I have to share what happened this AM.

I pass by the tank (it’s dark) and take a little look inside and the little Monte Carlo leaves are all closed up (super good sign imo as it means, they are starting to do what the rotalas did a week ago — they should explode soon) … anyways they looked so cute 😂😆.

I don’t what it is about this hobby …. It’s just so hard and maybe that’s why when something clicks for us, we just run with it. And we find these rabbit holes that force to re evaluate everything we know. And you can’t truly know anything so we get statements like in my experience or people destroy you- is why I like UKAPS.

I feel the issue is when we forget to check our bias, or slip into dogma where we feel we can’t be wrong.

And sorry @Hufsa now I’ve tagged you into a philosophical dialogue.


----------



## Yugang (2 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> philosophical dialogue.


The truth is that anywhere on planet earth where there is water and light, there are plants. Evolution has found solutions for nearly every challenge. Have a tank with water and light, it is a humbling thought that none of our 'wisdom' is required for some plants to find a happy home. Our biasses are man made, a product of our own imagination and desire to control nature.
It's happy hour in HK, enjoying a wine and @JoshP12 inspiring thread


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> It's happy hour in HK, enjoying a wine and @JoshP12 inspiring thread


Red? Cab. Sauv? Love it.

Please don’t spill your wine at the following proposition. 

I think that that ph really messed with my plants during the 20h: 

Rubisco works better at higher pH and only while light is on the plant. This means, we need an increase in pH with the lights on to optimize growth.

Currently co2 on with lights. If I cut it early, plants will look better - my thoughts. 

So, 1 hour before lights off will be fine. 2 hours probably fine. 3 hours likely fine. 4 hours I’m not sure. So we start with 4 hours and watch. System is fast so should know tonight if it’s a bad idea. 

If this works, 24h photoperiod should work with peaks and valleys in ph.


----------



## KirstyF (2 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Any feedback on it?



With tap, the ratios are always skewed.

My tap contains 30plus ppm Nitrate. To maintain the ratios I’d have to increase Ca to 150ppm which would be…madness…right!

With tap, you are always limited to what you can add in as you can’t remove.

I’ll use approximate numbers for the sake of easy illustration but let’s say I have:

Ca 75ppm
This would mean needing:
K 50ppm
Mg 25ppm

But would also mean I would only need:
No3 15ppm

But my No3 is 30ppm
Which would mean needing:
Po4 15ppm

But the ratios are already broken.
So;
Ca 75ppm
No3 30ppm
Po4 15ppm
K 50ppm
Mg 25ppm
And we are already making EI look lean.

With all ratios in place and No3 driving we have:
Ca 150ppm
No3 30ppm
Po4 15ppm
K 100ppm
Mg 50ppm 
And no sane person would willingly use this surely. 

With RO and re-mineralising this becomes easy. Softer water and lower nitrates and it’s feasible but harder water and higher nitrates and it moves into the realms of crazy numbers. 

So that’s puts a good chunk of the UK out so far as I understand! 

So I guess that ultimately my questions are:
Why do ratios matter? 
and
If you are restricted by tap, which rules do you break? 

This is not a spurious question. I genuinely find the subject of great interest, but find limited answers on optimisation around hard water and would be interested in your take on it.

I accept in advance that ‘just use the EI method’ will be the feeling of many and that it has proven success, but that is not my question here, so if we can hold ourselves back from that response folks, that would be cool. 😊


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Oct 2022)

KirstyF said:


> With tap, the ratios are always skewed.
> 
> My tap contains 30plus ppm Nitrate. To maintain the ratios I’d have to increase Ca to 150ppm which would be…madness…right!
> 
> With tap, you are always limited to what you can add in as you can’t remove.


Thanks for these insights as the only hard water I have is at a friends well. I am in the city.

Edit: I’ve gone to about 10GH I think. Calcium was in the 60s? Will see if I wrote it or documented it somewhere.


KirstyF said:


> I’ll use approximate numbers for the sake of easy illustration but let’s say I have:
> 
> Ca 75ppm
> This would mean needing:
> ...


I’d be happy to try it and is on my list! Also, @Geoffrey Rea or @Zeus. tap are near this I think?

I also think Clive did this already when he was pouring in booster. + the boosters basically follow these ratios closely anyways (close enough right?)?



KirstyF said:


> With RO and re-mineralising this becomes easy. Softer water and lower nitrates and it’s feasible but harder water and higher nitrates and it moves into the realms of crazy numbers.


I think if we have this issue, we need to use nitrate as the proxy and scale up the GH. The benefit - I think - prettier plant forms.


KirstyF said:


> So that’s puts a good chunk of the UK out so far as I understand!
> 
> So I guess that ultimately my questions are:
> Why do ratios matter?
> ...


They don’t. You can break any. But the amount of time you have until you need to start adhering to some form of a guideline will be limited as your soil will begin to become unbalanced.

So the closer we Adhere, perhaps, we extend how long we can be careless on other things. I’ll think on this one.


KirstyF said:


> This is not a spurious question. I genuinely find the subject of great interest, but find limited answers on optimisation around hard water and would be interested in your take on it.
> 
> I accept in advance that ‘just use the EI method’ will be the feeling of many and that it has proven success, but that is not my question here, so if we can hold ourselves back from that response folks, that would be cool. 😊


It will work for sure but in 6 months, the plants will begin to look odd and deformed. Don’t quote the six months but I think that’s the idea.

+ go inert and I really don’t think it will work well enough for what we like.

I have more thoughts but wanted to get this out!

Edit: the thought becomes that the increase in GH will moderate the intake of the N and P etc such that what is needed from the soil to “top off the skewed demand” is that much more balanced, so the soil will last longer before it can’t keep up.

Edit: @KirstyF Think I’m done adding edits. Last one: idea would be pick any targets you like in tap and if you nail co2, with fresh soil, the plants will likely grow without any issue. The question becomes how long will this be until you have issues and have to pay more attention to what you’re doing. In inert, it won’t work like that - you need to pay more attention from the get go.

And I would say this is not to “grow” plants - but to make them pretty. I don’t want stunted tips or deformed leaves or long internodes lol … not picky right?


----------



## Zeus. (2 Oct 2022)

My tap water was about -
Ca 130 ppm
Mg 5 ppm
Before I moved


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Oct 2022)

2h into photoperiod today (I’m actually nervous for the co2 to turn off 😂):













All tendrils on the MC clump are receding if not completely gone.

Just shy of 2 hours in (obviously blue at lights on):




2h in: the numbers on probe are wrong but relative drop you can see.


----------



## KirstyF (2 Oct 2022)

Zeus. said:


> My tap water was about -
> Ca 130 ppm
> Mg 5 ppm
> Before I moved



And I thought my water was hard!!!

Interesting.
Whilst I have only been more recently experimenting with different stems. My experience so far has been that they have still grown better planted in what is now 11 month old aquasoil than they have in newer (lightly pre-used) aquasoil in pots. Yet you would expect less ‘top up’ to be available.

This was certainly the case with Cobomba and I now have Ludwigia White and Eusteralis Stellata in both mediums but only been in a couple of weeks so results remain to be seen. 

I also have plants such as Crypts and Blyxa growing well in inert substrate where richer soil is often recommended; though I would have to say that whilst playing with Micros I was quickly able to induce a pretty good case of Chlorosis in both the Cobomba and the Blyxa by dropping to 0.1ppm Iron (weekly) Taking it back to 0.3ppm (50% DTPA/50% Gluconate) resolved the issue. 

Anyhow, I won’t de-rail ur thread any further. 😊 Certainly watching this one with interest and it offers plenty of food for thought. 👍


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Oct 2022)

KirstyF said:


> And I thought my water was hard!!!
> 
> Interesting.
> Whilst I have only been more recently experimenting with different stems. My experience so far has been that they have still grown better planted in what is now 11 month old aquasoil than they have in newer (lightly pre-used) aquasoil in pots. Yet you would expect less ‘top up’ to be available.


Give the details! What column dosing are you doing?


KirstyF said:


> This was certainly the case with Cobomba and I now have Ludwigia White and Eusteralis Stellata in both mediums but only been in a couple of weeks so results remain to be seen.
> 
> I also have plants such as Crypts and Blyxa growing well in inert substrate where richer soil is often recommended; though I would have to say that whilst playing with Micros I was quickly able to induce a pretty good case of Chlorosis in both the Cobomba and the Blyxa by dropping to 0.1ppm Iron (weekly) Taking it back to 0.3ppm (50% DTPA/50% Gluconate) resolved the issue.


Could have been that with substrate, the chlorosis would have taken more extremes to see. Your column targets must be “good”.


KirstyF said:


> Anyhow, I won’t de-rail ur thread any further. 😊 Certainly watching this one with interest and it offers plenty of food for thought. 👍


Please do de rail it (and not really a de rail at all). If anything, it will help.


----------



## KirstyF (2 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Give the details! What column dosing are you doing?
> 
> Could have been that with substrate, the chlorosis would have taken more extremes to see. Your column targets must be “good”.
> 
> Please do de rail it (and not really a de rail at all). If anything, it will help.



Well I started out on full EI, so was just dosing the below on top of tap.
No3 30ppm
Po4 3ppm
K 30ppm
Mg 10ppm

Switched the Po4 up as far as 8ppm to try to resolve some gsa specifically on slow growers, but with no notable improvement. Moving them to shadier spots helps. 😏

But I’ve been playing a lot with ferts as, amongst other things, it’s good learning. and so I’m now dosing:

Macro
No3 0ppm (but have 30 plus in tap)
Po4 2ppm (tap unknown)
K 10ppm (tap unknown)
Mg 5ppm (some additional in tap assumed)
Have been reducing over a period of time and still experimenting with this. This particular mix has only been in use for around 3 weeks. Not noted any signs of deficiency yet. 

Micro has had a bit more work.
It was:
Fe 0.5ppm DTPA
Mn 0.1
B 0.06
Mo 0.009
Zn 0.07
Cu 0.014

And is now:
Fe 0.3 (0.15 DTPA and 0.15 Gluconate)
Mn 0.1
B 0.02
Mo 0.005
Zn 0.02
Cu 0.006
Plants seem pretty happy with this Micro at the moment.

Co2 is, and has been, a fairly standard 1ph drop pretty much throughout,


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Oct 2022)

KirstyF said:


> Well I started out on full EI, so was just dosing the below on top of tap.
> No3 30ppm
> Po4 3ppm
> K 30ppm
> ...


I wonder if this dosing regime minus the nitrate (so let your tap use it all) with the PO4 high will outperform or get rid of GSA  more so than the new one. 


KirstyF said:


> But I’ve been playing a lot with ferts as, amongst other things, it’s good learning. and so I’m now dosing:
> 
> Macro
> No3 0ppm (but have 30 plus in tap)
> ...


GSA? Can you put a slow grower back in the light and see if it remedies or gets worse? 


KirstyF said:


> Micro has had a bit more work.
> It was:
> Fe 0.5ppm DTPA
> Mn 0.1
> ...


Makes sense right - if you dosed like me .015 proxy, probably get deficiency (like you saw at .1 instead of .3). 


KirstyF said:


> Co2 is, and has been, a fairly standard 1ph drop pretty much throughout,


Ya I’d just leave it like this too.


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Oct 2022)

Ran myself into a pickle.

Daily water changes … had to water change evening after co2 was off 2 hours (no issues Ps) and the problem is ferts back in to targets and even though only an hour left and co2 enriches water and exposure to air, I was chicken 😂.

Turned co2 back on until end of photoperiod.

Let’s see what tomorrow brings. Might have to do my turning off co2 early test once the tank is established … or … not be a chicken.

It would’ve been fine but I just couldn’t do it 😂.


----------



## Wookii (3 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> . This hobby brings the crazy out of all of us!



It certainly does - I thought that as I was hacking out a channel in the plastered wall of my kitchen at the weekend to run some auto-water change pipework!! 🤪


----------



## KirstyF (3 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I wonder if this dosing regime minus the nitrate (so let your tap use it all) with the PO4 high will outperform or get rid of GSA more so than the new one.



I’ve wondered this myself. I’m looking to probably run the new one for another 3 weeks, which should eliminate any previous excesses (particularly nitrate) and create a more stable ‘fresh slate’ to work from. (Unless I see any negative reaction of course, in which case I’ll review) I like to know my baselines so that if things go horribly wrong I can revert to the last point of ‘happy plants’ without causing too much damage. 

I can then play with Po4 and/or K to assess responses. If I can get more tolerance for higher light in my slow growers I’d be a happy girl. I’m guessing there’s probably a limit to that but I’m not blasting the tank with light so…..we’ll see.


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Oct 2022)

KirstyF said:


> I’ve wondered this myself. I’m looking to probably run the new one for another 3 weeks, which should eliminate any previous excesses (particularly nitrate) and create a more stable ‘fresh slate’ to work from. (Unless I see any negative reaction of course, in which case I’ll review) I like to know my baselines so that if things go horribly wrong I can revert to the last point of ‘happy plants’ without causing too much damage.


Why don’t you just do back to back waters in the same day to reset the column. Dose the new targets you want. And repeat this for a few days. That will balance the system faster than 3 weeks id say if time is what you want to “steal”. The excess nitrates will be stored in the plants but if you’re dosing 60NO3 and dropping the dose to 30 NO3 … this is still pretty rich 😂. And the higher PO4 will help drive the NO3 stores to empty faster than the leaner PO4.

I’d bet (but I want to see what happens as I may be wrong) the lower N higher P higher K higher Mg - Ca fixed with tap will yield better results.


KirstyF said:


> I can then play with Po4 and/or K to assess responses. If I can get more tolerance for higher light in my slow growers I’d be a happy girl. I’m guessing there’s probably a limit to that but I’m not blasting the tank with light so…..we’ll see.


In all those photos I posted, we have a combination of fresh substrate, exhausted substrate, all extremes of water change (daily, weekly, monthly, never), temp swings (high temp and low temp), 5x EI, 100+ K, GH 2-10, KH 1-5, and 0-1 Nitrate/Phosphate in column — the buce and Anubias I had grew under every condition but @Geoffrey Rea grew Anubias in that ONF x2 tank without any issues … do you know his targets at the time @KirstyF or maybe he can just pop them in here for us


----------



## KirstyF (3 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Why don’t you just do back to back waters in the same day to reset the column. Dose the new targets you want. And repeat this for a few days. That will balance the system faster than 3 weeks id say if time is what you want to “steal”. The excess nitrates will be stored in the plants but if you’re dosing 60NO3 and dropping the dose to 30 NO3 … this is still pretty rich 😂. And the higher PO4 will help drive the NO3 stores to empty faster than the leaner PO4.



Well there’s a whole bunch of logic in that. 😊
But do you know how long it takes to do back to backs on a 700ltr 😳😂

I’m also generally only home Fri evenings and weekends (I’m mostly in London during the week) 

And…..I’m a little curious to see if the tank starts complaining about these numbers. 🤔

I might try to pop in a double change next weekend though. My tank nitrate is still just a bit higher than tap at the minute and I’d like to at least get that pretty close to even. 😊


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Oct 2022)

What I noticed on algaes.

When the plant is growing in pristine (top to bottom) condition:
Lots of ferts doesn't cause "visible" algae.
Lots of CO2 doesn't cause "visible" algae.
Lots of light doesn't cause "visible" algae.

This state of pristineness means that everything is getting what they need in proper demand. The plants seem to be able to adapt within reason to accomodate all of these states and variances in them within reason (color change, leaf size, leaf orientiation, etc).

When that demand get's skewed (from any of the 3 above), such that the plant can't adapt anymore to accomodate it, then the algaes appear.

Some of these adaptions included major structural deformities (I recall rotala rotundifolia growing with holes etc under rich column conditions with exhausted substrate ... they didn't show up when the substrate was rich) --- all of those without the presence of algae - it was absolutely bizarre

Then I was digging through and found my old post:



Honing it in? Obsessing? It looks ok from my couch - but not up close ...  and this one Did something eat these?

More to come!


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Oct 2022)

Here it is (first draft): 

Algae is an important indicator for how many things we have done wrong. 

Something is missing in the plant … not about what we give it but what the plant can actually take. Example, you have access to a trust fund, but you aren’t old enough to get the cash. You dose iron, but the plant can’t absorb it. You have nice sneakers, but no feet. 


To correct algae: Basically every argument/plan of attack has this: adjust ferts, CO2, or light. 

The goal is for everything to be running properly - decreasing light reduces O2 evolution and metabolism (which cleans up nasties from water column  (especially if we get things running properly)), so it isn’t a smart option. 

My choice is ferts or CO2 (always Flow should be optimized first). If your flow is bad and you cannot change it, then just change ferts, since you will likely be able to get away with less optimal flow to adapt to different ferts anyways. 

On CO2, if it is already maxed (and flow is bang on): 1) you kill livestock 2) you drop pH too far affecting plant mechanism and/or bacteria.

Ferts also give you lots of O2 evolution (up to max growth), but when paired with low light, it is not healthy. 

An EI system with rich substrate and highlight properly running is the healthiest system around. But it is hard to get the healthy plant forms under EI without driving the system hard. If something is lacking, then it gets less healthy. 


Ok: 
We have two different kinds of algaes (ones like plants and ones less like plants)


1) Ones like plants 

In order of how “how off the mark you are" from least to greatest:

i) Green thread

To correct: Increase water column dosing a bit (at whatever concoction you are using). Or just leave it and hope the plants adapt and we trim away old, affected growth. 

ii) Green Spot Algae
Less common on stems (access to soil) and more common on epiphytes (more sensitive to column dosing). 

I have never seen it on stem plants that have access to soil … on inert, yes. 

Go to ferts: Fix your column targets - increase or decrease GH, play with NO3/PO4 … K will only help when there is soil around (probably). Bring them as close to the boundaries as we set out here: A reflection - putting it all into one scape

iii) Beard algae 

Again, pretty rare on stems in rich soil. 
Black beard algae turns green under higher light. 

To correct: After CO2, fix your column targets. 

2) Ones less like plants

These are protists like things so point to issues in microbial complexes and probably plants will show issues and other algaes shortly thereafter too. 

What to bacteria things need?: O2 and pH. This is why we fix light at 100 - maximize O2 when everything else is on point.  

i) Diatoms 

More light and temp to speed up the maturation process. High light tanks from startup rarely see diatoms, if ever. If they do something else wrong, other algaes show up. 

ii) Green Dust Algae

pH too low (waiting three weeks sometimes work … maybe because the plants grow in and use up the CO2). Ease off the CO2. If your CO2 is off, then you will get other algaes in response to this … then you need to look elsewhere and then perhaps that fix will increase CO2 consumption and then likely fix the pH issue. 

iii) Cyano 

Increase all column fert – just NO3 may skew the overall balance promoting other issues … but it may also bring the tank back to balance for a period of time until substrate runs out …  

iv) Staghorn 

Something seriously bad happened. There will be more algae to follow this one - a phase of establishment. Give it time to let it settle and see if anything else comes up. Start with light. Normally BBA follows if you don’t fix the root issue.


----------



## MichaelJ (4 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Here it is (first draft):
> 
> Algae is an important indicator for how many things we have done wrong.
> 
> ...



Hi @JoshP12    Love your posts. I literally spend quality time trying to extract as much information as I can - sort of like figuring a partial differential equation.  ... I think a bit more verbiage or verbosity might help more people 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Oct 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12    Love your posts. I literally spend quality time trying to extract as much information as I can - sort of like figuring a partial differential equation.


Glad they are useful!


MichaelJ said:


> ... I think a bit more verbiage or verbosity might help more people
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Appreciate it. You know when I was in uni, I used to write these extremely long and rigorous proofs. My prof, said the proof is fine but it’s a bit verbose - you can omit the obvious things. I said, how do you know what is obvious and what is not 😂. It took me a while but I figured it out haha.

Even in my personal writing, I’ve moved to using “too many” (my wife’s words) dangling modifiers.

I’d be happy to flesh anything out more rigorously but didn’t want to bog down the main post there.

Anything specific you can think of? I think between the algae and characterization post, it covers most big ideas (now we can get specific … while I do daily water changes ugh lol?


----------



## GreggZ (4 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> To correct algae: Basically every argument/plan of attack has this: adjust ferts, CO2, or light.


Don't underestimate the fourth pillar. Maintenance/Horticulture.

Water changes, substrate maintenance, trimming, pruning, removal of dead/decaying plant matter, controlling plant mass, controlling shading, flow, filter cleaning, etc. 

IMO get these right and the others all become easier. The benefits of old fashioned elbow grease is under rated. It's the one thing that the best tanks that I follow have in common.


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Oct 2022)

GreggZ said:


> Don't underestimate the fourth pillar. Maintenance/Horticulture.


Yes - but I don't know if it's a pillar .... more so a tool? Humor me.


GreggZ said:


> Water changes, substrate maintenance, trimming, pruning, removal of dead/decaying plant matter, controlling plant mass, controlling shading, flow, filter cleaning, etc.


Do all that stuff and all it does is make CO2 and light implementation more effective ...  ?

Certainly, if your maintenance sucks, then your plants will respond to any changes poorly (and poor mainteanance inheritly skews CO2/light efficacy and ferts since it's all connected to flow). So you have these inherity changes (also with ammonia build up driving demands etc), and the inability for the plant to respond.


GreggZ said:


> IMO get these right and the others all become easier. The benefits of old fashioned elbow grease is under rated. It's the one thing that the best tanks that I follow have in common.


Now who cares about all that stuff - since this advice is gold.

So, maintenance is key but I think it's because of its influence on the three things I mentioned.


If someone knows their mainteance stinks, you can design a tank to circumvent the issues.


----------



## MichaelJ (4 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Glad they are useful!



Hi @JoshP12, 

For sure.   I suppose what I was alluring to was more elaboration.  



JoshP12 said:


> Appreciate it. You know when I was in uni, I used to write these extremely long and rigorous proofs. My prof, said the proof is fine but it’s a bit verbose - you can omit the obvious things. I said, how do you know what is obvious and what is not 😂. It took me a while but I figured it out haha.


Well, in an academic setting among peers where everyone is supposed to be on the same page, terseness and brevity are often the desired way to communicate findings and ideas.  

The section on algae seems very hard to follow.  Diatoms for instance, are pretty common in new immature tanks regardless of tech and light levels. GSA seems to be mostly attacking slow(er) growers regardless of whether they are in soil or not - increasing PO4 appears to help, but it remain unclear to me exactly what the interaction is -  you can certainly have very low PO4 levels and no GSA (as a matter of fact you can be low (or _lean _rather) on everything and never see GSA, but if they show up you can eradicate them with high PO4 for a period of time and lower the dosing when they are gone.  Never felt there was a need to increase GH or fiddle with NO3 levels (?).

Regards,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (4 Oct 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12,
> 
> For sure.   I suppose what I was alluring to was more elaboration.





MichaelJ said:


> Well, in an academic setting among peers where everyone is supposed to be on the same page, terseness and brevity are often the desired way to communicate findings and ideas.


I’m sorry - went back and re read my message - hope it wasn’t perceived as I omittted the obvious … was not my intention whatsoever and I did omit quite a bit  …maneuvering it myself too so I don’t actually know. 

But I’ll get more details drafted. 

Honestly, like the title, I’m trying to put it all together and not sure how. 


MichaelJ said:


> The section on algae seems very hard to follow.  Diatoms for instance, are pretty common in new immature tanks regardless of tech and light levels.





