A reflection - putting it all into one scape

[JoshP12]

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.

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]

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]

Stunning. 😍

(Comes off a bit sarcastic? Not meant like that at all though!)

glad you see some beauty in it!

i think I found out what is causing the bloom in my tank….

Please do tell!

 

[John q]

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.

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]

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]

@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]

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.

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?

Keep the updates coming mate 👍

Of course!

 

[MichaelJ]

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]

Random speculation... Insane amounts of miracle grow coupled with the photon beam torpedo lights 🙄

Shhhh John - I want to hear Josh say it! 😂

 

[Wookii]

🤣 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]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

Hi all,

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.

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]

What would you consider to be over it?

No idea. That’s why I haven’t turned them down.

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?

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.

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?

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 🤣.

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]

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.

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.

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]

Need to say how much I appreciate the conversation first.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Thrive composition for example won’t give clean EI numbers, so you end up doing some estimation anyways.

It's called the Estimative Index 😜

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?