Consistency Deficiency

[Hufsa]

Calcium in dicotyledons is essential for cell wall stability, and is not mobile nutrient. Youngest leaves get wrinkled, deformed. In case of mild deficiency one is likely not to notice unless there's another tank to compare the very same species. Only slightly "wavy" leaves may be due to mild Ca deficiency.

Thank you for this, I understand a bit better what you mean now

Nitrogen can be obtained as a cation (NH4), or an anion (NO3). And since nitrogen is a nutrient in highest demand by far, it influences acquisition of other nutrients. If you want to support acquisition of metal cations (K, Mg, Ca), you should prefer nitrate over ammonia. Ammonia competes with cations, nitrate competes with anions (Cl-, SO42-). Can you get Mg(NO3)2?

I have recently acquired both Calcium Nitrate and Magnesium Nitrate, so I have a few more options now.
Would using it as a part of a macro fertilizer not add too much Mg? I guess it would depend on the total dosage eh..

I do not comment dosing micronutrients. They should not be measurable in water column. And in the substrate, they are subject to cycling which depends on many variables. I never try to measure micros. I wait until I suspect deficit occured by deficiency symptoms on plants. Importantly, I never ever dose a mix of all micronutrients. Firstly, they are all toxic, secondly, they are in competitive relationship with each other (except B and Mo), thirdly, a deficit of iron happens most often by far, and iron is a very specific issue, not directly related to other nutrients.

Hmm, I wonder if my setup is not entirely compatible with this particular method you describe.
I did have some success with dosing (for me) record low traces, but not all plants did better in this.
Trying "less, less and less" is still on my list of things to try if our current ideas run out for fixing my chlorosis issue. I have already tried "more, more and more"

I can see that you follow Marschner, and agree with that. Marschner is THE correct source. (By the way, have you read it? I've learned a lot from it.)

@Happi gets the credit for introducing us to Marschner, I have read some of it and found it very interesting, however the majority of the publication is still way above my pay-grade and trying to understand it makes me a bit dizzy. I hope as the years go by I will be able to comprehend more and more 🙂

I'm referring to CO2 injection, and high doses of fertilizers. Both creates unnatural conditions, and unnatural consequences must be expected and accepted. Like I said, it's not bad and it helps in many cases. Yet you must accept the fact that sometimes... it simply does not deliver.

Here I partly disagree, I used to believe that CO2 injection was unnatural, but when I looked up actual biotopes I discovered that some of them do indeed have higher levels of CO2.
Very few seem to have the levels that "nosebleed" high tech tanks run at though, 30ppm++
I would personally like to know more about actual CO2 levels found in nature, because calculated levels using the infamous kh/ph chart arent exactly the most reliable source.
It seems the amount of biotope data is a bit scarce, or maybe I just havent looked well enough.
Either way, this is the reason I have targeted a lower level of CO2 (20ppm) than commonly recommended (30ppm+), because I feel like I dont have enough information.
While injecting CO2 inherently places my fishes at increased risk, I try my very best to mitigate these risks so that my fish live comfortable and safe lives, mere survival is not good enough as a goal in my opinion.

It's the prevailing practice "not to let CO2 dissipate" which is often harmful, because lack of oxygen is a serious issue, often neglected. I always oxygenate, day and night.

I definitely agree with this, so far I have found that practices to "conserve CO2" often takes away from the safety of the livestock, increasing the risk of critically low oxygen and lethally high CO2. Treating CO2 "as if it is free" is solid advice and I think being generous with the oxygen is the way to go.

My philosophy is to study plant physiology, and to follow natural conditions as far as possible. I'm aware that no tank can emulate natural conditions perfectly. Yet as long as I can, I'm trying to avoid unnatural touches.

I too like to look at nature to see how things are there and draw inspiration. We should keep in mind though that lush algae-free plant growth is not always the case in nature, and that if we want "unnatural" results we might also have to employ some "unnatural" methods.
As usual I believe things are somewhat confusing and sometimes frustrating shades of gray, where there never will be a clear cut answer for most things.

 

[_Maq_]

This could theoretically explain why some find ratios to be very important, while some others (with very different setup parameters) dont see the same need or results from ratios.
We should also consider that each setup has different goals, so what "works" is entirely reliant on what the goal happens to be.

I think CO2 helps to overcome some irregularities in nutrient ratios. But then, such a hi-tech aquarist posts a question: Why are some of my plants showing this or another nutrition defects?
Not all plants can thrive in the same environment, that's natural. Myself, I made four mid-sized tanks in a row instead of one huge one, and each of them features different mineral composition and thus pH and alkalinity etc. I'm comparing the results. One species in contrasting conditions - what would be the results? I enjoy this approach, it's a fun & enlightenment in one.

I have recently acquired both Calcium Nitrate and Magnesium Nitrate, so I have a few more options now.
Would using it as a part of a macro fertilizer not add too much Mg? I guess it would depend on the total dosage eh..

My formula is K:Mg:Ca = 1:3:10 (by weight). I do not insist it's the only correct one nor the best one. Research still in progress. But it works for me.