MichaelJ said:


> GSA seems to be mostly attacking slow(er) growers regardless of whether they are in soil or not - increasing PO4 appears to help, but it remain unclear to me exactly what the interaction is -  you can certainly have very low PO4 levels and no GSA (as a matter of fact you can be low (or _lean _rather) on everything and never see GSA, but if they show up you can eradicate them with high PO4 for a period of time and lower the dosing when they are gone.  Never felt there was a need to increase GH or fiddle with NO3 levels (?).
> 
> Regards,
> Michael



I think I have some ideas to share here - will do it soon,


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Oct 2022)

Again, do apologize @MichaelJ.

Can confirm that I have diatoms! So high light does not rule them out (though may decrease the probability that they show). I only have them near (on the substrate) the extremely damaged Monte Carlo .

The Rotala/arcuata area is completely clear and thriving and all Monte Carlo that is growing is clear.

Of course, the area with the worst flow showed the diatoms first … coincidence?

I don’t disagree with much of what you said re: not needing to adjust certain parameters to see results. I think the intuition is something along the lines of: EI in hard water is lean in soft water and EI in soft water is 3x EI in hard water. But I’m grasping at words. The implications could be also on time - if this iteration of phosphate addition and removal happened over and over, would issues be worse the further down the line?

Would adjusting other parameters at the same time as PO4 not “solve” the issue (as you could solve it in an easier way - just PO4) but would it preserve the state of the tank longer?

But there are outliers that say PO4 and CO2 don’t fix my algae so what do I do? I think In these cases, we lean to fixing the column targets? If adding PO4 fixes it and you are going to tear it down next month after the photo shoot, it makes no difference, but long term, gorgeous tanks - different story.


----------



## Yugang (5 Oct 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Well, in an academic setting among peers where everyone is supposed to be on the same page, terseness and brevity are often the desired way to communicate findings and ideas.


Reminds me of Niels Bohr, considered one of the greatest physicists of all time, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. Famously people never fully understood what Bohr was saying or writing, due to his communication style, and perhaps even Bohr did not fully capture the meaning of his own speech. Still Bohr had a tremendous contribution to what is considered today the most successfull theory in physics, and was awarded the Nobel price in 1922.








						The Nobel Prize in Physics 1922
					

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1922 was awarded to Niels Henrik David Bohr "for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and of the radiation emanating from them"




					www.nobelprize.org
				




@JoshP12 , you're in good company 

Bohr and Einstein 1925:


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Again, do apologize @MichaelJ.


No worries, and none needed  Just trying to see if we can get a bit more elaboration and _color_ out of your posts  ... you obviously know a lot about this topic. Keep it up👍



Yugang said:


> Reminds me of Niels Bohr, considered one of the greatest physicists of all time, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. Famously people never fully understood what Bohr was saying or writing, due to his communication style, and perhaps even Bohr did not fully capture the meaning of his own speech. Still Bohr had a tremendous contribution to what is considered today the most successfull theory in physics, and was awarded the Nobel price in 1922.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”
- Niels Bohr




Yugang said:


> Bohr and Einstein 1925:
> View attachment 195292



Must be from the 1927 Solvay Conference if I remember correctly. Bohr was really up Einsteins nose about the inherent unpredictably of Quantum Mechanics - which Einstein never fully accepted to Bohr's dismay.  Of course, Einstein was wrong, but he was wrong in profoundly positive way that sharpened the theory of QM a great deal. 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang (5 Oct 2022)

"Shut up and calculate"
Niels Bohr / Copenhagen school interpretation of quantum physics
@Hanuman @Zeus. / UKAPS


----------



## GreggZ (5 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Yes - but I don't know if it's a pillar .... more so a tool? Humor me.


No it IS a pillar. If you don't get it right, then CO2, ferts, and light can't save you. It should be #1 on the list of things that are discussed. It's easily the most common thing that the best in the hobby have in common. 

Spend a weekend like I just did hanging out with a bunch of the best of the planted tank world and it only served to reinforce my feelings on this.


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> "Shut up and calculate"
> Niels Bohr / Copenhagen school interpretation of quantum physics
> @Hanuman @Zeus. / UKAPS


That quote has been attributed to Richard P. Feynman as well as N. David Mermin...  both were not really part of the interpretation debacle.


----------



## Yugang (5 Oct 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> That quote has been attributed to Richard P. Feynman as well as N. David Mermin...  both were not really part of the interpretation debacle.


That is correct, it captures the Copenhagen interpretation in a way that Niels Bohr could never have articulated himself  

Actually Einstein has had at least similar contribution to QM as Bohr, he was just convinced that the theory could not be ready yet as 'God does not play dice". Nearly a century later we still have no agreed interpretation (I like RQM), so we can't conclude that Bohr was correct either. Bohr was just a more smart community builder and opinion leader than Einstein.

This all to celebrate @JoshP12 great thread and some minor communication mishaps


----------



## Hanuman (5 Oct 2022)

Fert quantum era I hear?


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> Bohr was just a more smart community builder and opinion leader than Einstein.


I agree, but obviously also a great scientist and mentor for a whole generation of stellar physicists. Einstein, immensely great as he was, was always a bit of a loner... worked very well in his early years; not so much later on.

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Yugang (5 Oct 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> I agree, but obviously also a great scientist and mentor for a whole generation of stellar physicists. Einstein, immensely great as he was, was always a bit of a loner... worked very well in his early years; not so much later on.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


For what it is worth, I am not a fan of Bohr. His real contribution was on the hydrogen atom, where he followed his intuition and build on ideas of others. Heisenberg really created the breakthrough, but got less credit than Bohr. Bohr contribution to QM are overvalued, and mostly because he could mobilise a group of physicists to follow him, like an apostle. Bohr could make or break people, it was as much a social battle as a scientific battle. The jury on quantum mechanics is still out today. 

@JoshP12 I do apologize, did not want to derail your thread.

@MichaelJ good to see you back after a while!


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> @MichaelJ good to see you back after a while!


Thanks @Yugang, It's good to be back!


----------



## Hanuman (5 Oct 2022)

And for what it is worth the real man is Dr. White yo, the real Heisemberg.


----------



## MichaelJ (5 Oct 2022)

Hanuman said:


> And for what it is worth the real man is Dr. White yo, the real Heisemberg.


LOL Thats hilarious @Hanuman... oh, Walter White didn't receive a PhD, so he is not a _real_ Doctor, mind you 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Hanuman (5 Oct 2022)

@JoshP12 This is the last one I promise.


MichaelJ said:


> Walter White didn't receive a PhD, so he is not a _real_ Doctor, mind you


Dr or not he made the best meth EVER. Blue Sky. Ask any PhD if they have. I dread the answer. 😂


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Oct 2022)

😂 I love it.

Let’s just take a moment and talk about quantum field theory … much more important than changing water and growing plants. 

I might say that I don’t particularly like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle myself … though Feynman might roll over in his grave, I think Einstein would be proud 😅.


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Oct 2022)

GreggZ said:


> No it IS a pillar. If you don't get it right, then CO2, ferts, and light can't save you. It should be #1 on the list of things that are discussed. It's easily the most common thing that the best in the hobby have in common.


maintenance influences:
1) flow (and co2)
2) light (shading)
3) debris build up - N/P

If you have wet/dry and weir, your maintenance is easier than someone with just a canister - you have better nitrification, better oxygenation, higher turnover and lower velocity.

If your distribution/turnover is better than someone else tank, it can withstand some delays in trimming before showing signs of co2 issue because it the water can move more co2 without being bogged down by leaves.

If you dose light N/P, the debris accumulation will dose more for you … and if you have good flow and co2 is decent, I mean you should be able to meet the demand?

The tank can’t dictate our maintenance schedule … when we are the ones who put everything into it … can go as far and say don’t put your macrandras in the middle of a field of HRA and Rotala green due to different demands. Or don’t put your erio in the worst flow and most shaded area of your tank - this is just not smart (or you will need to do more maintenance to preserve your plants).

We can design a tank to fit our maintenance schedule and that includes the light, ferts, and flow we provide.

Or you do things to make maintenance easier (this is the best imo and is exactly what I did with the hidden pump). I have done nothing except turn on and off a smart plug and open and close a valve (ok and hit the doser and toss in some seachem safe) during this startup maintenance wise. I put my arm in once.

You can even argue that EI dosed although more challenging to get right, is actually 100x more stable than leanly dosed (all in lower GH water) … because it is. And it just so happens that to get EI dosing “right”, you need to get co2 right … and the largest influencer of that is maintenance …

But if you can’t get EI levels “right”, then pull off and the rest will become easier to get right with the same maintenance.



GreggZ said:


> Spend a weekend like I just did hanging out with a bunch of the best of the planted tank world and it only served to reinforce my feelings on this.


Saw that - looked like a blast!


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Oct 2022)

She’s dancing for you @John q


----------



## John q (5 Oct 2022)

Haha, certainly looks like she's finding her happy place.


----------



## Yugang (5 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Let’s just take a moment and talk about quantum field theory


Those who don't understand life, try biology.
Those who don't get biology, may try chemistry
If chemistry is too confusing, perhaps physics gives you some wisdom
Then you end up with quantum mechanics, uncertaintly principle, entanglement, multiverses and hear Feynman say shut up and calculate
Then you try a planted tank


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> Those who don't understand life, try biology.
> Those who don't get biology, may try chemistry
> If chemistry is too confusing, perhaps physics gives you some wisdom
> Then you end up with quantum mechanics, uncertaintly principle, entanglement, multiverses and hear Feynman say shut up and calculate
> Then you try a planted tank


Honestly, this planted tank (and the hobby) has been and extremely challenging (and rewarding) ride.

And no one knows how to support everyone to be successful at it. For every suggestion, there is someone doing it differently and doing it well - but I haven’t found a framework to explain why everyone can do something different and is successful.

The only way seems to be adding the time (and don’t say it’s supposed to be space-time 😂) variable and suggesting the system will eventually break unless we adapt. 

But that’s life.


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Oct 2022)

Water change (thinking I’ll ween off the daily’s soon):










Come on Monte Carlo … get with the program here.


----------



## JoshP12 (7 Oct 2022)

Going to ease off the water changes and cut co2 before lights off.

Monte Carlo isn’t taking hold. An arcuata stem had some of its initial leaves/initial growth “die” - brown tendril, algae type, diatom things spawning off them.

I really wonder if HC would be coping better just because it’s so much more demanding.

I find it really neat how rotalas look great (even when I was blasting co2) and these other species struggled - like the arcuata.

Growth is dense and slow. Eased of co2 a bit more.

Really confident that Monte Carlo will bounce, so just standing by and watching!


----------



## Libba (8 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Water change (thinking I’ll ween off the daily’s soon):
> View attachment 195387
> 
> 
> ...



You could make a killing selling that super rare, white Monte Carlo mutation


----------



## JoshP12 (8 Oct 2022)

Libba said:


> You could make a killing selling that super rare, white Monte Carlo mutation


Maybe people would get on board like that Anubias pinto …

Literally incinerated the Monte Carlo.


----------



## JoshP12 (9 Oct 2022)

Co2 bang on now.





Lol … I highly doubt this is lack of ferts in column and/or soil … maybe lol. I think this is a really good sign - next phase of assemblage in substrate (photosynthetic stuff … historical progression)?





Honestly, Macrandra is growing the fastest and best I’ve ever grown it.

I am still absolutely enthralled by the fact that arcuata couldn’t handle what Rotala could (and many times in photos rotalas look in suboptimal condition). And we are seeing it more now as my arcuata begins to “die” … I think it’ll bounce back though.

Monte Carlo: soil has oxygen pearls regularly … the top is a rare mutation - send @Libba PMs for interest (he identified it and endorses it). Limited quantity in stock, so act now.

Ph profile:




So the idea is co2 is filled in the sacs due to first part of photoperiod and after 6 hours, it has enough so let the pH rise to favor rubisco performance - that means more O2. Pair that with my temp swing down and idea is supposed to be “optimal” for everything growing - especially now that pH isn’t plummeting toooo low.

I don’t actually know why I am reluctant to remove any of this diatomic stuff or massage the leaves or do any of the maintenance that I would highly recommend to someone who was asking for help at this point.

I jump into this saying to myself that I want a pretty scape and then I get distracted by watching the plant battle against the diatom thing on its own and/or which leaves it decides to sacrifice or which areas die first or which ones flourish. I mean it was unnecessary to blast it with that much co2 at start up … but now we know what happens I suppose. 

In any case, documented!

Cheers


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Oct 2022)

I caved … hope you notice the trend. Lol.

I did change the water today and tickled the plants slightly - just wafted around the Monte Carlo. Some stayed rooted, but one uprooted entirely. Jelly still in tact. Roots encased.

When I reflect, the last thing I did was the Monte Carlo and by that point I was rather - lazy? Tired? Brazen? Stupid? Pick your adjective.

I left a substantial amount of jelly, especially in comparison to the rotalas.

The arcuata is going to make it — despite some of the leaves being sacrificed, aerial roots are out and looking to anchor the plant.

Rotalas seem ok. 

I think I’ll need to buy a bit more Monte Carlo … turns out living things can only take so much “stress”.


Rulebook officially NOT (fully) rewritten …  hehe.


----------



## dw1305 (10 Oct 2022)

Hi all, 


Libba said:


> You could make a killing selling that super rare, white Monte Carlo mutation


It is actually <"more attractive dead"> than a lot of living "white" plants, however I've already written <"some advertising">.


> _ "Monte Carlo "Snowflake", with added Ivory allure._


cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Oct 2022)

Sigh … checked again, it’s all dead.

Since I’ve messed up startup, elbow grease … credit card down the edges, water change, co2 up, removed some exotic blends … placing the order for new cups.

A part of Rotala has some translucent old leaves while some beside it is fine - can’t diagnose … so clean and watch. 

Bit sad … lol. Just have to turn it around.


----------



## Libba (10 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> co2 up


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Oct 2022)

Libba said:


> View attachment 195593


Hahaha 🤣 is just a teency bit!


----------



## JoshP12 (14 Oct 2022)

Well this is neat:






Guess which light’s cool white channels died 😂. 

Diatomy things on arcuata have fallen off. 

Replanted MC. 

Diatom spread, water cloudy, green stuff in substrate. Making progress.

Water should clear up in due time - probably when MC takes hold.


----------



## John q (14 Oct 2022)

What's the honest synopsis so far josh? Would you rinse and repeat 🤔


----------



## JoshP12 (15 Oct 2022)

John q said:


> What's the honest synopsis so far josh? Would you rinse and repeat 🤔


In short, if the goal was pretty pictures asap, the answer is no, but if I stuck to what I had intended to stick to, yes lol.

Rather confident that we will have pretty pictures eventually though.

Am I glad I did it? Absolutely. Are there pieces that are repeatable. Yes.

Co2:

I always had a hunch that that much co2 would cause issues but never pushed it then corrected it. Going to try that co2/rubisco thing once the tank is established again too. Currently back to standard approach just to settle the thing down. And on/off with lights to lime green ish is bang on from startup onwards. Probably re evaluate that after I finish my test too.

Substrate/water column:
I wanted to get away on the cheap too (long term, I’d like to run a much larger tank and wanted to test pilot some stuff with the soil etc). I have a feeling that my soil and water column targets are excellent for the water so definitely do again. Fert targets I’ve tested pretty heavily, so confident on those again.

Water change/diy:

I love the set up. auto water change system will definitely be redone. I love the weir. I love hiding the equipment.

Temp:

I like it and think the temp swings are bang on too.

Light:
The thing about this level of light - first off, I could get away with 1 ai prime if I didn’t have the bar. 2 would be sufficient. But 4 speeds the system up so much that you can literally see the response to your actions almost immediately.

People laughed when I said micro turn up on co2. But when I did that, the tank pearled like a fizzy pop in response. I knew there was an issue with my targeted co2 since I saw translucency in the Rotala lower leaves within 1 day. I didn’t respond until 3-4 days in as I wanted to see it get worse (and it did).

I’ve also left the tank now for I don’t know 4 days or something and it’s all clearing up. But you can see the diatom phase happen, you can see the blooms - it’s just cool. And then they go away just as fast when you correct the issue. I just wonder - what happens in those system when you don’t have that much energy? All the sequestered “stuff” in diatoms etc is just floating in the water … and what does that mean on the overall health in the system when you have livestock?

After I saw the arcuata leaves start to melt almost suddenly and have this diatom bloom thing, I paid attention to the new growth (after I did the maintenance) and noticed that today what’s left is a stem (all those old growth have fallen and been removed) and the new growth that I saw since the melt. I mean - you’re not going to see this growing plants by candlelight … lol. And I’ll just top and replant in 3 weeks? Or something, right? And then take the pretty photos.

I am absolutely livid that I killed the Monte Carlo. Straight up, pissed off. I really thought we could pull it through, but failed.

I guess @John q , had I not gassed the tank and fiddled with the light duration, and constantly messed with co2, the tank would look very different than it does right now. But I learned a lot doing it. Also, my filter has nothing in it … no carbon, no purigen, no nothing except some old sponges.

So, if we’re going to create a rinse and repeat method with high rates of success, I’m not sure 1600 par without proper “filtration” and constantly changing light durations and co2 is a good approach … but I will likely repeat the procedure and not do those - I’ll use the word curious instead of stupid - things again for sure.

But when I see my tank, I don’t worry about the diatoms or the bacteria bloom (I mean it’s not even that bad given what I’ve done to the system 😂). I see some pretty stunning plant growth since I’ve done things “properly” and kept them consistent.  For record, I saw the greening of some Macrandra leaves show up during that translucent phase and now they aren’t there on new growth …. So give it a month . I’ll stop touching it 🤣.

Photos are a bit cloudy from the water but will try to get one …

Oh and definitely dark start for 8 weeks is a no brainer for rinse and repeat method. I didn’t do that.


----------



## PARAGUAY (15 Oct 2022)

Well done Josh🙂l guess setbacks and failure are not in it . Tenacity is


----------



## John q (15 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I guess @John q , had I not gassed the tank and fiddled with the light duration, and constantly messed with co2, the tank would look very different than it does right now. But I learned a lot doing it.


Love your honesty mate, and love the journal..


----------



## JoshP12 (15 Oct 2022)

PARAGUAY said:


> Well done Josh🙂l guess setbacks and failure are not in it . Tenacity is


. I used to get really anxious when I saw algaes or deformities … can probably see it in my previous posts. But once I “got the photos”, I started to think “how could I have fixed those issues” … the root of it is so if they come up again at least (after trying to correct them after purposefully breaking and bringing back the system) I have some ways to combat it in any tank.

I remember my first diatoms and my first bacteria bloom - I was all messed up - but less worried now. And I think now I’m just hunting for those opportunities.
And it really is so that when I have a big tank and have invested serious $$ into it, I don’t mess it up and then can't bring it back.

I’m also not going to pay copious amounts of money to follow a system like ada.




John q said:


> Love your honesty mate, and love the journal..


. I’m glad you ask the real questions and point out when plants look bad… poor arcuata.











Growth up top is since correcting and leaving it alone.

The growth is DENSE.


----------



## JoshP12 (15 Oct 2022)

Oh my … it just hit me.

So I ran the exact same startup prior to the second last scape FTS that I gave.

In that startup, I decided I wouldn’t do anything except an automatic daily water (only 40% ish compared to this one at 80-90%) change + ferts back to targets.

I put maybe a quarter of the miracle gro I did this time … maybe more like an eighth.

Same bloom and diatom happened (I never touched co2 like I did this time or the lights) … interestingly the glass, the water everything was a major mess. So those higher percentage water changes this time made a big difference.

Will update photos here in a just a sec - I found them.









Can see where I scraped it away for a week and let it regrow.

Then as that same cyano in substrate died (so it came up last time too).





And I actually think that was under EI. The plants then fixed their forms months later.

@plantnoobdude when I mentioned keeping the light and temp higher in your thread through the bloom - it was around the time I had this going on … Well the previous iteration of the tank … found those photos too - separate occasion (not a startup).










Sheesh now that I share these photos, my current tank looks like a dream 🤣.


----------



## Laoshan (16 Oct 2022)

Hello @JoshP12,

Thank you for the interesting journal. I was  just admiring your older photos and I was wondering about the small Rotala (?) in the foreground in this picture. Can you tell me which species this is? I was think wallichi but that one would be bigger I guess.

Growing in the carpet in the picture below..


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Oct 2022)

Laoshan said:


> Hello @JoshP12,
> 
> Thank you for the interesting journal. I was  just admiring your older photos and I was wondering about the small Rotala (?) in the foreground in this picture. Can you tell me which species this is? I was think wallichi but that one would be bigger I guess.
> 
> ...


Wallichi!!

I had two locations for wallichi during the tank (front and back). The spraybar spit water straight down (co2 in the intake and out the spraybar) over the one in the picture you shared. That clump of wallichi always looked better than the one at the back. From top to bottom it was nice. The back ones were only really stunning in the top third (I just hid the bottom with other plants in front 😂).

It also looked more needley when I only had two lights (I mean it wasn’t ugly but increasing to four made it “radiate” much more).


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Oct 2022)

@John q  your comment about what’s repeatable got me thinking —- my water column and soil composition is correct. The reason I know is that there is zero indication for stunting/deformity and the dosing frequency (50ml for 50 gallons at water change and 10mL right at lights off (or 100% at water change and 10% daily) for macros and .015fe proxy of micros with lights on in concentrated csm b solution) is correct since tds is fixed at 108 pretty much always. That’s the hardest part: getting a long-term, sustainable (EI breaks earlier than lean but lean is more volatile to change).

The only hint of indicator that it is “off by a bit” is in Rotala green (partially why I bought 1 cup of wallichi to add with the Monte Carlo) is minor crinkles .. but the crinkles in the leaves aren’t “stunty”‘I think they are more related to the rate of off gas/accumulation from the earlier startup rather than GH/N/P/K/micro balance. Even though these are kind of the same, I’m not reacting to that with the Rotala green since the ones in front don’t show it just the ones in the back behind the Macrandra and rock (could just be squished). Not reacting to that one.

(structurally, I’d use more free soil on top of the bags in the future.)

All that’s left is temp/co2/light/flow. And I mean those are pretty easy after the massive learning curve.

Priortize “system health” over “anti-algae” and you have high light, higher temp, and co2 with lights (in soft water or a little ramp with harder water).

If you prioritize anti-algae you go low light, co2 ramp, and lower temp.

The sweet spot is system health combined with healthy plants as I think you can have healthy looking plants with poorer systemic health vs healthy looking plants and healthier systemic health.

I had said once that algae is a buffer … in the same way KH buffers against acid, algae buffers against “nasties” (I say nasties because plants “cleanse” the system of well we always say ammonia but I’m not convinced there’s not more than ammonia … so I call it nasties hahah). With low light and low temp, the algae can’t respond to pitfalls and inadequacies fast enough so they linger around in the water … with higher temp opportunities and higher light opportunities there is enough energy to clean the body of water and if your plant is missing something, then the Algae can make up for it quickly rather than waiting a week for you to see it (then you are a week with nasties and you’re shaving years off your fishies life). It’s rather simple - fix the problem and the plant takes foothold and the algae goes away. So you have 3 internodes of a stem plant of a problem? Or a single leaf of an epiphyte or rosette? Trim and move on 😂.

I mean that’s my thinking and so all my futzing around with light/co2 to find boundaries of system health compromised plant health (as we saw)  … so now I’m bringing it back to “healthy-ish” (so visibly healthy plants but not necessarily as healthy as possible system)  then I’ll test the last piece for system health (I am rather convinced 10h -12h photo is the way to go - I’ve done up to 20 in a healthy system with no I’ll effects (is why I did it at startup just to try it … it was fine but not worth it) - and I think 10h is the hands down best midpoint) which is the rubisco/co2 thing (letting pH rise during the last 4 hours of that 10h photo). 

