Anyone have fert list to make 2hr aquarist APT Complete please.

[DudeFromPantanal]

@DudeFromPantanal see if this is useful. When N to P ratio was kept at 13:1 along with low iron level, not just cyano but many other types of algaes stop growing when I was experimenting with it.

Dosing at 4 to 1 N to P ratio, cyanobacteria didn't occur all the time, but it did occur more often compared to 13 to 1 where it almost never occurred.

We should also consider other factors including oxidizing, precipitation of Fe, P etc. Whenever someone claims that they add so much P without issues, the very first suspect to look for is if their aquarium is high risk for oxidization and precipitation. We should also consider what type of substrates is being used.

Yes, there is some research on the ratios influence… this one is example.

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

I think BGA is pretty closely related to DO levels (or at least DO levels are a strong contributing factor). Is seems to proliferate in areas where DO is the lowest, but it still has access to light (e.g. below substrate level or circulation dead spots), or when DO levels in a tank are naturally lower (e.g. on tank start up before plant photosynthesis is in full tilt, or when there are tank issues that limit photosynthesis). It would seem to concur with your experiences since higher temps will result in lower DO in the water column also.

I had the healthier plants and cleanest tank I ever had when I did night aeration with a timmer (all night long until sunrise).

 

[Happi]

Hi @Happi, While N vs. P may play a role as an enabler for better plant health (specifically keeping P low vs. micros), I wonder if the algae issue is really mostly about Fe vs. P interaction (specifically high levels of Fe). I used to struggle with GSA on my slow growers back in the day while dosing around 2.5 ppm of P and 0.7 ppm Fe and the "prescription" was to pummel the tank with P, it helped but I had to keep it high all the time to keep the GSA out. When I switched over to lean I gradually lowered my P and Fe - (in one tank its now 0.08 ppm and Fe 0.055 ppm.) and the GSA didn't reemerge - nor did any other algae for that matter

Yes there is a strong link between Fe, P and the algae, especially when they are present in higher amount. But depending on other nutrients as well, different kinds of algaes will be formed. If the iron is more readily available and present in higher quantities, you can expect it to cause all kinds of green algaes. If Iron, Nitrogen and Phosphate are present in higher amounts, you can expect different set of algaes or cyanobacteria. Low oxygen levels under such scenario can further enhance cyanobacteria.

Depending on nutrients quantities and their ratios, different set of algae or cyanobacteria will occur. Most importantly N and P plays an major role when it comes to algae, having a good grip on both will give you better grip on algae.

In any event, I don't think Tropica's choice of 13:1 N relative to P is an arbitrary choice without merit

Am sure they have more purpose beside worrying about cyanobacteria.

I strongly believe APT uses similar ratio for micros similar to Marian or Edward, similar to this, using non chelated Micros and chelated Iron DTPA and for macro it's whatever @plantnoobdude is currently experimenting with Masterline Golden clone.

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

Here you go.
View attachment 208017

I do not on my plants. Do I have a some algae on my glass at weeks end, yeah a bit, but nothing to dwell upon and nothing that bothers me.


I have absolutely no beef with water column "lean dosing". My problem with this lean dosing mania is that people kind of put everything in the same basket and then claim that lean dosing is superior or allows you this or that. You can't compare a high tech tank with a low tech tank (high CO2 high light vs no or little CO2 and say medium light). You can in fact lean dose a high tech tank with high CO2 when using a rich substrate for the first few weeks/months, but you will soon understand that's not going to cut it unless you keep enriching the substrate. If on the other hand you are planning on cutting on CO2 and probably also on some light, then yeah lean dosing all the way baby, but it's important to always state your light and CO2 inputs else it can be misleading. If I lean dosed my high tech tank where I have high CO2 and high light with the N, P and K values that some dose here, I can guarantee my plants would be dead a long time ago or would look like crap in no time.

If getting rid of BGA, or more accurately cyanobacteria, was just about an increase or reduction of NO3 then it would all be very easy. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. I can also get BGA at high NO3 levels.

