Consistency Deficiency

[Wookii]

The truth is out there @Hufsa

 

[John q]

Not so. Alkalinity is another problem, disabling some physiological processes within the plant itself. So the plant is able to acquire the nutrient, yet unable to USE it.

Hey I like this train of thought. You seem like an educated guy, please share some insights into these theory's. Tbh... Sounds to me like an overhang from the toxicity wars...

Joking apart explain to the opp where she's going wrong in layman's terms. Maybe start a journal, I think lots of folks would be interested in your set up.

 

[Yugang]

I never add CO2 to my tanks. I always mineralize from zero, i.e. from reverse osmosis + mixbed water. As such, I've got no experience with the conditions recommended by Barr and similar hi-tech gurus.

This indeed is a relevant observation, as @Hufsa runs a high tech tank with CO2 injection.

Your post suggests a broad theoretical knowledge of biology and chemistry in the planted tank. I learned from reading 2 decades of discussions on this and other forums that few theories have been scientifically tested or are universally valid. Could it be that some practices work well in low tech tanks (where plants are CO2 / light limited), but less so in tanks with 20-30 ppm CO2, higher light and turbo charged growth conditions?

It would be helpfull if you could comment on the evidence for the theories you refer to, specifically for high tech tanks. Barr earned his reputation as he demonstrated his methods (less so theories) with evidence from his top class tanks.

 

[_Maq_]

...

Deficiency symptoms... huh... that's a broad topic. Well, when it comes to chlorosis, you must distinguish one thing: whether it's most pronounced on new leaves, or on the older ones. Magnesium is a mobile nutrient. When in short supply, the plant takes Mg from older leaves, and moves it to newly created ones. And since Mg is a key component of chlorophyll, older leaves get yellow (and are about to be dropped).
Lack of sulphur, iron, manganese, zinc leads to chlorosis on newly created leaves. Severe deficiency of these nutrients generally leads to rosetting and stunting.
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.

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 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.
Tonina is a tricky plant. I do not pretend to be consistently successful with it. I've experienced it stunted and failed to figure out why. Yet, most of the time I'm successful. Acidic (<6) and very soft water is the way. In such conditions, very modest amounts of micronutrients (even non-chelated) work without issues.
So, excuse me, I'm not about to comment your micro dosing. 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.) Yet, like I said, I always dose my micros separately. For iron, I've made myself a citrate chelate, all the others I dose as sulphates or chlorides.

But there is a window of availability (dependent on tank conditions) where they are available in the water column, before they precipitate, or?

Yes, that's basically the reason for chelating transition metals. I do not deny it may be useful, it's just that I can live without it. If micros precipitate (mostly with phosphates or carbonates) in the substrate (in contrast to the filters), it's not the end of story. Plants, and microbes in particular, can still get it. Microbes bring it everywhere inside their living cells, but they die within hours. They become part of particulate organic matter; lesser part in the water column, larger part in the substrate. Biotic and abiotic transformations follow, and plants' roots actively take part in it.
Generally, with higher pH and/or higher alkalinity matters get more difficult. Some plants (the "easy" ones) are adapted and can manage, others cannot. Instead of keeping one huge tank, I prefer keeping several mid-size tanks with adjusted conditions. (That's why I always mineralize RO water.) In this way, I'm gradually learning which conditions fit best for various species. It's a long run, but a great fun. The bottom line is that I do not force plants to live in conditions which a given species takes as unnatural. Not all plants can be pushed into a single tank, not even with the help of CO2.

RO is for sure a very clean slate to start with, but there are some that make their tap water work though?

In Europe, tap water is regularly alkaline and rich in carbonates. One way to handle it is CO2 injection. That's relatively simple, and the results are generally fine. But it can't work in any circumstances, and for any species.

Outsmarting, are you referring to chelates?

Not in particular. 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.

 

[_Maq_]

Hey I like this train of thought. You seem like an educated guy, please share some insights into these theory's. Tbh... Sounds to me like an overhang from the toxicity wars...