Edit … hmm … and as I write …. Wouldn’t it be perfect if the co2/rubisco thing works and we go to 12h photo and have 6h gas with low/descending pH and 6h gas off at high/ascending pH. All of this with temp flux up to maximum while ph is at minimum and then all the way back to minimum while pH is at maximum ….


----------



## Laoshan (16 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Wallichi!!



Thanks. Somehow I thought wallichii had bigger whorls. Good to know what it can look like. I will try it one time..


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Oct 2022)

Laoshan said:


> Thanks. Somehow I thought wallichii had bigger whorls. Good to know what it can look like. I will try it one time..


Hope it goes well!

Found that high light under EI has the same look just larger plant. High light under low N, tighter. Low light - always leggy and loose.


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Oct 2022)

A little consistency goes a long way … 









Monte Carlo having a die … but hopefully will leave a root system not encased in jelly


----------



## Freshflora (17 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> A little consistency goes a long way …
> View attachment 195881
> 
> View attachment 195882
> ...


You don’t think the the freshness of the substrate and all that ammonia might be melting the Monte Carlo TC?


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Oct 2022)

Freshflora said:


> You don’t think the the freshness of the substrate and all that ammonia might be melting the Monte Carlo TC?


It totally contributed to them melting the first time.

I’m rather surprised it is happening at the same rate … twice.

We’re also 4 weeks or so in, so the concentration is much lower than day 1. Maybe nitrite just as bad - on plants? I know it destroys livestock the same or worse than ammonia.

+ it’s not a universal melt … I’m starting to really think this has to do with each individual plants ability to adapt (genetics and evolution … my comment that maybe HC wouldn’t be dieing as rapidly). But I think MC grows in shallow streams … should be pelted with light in nature.

That’s my thoughts — even if they melt the leaves, the roots should stay. And if the roots stay (not encased in jelly this time), hopefully fresh, adapted growth should make it?


----------



## Freshflora (17 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> It totally contributed to them melting the first time.
> 
> I’m rather surprised it is happening at the same rate … twice.
> 
> ...


MC is much hardier than HC, so I don’t think HC would be faring any better.  Is your tank cycled yet?


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Oct 2022)

Freshflora said:


> MC is much hardier than HC, so I don’t think HC would be faring any better.  Is your tank cycled yet?


This is the irony. HC is used to higher light environment (I think) and I wonder if MC is less used to it and it’s the intense environment that is contributing more to the melt vs the ammonia (in other words, I think HC could handle the light better - even if co2 is being delivered adequately for the MC - look at the Macrandra … hasn’t skipped a beat). 

Definitely not cycled yet … cloudy and smelly.


----------



## Hanuman (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> It totally contributed to them melting the first time.
> 
> I’m rather surprised it is happening at the same rate … twice.
> 
> ...





JoshP12 said:


> Definitely not cycled yet … cloudy and smelly.


Considering all the diatoms I see on the substrate the tank is clearly not fully cycled yet. Also I went back to the early pages of your journal to double check the substrate and what you added in it. The amount of Miracle Grow you added is telling me that you will have urea and subsequent ammonia for a good amount of time considering it is slow release.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Hanuman said:


> Considering all the diatoms I see on the substrate the tank is clearly not fully cycled yet. Also I went back to the early pages of your journal to double check the substrate and what you added in it. The amount of Miracle Grow you added is telling me that you will have urea and subsequent ammonia for a good amount of time considering it is slow release.
> View attachment 195906


I agree entirely. There is also surely less than there was day 1.

Why are the stems not melting? The rotundifolia and wallichi I added at the same time as the Monte Carlo.


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I had said once that algae is a buffer … in the same way KH buffers against acid, algae buffers against “nasties” (I say nasties because plants “cleanse” the system of well we always say ammonia but I’m not convinced there’s not more than ammonia … so I call it nasties hahah). With low light and low temp, the algae can’t respond to pitfalls and inadequacies fast enough so they linger around in the water … with higher temp opportunities and higher light opportunities there is enough energy to clean the body of water and if your plant is missing something, then the Algae can make up for it quickly rather than waiting a week for you to see it (then you are a week with nasties and you’re shaving years off your fishies life). It’s rather simple - fix the problem and the plant takes foothold and the algae goes away. So you have 3 internodes of a stem plant of a problem? Or a single leaf of an epiphyte or rosette? Trim and move on 😂.



I'm not sure algae is a buffer as such, more an opportunist that thrives on system instability.  I agree to an extent that if you run a tank a knife edge with very high light you'll see changes much more quickly (though I don't necessary agree that a change like an algal bloom will reverse any quicker, it'll just appear quicker) but I'd call that a negative of running high light, not a positive - with lower light the system is more robust against deficiencies or issues giving the aquarist a greater time buffer to react and make changes before catastrophic issues can get a foot hold. A plant deficiency, or the appearance of new algae can be spotted and dealt with when it first appears before it ever gets to 'problem' levels.



JoshP12 said:


> then you are a week with nasties and you’re shaving years off your fishies life



What 'nasties' are you referring to there Josh? I can't think of no nasties that might be harmful to fish health that algae my be able to address (perhaps beyond excess ammonia)?

I glad to see your are keeping up with this journal, it really is interesting to see the journey.

I see you're only just now going through the diatom phase following the bacterial bloom. I wonder if my previous joke may have in fact been correct:



Wookii said:


> You've created an environment where even algae and diatoms can't survive? 😂 (joking!)



It seems as if the extreme high CO2 levels at the tank start up may have had an adverse effect on the bacterial population in your aged soil. When I have previously used existing soil, I've always managed to dodge many of the New Tank Syndrome (NTS) issues, particularly the diatom stage. However when using a fresh substrate, those diatoms are very hard to avoid.

I suspect the high CO2 levels (or resulting very low pH) could well have diminished the bacterial assemblage in the soil to the extent it was almost a full reset. Hence why you've experienced a bacterial bloom shortly after reducing the CO2 levels, and are now going through the mill with the typical NTS symptoms of diatoms and carpet plant melt. It is a shame to an extent, as your aged soils should have protected you from most start-up issues.

It's been really interesting to see the effects of excessive CO2 dosing to be honest. Up until seeing this, the conventional wisdom has been that in the absence of livestock, there is no upper ceiling for CO2 dosing - "run your drop checker yellow". You've shown here that there is a negative impact from running it too high, both on plant growth and biological system health - so setting a reasonable and stable level from day 1 is even more crucial.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that we'll start to see an explosion of green algae as it muscles out the diatoms in the next few weeks, so it will be interesting to see things continue to develop. Hopefully now the CO2 is running at a more consistent levels (where are we - three weeks since you fixed the CO2?), the plant growth will start to kick in a bit so you can increase the plant mass and help combat any algae that appears.


----------



## Hanuman (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Why are the stems not melting? The rotundifolia and wallichi I added at the same time as the Monte Carlo.


I would venture to say some plants are simply more resistant than others to different concentration of ammonia. Not all plants were created equal.


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> We’re also 4 weeks or so in, so the concentration is much lower than day 1



Have you tested the ammonia levels Josh - you did put a awful lot of fert balls in there at the start.


----------



## dw1305 (18 Oct 2022)

Hi all,


Hanuman said:


> The amount of Miracle Grow you added is telling me that you will have urea and subsequent ammonia for a good amount of time considering it is slow release.





dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> I'm going to say "_too many_", but we will see what happens.


Same for me, unfortunately there is no real way of knowing just how long.


JoshP12 said:


> Why are the stems not melting? The rotundifolia and wallichi I added at the same time as the Monte Carlo.





Hanuman said:


> I would venture to say some plants are simply more resistant than others to different concentration of ammonia.


I think @Hanuman is right, we are back to <"orchids and tomatoes">. Plants are going to have different tolerances to ammonia etc.  

I'm guessing that plants from seasonally innundated zones (like _Rotala rotundifolia_) are more likely to have <"ammonia tolerance"> than forest plants like _Anubias, Bolbitis_  etc.

A real <"turned up to eleven"> plant, with access to atmospheric CO2, will be able to deal <"with all the ammonia you could throw at it">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> I'm not sure algae is a buffer as such, more an opportunist that thrives on system instability.  I agree to an extent that if you run a tank a knife edge with very high light you'll see changes much more quickly (though I don't necessary agree that a change like an algal bloom will reverse any quicker, it'll just appear quicker) but I'd call that a negative of running high light, not a positive - with lower light the system is more robust against deficiencies or issues giving the aquarist a greater time buffer to react and make changes before catastrophic issues can get a foot hold. A plant deficiency, or the appearance of new algae can be spotted and dealt with when it first appears before it ever gets to 'problem' levels.
> 
> 
> 
> What 'nasties' are you referring to there Josh? I can't think of no nasties that might be harmful to fish health that algae my be able to address (perhaps beyond excess ammonia)?


I think these two statements are linked. I have no idea if there is anything beyond ammonia - even if free ammonia can be locked up faster, its probably better (unless the rate of ammonia creation is because of the high light causing decay which I’m not sure about). I’ll have to think a bit longer about whether it’s optimal or not -  definitely thinking as I don’t have a clear comment off hand.


Wookii said:


> I glad to see your are keeping up with this journal, it really is interesting to see the journey.
> 
> I see you're only just now going through the diatom phase following the bacterial bloom. I wonder if my previous joke may have in fact been correct:


Haha! I think the pH for sure inhibited bacteria (so anything non plantey … diatoms)  … but why did the plants grow?


Wookii said:


> It seems as if the extreme high CO2 levels at the tank start up may have had an adverse effect on the bacterial population in your aged soil. When I have previously used existing soil, I've always managed to dodge many of the New Tank Syndrome (NTS) issues, particularly the diatom stage. However when using a fresh substrate, those diatoms are very hard to avoid.


Maybe it put them dormant? Or killed them. More N and P 😂.


Wookii said:


> I suspect the high CO2 levels (or resulting very low pH) could well have diminished the bacterial assemblage in the soil to the extent it was almost a full reset. Hence why you've experienced a bacterial bloom shortly after reducing the CO2 levels, and are now going through the mill with the typical NTS symptoms of diatoms and carpet plant melt. It is a shame to an extent, as your aged soils should have protected you from most start-up issues.
> 
> It's been really interesting to see the effects of excessive CO2 dosing to be honest. Up until seeing this, the conventional wisdom has been that in the absence of livestock, there is no upper ceiling for CO2 dosing - "run your drop checker yellow". You've shown here that there is a negative impact from running it too high, both on plant growth and biological system health - so setting a reasonable and stable level from day 1 is even more crucial.


I’m glad you lay it out like this - it is neat to see. And to be honest, it’s neat to read what you see (I have bias whether I like it or not).


Wookii said:


> If I was a betting man, I'd wager that we'll start to see an explosion of green algae as it muscles out the diatoms in the next few weeks, so it will be interesting to see things continue to develop. Hopefully now the CO2 is running at a more consistent levels (where are we - three weeks since you fixed the CO2?), the plant growth will start to kick in a bit so you can increase the plant mass and help combat any algae that appears.


I think less - the co2 has been stable and “proper” since the day @Libba made fun of me 😂 … that’s my landmark 🤣🤣. So 7- 8 days.



Hanuman said:


> I would venture to say some plants are simply more resistant than others to different concentration of ammonia. Not all plants were created equal.


I mentioned this above. But why is it just ammoniacal adaption? My light is intense. Isn’t the adaption for all aspects of the environment? Light “coping”, ammoniacal stress, nitrogen response to growth rate (N levels can have some tips stunt while other
Species not stunt in the same tank …), response to KH (crypt vs Macrandra).


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Same for me, unfortunately there is no real way of knowing just how long.


Follow the journal! .


dw1305 said:


> I think @Hanuman is right, we are back to <"orchids and tomatoes">. Plants are going to have different tolerances to ammonia etc.


This is what I said … but I went the other way with HC being potentially able to use the light better than MC - then the co2 for energy … then deal with the ammonia … maybe use it to grow.


dw1305 said:


> I'm guessing that plants from seasonally innundated zones (like _Rotala rotundifolia_) are more likely to have <"ammonia tolerance"> than forest plants like _Anubias, Bolbitis_  etc.


It has to be linked to their ability to use light.


dw1305 said:


> A real <"turned up to eleven"> plant, with access to atmospheric CO2, will be able to deal <"with all the ammonia you could throw at it">.
> 
> cheers Darrel


At startup, I gave loads of co2 with proper flow/distribution.



Note: what do you guys think - If I had low light, I’d bet the whole thing would be an ammonia soup and filled with death. But the light gives the plants who have higher metabolism the ability to use the ammonia at such high levels to grow.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> Have you tested the ammonia levels Josh - you did put a awful lot of fert balls in there at the start.


Haven’t tested anything. But I will.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

I don’t think this is what we wanted to see … 

Nitrite:






Ammonia:




Phosphate:


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Note: what do you guys think - If I had low light, I’d bet the whole thing would be an ammonia soup and filled with death. But the light gives the plants who have higher metabolism the ability to use the ammonia at such high levels to grow.



I don't think the light levels would have made any difference to overall ammonia levels in the water column, your plant mass is simply no where near high enough for that to happen, and for the small amount of plant growth to make any real difference on levels. What helped were your high percentage (twice daily?) levels of water changes. 

On a mature tank this might be valid - you have sudden excess ammonia, you crank the lights, and the stems increase their growth rate and suck up the ammonia, and you have to trim and dump a few extra litres of plant mass each week, but in your tank I don't think you've hit the first trim point yet have you?



JoshP12 said:


> At startup, I gave loads of co2 with proper flow/distribution.



You did, but that's still not at the levels that floating plants (that I think Darrel was referring to) have access to, and are adapted to use, which is in excess of 400ppm. Floating plants, probably because of this adaptation, have the ability to suck up nitrogen like a sponge.

In my previous higher light tanks  that have had a good layer of floating plants, I have had to dose 1.5 times EI levels of KNO3, and even then longer run equilibrium levels of NO3 still ran below 10ppm simply because the floating plants were sucking it up at such a rate, and generating so much additional mass that I was throwing away a 2 litre jug full of them every week.


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I don’t think this is what we wanted to see …
> 
> Nitrite:
> 
> ...



Interesting - so you're seeing Nitrite levels in tank then? You used a mature filter though didn't you? That would seem to confirm your tank is cycling afresh, and there has been a mass die off of the existing biological assemblage.

So what's going on with the Phosphate? If we assume the test kit is accurate enough for a rough estimate, this looks close to zero, but aren't you still dosing 1ppm per week? I'd be surprised if there is enough plant mass to soak that up yet - so you may need to revisit your dosing calcs?


----------



## dw1305 (18 Oct 2022)

Hi all,


JoshP12 said:


> Follow the journal!


I definitely will. I'm really interested in what happens and the time scale for thoser changes to take place. I'm guessing that eventually you will have really good plant growth, but possibly not for all plants and probably not for a fair time yet.

If people <"don't try different things"> we are never going to know where the boundaries lie, it is back to <"Karl Popper"> .


> ....Thus, in Popper’s words, science requires testability: _“If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.”  _This means a good theory must have an element of *risk* to it. It must be able to be proven wrong under stated conditions.........





JoshP12 said:


> It has to be linked to their ability to use light.


I would guess that it will in that the <turned up to eleven"> plants will be <"high light plants">, but you can also have high light plants that are adapted to very low nutrient conditions, so it isn't the whole story.


JoshP12 said:


> If I had low light, I’d bet the whole thing would be an ammonia soup and filled with death. But the light gives the plants who have higher metabolism the ability to use the ammonia at such high levels to grow.


Quite possibly. A floating plant, with <"high potential growth rate">, would have been / would be interesting. @castle had some <"large Amazon Frogbit plants"> where they rooted into a <"nutrient rich substrate">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (18 Oct 2022)

Hi all,
I can't keep up with this thread, but yes exactly this.


Wookii said:


> You did, but that's still not at the levels that floating plants (that I think Darrel was referring to) have access to, and are adapted to use, which is in excess of 400ppm. Floating plants, probably because of this adaptation, have the ability to suck up nitrogen like a sponge.
> 
> In my previous higher light tanks that have had a good layer of floating plants, I have had to dose 1.5 times EI levels of KNO3, and even then longer run equilibrium levels of NO3 still ran below 10ppm simply because the floating plants were sucking it up at such a rate, and generating so much additional mass that I was throwing away a 2 litre jug full of them every week.



cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> I don't think the light levels would have made any difference to overall ammonia levels in the water column, your plant mass is simply no where near high enough for that to happen, and for the small amount of plant growth to make any real difference on levels. What helped were your high percentage (twice daily?) levels of water changes.


I mean ... that's why I did them .


Wookii said:


> On a mature tank this might be valid - you have sudden excess ammonia, you crank the lights, and the stems increase their growth rate and suck up the ammonia, and you have to trim and dump a few extra litres of plant mass each week, but in your tank I don't think you've hit the first trim point yet have you?


Not yet ... but the growth is begining to explode -  for the stems.


Wookii said:


> You did, but that's still not at the levels that floating plants (that I think Darrel was referring to) have access to, and are adapted to use, which is in excess of 400ppm. Floating plants, probably because of this adaptation, have the ability to suck up nitrogen like a sponge.
> 
> In my previous higher light tanks  that have had a good layer of floating plants, I have had to dose 1.5 times EI levels of KNO3, and even then longer run equilibrium levels of NO3 still ran below 10ppm simply because the floating plants were sucking it up at such a rate, and generating so much additional mass that I was throwing away a 2 litre jug full of them every week.



We've run ourselves into this: I did lots of water changes so I don't have lots of ammonia. Everything melted because of ammonia. My tests show nowhere near ammonia levels that should melt the MC like it is. So what is going on?



Wookii said:


> Interesting - so you're seeing Nitrite levels in tank then? You used a mature filter though didn't you? That would seem to confirm your tank is cycling afresh, and there has been amass die off of the existing biological assemblage.


I did not. My filter has an old sponge and some media ... all the media was sprayed in tap water and left out for quite some time before I got to it. Very little of anything in my filter.


Wookii said:


> So what's going on with the Phosphate? If we assume the test kit is accurate enough for a rough estimate, this looks close to zero, but aren't you still dosing 1ppm per week? I'd be surprised if there is enough plant mass to soak that up yet - so you may need to revisit your dosing calcs?


I dose 1ppm per water change (and .1 daily).  I don't plan to change my water column targets. There is no sign of any deficiency on any plant that is growing.


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I dose 1ppm per water change. I don't plan to change my water column targets. There is no sign of any deficiency on any plant that is growing.



That's fair enough, but what I meant is, 'if' the test is accurate, and you are dosing 1ppm at each water change (I'm assuming that's 1ppm of tank volume, not 1ppm of water change volume), you should have a significantly more still in your water column than the test suggests, no? 

So my query was not whether you need to change your target, but whether your are actually dosing the 1ppm you think you are, or if an error might have crept in?


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> That's fair enough, but what I meant is, 'if' the test is accurate, and you are dosing 1ppm at each water change (I'm assuming that's 1ppm of tank volume, not 1ppm of water change volume), you should have a significantly more still in your water column than the test suggests, no?


Unless it’s being used?


Wookii said:


> So my query was not whether you need to change your target, but whether your are actually dosing the 1ppm you think you are, or if an error might have crept in?


I mean, I weighed it all out and made the dosing solution. If there are any issues that do creep in, I’ll probably just dose a bit more of a bit less of my solution.

100% I didn’t use a magnifying glass and go to 3 decimal points 😊.

I will add that I am changing water now only once every three ish days. Not daily or twice daily anymore.


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Unless it’s being used?



By what? How often are you changing the water (and therefore dosing the 1ppm)? I could be wrong, but I don't think there is enough plant mass being generated to use that much phosphate - some folks are running mature tanks on less.



JoshP12 said:


> I mean, I weighed it all out and made the dosing solution. If there are any issues that do creep in, I’ll probably just dose a bit more of a bit less of my solution.
> 
> 100% I didn’t use a magnifying glass and go to 3 decimal points 😊.



That's fair enough if you're happy its correct, I was just pointing it out as a possible issue, and its another interesting observational point.

Perhaps the phosphate is precipitating out (seems unlikely), or the test kit is off the mark (possibly most likely), or there may be some other reason for phosphate level reduction that's above my pay grade?


----------



## Hufsa (18 Oct 2022)

Isnt there a bunch of new soil in this tank as well? Thats where the phosphate is going


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> By what? How often are you changing the water (and therefore dosing the 1ppm)? I could be wrong, but I don't think there is enough plant mass being generated to use that much phosphate - some folks are running mature tanks on less.


Sorry added this to the top. Every 3ish days. I recall in my first ever dark start, I dosed phosphate like 5 ppm and then tested daily with zero plants ... it declined all the way to zero? CEC of soil?


Hufsa said:


> Isnt there a bunch of new soil in this tank as well? Thats where the phosphate is going


2 of the big bags. And probably 8 inches of old, enhanced soil. 


Wookii said:


> That's fair enough if you're happy its correct, I was just pointing it out as a possible issue, and its another interesting observational point.


 is a good point actually - compounded error.


Wookii said:


> Perhaps the phosphate is precipitating out (seems unlikely), or the test kit is off the mark (possibly most likely), or there may be some other reason for phosphate level reduction that's above my pay grade?


Good points -- as possibilities - but I agree with you about unlikely.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

so what caused the Monte Carlo to melt? These ammonia and nitrite levels aren’t very high to cause this much damage … .

If it is adaptation … then why the stems don’t suffer the same melt? 

Only difference is light capability - or what am I missing?


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

Hufsa said:


> Isnt there a bunch of new soil in this tank as well? Thats where the phosphate is going



Could be - good point - though I'm not sure how long it takes for the soil CEC to be used up and there has likely been a lot of nutrient release from the fert balls. I also have a vague recollection of soils preferentially took up cations rather than anions, and phosphate is the latter I believe, but this is well above my pay grade and something for @dw1305


----------



## Wookii (18 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> so what caused the Monte Carlo to melt? These ammonia and nitrite levels aren’t very high to cause this much damage … .
> 
> If it is adaptation … then why the stems don’t suffer the same melt?
> 
> Only difference is light capability - or what am I missing?



The ammonia levels are likely much higher at the soil level, and the top layer of soil, where the plants are, than they are at the top of the tap where you sampled from - given the substrate is the source of the ammonia. That, along with the CO2 levels (and the jelly lol) could have affected the first batch. For this second batch who knows, maybe the ammonia is still too high for it in the top layer of soil, or maybe its just a matter of transitioning from the invitro state to mew submerged growth?

As the other guys have pointed out above, you can't necessarily compare the response of two very different plants - its an apples and oranges comparison, all you can really do is compare the same plant in two different environments. If you think its a response to light, maybe try and partially shade some of it somehow to test the theory?


----------



## Hufsa (18 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> Could be - good point - though I'm not sure how long it takes for the soil CEC to be used up and there has likely been a lot of nutrient release from the fert balls. I also have a vague recollection of soils preferentially took up cations rather than anions, and phosphate is the latter I believe, but this is well above my pay grade and something for @dw1305


The ability for new aquasoil to take up significant amounts of phosphate is relatively known, I have read several journals over at TPT where they had to dose significant amounts of phosphate to counteract the effect of new soil. These were EI users, so they wanted to have some phosphate available in the water column at all times. I can try to find the journals later today if needed, but im personally quite convinced that this is where Josh's phosphate is going. From what I remember (and my memory is not always that great), the phosphate effect lasted a couple months or something like that.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> The ammonia levels are likely much higher at the soil level, and the top layer of soil, where the plants are, than they are at the top of the tap where you sampled from - given the substrate is the source of the ammonia. That, along with the CO2 levels (and the jelly lol) could have affected the first batch. For this second batch who knows, maybe the ammonia is still too high for it in the top layer of soil, or maybe its just a matter of transitioning from the invitro state to mew submerged growth?