It's a multifactorial issue although I have noticed that higher temperatures play a major role in triggering BGA episodes. In my case BGA will appear predictably every year at the same time when the summer arrives. It's always contained between the glass and the substrate though. I have very rarely seen BGA on my plants.

Me again… did you tested this N😛 ratios in plain inert substrates or just aquasoil?? I don’t remember any good experience with N😛 ratio lower than 5:1 in sand. But also had EI levels for quite a long time… do you think there is some kind of tipping point for P levels independent of ratios? for example, 30ppm NO3 and 10ppm PO4 (N😛 ratio of 3:1).

 

[MichaelJ]

I have absolutely no beef with water column "lean dosing". My problem with this lean dosing mania is that people kind of put everything in the same basket and then claim that lean dosing is superior or allows you this or that.

Personally - and of course thats a matter of opinion - but I do think it is "superior" in the sense that you can reduce you dosing considerably and still be very successful. Provided that you offer the right tank conditions such as lower temperature, very low mineral content (dGH), extremely low alkalinity (dKH) and somewhat acidic water. If you can check those four boxes, you can get away with dosing a very small amount of fertilizers in appropriate ratios to the benefit of your plants and livestock.

You can in fact lean dose a high tech tank with high CO2 when using a rich substrate for the first few weeks/months, but you will soon understand that's not going to cut it unless you keep enriching the substrate.

Not really. Among others and most recently @plantnoobdude have shown that CO2, high light, inert substrate and ultra lean water column dosing (exclusively) indeed enabled him to grow a stunning tank with challenging stem plants over an extended period of time. Of course, the above mentioned prerequisites have to be met presumably.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

Personally - and of course thats a matter of opinion - but I do think it is "superior" in the sense that you can reduce you dosing considerably and still be very successful.

Yes for low tech. Not high tech and when I mean hight tech I mean high light, high CO2. Anyone pumping light above 150/200 PAR and CO2 like many of us do on our farm or dutch tanks, a lean dosing approach to cut throat levels as prescribed sometimes here is definitely a no go. When you have an extensive mass of plant that are growing at an accelerated pace, you can't feed them like you feed pigeons, with crumbles.
That's exactly my point and you have proved it by saying it's superior. While reading around about lean dosing, I have the sense that CO2 and light are often left on the side purposefully (muted) giving people the impression that one could swap from a higher dosing to a leaner dosing just fine in a high tech tank. As I said, you can lean dose a high tech tank early on if you have a rich substrate. Later on, that won't work and you will end up chasing dreams.

Not really. Among others and most recently @plantnoobdude have shown that CO2, high light, inert substrate and ultra lean water column dosing (exclusively) indeed enabled him to grow a stunning tank with challenging stem plants over an extended period of time. Of course, the above mentioned prerequisites have to be met presumably.

You are ignoring obvious issues with that tank just to justify that the lean dosing is better.
Perhaps you should read this: post #425

No ferts for 8 days (holidays) means super slow plant growth and poor colouration.
Overall not much really happened. Some stuff is Fe deficient. Pantanal is tiny, dosed some nutrients yesterday do the tips are colouring up. No algae. Massive melt in tonina, so cleaned that up.

and this: post # 440

The poor growth of some species such as bucephalandra, cryptocoryne and eriocaulon leaves something to be desired.

[...] However it is far from optimal for another group of plants, hardwater plants. And rooting plants such as eriocaulon. [...]

It looks like he also used some osmocote at some point.

Finally that dosing regime seems to have started somewhere in January an ended 14 March. I don't call that an extended period of time and considering some of the issues above I wonder how long he could have gone like that. Playing with cut throat levels of NPK eventually gets you one way or the other.

IMO you just can't play that "funny on the edge game" in high tech tanks with high light and high CO2 long term. You are exposition your self to constant issues and need to be really on top of your dosing.

