• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Amazon water types vs. "natural fertilizer" levels

Spot the green living plant in this footage from the Rio Negro šŸ˜‚ I saw one.



I thought I was trying to sustain artificially high densities of fast growing plants with very high concentrations of ferts? If I wanted a more natural looking blackwater set up Iā€™d skip the ferts.

This is blackwater only, the cited paper describes clearwater and whitewater..which begs the question what is my aquarium mimicking? Is a typical planted community tank (mostly) blackwater fish like tetras, angelfish etc but transposed to an idealised clearwater habitat? I donā€™t know, itā€™s interesting though.
 
Last edited:
Hi all,
Simmo said:
Spot the green living plant in this footage from the Rio Negro......
Click to expand...
All the trees at the start?
Simmo said:
If I wanted a more natural looking blackwater set up Iā€™d skip the ferts.
Click to expand...
You need really soft, low conductivity water to keep blackwater fish long term, so they probably aren't suitable for high tech. tanks.

Cheers Darrel
 
Happi said:
@MichaelJ

Just curious what was the purpose of this thread or the data we are talking about? I assume you want to explore other ideas and fertilization?
Click to expand...

Hi @Happi, The purpose for me was to further my understanding a bit. I just came across this paper and although I already knew that nutrient levels in the habitats our plants and livestock comes from were lower compared to what we regularly dose in our planted tanks (relative to plant density and a host of other factors that are hard to compare straight up), I did not know, or realize at least, that the difference was this stark and wanted to share that information and hear peoples thoughts on the matter - not necessarily to infuse a heated discussion about one fertilizer approach vs. another - I don't think that is helpful anyway. I am mostly here to gain insight and share that little bit of personal experience that I have gained over the years.

I consider myself an agnostic when it comes to fertilization. I don't have any skin in the debate about lean vs. abundant vs other fertilization schemes - there are a lot of evidence out there that suggest that many different fertilizer schemes are working well (including the approaches you are advocating). I just happen to do my version of EI and have stuck to it because it works in my case so far. I dose the whole week of fertilizer (NPK,Ca:Mg) in abundance after my weekly ~40% WCs and supplement with Fe/traces once or twice throughout the week. That's it - all cheap dry dosing so cost is not a factor either way... A very different approach than that of Mother Nature obviously :)

Now, one number that stuck out from these water samples was the overall conductivity/TDS readings. Call me ignorant, but I didn't realize it was that low.... One thing that I could imagine myself start doing is to dial down my fertilizer load for the long-term sake of my livestock to further replicate the conductivity/TDS of these environments - I am currently running my tanks in the 210-230 TDS range (pretty low, but still routinely x10 higher than natural habitats for say many small Tetras). If I could accomplish the same level of plant health at a much lower levels - say if I would cut down my NPK dosing in half or third I imagine that could potentially be beneficial for the well being of my livestock. Sure, it's speculation, but it's something I might give a shot. I happen to have two very similar tanks with respect to livestock and plant mass - and even cutting my dosing down to a third, I will still whip Mother Nature by x100-200 :lol:

On a side note, I would like to see a more nuanced discussing about different fertilizer approaches. Perhaps a separate Topic in the Specific Planted Tank discussions - say "Alternative Fertilization (non-EI approaches)" ? Just an idea, because I think a lot of good knowledge and insights are lost in too much arguing.

dw1305 said:
Personally I've got no interest in <"optimal plant growth">, <"demanding plants"> or <"aquascaping">, and I'm never going <"to use CO2">, but I still enjoy <"the threads"> of those who <"use this approach">.
Click to expand...
That sums it up for me as well... I am very much on the same page as @dw1305 - except that I don't use rainwater or use my tanks to warm up my cat! or is it the other way around... :lol:

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
MichaelJ said:
Now, one number that stuck out from these water samples was the overall conductivity/TDS readings. Call me ignorant, but I didn't realize it was that low
Click to expand...
Yes i thought the same, i try to keep my TDS as low as possible but still in the 200ppm range.

MichaelJ said:
That sums it up for me as well... I am very much on the same page as @dw1305 - except that I don't use rainwater or use my tanks to warm up my cat! :)
Click to expand...
This is where i differ most, i am still very new to full planted tanks and wanting the best/fastest growth etc.
 
@MichaelJ





glad to hear your response and we can certainly achieve the low TDS if that is your goal and minimize the need for the water changes.