First batch - absolutely - I intentionally tried to do everything “poorly”. Still no purigen or carbon in filter.  Except for water changes. 

Second batch: co2 was fixed. Soil was more offgassed. TDS constant. Ferts constant. Light constant. Jelly removed properly. Water changes not daily but every other, using visual cues etc as indicator. Flow/turnover is bang on, so I don’t know how large the difference is from top to bottom … surely non-zero but enough to massacre an entire species and not another? 

The transition - also agree. If it bounces back will be the true indicator. 


Wookii said:


> As the other guys have pointed out above, you can't necessarily compare the response of two very different plants - its an apples and oranges comparison, all you can really do is compare the same plant in two different environments. If you think its a response to light, maybe try and partially shade some of it somehow to test the theory?


I think we can agree that fert regimes and poor distribution linked to co2 show this variance in nearly every single tank. But I haven’t seen a tank show this with light. 

I can’t find an HC cup or I would’ve bought one.


----------



## dw1305 (18 Oct 2022)

Hi all,


Wookii said:


> I also have a vague recollection of soils preferentially took up cations rather than anions, and phosphate is the latter I believe,


Phosphate is an anion, PO4--- and Anion Exchange Capacity (AEC) does differ from Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) in that it is usually a <"greater effect in acidic conditions">, while <"CEC is usually stronger in basic situations">.

In the same way you have a sequence of how strongly held cations are dependent upon their valency, you have <"a series for anions">. Clay minerals will hold PO4--- ions and these may, or may not, become available again. The reason for this is that  phosphate adsorption and availability is pH dependent, but unfortunately not in a linear manner.


> .......... Among various anions, the exchangeable phosphate is of most importance since sulphates or nitrates are not retained in sufficient quantities. So the phenomenon of anion exchange is most important for the release of fixed phosphate in the soil and thereby increases its availability to plants. The anion exchange is carried out mainly by the replacement of OH- ions of the clay minerals.
> The reaction is as follows:
> 
> 
> ...





> ....The origin of OH- ions is from silicate clay minerals and hydrous oxides of iron and aluminium that are present in the soil.
> 
> In this reaction takes place under slightly acidic soil conditions, the exchange phenomenon is reversible, and soluble phosphate is further released when hydroxy phosphate compound (insoluble) comes in contact with OH- ions.
> 
> In this reaction occurs under moderate to strong acid conditions, the phosphate ions are irreversibly fixed and not available to plants.


I tend not to worry too much about phosphate deficiency, because plants are very good at shuffling it around and, even though it is a macro-nutrient, <"plants need to run out all together"> before you get real growth problems.  As soon as it becomes available again? Growth resumes.

Because PO4--- forms a lot of <"insoluble compounds"> you can always remove it from the water column, but it will take a while before deficiencies show.  The vendors of <"Rowaphos">,"Phosban", "Phosguard" etc know that it takes a while for deficiencies to show, so can carry on peddling their wares to the, initially delighted, freshwater fish keeper.


Leah95 said:


> On a separate note. My tap water is very soft and over the past few months I’ve been dosing with AV carbonate/JBL Aquadur to raise hardiness which seems to have been fine. I think my tap water is pretty much okay except it has exceptionally high levels of silicates and phosphates and my LFS advised the two products phosguard and silicatex in order to try and reduce them to manageable levels. They’ve now advised I use RO water as it’s a cheaper way to manage those two levels rather than repeatedly buying silicatex every 2 weeks at £20.


It also allows them to sell a phosphate test kit etc. and you then have the repeat sales of both PO4--- remover and test kit, add in a "pH buffer" and a  fertiliser containing PO4--- as well? You can sell punter the phosphate remover, the buffer, the test kit and the fertiliser and they will work together to extract <"an ever increasing amount of money"> to solve a "problem" that <"never existed in the first place">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Freshflora (18 Oct 2022)

Yeah my bet is on the soil just being too rich with ammonia at the moment for the MC tissue culture.  Water changes definitely help mitigate the issue of ammonia being leaked into the water column, but until the substrate’s cooled off a bit/it’s bacterial population has been established I think it’s mostly inevitable that a fresh ammonia-rich substrate will cook certain plants, especially in tissue culture form like possibly the MC.  I know UG and hottonia melt in fresh ammonia rich aquasoil.  How to grow Utricularia graminifolia Going Dutch with Aquasoil


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Oct 2022)

Freshflora said:


> Yeah my bet is on the soil just being too rich with ammonia at the moment for the MC tissue culture.  Water changes definitely help mitigate the issue of ammonia being leaked into the water column, but until the substrate’s cooled off a bit/it’s bacterial population has been established I think it’s mostly inevitable that a fresh ammonia-rich substrate will cook certain plants, especially in tissue culture form like possibly the MC.  I know UG and hottonia melt in fresh ammonia rich aquasoil.  How to grow Utricularia graminifolia Going Dutch with Aquasoil


It’s not that I’m not with you. But it’s MC … kicking myself a bit as I couldn’t find an HC cup ….  I’ve never heard of many people melting MC even from startup. Just based on the hardiness, it seems that if MC died, then the rest should have. But that’s just a thought.

I guess we’ll wait to see if it bounces back I’ll try to source an HC cup.

All rotalas and ludwigia have survived.


----------



## GreggZ (19 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> It's been really interesting to see the effects of excessive CO2 dosing to be honest. Up until seeing this, the conventional wisdom has been that in the absence of livestock, there is no upper ceiling for CO2 dosing - "run your drop checker yellow". You've shown here that there is a negative impact from running it too high, both on plant growth and biological system health - so setting a reasonable and stable level from day 1 is even more crucial.


This is a LONG way from proving that there is a negative impact from running CO2 at high levels. I can say in all my years I have never seen such a correlation in mine or any other tank. Once this tank stabilizes and matures is the time to start testing theories. Right now there is so much going on making any conclusions is like throwing darts.


----------



## Wookii (19 Oct 2022)

GreggZ said:


> I can say in all my years I have never seen such a correlation in mine or any other tank.



Maybe, but then I doubt you, or many other people have ran CO2 levels anywhere near to those Josh was using. We're not just talking 'high levels' here - I'm a CO2 user and have ran CO2 well into yellow drop checker territory when I've been livestock free  without issue - we're talking extreme levels of CO2 here - Josh churned through 10lbs of CO2 in a week.

Unfortunately he wasn't able to take any pH measurements, but I'd wager he will into several hundred PPM of dissolved CO2.


----------



## PARAGUAY (19 Oct 2022)

Think what @GreggZ   post is a good point not stabilizing and a lot going on. Maybe @JoshP12  two identical tanks together same plants and fertilisers but one with a dark start would see a different  result  maybe for the monte Carlo?


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

It was a lot of co2. And the arcuata showed improvements immediately after pulling off.



PARAGUAY said:


> Think what @GreggZ   post is a good point not stabilizing and a lot going on. Maybe @JoshP12  two identical tanks together same plants and fertilisers but one with a dark start would see a different  result  maybe for the monte Carlo?


Dark start is the way to go - I think almost always.


Regardless of what “we want to pull from the experience”, I’ll never run that high of co2 at startup again. And I rarely say I wouldn’t do that again. A yellow drop checker is “fine”, but how yellow? mine was beyond yellow. Those levels are unnecessary and seeing the arcuata correct almost immediately in response is good enough for me.

Also seeing the rotalas have no Ill effects illustrates species specific stuff.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

For reference the 8dkh drop checker turned yellow … I want to say in the hour from the lights on. It was insane. Just trying to remember how fast … but it was fast.


----------



## Hanuman (19 Oct 2022)

That would probably mean 60ppm++


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

Hanuman said:


> That would probably mean 60ppm++


You sure it isn’t more? I’m almost positive it’s more - 10lbs in a week + I’m not sure how much was offgassed.

I’ve run my pH in my tanks (even in startup before) into the 5s (can only guess how low as bromothymol only goes to 6 and my pH probe is consistently wrong - but it is consistent) with no issues and yellow standard drop checker.

There is a maximum dip that co2 can take water … I just can’t remember if it’s 4.5 or what. I’ll have to look it up.

Edit: carbonate equilibrium - 4.3 .. bet I was around there. But who knows right?


----------



## Wookii (19 Oct 2022)

Hanuman said:


> That would probably mean 60ppm++



Surely way more than that? Does bromothymol blue not go yellow at 6.0 pH? The usual pH/KH charts suggest a CO2 level of 240ppm for 8dKH and 6.0 pH. Chances are the pH was even lower, down to 5.0pH perhaps - the tables don't seem to go that far!


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

if we do think it’s in the 60s (these levels are not an issue) … someone explain to me why arcuata corrected.

 I have no idea.

It took 1 day and all I did was ease off the gas.


----------



## Hanuman (19 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> Surely way more than that? Does bromothymol blue not go yellow at 6.0 pH? The usual pH/KH charts suggest a CO2 level of 240ppm for 8dKH and 6.0 pH. Chances are the pH was even lower, down to 5.0pH perhaps - the tables don't seem to go that far!


You are correct sir on this one. You can refer to my previous post with dash, parenthesis and the rest. 😇


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

Hanuman said:


> You are correct sir on this one. You can refer to my previous post with dash, parenthesis and the rest. 😇


Paul, you gotta be less cryptic buddy. Lol. Edit: the ++?


----------



## Hanuman (19 Oct 2022)

Na @Wookii knows well what I am talking about. Private joke. And here is a 😘 for him to show I meant no harm. But yeah he is definitely right. At 4dkh, a yellow DC at PH 6 would mean 120ppm so double that if 8dKh.





Mine is always urine yellow. All fish are doing fine


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

Hanuman said:


> Mine is always urine yellow. All fish are doing fine


I think lots of us have done this with minimal if any Ill effects on fish. And in many cases it’s actually a good call for the overall health I think. 

Seeing the arcuata curl - that was something I hadn’t seen before. I had seen plants soften in appearance when easing off the gas, but not to the extent of the latter.

Rotundifolia in particular got “less stiff” when I eased off the gas in the past.


----------



## Yugang (19 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> For reference the 8dkh drop checker turned yellow … I want to say in the hour from the lights on. It was insane. Just trying to remember how fast … but it was fast.





Hanuman said:


> That would probably mean 60ppm++


Drop checkers are slow to react, they take an moving average value over several hours. So one may argue what accuracy @JoshP12 readings have, or that the drop checker readings have any value at all as long as the tank CO2 ppm has not stabilised.



Hanuman said:


> Mine is always urine yellow. All fish are doing fine


Is the 1.08 pH drop mentioned in your journal still true? I learned to be critical about drop checkers, and would imagine that you may be close to 30 ppm or so. My point is that it would be really good for @JoshP12 to have pH data as well, as drop checkers can easily give the wrong direction.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but from all that I read on several fora there are deminishing returns when CO2 gets above the 50-70 ppm level. I have never read in fora claims that anything above 100 ppm CO2 makes sense. The plant will just adapt with making less Rubisco to meet its CO2 needs. Now the interesting part of this great journal is that @JoshP12 is challenging conventional wisdom, also bombarding big lighting PAR, and that is both fun and  useful.

@JoshP12 , thank you for this great thread.


----------



## Hanuman (19 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> Is the 1.08 pH drop mentioned in your journal still true? I learned to be critical about drop checkers, and would imagine that you may be close to 30 ppm or so.


PH 1.38 but i haven't checked in some time. No reason for it to be any much different considering I haven't changed things drastically. Perhaps slightly less because with the new introduction of fish and shrimp I slightly reduced CO2 to accommodate them, but it's pretty minimal.



Yugang said:


> Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but from all that I read there are deminishing returns when CO2 gets above the 50-70 ppm level. I have never read in fora claims that anything above 100 ppm CO2 makes sense. The plant will just adapt with making less Rubisco to meet its CO2 needs. Now the interesting part of this great journal is that @JoshP12 is challenging conventional wisdom, also bombarding big lighting PAR, and that is both fun and useful.


I don't know about rubisco and all those technicallities however the problem is not really the CO2 but most probably the acidity induced by the CO2. After all, emersed plants are exposed to 400ppm+++ and more, so CO2 in itself is not the problem but what it generates in the water. That is probably why plants have a lower ceilling limit CO2 wise when submersed.


----------



## dw1305 (19 Oct 2022)

Hi all,


JoshP12 said:


> I’m almost positive it’s more - 10lbs in a week + I’m not sure how much was offgassed.


The rate of out-gassing isn't a linear relationship, it depends on the concentration gradient between the gas exchange surface of the tank water and the atmosphere.  As you add more gas proportionally more will be out-gassed because the atmospheric CO2 concentration remains the same.

If you limited gas exchange between the tank and the atmosphere (with a tight fitting lid)  it would slow the rate of CO2 use, by reducing that gradient.


Hanuman said:


> but most probably the acidity induced by the CO2. After all, emersed plants are exposed to 400ppm+++ and more so CO2 in itself is not the problem but what it generates in the water.


That definitely could be an issue.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Yugang (19 Oct 2022)

Hanuman said:


> I don't know about rubisco and all those technicallities


Neither do I, I tried digging into the literature but that raised more questions than answers 😰 It is why I did not study biology in the first place.



Hanuman said:


> the problem is not really the CO2 but most probably the acidity induced by the CO2


It is for that reason that I doubt it is a good idea to inject huge CO2 into the filter inlet. Must be tough for the bacteria, who are effectively trying to colonise a CO2 reactor.



Hanuman said:


> That is probably why plants have a higher limit CO2 wise when submersed.


I am not sure if this is a correct statement. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen evidence that high CO2 is harmfull for submersed plants, as long as it remains stable. Actually lakes and swamps can have very high CO2, and low pH. I do believe there are deminishing returns, but that's a different issue.


----------



## Hanuman (19 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> I am not sure if this is a correct statement. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen evidence that high CO2 is harmfull for submersed plants, as long as it remains stable. Actually lakes and swamps can have very high CO2, and low pH. I do believe there are deminishing returns, but that's a different issue.


I corrected the statement above earlier. 


Hanuman said:


> That is probably why plants have a lower ceiling limit CO2 wise when submersed.


But as I said, the CO2 is not the issue but something else cause by the CO2.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> Drop checkers are slow to react, they take an moving average value over several hours. So one may argue what accuracy @JoshP12 readings have, or that the drop checker readings have any value at all as long as the tank CO2 ppm has not stabilised.


I think that’s what alarmed me. Drop checker when exposed to air changes quickly … to see it in my tank meant the concentration was high!


Yugang said:


> Is the 1.08 pH drop mentioned in your journal still true? I learned to be critical about drop checkers, and would imagine that you may be close to 30 ppm or so. My point is that it would be really good for @JoshP12 to have pH data as well, as drop checkers can easily give the wrong direction.


Less than 6 - bromothymol. 


Yugang said:


> Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but from all that I read on several fora there are deminishing returns when CO2 gets above the 50-70 ppm level. I have never read in fora claims that anything above 100 ppm CO2 makes sense. The plant will just adapt with making less Rubisco to meet its CO2 needs.


Don’t know if I buy into the rubisco idea. Imagine if the plant gets exposed to air - it would kick itself for having less rubisco. 


Yugang said:


> Now the interesting part of this great journal is that @JoshP12 is challenging conventional wisdom, also bombarding big lighting PAR, and that is both fun and  useful.


Ok - we have to address another elephant in the room: my co2 isn’t “stable by conventional wisdom” from lights on. I am of the belief that it only needs to follow leidbigs and be “getting there” by lights on. This means in harder water we may need a ramp but primarily we only need it at minimum pH by about 30-45 minutes into the photoperiod. And could be longer depending on demand.

Macrandra is one of the most demanding species for co2 imo - I call @John q to the stand as the official plant form judge since he pointed out the arcuata! 

So John, does the Macrandra look pretty? 

If so, what does this tell us about co2 “stability”? 


Yugang said:


> @JoshP12 , thank you for this great thread.





Hanuman said:


> PH 1.38 but i haven't checked in some time. No reason for it to be any much different considering I haven't changed things drastically. Perhaps slightly less because with the new introduction of fish and shrimp I slightly reduced CO2 to accommodate them, but it's pretty minimal.
> 
> 
> I don't know about rubisco and all those technicallities however the problem is not really the CO2 but most probably the acidity induced by the CO2. After all, emersed plants are exposed to 400ppm+++ and more, so CO2 in itself is not the problem but what it generates in the water. That is probably why plants have a lower ceilling limit CO2 wise when submersed.


I’m unconvinced about rubisco adaption myself. And I’ve read lots of papers on it. I’ll find them. 


dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> The rate of out-gassing isn't a linear relationship, it depends on the concentration gradient between the gas exchange surface of the tank water and the atmosphere.  As you add more gas proportionally more will be out-gassed because the atmospheric CO2 concentration remains the same.
> 
> If you limited gas exchange between the tank and the atmosphere (with a tight fitting lid)  it would slow the rate of CO2 use, by reducing that gradient.


Fick’s law. 


dw1305 said:


> That definitely could be an issue.
> 
> cheers Darrel


I’m with you - it’s the pH not the concentration. 


Yugang said:


> Neither do I, I tried digging into the literature but that raised more questions than answers 😰 It is why I did not study biology in the first place.
> 
> 
> It is for that reason that I doubt it is a good idea to inject huge CO2 into the filter inlet. Must be tough for the bacteria, who are effectively trying to colonise a CO2 reactor.


I’m doing it - and have always. But if it’s not tooo low, it’s maybe ok? 


Yugang said:


> I am not sure if this is a correct statement. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen evidence that high CO2 is harmfull for submersed plants, as long as it remains stable. Actually lakes and swamps can have very high CO2, and low pH. I do believe there are deminishing returns, but that's a different issue.


There is something about the pH that is pushed low via co2 vs the pH pushed low by tannins/organics.

It’s not the same effect. I eluded to it above, but can’t put my finger on it as to why - unless there is actually a mechanistic thing that relates to both pH and co2 which is present underwater but not in air.


----------



## Yugang (19 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I think that’s what alarmed me. Drop checker when exposed to air changes quickly … to see it in my tank meant the concentration was high!


CO2 measurement is a very tricky thing, unless one has access to professional/expensive tools. Having only imperfect tools, pH and drop checker, I am always using them in parallel to minimize the chance that I get fooled by either of them. It is safe to have a critical look to any measured CO2 ppm in our hobby and to assume it may easlily be 50% off.



JoshP12 said:


> Imagine if the plant gets exposed to air - it would kick itself for having less rubisco.





JoshP12 said:


> Ok - we have to address another elephant in the room: my co2 isn’t “stable by conventional wisdom” from lights on.


I am not a biologist, but from many articles I learned that plants have various adaptation mechanisms when adapting to emerged/submerged. I don't claim to understand the science, and personally decided to just follow some of the best plant keepers in the hobby who claim that stability is key. I do agree with you @JoshP12 that is it necessary to always be critical of conventional wisdoms and try to debunk myths. That makes your approach so interesting to me, and in the end your tank and plants will do the talking.



JoshP12 said:


> I’m doing it - and have always. But if it’s not tooo low, it’s maybe ok?


I believe not a big issue, as most of the biological action will be in the tank and not in the filter media. Not sure if your pump impeller likes it though.



JoshP12 said:


> There is something about the pH that is pushed low via co2 vs the pH pushed low by tannins/organics


I admit, I am out of my depth here. But I do know that some natural environments can have really high CO2, but that does not necessarily mean his is a good idea for our tank.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> in the end your tank and plants will do the talking.


This, I love.


----------



## Wookii (19 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> But I do know that some natural environments can have really high CO2, but that does not necessarily mean his is a good idea for our tank.



Do you have some links (not fact checking you here at all, I'm genuinely interested in measurements from wild habitats)?

The highest I've seen in a study was about 10-15ppm from memory and I generally assumed that few natural bodies of water (at least those in which plants thrive) got to the levels we target in aquariums.

pH of course is a different matter, and many natural bodies of water have a pH that can drop even below 5 due to organic acids.

As @JoshP12 says though, how the pH drop is achieved could have an effect on plants. For example I have both soft water and harder tap water CO2 injected tanks, and a very soft water non-CO2 injected tank (with lots of organic acids added from botanicals and leaves etc). All are around the lower 6's for pH (the tap water tank a bit higher). The ramshorns snails in the CO2 injected tanks always suffer much greater and faster shell attrition than those in the non-CO2 injected tanks, despite the pH being similar.

That would lead me to hypothesise that the carbonic acid generated by CO2 addition might not have the same physical effects on organisms than other organics acids - perhaps?


----------



## John q (19 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> So John, does the Macrandra look pretty?


Lol, I'll be as impartial as I can.. 

I think the ugly duckling turned into a beautiful Swan.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

John q said:


> Lol, I'll be as impartial as I can..
> 
> I think the ugly duckling turned into a beautiful Swan.


The judge has spoken. 

Everyone shaving 30 minutes off ramp? You can always put it back if you get the algaes.


----------



## dw1305 (19 Oct 2022)

Hi all,


JoshP12 said:


> Fick’s law.


<"Thank you">. I couldn't remember what it was called earlier, I knew it wasn't <"Henry's Law ">, but I couldn't remember whose it was.


Yugang said:


> CO2 measurement is a very tricky thing, unless one has access to professional/expensive tools.


While I was trying to find Fick's Law (problematic when you can't remember what it is called) I came upon an interesting paper that basically uses spectrophotometry and a "drop checker":

<"Measuring the Henry's Law Constant for Carbon Dioxide and Water with UV-visible Absorption Spectroscopy">

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q (19 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Everyone shaving 30 minutes off ramp?


To be honest Josh I've been shaving the co2 ramp time down for a few months ever since I read this post of yours.
Dialling in the CO2 injection Rate and CO2 Profiles


Having said that I have a looooong ramp time (4hr+ to reach 1ph drop) so loosing 30 mins off that is in no way a scientific backing of your theory.
Up to now I haven't seen any major drawbacks from not being bang on 1ph drop exactly when the lights turn on, time will tell I guess.


----------



## GreggZ (19 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> You sure it isn’t more? I’m almost positive it’s more - 10lbs in a week + I’m not sure how much was offgassed.


A couple of issues I think are relevant.

First is you really have no idea what the actual pH drop or CO2 concentration was in the tank. 10 lbs in a week is an insane number, and IMO likely there is leak somewhere. For reference I run through a 10 lb tank about every ten weeks in my 120G. And that is a robust constant stream of CO2.

The second is that  it seems some are equating this to proving that moderate CO2 is better. If you were to increase the concentration level of ANYTHING we put it into our tanks in a wildly huge amount I would expect you will see negative effects. Whether that's 1,000 ppm NO3, 50 ppm Fe, or 5 ppm Boron. Let's say we tried those and tank suffered. Would that mean that less NO3, less Fe, and less B is optimum? No it doesn't. Just saying that IMO drawing correlations from massive overdoses doesn't prove or even indicate anything.

If you really wanted to test this theory wait until the tank is stable and then start very slowly and accurately changing CO2 concentrations. I've done this numerous times and for me that answer is always more is better. But that's within a "reasonable" range. I keep fish so I've never kept it at anything more than a 1.5 pH drop. Like most everything else I am sure there is a law of diminishing returns with CO2, but if you really dumped 10 lbs of CO2 into the tank in a week I don't see much relevance as to how much CO2 plants require for peak health.