Joking apart explain to the opp where she's going wrong in layman's terms. Maybe start a journal, I think lots of folks would be interested in your set up.

I've learned that from books for farmers.
Some crops and fruit bearing trees hate calcareous soils. Originally, it was assumed that they cannot actively chelate (yes, they exsude chelators) iron in a pH way too high. But then, some researchers analyzed the leaves for elemental composition, and to their surprise they learned that iron was present in sufficient amount. So, they searched for an explanation, and the result is like I said - it's bicarbonates. Frankly, that's the end of my knowledge. I didn't care to keep in my head which enzymatic reactions are disabled and how. For me, an amateur, knowing that high pH is not exactly the same as high bicarbonates is enough to know.

 

[_Maq_]

Could it be that some practices work well in low tech tanks (where plants are CO2 / light limited), but less so in tanks with 20-30 ppm CO2, higher light and turbo charged growth conditions?

I think that elevated CO2 level is always beneficial for all plants. Up to 10-12 ppm without reservations. Above that limit, I have my doubts, and it's less efficient anyway.
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.
Another topic is overdosing nutrients. If nitrates are abundant (over 3-5 ppm) the cycling of phosphorus and transition metals (micronutrients) within substrate is hampered. That forces dosing high amounts of phosphates and micros (in chelated form) over and over. They precipitate useless in filters, and accumulate in the substrate. If you happen to fail to dose nitrates for a while, metals precipitated in the substrate may dissolve in huge amounts, toxic to all living creatures in the tank.
Another point of concern (to me) is discrepancy between pH and alkalinity. CO2 injection enables making acidic water in spite of relatively high alkalinity. Par example, you may get pH 6.2 and 2 °dKH at the same time. That's a combination which never occurs in nature. I believe it may be a source of some weird results in some instances.
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 don't have to inject CO2, so I don't.
I'm aware that most people will keep on doing it, and I can live with that.

 

[Yugang]

I think that elevated CO2 level is always beneficial for all plants. Up to 10-12 ppm without reservations. Above that limit, I have my doubts, and it's less efficient anyway.
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.
Another topic is overdosing nutrients. If nitrates are abundant (over 3-5 ppm) the cycling of phosphorus and transition metals (micronutrients) within substrate is hampered. That forces dosing high amounts of phosphates and micros (in chelated form) over and over. They precipitate useless in filters, and accumulate in the substrate. If you happen to fail to dose nitrates for a while, metals precipitated in the substrate may dissolve in huge amounts, toxic to all living creatures in the tank.
Another point of concern (to me) is discrepancy between pH and alkalinity. CO2 injection enables making acidic water in spite of relatively high alkalinity. Par example, you may get pH 6.2 and 2 °dKH at the same time. That's a combination which never occurs in nature. I believe it may be a source of some weird results in some instances.
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 don't have to inject CO2, so I don't.
I'm aware that most people will keep on doing it, and I can live with that.

I hope we don't hyjack this thread.
May I politely suggest you open a new thread, where you share your tanks and experience?

 

[_Maq_]

I'm a novice here and not much acquainted with the rules and customs. Sorry.
I beg for your patience regarding my own thread. First of all, I'm not sure what to say, I don't know which of my opinions or experience would be regarded of any use within this community. Secondly, I'm currently busy with writing a series of articles for a domestic aquarium magazine. And that's using my own language, not my hazy English...

 

[Yugang]

I beg for your patience regarding my own thread. First of all, I'm not sure what to say, I don't know which of my opinions or experience would be regarded of any use within this community

Perhaps just a self introduction, as most new members do, with some nice photos and descriptions of your tank?