 

[Happi]

Yes for low tech. Not high tech and when I mean hight tech I mean high light, high CO2

Hanuman, why you think high co2 is necessary?

 

[MichaelJ]

A

Yes for low tech. Not high tech and when I mean hight tech I mean high light, high CO2. Anyone pumping light above 150/200 PAR and CO2 like many of us do on our farm or dutch tanks, a lean dosing approach to cut throat levels as prescribed sometimes here is definitely a no go. When you have an extensive mass of plant that are growing at an accelerated pace, you can't feed them like you feed pigeons, with crumbles.
That's exactly my point and you have proved it by saying it's superior. While reading around about lean dosing, I have the sense that CO2 and light are often left on the side purposefully (muted) giving people the impression that one could swap from a higher dosing to a leaner dosing just fine in a high tech tank. As I said, you can lean dose a high tech tank early on if you have a rich substrate. Later on, that won't work and you will end up chasing dreams.


You are ignoring obvious issues with that tank just to justify that the lean dosing is better.
Perhaps you should read this: post #425

and this: post # 440



It looks like he also used some osmocote at some point.

Finally that dosing regime seems to have started somewhere in January an ended 14 March. I don't call that an extended period of time and considering some of the issues above I wonder how long he could have gone like that. Playing with cut throat levels of NPK eventually gets you one way or the other.

IMO you just can't play that "funny on the edge game" in high tech tanks with high light and high CO2 long term. You are exposition your self to constant issues and need to be really on top of your dosing.

I will have to come back with a more comprehensive response tomorrow, but you sure make it sound like injecting high levels of CO2 is much more of a disadvantage than anything else… why inject high levels of CO2 if it makes planted tank keeping so complicated that you need to pummel your tank with fertilizers? I’m not sure I understand. But then again, there’s a lot of things I don’t understand 🙂

In any event, I’m re-checking in with @plantnoobdude to make sure I got the facts straight on the things you point out before I post.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

Hanuman, why you think high co2 is necessary?

Who said it was a necessity? I am not entirely sure of the underlying or leading question here.
When you are doing a farm tank you need fast, healthy growth. Same like all these companies producing plants and selling them. They basically put their plants in some accelerated growth environment. They won't deprive them of the most essential elements just because it's cool to go lean.
High CO2 is not a necessity per say and you can have perfectly healthy growth with lower CO2 injection rates but you need to accept the decreases growth speed and lushness. That's it and you can't be pushing lean dosing to tanks that are high intensity (high ligh - high CO2). It just doesn't work. Plants are in hyperdrive mode. No matter the case you need to provide the nutrients one way or another, either through column fertilization or through substrate.
What bothers me is this idea that lean dosing is somehow applicable to all type of intensity tanks. Low, medium maybe. High, in the way I define it, not in my book.

AI will have to come back with a more comprehensive response tomorrow, but you sure make it sound like injecting high levels of CO2 is much more of a disadvantage than anything else… why inject high levels of CO2 if it makes planted tank keeping so complicated that you need to pummel your tank with fertilizers? I’m not sure I understand. But then again, there’s a lot of things I don’t understand 🙂

Refer to my answer above. In summary, not everyone is looking for slow growth and low tech style maybe 🙂

 

[MichaelJ]

When you are doing a farm tank you need fast, healthy growth. Same like all these companies producing plants and selling them.

Oh you mean like Tropica that are dosing Tropica specialized? I know, I know… All right @Hanuman I know you’ll take the joke 🙂 farming partially emerged plants is obviously a completely different ballgame.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

For all those thinking I'm an EI fan boy you are mistaken. In fact I am thinking of making my next tank as lean as it gets, but I won't be pushing 250PAR at substrate, will not have a galore of stems plants and will not be adding that much CO2. I'll join the lean multiverse under lower/medium tech conditions.