A quick analogy might be how we use fertilizers for our lawn. Provide a reasonable amount and the lawn is lush and green. Provide too little and lawn is weak and weeds take start taking over. Spill a pile of fertilizer on it and that spot dies quickly. That doesn't mean that less fertilizer is better.


----------



## Wookii (19 Oct 2022)

GreggZ said:


> The second is that it seems some are equating this to proving that moderate CO2 is better.





GreggZ said:


> I've done this numerous times and for me that answer is always more is better. But that's within a "reasonable" range. I keep fish so I've never kept it at anything more than a 1.5 pH drop.



Possibly a difference in definition between individuals, but that to me is the definition of moderate CO2. If its acceptable to livestock then its a reasonable/moderate level of CO2. So moderate CO2 levels probably are better, but mainly because:



GreggZ said:


> I am sure there is a law of diminishing returns with CO2



Without livestock CO2 can be pushed higher without concern, and there may be benefits to plant growth, though as you say the benefits likely diminish quickly. 

The crux of the question being discussed here though is more if there is a ceiling level of CO2 where the plants not only cease to obtain any further benefits, but instead start to incur negative reactions to the CO2 level. Not directly necessary, as mentioned above, but more from 'other' interactions within the aquarium (be those pH levels, carbonic acid concentrations or something else entirely).

@JoshP12's application is an extreme case, and a sample size of 1,  so you are right it proves nothing, and we can't draw any real conclusions, but the plant response is interesting none the less.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

There’s no leak @GreggZ. I ran through two tanks at that rate - then went to the shop got the same ones refilled and replaced the system and now I haven’t touched the tank.

I also think it’s very clear that it’s species dependent … rotalas didn’t skip a beat - arcuata did.

I no longer feel compelled to run such high levels of co2 anymore, however, to test boundaries. The Macrandra looks the “same” aside from the blip when I undershot co2 and showed the leaves in the photos.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

John q said:


> To be honest Josh I've been shaving the co2 ramp time down for a few months ever since I read this post of yours.
> Dialling in the CO2 injection Rate and CO2 Profiles


Fun!


John q said:


> Having said that I have a looooong ramp time (4hr+ to reach 1ph drop) so loosing 30 mins off that is in no way a scientific backing of your theory.
> Up to now I haven't seen any major drawbacks from not being bang on 1ph drop exactly when the lights turn on, time will tell I guess.


Shave off an hour? or two? Just do it. LOL-- get the algaes, then claw it back the other way by 10 minutes.


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

Nice and cloudy FTS:








Cleaned out the filter, added purigen, removed filter floss. Let’s see.

I lifted up some Monte Carlo and the roots were alive. So hoping they take.

If they don’t, I’m saving money and replanting the whole tank with my rotalas 😂 until it establishes and clears up.


----------



## Hufsa (19 Oct 2022)

I cant remember if I already posted something along these lines but love the journal and how unapologetically Josh it is 😄 Very interesting to see some outside the box techniques, I think we all really appreciate being allowed to follow along 😊👍


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Oct 2022)

Hufsa said:


> I cant remember if I already posted something along these lines but love the journal and how unapologetically Josh it is 😄 Very interesting to see some outside the box techniques, I think we all really appreciate being allowed to follow along 😊👍


😊 … it’s a whole lot more fun to share the journey this time. 

On a different note, check this-







Yesterday, and in any photo within this week, the 4kh was yellow. 

The stems have just taken off. To @Wookii point about consumption from the light - that’s a massive jump overnight that we get to experience with massive PAR. 

@Libba what do I have to do now in a few days? 😂


----------



## Yugang (20 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> Do you have some links


When reading published data on rivers and freshwater systems I am always struggling with the translation of chemists' units  into our commonly used CO2 ppm. I just hope in the below I do not misread the units, and that @dw1305 will correct me if I am talking nonsense here 



Wookii said:


> The highest I've seen in a study was about 10-15ppm from memory and I generally assumed that few natural bodies of water (at least those in which plants thrive) got to the levels we target in aquariums.


I believe generally this is correct, oversaturation to about 3 time athmospheric equilibrium for most rivers or large water bodies with published data. More than 1000 micro atm pCO2 is already considered high.
In the below link though, you see the Amazon Obidos tributary at 6000 micro atm pCO2, which exceeds equilibrium 15 times.

When speaking about real high CO2, is was more thinking like seasonally flooded swamps  in tropical rain forests, with little flow and a lot of decaying organic matter. This is where we find a lot of plants, possibly more than in main stream rivers. 
But as said, it is interesting how plants can cope with extremes.  I doubt however if we can translate that into any wisdom for our tanks.









						Carbon Dioxide Emissions along the Lower Amazon River
					

A large fraction of the organic carbon derived from land that is transported through inland waters is decomposed along river systems and emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2). The Amazon River outgasses nearly as much CO2 as the rainforest sequesters on an annual basis, representing...




					www.frontiersin.org
				



/forum/attachments/1666222843015-png.195988/?hash=532084d74ecaaeb1123407fffcd0ae0b


----------



## Yugang (20 Oct 2022)

GreggZ said:


> I've done this numerous times and for me that answer is always more is better.


Agreed, until of course the CO2 reached the point where light intensity becomes the limitation. This is probably the deminishing returns that you mention. The message from some of the best is to either not inject CO2 (low tech), or go high on CO2 (>20-30ppm). Low CO2 injection (like 10 ppm, please note @Wookii) is generally not considered a wise choice (I have never tried though, cannot confirm nor do I fully understand)

I've done a lot of CO2 experiments over the last months, and learned that there is probably no truth that holds for all plants. Some plants really suffered from me playing around, some plants did not seem to care. It is well known in the hobby that some plants are really sensitive to CO2 variations, on the other hand it is impossible to kill some others even if you tried. I also did not get an outbreak of BBA, while it is a accepted fact that CO2 is at least one of the biggest contributors to BBA. To state the obvious, there are few truths in this hobby that apply generally, to all tanks, to all plants, to all maintence regimes.



GreggZ said:


> wait until the tank is stable


@JoshP12 , you think you can rise to that challenge?


----------



## Freshflora (20 Oct 2022)

Pretty sure 10-15 is not the standard in nature, especially when it comes to the bodies of water that are actually somewhat comparable to our tanks and host the most robust and healthy plants.  Why inject CO2 for a planted tank, isn't it unnatural ?, look at the natural water ways listed there.  I have Christel Kasselmann’s latest edition of her book too which has tons of measurements from lots of freshwater bodies of water where our plants come from—lots at 25ppm +.  I remember reading something also about the CO2 levels in Florida waterways which are, as things go, some of the best comparisons to our planted tanks, and they get highly saturated with CO2.  I’ll spend some time looking for it in a bit, and when I find it I’ll post it in my journal with my next update .


----------



## Wookii (20 Oct 2022)

Freshflora said:


> Pretty sure 10-15 is not the standard in nature





Freshflora said:


> Why inject CO2 for a planted tank, isn't it unnatural ?, look at the natural water ways listed there.



Yeah, I've seen that link before - if you take the average its 14.6ppm  



Freshflora said:


> I have Christel Kasselmann’s latest edition of her book too which has tons of measurements from lots of freshwater bodies of water where our plants come from—lots at 25ppm +



I have to hang my head and admit I have that book but haven't read it properly yet  . . . I'll take a look over the weekend, thanks for the suggestion.



Yugang said:


> Low CO2 injection (like 10 ppm, please note @Wookii) is generally not considered a wise choice



Yeah, just to clarify, I'm in now way suggesting we replicate natural CO2 levels in our tanks (unless someone is specifically trying to replicate a biotope perhaps), it was purely a discussion on what levels typically occur in nature. Our glass boxes are couldn't be farther removed from nature, nor do we necessarily want to replicate nature (with its warts and all) in a clean algae free high tech tank.



Yugang said:


> I am always struggling with the translation of chemists' units into our commonly used CO2 ppm



Thanks for that link - I have seen that one before, but like you I have no idea how to convert to our typical ppm measures 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Yugang (20 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> Low CO2 injection (like 10 ppm, please note @Wookii) is generally not considered a wise choice





Wookii said:


> Yeah, just to clarify, I'm in now way suggesting we replicate natural CO2 levels in our tanks (unless someone is specifically trying to replicate a biotope perhaps), it was purely a discussion on what levels typically occur in nature.



Seeing  your new project, starstruck and too speechless to comment on this detail. With the help of some secret adviser under your staircase, I am sure this will be settled  in no time 



Wookii said:


> CO2 - I plan to initially dose CO2, but only at a fairly low level (around 10ppm)


----------



## Wookii (20 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> Seeing  your new project, starstruck and too speechless to comment on this detail. With the help of some secret adviser under your staircase, I am sure this will be settled  in no time



Lol Yeah, I have very specific reasons for pursuing that level specific to that tank and set-up (I am indeed trying to get closer to wild water parameters because that tank will be fish focused, not plant focused) - I will be running very low light levels and very specific plants with low light compensation points. I know from experience I will be able to run at those CO2 levels, under those parameters, but it is a world away from a proper full fat high tech tank.

As you suggested, it's not something I would ever advocate for a proper/typical high tech tank - getting levels above 30ppm are critical, and I've always pushed my high tanks above that in the past with a pH drop around the 1.2-1.3 mark.


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> As you suggested, it's not something I would ever advocate for a proper/typical high tech tank - getting levels above 30ppm are critical, and I've always pushed my high tanks above that in the past with a pH drop around the 1.2-1.3 mark.


Typical is the key word and I’m glad you included it.

There are ways to run high tech on lower levels - manipulating other factors (ferts, light, plant choice).

2 plants taught me the most this far: Rotala rotundifolia and Rotala Macrandra mini butterfly

The rotundifolia responds to stuff fast and furious - @dw1305 called it a canary in a coal mine once (just can’t remember the post).

I went to the lower co2 mark and of course erio dies first but as we let the tank die slowly dropping co2 levels one week at a time and watch the species adapt, we can see why “Tropica” put the levels easy, medium, hard as it’s in the opposite order that they begins to die off. In the final iteration of the tank prior to this one, I had 40+ species in there. Was neat to watch them slowly die off as the emersed growth also happened and then as I finally pulled out co2. Certain niches took over.














So you can build high tech with proper plant choice and probably get away with 15.


----------



## Hufsa (20 Oct 2022)

Freshflora said:


> I have Christel Kasselmann’s latest edition of her book too which has tons of measurements from lots of freshwater bodies of water where our plants come from—lots at 25ppm +.





Wookii said:


> Yeah, I've seen that link before - if you take the average its 14.6ppm



I have been very interested in learning what level of CO2 is considered "normal" in the places our plants come from, but I think there are a few potential issues.
Firstly we have to make sure we are looking at a place that actually supports larger amounts of submersed plants (usually stemplants for our CO2-inquiry purposes as some of them can be quite demanding). There is no sense looking at CO2 data from a blackwater river with no plants and just leaves and tannins, so we have to consider our sources carefully.
Secondly, while I have Christel's latest book (and its wonderful), it wasnt entirely clear to me how the CO2 values reported in that section have been measured. If they have been calculated from the KH and PH values, wont they run into the issue of being inaccurately reported too high in cases where there are other acids present in the water? After all this is the main reason we cannot use the KH/PH/CO2 chart directly for our tanks, and this chart leads beginners into thinking they have like 160ppm CO2 which is in most cases not reality.
Grateful if someone has an answer for this last point


----------



## Yugang (20 Oct 2022)

Hufsa said:


> Firstly we have to make sure we are looking at a place that actually supports larger amounts of submersed plants (usually stemplants for our CO2-inquiry purposes as some of them can be quite demanding). There is no sense looking at CO2 data from a blackwater river with no plants and just leaves and tannins, so we have to consider our sources carefully.


This is so true, it is one of the reasons that I started watching YouTube videos to see if natural habitats look like planted tanks. They don't.

May I suggest a thought experiment?
We take a map of South America, and just randomly select 100 locations in Amazon, Orinoco basins on that map with water in at least some season. Some may be in rivers, permanently wet, some may be in areas that only flood when waters are high. We then travel to each of these 100 locations, and plant 1 square meter with each species from @Hufsa tank. We let nature manage our 100 natural tanks for 1 year, then return to observe what happened.
So what do we expect, how many of these 100 random tanks will appear to be better than @Hufsa tank? And what would the learn from this thought experiment for our hobby? 

_(So my personal opinion is that the best approach to managing our tank is not necessarily, or perhaps never, what we find in natural habitats. Natural habitats are a unique marriage between local conditions and just a few species, while our tanks aim to make everyone happpy in the safest possible way - what probably never happens in nature.)_


----------



## Hufsa (20 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> _(So my personal opinion is that the best approach to managing our tank is not necessarily, or perhaps never, what we find in natural habitats. Natural habitats are a unique marriage between local conditions and just a few species, while our tanks aim to make everyone happpy in the safest possible way - what probably never happens in nature.)_


Yes this is something I find many people overlook. We as humans are very quick to call upon nature as some sort of standard for how things should be, but we forget that in nature things "straight up dying" and disappearing, or struggling terribly, is a completely common outcome, and while we see the plants that managed to make it in those conditions, its too easy to forget about all of the plants that tried to make it there but were never able to.
But I fear I am going too far off topic for @JoshP12 's journal


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Oct 2022)

Hufsa said:


> But I fear I am going too far off topic for @JoshP12 's journal


Never worry about that. I love the conversations.


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> _(So my personal opinion is that the best approach to managing our tank is not necessarily, or perhaps never, what we find in natural habitats. Natural habitats are a unique marriage between local conditions and just a few species, while our tanks aim to make everyone happpy in the safest possible way - what probably never happens in nature.)_


We are the facilitators of unnatural equity. 

I particularly like your thought experiment more so than the “every tank is different” phrase that is often used.


----------



## Wookii (20 Oct 2022)

Yugang said:


> May I suggest a thought experiment?
> We take a map of South America, and just randomly select 100 locations in Amazon, Orinoco basins on that map with water in at least some season. Some may be in rivers, permanently wet, some may be in areas that only flood when waters are high. We then travel to each of these 100 locations, and plant 1 square meter with each species from @Hufsa tank. We let nature manage our 100 natural tanks for 1 year, then return to observe what happened.
> So what do we expect, how many of these 100 random tanks will appear to be better than @Hufsa tank? And what would the learn from this thought experiment for our hobby?



That's a fantastic idea - I'll drop you a PM with my address and bank details so you know where to send the first class plane tickets, 5 star hotel booking, and travel 'allowance'! 


Yugang said:


> how many of these 100 random tanks will appear to be better than @Hufsa tank?



You will NEVER find that many 'Precious's' in one square foot in nature . . . NEVER I tell you!! 😂


----------



## KirstyF (21 Oct 2022)

Wookii said:


> You will NEVER find that many 'Precious's' in one square foot in nature . . . NEVER I tell you!! 😂



Yep, if nature could ever replicate @Hufsa’s tank, our world biodiversity issues would be solved….period! 😂


----------



## JoshP12 (21 Oct 2022)

Not much to report. Snapped these yesterday.









Macrandra size and growth rates seems to follow flow pattern and the centre with the most light seems to grow the slowest (I intentionally pointed my primes to the same “center”).

Going to have to “fix” the shape by trimming. (Or adjusting beam spread from lights). 

I will say, I love how dense and tight the plants look despite the massive cloudiness.

On a similar note, purigen hasn’t cleared anything up (if anything maybe has just slowed down bacterial bloom indirectly and I could’ve left it out and nothing would have changed for the end product - just more bloom for now).

Debating running uv JUST for the sake of getting clear water - not because I have/want to - the issue will be that all those dead spores will probably turn into ammonia and it may negatively impact the plants …. Though I want to see the forms more clearly … and can probably circumvent with an additional water change (instead of every 3-4 days… stick to 3 and likely not 4) - maybe even micro turn up co2 just to compensate.

Ciao


----------



## JoshP12 (22 Oct 2022)

Was worried UV wasn’t working as it didn’t clear up. Opened up the canister and it was clearly working. It can take longer than 24hr but it Wasn’t working “well-enough” — anyways enough of that!

After checking it, I got the maintenance bug:










Only trimmed the little cove in the front just to help get that flow right into the back of those Rotala (the ones at the back showed some thinness).

Monte Carlo has roots still and some leaf - tissue is white so that’s good.

All that to say… I just went for it. Planted some macrandras scattered to check flow/light in the tank as we can see how they responded in the middle and compare (I’ve never run this flow pattern before).

The brown/green algaes on the rock came off just with my hand wafting.


----------



## MichaelJ (22 Oct 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> It can take longer than 24hr but it Wasn’t working “well-enough” — anyways enough of that!



Hi @JoshP12  I wonder if this is part sediment? I've used a water polisher from time to time when I've been messing things up to get the "instant" gratification of clear water (or actually a combination of both a polisher and a UV filter).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (22 Oct 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12  I wonder if this is part sediment?


Not a bad thought actually - I have more flow/turnover than ever before so it’s possible that it’s suspended stuff.

Water changes don’t clear it though and it keeps persisting - characteristic of bacteria. 

Will keep updating.


----------



## JoshP12 (28 Oct 2022)

It’s Time To Clean!





I turned off UV because I thought it wasn’t working and they were still cloudy … oh it was definitely working … my goodness 😂.

Nothing will stop thy photosynthesis!


----------



## Hufsa (28 Oct 2022)

I love this tank, its just so wild, it does none of the things youre supposed to do and is all of the reasons interesting because of it.
I couldnt decide if I should press wow, like, laugh, or love 
Never change Josh 🤩


----------



## JoshP12 (28 Oct 2022)

Hufsa said:


> I love this tank, its just so wild, it does none of the things youre supposed to do and is all of the reasons interesting because of it.


Yahoo! I squint to make sure nothing is stunting.

Macrandra broke to the surface - when I do the maintenance I’ll post some updated photos!


Hufsa said:


> I couldnt decide if I should press wow, like, laugh, or love
> Never change Josh 🤩


Nice to hear the encouragement! Thanks!

We should have pretty photos in maybe a month or so?


----------



## JoshP12 (28 Oct 2022)

There is one thing I do “right” @Hufsa : prioritize healthy plants. 

If you look past the cloudy water and the dust - the system - you see plants with demands being met. If you waft your hand all the dust will be gone (I just haven’t done it).


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Oct 2022)

~30min of labor and replanting and ~ 70 minutes total of changing water (and planting etc) etc.

Took around 6 iterations of water change to clear the water (can’t do 100% without more work so the compartment stays filled).





You … my friend … will carpet the entire area in several months:




I think it’s a situation where you sacrifice the scape and just get those stems replanted anywhere and everywhere to get it stabilized.


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Oct 2022)

I been thinking ….

I think deformities, twisting, odd shapes, leaf structure issues that make the plant look funny and odd aren’t related to co2 … contrary to what I posted in @Hufsa  journal.

Co2 issues definitely have algae-related consequences, but there’s not a single deformity in the tank — instead of deformities, when co2 was not correct, we had straight up death, decay, thin leaves, algae-spawn things off the decrepit leaves but that’s it. And upon reflection, I’ve never fixed those issues with co2 … even odd veins/coloration of leaves …

Has anyone fixed stunting with co2 exclusively?

Edit: beginning to ask myself why I didn’t see bba when my co2 was in that blue zone. And in the past I haven’t either.

The only time I had bba was when co2 was off and ferts were unbalanced. When ferts just unbalanced and no algae, deformity. When co2 off and no unbalance, death 😂.


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Oct 2022)

As I spam the journal but check this now that the water is clear (remember how the lights on the left have cool white channel fried - sometimes):




More green algae on the right rock (with more cool white) and more brown on the left rock (with more red/warm white). @oreo57 have some insights?!

For reference:


----------



## milesjames (30 Oct 2022)

Loving the current style of this tank even with the issues currently, was your intention to go for a Brazilian style tank?

Its got that great contrast between hardscape and colour that is reminiscent of this style.


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Oct 2022)

milesjames said:


> Loving the current style of this tank even with the issues currently, was your intention to go for a Brazilian style tank?


Thank you! 

I had to look up Brazilian style - you are bang on … it looks like it! And - I love all of  those tanks I looked up! 


milesjames said:


> Its got that great contrast between hardscape and colour that is reminiscent of this style.


Thanks for sharing this and the insights to Brazilian style.

Maybe part of it was doing something “different than I did before” … and before I was mostly keeping plants in “carefully placed bushes”. 

I wonder if it in a few years or a few more startups (with multiple tanks would be faster) if I’ll have the forethought to plan these styles instead of just “hey look what happened”.


----------



## milesjames (30 Oct 2022)

Hey @JoshP12, 

Well it's a great start on a Brazilian tank and who needs to worry about "formal" style types. 

Keep up the great work you look like you have a nice eye for balance when it comes to scape arrangement. (particularly if this arrangement was unplanned in a style)

Have you already zeroed in on the cause of issues or would you like some help working out whats happening?


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Oct 2022)

milesjames said:


> Hey @JoshP12,
> 
> Well it's a great start on a Brazilian tank and who needs to worry about "formal" style types.
> 
> Keep up the great work you look like you have a nice eye for balance when it comes to scape arrangement. (particularly if this arrangement was unplanned in a style)





milesjames said:


> Have you already zeroed in on the cause of issues or would you like some help working out whats happening?


Love to hear your insights!

I’m not sure if you’ve read the entire journal  (and no need to) - happy to give a run down of the system if you’d like.


----------



## milesjames (30 Oct 2022)

Hey, 

Yea I haven't read the full journal yet just been catching up on the advice over the last couple of pages. 

Send over stats that be good have you done anything for the Cyanobacteria yet?


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Oct 2022)

milesjames said:


> Hey,
> 
> Yea I haven't read the full journal yet just been catching up on the advice over the last couple of pages.


No worries! Pages 1 pictures should do the trick for setup and substrate.

If you keep going you’ll also see me fiddling with co2 and lights at startup and forcing arcuata to funky things. That was neat. Now the tank is rather “boring”.


milesjames said:


> Send over stats that be good have you done


Co2 with lights.
Lights 10h -4x at 100% (30 min. Ramp - more for my light/fish when they come as opposed to anything else)
Ferts front loaded:



Dosed 10% daily lights off or 100% at water change.

Micro .015 iron proxy with csm+B daily lights on

TDS~ 90-110?

anything for the Cyanobacteria yet?
I don’t see any cyano, sorry.


----------



## milesjames (30 Oct 2022)

Hi, 
Thanks, I'll take a look and have a think. 
I believe you might have cyanobacteria is in your substrate there is some gas exchange occurring from below the soil line so most likely to be this. 





I will take a look at the rest of your details a bit later as I'm about to head out.


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Oct 2022)

milesjames said:


> Hi,
> Thanks, I'll take a look and have a think.
> I believe you might have cyanobacteria is in your substrate there is some gas exchange occurring from below the soil line so most likely to be this.
> 
> View attachment 197031


I did see that in some pockets about three? weeks ago (I’ll find the post in the journal) but not entirely concerned as it receded on its own. I think It was a solid indicator of some bacterial establishment in it from sterility.


milesjames said:


> I will take a look at the rest of your details a bit later as I'm about to head out.


👍


----------



## Hufsa (30 Oct 2022)

As far as im concerned what goes on below the substrate line stays below the substrate line 😅
Or in other words, if its only in the substrate why worry about it y'know.