@Happi gets the credit for introducing us to Marschner, I have read some of it and found it very interesting, however the majority of the publication is still way above my pay-grade and trying to understand it makes me a bit dizzy. I hope as the years go by I will be able to comprehend more and more 🙂

I'm a layman in this, too. Still, I can read it and pick up a lot of information which I both can understand and can find useful in our hobby.

Here I partly disagree, I used to believe that CO2 injection was unnatural, but when I looked up actual biotopes I discovered that some of them do indeed have higher levels of CO2.

That's correct, BUT! High levels of CO2 are usually a result of high microbial population & its respiration, which in turn is usually a result of high organic carbon. So it's regularly a "high carbon dioxide => low oxygen" situation, which we definitely don't want to happen in our tanks. (That's why I don't like Diana Walstad's approach, besides her scientific incorrectness.)

It seems the amount of biotope data is a bit scarce, or maybe I just havent looked well enough.

To me it seems the problem is that it's often hidden within sources dedicated to a different topic. That's why an obvious Google method often brings meager responses.

Either way, this is the reason I have targeted a lower level of CO2 (20ppm) than commonly recommended (30ppm+), because I feel like I dont have enough information.
While injecting CO2 inherently places my fishes at increased risk, I try my very best to mitigate these risks so that my fish live comfortable and safe lives, mere survival is not good enough as a goal in my opinion.

Some of my fellow aquarists stick to 10 ppm. Good results and, in my eyes, their tanks look more natural.

I too like to look at nature to see how things are there and draw inspiration. We should keep in mind though that lush algae-free plant growth is not always the case in nature, and that if we want "unnatural" results we might also have to employ some "unnatural" methods.

I've read through a huge amounts of papers on environmental science. I refrain from going into details but there's undisputed connection between anthropogenic eutrophication and algae-dominated waters. Of course, even "healthy" plants are permanently under attack of many parasites and other disturbances. So they don't look like vegetables in our supermarkets. But eutrophication of natural waters is 99 per cent of human making.

 

[Hufsa]

I said I might be absent this summer and here I am, posting several posts a day
Inspiration is a fickle beast 😅

I just have to share two things I spotted this morning that make me very happy, first, in the center of the picture, look at this triumphant first leaf the Bolbitis Type B has put out!! 😃😃😃
I havent been this stoked about a leaf in forever, but now I know for sure that its going to pull through Aaah! 😍



Also, I was wondering what all the spiky business in the center of the biggest Cryptocoryne regina "Silver Queen" was. Upon closer examination it turns out it has two spathes on the way! 😄 This makes the second crypt to go bonkers with spathes, the first one was Striolata Mini, which has so far put out three spathes and seems to be considering a fourth.
I wonder what the trigger is for such a flurry of activity? Since the Striolata Mini is so small I thought it was flowering from stress perhaps. But this Silver Queen is pretty big and seems happy enough, so maybe I was wrong about it. Could be the slightly higher temps coupled with more sunlight hitting the tank? 😊 I will take another picture when the spathe opens, I am curious to see how it looks.



Spammer Hufsa out (for now)

 

[_Maq_]

Congratulations, mate. 🙂
Btw. I've noticed that you use quite fine silica sand for a substrate. Same with me. Only the results with crypts are rather different...🙁
Is there Lysimachia nummularia on the first pic to the right?

 

[Hufsa]

Congratulations, mate. 🙂
Btw. I've noticed that you use quite fine silica sand for a substrate. Same with me. Only the results with crypts are rather different...🙁

Very fine sand indeed, the grain size is 0.1-0.5 mm and very comfortable for fish that bury in or sift the substrate. Nice to plant in too.
If I send you some crypts in the future I will be sure to include a little bag of this HufsaCorp™ Magic Sand©, only 299.99 for 100 grams, deal of a lifetime dont you think?
It is infused with our patented Ineptitude© essence*, which for some reason crypts really like!
*Mixed results with stem plants

 

[Hufsa]

Is there Lysimachia nummularia on the first pic to the right?

Thats Ludwigia sp. "Marilia", quite uncommon stem plant and does look a little bit like L. num, an easy way to tell them apart other than that "Marilia" gets yellower is the very alternate leaves on "Marilia"

 

[Hufsa]

Im starting to believe there may be Cryptocoryne viagra in the water here or something.. 🤨🤔

First I spot a suspiciously green leaf in the cluster of C. Purpurea, turns out the "Queen Vandom" already had its first baby and it was just hiding from me 😅
I cleared out some of the Hydrocotyle verticillata in the foreground and moved the plantlet there, it will be a better place for it to grow out

The second baby looks like it will come out towards the glass, if im not mistaking the identity of this suspiciously green root


Then I spot some weird lumps on the Striolata "Mini" 😵
Guess one of the spathes must have gotten pollinated somehow because theres two fruits / seed pods growing!







If im very very lucky I might be able to propagate this plant 😮

 

[_Maq_]

It's clear that deeper layers of your substrate are full of sulfides, mainly iron sulfide (black coloration). Are you aware of that?