 

[Hanuman]

Ok I have just looked at the definition of the word "cut throat" which I have used in several occasions in the forum. For some reason it meant something else in my mind.
What I meant to say by "cut-throat" was "extreme" or something that is "borderline". Hopefully that clarifies my thought.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Same like all these companies producing plants and selling them. They basically put their plants in some accelerated growth environment. They won't deprive them of the most essential elements just because it's cool to go lean.

Grown emersed, with elevated CO2 and plenty of light, you could really pump the nutrients in. You don't need to worry about algae and you can maintain optimal growing conditions. This was what @Mick.Dk <"said">:

........ In the tanks for Tropica IZOO show, I often dose more than 10 times recommended. These are run on "Ferrari speed", light-wise though... .....

cheers Darrel

 

[MichaelJ]

You are ignoring obvious issues with that tank just to justify that the lean dosing is better.
Perhaps you should read this: post #425

While not a terrible backlash, I am bit surprised things would go downhill (relatively speaking) after just 8 days.

and this: post # 440
It looks like he also used some osmocote at some point.

He confirms that he never used osmocote in that tank.

Finally that dosing regime seems to have started somewhere in January an ended 14 March. I don't call that an extended period of time and considering some of the issues above I wonder how long he could have gone like that. Playing with cut throat levels of NPK eventually gets you one way or the other.

Yes, with some uncertainty, it appear that the experiment was running for about 2.5-3 months. ... I agree with you, that is not an extended period of time and it would indeed have been interesting to see how the tank would have evolved over say 6-9 months. Indeed, we lack more good examples of very lean tanks running for an extended period of time.

For all those thinking I'm an EI fan boy you are mistaken. In fact I am thinking of making my next tank as lean as it gets, but I won't be pushing 250PAR at substrate, will not have a galore of stems plants and will not be adding that much CO2. I'll join the lean multiverse under lower/medium tech conditions.

That would certainly be interesting @Hanuman ! Personally, I was super skeptical myself coming from not being able to grow plants due to insufficient fertilization and learn about and apply EI and finally had some success growing plants. But eventually I decided to give lean a shot (some 1 1/2 year ago) in one of my already very healthy 150L low-tech tanks. I slowly transitioned from mid EI levels with DIY salts to Tropica Specialized and slowly cranked up the light. The tank is fairly densely planted with mostly undemanding plants though. Eventually I dialed down my WC frequency from 50% weekly to 35% every two weeks. The tank remain very clean without algae and good plant health. Temp is low'ish (22C), dGH ~2.0 (Ca:Mg 2:1), dKH < 0.5, pH 6.2-6.3. Inert, but very mature substrate (+3 years old). I target the whole tank 1 ppm of N, 0.08 ppm of P, 0.82 ppm K, 0.055 ppm Fe every two weeks after WC. I'm certainly not blind to the fact that even though the tank is lightly stocked I am getting some additional macros from fish and food waste and decomposing plant matter. My other tank, where I use DIY salts, runs very similar except for a higher dGH as I am keeping shrimps in that tank.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[DudeFromPantanal]

For all those thinking I'm an EI fan boy you are mistaken. In fact I am thinking of making my next tank as lean as it gets, but I won't be pushing 250PAR at substrate, will not have a galore of stems plants and will not be adding that much CO2. I'll join the lean multiverse under lower/medium tech conditions.

Hey @Hanuman just go crazy with the next tank brother… that thing will teach you a lot. And change a lot of beliefs too. Go for it brother… 100% plain pool filter sand. You know to mix salts so costs should not be a issue for this experimental tank.

 

[Hanuman]

He confirms that he never used osmocote in that tank.

Well, his post #427 says otherwise. Maybe he forgot 😉, and if you note, he also had to put some plants into soil as those plants where behaving "weird".

[...] I recently added couple balls of osmocote, and that trigged TDs Spike of over 20ppm. So Ive been skipping dosing. This morning I noticed some crumpled and puckered up pantanal, my TDs Had dropped all the way to 30 ish ppm. Got back on my dosing so it should be fixed. Most plants seem alright at the moment.

Trying some soil again for erios. They were just being wierd in sand so I'm trying again.