----------



## JoshP12 (30 Oct 2022)

now that the plants are taller and I can see, I don’t really like the flow pattern for “zen” and I don’t think it’s natural for the fish. 

So I cut all the power heads and going just filter to see if it will be distributed well enough (I use the cheap heads that come with it - may look to just get an elbow but definitely avoiding lily pipe etc - cost + don’t need the aesthetic since I have it all contained.


----------



## JoshP12 (1 Nov 2022)

Was not a good idea to cut all the flow except filter. 

Had to turn two of the heads back on. Let’s see.


----------



## Hufsa (1 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Was not a good idea to cut all the flow except filter.


Picssssss


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Nov 2022)

Hufsa said:


> Picssssss







Absolutely decimated. But once I turned on the two power heads, the tips in the back h Ra perked up. Bottoms are rough. But I’m sure if I dust them off, there’s something decent under there.

I’ve been pretty busy to be able to do anything other than look at it briefly to check. My co2 tank also running low so I’ll need to replace that.

The system is pretty taxed at the moment and just needs to settle.


----------



## Wookii (2 Nov 2022)

Sorry to see the algae is taking a hold @JoshP12 - I'm not Uri Geller, but . . .



Wookii said:


> I know you advocate high light on tanks, but . . . I'd wager a high potential for a veritable algae riot in due course,



I know your current thinking might be that distribution issues from turning off the stream pumps has made the algae worse, bit thinking of the algal bloom in general do you still maintain:



JoshP12 said:


> it’s very clear light doesn’t cause algae.



(You knew I was going to take you to task on that at some point mate! 😂)

Presumably your dosing and CO2 was on point, so what would you deduce is making the algae so prevalent at this stage if not the high light?


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> Sorry to see the algae is taking a hold @JoshP12 - I'm not Uri Geller, but . . .


Nothing to be sorry about. 


Wookii said:


> I know your current thinking might be that distribution issues from turning off the stream pumps has made the algae worse, bit thinking of the algal bloom in general do you still maintain:


It is a flow/distribution at my current lighting. I could drop to 30% and alleviate all of it and probably get away with no pumps. But I don’t want to. 


Wookii said:


> (You knew I was going to take you to task on that at some point mate! 😂)
> 
> Presumably your dosing and CO2 was on point, so what would you deduce is making the algae so prevalent at this stage if not the high light?


Co2 was not on point when I cut the flow. Then the bloom. Then I fix flow, new tips are fine and if I did some maintenance, I could probably clean up the bottoms.


The tank was in sharp shape before I changed my flow. But I didn’t like the vigor from the side — it would have been smart to just leave it for another month, let the tank settle and then fiddle with flow, but I just changed it.


----------



## Wookii (2 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Co2 was not on point when I cut the flow. Then the bloom. Then I fix flow, new tips are fine and if I did some maintenance, I could probably clean up the bottoms.



You had quite significant algae appearing before you cut the flow to the power heads on Sunday though:


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> You had quite significant algae appearing before you cut the flow to the power heads on Sunday though:


What you see in there is systemic. Look at the post water change. The plants are clean.

Edit: analogy - would you say that a bodybuilder who is in off season sitting at 20% body fat isn’t “jacked” just because their fat covers their muscle definition? If they continue to persist with training and eating well but in surplus, weight increases - but muscle also grows. Peak season is under the fat.

When I cut the flow, I “catabolized muscle in my analogy” (stopped eating protein and stopped training)… some of those leaves will be nuked. Same as when I was low on co2 and had to react to turn it up since leaves were thinning.


----------



## Wookii (2 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> What you see in there is systemic. Look at the post water change. The plants are clean.



Lol semantics! Algal growth is algal growth, irrespective of whether you can clean it off for a photo 😋 . . . and even so, it just comes back after cleaning it as you've seen.

The question is what is causing the algal growth? That's what I'm posing to you.



JoshP12 said:


> Edit: analogy - would you say that a bodybuilder who is in off season sitting at 20% body fat isn’t “jacked” just because their fat covers their muscle definition? If they continue to persist with training and eating well but in surplus, weight increases - but muscle also grows. Peak season is under the fat.



And that is the weirdest analogy I've seen for a while Josh! 😂 I thought my car ones were bad! 😂


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> Lol semantics! Algal growth is algal growth, irrespective of whether you can clean it off for a photo 😋 . . . and even so, it just comes back after cleaning it as you've seen.


But I know lol. I cleaned it so I could see the forms clearly to know if the tank and plants were nuked or just the system.


Wookii said:


> The question is what is causing the algal growth? That's what I'm posing to you.


I can say what is not causing it: unhealthy plants.

Since they are fine. So it’s something else.

The algae of yesterday - co2/light balance.

The cloudiness is bacteria and probably related to my substrate 😂. Different issue rather than the dust or maybe the same …


Wookii said:


> And that is the weirdest analogy I've seen for a while Josh! 😂 I thought my car ones were bad! 😂


Hah! I got more where that came from!


----------



## JoshP12 (2 Nov 2022)

Since yesterday:












Little wafting and it should clear itself up.

Becoming less cloudy as well.

We’re driving a race car @Wookii 😂


----------



## JoshP12 (5 Nov 2022)

Won’t be much of an update any time soon I don’t think. 

Basically, two pumps suffice instead of 3 - that’s good. A little nicer flow for when the livestock arrive. 

There is a clear distinction from when I cut the flow and when we fixed it. And a clear distinction from the 6 back to back waters … almost like pseudo old tank syndrome shock. 

In any case, feel no need to fiddle with anything else. Maybe dust off some leaves here and there - particularity the Monte Carlo.

Going to let the system dictate water change. So 10% daily on macros and then my micros. Leave it all. And TDS has settled around 120. If it goes to 130 and climbs I’ll water change a few days in a row just one a day though. 

What do we think: 1 month for it all to clear? 

When the plants get close to surface I’ll do a big trim.


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Nov 2022)

Lol. Little pockets of these Monte Carlo are sprouting out of the ground (clumps of a couple leaves).

Fts:


----------



## Wookii (10 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Lol. Little pockets of these Monte Carlo are sprouting out of the ground (clumps of a couple leaves).
> 
> Fts:
> View attachment 197587



I commend you for continuing with the warts-and-all photos Josh - still an algae-fest but are you at least still getting the plant forms you are seeking from the high light? 

What do you put down as the cause of the algae?


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> I commend you for continuing with the warts-and-all photos Josh - still an algae-fest but are you at least still getting the plant forms you are seeking from the high light?


The plants are clean! Especially if I give them a little dusting. 


Wookii said:


> What do you put down as the cause of the algae?


I don’t know. 

I think it’s like when someone is tired and then you ask well what’s going on in life and then they tell you the whole story lol.

it’s not “unhealthy plants” and they indicate that the acquisition of co2/light/ferts is good.

So I don’t know.

Maybe the system is just too chaotic right now (for some reason plants make it out ok but not everything else - like the plastic and the water 😂).


----------



## plantnoobdude (10 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Lol. Little pockets of these Monte Carlo are sprouting out of the ground (clumps of a couple leaves).
> 
> Fts:
> View attachment 197587


Stunning. 😍

(Comes off a bit sarcastic? Not meant like that at all though!)

i think I found out what is causing the bloom in my tank….


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Nov 2022)

plantnoobdude said:


> Stunning. 😍
> 
> (Comes off a bit sarcastic? Not meant like that at all though!)


 glad you see some beauty in it!


plantnoobdude said:


> i think I found out what is causing the bloom in my tank….


Please do tell!


----------



## John q (10 Nov 2022)

Definitely deserve some kudos for persisting with this experiment Josh, will be interesting to see if the tank rights itself or falls off a cliff edge.


Wookii said:


> What do you put down as the cause of the algae?


Random speculation... Insane amounts of miracle grow coupled with the photon beam torpedo lights 🙄

Keep the updates coming mate 👍


----------



## plantnoobdude (10 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> glad you see some beauty in it!
> 
> Please do tell!


Boron. 

For a very long time I have not dosed any boron. Because any additional boron dosed in my system crumpled up my ludwigia Pantanal. At that time I was using soil, so I guess the plant were getting a decent amount from sediment.  In terms of boron dosing I tried a range, from 0 all the way up to 0.02ppm. For consistent results in Aquasoil, 0 was the bets.

Since then I have changed the substrate to sand… since the soil reserve of boron is gone the plants are starved, (boron responsible for leaf expansion)
The plants grow small tops especially the Ludwigia. (Palustris, Cuba, Pantanal) known boron hogs which basically reaffirms my theory. 

Colours still intense! Boron doesn’t affect colouration.

Plants growing extremely slow. Pantanal which should be growing a foot a week is growing a measly couple cm a week. But the plants are still healthy. In many plants I also see what appears to be nitrogen deficiency, B plays a role in N-fixing… something to think about.

So a B-limited column… flushed with macros (by me) to speed the whole process along, only made stuff worse. 

Need to make a new mix for micros. My current dose is 0.0875 Fe weekly, coupled with 20Ca 4 Mg. If I were to half gh, I would half micro as well. 

Oh and the tank is algae free now! 0 fluffy algae no algae on glass…..


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Nov 2022)

@plantnoobdude - I don’t think I understand.

How did boron influence the bloom?

Sorry if it’s obvious.

I definitely have lots of boron in the column! Leech from substrate and then whatever is in csm + b with .015 iron proxy.


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Nov 2022)

Definitely deserve some kudos for persisting with this experiment Josh, will be interesting to see if the tank rights itself or falls off a cliff edge.

Thanks - looking forward to it myself. 


John q said:


> Random speculation... Insane amounts of miracle grow coupled with the photon beam torpedo lights 🙄


🤣 but why? Plants are healthy. So shouldn’t the system be clear and outcompeted? 


John q said:


> Keep the updates coming mate 👍


Of course!


----------



## MichaelJ (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Lol. Little pockets of these Monte Carlo are sprouting out of the ground (clumps of a couple leaves).
> 
> Fts:
> View attachment 197587


@JoshP12, Run an UV filter and a micron filter for 72 hours and I’ll bet you a considerable amount of flakefood  (of your choice) that the tank will be gin clear!

Cheers
Michael


----------



## Wookii (11 Nov 2022)

John q said:


> Random speculation... Insane amounts of miracle grow coupled with the photon beam torpedo lights 🙄



Shhhh John - I want to hear Josh say it! 😂


----------



## Wookii (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> 🤣 but why? Plants are healthy. So shouldn’t the system be clear and outcompeted?



Perhaps it will with time, maybe we need to hold judgement for a month. However I still can't help but think there is a matter of balance to consider. I feel there is a range of light values that create balance in a tank with the given nutrient availability and plant growth, and allow it to run algae free.

I think that point of balance changes as a tank matures and plant mass increases, and it requires the light input to be much lower during the initial phases (first 3-4 months) to remain largely algae free. But then I also think there is a point at which, if you exceed the maximum light input of the balance range, even on a mature tank, you will start to get algae appear. I don't understand the mechanisms involved sadly - I'm not sure anyone does, but I think the light can exceed the point at which the higher level plants can continue to keep the algae at bay (using whatever mechanisms are at play - allelopathy, or cellular stress at the leaf surface or something else entirely), and at those light levels algae gets a foothold.

As we have discussed before separately, I believe light is always the driver - the accelerator pedal if you will, in my crap car analogy 😂 - the faster the car is driven, the more closely everything needs to be controlled and the much less room for any element not being completely perfect.

I really hope the tank does come algae free to due course, it will be great advert for seeking healthy plant growth as the main combatant for algae, but I can't help feeling that the light levels will prevent you from eradicating it completely. I guess will will see between now and Christmas.


----------



## John q (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> but why? Plants are healthy. So shouldn’t the system be clear and outcompeted?


Good question, I went to bed last night thinking about it  and awoke at 3am thinking about it, lol.
I think you've created an ideal environment for plants, lots of light, lots of nutrients... by default this also provides favorable conditions for algae, yet we all know nutrients alone don't cause algae right, so what's tipping the balance in favour of the bloom?

My twilight thinking went back to darrels comments about mature/seasond tanks, we've all seen algal/bacterial blooms when cycling a tank, especially if you've done this with ammonia, so why are we suprised to see it happening here. 
I just don't think the tank ecology (mother nature) is equipped to deal with atm. Would she have dealt with it any better at 50mph rather than 100mph 🤷

Of course my ramblings above could be me talking out of my posterior 😁


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> @JoshP12, Run an UV filter and a micron filter for 72 hours and I’ll bet you a considerable amount of flakefood  (of your choice) that the tank will be gin clear!
> 
> Cheers
> Michael


UVs been running for 72 hours! I flicked it back on.

Going to leave it for a week.

I went through a phase earlier where I turned it on and left it but then didn’t change water (so dying bacteria would have fed something new).  I think a page or two ago I said I turned it off since I thought it was broken and wasn’t working then the bloom quadrupled 😂😂😂. 

The only thing I don’t have is a micron filter but I had cotton batting before. 

So for now, it’s on and pairing with water changes more frequently.


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

@Wookii

The balance range!!!!! It’s like the everything is right model!

I actually agree that there is an upper bound to light input. I just don’t know that 4 photo beams is over it.

Notice how I’m not pouring the potassium or boosters or nitrates etc. rather comfortable with my fert level. Also, same with co2 input (though playing with flow slightly for when fish come). We saw the upper (or lower depending how you think of it) bound for co2/ph.

Sweet spot for ferts? Co2? Why not light?

I’d openly argue that EI maybe isn’t the smartest approach to water column dosing. In the same way, 4 photon beams may not be the smartest approach to an aquarium. But I can’t say the latter with certainty.

@John q — makes total sense that the mature balance range to use wookis language is much larger than a new tank.

And the 50vs 100 mph — maybe it’s easier to hit the target at 50.

Though, if we go to 50, we reduce O2 production If 50 doesn’t yield max saturation. We reduce ammonia consumption and it lingers in the column potentially melting our plants.  we potentially decrease overall consumption and as so our balance of minerals needs to be closer … ? I think? It’s not so simple I don’t think. Because O2 is in the balance range. So is ammonia in the column vs demand.

Lol. See you at 3 am! Haha.


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

@plantnoobdude thats pretty cool on boron - specifically leaf expansion. Had always been of the mindset that N is the largest driver in leaf size etc - but recently I’ve been looking at my leaves saying “sheesh it looks like I’m dosing EI … which I probably am in the water column from leeching despite my nill column targets”. 

Hadn’t considered that boron would play almost as large a role. Really does illustrate the car analogy and leidbigs law in your photo. 

Cheers. 

Perhaps the lack of boron allow the bacterial upper hand? 

And excess is a hinderance to the plant as such - the upper hand - but my plants aren’t hindered so I don’t see the excess argument yet. 

Will keep thinking.


----------



## Wookii (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> I actually agree that there is an upper bound to light input. I just don’t know that 4 photo beams is over it.



What would you consider to be over it? Bearing in mind we're not comparing to a natural environment with peak sunlight, where algae would proliferate naturally anyway, but an artificial environment where we want to minimise algae.



JoshP12 said:


> Sweet spot for ferts? Co2? Why not light?



Perhaps there is a sweet spot for light, but I'd say it would be more difficult to quantify, and there will be a range of light levels where algae doesn't proliferate, and plant growth is still good.



JoshP12 said:


> I’d openly argue that EI maybe isn’t the smartest approach to water column dosing.



We have to remember that EI dosing is very much an instruction set for beginners, and in that regard it works very well, and for a beginner I think it is indeed the smartest option.

That said, I suspect most users who start out on that basis end up tweaking their ferts downwards over time and with experience.



JoshP12 said:


> Though, if we go to 50, we reduce O2 production If 50 doesn’t yield max saturation.



Obviously O2 production is a function of the amount photosynthesising plant material and light (as the driver for photosynthesis), but as we've discussed before I believe in heavily planted tanks that O2 saturation is achieved with relatively low light levels as that plant mass can easily saturate the water column. One of these days I'm going to break, and drop the cash on an O2 meter to test it out - I've added one to an online basket about 10 times now before talking myself out of it each time! 😂


----------



## dw1305 (11 Nov 2022)

Hi all, 


Wookii said:


> I believe in heavily planted tanks that O2 saturation is achieved with relatively low light levels as that plant mass can easily saturate the water column.


I think that is true, even in low tech tanks.  I used to use the tanks in the lab. to check the <"DO oxygen meter membranes">  for damage, basically if they don't <"fairly quickly equilibrate to ~ 100%  saturation">, they are damaged. 


Wookii said:


> One of these days I'm going to beak, and drop the cash on an O2 meter to test it out


It is a shame they are expensive, if they were cheaper they would be in my <"plug and play"> recommendations. 

I'm guessing that for us neither REDOX / ORP or DO meters are ever going to tell us much other than that the water is always fairly well oxygenated, even outside of the photoperiod. 

I think that @Geoffrey Rea had a play with a DO meter and found that oxygen saturation remained high all through "lights off"? 

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> What would you consider to be over it?


No idea. That’s why I haven’t turned them down.


Wookii said:


> Bearing in mind we're not comparing to a natural environment with peak sunlight, where algae would proliferate naturally anyway, but an artificial environment where we want to minimise algae.


But what if we injected a lake with co2 and meticulously monitored ferts. Would the lake still have algae?


Wookii said:


> Perhaps there is a sweet spot for light, but I'd say it would be more difficult to quantify, and there will be a range of light levels where algae doesn't proliferate, and plant growth is still good.


Same for ferts and co2. They are moving targets.


Wookii said:


> We have to remember that EI dosing is very much an instruction set for beginners, and in that regard it works very well, and for a beginner I think it is indeed the smartest option.


I don’t know. If EI means dry salts, then why not just mimic APT complete instead of EI?


Wookii said:


> That said, I suspect most users who start out on that basis end up tweaking their ferts downwards over time and with experience.


I went upwards then downwards then sideways 🤣.


Wookii said:


> Obviously O2 production is a function of the amount photosynthesising plant material and light (as the driver for photosynthesis), but as we've discussed before I believe in heavily planted tanks that O2 saturation is achieved with relatively low light levels as that plant mass can easily saturate the water column. One of these days I'm going to break, and drop the cash on an O2 meter to test it out - I've added one to an online basket about 10 times now before talking myself out of it each time! 😂


You know I never contrasted O2 production at varying light levels when I had the DO metre running. That would have been a great idea.

Ok so let’s rule out O2. What is the benefit of high light?

Re: @dw1305 comment on O2 through photo and lights off. There is a clear trend between max O2 and pearling. I did notice the O2 level drop and rise however with lights.

Remember Geoff will lower Lilly pipe during lights off — my water agitation Is always high


----------



## Wookii (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> But what if we injected a lake with co2 and meticulously monitored ferts. Would the lake still have algae?



I get the point you are making - in that lakes are deficient in these areas, and that contributes to algae - so that's a fair point.



JoshP12 said:


> I don’t know. If EI means dry salts, then why not just mimic APT complete instead of EI?



No, EI to me is just a prescriptive system with targets designed to take the risk of nutrient deficiency out of the equation. It's painting by numbers for fert dosing, the levels for which (as you know) were set by extensive testing by Tom Barr. It could be that APT levels are better suited to the average tank, but the onus would be on you to prove they don't result in any deficiency, and propose a new system with new targets.



JoshP12 said:


> Ok so let’s rule out O2. What is the benefit of high light?



I think for the average planted tank owner, there aren't any. There are only downsides. Increased risk of algae, increased risk of stunting from increased CO2 demand, more maintenance from faster plant metabolism and growth.

For you, and those on the extreme light bleeding edge, the advantage would be faster growth (so older growth more likely to be affected by algae is more quickly removed) and tighter plant forms? Anything else, you tell me?

Obviously as always, we are at risk here of not defining what we consider to be high light.  For me, I guess if I put a licked finger in the air to estimate - somewhere around 100PAR and above at the substrate (across the majority of the tank, not just hot spotting from point source lights) is what I would consider to be high light.


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

Need to say how much I appreciate the conversation first.


Wookii said:


> I get the point you are making - in that lakes are deficient in these areas, and that contributes to algae - so that's a fair point.





Wookii said:


> No, EI to me is just a prescriptive system with targets designed to take the risk of nutrient deficiency out of the equation. It's painting by numbers for fert dosing, the levels for which (as you know) were set by extensive testing by Tom Barr. It could be that APT levels are better suited to the average tank, but the onus would be on you to prove they don't result in any deficiency, and propose a new system with new targets.


Fair.

But if someone is buying ferts, then In  hard water dose double suggested dose. In soft, dose suggested dose. Easier than EI?

Thrive composition for example won’t give clean EI numbers, so you end up doing some estimation anyways.

If dry salts, then mimic.

I think Marcel did some heavy lifting on actual dry weight numbers. Even PPS-pro advocates (maybe Edward?).

But I don’t see myself going down that route.



Wookii said:


> I think for the average planted tank owner, there aren't any. There are only downsides. Increased risk of algae, increased risk of stunting from increased CO2 demand, more maintenance from faster plant metabolism and growth.
> 
> For you, and those on the extreme light bleeding edge, the advantage would be faster growth (so older growth more likely to be affected by algae is more quickly removed) and tighter plant forms? Anything else, you tell me?


Fair and fair. I’ll think. I havent sat and drafted a list - take some time to do that.


Obviously as always, we are at risk here of not defining what we consider to be high light.  For me, I guess if I put a licked finger in the air to estimate - somewhere around 100PAR and above at the substrate (across the majority of the tank, not just hot spotting from point source lights) is what I would consider to be high light.

I actually wonder if the sweet spot is 200-300 PAR at substrate so high light might be closer to 600. Though I have no grounds for this.


----------



## Wookii (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> But if someone is buying ferts, then In hard water dose double suggested dose. In soft, dose suggested dose. *Easier than EI*?



Not really lol - say I bought my first tank yesterday, how do I know if I have soft water or hard water? What if my water is kind of middling lol? What if I'm a tap water user, and my source water is softer in the winter (due to rain water run-off) than the summer?

I'm playing devils advocate here of course, as I have no personal allegiance to any particular type of dosing, other than what I would recommend to a brand new planted tank owner - but in that one sentence you've introduced a plethora of variables and uncertainty which is exactly what a prescriptive system should aim to avoid for someone who has never even heard of dry ferts before.



JoshP12 said:


> Thrive composition for example won’t give clean EI numbers, so you end up doing some estimation anyways.



It's called the Estimative Index 😜



JoshP12 said:


> I actually wonder if the sweet spot is 200-300 PAR at substrate so high light might be closer to 600. Though I have no grounds for this.



There again it depends on the user to some extent as to exactly what defines the sweet spot. I'm a maintenance-phobe, so the sweet spot for me is the point where I get clean plant growth and an algae free tank, with the minimum of trimming. 100 PAR at the substrate is beyond that point I'd say. You're shooting for perfect compact plant form, so your target might be higher.

You also have to be realistic on what can be achieved on the average tank. I think we can agree that something like a Chihiros Vivid II or ADA Solar RGB are some of the brightest commercial lights available. Place those 200-300mm above a 450mm deep tank, and you're probably not going to be hitting more than 200 PAR at the centre at substrate level, with the lights on full whack - so 600 PAR is completely unrealistic unless set up with multiple high output point source lights as you have done.

I also don't know many people that would argue that a Vivid II at 100% or a Solar RGB isn't high light?


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> Not really lol - say I bought my first tank yesterday, how do I know if I have soft water or hard water? What if my water is kind of middling lol? What if I'm a tap water user, and my source water is softer in the winter (due to rain water run-off) than the summer?


If you just bought a tank, I’d say dose ferts on the bottle daily dose and send me a photo in a week.
.