  • reduce the amount of S, Cl, Na etc. in the water through fertilizer. Avoid using K2SO4, MgSO4, MgCl, NaHco3 etc.
  • if you still want to use the #1, try to mix them, for example 0.2 Mg from MgSo4 and 0.2 ppm from Mgcl. S and Cl should be kept low
  • NaHCo3, KhCo3 etc. will add some Co3, which will be used by the plants and acidic soil will neutralize the KH. You are left with Na and K in the water, Na is not needed by plants but its ok to have some in the water, but the goal should be avoid adding NaHCo3, use KhCO3 instead.
  • if you want to use NO3 as your main source of N, try to use KNO3, MgNO3, CaNO3 combinations, you can take out CaNo3 if your water already have enough Ca, same for Mg.
  • the goal is to reduce overall numbers of nutrients that are either less used by the plants or buildups whenever we dose. For example: adding K2SO4 to reach 10 ppm K will also add 4 ppm S, lets assume plant only use 0.2 ppm S, the remaining S is just adding up to the TDS. Lets assume you used KNO3 instead, you should slowly see an drop in TDS, lets assume you added some NH4 with KNO3, this will further drop the TDS when plant uptake those nutrients. Not to forget that soil will be going after the + charges as well.
For example, when I add the following to 0 TDS water, it would increase the TDS, but as the days go by, the TDS start to drop. I used the following to achieve this:

NH4NO3, NH4HCO3, KH2PO4, K2CO3, NaHCO3, Ca(NO3)2*4H2O, MgSO4*7H2O, MgCl2*6H2O

However, the fish waste and fish food will continue to add some TDS. especially if the NO3 conversion is happening rapidly.
 
Spezial N by Tobi is also another good alternative rather than just using KNO3 alone in case you want to explore that. I would try to DIY that and also use good Trace/Fe with it such as Tropica premium rather than using csm+b. I just noticed that no one talked about the small amount of NH4 coming from CaNo3, everyone was concerned about NH4 coming from Urea. Spezial N truly add NH4+Urea+NO3+K+Ca+Mg which is why it works so well especially if you were to dose it in small amount daily.
 
jaypeecee said:
Hi @MichaelJ

Are you a remineralized RO/DI water user? That's my default preference.

JPC
Click to expand...
Hi @jaypeecee Yes, I am doing RO water and tap water. My tap water is a bit special because every tap inside the house runs through a KCL resin based water softener. Our tap water comes out at zero GH but with sky-high potassium levels, but not much else in terms of Nitrates etc.. For my WC I have recently been doing 20% Tap and 80% RO - sometimes more tap water... which gives me around 40 ppm of K (and enough CL) and about 1-2 KH. In addition to that, I remineralize and dose my NPK with MgSO4, CaSO4, KH2PO4 and MgNO3. For traces I do this CMS+B trace blend once or twice a week or a weekly dose of Fe Gluconate - if I remember to dose :) I tried a while ago to use Mg Gluconate and Ca Gluconate to shave off the excess SO4, but that didn't work out for me. Of course, I also tried Calcium Chloride but that gives me 50ppm of CL vs. 36ppm of sulphate with CaSO4 for the same amount of Ca (same story for Mg btw. - different amounts obviously)...

Cheers,
Michael
 
Last edited:
MichaelJ said:
Our tap water comes out at zero GH but with sky-high potassium levels, but not much else in terms of Nitrates etc..
Click to expand...
Hi @MichaelJ

Isn't it fascinating what comes out of people's taps? No wonder you add Ca and Mg - zero GH. Is that because you are surrounded by lakes? According to Wikipedia:

"Although promoted as the "Land of 10,000 Lakes", Minnesota has 11,842 lakes of 10 acres (4.05 ha) or more. The 1968 state survey found 15,291 lake basins, of which 3,257 were dry. If all basins over 2.5 acres were counted, Minnesota would have 21,871 lakes." Just a few more than the 'Lake District' here in Old Blighty!

Returning to your tap water, why is potassium level so high?

JPC
 
jaypeecee said:
Isn't it fascinating what comes out of people's taps? No wonder you add Ca and Mg - zero GH. Is that because you are surrounded by lakes?
Click to expand...
No, its because our city water run through a Potassium Chloride resin based water softener as mentioned. We have a lot limestone here so our water is very hard (18-22 GH range... varies throughout the year depending on the water source), but otherwise its pretty good.... mostly untraceable amounts of "toxins", and if detectable they are far, far below state and federal limits. Chlorine level is super low as well.

Cheers,
Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top