Hey @Hanuman just go crazy with the next tank brother… that thing will teach you a lot. And change a lot of beliefs too. Go for it brother… 100% plain pool filter sand. You know to mix salts so costs should not be a issue for this experimental tank.

That would certainly be interesting @Hanuman !

This is not new to me. That's what I have been basically doing in some of my past holding tanks and also the ammno tank. Very minimal dosing. The current ammano tank contains several species of bucephalandra, mosses, anubias. I even grew some L. Meta there temporarely. I also have Xyris in there growing fine, albeit VERY slow.

But eventually I decided to give lean a shot (some 1 1/2 year ago) in one of my already very healthy 150L low-tech tanks. I slowly transitioned from mid EI levels with DIY salts to Tropica Specialized and slowly cranked up the light. The tank is fairly densely planted with mostly undemanding plants though. Eventually I dialed down my WC frequency from 50% weekly to 35% every two weeks. The tank remain very clean without algae and good plant health. Temp is low'ish (22C), dGH ~2.0 (Ca:Mg 2:1), dKH < 0.5, pH 6.2-6.3.

I am not even sure in the first place why you would use EI in a low tech tank. That doesn't make much sense to me. To that you have quite low temperatures which allow much better control over algae and plant metabolism which basically allows you to dose even lower. I really wish I could have temperatures like that here. It's the only variable I can't really control but the one that has the most impact in my tanks. I think most people living in temperate countries like in the US or Europe don't really understand what it means to have tanks at 29-31, sometimes even 32C year round. Everything is so much more razor edge and things tend to go much faster.

I target the whole tank 1 ppm of N, 0.08 ppm of P, 0.82 ppm K, 0.055 ppm Fe every two weeks after WC. I'm certainly not blind to the fact that even though the tank is lightly stocked I am getting some additional macros from fish and food waste and decomposing plant matter. My other tank, where I use DIY salts, runs very similar except for a higher dGH as I am keeping shrimps in that tank.

To me this is not shocking. You are basically giving your plants a sleeping pill (with lower light, no injected CO2 and cold water). There is no reason why they would need to consume much of anything. With a rich substrate that could technically even be enough. You said you increased your light but without a proper PAR meter it's difficult to say what the intensity is, but I doubt, and this is pure speculation, that you are blasting more than a 100PAR, perhaps 150PAR at the substrate.


I didn't want to convert this thread into a pro/against lean discussion. I'm past that years ago. What I want to make clear to those new people reading this is that you can go either way, no problemo, but you can't apply lean dosing to high intensity tanks (high light/high CO2) and expect you'll get the healthy, lush, fast growing tank with most, if not all, plants behaving normally and with full form. Each regime has it ideal applications and you cannot expect ideal plant condition if you interchange these regimes.

And to end this pseudo war, at some point in time I will kindly ask @Happi for a recipe from his magical hat for my new tank. One needs to die smart, not dummer.

 

[MichaelJ]

Well, his post #427 says otherwise. Maybe he forgot 😉, and if you note, he also had to put come plants into soil as those plants where behaving "weird".

Yes, apparently once. Let’s not split hair here.

I am not even sure in the first place why you would use EI in a low tech tank. That doesn't make much sense to me.

I guess I and most people did a lot of things that didn't make sense in the past... I guess thats why we came up with concepts like learning and experience 😉

To that you have quite low temperatures which allow much better control over algae and plant metabolism which basically allows you to dose even lower. \

Back in the day I actually ran my tanks at 26 C - which didn't make much sense either to be honest.

I really wish I could have temperatures like that here. It's the only variable I can't really control but the one that has the most impact in my tanks. I think most people living in temperate countries like in the US or Europe don't really understand what it means to have tanks at 29-31, sometimes even 32C year round. Everything is so much more razor edge and things tend to go much faster.

Yes, I think you're certainly at a disadvantage with the high tank temps, but you still seem to make it work. 👍🏻 31-32 C is crazy high.