I'm playing devils advocate here of course, as I have no personal allegiance to any particular type of dosing, other than what I would recommend to a brand new planted tank owner - but in that one sentence you've introduced a plethora of variables and uncertainty which is exactly what a prescriptive system should aim to avoid for someone who has never even heard of dry ferts before.

When I was given this advice on my first ever tank, the words EI brought fourth a whole lot of stress 🤣. Because everyone  goes down the rabbit hole when you “do EI” … people who don’t go down the rabbit hole always just dose the bottle. 


Wookii said:


> It's called the Estimative Index 😜


Hehe. So what EI? To me, it’s a concept. You can dose 2 ppm NO3 and be in “EI state”.


Wookii said:


> There again it depends on the user to some extent as to exactly what defines the sweet spot. I'm a maintenance-phobe, so the sweet spot for me is the point where I get clean plant growth and an algae free tank, with the minimum of trimming. 100 PAR at the substrate is beyond that point I'd say. You're shooting for perfect compact plant form, so your target might be higher..



You also have to be realistic on what can be achieved on the average tank. I think we can agree that something like a Chihiros Vivid II or ADA Solar RGB are some of the brightest commercial lights available. Place those 200-300mm above a 450mm deep tank, and you're probably not going to be hitting more than 200 PAR at the centre at substrate level, with the lights on full whack - so 600 PAR is completely unrealistic unless set up with multiple high output point source lights as you have done.


Wookii said:


> I also don't know many people that would argue that a Vivid II at 100% or a Solar RGB isn't high light?


I had said to you before that high light means just turn your light that you buy to 100 and move on. That’s not that good. But everyone who buys any of these lights immediately runs it at 50. Why not just run your light at 100 and move on ?

ADA, Green aqua, aquaflora, IAPLC etc anyone I’ve read who does this commercially does the light at 100.

Maybe the commercially is the piece.

The argument for too much nutrients being an issue is the plant can take care of it. The argument for co2 being an issue is that (well it is very hard to put co2 in excess to causes issues 10lbs in under a week is nonsense).

So? Why not just give carte blanche light and let the plant “deal with it”.

all of your argument against it are bang on so I’ll see if I can draft a pros list.

Arguably, This is just as rediculous as dosing high column ferts for the sake of “making sure the plant has enough light”.

But people still dose EI when we all know it’s beyond overkill except in extremely hard water.

So in the UK, full EI is a great recommendation to a beginner. But when a USA comes on and reads that on one of the best forums for the hobby, and they Lard in EI in their moderate water (since most of USA is moderate/soft) and has issues, then that’s where the discrepancy lies.

So perhaps, we give recommendation by location and highest likelihood of water. But that sucks too. 45 minutes away, the water is GH 20 😂.


----------



## dw1305 (11 Nov 2022)

Hi all,


Wookii said:


> how do I know if I have soft water or hard water? What if my water is kind of middling lol? What if I'm a tap water user, and my source water is softer in the winter (due to rain water run-off) than the summer?


That is actually the starting point for both Estimative and <"Duckweed"> indices, you don't need to know anything about your water parameters and you don't need to attempt to <"measure nutrient levels with test kits">, you just follow, either method, in a <"_painting by numbers_"> approach.

I was pretty sure that I understood the drivers for successful <"long term tank maintenance">, but also that they <"weren't things you could easily quantify">, so the method I used (the "Duckweed Index") needed be a "recipe" to follow, that wasn't too complicated and <"worked in (nearly) all circumstances">.

The hope was always that, once the tank owner had stability (and healthy growing plants), they could branch off menu and start creating their own recipes.

cheers Darrel


----------



## plantnoobdude (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Perhaps the lack of boron allow the bacterial upper hand?


Yes, that’s what I’m thinking.


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

plantnoobdude said:


> Yes, that’s what I’m thinking.


Is dosing boron clearing it?


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Nov 2022)

Clearing up


----------



## plantnoobdude (11 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Is dosing boron clearing it?


Not sure as I have been procrastinating pretty hard core and can’t be bothered to make a micro mix😅 


JoshP12 said:


> Clearing up
> 
> View attachment 197636



Brilliant plant forms, bet they’re stuffing them selves full with that ammonia😀


----------



## JoshP12 (12 Nov 2022)

plantnoobdude said:


> Not sure as I have been procrastinating pretty hard core and can’t be bothered to make a micro mix😅


This is the exact reason I use csm … I get angry enough mixing macros 😂.


plantnoobdude said:


> Brilliant plant forms, bet they’re stuffing them selves full with that ammonia😀


Thanks .

Haha they’re gargantuan — I’m supposed to be lean dosing … but they look EI! Think only proper dosing exists!


----------



## John q (12 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Clearing up


I told you dressing up in goat leggings and offering a sacrifice to the god of green water would solve the issue. 😁

I'm either guessing you did a massive water change, or took wookii's advice and lowerd the light intensity to 30% lol.

Plants are obviously unfazed by the pea soup, they look in rude health.


----------



## JoshP12 (12 Nov 2022)

John q said:


> I told you dressing up in goat leggings and offering a sacrifice to the god of green water would solve the issue. 😁


Tried to write a witty response. Didn’t come up with one … lol. 



John q said:


> I'm either guessing you did a massive water change, or took wookii's advice and lowerd the light intensity to 30% lol.


Just a single water change - uvs been on a few days. 

God of green water said I need to leave lights at 100. 


John q said:


> Plants are obviously unfazed by the pea soup, they look in rude health.


.


----------



## JoshP12 (12 Nov 2022)

Going to do another water and some maintenance today.

Some pre shots










Lol Monte carlo




Very bottom of glass that I never wiped away to see if it would spread. Has not.

Monte carlo




Can see kind of where I left it alone and let the system calm down.


----------



## JoshP12 (13 Nov 2022)

Didn’t get to the water change - hope to soon.

But, I forgot to turn on the power heads after the last water change so we’ve been running on just the filter.

Flow is perfect, growth looks good. So I’m happy.

But if you remember a few pages ago, I cut the filters and the tank melted then I turned them on and it fixed.

At the time I was pretty sure it was consequential of the flow (but then why now is it ok?) … I had also done the 6 waters for clarity and trimmed loads. Could the massive change have triggers the melt, the flow instantly fixed it (I did leave it off for a day and it was not getting better). It’s a prime example of how we know absolutely nothing unless you do microscopic changes but even then it’s futile.

It’s actually futile.

There is a chance that perhaps since the tank is maturing it can handle less turnover now. That’s possible.

But more and more it just seems that we get the big things right. And when something goes wrong fix the big things. 😂.

Co2, flow, ferts, light, maintenance, time.

The closer you follow a standard the more of those things are taken care of.

Standard tank dimensions, Lilly pipe, aqua soil, remineralizer and RO, all these things add up to success.

Water changes. Regular and consistent fertilizing regime.

REMOVING JELLY 😝.

I’m just not convinced that startup is best with low light . Hahaha

😱… I just realized I’ve been dosing 20% daily dose with my doser. That’s why I have algae 😂😂. Must be. Violates that golden ratio. 

Just goes to show how nothing matters 🤪.


----------



## Nikmon (13 Nov 2022)

What a awsum read. Cracking way to start a sunday lay in bed.


----------



## JoshP12 (13 Nov 2022)

@John q is co2 close to lights on yet?


----------



## John q (14 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> @John q is co2 close to lights on yet?


In my own tank? Shaved about an hour of it mate, but still have a 3hr ramp.


----------



## JoshP12 (14 Nov 2022)

John q said:


> In my own tank? Shaved about an hour of it mate, but still have a 3hr ramp.


Yep - planning for more? Closer to timed with lights?


----------



## John q (14 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> planning for more?


Yes but will probably have to start tweaking the injection rate up, and for that to happen I'd prefer to be at home to monitor the tanks for a few days. 
Most likely tinkering will resume over the christmas holiday period.


----------



## JoshP12 (14 Nov 2022)

John q said:


> Yes but will probably have to start tweaking the injection rate up, and for that to happen


I think that’s the rub. If you do that and the tank can maintain a higher injection rate without any I’ll effect, you have effectively saturated more co2 than any “ramp time” could facilitate —- probability that you’ll have a healthier system (as long as no Ill effect).

But it also doesn’t need to be max drop by lights on. Just max drop around 45 mins in right? Or you might get a major drop at 6 hours.


John q said:


> I'd prefer to be at home to monitor the tanks for a few days.
> Most likely tinkering will resume over the christmas holiday period.


It will be a very merry Christmas perhaps .


----------



## JoshP12 (16 Nov 2022)

Well …





Algae and cloudy has really come to a standstill. Has stopped proliferating and has started to decline on its own.

All in all, lost a bit of Monte Carlo … but it’s come back from the ashes:





Helferi is long gone.

Guess it worked … now I need to trim and replant until I get enough Monte Carlo to properly carpet the thing for our initial vision …


----------



## John q (16 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Guess it worked


The power of goat leggings, lol.


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Nov 2022)

Been scratching my head wondering - now what? Or what was the point of this?

And my comment on  @RickyV thread kind of brought it out.

I don't think it is that surprised that it worked. And I think it affirms for me a few things about "high light".

*This was the piece: So you bottleneck the co2 demand (that is forced by the light) and let the plant adapt (in color/shape) to control the light.*

Now it is not quite fleshed out enough but I think the concept is this:
1) The concept of EI is provide everything in abundance.
2) The common advice is to do exactly that but turn your light way down to reduce the "demand"

I think it's not the "right" direction we should go. It works. But I don't think it's the "best".

i) I wouldn't tell someone who is brand new to buy a tank, buy some inert gravel, dose EI column, and turn their lights to 30% .

ii) I would tell them, buy a tank, buy some aquasoil, dose a fraction in the column, and run your lights at 100%. If they are buying aquasoil, why on earth would they dose EI (for the 2 days before the roots show up? or the rhizosphere isn't there? @Yugang experiment on CEC illustrates that the soil will just dose an EI column for you anyways.) Buy the soil, dose meager, let it dose EI for you in the column, let it equilibriate, finished.

Why not also turn your light to 30 and do ii) ? Don't have a good answer yet.

You "EI" the light.
You  "EI" the ferts (but put the EI in the substrate).
And you EI CO2 ... that's another discussion.

You can't see how much is in the soil ... but you can see the plants, so when they look hungry, dose more. This is the foundation of the @dw1305  duckweed index anyways.

Let the plants have an abundance of EVERYTHING and let them decide what they want. Let them turn pretty colors. Let them change the orientation of their leaves. Let them adjust their leaf shape. All of these things moderate light (and energy) intake.

Don't: give them an abundance of everything and starve them of light? It violates the principle of EI.

We often say that light drives co2 ... and that is entirely true ... but what if something chokes the co2 demand even further ... leidbig's law dictates that anyways ... and light is a nutrient in leidbig ... so choke the demand with ferts in the column (since the leaf can't mitigate NO3 and PO4 in their leaves like it can potassium - to some extent) -- but give the EI in the substrate with roots (since they are more powerful than leaves and can choose more freely - with the assistance of rhizosphere).

What do we think?

PS slowly it is becoming more concise!


----------



## plantnoobdude (17 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> We often say that light drives co2 ... and that is entirely true ... but what if something chokes the co2 demand even further ... leidbig's law dictates that anyways ... and light is a nutrient in leidbig ... so choke the demand with ferts in the column (since the leaf can't mitigate NO3 and PO4 in their leaves like it can potassium - to some extent) -- but give the EI in the substrate with roots (since they are more powerful than leaves and can choose more freely - with the assistance of rhizosphere).


N/P lean tanks hardly have co2 issues. Have you ever seen an Ada system tank with a ph probe? Or a complex co2 reactor? No, they use one or maybe two diffusers for 4 foot tanks. Leaner column is easier for co2. I think for most folk, I would probably recommend something similar to APT , column levels.


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Nov 2022)

plantnoobdude said:


> N/P lean tanks hardly have co2 issues. Have you ever seen an Ada system tank with a ph probe? Or a complex co2 reactor? No, they use one or maybe two diffusers for 4 foot tanks. Leaner column is easier for co2. I think for most folk, I would probably recommend something similar to APT , column levels.


Help answer this question:
Why not run ADA system or rich substrate, lean column, proper co2 with your light at 30%.  EDIT: When we know that the light compensation point is pretty low. So why should we not EI the light?

I get that relative to my 4 lights, my system in the past was at "30%" of now ... but why reduce our single light to 50% after spending a fortune on it. It's not clear to me. When choking nutrients seems to have a larger benefit to the system VS choking light. I just can't put my finger on why light is more beneficial to have than nutrients -- in abundance.


----------



## John q (17 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> ii) I would tell them, buy a tank, buy some aquasoil, dose a fraction in the column, and run your lights at 100%


That's all well and good mate, but... that newbie has no concept of getting consistent C02 around the tank, isn't up to speed with meticulous tank maintenance, and has a tank full of anubias and Cryptocoryne. Lol.
Surely you can't think blasting the tank with light is a one size fits all affair that will always work?

Just trying to get your grey cells working Josh 😉


----------



## plantnoobdude (17 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Why not run ADA system or rich substrate, lean column, proper co2 with your light at 30%. EDIT: When we know that the light compensation point is pretty low. So why should we not EI the light?


Everything’s slower…. What’s the point🤣

Lean column…. Less co2 demand great forms… brilliant colour, what more do could you ask for.


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Nov 2022)

John q said:


> That's all well and good mate, but... that newbie has no concept of getting consistent C02 around the tank, isn't up to speed with meticulous tank maintenance, and has a tank full of anubias and Cryptocoryne.


They’ll fail with Low light and rich column dosing too then! Through the process, they will get co2 right.

Here’s a question: is it easier to get co2 right under lean column and high light OR rich column and low light? Or lean column and low light.



plantnoobdude said:


> Everything’s slower…. What’s the point🤣
> 
> Lean column…. Less co2 demand great forms… brilliant colour, what more do could you ask for.



Watch think to the question above?


John q said:


> Lol.
> Surely you can't think blasting the tank with light is a one size fits all affair that will always work?


I don’t know. I can’t think of a time I wouldn’t use high light and just mitigate light for a tank full of crypts (just as an aside crypts look gorgeous under high light as does Anubias and buce etc) or to make shadows by adding floating plants. Unless I don’t want floating plants and I want a gloomy allure then I think that’s different.

I’m just struggling John!!


John q said:


> Just trying to get your grey cells working Josh 😉


I like it.


----------



## John q (17 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> They’ll fail with Low light and rich column dosing too then! Through the process, they will get co2 right.


Not necessarily, there's lots of folks go heavy on the ferts in low light tanks and seem to manage, obviously maintaining a moped takes less work than a ferrari 😉



JoshP12 said:


> Here’s a question: is it easier to get co2 right under lean column and high light OR rich column and low light? Or lean column and low light


My own personal experience.

Lean dosing and high light, I've no idea, I don't own a photo cannon.

Rich column and low light, fairly easy to grow plants in the easy category, minimal algae, with or without co2.

Lean column low light, some plants struggled, others faired ok. Various forms of algae. Was any of this co2 related?

My personal fav, medium light, halfway house between ei and lean. Harder to get co2 right because the plants grow so quickly and block the bloody flow.

So to answer the question, low light and rich column.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Nov 2022)

John q said:


> Not necessarily, there's lots of folks go heavy on the ferts in low light tanks and seem to manage, obviously maintaining a moped takes less work than a ferrari 😉


Only because of the prevalence of advice? Or because high light low fert didn’t work?

On maintenance:
I dunno because if you choke growth rates - it doesn’t matter how you do it … to use @Wookii car analogy - say you hit the gas by cranking light, but you throw on the parking break … it can only go so fast. Now take off a few wheels — it’s like choking N and P but still pedal to the metal. And then if the plant adapts by changing color, it’s like switching to a lower octane fuel 🤣 without anyone knowing … uh oh … incomplete combustion, carbon deposits … the machine is slowing down!



John q said:


> My own personal experience.
> 
> Lean dosing and high light, I've no idea, I don't own a photo cannon.


Gotta get one!


John q said:


> Rich column and low light, fairly easy to grow plants in the easy category, minimal algae, with or without co2.
> 
> Lean column low light, some plants struggled, others faired ok. Various forms of algae. Was any of this co2 related?


This is a really cool observation.


John q said:


> My personal fav, medium light, halfway house between ei and lean. Harder to get co2 right because the plants grow so quickly and block the bloody flow.
> 
> So to answer the question, low light and rich column.


Very fair. Wonder if it’s because you have softer water that your half ei works better?

It just seems to make sense to EI the ferts in soil. And EI the light. And EI the co2. Finished.


----------



## plantnoobdude (18 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> it easier to get co2 right under lean column and high light OR rich column and low light? Or lean column and low light.


The same id say. One way or another the growth is bottle necked. The co2 only needs to meet growth demands. Obviously depends on how much is Low light (not 400 par josh🤣), how much is lean dosing…. High dosing…


----------



## Wookii (18 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Only because of the prevalence of advice? Or because high light low fert didn’t work?



Because for the beginner high light, low ferts is barely ever going to work and keep them algae free unless they either fluke it, or accurately follow a prescriptive system (read ADA).

Low light and high-'er' ferts (doesn't necessarily need to be EI, just sufficient excess to guarantee no deficiencies, and in a prescriptive regime that a new starter isn't going to get confused over), will get them to an algae free tank much quicker. 

The tank you're running here is a really interesting experiment, and is obviously employing some extremes, but you are experienced enough to keep at it knowing (hoping maybe lol) that it'll come out the other side. Do you think a new aquarist would be able to do that when their tank hits the pea soup stage yours did? A couple of weeks of that, and they'll have torn it down, and the tank will be on eBay.

That's why I don't think high light is ever a good starting point for a new starter to the hobby, there is insufficient manoeuvring room for the inevitable errors they will end up making through lack of experience.



JoshP12 said:


> On maintenance:
> I dunno because if you choke growth rates - it doesn’t matter how you do it … to use @Wookii car analogy - say you hit the gas by cranking light, but you throw on the parking break … it can only go so fast. Now take off a few wheels — it’s like choking N and P but still pedal to the metal. And then if the plant adapts by changing color, it’s like switching to a lower octane fuel 🤣 without anyone knowing … uh oh … incomplete combustion, carbon deposits … the machine is slowing down!



Man you've wrecked my car analogy 🤣

I get what you are trying to say, but I think you can avoid the painful pea soup process you've gone through by using lower light to get the tank to maturity, and then slowing ramping the light to the high point you want it. That would have gotten you there with considerably less algae, but would still eventually deliver the 'low octane' plant form you are after as the plants adapt to the gradually ramping light levels.


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Nov 2022)

plantnoobdude said:


> The same id say. One way or another the growth is bottle necked. The co2 only needs to meet growth demands. Obviously depends on how much is Low light (not 400 par josh🤣), how much is lean dosing…. High dosing…


I think I have this reputation for liking light or something … 🤣.



Wookii said:


> Because for the beginner high light, low ferts is barely ever going to work and keep them algae free unless they either fluke it, or accurately follow a prescriptive system (read ADA).


You know. I think you’re right. And the reason is because if they don’t purge the system or get co2 right, the substrate inadvertently doses EI into the column and in conjunction with high light, ei in the column, and potentially poor co2 application, the system breaks.


Wookii said:


> Low light and high-'er' ferts (doesn't necessarily need to be EI, just sufficient excess to guarantee no deficiencies, and in a prescriptive regime that a new starter isn't going to get confused over), will get them to an algae free tank much quicker.


Can the higher ferts just be daily dose on a bottle? I suppose we then go back to the “show it works” argument from above. Fair.


Wookii said:


> The tank you're running here is a really interesting experiment, and is obviously employing some extremes, but you are experienced enough to keep at it knowing (hoping maybe lol) that it'll come out the other side. Do you think a new aquarist would be able to do that when their tank hits the pea soup stage yours did? A couple of weeks of that, and they'll have torn it down, and the tank will be on eBay.


Agreed. Unless someone was there coaching them through. Goes for anything though, really.


Wookii said:


> That's why I don't think high light is ever a good starting point for a new starter to the hobby, there is insufficient manoeuvring room for the inevitable errors they will end up making through lack of experience.


Again, fair.

Why not inert with just a bit of ferts - I guess the same argument to show it.


Wookii said:


> Man you've wrecked my car analogy 🤣


I didn’t give it NOx? Lol


Wookii said:


> I get what you are trying to say, but I think you can avoid the painful pea soup process you've gone through by using lower light to get the tank to maturity, and then slowing ramping the light to the high point you want it. That would have gotten you there with considerably less algae, but would still eventually deliver the 'low octane' plant form you are after as the plants adapt to the gradually ramping light levels.


And I think the pea soup comes from EI dosed column and high light from poorly managed substrate in early days (even with my daily’s my substrate was too powerful lol) - and that’s why ADA has carbons etc and the prescribed system. (Remember I used nothing in filter on purpose)

High octane Wooki!  Rocket fuel (without wheels) forms! 🤣🤣🤣. Hehe.

But the plants have always been a healthy.

So what’s the cause of algae?

Ps I think we need a brigade of noobies to try it out for us 😂. But it is likely all the failed threads of people Who didn’t follow ada system. But how often do first time ada users make it work?


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Nov 2022)

So:

Low light - not really related to algae
High co2 - not really related to algae

High light - related (if in conjunction with another factor)

Low co2 - related  (if you run blue dc and everything is fine, turn co2 down further and algae will come)

High ferts in column - related (there is excess so something should be able to take advantage of if the system is running strong enough - case and point my tank - needs to be in conjunction with another factor) 

Low ferts  in column and low substrate - related (since plant can’t grow properly, it dies, nutrient soup from dead plant - algae)


I think caveat - higher and lower are relative to an imaginary “demands met number for the nutrient”



Can really start to see why EI isn’t a bad idea. 

Low ferts is bad. 

High ferts is only bad with low co2 or high lights 

High light is only bad with high ferts or low co2. 

Low co2 is always bad. 

High ferts (in column) low light proper co2

Low ferts (in column) high light proper co2 

Otherwise algae 😂. 

There is always enough ferts somewhere to avoid low fert situation and unhealthy plants. 

AHA! Low ferts in water, high ferts substrate, high light, mature system is easier to manage? 


Getting a noobie to mature system seems to be the sticking point and it’s the off gas from rich substrate that causes the issues since it mimick the Ferrari


----------



## Wookii (18 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Can the higher ferts just be daily dose on a bottle? I suppose we then go back to the “show it works” argument from above. Fair.



Yeah sure, maybe not the bottle dose, as most are a bit lean (@dw1305's worlds most expensive water), but a multiple of it. Most beginners already have a bottle in hand, so if they did well and got something that contains all macros and micros - like TBC Complete or APT, then we can just advise them to dose a bit more than  is on the bottle.



JoshP12 said:


> So what’s the cause of algae?



I don't think we'll ever know that unfortunately, and its exasperated by the fact that multiple different combinations of factors can contribute.

To me, in broad brush terms, algae is caused by instability in the 'system'. That instability in the system can be instigated by a range of factors that need to change rapidly to cause the instability. Rapid changes in CO2, changes in light, changes in ferts, changes in plant mass (large trimming session), changes in accumulated organics, changes in dissolved oxygen etc etc. A mature tank with healthy plant growth can better handle fluctuations in those factors better than a newly set up tank can, as there is a larger buffer.