 

[Hufsa]

I can understand why you might think that @_Maq_ , its actually a layer of weakly colored blue green algae or something of that sort. It only grows right up against the glass, and comes off in filmy sheets if i run my finger along the glass. I used to remove it once or twice a year, but I haven't wanted to disturb the crypts that grow nearby this year. The layer has become more intense this year but im just monitoring it to see if it goes away on its own.
Are you adamant that it is iron sulfide?

 

[_Maq_]

Are you adamant that it is iron sulfide?

Well, the cyanobacteria are conspicuously missing in the highest layer of the substrate... and it really looks bible black, though photography may distort coloration, of course.
But I don't find it outright bad, in the first place. It's quite natural. And the crypts obviously like it! (Ooh, how I envy you!)😀

 

[Hufsa]

I'll pull some of the brownblack stuff up tomorrow where there are no crypts and take a few pictures, we'll take a good look at it. In a few areas it is more like the traditional bluegreen color.
I keep kuhli loaches that keep the upper 1 centimeter of sand pretty pristine, which may account for the strict cut-off 😊

 

[jaypeecee]

It's clear that deeper layers of your substrate are full of sulfides, mainly iron sulfide (black coloration). Are you aware of that?

Hi @_Maq_

I'm intrigued. How did you arrive at the above conclusion?

JPC

 

[jaypeecee]

Hi @_Maq_

I think I may know the answer to my question and I will gladly explain the reason for this question. But I don't want to 'put words in your mouth', if you're familiar with this expression.

JPC

 

[_Maq_]

I'm intrigued. How did you arrive at the above conclusion?

Redox cascade. Bacteria respire what's the best available terminal electron acceptor (TEA). 1. oxygen, 2. nitrate, 3. ferric iron, 4. sulfate, 5. methanogenesis. When sulfate is respired, hydrogen sulfide is the result, which readily reacts with present transition metals, mostly iron. Iron sulfide is the source of black colour.

 

[Hufsa]

Took some pictures today, interested to hear what the jury has to say 😉


Closer up photo taken with flash of some of the sand front, theres a band of green algae at the very top where I think they have found a niche, its close enough to the surface to get ok circulation but still under the sand so the otos cant eat it.
Slightly lower down there are sporadic patches of typical cyanobacteria, although they make up a relatively low portion of the total.
Then below that the majority is occupied by the brownblack thing.
I would be really surprised if this brownblack thing is not something that requires light to survive, otherwise why on earth would it only be in a very thin layer right up against the glass, and not throughout the entirety of the substrate?


I pulled up a flake of it so you can see. Its not very thick, only a milimeter or so. The sand grains closest to the brownblack thing was attached to it like sprinkles on cake icing.


The sand behind it is totally clear although a little dusty, very small particles of matter settles into the substrate over time, even with such fine sand.


A pic from the side of the tank, theres very fine mesh bags filled with pebbles under the sand that is banked in the back, because I didnt want to make the sand too thick.
You can see some colonies of various stuff making their home here.




Whatever the brownblack thing is, the shrimp and snails find it pretty tasty. Do shrimp eat iron sulfide?

I had to go out for a bit and when I got back home again they had eaten all of it

Im no longer quite convinced its discolored cyano, but its gotta be some other bacteria/algae thing imo.
Let me know what you think @_Maq_ @jaypeecee and anyone else who might know what it is 🙂

 

[jaypeecee]

Hi @_Maq_, @Hufsa & Everyone

In our tanks, the species of Cyanobacteria that are sometimes seen are invariably blue-green in colour. And that explains the acronym 'BGA' for Blue-Green Algae. As we now know, it is not an algae, but a form of bacteria. In one of my tanks, I identified this as Oscillatoria, probably O. princeps. Very recently, I discovered that there is a species of Oscillatoria that doesn't need a source of oxygen to flourish. And this is O. limnetica. It can use hydrogen sulphide to photosynthesize. I deduce that this is what is being seen in Hufsa's tank.

JPC

 

[LMuhlen]

I have the same black coat growing in my tank inside the substrate, close to the glass. Sometimes I pull some of it out with my finger and it feels like ciano, maybe a little dried out. My SAEs go crazy with it, they eat it all.

 

[jaypeecee]

And this is O. limnetica. It uses sulphur instead of oxygen to photosynthesize. I deduce that this is what is being seen in Hufsa's tank.

Hi @_Maq_ , @Hufsa & Everyone

I wrote the above (post #748) before seeing the photo above. Need more time to study this.

JPC

 

[Hufsa]

Need more time to study this.

Appreciate your help as always JPC

What makes me doubt that its cyano is that I didnt think shrimp and snails were fond of eating cyano? To be honest I have never had cyanobacteria above the substrate, so I dont have any first hand experience with it. But I have gotten the impression that clean up crews dont really eat the traditional blue green stuff? Would anyone struggle with cyano if the shrimp found it as tasty as this brownblack thing?

 

[jaypeecee]

When sulfate is respired, hydrogen sulfide is the result

Hi Everyone,

If hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is released, I would expect the classic 'rotten eggs' odour.

JPC