To me this is not shocking. You are basically giving your plants a sleeping pill (with lower light, no injected CO2 and cold water).

Thats the strategy, low temp - low metabolism, low amount of fertilizer, slow but healthy growth. low maintenance, zero algae - triple win to me as I’m not in the business of selling clippings or redoing my tanks every 6 months 🙂

There is no reason why they would need to consume much of anything. With a rich substrate that could technically even be enough. You said you increased your light but without a proper PAR meter it's difficult to say what the intensity is, but I doubt, and this is pure speculation, that you are blasting more than a 100PAR at the substrate.

I doubt its even 50 PAR at the substrate level to be honest.

I didn't want to convert this thread into a pro/against lean discussion. I'm past that years ago.

But somehow you still spark these discussions by calling the observance of ratios here-say... 🙂 I really don't think our opinions differs much in the grand scheme of things to be honest.

What I want to make clear to those new people reading this is that you can go either way

For sure. No reason to saddle up on high horse here @Hanuman - I think a lot of us who's been around for a while and do a lot of helpful QA postings are pretty good at keeping it relevant to the members prerequisites, needs and aspirations - - horses for courses 🙂

And to end this pseudo war, at some point in time I will kindly ask @Happi for a recipe from his magical hat for my new tank. One needs to die smart, not dummer.

I take that as a compliment for @Happi 🙂

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Hanuman]

But somehow you still spark these discussions by calling the observance of ratios here-say... 🙂 I really don't think our opinions differs much in the grand scheme of things to be honest.

I didn't spark any discussion. You can see my ratios and my tank is fine. So yeah pretty much hearsay/fake news about this ratio or others being bad ratios. There isn't much if any evidence of lower NO3/PO4 being bad. At least I didn't see any issues with my tank when I was dosing that. And my ratios always hovered between 2.5 and 3.5.

No reason to saddle up on high horse here @Hanuman

🧐 Advising new comers not to get sucked in the idea that you can have a lush tank equivalent to a high tech tank (high light high CO2) by just lean dosing is not only a reasonable advise but a rather common basic one.
So, no, no one is saddling up on its high horse here, quite the contrary. I don't have the 20+ years of experience that many do here, but I pride myself in having learned quite a lot (although never enough) in these meager 5 years of experience. IMO it is not necessarily a good advise to give to beginners to go all the way lean specially when these beginners are intending to have a high light / high CO2 tank.

 

[MichaelJ]

IMO this idea that going lean all the way, is not necessarily a good advise to give to beginners specially when these beginners are intending to have a high light / high CO2 tank.

I do agree with that. Lean is not for everyone for sure and I do not think us leaners are rushing in with such advice. As we know there are several strings attached to make it work; such as soft acidic water and low'ish temperature. Personally I think mature substrate is, if not essential, then at least a huge benefit to make it work as well, but not everyone agrees. On a different note, I similarly question the soundness that a beginner should start out with high CO2 with all the traps and pitfalls, thats not exactly a great idea either.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[Wookii]

I do agree with that. Lean is not for everyone for sure and I do not think us leaners are rushing in with such advice.

Personally I don't really hang my hat on these clear distinctions of rich vs lean dosing anymore - I think there are many more shades of grey in between, and I think the experienced aquarist learns by trial and error what needs to be dosed to a specific tank to maintain it over time, and that is rarely full EI.

That being said, I do agree absolutely with @Hanuman that EI, or at least "dosing to known excess" is most certainly an ideal strategy for the new comer to high tech planted tanks, and eliminates one more variable for them to worry about until they gain sufficient experience to start tailoring dosing for themselves.

On a different note, I similarly question the soundness that a beginner should start out with high CO2 with all the traps and pitfalls, thats not exactly a great idea either.

I would tend to agree, it's certainly a case of 'in at the deep end' but we have to accept that high tech is the glamourous gateway drug that leads many into the hobby these days, especially the way it is prompted by leading manufacturers and the YouTube brigade.