I think often one of the biggest things negatively affecting tank stability is the aquarist. New tanks often seem to take 3-4 months to achieve stability - and sure, a large chunk of that is biological maturation - but often I think that is also because it takes a couple of months before the aquarist grows tired is messing about tweaking the inputs to the tank (I'm as guilty of that as the next person), and sits back a lets things cruise, then stability gets chance to set in, and the tank improves - sometimes the best policy once everything is initially set up, is just to sit on our hands!


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> I don't think we'll ever know that unfortunately, and its exasperated by the fact that multiple different combinations of factors can contribute.


I think we already have the building blocks. Not us. I mean the scientific body. We just need major meta analysis in conjunction with learning machine(s) that we can monitor and the right people to be interested and devote their life to it.

It’s a big question actually - how does life work? We can go all philosophical and say algaes come out in our lives … instabilities in us allow them to come and manifest. So this model would be the key to life! 🤣

@Wookii what are you doing to me over my morning coffee …

We should stick to car analogies 🤣.


----------



## Wookii (18 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Can really start to see why EI isn’t a bad idea.
> 
> Low ferts is bad.
> 
> ...



I think you can simplify that, or maybe re-word:

Low insufficient ferts is bad.

High ferts is only bad with low co2 or and high lights is bad

High light is only bad with high ferts or low co2.

Low co2 is always bad. (Lets quantify: < 15ppm  - in 99% of cases yes, unless properly balanced with very low light. In the vast majority of cases, I don't see a reason not to just set and forget at 30ppm, unless very high light is used in which case that might not be sufficient without very good distribution. I find it easier just to consider CO2 as fert like any other - you want an excess above the requirements demanded by the plant, which are determined by the level of light to plant is exposed to.) 

High ferts (in column) low light proper co2

Low ferts (in column) high light proper co2

To be honest I don't really get the high ferts, low ferts thing - probably because we're not defining anything. We always need an 'excess' of ferts otherwise a deficiency results, so really we are talking about the level of excess - and there we should be talking about long term accumulated excess. 



JoshP12 said:


> AHA!


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Nov 2022)

Lol … not touching the philosophy one eh! Hahah! 

I think the ferts thing is “directional” @Wookii 

If I did three water changes daily, I betcha I wouldn’t have the algae soup for the process. 

I didn’t have it when I did 2 daily albeit the co2 excess times.

Do you agree that plants respond differently to ferts in water column vs ferts in substrate?


----------



## Wookii (18 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Lol … not touching the philosophy one eh! Hahah!



Yep, staying away from that - this conversations abstract enough already! 😂



JoshP12 said:


> Do you agree that plants respond differently to ferts in water column vs ferts in substrate?



Honestly I don't know. It depends what you mean by 'respond differently', you need to elaborate? Most of your cut and replanted stems will have little to no roots so the healthy growth you are seeing in them is largely from acquiring nutrients from the water column I'd assume? Do you feel they are growing differently to those that have been planted form the start?


----------



## dw1305 (18 Nov 2022)

Hi all,


Wookii said:


> I think often one of the biggest things negatively affecting tank stability is the aquarist. New tanks often seem to take 3-4 months to achieve stability - and sure, a large chunk of that is biological maturation - but often I think that is also because it takes a couple of months before the aquarist grows tired is messing about tweaking the inputs to the tank


I think that is right.  Basically <"_good things come to those who wait_">. It also feeds in to <"KISS and _if it ain't broke don't fix it_">.

If we get to a stage where it _is broke_? Then change one factor at a time, <"based on probability">. Once we've isolated <"the problem"> / problems then we can try manipulating parameters to "re-brake" our system.

These are validation and verification, but I'm going to leave them to somebody else, because I'm a <"pretty lazy and shoddy aquarist"> and personally I'm content to <"bump a long the bottom">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## JoshP12 (18 Nov 2022)

Wookii said:


> Yep, staying away from that - this conversations abstract enough already! 😂


LOL.


Wookii said:


> Honestly I don't know. It depends what you mean by 'respond differently', you need to elaborate?


The root and the leaf respond to nutrient concentrations differently.

Can expand more but I think that's the crux.


Wookii said:


> I think you can simplify that, or maybe re-word:


Good additions:


Wookii said:


> Low insufficient ferts is bad.
> 
> High ferts is only bad with low co2 or and high lights is bad
> 
> ...


Insufficient co2 = algae.
Insuffient ferts = algae.
Insufficient light = algae.

Overly sufficient co2 = nothing
Overly sufficient ferts (in column and/or substrate or any combination) = nothing
Overly sufficient light = nothing

Sufficient level is dictated by - let's call it - the Leidbig Bottleneck.

*Do any combinations of overly sufficient give algae? They can't all be overly sufficient at the same time - 1 will be the driver. *


Wookii said:


> Most of your cut and replanted stems will have little to no roots so the healthy growth you are seeing in them is largely from acquiring nutrients from the water column I'd assume?


Or nutrient stores until the root grows.


Wookii said:


> Do you feel they are growing differently to those that have been planted form the start?


Nope. But I have seen plants in a mature, lean column and I mean lean - like nothing - stunt and show phosphate style deficiency and then after roots established, completely go back to normal.


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Nov 2022)

It’s now a matter of the grind. 






Little bit of time and finesse and consistent maintenance and we could formulate the scape. 

It’s a matter of a lack of all that on this end.

Hopefully in a few weeks I can dedicate time to turn it around. 

It’s a maintenance thing now …


----------



## John q (25 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> It’s a maintenance thing now …


Noop it's  a question to the masses. Can I cough... tank still isn’t  100%, thankfully I'm along for the ride 😀


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Nov 2022)

John q said:


> Noop it's  a question to the masses. Can I cough... tank still isn’t  100%, thankfully I'm along for the ride 😀


I agree.

But I need to do maintenance lol. 🤣


----------



## JoshP12 (25 Nov 2022)

I suppose @John q what I mean is that the tank won’t get to that supreme picture quality unless I change my behaviours.

If I let it get congested like this, then do some maintenance and continue and don’t replant tops and don’t trim down to the bottom and start taking it seriously - it just won’t hit that next level.

So it is maintenance. The system isn’t going to break now. There is zero stunting , deformity etc. minerals are good. NP is good. Lots of good soil and substrate like it’s all good.

It’s now the fish keeper who needs to determine what is a priority. Because me taking a peak once a day for ~ 1 minute isn’t going to get high quality photos and it will take a year for that Monte Carlo to grow.

That Monte Carlo needs to be transplanted In a good flow and light area and cultivated. The back right needs to be topped 1 inch of soil added and the tips replanted. The entire area which was stems and supposed to be carpet needs to be topped and replants.

And all of this needs to be done over a week-two weeks or the system is going to get shocked.

So it has to be water change, maintenance, let it sit a day, water change maintenance, let it sit, water change maintenance let it sit. Water change, let it sit.

That kind of thing. Some heavy lifting.

Does that synopsis sound fair?

Edit: trimming and replanting and disruption when the system is stable invokes that stress for the plant to thrive. Releases hormones and then with constant stimulation the plant becomes a new level. And ya it’s co2 and light and fert and availability and roots and all that jazz but there is an stress-stimulus response too to our constant stimulation.


----------



## John q (26 Nov 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Does that synopsis sound fair?


It does mate, fair and honest.


----------



## JoshP12 (27 Nov 2022)

realized I haven’t dose micros for probably a couple weeks 🤣. Noticed a micro bit of plant interveinal on a Macrandra stem (a few stems) - some not all.

Anyways - fixed. 

1 hour. This wasn’t my usual maintenance hour where I listen to tunes and relax. I was moving. In between kids naps - best we’re going to get.

Better put my money where my mouth is.  Hope I can keep up some form of maintenance!


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Dec 2022)

So.




Noticed some side shoots starting ~ 5/6 day mark. This is good. The side shoots are coming off of the bottoms that I left - so those bottoms are still trash from the congestion from before.

Did a water change today and some maintenance - primarily just to remove stuff. No uv or anything running.

Some of the Freshly planted stems got pulled up and have nice roots - not anchored - but roots.

Primary issue here is that there is loads of detritus/old growth that decayed from congestion. Still somewhat cloudy. And that all stems from the startup craziness!! 

I think over the next month I can probably commit to weekly’s and once we get substantial new growth ~ 2 inch, I will properly top and replant. If I continue with the waste removal (even an extra 10 minute session) and do the replanting properly, we can probably bring this tank to the next level!


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Dec 2022)

Anyone think the course for “correction/upgrading the look” isn’t as I outlined (primarily maintenance)?


----------



## John q (3 Dec 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Anyone think the course for “correction/upgrading the look” isn’t as I outlined (primarily maintenance)?


Not sure? Guessing Alfred Wegener would suggest tectonic plate theory.  Things shift, if you have diverted from plan A, hey ho 😉


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Dec 2022)

Think what I’ll probably do is top it all slowly but surely and then put a little layer of fresh soil on top (a large layer closer to the top right and slope upwards). 

And then slowly replant tops. 

Classic, expected behaviour on Monte Carlo all old growth got nuked (remove the sun shade and BAM) … so new growth will be accustomed and then I’ll keep that area free of shading etc to keep it consistent to get it cultivated.

Think that’s our best bet.


----------



## John q (3 Dec 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Think what I’ll probably do is top it all slowly but surely and then put a little layer of fresh soil on top


Suspect  your taking the lem, if not... the monte Carlo can't handle new aqua soil.


----------



## JoshP12 (3 Dec 2022)

John q said:


> Suspect  your taking the lem,


Not sure what this one means.


John q said:


> if not... the monte Carlo can't handle new aqua soil.


No the new aquasaoil will be primarily the top right because there is only 1/2 inch of soil before the bags and planting is terrible.

The Monte Carlo will have to be nursed back to health if I’m going to salvage it enough to carpet.

I undershot how much buffer id need (every time I plant my tweezers are piercing the bags underneath).


----------



## John q (4 Dec 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Not sure what this one means.


Lol, its another way of saying taking the mickey.
I'd misunderstood your reasons for adding more soil, my bad 🙄


----------



## JoshP12 (11 Dec 2022)

Not sure how to update this one. The plants just keep … growing.





The water is still not gin clear.

The flocculant of green pellets/algae thing continues to grow.

My maintenance has not been at the goal.

But here’s the puzzler —- my hand still tingles when I put it in there - like a fresh aquasoil.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s still offgassing loads of ammonia/urea and our tests yield zero ish since it’s all being used.

I actually have a feeling that if I turned down the lights, the plant would melt from the ammonia/urea content that would accumulate. My black chamber even has dust algae 😂😂. Here’s the thing - even dosing as lean NO3 in the column as I am, the rotundifolia is still bright green (would be one of the first to red under nitrate-limitation OR of light was too high … it’s clearly using all the light … that’s scary).

If you remove the cloudy water and do a maintenance session, let the tank sit (and imagine the water stayed gin clear, I think the plants would have the look we want. But everything points to systemic imbalance vs anything to do with plants.

If we “wait it out” with my mediocre maintenance, I think at least a few months if not more.

There are roots that have finally hit the bottom of the soil — maybe as more of those reach the bottom, the faster this will clear?

Slowly dropping co2 to hit favourable pH for bacteria - let’s see. And I mean micro/mini turn down leave it for a few days, and repeat. No drastic changes.


----------



## JoshP12 (12 Dec 2022)

It is Alive!


----------



## JoshP12 (17 Dec 2022)

A week later than a wanted but:








Water is ice cold coming out of the tap - not helping my stabilizing process. Going to get a mixing valve installed soon. 

Arm tingles still but less.

Moving forward!


----------



## JoshP12 (19 Dec 2022)

Massive improvement in water clarity day after water change (even if running uv etc):




Should be changing water right now.

It’s in these moments, I’m like - yep, it’s moving in the right direction. 

The Monte Carlo is going to take over. 3 months I’m hoping!


----------



## MichaelJ (19 Dec 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> A week later than a wanted but:


Gosh! Crazy nice growth there @JoshP12 👍 - I think I envy you (and @plantnoobdude) just a little bit more every day 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## plantnoobdude (19 Dec 2022)

MichaelJ said:


> Gosh! Crazy nice growth there @JoshP12 👍 - I think I envy you (and @plantnoobdude) just a little bit more every day
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


At least you can see through your tank without 24/7 UV running and 3 times daily 200% WC😂😂

Only joking of course, lovely looking plants josh.


----------



## JoshP12 (20 Dec 2022)

What @plantnoobdude  said, @MichaelJ !

This mysterious cloudy water. Was reminding me of your Jedi post.

Must be magic … blinds the viewer so they can’t see the issues with plant forms and they think everything is perfect 🤣.


----------



## MichaelJ (20 Dec 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Must be magic … blinds the viewer so they can’t see the issues with plant forms and they think everything is perfect 🤣.


Oh its been a Jedi mind trick all along?


----------



## JoshP12 (21 Dec 2022)

Lol … after the water change - boom.




I am growing more and more suspicious that the temperature fluctuation is actually causing some despair on the plants. 

Since “startup should be done” the temp coming in during 80% water change is 10 celcius. 

After the second last change (before the one two days ago), when I posted the uphill photo - the plants didn’t respond negatively at all. Since the second one where it was absolutely frigid, the plants look shocked - Rotala green had curling that have straightened out now - and the photo above on systemic.

Mixing valve going in end of December so water change water should be nearly identical to tank. 

Let’s see if temp was a contributor to this cloud …

Plants are “business as usual” aside from the shock.


----------



## plantnoobdude (21 Dec 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> Lol … after the water change - boom.
> View attachment 198937
> 
> I am growing more and more suspicious that the temperature fluctuation is actually causing some despair on the plants.
> ...


Get some more plants in😈 
Pantanal
Pedicellata
Praetermissa
Red cross
Wallichii
Interested in seeing what they do.


----------



## JoshP12 (21 Dec 2022)

plantnoobdude said:


> Get some more plants in😈
> Pantanal
> Pedicellata
> Praetermissa
> ...


Hehe 

The last version of the tank had the 50+ species of 40+ … lots in it. This was supposed to have a certain look! 🤣.

Once we stabilize and I get the look I’d like, then I’ll probably add more species in. 

Wallichi as per the other photos is the same system. And same with pantanal.

There is some pantanal under the same column, same substrate except a spraybar - same light (I have another shot where they are redder I’ll have to find):





Is Red Cross - ludwigia super red? 

I’d have to source the ammania.


----------



## plantnoobdude (21 Dec 2022)

JoshP12 said:


> The last version of the tank had the 50+ species of 40+ … lots in it. This was supposed to have a certain look! 🤣.


DONT CARE MORE PLANTS.


JoshP12 said:


> There is some pantanal under the same column, same substrate except a spraybar - same light (I have another shot where they are redder I’ll have to find):


Pantanal looks a bit pale? Especially under Such high light. Is it Cuba?


JoshP12 said:


> Is Red Cross - ludwigia super red?


rotala Red Cross, supposedely one of the most difficult plants, even more so than pedicellata.


----------



## JoshP12 (21 Dec 2022)

Haha!! Yes you are right it is inclinata not pantanal - I’d have to source pantanal. I thought it was when I bought it … but recall actually asking the same question and used christels book to help. 

I remember I looked into sourcing these but I just didn’t feel like spending the money to get them in - no one local has them.

And for whatever reason the shops don’t get them here.

Probably rarity.

I’ll keep an eye on sourcing them …


----------



## JoshP12 (23 Dec 2022)

Becoming more and more convinced that these 10 celcius water changes are “resetting” the tank - kill a layer of plant skin, spawn temporary algae, have it fall off, change water .. repeat the process … while all new growth is spotless.

Mixing valve comes before new year 👍 - will be able to confirm this.

Just for notes - pH at 1 hour ish after lights on is about 6.1/6.2 so perfect imo for bacteria and rubisco etc.

Once I clear the water, I’m cutting the co2 progressively 4 hours before lights off to get that pH flying up for end of photo.

Co2 with lights so zero ramp time - lights 30 min ramp up to 100% for total 10 hours 30 min ramp down as well.

Fish coming in soon. After mixing valve and back to back waters and observation for 2 days, probably one more water, and observation - if it stays clear. We’re gold.

All I have agreed on is high quality crystals and Otto cats simply because I love those catfish and I also like shrimp but have always just throw in a litter for functionality vs aesthetic.


----------



## JoshP12 (29 Dec 2022)

3x in a row - water change,  gets cloudy, looks odd, new growth great, leave it, start to explode, start to clear up, trim, water change and start all over. Valve delay slightly but will be about 1 week until next water change (waiting for valve) and will not trim likely until I see how the tank reaponse.

Convinced of the cold water kill. We will see.

Monte Carlo growing again now for the third time. Will be real happy if we get the whole thing carpeted from that clump.


----------



## JoshP12 (Yesterday at 2:08 AM)

Feels nice to be able to water change again. Mixing valve installed water comes in at a perfect 23 Celsius.

The whole time we’ve been changing with relatively icy water - wish I could back and redo properly! But all is well. I’d also NOT use those bags for support as high as I did. Is a massive pain to replant. Need at least 3-4 inches of soil on top of the bags.

After playing around a bit with scraping some glass from before.















Buddy had leftover helferi and some old repens and bonsai scraps so I tossed them in. Monte Carlo will prevail …





And we begin to carpet! There will come a time when I completely top these plants and add a bunch of soil on top just to make re planting easier just not sure when.





I do have 2 tiny guppies in there they are very happy. Co2 is set perfect.

Here is his tank (chihiros light - established it with 3 primes before swapping for spectrum - same params/system as mine).


----------



## MichaelJ (Yesterday at 5:04 AM)

Hi @JoshP12  Crazy growth!     Could you remind us what sort of fert regime your doing (ppm/wk per element) and your water parameters (Ca/Mg/pH).

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (Yesterday at 10:51 PM)

MichaelJ said:


> Hi @JoshP12  Crazy growth!


.


MichaelJ said:


> Could you remind us what sort of fert regime you’re doing (ppm/wk per element) and your water parameters (Ca/Mg/pH).
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Target dosed 100% at water change and 20% of total dosed daily
Potassium nitrate to nitrate 2ppm

Potassium phosphate to phosphate 1ppm

Calcium 9.4 ppm source water

Magnesium 3 ppm source water and a bit of Epsom salt

Potassium 5ppm from salts above and potassium sulphate

Micro:
Csm+b Fe proxy .015 ppm daily  made from larger and concentrated solution to help get proportions right!

Hopefully with some consistency we can get the tank gin clear.

A few weeks out. It has stopped getting cloudy cloudy cloudy after water change but it’s not 100% — probably since I hacked down the whole forest all at once. Trim here and there and a bit of consistency should finish up the water quality.

Oh and KH around 1.5 degree.

And pH at peak minimum around 6.1/6.2

Co2 with lights. Lights 10h - 30 min ramp up and down on either end. 100%. 1 is broken lol cool white channels don’t work.

Temp swings up to 26 mid photoperiod with heaters turning on at lights on then back down to 23 by night. 

Water change water ~ 23 now consistent.


----------



## MichaelJ (Today at 2:08 AM)

Thanks @JoshP12. 



JoshP12 said:


> Micro:
> Csm+b Fe proxy .015 ppm daily made from larger and concentrated solution to help get proportions right!


Is that your own DIY micro mix? 

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## JoshP12 (Today at 3:08 AM)

MichaelJ said:


> Thanks @JoshP12.
> 
> 
> Is that your own DIY micro mix?
> ...


No the chelated secondary micros + boron by Plantex.









						PlantGuy's Micronutrient Trace element mix (CSM +B)
					

Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Chelated Iron (Fe) (actual) 7% Chelated Manganese (Mn) (actual) 2% Chelated Zinc (Zn) (actual) 0.4% Chelated Copper (Cu) (actual) 0.1% Boron (B) (actual) 1.3% Molybdenum (Mo) (actual) 0.06% EDTA (Ethylene diamine tetraacetate) 42% DTPA (Diethylene triamine...




					theplantguy.ca
				




I barely have the patience to weigh out nitrate and magnesium let alone all those little bits. I had a moment probably 7 months ago? Where I used a dilute solution of csm (pretty large dose and very little grams in the water) and after some time I saw my non-rooted plants (epiphytes with no soil or in this case hydrocotyle on a surface and not in soil) developed what I thought was a manganese deficiency. Leaving all things constant, best I could, I just made a new solution - same dosage - but super concentrated so lots of grams in there (to get highest probability that I got good “proportions”). That was after chatting with what Greggz did a bit. I debated buying all the salts, sourced them, placed the order, and cancelled. This experiment if you will is similar to leaning the column outright and watching as all I dosed was micros and MAYBE potassium can’t remember - months later I held off N and P longer so I could trigger cyano then fix it - it worked. Digression.

I didn’t want a chemistry lab in my house - I also don’t like having glut lying around - and so I opted not to buy all the individual salts.

So people like @plantnoobdude playing with the individual salts have much more experience with those than I would. But with enough observation, and taking all their experiences in account, it’s very reasonable to say “CSM concentrated is close enough for me”.

To be honest, my single experience of fixing the manganese was enough for me to say “that’s good enough”.

Even Dennis Wong has said he doesn’t like chelated micros and seachem and Tropica (I think can’t recall) use sulphate salts.

I’m just a little bit lazy lol. + just throw it in  the soil, let the roots figure it out, and dose a little K to help with the nutrient movement. Easier that way than playing with the column. Unless you’re in the throes of discovery! In this case, get the goggles and the 15 decimal point scale and the inert substrate - you’re in it for the long haul!


----------



## MichaelJ (Today at 5:12 AM)

JoshP12 said:


> No the chelated secondary micros + boron by Plantex.


Very similar to the NilocG Plantex  I am using in one of my tanks. The one you're using contains slightly more Boron and contains DTPA in addition to EDTA.

I my so-called lean tank I am getting just the micros that Tropica Specialize provides - tiny amounts of everything, but seemingly enough.  I don't think Tropica contains any of the common Chelates... which is sort of interesting, if so, considering how much we tend to debate chelates around here   (@Happi may know).



JoshP12 said:


> o be honest, my single experience of fixing the manganese was enough for me to say “that’s good enough”.


Fascinating.  Can you speak a bit more to the Manganese situation... was that a deficiency? and if so, how did it materialize?

Cheers,
Michael


----------



## Happi (Today at 7:53 AM)

MichaelJ said:


> I don't think Tropica contains any of the common Chelates... which is sort of interesting, if so, considering how much we tend to debate chelates around here  (@Happi may know).


Tropica Certainly doesn't use the common EDTA Chelate that is most commonly used in chelated products. they use something much better which is combination of both DTPA and HEEDTA. 


JoshP12 said:


> seachem and Tropica (I think can’t recall) use sulphate salts.


seachem uses So4/Cl based traces and Fe gluconate for Iron, they believe in whatever plant could easily use rather than spending more energy using it. Tropica on the other hand uses Chelates, so its truly a good fit for those who like to dose once a week or less often.


----------



## JoshP12 (Today at 10:09 AM)

MichaelJ said:


> Fascinating.  Can you speak a bit more to the Manganese situation... was that a deficiency? and if so, how did it materialize?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael


Post in thread 'Finally ... feeling happy .'
Finally ... feeling happy :).

May 26 photo has the white veins on the hydrocotyle. I found the post!

Not all of them had it just that clump and that clump wasn’t anchored in soil. I don’t have explicit photos of this it was memory.

In retrospect, I’m not sure why I thought manganese and why I said it was “fixed” - I did not take notes and if it was truly a micro deficiency it would be immobile and not fix itself. So I can’t recall if it didn’t happen again or if it did fix it self. A bit of an important piece of info.

I have certainly been dubiously convinced of something in the past and changed my mind but I feel no impetus to change here.


----------