You have a lot to add to this forum, that is already obvious after your first few posts

 

[Hufsa]

Need to write down a couple of things from today so I have record of it, bear with me 🐻

I finally got my grubby paws on some Fe EDDHA (and Fe Gluconate), and armed with a new target conjured by the cult I set about with making a new batch of micros 😁

Weekly ppms:
0,05 Fe Gluconate
0,025 Fe EDDHA
0,025 Fe DTPA
0,05 Mn
0,02 Zn
0,02 B
0,006 Cu
0,0001 Mo
0,0001 Ni

Yes thats three different sources of iron for my unusually goldilocks-esque plants

The only source I could find for Fe Gluconate was Seachem's Flourish Iron, so after a bit of moaning and groaning about the price and the idea of buying premade stuff I bought a bottle.
I got a dose to work with from Rotalabutterfly for my weekly target;
To reach your target of 0.05ppm Fe you will need to add 1.3 milliliter Flourish Iron to your 250L aquarium
1.3 milliliter / 7 days = 0.18571428571 milliliter per day
2000 ml total volume in a batch of micros
Divided by 30 ml per dose
=66.6666666667 doses per batch
0.18571428571 milliliter per day x 66.6666666667 doses
= 12.38 ml of Seachem Iron into 2000ml of micro ferts with dose size of 30ml gives 0,05 ppm Fe per week in a 250 liter tank


Since I am turning over every possible stone trying to get to the bottom of the weird chlorosis thing, I have been considering the pH stability ranges of the chelated traces im using.
Strong chelates dont usually want too low a pH level and the more finicky salts usually want things quite acidic.
Especially if I want to keep the new Fe Gluconate in solution with the rest of the stronger chelates, keeping a watch over pH might be necessary to keep everything in solution and plant available.
A bit of searching turned up this as a rough outline;
Fe Gluc pH 3.5 - 4.5
Fe EDDHA pH 3 - 10
Fe DTPA pH 4.0 – 7.5
Mn EDTA ph 4 – 9
Zn EDTA ph 4 – 9
Cu EDTA ph 4 – 9
B pH ? - 7 (Is literally named Boric Acid so will probably be fine)
Ni pH ? (Is 4.5 itself)
Mo pH ? (Ammonium molybdate is 5-6, Molybdic acid is 2.4-3.4 ish)
One size fits all = pH 4.25 ???
EDDHA, DTPA and EDTA ranges are from the manufacturer of the chelates used, so those are guaranteed to be solid info.
Fe Gluconate is from googling and the B, Ni and Mo are a bit more uncertain, and based on me following links around Wikipedia for a while and squinting real hard.

Since Ascorbic Acid is out (see below), I got the green light to proceed with Citric Acid which is apparently less naughty.
Since I dont actually know much about chemistry and I wanted to know how much Citric Acid I would need to lower pH to 4.25, I looked around and found this guide that got me pretty close.
End result: "Use 0.7492g of citric in 2000ml of water to get a pH of 4.25" (Im not 100% sure this was done correctly in hindsight)

Planning done, it was time for potion making
First off I made new stock solutions for the minor traces.
We havent forgotten about the weird color my first Mo solution turned out, and we have been eyeing Ascorbic acid for a while as it can cause a bit of trouble sometimes, especially with Molybdenum.
This was how the old solutions looked today, they had gotten very yellow from oxidized(?) ascorbic and the Mo solution had turned a light shade suddenly. Not very trustworthy when youre trying to troubleshoot.

Out they went and new ones were made with no acid and no preservative, just clean bottles, distilled water and the salts.
I spent a while cleaning the bottles thoroughly with soap and then boiling water as I didnt want the solutions to be contaminated with bacteria now that they are without preservative.

I had decided to add the Citric Acid first, then Fe Gluconate and then the other traces, which I now would have done a little bit differently, but it worked out ok still.
I calibrated my trusty Hanna pH checker from @KirstyF and measured the pH after every addition.

Started with 1500ml water of the 2000ml total volume, because the stock solutions add a bit and I top off to the correct total at the end
0.5619g Citric pH 2.9 (I only added 3/4 of the Citric Acid calculated by the guide, but I was concerned to see it drop this low, afraid I had wildly overshot my target)
Fe Gluconate pH 3.2 (Flourish Iron is pH 3.5 according to my checker)
Zn EDTA pH 3.3
300ml more of plain RO
Still pH 3.3 (Mild panic)
Mo, Ni and B pH 3.3
Cu EDTA pH 3.3 (Oh dear am I going to have to start this process all over again?)
Mn EDTA pH 3.6
Potassium sorbate pH 4.3 (Woohoo! Not loving that it dipped below 4 at first but at least we are above now?)
FeDTPA pH 4.4
FeEDDHA pH 4.5 (Very strong color, would be very hard to see any precipitate with this in the mix)
Topped up last ml's of RO, pH 4.5 still. More concerned about staying in the right range for Fe Gluconate than x-EDTA when push comes to shove. Decided to carefully adjust down with more Citric.
0.1873 g Citric pH 4.4
0.1g more Citric pH 4.3
0.1g more Citric pH 4.2 (Half of this would have been ideal I think)

Now that I have done this process slightly wrong heres how I think it would be better to do it next time:
Start with water somewhat short of total (room for stock solutions and salts)
Add just a tiny bit of Citric Acid to make it very mildly acidic (wont take much).
Add everything except Citric, Fe Gluconate and Fe EDDHA.
Add the rest of the Citric Acid (0.8992g minus what was added at the start).
Add Fe Gluconate now that the pH is low.
Check for precipitating and other shenanigans. (Note, this procedure is only for this exact recipe, for example if you use Zinc Sulphate instead of Zinc EDTA you would need to modify)
Add Fe EDDHA and now you cant see anything but at least its done

Any way, new micro mix is set up and ready for tomorrow. No water change to accompany it, im trying to stick to the schedule I have set for the Scutariella treatments because I hate those things so much I want them to die die die permanently and never ever come back

FTS from earlier today to make up for the wordy post

 

[Yugang]

Forgive my overloaded brain reading above @Hufsa , but are you still testing the lean concept? Are you going full in, or is your approach the Norwegian variant?

I am also reading that your water report does not state Mg, and I do not see it mentioned in most of your posts (yes, I need new reading glasses). Could this be related to your observed chlorosis?

Also looking forward one day (know you're less active for a while) if you indeed found the magic potion to fight BBA

 

[Hufsa]

Forgive my overloaded brain reading above @Hufsa , but are you still testing the lean concept? Are you going full in, or is your approach the Norwegian variant?

Sure am
Right now im following Happi's advice but I do veer off track sometimes. My final destination is not set and will depend entirely on what the plants tell me

I am also reading that your water report does not state Mg, and I do not see it mentioned in most of your posts (yes, I need new reading glasses). Could this be related to your observed chlorosis?

Not mentioned in most posts but its a part of my remineralization Mg doesn't fit the symptoms since its a mobile nutrient, and I have tried adding more, no change. Have mostly ruled it out

As of lately the final Ca and Mg values of my tank water is Ca 30ppm, Mg 10ppm and 6.5 GH

Before this my GH value was the same but there was a bit more Ca relative to Mg

Also looking forward one day (know you're less active for a while) if you indeed found the magic potion to fight BBA

Will keep you updated 😉

 

[Hufsa]

This indeed is a relevant observation, as @Hufsa runs a high tech tank with CO2 injection.
..... Could it be that some practices work well in low tech tanks (where plants are CO2 / light limited), but less so in tanks with 20-30 ppm CO2, higher light and turbo charged growth conditions?

This is close to what im thinking as well. I find myself wondering if the matter of precise ratios (and all those things) matter more in conditions where, well, "everything is juust right" but there is also very little of everything. If certain setups inherently have very little wiggle room, and therefore getting everything exactly like it should be becomes a critical part of getting it to work at all.
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 dont want to write more on this subject here as I am afraid my journal will turn into "Lean VS EI" part 3, which I do not want please have mercy

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?